interpretaris sed ex obseruatione omnium praeceptorum diuinorum omnium Sacramentorum for interpreting the word Catholike not of the communion of the whole world but fâ—r the obseruation of all Gods Commandements and all the Sacraments and in the other place bringeth them in saying that b Breuic collar cum Donatist diâ— 3. cap. 2. Donatistâ—e responderunt non Catholicum nomen ex vniuersitate gentium sed ex pâ—enitudine Sacramentoruâ—â— institutum the word was instituted not to import vniuersality of nations but fulnesse of Sacraments but did I amisse for a briefe hereof to name perfection of doctrine and Sacraments Is not fulnesse of Sacraments the same with perfection of Sacraments and when they professed the obseruation of all Gods Commandements did they not thereby pretend an obseruation both to teach and practise all that God had commanded and is there not perfection of doctrine in teaching all Or if M. Bishop be foolishly wilfull and will say still that he seeth not perfection of doctrine in those wordes yet he might haue seene it in the very next wordes to those that I alleaged where St. Austin expresseth the Donatists conceipt in other termes thus that c Idem Epist 48. Si sorte hinc sit appellata Catholica quod totum veraciter teneat the Church is called Catholike for that it holdeth all wholly what but the whole Christian faith according to truth for what is perfection of doctrine but the holding of all according to truth And whereas he saith that St. Austin obserueth the Donatists to bee more sharpe-witted then to goe about to proue vniuersality by perfection a very ridiculous iest because Austin only in mockery telleth Vincentius that hee seemed to himselfe in so expounding the world Catholike as before to speake very acutely and wittily meaning that he did nothing lesse let Gaudentius himselfe a Donatist and a chiefe man amongst them tell him that by Catholike they did meane perfect d Coliat 3. â—um Donatist cap. 102. Hoc est Catholicum nomen quod Sacramentis plâ—num est quod perfectum quod immaculatum The word Catholike importeth that which is full in Sacraments which is perfect which is vnspotted Now then as I haue in this point belyed the Donatists euen so and no otherwise in the application doe I belye the Roman Church M. Bishop saith that I should haue belyed them if I had sâ—id as due proportion required that they hold their Church to be Catholike as the Donatists did theirs for the perfection of doctrine and Sacraments But was he blinde and did he not see that I said so much Are not my wordes very expresse and cleare The same perfection of doctrine and Sacraments the Church of Rome now arrogateth to it selfe and will therefore be called the Catholike Church And what doe I therein belye the Roman Church Aske his owne fellow Bristow the great Motiue-Master who saith to Doctor Fulke e Reply to Fulke Chap. 10. Dem. 6. We tell you with the wordes of St. Austin that the Church our Mother is called Catholike of this because shee is vniuersally perfect and halteth in nothing though the Donatists and other like Heretikes doe neuer so much triumph in that interpretation and is spred ouer all the world Both interpretations agree to our Mother saith he and we claime them accordingly And it is true indeede that St. Austin in a worke which he wrote in his yonger time and which hee himselfe for the imperfection thereof f August Retract l. 1. c. 18. Quâ—m neque â—d deram abolere decreueram had purposed wholly to suppresse doth giue that double interpretation of the word Catholike that the Church is so called g IdeÌ„ de Gen. ad lit imperf cap. 1. Quae Catholica diâ—itur ex eo quòd vniuersalitèr perfecta est in nullo â—laudicat per totum orbem dissusa est not only fâ—r that it is spred ouer all the world but also for that it is vniuersally perfect and halteth in nothing but in his further experience and iudgement hauing speciall occasion to discusse and examine that point he leaueth that interpretation wholly to the Donatists and neuer vouchsafeth once to make mention of it In the meane time notwithstanding seeing Bristow a Catholike writer of their creation hath so affirmatiuely told vs and claimed it to the Church of Rome to be Catholike in that sense let it be considered with what discretion M. Bishop saith that so to say of them is manifestly vntrue and clearely against the doctrine of all Catholike writers And whereas he concludeth that perfection of doctrine and Sacraments though it be only found in the Catholike Church yet is so farre wide from the signification and vse of the word Catholike that none except such wise men as M. Abbot is doe thinke any thing to be Catholike because it is perfect to say nothing that St. Austin when he gâ—ue that construction was vndoubtedly as wise as M. Bishop let the same wise M. Bishop tell vs what he thinketh of Cyril of Hierusalem who amongst diuers reasons of the name of the Catholike Church giueth one that it is so called h Cyril Hierosol Catech. 18. Quia docet Catholicè hoc est vniuersalâ—tèr sine vllo defectâ— vel differentia omnia dogmata quae deberent veâ—re in cognitionem because it teacheth Catholikely that is vniuersally and without any defect or difference all doctrines that are to be knowen Yea let him tell vs what he thinketh of Pacianus whom he named before as his Authour for i Pacian ad Symphâ—â—ian Catholicus vt doctiâ—es pâ—tant obedientia omnium nuncupatur â—â—ndatorum scilicet Dei Catholike to be the surname to Christian who noteth it for the opinion of the learned that Catholike signifieth obedience to all the Commandements of God Which I say not as to approue that which either Austin or Cyril or Pacâ—anus haue said in that behalfe but that it may appeare what wise men M. Bishop maketh of the Fathers yea and of his owne fellowes when he list not â—lieking to crosse both the one and the other so that hee can thereby shift for the present to saue himselfe But Bristow is our witnesse as we haue seene that the Church of Rome doth call it selfe Catholike as the Donatists did for the perfection of doctrine and Sacraments and M. Bishop hath shewed himselfe scantly wise in the deniall of it because it being manifest to all that are not blinde that it is a meere foppery and cogging deuice of theirs to say that the Roman Church is spred ouer the whole world either he must proue the same to be Catholike by perfection of doctrine or else it must wholly leaue the name of the Catholike Church W. BISHOP §. 3. THe third particle of the resemblance is That from Cartenna the Donatists ordayned Bishops to other Countries euen to Rome it selfe And from Rome by the Papists order Bishops be
Church neuer once dreamed of that e Duraeus coÌ„t Whitak lib. 3. In nullam planè aliam Catholicae Ecclesiae nomen quaecunque de Christi Ecclesia Prophetae praedixerunt quà m in Romanam conuenire possunt the name of the Catholike Church and those things which the Prophets haue forespoken of the Church of Christ can agree to no other but to the Roman Church Vpon this mad conceipt they haue made of the holy Catholike Church a holy Catholike Roman Church and wheras the Nicene Councell taught vs to say I beleeue one holy Catholike and Apostolike Church they teach vs to expound it f Bristow Reply to Doctor Fulke cap. 10. dem 6. I beleeue one holy Catholike and Apostolike that is Roman Church and therefore bind men by a principle of Catechisme g Ledesm Catechis traÌ„slat into English to beleeue all that the holy Catholike Roman Church beleeueth and holdeth It is not enough for interpretation of the Catholike Church in the articles of our beleefe to call it h Aug Hunae proaem Catechism Catholica Ecclesiae nomine intelligo perspicuum sensui expositum coetum illorum qui baptizativeram sinceramque Christi fidem profiteÌ„tur se Beati Petri successori Romano Pontifici vt Christi in terris Vicario subiectos agnoscunt the visible company of them that are baptised and doe professe the true and sincere faith of Christ vnlesse it be added and doe acknowledge themselues subiect to the successor of Peter the Bishop of Rome as Christs Vicar vpon earth Pope Goodface the eighth hauing declared it for a new article of Christian faith that i Extrauag de maiorit obedient e. Vnam Sanctam Subesse Romano PoÌ„tifici omnihumanae creaturae declaramus dicimus definimus pronunciamus 〈◊〉 esse de necessitate salutiâ— for euery humane creature it is necessary to saluation to be subiect to the Bishop of Rome So extremely they doate in this behalfe as that wheresoeuer they reade the name of the Church or Catholike Church they presently sing as the horse-bals in the poole amongst the apples nos poma natamus like children that imagine the bels in ringing to sound whatsoeuer they fancy so doe vndoubtedly imagine that the church spoken of must needes be meant of their Roman Church But for the pulling of this visard from their faces I noted the absurdity that is implied in that stile of the Catholike Roman Church for the Catholike Church say I is the vniuersall Church The Roman Church is a particular Church therefore to say the Catholike Roman Church is all one as to say the vniuersall particular Church Against this M. Bishop as a notable Logician taketh exception as an ill shapen argument consisting all of particular propositions as if I had here intended a Categorical syllogisme in moode and figure which no smatterer but himselfe would euer haue dreamed The wordes haue plaine implication of an Hypothetical syllogisme seruing to inferre an absurdity against them If the Catholike Church be the vniuersall Church the Roman Church a particular Church then to say the Catholike Roman Church is as to say the vniuersall particular Church But it is absurd to say the vniuersall particular Church Therefore it is absurd to say the Catholike Roman Church Will he haue it reduced for him to a Categoricall syllogisme in moode and figure Let him take it thus No particular Church can be the Catholike Church But the Church of Rome is a particular Church Therefore the Church of Rome cannot be the Catholike Church Must I proue the maior No particular Church can be the vniuersall Church But the Catholike Church is the vniuersall Church Therefore no particular Church can be the Catholike Church So learned a Doctor should not thus haue played boyes-play but should of himselfe haue conceiued these things being cleare and plaine without any new aduertisement thereof by the simple Minister But by this forme saith he a man might proue that no one Church in the world were Catholike But keepe your termes aright M. Bishop and say as you should that no one Church in the world is the Catholike Church and then it is true that by the same argument it is proued that no one Church in the world particular Churches being each and euery of them but a part can be called the Catholike or Vniuersall Church which is the whole And tell vs I pray good Sir haue yee found that any of ours hath entitled the Church of England to the name of the Catholike Church If not why then doe you thus abuse your Reader to put that for an instance as if we affirmed it so to be The truth is gentle Reader that M. Bishop seeketh to blinde thee by altering the termes that by mee were set downe naming a Catholike Church which importeth soundnesse of doctrine in any one Church whereas I mention the Catholike Church as importing the vniuersall extent of the whole Church It followeth not indeede that because a Church is particular therefore it is not Catholike that is sound in doctrine but it followeth that because a Church is particular therefore it is not the Catholike that is the vniuersall Church Let him direct the argument against the Church of England as I did against the Church of Rome and it shall be as strong against the Church of England as against the Church of Rome Let him say and wee will not contradict him The Catholike Church is the vniuersall Church the Church of England is a particular Church therefore to say the Catholike English Church is as absurd as to say the vniuersall particular Church or more nearely to his owne wordes Therefore to say the Church of England is the Catholike Church is the same as to say a particular Church is the vniuersall Church But he turneth the conclusion that the Church of England is not Catholike which we hold to be most Catholike declaring by that addition that he referreth Catholike by a Donatisticall fallacy to quality of doctrine and faith because more Catholike and most Catholike haue no vse but only in comparing truth and sincerity of faith This coâ—senage of his the learned see well enough but he careth not for that because his thrift lieth in abusing the ignorance of the more simple and vnlearned This not seruing his turne hee commeth to the particulars and of the first proposition The Catholike Church is the vniuersall Church hee saith that it is both absurd and captious And why absurd Forsooth because the same thing is affirmed of it selfe for vniuersall is no distinct thing but the very signification of the word Catholike But what is it now absurd to expresse the true signification of a word The one is Greeke the other is English and though there be no distinction in the thing yet is there not a distinction in the tongue Is the Roman Catechisme absurd because it saith k Catechism Rom. p. 1. c. 10. sect 16. Tertia
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
likewise hold that there is no saluation but in communicating with the Church of Rome Forsooth we must vnderstand that the Rogatists and Donatists spake falsly concerning their Church but most sure it is saith he that there is no saluation out of the true Church of Christ. It is sure indeede and will not both Rogatists and Donatists and all manner Heretiks say the some as well as he They all confesse that out of the true Church of Christ there is no saluation and therefore doe euery sort of them take vpon them to be the true Church of Christ that so they may perswade men that there is no saluation but with them But M. Bishop inferreth Wherefore whosoeuer doth not communicate with the Church of Rome which is the chiefe member thereof is out of the state of grace and saluation And would not a Donatist as well inferre Wherefore whosoeuer doth not communicate with the Church of Africa which is the chiefe member thereof is out of the state of grace and saluation Indeed he should haue said somewhat to the purpose if he had made it good that out of the communion of the Church of Rome there is no communion of the Church of Christ but if he cannot make this good then full simply doth he conclude There is no saluation out of the true Church of Christ therefore there is no saluation out of the Church of Rome But he telleth vs that the Church of Rome is the chiefe member of Christs Church Be it so and so was the Church of Ierusalem the chiefe member of the Church of the Iewes and yet the Church of Ierusalem put to death the Prophets and Christ himselfe and in that communion there could be no saluation Is not a chiefe member of the same substance as is the rest of the body and what hindereth then but as the other members so the chiefe member may be wounded and corrupted and cause annoyance to other members that adioyne vnto it Albeit we desire him to proue to vs that the Church of Rome is the chiefe member of the Church of Christ I regard not what humane estimation hath attributed vnto it for the renowme and eminency of the place but I require some diuine institution whereby it hath beene founded the chiefe member of the Church We say that with God there is no more respect of the Church of Rome then of any other Church if they will haue vs to beleeue more we put them to that for their Roman Church which St. Austin required of the Donatists for proofe of that which they said for their African Church a August de vnit Eccles c. 6 Legite nobis hoc de Lege de Prophetis de Psalmis de Euangelio de Apostolicis literis legite credimus Reade vs this out of the law out of the Prophets out of the Psalmes out of the Gospell or Writings of the Apostles reade it to vs and we beleeue it namely that Christ abideth no where heire vpon the earth but where he can haue the Pope to be b Ibid. Quare superordinatis dicendo in nullis terris haeredem permanere Christum vbi non pâ—tuerit cohâ—redem habere Donatli his fellow heire as the Donatists said of their Pope Donatus or that the Roman Church is such a chiefe member of the Church as that no man can liue but by the breath that he draweth from thence or obtayne forgiuenesse of sinnes but in the society and fellowship thereof I know I trouble M. Bishop now he loueth not to be called vpon for Scripture for the proofe of this matter for hee knoweth well that the Scripture hath nothing at all to giue testimony thereof Well though hee bring nothing out of Scripture yet he hath that out of Hierome that will serue his turne c Hieron ad Damas Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens beatitudini tuae id est Cathedrâ— Petri communione consocior super illam petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comedcrit prophanus est siquis in Arca Noe non fuerit peribit regnante diluâ—iâ— I following no chiefe but Christ saith he to Damasus Bishop of Rome ioyne my selfe to your blessednesse that is to the communion of Peters chaire vpon that Rocke I know the Church to be built whosoeuer eateth the Paschall Lambe out of this house he is prophane whosoeuer is not in the Arke of Noe shall perish by the floode By these wordes M. Bishop would beare vs in hand that Hierome beleeued a perpetuall necessity of hauing communion of faith with the Bishop and Church of Rome But tell vs M. Bishop in good sooth doe you thinke that Hierome not long before would haue said the same to Liberius that here he saith to Damasus He saith of Liberius that d Idem in Catalog Liberium Romanae vrbis Episcopum pro fide ad exilium pergentem primus solicitauit fregit ad subscriptionem haereseos compulit by the perswasion of Fortunatianus he was ouercome and brought to subscribe the heresie of Arius and would he then haue ioyned in communion with him If he would in this case haue disclaimed Liberius then certainly he could not meane to Damasus that it standeth for a perpetuall rule in the Church that who so will be saued must ioyne in communion with the Bishop of Rome But Hierome dealt aduisedly by expounding himselfe in his first wordes though M. Bishop list not to take knowledge of it He professeth to giue primacy to none but to Christ himselfe to make none the Authour or Lord of his faith but only Christ Notwithstanding in communion and fellowship of faith he professeth to ioyne with Damasus But how farre or in what sort I ioyne in communion with your blessednesse that is with Peters chaire Not simply then with Damasus Bishop of Rome but with Damasus sitting in Peters chaire Now as e Mat. 23. 2. the sitting in Moses chaire importeth the teaching of the doctrine of Moses so the sitting in Peters chaire importeth the teaching of the doctrine of Peter Damasus at that time did so and maintayned against the Arians the confession of Peter f Mat. 16. 16. Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God This Hierome well knew and therefore what hee would not haue yeelded to Liberius though Bishop of Rome because hee sate not in Peters chaire that hee yeeldeth to Damasus because he did so and desireth by him to be instructed whether the vse of the word hypostasis might stand with the truth of the confession of Peter It is therefore communion with Peters chaire which Hierome commendeth that is with the faith and doctrine which therein Peter taught but he doth not tell vs that the Bishop of Rome doth alwaies and infallibly sit in Peters chaire For of Peters chaire at Rome we deeme the same as of Peters chaire at Antioch and Alexandria both which Gregory Bishop of Rome maketh
habent neque ille suis nomen indit aut à suis recipit sed omnes vt antea consuetâ— more Christiani nominantur Neuer any people tooke name of their Bishops but of the Lord in whom they beleeued We haue not taken names from the holy Apostles our Masters and Ministers of the Gospell of our Sauiour but of Christ we both are and are called Christians but they who deriue the originall of their faith from any other doe worthily beare the names of their authours as to whom they doe belong When as therefore we all were and were called Christians of Christ Marcion the inuentor of heresie was worthily exploded The other which remained with him by whom Marcion was exploded retayned the name of Christians but they who followed Marcion were no longer called Christians but Marcionites And thus Valentinus Basilides Manicheus and Simon Magus gaue names to their followers and thence it came that some were called Valentinians other Basilidians other Manichees other Simonians other Cataphrygians of their Countrey Phrygia other Nouatians of Nouatus Thus Meletius being eiected by Peter a Bishop and Martyr named them that followed him not any more Christians but Meletians In the same sort when Alexander eiected Arius they who cleaued to Alexander remayned Christians but they who went away with Arius leauing the name of Christians to Alexander and his were thenceforth called Arians Moreouer euen now after the death of Alexander they who are of the same communion with Athanasius the successor of Alexander and with whom Athanasius himselfe is ioyned in communion they all still keepe the same marke he neither giueth any name to them nor they to him but all as before according to the accustomed manner are called Christians This place I haue set downe at large that the Reader may see that Athanasius here could not haue omitted the name of Catholikes there being such occasion to draw it from him if it had been then in vse and that the common names of opposition were then not Catholikes and Heretikes but Christians and Heretikes euen as Cyprian also vseth it saying of Stephanus x Cyprian ad Pompeium Qui haeretâ—coruÌ„ causâ—m contra Christianos contra Ecclesiam Dei esscrere conatur He goeth about to maintaine the cause of Heretikes against Christians and against the Church of God the word Catholike being neuer found in either of them personally taken or substantiuely as before was said but only that Athanasius mentioneth one surnamed y Athanas Epist ad solitariam vitam agentes Faustinus Catholicus homo genere Bithyâ—us opinionibus haereticus Catholicus an Arian Heretike and a persecutor of the faith We may therefore well thinke that there was little discretion riueted to M. Bishops head that would tell vs that the name so taken is so fast ioyned and riueted with Christian profession and religion as that it cannot be separated from it for if it were not so riueted then how commeth it to passe that it is so now The originall thereof was as we may well coniecture by occasion of the heresie of the Donatists who challenged the name of the Church to a part in Africa or elsewhere which were followers of Donatus against whom they that defended the Church Catholike were thereof in processe of time termed by the name of Catholikes The first vse then of the name of Catholikes stood in opposition betwixt Catholikes and Donatists albeit custome soone transported it to make a generall opposition betwixt Catholikes and Heretikes Now the name thus arising accidentally and only by occasion who doubteth but that without preiudice of Christian profession it may by occasion be let fall againe And what greater occasion can there be then the Popish abuse thereof who make a Catholike to import the same in effect now that a Donatist did then For with them a Catholike is no otherwise taken but for a Roman Catholike and because the whole Church is not Roman but a part only what is this Roman Catholike but one who vnder the false name of a Catholike diuideth himselfe from the whole Church as the Donatists did to cleaue to a part thereof What is the name of a Catholike then with them but a Donatisticall name schismaticall and factious and therefore wicked and hatefull and in their sense wholly to be abandoned out of the Church of God Hereby it may appeare how idlely M. Bishop saith that the Apostles did ascribe and appropriate the name Catholike to true Christianity for although they taught vs to beleeue the Church to be Catholike that is vniuersally extended through the world yet did they neuer teach neither was it for a long time after them accustomed that true Christians were called by the name of Catholikes and therefore without wrong to any thing which the Apostles taught we may rightly say that the name according to the Popish abuse thereof is become the proper badge and marke of Apostataes and Heretikes And therefore although if we had beene in the time of Austin we would with him z August in Ioan. tract 32. Catholico nomine fide gaudemus haue reioyced in the Catholike name and faith yet now we cannot with the Papists reioyce in the name of Catholikes and without any blasphemy we reiect it because vnder that name they haue diuided themselues from the Catholike Church and haue destroyed the true Catholike faith Who though they be no other but proud and false fellowes as M. Bishop speaketh and meere vsurping companions and their insolent and audacious folly haue beene both rebuked and conuicted yet doe still impudently and infinitely persist in their absurd claime and doe leaue vs no way but only to desist from the communion of the name which we cannot free from that abuse Now whereas I say further that a Rom. 2. 28. the Apostle denyeth the name of Iewes to them who yet according to the letter were so called because of the circumcision of the flesh and applyeth the truth of the name to them who were so according to the spirit albeit according to the letter they were not so named M. Bishop very discreetly answereth that the name Iew being taken in the Apostles sense for one of what nation soeuer that fulfilleth the iustice of the law neuer was nor shall be a name of reproch But what is this I pray to that that I say Doe my words import that the name of a Iew in that sense is or hath beene a name of reproch When I say that the Apostle applyeth the truth of the name to the faithfull would he conceiue me that the Apostle applyeth to them a name of reproch My words plainly signifie that the name in vulgar and literall construction applyed to them who by propagation of nature are the seede of Abraham is become a name of reproch and shame but that as it hath implication of spirituall circumcision and conformity with Abraham it is a name of honour though they to whom it
appertayneth be not according to the letter and in common speech called by that name Let him then vnderstand proportionably that the truth of the name of Catholikes belongeth not to the Romish faction who challenge to themselues as the Iewes did to haue gotten by succession the possession of the name and will be commonly so called but it belongeth to vs who though we vse not the word being growen to ill meaning by their abuse yet do maintayne one and the same truth with them who first were called by that name In a word as there is a double sense in the one so is there also in the other and I doe not so hoppe from one sense to another in the one but that I shew a iust â—orrespondence betwixt them both W. BISHOP §. 3. BVt and it please you the Protestants haue the kernell of the name Catholike and we but the shell Why doe they then so bitterly inueigh against it why are they not more willing to extoll and magnifie that renowmed title being of such ancient Nobility Twenty pound to a peny that what face soeuer he set on it yet in his heart he meruailously feareth the contrary himselfe If that faith and religion only be Catholike and Vniuersall as he acknowledgeth that hath euer beene and is also spread ouer all the world and shall continue to the worlds end then surely their religion cannot be Catholike euen by the vniforme confession of themselues who generally acknowledge that for nine hundred yeares togither the Papacy did so domineer all the world ouer that not a man of their religion was to be found in any corner of the world that durst peepe out his head to contradict it Could there be any Church of theirs then when there was not one Pastor and flocke of their religion though neuer so small in any one Countrey And euen now when their Gospell is at the hottest hath it spread it selfe all the world ouer is it receiued in Italie Spaine Greece Afrike or Asia or carried into the Indians nothing lesse They cannot then call themselues Catholikes after the sincere and ancient acceptation of that name which is as himselfe hath often repeated out of S. Augustine Quia communicant Ecclesiae to to or be diffusae Because they communicate in fellowship of faith with the Church spread ouer all the world They must therefore notwithstanding M. Abbots vaine bragges be content with the shell and leaue the kernell to vs who doe embrace the same faith that is dilated all Countries ouer yea they must be contented to walke in the foote-steps of their fore-fathers the Donatists euen according to M. Abbots explication and flie from the vniuersality of faith and communion of the Church spread all the world ouer vnto the perfection of their doctrine which is neuerthelesse more absurd and further from the true signification of the word Catholike then the Donatists shift was of fulnesse of Sacraments and obseruation of all Gods Commandements as hath beene already declared But let vs heare how clearely and substantially he will at length proue their Church to be Catholike R. ABBOT IT pleaseth vs very well M. Bishop that we haue the kernell of the name of Catholikes and in the meane time because your importunity so requireth we are content to leaue the shell to you The kernell serueth vs to feede vpon and it is very tastfull to vs but you haue berayed the shell and therefore we haue no care to meddle with it Our inueighing against it is no otherwise but in respect of your abuse let it be restored to his true vse and we shall be ready to extoll it and where it is so we doe so As for your wager M. Bishop of twenty pound to a peny you haue lost it and you know that you haue lost it because you see that I haue set no other face vpon the matter then by sufficient proofs I haue made good But here he taketh in hand to bereaue vs of the kernell because our faith and religion was neuer Catholike that is was neuer spred ouer the whole world Whereas I on the other side doe tell him that it is only our religion which appeareth to haue beene absolutely spred ouer all the word and none but ours For our religion is no more nor other then is contained in the Gospels and Epistles of the Apostles and because we know that the religion there set downe was spred ouer all the world therefore we cannot doubt but that our religion is that that was spred ouer all the world and though Apostasie hath ouershadowed it yet hath euer since continued in the world As for that which he alleageth to the contrary it is no vniforme confession of ours but a deformed lye of his owne We doe not acknowledge that for nine hundred yeares togither there was not a man of our religion to be found in the world The Papacy indeede did mightily domineer accordingly as it was foretold but yet it could neuer so preuaile to the extirpation of our religion but that euen in the middest of the Papacy it hath continued still yea thousands and hundred thousands as by their owne stories appeareth haue beene murthered and slaine for the profession thereof Yea in the very religion of Popery our religion hath continued for what is Popery but a doctrine compounded of our religion and their owne deuice Our religion hath serued them for a foundation whereupon to build not only their wood and hay and stubble but also the wild-fire and poison of their idolatries and damnable heresies which without the pretence and colour of our religion Christian eares would haue detested and abhorred but therefore dreaded them not because they saw them cloaked with shew of still retaining that which we professe They durst not deny those Canonicall bookes of the old and new Testament which our religion receiueth but to serue their turne they added other bookes not inspired of God to be notwithstanding of like authority with those They acknowledged the Lords praier the articles of the Creede the ten Commandements which we receiue as principles of our religion but they frustrated them by a superstitious custome brought in of reciting them like a charme in an vnknowen tongue They haue neuer denyed the two Sacraments which we teach which were fast rooted in Christian profession but they haue added to them other fiue and made them vp seuen They vsed no other substantiall forme of Baptisme then we doe only they prophaned it with sundry polluted and corrupt ceremonies of humane deuice In their Masse and Sacrament of the Altar the ground of all is that that we doe according to the institution of Christ and example of the primitiue Church They bring bread and wine to the Lords table they sanctifie or consecrate the same with the words of Christ when and where they list they administer the same to the people and all this they take vpon them to doe in remembrance of the Passion Death and
way to goe and vncertaine where they shall arriue And this he doth to hide from them the true vse of that ground and foundation which he himselfe hath layed from whence it properly and naturally ariseth that sith that was the certaine truth which was first deliuered and taught and is to be the measure and rule of the faith and doctrine of all succeeding times therefore we should first haue recourse to the monuments and records of that that was first taught thereby to iudge of the faith and religion of our fathers and to esteeme whether their steps were such as that we may securely follow them In this behalfe Christ hath prouided for vs who h Gregor in Ezech. hom 13 Ipsa quae dixit etiam Scripturae tradidit vt posteris mandâ—â—etur what he spake saith Gregory he committed also to writing that posterity might know the same i August de consens Euangel lib. 1. c. 35. Quicquid ille de suis factis dictis nos legere voluit hoc illis scribendum tanquam suis manibus imperauit Whatsoeuer he would haue vs to reade saith Austin of his doings and sayings he commanded his Disciples as his hands to write the same And thus k Idem in 1. Epistol Ioan. tract 2. Contra insidiosos â—rrores Deus voluit ponere firmamentum in Scripturis contra quâ—s nullus audet loqui qui quoquo modo se vult videri Christianum against deceipt â—ill errours saith the same St. Austin God would set vs a fortresse or bulwarke in the holy Scriptures against which no man dare speake that will in any sort be thought a Christian man Hauing then certaine records of the truth first deliuered such as no man dare contradict what way can we imagine for resolution either more compendious and short or more lightsome and comfortable then to looke to the patterne of faith expressed in those records thence to informe our selues and thereby to rectifie whatsoeuer we finde to haue swarned or declined from that rule This M. Bishop cannot abide this they know to be the gall and bane of Popery and therefore from this they labour to withdraw men that what they cannot defend by testimony of truth they may notwithstanding colour by the example of their fathers This was the intent of M. Bishops not humble but presumptuous request to his Maiesty that he would maintaine and set forth that faith wherein all his royall Progenitors liued and dyed not that he is able to demonstrate in what religion all his Maiesties royall Progenitours liued and dyed but that he may leade him from that rule whereby he should be able to iudge of the faith of his Progenitours and whether his fathers haue in any sort swarued from that faith which at the first was deliuered to their forefathers Albeit if it be true which he saith that Symmachus the Pagan played the part of a foolish Sophister when he pleaded so with the Emperor Valentinian We are to follow our fathers because the Emperors father and nearest Predecessors were no Pagan Idolaters but profâ—ssed Christians then doth himselfe also play the part of a foolish Sophister in pleading so with King IAMES that he must follow his fathers inasmuch as his nearest Predecessours his father and grandfather were no Popish Idolaters but professours of the religion of the Protestants and his mother so well perswaded thereof as that shee would not goe about to disswade him from it But against the plea of Symmachus â—e excepteth further because his forefathers for whose idolatry he pleadeth had before forsaken the true worship of one liuing God Which though it be true yet I maruell how M. Bishop would make him to beleeue it inasmuch as he had to alleage that for so many hundred yea for thousands of yeares their Ancestours had continued those deuotions and that it might seeme strange that amongst so many wise Gouernours so many learned Philosophers so many vertuous men there should not be one of so many generations that euer could see that they did amisse Wee see how he saith not only l Relat. Symmach apud Ambros Epist lib 5. Seruanda est tot seculis fides sequendi sunt nobis parentes qui sâ—cuti sunt felicitèr suos Let vs follow our Ancestours but addeth who with great felicity followed theirs being fully resolued that both their Ancestours and the Ancestours of their Ancestours had in all times past beene the same as they M. Bishop by beleefe of holy Scripture knoweth the contrary because he there vnderstandeth all nations to haue been the posterity of Noah who was a worshipper of one true liuing God saued by faith in Christ to come whose religion set forth in Scripture being compared to the superstitions of the Pagans doth clearely conuince that they were farre departed from that that he was Now then M. Bishop be content that we returne the same to you You say that all our Ancestours from the beginning continued in one and the same euen your religion Shall we now for triall hereof goe to our Ancestours and aske them whether it be so or not No but we will goe to holy Scripture and there see what was the faith and religion of them who are our true Ancestours the first fathers and founders of the Christian Church the Apostles and Euangelists and there we finde a farre other manner of faith then Popery doth yeeld whereby we certainly vnderstand that they haue corrupted the true faith His exception against the Donatists pleading of their fathers is the same as against Symmachus that their fathers were degenerated from the integrity of their grandfathers and therefore were not to be followed But yet the Donatists held that all their forefathers were of their minde euen as stifly as the Papists doe They said that they were not fallen from the Catholike Church but the Catholike church from them so as that they affirmed it to haue beene their Church which was persecuted by Nero and the rest of those Roman Tyrants as I haue before shewed in the second Chapter But St. Austin euery where bringeth them to the Scriptures m Collat. Carthag 1. c. 18. In eis literis Ecclesiam esse quaerendam vbi Christus redemptor eius innotuit Et Collat. 3. c. 101. Nos eam Ecclesiam retinemus quam in illis Scripturis inuenim in quibus etiam cognouimus Christum there to learne and seeke the Church of Christ where we learne to know Christ himselfe and thereby iustifieth that they were fallen away from the Church and not the Church from them and therfore that they were to renounce their fathers that had so done and returne to the Church againe This M. Bishop cannot pleade against vs whose parents haue beene Protestants to moue vs to refuse the religion of our fathers and to returne to the example of our forefathers because by the Scriptures we learne that our forefathers did amisse and therefore that it shall be to vs a
for no other but a madde and frantike dreame and yet perforce must vse it because hee knew no better shift therefore he thought good to colour it the best he could by curtolling the wordes alleaged naming only imputation of righteousnesse whereas the Apostle nameth imputation of righteousnesse without workes But let him take the wordes as the Apostle setteth them downe and then giue vs his answere and we shall apparantly see him to be a most impudent man making no conscience of that he saith but studying only to blinde the Reader from seeing that truth which he himselfe knoweth not how with any probable shew to contradict Yet he telleth vs for conclusion that there is only a bare sound of wordes for the Protestants the true substance of the text making wholly for the Papists So then the sound of the wordes by his confession is for vs but inasmuch as the wordes are very plaine and cleare how may we be informed that the true substance and meaning of them is wholly for the Papists when as they containe in shew a flat contradiction to the doctrine of the Papists Wee see here the vse of that caueat which the Rhemists haue giuen to their Reader aduertising him o Rhem. Testam ArgumeÌ„t of the Epistles in generall to assure himselfe that if any thing in Pauls Epistles sound to him contrary to the doctrine of their Catholike Church he faileth of the right sense By this meanes if Saint Paul say it is white yet we must not thinke that he meaneth it to be white if it please their Church to call it blacke And therefore though here he speake of imputation of righteousnesse without works and bring testimony of ancient Scripture for confirmation thereof yet he must not be taken to meane that there is any such or any other but the imputation of the righteousnesse of workes because there is no other approued by the Roman Church Well may we thinke the iudgement of God to be fearefull vpon them who are so blinde as to be led with such fopperies and grosse deceipts CHAP. X. That eternall life is meerely and wholly the gift of God and cannot be purchased by merit or desert ANSWERE TO THE EPISTLE PAul teacheth that eternall life is the gift of God through Iesus Christ c. to Hee telleth vs againe and againe c. W. BISHOP IN the same place you had a large solution of this obiection but he that hath made a couenant with hell will not looke vpon that which might helpe him to heauen We teach with the Apostle and with his faithfull interpreter Saint Augustine That eternall life is the gift of God both originally because we must receiue grace by the free gift of God before we can doe any thing that doth deserue the ioyes of heauen and also principally the whole vertue and value of our merits doe proceede of the dignity of Gods grace in vs which doth eleuate and giue such worth to our workes that they thereby deserue life euerlasting Notwithstanding if we take not hold on Gods grace when it is freely offered vs and doe not concurre with it to the effecting of good workes we shall neuer be saued and this our working with the grace of God deserues heauen both which are prouedly this sentence of the same Apostle God will render to euery man according to Rom. 2. vers 6. 7. 8. his workes to them truly that according to patience in good workes seeke glory and honour and incorruption life eternall to them that are of contention and that obey not the truth but giue credit to iniquity wrath and indignation where you may see in expresse termes eternall life to be rendered and repaid for good workes to such men as diligently seeke to doe them and to others who refuse to obey the truth and rather choose to beleeue lies and to liue wickedly eternall death and damnation R. ABBOT WHether M. Bishop or I may bee thought more likely to flatter himselfe in an opinion of hauing made a couenant with hell I leaue it to be esteemed by the whole processe of this worke and the God of heauen shall make it one day more fully to appeare Against his solution of the obiection here propounded he knoweth well that I a Of Merits sect 8. haue returned a replication which sheweth the same to be infirme and vaine and seeing he can fortifie it no further the bare repeating of it is no other but womanish and idle talking The Apostle telleth vs that b Rom. 6. 23. eternall life is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the free grace or gift of God through Iâ—su Christ our Lord. We teach saith M. Bishop that eternall life is the gift of God originally and principally Thus by his shifting termes of originally and principally he limiteth the Apostles wordes and deludeth a maine Theoreme and Canon of Christian faith leauing it to be vnderstood that though eternall life be originally and principally the gift of God yet totally and absolutely it is not so Which iâ— it be true it must necessarily follow that as the Apostle saith truly that eternall life is the gift of God because in part it iâ— so so a man may truly say against the Apostle that eternall life is not the free gift of God because in part and in some sort it is not so And if no man may dare in this wise to gainsay the Apostle then wee must acknowledge that which Origen saith that c Origen in Rom. 4. Stipendia inquit peccati mors Et non addidâ—â— similitèr vt dicâ— et stâ—pendia aâ—â—â— iustitiae vita aterna sed ait Gratia autem Deâ— vâ—â—a aetâ—rna vt stâ—pend â—m quod vtique debiâ—o mercedi similé est retributionem poenâ— esse docâ—â—â—t mortis vâ—tam verâ— aternam soli gratiae consignareâ— the Apostle hauing said that the stipend of sinne is death did not adde in the like sort that the stipend of righteousnesse is eternall life but eternall life is the grace of God that he might teach that the retribution of punishment and death is a stipend which is like to a debt or wages but might assigne life eternall to grace only And thus the Apostle himselfe teacheth vs to conceiue when he saith d Rom. 11. 6. If it be of grace then it is not of workes otherwise grace is no grace For e August coÌ„t Pelag. Celest lib. 2. c 24. Gratia Dei non eriâ— gratâ—â— vllâ— modo nisigratâ—ita fuerâ—t omni modo grace saith Austin shall not be grace in any respect except it be free in euery respect f Idem Epist 120. c. 19. Haec est gratia quae gratis datur non meritâ—s operantis sed miseratione donantis That is grace saith he which is freely giuen not for the merits of the worker but by the mercy of the giuer Thus Hierome saith g Hieron Epist ad Demâ—trâ—ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non opâ—ruâ— retributio sed donamis est
worthy to be noted how M. Bishop trippeth and crosseth himselfe who hauing first told vs that the whole value of our merits whereby we deserue eternall life proceedeth of the dignity of Gods grace in vs presently altereth the case and saith that we must concurre with grace to the effecting of good works and this our working with the grace of God deserues heauen Surely if the whole value of our merits doe proceede of the dignity of Gods grace then the desert of heauen ariseth not of our working with grace or if the desert of heauen doe arise of our working with grace then it doth not wholly arise from the dignity of grace But hereby wee may see that all the wordes which they vse as touching grace are but hypocrisie and deceipt and that their true resolution is that the desert of heauen issueth out of the free will of man vsing grace as a toole or instrument for the doing of workes whereby to deserue the same Thus of gift they make no gift and turne all wholly into merit and by the free will of man doe vtterly ouerthrow the grace of God carrying notwithstanding in the meane time a conscience of shame of that they teach and colouring all with good workes as Pelagius the Heretike and his followers in the same case were wont to doe But M. Bishop will proue all that he saith by another sentence of the same Epistle to the Romans r Rom. 2. 6. God will render to euery man according to his workes c. where he saith we may see in expresse termes eternall life to be rendered and repaid for good works Where wee rather see his pertinacy in errour who rather chooseth to make the Apostle to contradict himselfe then to yeeld to the truth plainly deliuered by the Apostle But nothing can be deuised more fit for answere to him or more effectuall to stoppe his mouth then that which Gregory Bishop of Rome hath purposely set downe for satisfaction to those wordes f Gregor in Psalm Poeâ—itent 7. Quòd si illa Sanctorâ— soelicitas miserecordia est nö meritis acquiritur vbi erit quod scriptum est Et tu reddes vnicuique secundum opera sua si secundum opera redditur quomodo miserecordia a stimabitur sed aliud est secundum opera reddere aliud propter ipsa opera reddere In co enim quod secundum opera dicitur ipsa operum qualitas intelligitur vt cuiâ—s apparuerint bona opera eius sit retribut o gloriosa Illi namque beatae vitae in qua cum Deo de Deo viuitur nullus potâ—st aquari labor nulla opera comparari praesertim cùm Apostolus dicat Non sunt condignae passiones c. If the felicity of the Saints bee mercy saith he and be not obtained by merits how shall it stand which is written Thou shalt render vnto euery man according to his workes If it be rendered according to workes how shall it be esteemed mercy But it is one thing saith he to render according to workes and another thing to render for the works themselues For in that it is said according to workes the very quality of the workes is vnderstood so as that whose good works shall appeare his reward shall be glorious For to that blessed life wherein we shall liue with God and of God no labour can be equalled no workes can be compared for that the Apostle telleth vs The sufferings of this time are not comparable in worth to the glory to come that shall be reueiled on vs. Where we see how he setteth it downe as a thing without question to be confessed that eternall life is mercy only and is not to be purchased or gained by merits and that the Scripture in saying that God rendereth to euery man according to his workes doth not import that God in giuing reward vnto good workes doth any thing for the workes sake as if he regarded the merit or value thereof but respecteth only the quality of our workes as vsing the same for a marke only wherby he will take knowledge of them to whom he intendeth to shew mercy At these wordes of Gregory me thinks I see how M. Bishop biteth the lippe and chafeth in his minde to heare him thus distinguishing like a Protestant and seriously approuing that which he with scorne hath reiected being spoken by M. Perkins t Of Merits sect 17. O sharpe and ouer-fine wit saith he doth God render according to the workes and doth he not render for the workes What M. Bishop will you mocke Gregory in the same sort and twite him with a sharpe and ouer-fine wit He hath taught vs to distinguish thus he telleth vs that it is one thing to render for workes another thing to render according to workes which sith you admit not why doe you dâ—ale so impudently in chalenging to your selues a full and perfect agreement with the ancient Church of Rome I might further enlarge this matter out of Gregory by sundry speeches tending to the disabling of all humane works but that it followeth more properly to speake thereof in the thirteenth Chapter CHAP. XI That concupiscence or lust is sinne euen in the very habit and first motions of it ANSWERE TO THE EPISTLE HE telleth vs againe and againe that concupiscence is sinne to lust is to sinne c. to S. Paul saith of the spirit of adoption c. W. BISHOP THe Apostle telleth vs againe and againe that our Sauiour Christ Iesus was made 2. Cor. 5. v. 21. sinne and yet no Christian is so simple as to take him to be properly sinne but the host or satisfaction for sinne so when the Rom. 8. vers 3. Apostle calleth concupiscence sinne wee vnderstand him with S. Augustine that it is not sinne properly yet so called not vnaptly both because it is the effect L. b. 1. cont duas Epist Pelag. cap. 10. Lib. 1. de Nupt Concupisc cap. 23. and remnant of originall sinne and doth also pricke vs forward to actuall sinne but if by helpe of the grace of God we represse it we are deliuered from the infection and guilt of it Which S. Paul in the very same Chapter declareth when he demandeth Who shall deliuer me Ibid. vers 25. from this body of death he answereth presently the grace of God by Iesus Christ our Lord. And againe that profound Doctor S. Augustine argueth very soundly out of the same sentence where concupiscence is called sinne but now not I worke it any more but the sinne that is in me that the Apostle could not meane sinne properly which cannot saith he be committed Lib. 6. cont Iulian. c. 23. without the consent of our minde but that had no consent of the minde to it because it was not the Apostle that did worke it Now how can that be the euill worke of a man if the man himselfe doe not worke it as the Apostle saith expresly not I doe
and subiect to perish if God deale seuerely and strictly with vs if holy men acknowledge and confesse according to truth that they haue nothing to presume of in their owne merits but that they trust only to Gods mercy if amidst our good workes it be by humble prayer and request that wee obtaine the eternall reward where is that worthinesse of workes which M. Bishop pleadeth for and what cause hath he to be angry that we say by the Apostles wordes that our good workes are not worthy of the glory that is to come Or if he will needes be angry let him be angry with Ambrose though not a member yet a neighbour of the Church of Rome who plainly expoundeth the Apostles meaning to be this that k Ambros Epist 22. Vt hortetur ad passionè adiungit quia omnia quae patimur minora sunt indigna quorum pro laboribus tanta rependatur futurorum merces benorum c. all the things that we suffer are too little and vnworthy that for the paines and labours thereof so great reward of future good things should be rendered vnto vs. Which being so we see how vainly M. Bishop dealeth to tell vs a tale how our workes attaine to so great worthinesse when as there is no such worthinesse to be found in them We receiue this dignity saith he by being made members of Christ and by the vertue of Gods grace wherewith our workes are wrought and by the promise of God Where it is wholly idle and impertinent that he mentioneth the promise of God for what hath the promise of God to doe with the merit of man God bindeth himselfe by promise where there is no merit nor any thing whereof to merit yea where there are demerits to giue him cause to forbeare from promising Thus saith St. Austin l August in Psal 109. Quicquid promisit indignis promisit vt noÌ„ quasi operibus merces promitteretur sed gratia à nomine suo gratis daretur quia hoc ipsum quòd iustè viuit in quaÌ„tum homo poâ—est iustè viuere non meriti humani sed beneficij est diuini Whatsoeuer God promised he promised to vs being vnworthy that it might not be promised as a reward to works but being by name grace might accordingly be freely giuen because to liue iustly so farre as man can liue iustly is not a matter of mans merit but of the gift of God And of this promise of God he saith againe that m IdeÌ„ in psal 88. Non secunduÌ„ merita nostra sed secundum miserecordiam illius firma est promissio it is sure not according to our merits but according to his owne mercy Why then doth M. Bishop goe about to build the merit of man vpon the promise of God which is only his free and voluntary mercy As for the grace of God giuen vnto vs by being members of Christ true it is that all our vertue and goodnesse proceedeth therefrom but to say nothing that man cannot be said to merit by that that is the worke of God so farre are we from hauing the iustice of God hereby bound vnto vs in respect of our worthinesse as that God hath rather hereby occasion of quarrell against vs for disgracing those gifts whereby he hath graced vs and for blemishing and staining with our corruptions those good workes which he hath vouchsafed to doe by vs. For as the clearest water hauing a troublesome passage through a muddy and vnwholsome ground contracteth and gathereth the corruption and filth thereof euen so the grace of God hauing a troubled passage through the corrupt nature of man which is continually casting vp the mire and dirt of noisome and sinnefull motions and desires gathereth thereof a soile and filth by reason whereof there proceedeth nothing from man that is not corrupted and defiled Thus Hilary teacheth and is therein approued by Austin that n Hilar. apud August cont Iulian. lib. 2. Memores coÌ„scij corpora nostra vitioruÌ„ omnium esse materieÌ„ pro qua nihil in nobis mundum nihil innocens obtinemus we are to remember that our bodies are the matter of all vices by meanes whereof wee haue nothing in vs innocent nothing cleane o Greg. Mor. l. 1. c. 17. Quid est quod in hac vita sine quauis tenuissimi contagij inquinatione peragatur What is there saith Gregory that can be done in this life without some defilement of secret contagion And againe p Ibid. l. 31. c. 5 Elâ—cti quâ—mdiu in hac vita sunt sine quaÌ„tulocunque culpae contagio esse non possunt The elect so long as they are in this life cannot be without some contagion of sinne Yea q Ibid. l. 32. c. 4 Nullus in hac vita ita perfectus est vt quamlibet Deo deuotus sit inter ipsa quantumcunque pia vota non peccet there is none so perfect in this life saith he howsoeuer deuoted vnto God as that he sinneth not amidst his most holy and religious desires To be short r Ibid. l. 35. c. 16. Si de his diuinitùs districtè discutimur quis inter isâ—a remanet salutis locus quando mala nostra pura malâ— sunt bona quae nos â—abere credimus pura bona esse nequaquam possunt if God doe narrowly sift our doings what place is there left for saluation when as our euill doings are meerely euill but the good things which we beleeue we haue cannot be purely good If our good workes cannot be purely good if all that we doe be polluted and defiled with the contagion of sinne and in all that proceedeth from vs there be found vncleannesse if God by the eye of his seuere iudgement doe strictly view and behold the same then cannot any good workes of ours be truly said to be worthy of the heauenly glory yea they make vs rather obnoxious to censure and punishment if God doe not mercifully remit the defaults of them Neither doe the places by M. Bishop alleaged proue any thing contrary to that we say The first saith only Å¿ 2. Thess 1. 5. That yee may be counted worthy of the Kingdome of God and it is one thing to be worthy in Gods account and acceptation which all the faithfull are in Christ another thing to be worthy by merit and perfection which no man can be Of the former St. Bernard saith t Bernard in dedicat Eccles ser 5 Nos sumus sed ipsius dignatione non dignitale nostra c. Nec dignatio locum habet vbi 〈…〉 rit praesumptiâ— dignitatis We are but it is by Gods dignation or vouchsafing vs aâ— worthy not by our dignity or worthinesse Yea dignation or vouchsafing hath no place saith he where there is a presumption of dignity or worth Of the latter Chrysostome saith u Chrysost ad Coloss homil 2. Nemo talem vitae conuersationem ostendit vt regno dignus esse
and conclusions seeme to you so leane thinne and weake which notwithstanding are hitherto found inuincibly grounded against all those silly oppositions wherewith you haue encountred them The sentences which I haue cited out of the Apostle how simply yea how shamefully are they discharged by you only with an odious reiteration of those things which in my former answere haue beene already troden to the ground Some of them you say seemed to sound for vs though they had in truth a farre different sense but what slender and miserable shifts haue you vsed to frame them to signifie otherwise then they sound Some haue neither sense nor sound nor syllable for vs and yet it is found that both syllable and sound and sense doe wholly sauour and sound out our doctrine against you Which is so plaine both in the thing it selfe and in those iustifications which I haue vsed thereof as that I doubt not but that in your owne conscience M. Bishop I haue gotten the conquest only it is with you according to that which St. Austin saith b August de Ciuit. Dei l. 6. c. 1. Ea putatur gloria vanitatis nullis cedere viribus veritatis This is esteemed the glory of vanity neuer to yeeld to any force of truth But here I wish thee gentle Reader to obserue what a confession he maketh of that that I said that St. Paul wrote nothing but what in shew at least serueth the Protestants turne It is saith he one of the truest words he there deliuereth But if it be true that all that St. Paul hath written doth in shew at least serue the Protestants turne then my wonder is acknowledged to be iust namely that St. Paul should be a Papist and yet should write nothing but what in shew at least serueth the Protestants turne M. Bishop will haue it thought that in sense and meaning St. Paul is euery where against vs but what a strange thing is it that St. Paul in meaning should be euery where against vs and yet that in shew and appearance of wordes he should speake altogether for vs Concerning this matter I noted what the Rhemists haue said aduertising their Reader that c Rhem. Testam ArgumeÌ„t of the Epistles in generall where any thing in St. Pauls Epistles soundeth to him as contrary to the doctrine of their Church he faileth of the right sense Herein M. Bishop ioyneth with them both confessing that St. Pauls wordes are against them but bearing men in hand that the meaning alwaies is otherwise then the wordes import Thus they gull and abuse the simplicity and folly of them that will hearken vnto them perswading that that is improbable incredible impossible that the holy Apostles directed by the spirit of God should speake one thing as if they were Protestants and yet meane another as if they were Papists that in beleefe they should be Papists and yet should say nothing for iustification of Popery saue only by secret and concealed senses which cannot be â—nforced or gathered by the wordes Iustly are they giuen ouer of God to errour and lyes that vvilfully blinde themselues from taking knowledge of such delusion Now here I vvas disposed to dally a little vvith M. Bishop and to tell him my imagination that for anger that Peter and Paul had said nothing in their behalfe they might haply fare as Robertus Liciensis did in another case before the Pope spitting and crying out Fie vpon Peter fie vpon Paul c. M. Bishop being offended at this iest as d 1. Kings 18. â—â— Baals Priests vvere at the iesting of Elias telleth his Reader for vvant of matter that I turne from the truth to fables as the Apostle speaketh a text very vntowardly applyed if there vvere occasion to examine it and that for lacke of a better I bring Robin good-fellow vpon the stage Novv that Robertus Liciensis a Franciscan Friar vvas indeede a right Popish Robin good-fellow of vvhom e Erasm de rat Concionandi lib. 3. Erasmus reporteth that preaching on a time very instantly and earnestly to stirre men vp to goe against the Turkes and Paynims and comming at length to lament that none offered themselues to be Captaines and leaders in this seruice professeth in the end that rather then there should be any vvant in that behalfe he vvould not sticke to cast off his Franciscan vveede and become himselfe a Captaine or a Souldier amongst them At vvhich vvordes he cast off his vpper garment and vnderneath vvas attired and furnished as a Souldier and so prosecuted this matter for the space of halfe an houre and being afterwards questioned vvhy hee thus did confessed that he did it for his Minions sake vvho had told him that shee disliked nothing in him but his Friars vveede Whereupon he demanding in vvhat attire he should best content her and shee answering that shee could best like of him in the habit of a Souldier he bid her be the next day at Sermon and shee should see him so and then played Robin good-fellowes part in that sort as I haue said In the same place Erasmus telleth of that Liciensis the storie to vvhich I before alluded f Erasm ibid. that being on a day to preach before the Pope and his Cardinals when he saw them come in with that Princely pompe and the Pope carryed in a chaire and all men doing worship to him without any other words beginneth to cry out Fie vpon St. Peter fie vpon St. Paul spitting and turning this way and that way and so gate him downe againe leauing all astonished at him some thinking him to be fallen madde and other some imagining him to be become an Heretike or a Pagan Being afterwards examined how he fell to such horrible blasphemie he answered that he had prepared a farre other matter to speake of which he imparted to them but when I saw you saith he come in with such pompe and liue so deliciously and withall considered with my selfe how meane how painfull and vnpleasing a life the Apostles led in whose places you succeede I gathered with my selfe that either they were fooles that went so hard a way to heauen or else that you goe the direct way to hell But of you saith he who haue the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen I could not misdoubt any euill It remained therefore that I should detest the folly of them vvho when they might haue liued gloriously and pleasantly as you doe would rather through their whole life with fasting and watching and labour torment themselues Now as in this case this Robertus Liciensis cryed Fie vpon Peter and Paul for their kinde of life so vnlike to the life of Popes and Cardinals so I thought it might be likely that M. Bishop and his fellowes in their anger might cry out vpon them for their kinde of doctrine so vnlike to the doctrine of Popery and containing nothing at all for the trash and trinkets of their profession M. Bishop saith that
the soule going from the body he shall hold it with him for euer without any change that neither being exalted it can come downe to punishment nor being drowned in eternall punishments can thence forth rise to any remedy of saluation If after death there be no deliuerance if there be no change but as the Angell either good or badde receiueth the soule out of the body so it continueth for euer either exalted to ioy or drowned in punishment then there can be no Purgatory then there can be nothing but either heauen or hell where they that come shall abide for euer Hee citeth for this the same wordes of Salomon that we doe and of which Olympiodorus a writer of the same time saith k Olympiodor in Ecclesi asâ— cap. 11. In quocunque loco seu illustri seu tene 〈◊〉 depreâ—edatur â—omo cum moritur mâ—ode gradu atque ordine poriâ—â—net in aeternum nam vel requieseâ—â— in lumine foelicitatis aeterae cum iustis Christo Domino vel in tenebris cruciatur cum iniquis huius mundi principâ— Diabolo In whatsoeuer place either lightsome or darke a man is taken when he dyeth in the same degree and order he abideth for euer for either he resteth in the light of eternall felicity with the iust and with Christ our Lord or else he is tormented in darkenesse with the wicked and with the Prince of this world the Diuell But Gregory againe writeth an Epistle to his friend Aregius a Bishop to comfort him concerning the death of some belonging to him wherin it is worthy to be obserued how consonantly he carrieth himselfe to the doctrine of the Scriptures Amongst other wordes wee reade these l Gregor lib. 7. indict 2. Epist 111. Indecens est de illis taedio afflictionis addâ—ci quos credendum est ad veram vitam moriendo perue nisse HabeÌ„t for sitan illi iustam longi doloris excusationem qui vitam alteram nesciunt qui de hoc seculo ad mâ—lius transitiâ— esse non confidunt nos autem qui nouimus qui hoc credimus docemus coÌ„tristarinimium de obâ—â—ntibus no debemus ne quod apud alios tenet pietatis speciem hoc magis nobis in culpa sit Nam dissidetâ—c quodamodâ— genus est cotra hoc quod quisque pradicat torqueri moestitia dicente Apostolo Nolumus autem vos ignorare fratres c. Hac itaque ratione perspecta studendum nobis est vt sicut dixâ—mus de mortâ—â—â— non esslâ—gamur sed affectuÌ„ viuentibus impendamus quibus pictas ad 〈◊〉 sit ad sâ—uct◠〈◊〉 It is vndecent for vs to giue our selues to long affliction of sorrow for them whom wee are to beleeue to haue come by death vnto the true life They haue haply iust excuse of long sorrow who know not any other life who doe not beleeue the passage from this world to be to a better world but wee who know who beleeue and teach this are not to be too heauy for the dead least that which with others carryeth a shew of piety be to vs rather a matter of blame For it is in a manner a kinde of distrâ—st to be tormented with heauinesse contrary to that which he himselfe doth teach Hereof he citeth the wordes of Saint Paul to the Thestalonians which I haue before set downe and then addeth This therefore seeing we know wee are to haue care as I haue said not to be afflicted for the dead but to bestow our affection vpon the liuing to whom our piety or denotion may be profitable and our loue may yeeld fruit Surely he leaueth no place for Purgatory that teacheth to beleeue that the faithfull in death doe attaine vnto true life and that their passage from this world is to a better neither doth he acknowledge any vse of Prayers of Masses and Trentals and other Offices and Obsequies for the dead who saith that our deuotion and loue yeeldeth no fruit or profit to them He would not haue bidden Aregius not to be afflicted for the dead but to bestow his affection vpon the liuing if hee had thought the dead to be in a Purgatory where they should and might be releeued by the deuotions of the liuing Thus he beleeued and taught where he taught aduisedly according to the Scriptures and thus wee beleeue accordingly and what hee casually taught otherwise wee reckon it for wood and straw and stubble which hee built vpon the true foundation which now the day-light of the Gospell hath reueiled and the fire of Gods word consumeth though hee himselfe by the faith of the said foundation hath attained peace And this wee hold to be the only true application of the Apostles wordes and most fitting to the processe of the text the Apostle making himselfe a builder by his preaching laying Christ for the foundation of his doctrine and therefore consequently vnderstanding gold siluer pearles wood hay stubble to be the rest of the doctrine that is preached concerning Christ either true signified by gold and siluer and pearles or false signified by wood and hay and stubble So did Tertullian of old vnderstand it m Tertul. coÌ„t Marc. l. 5. Super quod prout quisque superstruxerit dignam scilicet vel indignam doctrinam opus â—ius per ignem probabitur merces â—iâ—s per ignem rependetur As euery man saith he buildeth vpon the foundation doctrine worthy or vnworthy his worke shall be tryed by fire his reward shall be repaied him by fire In the like sort doth Ambrose expound it n Ambros in 1. Cor. 3. Tria genera posuit praeclara in mundo in quibus bonam doctrinam significauit c. Tria alia genera posuit sedfriuola In his corrupta vana doctrina designata di nâ—scitur He setteth downe three kinds of things that are excellent in the world gold siluer pearles by which he signifieth good doctrine three other things he setteth downe which are but base wood hay stubble and by these corrupt and vaine doctrine is designed Now if by these things doctrine bee designed then the fire whereby triall must be made of these things must be vnderstood accordingly That cannot be of the Popish Purgatory fire for it cannot in this sense bee fitted to Purgatory fire which the Apostle saith Euery mans worke shall be made manifest for the day shall declareâ— because it shall bee reueiled by fire for it is not declared or manifested by Purgatory fire whether doctrine bee true or false sith it selfe is so obscure and darke as that no man knoweth where it is Is it made manifest to vs by Purgatory fire whether ours or the Popish doctrine bee the more true Nay but by the word of God this triall is made and thereby it appeareth what is truth and what is falshood what is right and what is wrong and the truth as the gold and siluer is approued and iustified thereby but errour and false doctrine as wood and
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
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