The second part of the Defence of the Reformed Catholicke VVherein the religion established in our Church of England (for the points here handled) is apparently iustified by authoritie of Scripture, and testimonie of the auncient Church, against the vaine cauillations collected by Doctor Bishop seminary priest, as out of other popish writers, so especially out of Bellarmine, and published vnder the name of The marrow and pith of many large volumes, for the oppugning thereof. By Robert Abbot Doctor of Diuinitie.

R. ABBOT.

It is strange to see here what stutting and stammering the man vseth, loth to confesse the truth, and yet forced by the very eui∣dence thereof, in a manner fully to subscribe vnto it. I pray thee gentle Reader to marke well the words of Austine, that are here al∣ledged.a In those things, saith he, which are plainely set downe in the Scriptures, are found all those things which containe faith and behaui∣our of life. He saith not barely, in the Scriptures, but in those things which are plainly set downe in the Scriptures; nor that some speciall matters of faith are found, but all those things are found, which containe faith and conuersation of life. Now how nicely doth M. Bishop mince the matter. All things, saith he, necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian vnder paine of damnation, are contained in the Scriptures, as if S. Austin spake here only of simple Christians, and not of those that are of learning & knowledge, when as his drift is in this booke, to teach the Preacher how to conceiue of the Scriptures for his owne vse. Then he restraineth all those necessarie things, to the articles of

our beleefe, whereas S. Austine expoundeth himselfe as touchingb hope and charitie, of which he had intreated in the former booke. Then he excepteth the resolution of harder matters and many difficul∣ties which the learned must expresly beleeue, when as S Austine saith, that in the Scriptures are found all those things which containe faith and conuersation of life, insomuch that we haue heard himc before pronounce a curse to an Angell from heauen, who either concerning Christ, or the Church of Christ, or any thing belonging to our faith and life, shall preach any thing but what we haue receiued in the scriptures of the Law and the Gospell. But yet if they wil haue S. Austins words to be vnderstood of all things necessary to be beleeued of euery simple Christian, we would gladly know why they require euery simple man, vnder paine of damnation, to beleeue the Popes supremacie, his succession from Peter, the power of his pardons, the validitie of his dispensations, to beleeue their doctrine of the Masse, of Pur∣gatorie, of inuocation of Saints, of prayer for the dead, of wor∣shipping idols and images, and a thousand such other deuices, when as these are not found in any plaine places of Scripture, nay when as the plaine text of Scripture is cleerly and manifestly a∣gainst them. Thou must vnderstand, gentle Reader, that M. Bi∣shop giueth not this answer in earnest, but the euidence of S. Au∣stines words being so pregnant against him, somewhat he must say for the present, to colour the matter, howsoeuer it be other∣wise contrary to his owne defence. It is not for their thrift to graunt that what concerneth euery simple Christian vpon paine of damnation is plainely set downe in Scripture; to beleeue so, is the marring of a great part of their haruest. But alas in this case what should he do? if Saint Austine say it, it is not for him to speake against it; onely what he looseth here, he must do his best to recouer other where. But for this lame answer, where∣by he in part confesseth the truth against himselfe, and yet la∣boureth in part to conceale it and keepe it backe, he seeketh pa∣tronage from another place of Austine, saying that Saint Au∣stine elsewhere doth signifie that distinction. He noteth in the mar∣gent de peccatorum meritis cap. vltimo, but which booke it is of the three, he noteth not, nor what the words are. Now in the last chapters of the first and third booke, there is nothing incident to this purpose, but that which S. Austine saith in the last chapter

of the second booke, is such as that we neede not wonder that M. Bishop did forbeare to set downe his words. For hauing there in question whether the soule be ex traduce, that is, whe∣ther it be deriued and propagated by generation, with other points thereupon depending, he saith that the matter isd with such moderation to be handled, as that a man may be rather commen∣ded for inquiring warily, then reprooued for affirming rashly. For (sayth he) where question is of a very obscure matter, without the helpe of sure and euident testimonies or instructions of holy Scrip∣tures, the presumption of man is to withhold it selfe, doing nothing by inclining either way. But hee goeth on yet further:e For al∣beit I know not how any of these points (mentioned before) may be declared and made plaine, yet I beleeue that the authoritie of the words of God should be most cleare concerning them, if man with∣out damage of saluation promised might not be ignorant thereof. In which words wee see Saint Austine mentioning difficult and hard questions, but we see withall that he denieth the determi∣ning of any such without assured and cleare testimonies of holy Scrip∣ture, affirming that he beleeueth that there should be cleare au∣thoritie of Gods word for the deciding of them, if man (and not onely simple men) without losse of saluation might not be without knowledge of them. Hereby then he most euidently testifieth, that whatsoeuer is necessarie for the saluation of mankind, hath cleere and euident testimonie of holy Scripture, and that what hath not so, we are to surcease from defining any thing of it. How lewdly then doth M. Bishop deale, to make his Reader beleeue that Saint Austine sayth for him, that the resolution of harder points and difficulties, which yet the learned must expresly beleeue, are not contained in the Scriptures? But yet he telleth vs, that that is also gathered out of many other places of his workes, and yet out of all those places alledgeth not any part or point of doctrine which Austine himselfe doth not vndertake to iustifie by the Scrip∣tures. It hath beene before declared, that when wee say that all matters of doctrine and faith are contained in the Scrip∣ture, wee vnderstand as the auncient Fathers did, not that all things are literally and verbally contained in the Scripture, but that all are either expressed therein, or by necessary illation and consequence to be deriued from thence. S. Hierome doubteth not

to say as we do,f What things are written, we do not denie; but what are not written, we reiect: and yet in the same booke he saith also, that it isg the propertie of the holy Scripture, that those things whereof there might be doubt if they were not written, are set downe, but other things are left to our vnderstanding to collect and gather them there∣by. And in this sence Saint Austine saith,h By those things which we reade, we vnderstand some things also which we do not reade. Thus doth the same Saint Austine sometimes say, that the Church recei∣ueth some things that are not written, not that those things are not to be proued and defended by the Scriptures, but onely that they are not literally expressed in the Scriptures. And so it appea∣reth in the first instance produced by M. Bishop as touching the re∣baptizing of them who became Catholikes after they had bene baptized by heretikes. For although Saint Austine say, thati the Apostles com∣maunded nothing thereof, but that the custome which was opposed to Cyprian was to be beleeued to haue flowed from an Apostolicall tradi∣tion, yet he himselfe disputeth that point against the Donatists continually by the Scripture, refuseth to haue the matter decided but onely by the Scripture, and in the first propounding thereof sayth very plainly to them,k That I seeme not to deale by humane ar∣guments (namely for that a generall Councell hath so confirmed) I bring assured proofes out of the Gospell, whereby I shew how rightly and truly according to God it thus seemed good to them, that ecclesia∣sticall medicine should cure that in an hereticke or schismaticke wherein he is wounded and separated from the Church, ••ut that which remai∣neth sound should rather be acknowledged and approued, then by being disallowed should be wounded. To omit many other places that might be alledged to the same purpose, soone after the words al∣ledged by M. Bishop, he saith thus,l It is against the commaunde∣ment of God, that men comming from heretickes should be baptized, if there they haue receiued the Baptisme of Christ, because by testimo∣nies of holy Scripture it is plainly shewed thus and thus. Literally therefore and as touching matter of fact and example, Saint Au∣stine speaketh of it as not written in the Scripture, but by Tra∣dition so accustomed, because there is nothing expresly men∣tioned thereof, but yet sheweth that therefore this Tradition was accepted and approoued, because by testimonies of Scripture

it was confirmed to be right,m because the reasons and testimonies of Scripture being well considered on both sides of that controuersie, it might be said, What the truth hath declared, that we follow. And thus it is true which S. Austine addeth in the place cited,n that there are many things which the whole Church holdeth, and for that cause are be∣leeued to haue come frō the Apostles, albeit they be not found set downe in Scripture, because they be not namely & word for word set down in Scripture, albeit they be to be iustified by those things that are there set downe. Of this kind is that which M. Bishop nameth in the next place, of the custome of the church in baptizing infants, which Austin saitho is to be beleeued to be no other but an Apostolike tradition, and we also acknowledge no lesse. But what? did Austin hold it a traditiō that could not be proued and warranted by the scripture? Nothing lesse. For he himselfe against the Pelagian heretikes proueth the ne∣cessitie thereof by the Scriptures,p They say (saith he) that an infant not being baptized cannot perish, because he is borne without sinne: but the Apostle saith, By one man sinne entred into the world, and by sinne came death, and so death went ouer all, forasmuch as all haue sinned, &c. Therefore the baptisme of infants is not superfluous, that they who by generation are bound to condemnation, by regeneration may be deliue∣red from it. And in another place against the Donatists,q If any man (saith he) desire diuine authority in this behalf, we may truly coniecture what the sacrament of Baptisme auaileth in infants, by the circumcision of the flesh which the former people receiued. So by the rest of the Fa∣thers sundry arguments are taken from the Scriptures for the iusti∣fying of that custome, andr Bellarmine himselfe by the Scriptures proueth that infants are to be baptized, and therefore full weakly doth M. Bishop deale to bring this for proofe of their Traditions, that is, of doctrines beside the Scripture. In his other obiections he is as idle as in any of these, or rather more idle. The Arian he∣reticke presseth Austine to shew where the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is read in the Scriptures. Saint Austine answereth him, thats 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was a Greeke word, and they spake Latin, and therefore it was first to be set down what is meant by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and then to be required in the scriptures,

because albeit the word perhaps be not found there, yet the thing it selfe is found. For what greater wrangling is there, then to contend about the word, when there is a certaintie of the thing? Where we see M. Bi∣shop in the place which he himselfe citeth, condemned for a con∣tentious wrangler, that thus vrgeth the word consubstantiall as a tra∣dition beside the Scripture, when as the thing it self and matter im∣ported by it, is contained in the Scripture, yea and S. Austin himself in the same place proueth it by the Scripture, and elsewhere asketh of the Arian heretike,t What is Homousion, consubstantiall, but, I and my father are one? By the other word vnbegotten he taketh aduātage against the Arian, who had set downe that terme in the confession of his faith concerning God the Father. He demaundeth of him whether the Scripture had vsed that word, which not being found, and yet approoued, he concludeth:u Thou seest that it may be, that of a word which is not set downe in Scripture, yet reason may be giuen to shew that it is rightly spoken: so therefore consubstantiall also, which we were required to shew by authoritie of Scripture, albeit we find not the very word there, yet it may be that we find that to which the word may be iudged to be rightly applied. In these words therefore there is nothing imported but what we are instructed by the Scrip∣tures; the meaning is there, though the letters and syllables be not there. In like sort the case standeth with his other instance of the holy Ghost to be adored, which we may wonder that he should be so impudent, or rather so impious, as to make an example of traditions beside the Scripture, as if the Scriptures did not prooue that the holy Ghost is to be worshipped, when as S. Austine prooueth it there against the Arian no otherwise but by the Scriptures. But as touching all these points concerning the Godhead, let that suffice which Thomas Aquinas hath giuen for a rule, thatx concerning God we ought to say nothing which is not found in Scripture either in words or in meaning. Whereof he saith for example, Though in very words it be not found in holy Scripture that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne, yet in sense and meaning it is there found. To this our asser∣tion accordeth, that no matter of faith or doctrine is to be admitted but what either in words or in sence is contained in the Scriptures. Let M. Bishop shew vs the sence of their Traditions in the Scrip∣tures, and we will receiue them, though we find not the words; but if he alledge for Traditions beside the Scripture, those things

the sence and meaning whereof is in the Scriptures, though the words be not, he abuseth his Reader, and saith nothing against vs. For this matter I referre thee further (gentle Reader) to that which hath bene saidy before in answer of his Epistle to the King. As touching the perpetuall virginitie of the blessed virgin, what we are to conceiue, hath bene before declared. S. Austinz affirmeth it, but not vnder the name of a tradition: and Hierome when he would maintaine it againsta Heluidius, tooke vpon him no otherwise to maintaine it but onely by the Scripture, thereby shewing that he tooke tradition to be a very weake and vncertaine ground. Now therefore it plainly appeareth that S. Austin hath pulled downe the churches treasury of traditions, because M. Bishop can bring nothing to the contrary, but that he plainely and truly meant that which he said, that in those things which are plainly set downe in Scripture, are found all things belonging to our faith and conuersation of life, and thereby leaueth no place to M. Bishops matters of faith that are not contained in the written word.

Notes

• a

  Aug. de doct. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 9. In ijs quae a pertè posita sunt in Scripturis in∣ueniuntur illa omnia quae con∣••nent fidem mo ••es{que} vivendi.
• b

  Spem scilicet & charitatem de quibus supe∣riore libro trae∣ctauimus.
• c

  Suprae. sect. 8.
• d

  August. de peccat. mer. & remiss lib. 2. cap. 36. Disputationē desiderat eo mo¦deramine tempe ratam vt magis inquisitio cauta lau litur, quàm praecipitata re∣prehendatur as∣sertio. Vbi enim de re obscurissi∣ma disputatur, non adinuanti∣bu•• diuinarum Scripturarum certu clarisquè documentis cohi¦bere se debet hu∣mana praesūptio nihil faciens in alteram partem declinando.
• e

  Ibid. Etsi enim quod libet horum quem admodum demonstrari & explicari possit ignorem, illud tamen credoquòd etiam hinc diui∣norum eloquiorū clarssimae esset authoritat, si ho∣mo illud sine dis∣pendio promissa salutis ignorare non posset.
• f

  Hieron. contra Heluid. Sicut haec quae scripta sunt, non nega∣mus, ita ea quae non sunt scripta renuimus.
• g

  Jbid. Sanctae Scripturae idio∣ma, &c. ea de quibus posset am∣bigi si nō fuissent scripta, signari; caetera verò no∣strae intelligentiae derelinqui.
• h

  August. cont. Maxim Arian. lib. 3. cap 3. Ex ijs quae legimus aliquae etiam quae legimus intelligimus.
• i

  Jdem de Bapt. contra Donatist. l. 5. cap. 23. Apo∣stoli nihil exinde praeceperunt, sed consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano ab eorū traditione exor∣dium sumpsisse credenda est.
• k

  Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 7. Ne humanis argumentis id agere videar, &c. ex Euange∣lio profero ceriae documenta qui∣bus demonstro quàm rectè pla∣cuerit & verè secundum Deū, vt hoc in quoquaē schismatico vel heretico ecclesia∣stica medicina curaret in quo vulnere separa∣batur, illud autē quod sanū mane∣ret agnitū potiùs approbaretur, quàm improbatū vulneraretur.
• l

  Ibid. lib 5. cap 23. Contrae maendatū Dei est quòd venientes ab haereticis si illic baptismū Christi acceperunt, baptizantur, quia sanctarū scripturarū testimonijs pianè ostenditur, &c.
• m

  Ibidem. lib. 4. cap. 7 Quia benè perspectis ex v∣troque litere disputationis rationibus & Scripturarum testimonijs, po∣test etiam dici, Quod veritas declarauit, hoc sequi∣mur.
• n

  Lib. 5. cap. 23. Sicut sunt mul∣ta quae vniuer∣sa tenet Eccle∣sia, & ob hoc ab Apostolis praecepta benè creduntur, quan∣quam scripta non repertian∣tur.
• o

  De Genes. ad. liter. lib. 10. cap. 23. Nec om∣nino credenda nisi Apostolica esse traditio.
• p

  August. epist. 89. Dicunt in∣fantem morte praeuentum non baptizatum pe∣rire non posse, quo••••am sine peccato nascitur, &c. Dicit Apo∣stolus, Per vnum hominem, &c. Jdeo non est superfluus bap∣tismus paruu∣lorum, vt qui per generatio∣nem illi con¦demnationi ob∣ligati sunt, per regenerationem liberentur.
• q

  De Baptis. lib. 4. cap. 24. Si quisquam hac in re authoritatem diuinam quaerat, &c. Veracitèr conijcere possumus quid valeat in par••••••••s Baptimi sacramentum ex circumcisione carnis quam prior populus accepit.
• r

  Bellarm de sa••ram Baptism. lib 1. cap 8
• s

  August. Epist. 174. Respondebatur à nobis quia nos Latinè loqueremur & illud Graecum esset, prius qua∣ren•• on esset quid sit Homousion, & tunc exigendum vt in libris sanctis ostenderetur, &c. quia et si fortasse nomen ipsum non inueniretur, restamen ipsa inueniretur. Quid est enim contentiosius quàm vbi de reconstat, certare de nomen
• t

  Idem. contrae Maximin. lib. 3. cap 14. Quid est Homousion, nisi, Ego & Pater vnum sumus.
• u

  Jdem. epi. 174. Vides posse fieri vt etiā de verbo quod in scriptura Dei non est, reddatur tamen ratio vnde rectè dici ostendatur: sic ergo & ho∣mousion quod in authoritate diui∣norum librorum cogebamur osten∣dere, etiamsi vo∣cabulū ipsum ibi non inuentamus, fieri posse vt il∣lud inueniamus cut hec vocabulū rectè adhibitum iudicetur.
• x

  Thom. Aquin. sum. p. 1. qu. 36. art. 2. ad 1. De Deo dicere non debemus quod in sacra Scriptura non inuenitur vel per verba vel per sensum. Licet per verba non inueniatur in sacra scriptura quod spiritus san¦ctus procedit à Filio, inuenitur tamen quantum ad sensum.
• y

  Sect. 11.
• z

  August. haeres. 56 & 84.
• a

  Hieron. aduer. Heluid. Ipsa Scripturarum verba ponenda sunt, &c. Non credimus quia non legimus.