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.

The reasons seeme slender to M. Bishop, but yet the Reader must needs take them to be very strong, in that they are put off with so slender and weake an answer. If the doctrine of faith and of the seruice of God had stood in the old Testament in any part vpō tradition, vndoubtedly our Sauiour Christ would haue made some mention therof; and as he often referreth himself to the Scriptures, so would sometimes haue appealed to tradition also. But that doth he neuer: he reproueth traditions and condemneth them, but neuer vseth one word to approue any. M. Bishop answereth, that Christ most commonly deliuereth his doctrine in his owne name (I say vnto you) and very seldome confirmeth it out of the Law. But that is a very weak and silly shift, yea there is in it apparent and manifest vntruth. For we find our Sauiour in the Gospel more often citing and alledging the Scriptures, then we heare him saying, I say vnto you, as euery Reader may obserue. Againe, where he doth say, I say vnto you, he teacheth vs to vnderstand thata 1.1 he speaketh not of himselfe, but what he saith, he speaketh as Chrysostome before hath taught vs to con∣strue itb 1.2 out of the Law and the Prophets, according to the written word of the law and the Prophets, deliuering no point of doctrine but what hath witnesse and confirmation from thence. Thirdly, it is much to be obserued against M. Bishop, that where our Sauiour

doth most often vse those words,c 1.3 I say vnto you, he vseth them to challenge the written Law frō the corruption of Tradition, and to affirme the original truth thereof. For Tradition had taught men to vnderstād the law literally only & of outward actions, but he shewes in the commandementsd 1.4 of murther and adultery, that the intention of the Law is extended to the affections of the heart. Tradition had diminished the integritie of the Law, and taken from it,e 1.5 tea∣ching onely not to forsweare; but he teacheth that the truth of the Law extendeth to vaine and idle swearing. Tradition had added to the Law of it owne deuice, and where God had said, Thou shalt loue thy neighbour, by a corrupt glose put to it, Thou shalt hate thine enemie: but he teacheth that the name off 1.6 a neighbour reacheth to them also that are our enemies. Thus he rectifieth that which Tra∣dition had made crooked, but for Tradition he saith nothing. Surely they that thus peruerted the written Law, would haue peruerted Traditions also, if there had bene any; and Christ would haue resto∣red the integritie thereof, but there is no surmise giuen vs of any such matter. We heare him often saying,g 1.7 Haue ye not read? andh 1.8 It is written, andi 1.9 What is written in the law, how readest thou? but we neuer heare him saying, Haue ye not thus receiued by Tradition? He telleth the Saduces,k 1.10 Ye erre, because ye know not the Scriptures: and the cause of the Disciples error was noted,l 1.11 As yet they knew not the Scripture: but no where doth he note the not knowing of Tra∣dition for any cause of error. He saith,m 1.12 Search the Scriptures, they testifie of me, but he neuer saith, search after Traditions, they are they that testifie of me.n 1.13 How then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, saith he, but neuer mentioneth the fulfilling of any thing that was deli∣uered by tradition.o 1.14 He interpreted to his Disciples in all Scriptures the things which were written of him, but out of Tradition he inter∣preted nothing vnto them.p 1.15 He opened their vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures, but we reade not of giuing them vnderstanding of Traditions. Thus the Euangelists from place to place, vpon diuers occasions do set downeq 1.16 the fulfilling of those things which were spoken by the Prophets, mentioning the things which are wri••••en, but neuer once speake of the fulfilling of Tradi∣tion. And what? will M. Bishop haue vs to dreame as idlely as he doth, that there were Traditions from God beside the Scriptures, when we find these infinit references to the Scriptures, and to Tra∣ditions

none at all? He telleth vs a childish tale, that the Euangelists very seldome confirme Christs doctrine by testimonies, but their owne they do sometimes, as if the doctrine of the Euangelists were not the doctrine of Christ; and shewing that he is little acquainted with the reading of the Euangelists, who maketh that very seldome which is so often done. And when it is done, it is done by Scrip∣ture only, neuer by Tradition; which is the point whereto he should haue answered, and he saith nothing to it. Onely he lewdly abuseth the ignorant Reader, by seeming to say somwhat, when that which he saith is but an impertinent vagary, and concerneth not that that is obiected to him. To say that they neuer wrote any thing out of tra∣dition (saith he) proceedeth of most grosse ignorance. Where had Ma∣thew the adoring of the Sages? &c. Pelting brabler, what is this to that that M. Perkins saith? Christ and his Apostles in infinite places con∣firme that which they preach by the doctrine of former times; they signifie, the fulfilling of those things which were of old taught vnto the people of God. They neuer confirme any thing but by Scrip∣ture; they mention nothing fulfilled that was taught by Tradition, but only by Scripture. Tell vs M. Bishop how could this be, if there were Tradition beside the Scripture? We aske you not whence the Euangelists had the history of those times whereof they wrote, but how it commeth to passe that they neuer mention anything deli∣uered by tradition in former times? But these are the iuggling tricks of shifting companions, deluding the eyes of the simple with sha∣dows and empty colours, maliciously oppugning the truth when as they haue nothing to say against it. In that that we say, is nothing but what S. Hierom said long ago,r 1.17 Whatsoeuer the Apostles preached in the Gospell, they preached it by the words of the law and the Prophets: wherof it followeth against M. Bishop, that they taught no doctrine by tradition, but only by the scriptures As for his questions, wheras he demandeth where S. Mathew had the adoring of the Sages and Iohn Baptists peaching, &c. I answer him first with the like question; where had Moses the story of the creation of the world, and the knowledge of those things which God in* 1.18 sundry places is brought in speaking as with himselfe? I suppose he wil answer, that he recei∣ued the same from him that made the world, from him that was the author of those speeches. So say we that Mathew learned the wor∣shipping of Christ by the Sages of Christ himself whom they wor∣shipped:

he learned Iohn Baptists preaching of him whō Iohn Bap∣tist preached. He learned his Gospell as Paul did, who saith of him∣self,s 1.19 Neither receiued I it of man, neither was I taught it but by the re∣uelation of Iesus Christ. As touching the Gospel of S. Mark, Eusebius reporteth, that the faithfullt 1.20 who had heard the preaching of S. Peter, not thinking that sufficient, nor contented with the doctrine of that diuine preaching vnwritten, most earnestly intreated Marke that he would leaue them in writing the commentaries or records of the doctrine which they had deliuered vnto them by word, and ceased not till they had per∣swaded him thereto. Now they say (saith he) that the Apostle when he vnderstood this to haue bene done by the instinct of the holy Ghost, ioyed much in the desire of those men, and by his authoritie warranted this Gospell in writing to the reading of the Church. Now this story is well worthy to be obserued. The faithfull had heard the preaching of Peter: they thought Tradition to be a very vncertaine keeper of the doctrine which they had heard: they desire to haue the same left vnto them in writing, to that purpose they intreate Mark the scho∣ler and follower of Peter; the thing is done by the instinct of the holy Ghost; Peter acknowledgeth so much, and by his testimonie approueth the Gospell thus written to the reading of the Church. Who would not here wonder that M. Bishop should alledge this story for patronage of his traditions, which shewes that the church from the beginning was so iealous and fearfull of resting vpon tra∣dition? S. Luke wrote his storieu 1.21 as they deliuered who from the begin∣ning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, theyx 1.22 in whom Christ spake, and whose word wasy 1.23 the word of God, the word of the preaching of God. Yea and what he wrote, he wrote also as S. Marke did by the instinct of the holy Ghost, because as S. Paul telleth vs,z 1.24 all Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God: and as of prophecie, so of the Gospell also we must vnderstand thata 1.25 it came not by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost.b 1.26 When the disciples wrote (saith S. Austin) what Christ shewed & said vnto thē, it is not to be said that he did not write, because the members wrought that which they learned by the inditing of the head. For whatsoeuer he would haue vs to reade of the things which he did and said, he gaue in charge to them as his hands to write the same. Now therefore the

Euangelists grounded not their Gospels vpon Traditions, that is, vpon report from man to man, but vpon the immediate oracle and instinct of God himselfe. But the absurd Sophister dallieth by an equiuocation of the word tradition, and whereas it is questioned betwixt vs in one meaning, he bringeth proofe for it in another meaning. The word originally may import any thing that is deli∣uered howsoeuer either by word or writing. Whatsoeuer God saith vnto vs, it may in this sort be called Gods tradition, because he hath so deliuered vnto vs. Thus doth Cyprian call that which we reade in the written gospell,c 1.27 the originall of the Lords tradition, and willeth in the Lords cup to keepe the truth of the Lords tradition. Thus whatsoeuer we haue receiued in the Scriptures was first Tradition as deliuered by word, and still is Tradition because it is deliuered in writing, tradition signifying whatsoeuer is deliuered, as before was said. But though the word in it selfe haue this generall and in∣different signification of any thing that is deliuered, yet in our dis∣putation it is restrained to one onely maner of deliuering, by word and relation onely, and not by Scripture: and therefore where Ire∣naeus saith,d 1.28 Euangeliū nobis in Scripturis tradiderunt, he that should translate as M. Bishop doth, they deliuered the Gospell by tradition in the Scriptures, should shew himselfe as absurd a man as M. Bishop is, because he setteth downe two opposite members of a distinction, and confoundeth them both in one. Now then the question is not in the generall signification, whether the Gospell were a tradition, that is, a thing deliuered frō God, or whether it were a tradition by word, that is, a thing deliuered by word, but whether of that traditiō, that is, of that doctrine deliuered from God by word, any part were left vnwritten to go thenceforth vnder the name of vnwritten tra∣dition. We denie not but that the whole Law and Gospell is the Lords tradition: we denie not but that the Euangelists in the hi∣storie of Christ had things first deliuered vnto them by word, which they should afterwards commit to writing, although in the writing thereof inspired of God,e 1.29 the holy Ghost bringing all things to their remembrance, and guiding them in what sort they should set them downe; but we denie that either in the Law or in the Gospell there was any thing left vnwritten that con∣cerneth vs to know for attaining of true faith and righteousnes to∣wards God. To come now to the point, howsoeuer the Euangelists

built their Gospels vpon Tradition, that is, vpon that that was then deliuered vnto them, whether by Christ or by his Apostles, yet what is this to prooue that they confirmed any doctrine, that is, any part of this tradition now deliuered vnto them, by tradition of for∣mer times, that is, by any doctrine left vnwritten by Moses and the Prophets? This was the matter in hand, why then doth M. Bishop seeke thus in a cloud to steale away? He telleth vs of desperate care∣lesnesse, thinking to carry the matter with desperate words, but we must tell him, that it is desperate trechery in him thus to mocke his Reader with boisterous babling, when he saith nothing to prooue that that he should, that either the Apostles prooued any doctrine by vnwritten tradition of the old Testament, or left any thing to be prooued by vnwritten tradition in the new.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Iohn 14, 10.
• b 1.2

  Chrysost. supra sect. 7.
• c 1.3

  Mat. 5.18.20.
• d 1.4

  Ver 22.28.
• e 1.5

  Ver. 34.
• f 1.6

  Ver. 44.
• g 1.7

  Mat. 19.4.
• h 1.8

  Chap. 21.13.
• i 1.9

  Luke 10.26.
• k 1.10

  Mat. 22.29.
• l 1.11

  Iohn 20.9.
• m 1.12

  Iohn 5.39.
• n 1.13

  Mat. 26 54.
• o 1.14

  Luke 24.27.
• p 1.15

  Ver. 45.
• q 1.16

  Mat. 1.22. & 2.17. &c.
• r 1.17

  Hieron. in Mat. 13. Quicquid in Euangelio praedi∣cabant, legis & prophetarū voci∣bus comprobarūt.
• * 1.18

  Gen. 11.6. & 18.17.20.
• s 1.19

  Gal. 1.12.
• t 1.20

  Euseb. hist lib. 2. cap. 15. Non suffecran•• illis semel audita, nec contenti fuerunt non scripta diui∣nae praedicationis doctrina, sed Marcum omni∣gena obsecratione obtestati sunt vt commentarios ipsis doctrinae eius quam verbo tra∣ditā accepissent literis compre∣hensos relinque∣rent, nec destite∣runt donec viro persuaserint, &c. Aiunt au∣tem Petrum cùm ex instinctu spiritus sancti fa∣ctum hoc cogno∣nisset, delectatū esse virorum istorū voluntate & scriptum hoc Euangelium Ec∣clesius ad legendū authoritate suae confirmasse.
• u 1.21

  Luke 1.2.
• x 1.22

  2. Cor. 13.3.
• y 1.23

  1. Thess. 2 13.
• z 1.24

  2. Tim. 3.16.
• a 1.25

  2. Pet. 1.21.
• b 1.26

  August de consens. Euangel. lib. 1. cap. 35. Cum ille scripse∣runt quae ille ostendit & dixit nequaquam di∣cendum est quôd ipse no scripserit, quandoquidem membra eius id operata sunt quod dictante capite cognonerunt. Quicquid enira ille de suis factis & dictis nos legere volun, hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperauit.
• c 1.27

  Cyprian. lib. 2. epist. 3. Adradi∣cem atque origi∣nem traditionis Dominicae reuer∣tatur. In calice dominico offe∣rendo custodire tradiotionis domi∣nicae veritatem.
• d 1.28

  Jren. lib. 3. cap. 1.
• e 1.29

  Iohn 14.26.