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 how M. Bishop hath slubbered ouer this mat∣ter, being of so great moment and importance for the authoritie and credit of their traditions. They tell vs that traditions vnwrit∣ten, are a part of the word of God. The councell of Trent pro∣fessetha 1.1 to receiue them with the like affection of pietie and reuerence, as they do the holy Scripture. Now we desire to know by what testi∣monie or warrant we may be secured particularly what these tra∣ditions are; for if they be alike to be esteemed with those things that are contained in the Scriptures, there is reason that they be ap∣proued vnto vs by testimoniall & witnesse equiualent to the Scrip∣tures. If then the writings of the auncient fathers be made the witnesses of these traditions, we must beleeue the writings of the auncient fathers, as well as we beleeue the Scriptures. M. Bishop telleth vs that traditions are as well kept in the mindes of the learned, as in the auncient fathers writings, and therefore haue more credit then the fathers writings. So then belike the mindes of the learned, toge∣ther with the writings of the auncient fathers, are of equall credit and authoritie with the Scriptures, and if Maister Perkins had put in both these, then Maister Bishop had not had a word to say. But

we must yet aske further, whence or vpon what ground do the mindes of the learned accept of these traditions. If he will say, that they receiue them of the fathers, then the argument still standeth good. If he say that they receiue them of other learned that were before them, then it must be said that they also receiued them from other learned that were before them, and so vpward till we come to the fathers, and so in fine it must fall out, that the fathers must be alike beleeued as the holy Scriptures. If M. Bishop be ashamed to say so, let him tell vs otherwise what it is that we shall certainly rest vpō. But alas good man, we see he cannot tell what to say; only Bel∣larmine telleth vs, thatb 1.2 the assured certainty of all councels and of all do∣ctrines of faith, dependeth vpō the authority of the present Church. Now then the testimony of the present Church, is made of equall & like authority with the holy Scriptures, and Bellarmine is in as pitifull a case as M. Bishop is. For the testimonie of the present Church, what is it but the testimony of the learned of the present Church, & ther∣fore now the mindes of the learned are as good an oracle of truth as the Scriptures are. If this be not so, let vs heare from M. Bishop what else is to be said hereof; for if traditions be to be receiued with like deuotion & reuerence, as those things that we are taught in Scrip∣ture, then there must be somewhat or other to commend the same vnto vs with the like authority as the Scripture doth the rest, and what that is we are desirous to vnderstand. Now M. Bishop addeth two further exceptions against M. Perkins argument, and they are such wise ones, as that we may very well think them to be his own. Secondly, saith he, they are commonly recorded of more then one of the fathers, and so haue firmer testimonie then any one of their writings. But what is this to M. Perkins his speech, which is not restrained to any one of the fathers writings, but taketh them iointly, and inferreth it as an absurdity, that the writings of the fathers being taken all to∣gether, should be made equall in credit to the holy Scriptures. Thirdly, saith he, a tradition being related but by one auncient father, yet should be of more credit then any other of his owne inuention, because that was registred by him as a matter of more estimation. But what idle babling is this? what maketh this to the clearing of the point in question? He will haue vs to receiue traditions with the like pietie and reuerence, as we doe those things that we are instru∣cted by the Scripture. He putteth a case of a tradition, reported

by one onely of the fathers. He should hereupon haue answered how we can in that sort admit of such a tradition as Apostolicall, but by yeelding the like credit to that one father as we do to the holy Scriptures. But he like a man in a wood, that knoweth not which way he is to go, telleth vs that this tradition is of more credit then any other of his owne inuention, because it was registred by him as a matter of more estimation. O the sharpe wits of these Romish Doctours, that can diue so deepe into matters, and talke so pro∣foundly, that they themselues vnderstand not what they say. To as little purpose is that which he addeth, that if that tradition were not as it was termed, some of the rest of the fathers would haue repro∣ued it, which when they did not, they gaue it their interpretative con∣sent to be Apostolicall tradition. But let the consent be either in∣terpretatiue or expresse; what is this against the consequence of the argument which he taketh vpon him to answer, that if we must receiue traditions in that sort as they require vs, and haue no where to ground them but vpon the testimonie of the fathers, then we must giue as much credit to the testimonie of the fathers, as we do to the holy Scriptures. I am forced thus odiously to inculcate the matter in question, to make the ridiculous folly of this wrangler the more plainely to appeare, who hauing nothing to say, yet hath not so much wit as to hold his peace. In this simplicity he goeth forward to answere the place of the Acts, where Saint Paule is brought in saying,c 1.3 I continue to this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things then those which the Prophets and Mo∣ses did say should come. In which words it is plaine, that the Apo∣stle professed in the preaching of the Gospell,* 1.4 to say nothing with∣out the compasse of those things which had beene before spoken by Moses and the Prophets. M Bishop answereth, that he meaneth onely of those things which he addeth, That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, &c. For these things, saith he, euidently foretold in holy writ, he needed not to alledge any other proofe. Yea but what other proofe doth he vse for any other doctrine? Forsooth when he was to perswade them to aban∣don Moses law, he then deliuered to them the decrees of the Apostles, & taught them to keepe them. Yea, but Paul preached a long while be∣fore those decrees of the Apostles were made, as appeareth frō his conuersion in the ninth Chapter, to the fifteenth Chapter, where

those decrees are made; and all this while what other proofe did he vse, but onely the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets? Do we not thinke that this man hath wonderfully hardened both his heart to God, and his face to men, that can apply himselfe to write in this sort? He well knoweth that the question is not here of new decrees, but of old traditions, what proofe the Apostle had, or what ground of doctrine from the old testament, but onely the Scriptures of the law and the Prophets? The Apostle himselfe saith, he had no other, he taught nothing, but according to the written bookes of the old testament, according to that which else∣where he saith, thatd 1.5 the Gospell was published amongst all nations, by the Scriptures of the Prophets. For a summarie briefe thereof, he na∣meth the suffering and resurrection of Christ, &c. but he that saith that herewith he preached any thing but what was warranted by Moses and the Prophets, maketh him to dally and to speake a ma∣nifest vntruth, in that he saith that he spake nothing without the compasse of those things which Moses and the Prophets prophe∣cied before. Now the wise man for instance against this telleth vs, that he deliuered the decrees of the Apostles, and taught them to keepe them. Which beside that it is nothing to the purpose, as hath bene said, doth also set forth his notable sillinesse and folly, in that for proofe of traditions and doctrines vnwritten, he bringeth the example of the Apostles decrees, which are expresly mentioned to haue bene sent to the Churches in writing,e 1.6 They wrote letters by them after this manner, &c. But in the height of his wisedome, he goeth forward to proue the same by another speech, When he in∣structed the Corinthians in the Sacrament of the Altar, he beginneth with tradition, saying, I deliuer vnto you as I haue receiued from our Lord, not in writing but by word of mouth. Surely the mans head was wonderfull quaifie in the writing hereof, or else we must thinke that he was in some traunce. I deliuer vnto you not in writing but by word of mouth, when notwithstanding in his Epistle, he sendeth it to them in writing. Or what, doth he meane that the Apostle receiued it of our Lord, not in writing, but by word of mouth? But what is that to the purpose, when he deliuered the same here by writing, and not by word of mouth? He had heard there was some text or o∣ther there for his purpose, but neither did he well know it, nor had leisure to seeke it out. The words of the Apostle are these, I haue

receiued of the Lord that which I haue also deliuered vnto you. Now we conceiue M. Bishops meaning, though his vnderstanding being very muddie, failed him so exceedingly in the expressing of it. The Apostle forsooth giueth to vnderstand, that he first deliuered vnto them the institution of the Lords supper not in writing, but by word of mouth. And what of that? Doth it therefore follow, that by tradition of the old testament the Apostle proued any doctrine of the new? If this do not follow, his allegation is bruite and boot∣lesse, and he shooteth wholy beside the marke. The Apostle pro∣fesseth to haue deliuered what he receiued of the Lord; but what he receiued of the Lord, was according to the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets. For the outward signes of the Sacrament were prefigured in Melchisedeck, bringing forthf 1.7 bread and wine for the corporall refection of Abrahams armie, as the heauenly Melchise∣deck should bring forth bread and wine for the spirituall refection and comfort of the sonnes of Abraham. As for the doctrine and faith imported by these signes, it is no other but what M. Bishop himself confesseth to haue bene euidently foretold in holy writ, name∣ly that Christ should die for our sinnes, and should rise againe from the dead, to become a light and saluation vnto vs, the Apostle him∣selfe instructing vs the end thereof to be,g 1.8 to shew the Lords death till he come. Here was then no neede to flie to vnwritten tradition, but of this institution the Apostles words stand good, that he said nothing but what the Prophets and Moses did say should come. And thus the fathers, and namelyh 1.9 Tertullian, to shew against the Mar∣cionites, that there is but one God of the old and new testament, and not two Gods aduerse one to the other, as those heretikes bla∣sphemously affirmed, do set downe the accord of the Scriptures of the new testament with the old, and the fulfilling of the one in the other, but of traditions in the new testament according with tra∣ditions in the old, they neuer spake a word, which yet in that cause had bene very needfull, if there had bene any such. But M. Bishop being like the Lynx turning about and forgetting what he was feeding vpon, will tell vs perhaps, that whatsoeuer he had in hand, his meaning in the alledging of this place, was simply to proue the Apostles approuing of traditions. And if he tell vs so, surely we will not denie, but that it is indeede full simply done. The Apostle saith that he first deliuered the institution of the Sacrament by word of

mouth. What, must we therefore thinke that it was not afterwards cōmitted to writing? The contrary appeareth, in that we see it here written by himselfe. What is there here then to hinder, but that as the Sacrament first deliuered by word, was afterwards committed to writing, so all other points of Christian doctrine & faith, though deliuered at first by word and preaching, yet were afterwards set downe in writing, and deliuered vnto vs in the Scriptures? And if nothing hinder, as indeede there doth not, then let him vnderstand that this place is very simply and impertinently brought for tradi∣tions vnwritten. To fill vp the measure of his folly, he telleth vs yet further, that the Apostle in the same Chapter putteth downe the con∣tentious Scripturist, with the custome of the Church, saying, If any man lust to striue, we haue no such custome. Where a man might oppose him very hard, if he should aske him why those words of the Apo∣stle do not belong to the Traditionist, as well as to the Scripturist. We know his dreames are very strong, but otherwise why he should apply these words to the Scripturist, he himselfe cannot well tell. Againe, it would be knowne of him what custome the Apostle affirmeth here. We heare him saying, We haue no such cu∣stome, but we do not heare him saying, We haue a custome. And therefore M. Bishops alledging of these words in behalfe of customes of the Church, may well make vs thinke, that in the doing of it he had the very same head on that he is accustomed to haue, to say nothing that he was much distressed for traditions and customes, when he tooke not to be contentious, to be an vnwritten tradition and custome of the Church. So that his conclusion is like a body without either head or feete, wanting strength to carie him so farre as he is desirous to go, and because the Apostles doctrine was nei∣ther according to vnwritten traditions nor customes, but accor∣ding to the Scriptures onely, we learne that neither tradition nor custome, but Scripture onely must beare sway for directing and prescribing true faith and doctrine in the Church.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Cōcil. Trident. ses. 4 cap. 1. Pari pietatis affectu ac reuerentia suscipit, &c.
• b 1.2

  Bellarm. de sacram. lib. 2 ca. 25. Omnium cō∣ciliorū veterum & omnium dog∣matum firmitas ab authoritate praesentis ecclesiae dependet.
• c 1.3

  Acts. 26.22.
• * 1.4

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c.
• d 1.5

  Rom. 16.26
• e 1.6

  Acts. 15.23.
• f 1.7

  Genes. 14.18.
• g 1.8

  1. Cor. 11.26.
• h 1.9

  Tertull. adu. Marcion. per tot.