A Retentive to Stay Good Christians, Title page · Motive 14
The 14. motiue is the 26 demaund.
The fathers. Pelagians aliue in Protestants. The fathers. Bristow.S. Augustines motiue. Protestants be ashamed of their fathers. Of what religion and authoritie the fathers were. L. Humfries opinion of Iewells chalenge of the fathers, and of the Sainctes in the Calender.
Bristow woulde hauehave it considered whether euer any Catholike man in matters of fayth, did obstinately refuse to Fulke.beleue the olde fathers consenting in one and agreeing together, but onelyonly such as were heretikes. I aunswer Bristow playeth the captious, and yet foolishe Sophister. For in this first demaunde, he seemeth to vnderstand all the olde fathers consenting together, but in the rest of the chapter he playnely speaketh, but of some of the olde writers: nowe there is great difference betwene all and some. For we denye nothing that all the olde fathers did consent vponupon, although we denye some thing that some of the olde fathers did allowe. For example, we denye prayers for the deade, which some of the olde writers did allowe. But if Bristow woulde breake his heade in peeces with studye, he shall neuer be able to proue, that all the olde writers did mayntayne prayer for the deade, the like I saye of prayer vntounto Sainctes, and of some prerogatiue of the Bishop of Rome ouer other Bishops, of some ceremonies &c: which being the dregges of a great quantitie of good liquor contayned in the vessells of diuerse of the olde writers, and yet of the later sorte of them, the Papistes hauehave onelyonly sucked out, letting all the good liquor to runne beside them. And like impudent dogges yolpe & barke against vsus, that the fathers are all of their side, and contrarye to vsus: with as good reason, as one that hath gotten the excrementes of a man, shoulde boast boast that he hath the same man in possession. I thinke the reader can not but laughe, when he readeth it so often noted by Bristow. Pelagians aliue in Protestantes. When of all olde heresies we are further from none, nor Papistes nearer to any, then to the heresie of the Pelagians. But why troe ye are Pelagians aliue in Protestants? Because Augustine writing against Iulian the Pelagian lib. 1. cap. 2. sayth of the fathers, Qu…d credunt credo &c. That which they beleue I beleue also. I holde that they holde, I teache that they teach, I preach that they preach, and lib. 2. quos opor…ct &c. Christian people ought to prefe…re the auncient holy truth, before your profane nouelties and chose rather to sticke to them then to you. And are Pelagians aliue in Protestants, because Augustine rec…iueth the olde writers, that were agreeable to the scriptures? Did not the Pelagians alledge the authority of the old writers also? L…b cont. Iul cap. 2. & 3, But what should I contend about that, which is so cleare in Augustine. De baptism c…nt D…nat…si. cap. 2. Quis autem nesciat …anctam scripturam canonicam tam r…t. ris quam noui testa…, …ertis s…is terminis contineri? cam que omnibus postericribus Episcop…rum literis it a praeponi, vt de ill a omnino dubitari & d. s ep…ari non p…ss…t, vtrum verum vel vtrum rectūs… qui…qu… in ea s…riptum esse constiterit: Ep s…porum autem literas que post confi…matum can…nem vel script…e sunt vel s…ri…untur, & per serm…nem forte sapientiorem cuiuslibet in care periti r…s, & per alioru…n Epis…porum grauiorem auctoritatem doct…orum que prudentiam, & per con…ilia li…ere repreh…ndi si quid in …is forte à veritate deuiatum est, & i…sa concilia &c. Who knoweth not, that the holy canonical scripture both of the old and new testament, is conteyned in their certeine bands: and that the same is so preferred before all later writings of Bishops, that of it there can be no doubt or question at all, whether that be true or right, whatsoeuer is knowen to be written therein. But as for the writings of Bishops, which since the canon is confirmed hauehave bene written, or b… nowe in writing, that by some speach perhaps more wise of any man that is more skillfull in that matter, and by the more graue authoritie of other Bishops, and wisedom of them that are better learned, and by councells they may be reprehended, if any thinge perhaps in them is gone a straye from the truth, and that eu…n those councells which are helde in eueryevery region and prouince, without all controuersie doe giuegive place to the authoritie of generall councels which are made out of all the Christian worlde, and that euen the generall councells are often tymes corrected the former by the later &c. as in the 13. motiue. By which saying you may playnly see, howe the olde fathers were S. Augustines motiue, euen none otherwise, then they are our retentiue, to staye vsus in Christian truthe, which they write agreeable to the holye Scriptures, and therefore it is an impudent slaunder of Bristowe bothe where he saythe, that in our preachinge and writinge we thinke it not necessary to alledge the t…stimonies of t…e olde fathers, and also that in familiar talke amonge our selues we are not afearde plainely to confesse, that the fathers all were Papistes.
As vayne a cauill it is, that the Protestantes are ashamed of their fathers: When we acknowledge no fathers, vntounto whose iudgement we will stande absolutely in all controuersies, but the Prophetes and the Apostles and God him selfe, by whose spirite they did write. As for Simon Magus, Eunomus, and suche olde heretikes we detest, more then the Papistes doe. But AErius, Vigilantius, and Iouinian were playnely of our opinion, and of them we are ashamed. And doe you Papistes beleeue nothinge common with AErius, Vigilantius, Iouinian? Doe you in no poynte holde that which Arius, Macedonius, Eutyches did holde? Doe you mayntayne no opinion which was taught by Mahomet him selfe? you will aunswer, that there neuer was heresie, but it h…lde and taught many articles of truthe, which if you holde as they did, you are not therefore their children, in suche articles wherin they were heretikes. Euen so we aunswere you of AErius, Vigilantius, Iouinian, we are not ashamed to beleue any truth which they helde, their errours we leaue vntounto them selues. But I know you will replye, that among the errours of AErius, the denyall of prayers to profit the deade was one accompted by Epiphanius and Augustine. Then it is your parte to shewe, what argumentes out of the holy Scripture they bring to proue this opinion to be an errour. Otherwise their auctoritie alone, is not sufficient to make it a truth. Vigigilantius is baighted only by Hierome, of other learned men in his time, he was counted a godly man, and a learned. As for Iouinian, we take not his parte, if in all respects he made mariage equall with virginitie, which in some respect the Apostle preferreth. But we must see of what religion and auctoritie, the fathers were. First sayth Bristow you may perceaue by Iewells challenge, that for Purgatorie, prayer for the dead and to Saincts, merite of good workes &c. there is somthing conteined in the olde fathers which liued within 600. yeares after Christ, because he durst not make his challenge of these articles, but of the Masse, the Pope, the eucharistie &c. But I pray you Bristow, are not these greater matters among you, then the other?
If therefore you be not able to proue your greatest mysteries of antiquitie, out of any one father for so many ages, what great matter is it, if you hauehave them fauourable in a fewe articles of lesse moment? But Bristow with wayght of reason will beare vsus downe, that all the fathers are on their side wholly, and against vsus in all poynctes of our controuersie. And this is his reason: who are driuen to mayteyne the fathers credit and auctoritie, Papistes or Protestantes? Not Protestantes verily, but Papistes, ergo the fathers be all for Papistes and against Protestantes. A mightie reason of mayne force. Dioscorus and Eutyches in the councell of Chalcedon boasted of the auctoritie of the holie fathers, and stoode much in defense of their creditte therefore the fathers were whollie on their side.
But let vsus heare L. Humfreys opinion out of his booke of B. Iewells life, of Iewells challenge, of the fathers and of the Saincts in the calender. Nay rather let vsus heare Bristow yelping like a little curre agaynst so great a lyon. First he snatcheth peeces of his sentences gnawne from the rest, and then squeleth out as though he had hearde some maruelous straunge soundes. D. Humfrey sayth, Iewell gaue the Papistes too large a scope, when not content to hauehave beaten them downe with the auctoritie of the holy Scriptures, he made his challenge vponupon the testimonie of the fathers, and that so many hundreth yeares after Christ. And herein he was iniurious to him selfe, that refusing that meane by which he might more easely & more straightly hauehave maynteyned his cause, after a maner he spoyled him selfe and the church. This is his opinion of Maister Iewells challenge. Howe followeth his opinion of the fathers and of the Sainctes in the calender. This thing (sayth D. Humfrey) he did not with his wil, but yet he did it not without a cause, that he might strike you through with the testimonie of your fathers, as it were with your owne sworde. For it had beene manlie for a Christian man to say. Thus sayth the Lorde. It had bene sufficient to hauehave layed agaynst you. Your doctrine is contrarie to the Scripture. For it is the question of men possessed with deuills to say: What hauehave we to doe with thee Iesus thou sonne of Dauid? But it is an interrogation of the Saynctes. What hauehave we to doe with our fathers with fleshe and bloode? You heare by these wordes, what a daungerous opinion he holdeth of the fathers and of the Saynctes in the calender, namelie that the fathers are no farther to be followed, then they followed the holie Scriptures, and that the Sainctes either liuing or deade, whether they be in the calender or no, deny their fathers as fleshe and bloode if they be in any respect an hinderance for them to obey the will of their father in heauen.
These are the perillous opiniōs, that Bristow brableth against falsifying his words by ommission & dep…auing his meaning by false surmising.
But Bristow hath yet an other reason to proue the fathers to be in all poinctes of their side. If in all poinctes (sayth he) they be not with the Protestants, then vndoubtedly in all poynctes they be with vsus. And what is the reason of this monstruous conclusion? There was neuer but one true religion. As though none can be of true religion but such as erreth in nothing. But who would spend incke and paper to confute such vaine reasonings.