28. And now, as if all this were too little, they commit the Holy Scriptures to the fire, as the wicked king Jehoiakim, and Antiochus and Maximinius, two heathen persecutors, did; calling them the books of heretics. And they seem altogether disposed to imitate Herod the great, in what he did for the establishing his power; for he, being an Idumæan, of another race and blood than the Jews were, and desiring to be thought a Jew, that so he might the better settle that his kingdom over them, which he had obtained from Augustus Cæsar, he commanded all their genealogies from Abraham's time, which they kept in their public register, and which were carefully preserved, by which, without any error, it was easy to find of what tribe any person was descended, to be burnt and abolished; that there might be nothing to be found for the future, by which it might be proved he was of another nation. So these men, pretending that all their innovations were consigned to them by Christ and his apostles, and desiring they should be accordingly esteemed, lest there should be any thing any where extant, which might contradict these dreams and shams, either burn or suppress the Scriptures, and keep them from the people. St. Chrysostom has written very well and appositely against such men as these: "Heretics," saith he, "shut the gates of truth; for they know, if they be kept open, the church will never be thought theirs." And Theophylact styles the word of God a candle, by the light of which, a thief may be discovered. And Tertullian saith that the Scriptures convict the frauds and thefts of heretics. For why else do they hide and suppress the gospel, which Christ commanded his disciples to publish from the house-top? Why else do they endeavour to put that candle under a bushel which ought to be set in the other side, and say that the very same words be not his, but Hosius' own words? For tell me, where hath Zwenkfeldius ever written them? Or if he have written them, and Hosius have judged the same to be wicked, why hath not Hosius spoken so much as one word to confute them? Howsoever the matter go, although Hosius will not allow of those words, yet he doth not disallow the meaning of the words. For nearly in all controversies, and especially touching the use of the holy communion under both kinds, although the words of Christ be plain and evident, yet doth Hosius disdainfully reject them, as no better than cold and dead elements, and commandeth us to give faith to certain new lessons appointed by his church, and to I wot not what revelations of the Holy Ghost. And Pighius saith, Men ought not to believe, no not the most clear and manifest words of the Scriptures, unless the same be allowed for good by the interpretation and authority of the church, whereby he meaneth the church of Rome.

a candlestick? Why do they trust more to the ignorance, blindness, and folly of the multitude, than to the goodness of their cause? Do they think their arts are not disclosed? or that, as if they had Gyges' ring, they can go undiscovered? The world sees now, with both eyes, what is so carefully locked up in the cabinet of the pope's breast; this one argument is sufficient to prove they do not act well and sincerely. That cause deserves to be suspected, which declines a scrutiny, and hates the light; for, as Christ saith, he that doeth evil, seeks darkness, and hates the light, John iii. 20. but a mind conscious of what is good, willingly comes forth, that the works which come from God may be seen. But these men are not so blind, but that they see what will become of their kingdom, if the Scriptures come once to be generally known: and, as it is said of old, all the idols of the demons, which before gave oracles, suddenly became dumb upon the appearance of Christ upon earth; so, now, will all their arts, at the approach of the gospel, sink down into ruins and rubbish; for antichrist is not to be deposed by any other thing than the brightness of the coming of Christ, 2 Thess. ii. 8.

29. We do not, like them, presently betake ourselves to fire and sword, but to the Scriptures; nor do we assault them with force and arms, but with the word of God. By them, as Tertullian saith, we nourish our faith; by them we erect our hope; by them we establish our confidence; for we know that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation, and that in it there is eternal life; and, as St. Paul admonishes us, we would refuse to hear an angel of God that came from heaven, if he endeavoured to turn us away from any part of this doctrine. Yea, as that most holy man, Justin Martyr, said of himself, we would not believe God himself, if he should teach us another gospel; for whereas they make the Holy Scriptures, like silent masses, dumb and useless, and appeal rather to God himself speaking in the church and in councils; that is, to their own senses and opinions; that is a very uncertain and dangerous way of finding out truth, and in a sort fanatical, and which was never approved by the holy fathers. Chrysostom saith, indeed, that many boast of the Holy Spirit; but if then they speak what is their own, they glory falsely of what they have not: "For," saith he, "as Christ denied that he spake from himself when he spake out of the law and the prophets; so, now, if any thing besides the gospel is obtruded upon us under the name of the Holy Ghost, it

is not to be believed; for, as Christ is the completion of the law and the prophets, so the Spirit is the completion of the gospel."*

THE FIFTH PART.

1. BUT though they have not the Scriptures on their side, perhaps they will pretend that they have the ancient doctors and the holy fathers; for they have ever boasted that all antiquity, and the perpetual consent of all times, is for them; and that all our pretences are novel, and were never heard of till within the course of a very few years last past.

2. Now, certainly, there can nothing of more weight be said against religion, than that it is new. We know not how this has come to pass; but, from the beginning of the world, thus it hath ever been; for, whensoever God hath discovered and restored to mankind the light of his TRUTH, though it is not only of the utmost antiquity, but older than time itself, and eternal, yet it ever seems to wicked men, who hate it, to be new, and of no antiquity. That impious and bloody man Haman, that he might bring the Jews into disfavour, thus accused them to Ahasuerus: Thou, O king, hast here in thy dominions a certain people, scattered abroad, which observe new laws; but are stubborn and rebellious against thy laws. St. Paul, also, when he began first to preach the gospel to the Athenians, was said to be a setter forth of strange gods; that is, of a new religion; and, accordingly, thus they bespeak him: May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? Acts xvii. 18. And Celsus, when he wrote expressly against Christ and his gospel, that he might expose it to the scorn of men, under the pretence of its novelty, writes thus: What! has God, after so many ages, now at last bethought himself? Eusebius, also, is our author, that from the beginning, the Christian religion was, in derision, styled "the new and strange religion;" and so our adversaries condemn all our doctrines as new and strange; but then they desire that all their

* In the Defence of the Apology the malpractices and abominations of the pope and the church of Rome described in the foregoing chapter, are treated very fully.

own, without exception, should be reputed most ancient. Just as the magicians and conjurers, whose business is with the infernal spirits, that their abominable art may be thought the more sublime and divine, as being derived from great patrons and inventors, and of a very ancient original, do commonly say, that they have their books, and all their rites and secret mysteries, from Athanasius, Cyprian, Moses, Abel, and Adam, and from the archangel Raphael. So our enemies, that their religion too, which they have not long since patched up for themselves, may with the more ease be recommended to ignorant men, and those that rarely consider what they themselves or others do, pretend that it came down to them, just such as now it is, from St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, and St. Ambrose, from the apostles and Christ; for they very well know, that there is nothing more popular, and of greater esteem with men, than those venerable names. * But now, what if those things which they pretend are so new, do indeed prove to be most ancient? And what, if, on the other side, almost all those things which they extol so very much upon the pretence of antiquity, when they are well and diligently examined, are in the end found to be new and of a very late origin?

3. In truth, the laws and ceremonies of the Jews, although accused by Haman as new, could never be thought so by any man, who did well and rightly consider, for they were written on most ancient tables; And Christ, though many thought he departed from Abraham and the ancient fathers, and brought in a new religion in his own name, yet answered truly, John v. 46. If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me also; for my doctrine is not so new, for Moses, a very ancient author, and of great esteem with you, hath spoken of me. And St. Paul saith of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which many thought to be new, that it has the most ancient testimony of the law and the prophets. And our doctrine, which we may much better call the catholic doctrine of Christ, is not so new, but that it is commended to us by the Ancient of Days, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, in most ancient monuments, the prophets and gospels, and the writings of the apostles; and these cannot now seem new to any man, but to him to whom the faith of the prophets, the gospel, and Christ himself,

* Some of the papists have asserted that Christ and his apostles founded the monastic life. Others make Elijah the founder of the Benedictines. With equal truth the cardinal's hat is ascribed to Jerome, the monk's cowl to Augustine, and holy water to Eliezer!

seems new. But, then, as to their religion, if it be so ancient as they pretend, why do they not prove it so from the examples of the primitive church, from the old fathers and the ancient councils? Why does so ancient a cause lie desolate, and without a patron, so very long? Indeed, they never want fire and swords; but then as to the ancient fathers and councils, there is with them a deep silence. But it is the height of absurdity and folly to begin with those bloody and brutish reasons, if they could possibly have found out easier and milder arguments.

4. And, again, if they do indeed entirely trust to antiquities, and do not dissemble any thing, why did one John Clement, an Englishman, rend and burn some leaves of Theodoret, a most ancient father, and a Greek bishop, in the presence of several persons of good worth and credit, believing that another copy of that book was no where to be found, because this father had perspicuously and clearly taught, that the nature of the bread was not abolished in the eucharist? Why does Albertus Pighius deny that the ancient father St. Augustine had a true notion of original sin? or of matrimony, in that he saith, that a marriage made after a vow entered, is a good marriage, and cannot be dissolved? Upon which occasion Pighius saith, Augustine erred, and made use of false logic. And why did they, in a late impression of Origen upon the gospel of St. John, omit the whole sixth chapter, in which it is probable, or rather certain, that father has delivered many things contrary to their opinions concerning the eucharist; choosing rather to deface and mutilate this ancient father, than to suffer any thing to appear in the world which might contradict their doctrine, by printing the book perfect? Is their rending, suppressing, maiming, and burning the writings of the ancient fathers, an argument of their reliance on antiquity?†

"This report was made in the presence and hearing of M. Peter Martyr, and other learned men, of whom certain are yet alive. The reporter was a learned man and a grave father, and not long ago a bishop in England, he said he was present, and saw the thing done." Defence of the Apology.

+ Many interpolations and omissions were made by the Romanists in the writings of the fathers, as is admitted by their own authors. See appendix to the book of Bertram, ed. 1686.-When the Apology was written, the design of a general Index Expurgatorius upon all the printed fathers was not known, which is an undeniable argument under their own hands, that the ancient fathers are not in their interest; the first of these indexes was found at the sack of Cales (Cadiz) in Spain, Anno Domini, 1596, many years after this apology was published. Note, ed. 1686.