A TREATISE OF THE UNWRITTEN WORD OF GOD, commonly called TRADITIONS. Written in Latin by the R. Father james Gordon Huntley of Scotland, Doctor of Divinity, of the Society of jesus. And translated into English by I. L. of the same Society. The second Part of the first Controversy. Permissu Superiorum, M. DC. XIV. THE FIRST CHAPTER. Of the true state of the Question. HAVING already in the precedent Treatise spoken of the written Word of God, and of all other things thereunto belonging, now it remaineth we speak a little of the unwritten word commonly called Traditions. But to the end that the state of this controversy may more easily be understood, I will here set down four things diligently to be considered in this matter we treat of. The first is, that by the unwritten Word we only understand that which is not written in the old or new Testament, for of the unwritten word of God in this sense is our whole Controversy in this place. Wherefore that objection of our Adversaries is both frivolous and nothing worth, to wit, that the word of God which we call the unwritten word, may be found extant either among the holy Fathers, or in the books of the councils, or other Canons of the Church. But this nothing belongeth unto this purpose: for it is sufficient for us that this word of God is not written in any book, either of the old or new Testament. 2. The second is that a thing may be contained in the holy Scripture 2. ways. The one way is implicit, that is to say, in some general principle from whence this other may be certainly deduced, and in this sense we acknowledge that the whole word of God is contained in holy writ, and not only in Scripture, but also in the Apostles Creed, yea even in that one article, I believe the Catholic Church, so that it be diligently examined and well understood, as S. Augustine S. Aug. in the 140. quest. upon Exodus. Tom: 4. Matt. 22. v. 40. very well noteth. For so, saith Christ▪ the whole Law and Prophets do depend upon two precepts of charity, as in the same place S. Augustine noteth. For seeing that the holy Scripture teacheth that we are bound to believe the Church in all things, & that it can neither deceive us nor be deceived, as we will evidently prove in the next Controversy in the 〈◊〉. Chapter, it consequently also teacheth the whole and entire word of God, seeing that all that which is not expressed in the holy Scripture, is contained expressly in the doctrine of the Church, the which the Scripture commendeth unto us as infallible, as S. Augustine very well saith, and declareth S. August: Tom. 7. contra Crescon. Grammat. c. 33. & de vnie. Eccles. c. 22. in fine. Matt. 17. v. 5. Matt. 18. v. 17. Luc. 10. v. 16. in many places. For even as God the Father comprehended in these few words (This is my well-beloved Son, hear him) the whole word of God, so Christ proposed unto us the whole word of God, when he commanded us to hear the Church. 3. And in this sense do the holy Fathers oftentimes say, that all the points of faith are contained in the holy Scriptures, to wit, in that general principle in the which they admonish us to believe the Church: but many of the holy Father's sayings are falsified & corrupted by Martinus Kennitius. and some Caluinists, as may be seen in judocus Ruesten in his first tome defending the Council of Trent against Kemnitius. 4. Secondly a thing may be contained in express words in the holy Scriptures, as that Christ is borne, suffered, and risen again etc. And in this sense we deny that the whole word of God is contained in the Scriptures. That objection of our Adversaries by this may easily be answered, when they say that we affirm, that Traditions are the unwritten word of God, and yet we go about to prove them by Scriptures. For we do not prove every particular Tradition by express words of Scripture, but we only deduce and gather them out of it, and convince in general, that there are Traditions. 5. The third thing which is to be considered, is, that our Adversaries being convinced by truth, do acknowledge that many things were delivered unto us by the Apostles, besides those which are written. But, say they, those were only external rites and ceremonies, serving only for the ornament or discipline of the Church, but nothing concerning doctrine of faith was delivered by the Apostles, which they have not set down in writing. So Calvin and Calvin cont. 4. sess. Con. Trident. in suo ●…ntid. Be●…a de notis Eccles. tom. 3. Tract. Theol. p. 137. edit. An. 158●…. some others which follow his opinion. Wherefore it remaineth for us to prove that not only external ceremonies, but also those which belong unto the doctrine of faith were delivered unto us by the Apostles, and that they were never expressly set down in writing. 6. The fourth thing is, that seeing our Adversaries cannot deny that which was objected unto them by Catholics, to wit, that the Scripture in many places maketh express mention of the word of God preached, delivered, and divulged over the whole world (as we have already declared even out of the holy Scriptures) they are wont to answer, that long since in the Apostles time this word of God was delivered, preached, and not written, but the Apostles afterwards set down in writing all the preached word of God, or at the least as much thereof as was necessary unto salvation. The which solution albeit it be very weak and frivolous, seeing that it relieth upon no sure ground, yet notwithstanding that it may more fully be confuted we will declare hereafter, that many of the chiefest points of faith were not expressly set down in writing by the Apostles. And thus much of the state of this Question. CHAP. II. Out of the first and chiefest principles of faith, it is clearly convinced, that there are Traditions. THE first argument whereby we prove Traditions, is taken out of some of the chiefest principles of faith. For there are three chief and most necessary points of faith, yea the thief grounds of our whole faith which are not to he found expressly in Scriptures. 2. The first, that there must needs be some Catalogue or Canon of the sacred Books aswell of the old as of the new Testament, the which all Christians with an assured faith should embrace as a most certain and an undoubted truth, and this is a very necessary point of faith, yea of it dependeth the authority of all the books of holy Scripture, because by this Canon the sacred and true books of Scriptures are discerned and made known from all those which be Apochriphall; especially because aswell in times passed as in these our days there hath been so many, and so great controversies about the Canonical and Apochriphall books of Scripture; and such a Canon was altogether necessary aswell in the ancient Church before Christ, as in our present Church after Christ's time; the which also our Adversaries themselves have learned by experience. For they have also placed their new Canon of the books of holy Scripture in their Confession made at Confess. Rupellana. Act. 3. Rochel, and in the later end of some of their Bibles, and yet neither in the time of the old Testament, nor in the time of the new Law, was this Canon ever written down in the Bibles themselves. 2. I know our Adversaries, that they may escape this argument, do run to the inward instinct of the holy Ghost, whereby say they, we know what book is Canonical, and what is not. But this answer is refuted & rejected before, where we have showed that the holy Ghost doth not move us to believe any thing with the Catholic faith, which is not the word of God. If Supra c. 5. therefore the holy Ghost move us to believe that some books are Canonical, and some are not, it is necessary that this be the word of God. We ask therefore of them, whether this is the written word of God or the unwritten, if it be the written word, in what Book or Chapter is it to be found? if it be nowhere to be found, our Adversaries must needs confess, that by the instinct of the holy Ghost they also believe the unwritten word of God, or Traditions. 3. The second principle of faith is, that we must necessarily, with an assured and firm faith believe, that all those Books either of the old or of the new Testament which we now retain, are safely delivered unto us entire and uncorrupted through so many hands, so many ages, so many vexations and persecutions of the Christians, for otherwise the whole credit and authority of those books will decay and perish. But this is no where extant or written, for neither the Prophets or Apostles have ever written, that their books should never be falsified or corrupted by any, yea it appeareth sufficiently Supra c. 9 10. 12. & 13 by that which hath been already said that they were falsified and corrupted in many books by the jews and Heretics. Let our Adversaries therefore tell us where it is written, that this holy Scripture which we have now, is not corrupted or falsified. 4. The third principle of faith is the true sense of the letter. For the true word of God consisteth rather in the true sense or meaning of the words then in the words themselves as we have declared before. Suprae. 3. But the true sense of the words, that is to say, in what sense or meaning the words are to be understood, either properly or figuratively, cannot be had from the holy Scripture alone, but also from the doctrine and Traditions of the Church, as we have said before in the fourth Chapter: whereby it also followeth, that the written word of God containeth in it the least part of the word of God, to wit, the bare letter only: but the word of God preached and delivered keepeth and professeth unto us the chief part of the word of God, that is to say, the true & native sense of the same. 5. And this is that which S. Basil S. Basil. l. de Spiritum sanct. c. 27. Brent. contra Petrun à Soto in suis prol●…gomenis. Kemnitius contra 4. sess. Concil. Trid. cum agit de 2. genere Tradi●…. saith, that those who reject the unwritten points of faith, as undiscreet persons, do wrong and damnify the chief parts of the Gospel, yea they even as it were contract or bring the whole preaching of the Gospel, to the bare name thereof. 6. Many of our Adversaries who deal more sincerely with us, convinced by these arguments, do acknowledge, that these grounds or principles of our faith are only to be had by Traditions, without any written word of God, as joannes Brentius, and Martin Kemnitius, who add also, that those Traditions which do not repugn to the written word of God are to be admitted and received of all, and those only are to be rejected which are opposite unto the holy Scriptures. 7. But whatsoever our Adversaries do answer, it is altogether necessary that they confess these three principles of our faith do belong indeed to the very word of God itself. They must also needs confess these are not extant in plain and express terms in any book either of the old or new Testament; out of which necessarily followeth that the whole & entire word of God is not contained expressly in the holy Scripture. CHAP. III. Wherein it is proved out of other particular points of faith, that there are Traditions. THE second argument whereby we prove Apostolical Traditions, is taken out of other particular points of faith, the which almost all our Adversaries believe with us, albeit they be nowhere expressly contained in the Scriptures. There are many points of faith of this sort, whereof for example sake we will allege some few. But to the end, we may use our accustomed brevity, we will rehearse only those which do also manifestly show out of this opinion of our Adversaries (that nothing appertaineth to the doctrine of faith, which is not expressly contained in holy Scripture) there are many grievous errors and heresies in this our age arisen. 2. The first point is, that in God there are three persons really distinct among themselves, and one only substance, for this is no where extant in holy Scripture, yea in it nothing is to be found expressly written either of the substance or of the person in that signification wherein these words are used, when we speak of the Blessed Trinity. 3. This indeed the Caluinists to their great loss and damage have sufficiently learned by experience forty years ago in Transiluania. For when one john Huniades whom they called john the second King of Hungary was then Governor in Transiluania, a Coutry or Province of Hungary, had ordained a public dispuration betwixt the Cal●…inists and the Antitrinitarians, that is to say those who oppugned the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and that according to the common doctrine on both syds, they should dispute only out of the holy Scriptures, the Caluinists could never prove out of the Scriptures alone, that there is either a substance or person in God, neither could they by the Scriptures only declare what is a person, or what is a substance. 4. Wherefore at the last this was the end of the disputation, that almost all those which were present judged, that the Antitrinitarians got the victory, and that the Caluinists were shamefully overcome: whereupon it came to pass that the said Prince of Transiluania, of a Caluinist became an Antitrinitarian, yea one of their chief friends; in so much that he took some public Churches from the Caluinists, and gave them to the Antitrinitarians, and he continued miserably in that wicked heresy even till death, which happened in the year 1571. the 14. of March. 5. All which things are abundantly declared by one joannes Sommerus Pirnensis in the funeral Oration which he made at his death, wherein among other things he affirmeth, that the chief cause why this Prince left the Caluinists, and became an Antitrinitarian, was this, because for sooth in the Scriptures he could find nothing of the Blessed Trinity, and for that the Caluinists were forced to confess, that the words whereby the mystery of the Blessed Trinity is explicated are not extant in the holy Scripture: but because this funeral. Oration is scarce any where to be found & lest some should think that I falsely coined these things myself, I will hear set down his own words. For after he had most blasphemously spoken, as the Antitrinitarians are wont to do, against the Blessed Trinity, the which he calleth here and there the Roman Idolatry, these things he addeth of his Prince. 6. But this our Prince (saith he) This funeral Orat▪ of john summer was printed at Claudiopoli an. Domini 1571. being instructed by God, easily understood what was the truth, and with earnest desire embraced it, and with no less pleasure of mind defended it: for being accustomed even from his childhood to read the holy Scriptures, he made them very familiar unto him, & presently he found that such things which were contrary to the phrase of Christ and his Apostles, were in the ensuing ages by a wicked curiosity brought into the Church; and that they are not at all to be numbered amongst those things which add any firmity or strength to the Author of our salvation, especially seeing that the Adversaries themselves acknowledge, that the words whereby these subtleties of this new opinion are explicated if not rather (as I may well say) more obscured, are not to be found in the writings of the Apostles. 7. And a little after. Wherefore little regarding either the multitude of wranglers, or the torments and paints which others He meaneth servetus who was burnt at Geneva. an. 1553. as Beza writ●…th in vi●…a calvini. had endured, who first endeavoured to break this ice, he manifestly condemned the falsity of the Trinity, freely professing his own opinion therein. And after a few words. For what hath he not done? what assemblies and disputations hath he not ordained and caused to be had about this matter, both in Hangary, and in Transiluania, that the sense or meaning of the Scripture might the better be explicated by conferring those things together which were then said or spoken of, where he would not only be present himself, but also taking the place or office of the judge and umpire in the said disputations, he very wisely and gravely confuted the great absurdities of that superstition, warning often the Adversaries, that rejecting the fancies or fond expositions of men, they should less impudenily and more sincerely carry themselves in the explication of the heavenly doctrine. Thus far Sommerus of the great care & diligence of the Prince of Transiluania in defending the heresy of the Antitrinitarians. 8. Moreover it is also manifest that out of this opinion of our Adversaries, to wit, that we must not believe any thing servetus l. 1. de erroribus Trinitatis fol. 32. pag. 1. Edit. an. 1531. which is not expressed in Scriptures, this wicked heresy of the Antitrinitarians in these our days had her beginning. For that Michael servetus who in our age was the first of them that by printed books presumed to oppugn the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, doth plainly testify, writing in this manner: For the solution, saith he, of all things which may here be alleged L. Item apud. §. Ai●… Praetor. f●…. de iniurijs. by the Philosophers (for thus he calleth the Catholics) thou must observe this rule, which is an axiom among lawyers, that those things which do not deserve any special note or mark, are understood and esteemed as things neglected, unless they be specially noted. But I pray thee judge, whether this article of the Trinity deserve any special note or no, seeing that it is the chiefest and first ground of all our faith, whereof the whole knowledge of God and Christ dependeth. And whether it be expressly noted or no, may be seen by reading over the Scriptures, seeing that there is not one word to be found of the Trinity in the whole Bible, nor of the persons thereof, nor of the essence or unity of the supposition, nor of the unity of nature in many distinct things, and such like. Thus far servetus. By these it evidently appeareth that all these monstrous & strange opinions of latter Arrians, who are also called Antitrinitarians do proceed from this one principle of our Adversaries, to wit, that we must only believe Scriptures, and by this they are increased. But let us now see other matters. 9 The second point of faith is, that Infants are to be baptised. For our Adversaries will never show this in the holy Scriptures. For that one place which doth joan. 3. v. 1. clearly convince this, to wit, unless he be borne again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, they wrest and expound it in another sense. For they will Calu. in c. ●…. joan. v. 5. not have this word (water) to signify the element of water, but the holy Ghost: so Calvin: hence arose that wicked sect of the anabaptists, who affirm now adays that it is an unlawful and profane thing, to baptise Infants, seeing that there is no solid reason hereof extant in the Scriptures. 10. For that whereunto Calvin, and his followers do fly for refuge, to wit, that in the old Law Infants were circumcised, Genes. 17. v. 10. the anabaptists do easily confute both, because concerning that, there was an express precept of God, but there was none of the baptism of Infants; and the similitude also betwixt circumcision and baptism S. Aug. Tom. ●…. de haeres. cap. 84. S. Hieron. contra Heluidium Author de Eccles. dogmatib. cap. 69. S. Ambr. in Epist. 7. ad Siricium Papam. Epiphan. haeres. 78. ●…nnius contra Bellar. Controu. 1. lib. 4. cap. 9 not●… 5. doth not hold in all things, for otherwise women should not be baptised but only men. 11. The third point of faith is, that the Blessed Virgin Mary the mother of God remained always a Virgin even after her childbirth. For this is extant no where in Scripture, and yet helvidius was condemned as an Heretic by the whole ancient Church, because he presumed to deny this. 12. When Bellarmine had alleged this unwritten point of faith, to prove that all such points of faith were not expressly set down in holy writ, Franciscus Innius to answer unto this difficulty was forced to take and approve the condemned heresy of helvidius. For he denieth that we ought to believe as a point of faith the perpetual Virginity of our B. Lady. But the ancient Fathers had never condemned helvidius as an Heretic unless he had denied a point of faith. But in this manner are our Adversaries forced to renew the old heresies of times past, to the end they may defend this their paradox, that we must only believe Scriptures. CHAP. FOUR Whether there are any points of faith to be alleged, which are nowhere extant in the Bible. THE fourth point that our Adversaries also believe, but without express Scripture for it, is that Christians cannot lawfully have more wives at once: for the Council Concil. Trident. sess. 24. c. 2. of Trent hath very well defined this to be a point of faith against the heresy of these times, whereof we will speak more presently. But yet our Adversaries can never prove this out of Scriptures only, abstracting from the authority of the Church, albeit they also agree with us in the belief hereof. Yea the examples of holy Scripture do rather persuade the contrary. For those most holy men Abraham, jacob, David, and many others had more wives at once, yet never did God reprehend this in them, albeit he often spoke unto them. 2. When Bernardine Ochine one of Calvin's scholars did consider this, he was not afraid to persuade both by word and writing, that Polygamy was yet lawful, of whom and of his most wicked life Beza Beza Epist. 1. ad Andream Duditium. writeth at large. But Ochinus grounded only this his heresy in that principle of our Adversaries before alleged, to wit, that we must believe nothing which is not expressly in Scriptures. And whereupon Beza himself in his book which he wrote against the same Ochinus doth testify, that Ochinus used this argument: where Beza also manifestly acknowledgeth that Polygamy is not forbidden in holy Scriptures by any express Law. The other argument (saith Beza) of Ochinus, Beza in lib. de Poligamia. extat. in initio voluminis ●…. suarum Tract. Theol. is that Polygamy is not forbidden by any express law to the contrary: but I answer, that there are not laws written of all things. Thus Beza. 3. But afterward indeed Beza goeth about to prove that Polygamy is contrary to the Law of Nature, but the same difficulty still remaineth. For according to our adversaries doctrine all things necessary to salvation are expressed in holy Scriptures: but the observation of all things belonging to the Law of Nature, is altogether necessary to salvation, therefore the observation of these things is expressed in Scriptures, or else truly many things necessary to salvation must be sought for out of the Scriptures. Moreover that Polygamy is unlawful, is a point of faith, but this as Beza confesseth is not expressly contained in Scriptures, therefore all the points of faith are not expressly contained in Scriptures. 4. The first point of faith is, that the Sacrament of Baptism may only be given in water. For this point is also very necessary for the Church, lest so great and worthy a Sacrament be profaned, contrary to the institution of Christ: and yet our Adversaries will never be able to prove this out of the Scriptures only, who deny that the foresaid place of S. john is to be understood of true water, as we have said before in the second point. For the examples of holy Scripture do prove indeed that water is the fit matter of Baptism, §. ●…. cap. praeced. Beza Epist. ●…. ad Tom. Tilium Fratrem & Symmistam suam. but they do not prove that there can be no other matter. 5. When Beza did consider this well, lest that his foresaid principle that we must believe nothing but Scripture might seem to be called in question, he was not ashamed to write that Baptism might be given in any liquor, and by this means it willbe true and lawful Baptism, though it be given in milk, wine, yea in Ink or any other filthy liquor. Thus are our Adversaries forced to admit these absurdities, lest they might be forced to depart from that their principle of believing only Scripture. 6. Furthermore to the end that Beza might more easily persuade the ignorant common people to admit this his strange paradox, addeth presently a very grievous slander against the Catholic Doctors. Let water be wanting, saith, Beza, and yet the Baptism of any cannot be deferred with edification, nor must not be, I Beza ●…adem Epist. 2. truly would as well and as lawfully baptise in any other liquor as in water: neither are the most superstitious Divines of any other opinion in these matters. Thus far Beza. But these things which he writeth are most false. For there is no Catholic nor Scholastical Doctor Concil. Trid. sess. 7. can. 2. de baptism. who hath ever either thought or written so, yea the plain contrary is defined by the Catholic Church as a point of Faith. 7. The sixth point of faith, is that bread and wine is only the necessary matter of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist. This point of faith is also very necessary for the Church, lest so great and so excellent a Sacrament should be profaned; yet our Adversaries will never be able to prove it effectually out of Scripture only. For by this word (Bread) any kind of meat is oftentimes signified in Scripture; of wine it is far more doubtful. For the Scripture maketh only mention of the Chalice, and not of the liquor which was in the Chalice; and Calvin himself acknowledgeth that Luc. 22. v. 18. Calu. ibid. insua harmonia. Beza Epist. 2. citata. those words (of the fruit of the vine) were spoken before the institution of this Sacrament. 8. The which when Beza easily preceaved, here also he went about to bring in another error, lest indeed he should be forced to forsake his former principle of believing only Scriptures. For he was not afraid to write that he erred nothing from the institution of Christ, who in the consecration of the Eucharist should use instead of the bread appointed for that purpose, any other usual meat; and instead of the wine any other ordinary kind of drink, and by this means one may consecrate the Eucharist either in cheese, flesh, fish, or eggs, as also in milk, water, bear, or vinegar, or any other liquor which hitherto was never heard of in God's Church. And yet for all this Beza is not ashamed to attribute this most absurd error of his to all the Scholastical Doctors. For of both these errors he treateth in the words before alleged, because when he saith the Scholastical Doctors were of no other opinion, he speaketh as well concerning the matter of the Eucharist, as of the matter of Baptism. After this manner our Adversaries do force so many and so great errors out of that their principle of believing only Scriptures, whereof more might be alleged, which for brevities sake we omit. 9 But there is one thing I cannot let pass, because thereby we clearly convince that the Traditions of the Church do not only contain unwritten points of faith, but (that which is more) even in our adversaries judgement they change and abolish such things as are expressly commanded in Scriptures: for even in the Table of the Law of God, which is said to be written by Gods own hand, in Exod. 34. v. 1. Exod. 20. v. 8, 9, 10, 11. many and manifest words the keeping of the Sabbath day is commanded, the which notwithstanding, now all, except a few Anabaptists, do confess to be abrogated by Ecclesiastical Tradition only, without any express testimony of Scripture. The Anabaptists I say being also deceived by that Common principle of our Adversaries of blieving only Scriptures, they go about to bring the observation of the Sabbath day into use and custom again, and for this cause they are called Sabatharians, but not Vide Prateolum V. Sabatharij: so much the heresy as the madness of these men is condemned of all, and namely of Luther in his book against the Sabbatarians, in the seventh Tome. CHAP. V. Wherein it is proved, that there are Traditions by the testimonies of the holy Fathers. THE third argument whereby we prove, that all the points of our faith are not set down in writing by the Apostles, is the authority Coccius Tom. 1. l. ●…. Antic. ultimo. Bellarm. Tom. 1. l. 41. de verbo Dei c. 7. of the ancient Fathers, who affirm and teach this in many places. The which places of the holy Fathers, as well the Greeks as the Latins jodocus Coccius hath very diligently gathered together in his book, entitled Thesaurus Catholicus, and before him Bellarmine did the same. But lest we be longer than the order of Epitomes doth permit, especially in a thing so manifest, it shall suffice us to allege one chief Doctor of the Greek, and another of the Latin Church. 2. Among the Grecians S. Chrysostome is the most famous, who doth not only affirm it but also manifestly proveth it out of holy Scripture. For when he expoundeth those words of the later Epistle 2. ad Thes. c. 1. v. 14. to the Thessalonians: Therefore brethren stand and hold the Traditions which you have learned, whether it be by word or by our Epistle, he writeth thus: Hence it appeareth, saith S. Chrysostome, that he did not deliver all things unto them by his Epistle but many things also without his letters, but as well these, as those other, worthily deserve S. Chrisost. Hom. 4. in. 2. ad Thessaly. to be believed; therefore we esteem the Tradition also of the Church to be worthy of credit. It is a Tradition, seek no further. Thus S. Chrysostome. But it is most certain that the Apostle and consequently S. Chrysostome also, Calvin l. 4. Instit c. 14. sect. ult. S. August. Tom. 7. de baptismo. contra Donatist. l. 2. cap. 7. who expoundeth him, doth not only speak of ceremonies and customs, but also of points of Faith. 3. S. Augustine whom Calvin acknowledgeth to be the best and most faithful witness of antiquity, writeth in this manner. Many things are not to be found in the Apostles writings, nor in the ensuing councils, and yet notwithstanding, because they are generally kept through out the whole Catholic Church, they are judged to have been delivered and commended by none, but by them. Thus S. Augustine. Neither can it be said, that S. Augustine speaketh of ceremonies and not of points of fayah. For in that place he proveth against the Donatists that those which were baptised in the accustomed form and matter by heretics were not to be baptised again, but none unless he be an Anabaptist, will deny that this is a point of faith. CHAP. VI Wherein even by the doctrine of our Adversaries it is proved, that there are Traditions. THE fourth argument whereby we prove Traditions, is taken out of the doctrine of our Adversaries. For all those things which our Adversaries do affirm to be points of faith against the Catholic doctrine, they teach and believe them without any express Scripture. For it cannot be found expressly in Scripture, that faith only iustifyeh, that there are only two Sacraments of the new law, that none should pray for the dead etc. for all these things and many others which they teach against us, they gather only out of Scriptures, and that by some false and very weak consequence; but it is nowhere expressly written, that faith only justifieth, that there are only two Sacraments, that we must not pray to Saints or for the dead etc. 2. Moreover there can no Catholic be found who doth not receive and assuredly believe the whole authentical text of the holy Scripture, why do they therefore condemn us, when they affirm that nothing is to be believed besides the text of Scripture, whereas the whole Controversy betwixt them and us, is of the unwritten points of faith which, we affirm, & they deny? 3. Our adversaries being convinced by this argument, do now at the last confess, that not only that is to be admitted and believed as the pure word of God Beza de notis Eccl. pag. 137. volume. 2. Theol. Tract. edit. an●…. 1581. which is expressly written in holy Scripture, but all that also which by a necessary consequence may be gathered out of it. 4. But when they answer thus, they are forced to depart and forsake that their first principle, whereby they affirmed that all the points of faith are expressly contained in Scriptures, and that they were set down in writing by the Apostles. 5. Furhermore not perceiving so much, they join in opinion with us, so that they must needs indeed confess that the Traditions of the Church are altogether necessary. For such things as are gathered out of Scriptures do rather belong to Traditions then to express Scripture. For that which only, consequently, & by reasoning & discoursing is gathered out of Scripture albeit it very well and necessarily may be deduced from thence, is not expressly in Scripture, but only obscurly, secretly, or virtually is contained therein. For no man can truly say, that the conclusion which is only inferred out of the premises is expressly contained in the same premises, for otherwise our discourse and arguing were vain and to no purpose. But therefore do we reason and discourse to the end, that, that which lieth hidden virtually in the premises may be expressly manifested in the conclusion. 6. And that we may allege an example out of the Scriptures themselves, when God the Father said, This is my well-beloved Matt. 17. v. 5. Son, hear him. Out of these words we may very well gather, and by a necessary consequence, that the whole doctrine of Christ our Lord is to be heard and received of all: yet none will say, that all the doctrine of Christ is contained expressly in those few words. And truly the holy Scripture is so fertile & plentiful that many points of faith do as yet lie hidden and unknown therein, which hitherto hath never been gathered together by any, but these things are contained virtually and not expressly in it. 7. Moreover after so many debates and contentions, after so many books set forth against us, after so many slanders whereby our Adversaries charge us, as though we taught that the Scriptures are imperfect, they at the last return to our opinion. For we do not deny, yea we willingly acknowledge, that all those things which rightly and without error are deduced or gathered out of the express words of the holy Scriptures, do belong unto the written word of God, and are contained in holy writ obscurely, not expressly, virtually, and not plainly. For in that God doth reveal any thing in express words, consequently, and virtually he revealeth all things which necessarily and without any error may be deduced from thence. 8. We grant also that the Scripture consequently, mediately, & virtually, as in a general principle containeth all things necessary to salvation, yea in that one only article of the Creed, I believe the holy Catholic Church; in those few words also of Christ, Luc. 10. v. 16. he who heareth you, heareth me, if the collection be rightly framed, as we have also said before in the 25. Chapter. But when these things are gathered together which are not expressly in Scripture, there is scarce any of them which is not uncertain & doubtful without the authority and Traditions of the Church. Wherefore these collections do manifestly convince the necessity and authority of Traditions. 9 But that these collections may be uncertain and deceitful, both experience & reason teacheth us: experience, because almost all Heresies have had their beginning not from the Scripture alone in itself, but from these collections badly framed and made. For there is not almost any one heresy which is only grounded on the express words of Scripture without some other collection, seeing that almost all Heretics both in times past as now also go about to prove and gather their heresies from the Scripture by certain deceitful & sophistical arguments. Arius for example, out of those words of Christ, the Father is greater than I, did gather joan. 14. v. ●…. 28. but badly, that Christ even according to his divine Nature was interior to his Father. The new Arians out of those words of the ten commandments, thou shalt not have strange Exod. 20. v. 3. Gods before me, do gather but foolishly that the Son is not God, the holy Ghost is not God. So the Devil himself against Christ Matth. 4. v. 6. used this reason, It is written, God hath given his Angels charge of thee, therefore cast thyself down headlong. Lastly all the arguments indeed which our Adversaries at this time allege against us out of Scriptures, and all the errors which they have invented, do take their beginning and strength from their new illations and reasons, and not out of the bare and plain words of Scripture, as will manifestly appear in every one of the Controversies. 10. The reason also is manifest why these their collections and reasons are uncertain and doubtful. For in nothing can one more easily or more often err, then in these illations. The which may proceed of many causes; either because the illation itself is bad and Sophistical, or because the place of Scripture from whence it is gathered is falsified by some false exposition thereof, or because the proposition which is assumed and adjoined to the words of Scripture is false and ambiguous, or because one or more words in that collection are used doubtfully, that is to say, in one sense in the premises, and in another in the conclusion; or lastly because there happeneth some error to be in the collection which maketh it weak, Sophistical, and erroneous. 11. Besides that, there are so many and so contrary illations of divers men, that the authority of the Church is altogether necessary in matters of faith, that there may arise a certain and an undoubted faith of these matters, of which sort Traditions are, that is to say, the doctrine of the whole Church. 12. But when one believeth such an illation with a divine or Catholic faith, he must needs know two things, the one is, that the express place of Scripture from whence this conclusion is deduced must certainly be well understood by him which disputeth: the other is, that he who maketh such a deduction and collection can neither deceive others not be deceived himself. But none can know either of these without the Traditions of the Church, seeing that otherwise there is none which may not be deceived sometimes: All collections therefore which produce or breed faith in us, do most clearly convince and show the authority and necessity of Traditions. CHAP. VII. Wherein it is proved, that there are Traditions, by the absurdities which otherwise would follow. THE fifth argument whereby we prove, that many things are to be believed which are not expressed in holy Scriptures, is taken out of the absurdities which do ensue of the contrary doctrine. For having once admitted, that nothing is to be believed which is not expressed in Scripture, all old heresies are renewed, and a great uncertainty and confusion of all things is brought into the Church of God, yea even the way to Atheism is laid open, because having once rejected & despised the Tradition of the Church, all the points of faith from the Apostles time till now explicated and proved by the ancient Fathers against heretics, all those things also which were decreed and determined by all the general councils in times passed against the said heretics, lose their chiefest strength and authority; the which notwithstanding our Adversaries do acknowledge themselves to receive and believe. 2. Neither do we know by an assured Catholic faith, whether there were ever any Fathers or councils but by the Traditions of the Church But neither do we know any other way but by faith, whether since the Apostles time till now there were any Catholics or not? because of those things which were done since the time and death of the Apostles, there is nothing extant in holy Scripture, seeing that all the books thereof were written before the death of the Apostles. But such things as have been done since till now, cannot otherwise be known but by the Tradition of the Church. 3. Neither is it sufficient to say, that we know these things by the Ecclesiastical histories. For that faith which proceedeth of histories without the authority or Traditions of the Catholic Church, is but an humane faith which oftentimes deceiveth others, and may be deceived itself, and therefore these kind of histories cannot produce a divine faith in us: this experience itself doth clearly teach us. For our Adversaries do sometimes doubt whether S. Peter was ever at Rome, or no, because forsooth this is not to be found expressly in holy Scriptures, whereas notwithstanding it is most assuredly proved and testified in many books both of the ancient Historiographers and holy Fathers: Why may they not as lawfully call other matters in question which are notwithstanding expressly set down in other ancient writers. Our Adversaries therefore do make all things very doubtful and uncertain, whiles they will only believe and admit the Scripture: but now let us answer their arguments. CHAP. VIII. Wherein the arguments of our Adversaries, taken out of the old Testament, are confuted. THE first argument whereby our Adversaries oppugn Traditions, and which they use very often, the which also as invincible they have added to the confession of their Rupellana confessio Artic. 5. Deut. 4. v. 2. Deut. 12. v. ultimo. faith, they take out of those words of Deuteronomy, Thou shalt not add any thing to the word which I speak unto you; nor shall you take any thing from it. And again, that which I command thee do that only; neither add or diminish any thing from it. By these places of Scriptures our Adversaries do infer, that nothing is to be received as a point of faith, which is not expressly set down in Scriptures. 2. But this argument is erroneous and the weakness thereof is very great for many causes. First because in those words there is no mention made of the Scripture nor of the written word of God, but only of the word preached and delivered viva voce. Thou shalt not add (saith the Scripture) to the word that I speak unto you, he doth not say, that I write unto you. Again, Do only saith he, that which I command thee, he doth not say, that which I write unto thee. 3. Moreover in these words the holy Scripture doth not only speak of matters of saith to be believed, but also of ceremonies and customs to be done and observed: but our Adversaries themselves confess, that these customs may be added by the authority of the Church, yea they have ordained themselves very many, the which they change even yet when they Calvin contra 4. sess. Concil. ●…rident. please. Calvin also acknowledgeth that many unwritten customs were delivered unto us by the Apostles. 4. That also according to the phrase of Scripture is said to be added to the word of God which is contrary & opposite unit. For joshua did not transgress this commandment of Deuteronomy, when he added his book to the books of Moses. Nor did others transgress it who added the books of the judges, Ruth, and of the Kings, which were not written by Moses, & which are also to be believed as containing points of faith. But in these books there is nothing contrary to that which Moses wrote. And the Hebrew text agreeth very well to this answer, for in both places of Deuteronomy this word (Ghal) is used, which signifieth oftentimes contrary, or against, so that the sense is, do not add any thing contrary to the word which I command: and again, ye shall not add any thing contrary to the word which I say unto you. For so is that particle (Ghal) taken in the 40. Psalm (or according to the Hebrews 41. in the 2. Psalm also, the second verse. And in the 14. of Numbers the 2. verse, & else where very often. Even as also in the new Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which answereth to the Hebrew Ghal, signifieth also contrary, or against; when the Apostle writeth to the Corinthians, that in us you may learn one not ●…. ad Cor. 4. v. 6. to be puffed up against another above that is written. that is to say, against the Scripture, the which saith, we must not be puffed up in pride as S. Chrysostome, and after him Theophilactus & others do note upon that place. The which place some bodliy allege against Traditions, whereas the Apostle in that place doth not speak of the whole Calvin. in illa verba 1. ad Corin. 4. v. 6. word of God, but of this one point, that we must not be puffed up in pride, as even Calvin himself acknowledgeth. 5. But to omit all such things as other Catholic Doctors have very well, and learnedly written of the proper and literal sense of these words, yea that we may also grant to our Adversaries that this which they allege is the true sense, they err very much in that they think that these words of Moses belong unto us, and that we are no less now bound and obliged by them, than the jews were in times past. For these words do no more appertain unto us then those of the Deuteron. 27. v. ult. same book of Deuteronomy. Cursed be he that abideth not in the words of this Law, and fulfilleth them not in work. From which words S. Ad Galat. 3. v. 10. & 13. Paul manifestly teacheth that we are delivered and freed, by the grace of Christ jesus. But seeing that in these words which they do here allege Moses commandeth that the Children of Israel should observe & fulfil every word which he had commanded them, for so it is expressly set down Deuteronomy ●…2. the last verse, in the Hebrew text, and in all the Bibles of our Adversaries, and he presently addeth that nothing is to be added or detracted from all these, he manifestly commandeth the keeping of the whole Mosaical Law, and of all the Sacraments, Sacrifices, and Ceremonies of the old Testament. For he doth not only command, that nothing should be added but also that nothing is to be detracted of all those things by him commanded. Wherefore if our adversaries object against us that we add any thing against this precept, we may more justly object unto them, that they detract far more than we add, seeing that they neither observe the Circumcision, nor the legal Sacrifices, nor other Ceremonies which are so often and so straightly commanded in Deuteronomy. It cannot truly be denied, but that this is to detract somewhat from those things which Moses commanded; and therefore our Adversaries must needs confess that these are the words of the old Law, and consequently to appertain nothing unto us. Out of this which hath been said, it followeth, that our Adversaries do very indiscreetly & foolishly boast and brag of those words of Moses. For in the exposition, thereof they err far from the truth, and a great deal more in the application, when they go about to prove that we are also bound and obliged by them. 6. Our Adversaries take their second argument out of these words of Salomon's proverbs: Every word of God is fiery, it is a shield Proverb. 30. v. 5. & ●…. of defence to those which hope in it: do not add any thing to the words thereof, and thou shalt be found and reprehended as a liar. I answer that this place maketh nothing against us: for in that place there is no mention made of Scripture only, but of all the word of God. And it is most true that nothing should be added to all the whole word of God, the which is to be believed with a Catholic faith as the true word of God. For as we have said before, our faith relieth only of the word of God, but the Scripture only is not all the word of God, because all Traditions also which contain points of faith belong thereunto, as we have sufficiently Supra. c. 2. proved already. But they add to the word of God, & are liars who affirm that God said this, or that, which indeed he never spoke. And of this sort are those false Prophets, of whom God by the Prophet jeremy conplayneth, saying, They speak the vision of their hearts, not from the mouth Hier. 23. v. 16. & 21. of our Lord: & again, I did not speak unto them, and they did prophecy. This place also may very well be understood, of those who add any thing contrary to the word of God. For in the Hebrew text, there is set down that particle (Ghal) which oftentimes signifieth contrary, or against, as we have already declared in our answer to the first argument. CHAP. IX. Wherein is examined that place of S. Paul's Epistle to the Galathians, the which our Adversaries do object against Traditions. THE third argument our Adversaries take out of the first Confess. Rupell. Art. 3. Chapter to the Galathians, the which they have also added to their confession of faith as invincible. For they have omitted their second argument as not strong enough for their purpose. But thus they frame their argument: The Apostle saith twice an Anathema to those Gal. 1. v. 8. & 9 who teach any thing besides that which he hath taught: therefore nothing is to be received or believed but Scripture. Our Adversaries have this place of the Apostle often in their mouths, wherefore it shallbe examined more exactly. We answer therefore that our Adversaries do err here for two reasons, first because our whole controversy is of the written word of God, but in these words there is no mention made of the written word, or of Scripture, but only of the word preached and delivered viva voce to the Galathians by S. Paul. And hence it is that S. Augustine far otherwise S. August. Tom. 7. de unit. Eccles. c. 24. then our Adversaries, disputing against the Donatists proveth by these words of the Apostle, that we are bound to admit and believe the Traditions of the Church: as for example, that those who are once orderly and lawfully christened by Heretics, are not to be baptised again. And well truly; for that which is viva voce delivered, is a Tradition, and not Scripture. Moreover if the Scripture only contained expressly all the points of faith, the Apostle would rather have proposed the Scripture as the rule of faith then his own preaching, seeing that the Scripture is manifestly well known to all Nations, but his own preaching to the Galathians only. But our Adversaries urge again and say, that all that which the Apostle preached to the Galathians was written either before that time or afterward by S. Paul and the other Apostles: they say this, but they prove it not. For this is no where written in holy Scripture, and so whiles they go about to persuade us, that all points of faith are written, they coin & invent a new point, which is nowhere extant in Scripture, that is to say, that all such things as S. Paul viva voce taught the Galathians, are written. But we following herein S. Augustine, do S. Aug. Tom. 9 Tract. 96. in loan & Tom. 7. de v●…itat, Eccles. c. 21. in fine. gather much better by these words, and infer thus against them. If there must be nothing believed, but that which S. Paul preached to the Galathians, and that none knoweth certainly what are those things which he preached, but by the Traditions and doctrine of the Church, it followeth manifestly that besides the Scripture we must also believe the Traditions and doctrine of the Church; seeing that without them we cannot certainly and without error know what were those things which the Apostle taught the Galathians. 2. Secondly our Adversaries do err in that they do not rightly expound that particle in the words of S. Paul (praeter) (besides) but rather contrary to the Apostles meaning. For the Latin word praeter, as also the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Hebrew (Ghal) have two significations. In the former it signifieth all that which is not the self same thing whereof we do speak: in the later sense it signifieth that only which is contrary to that we speak of. In which sense praeter signifieth the same that contra doth, to wit (against:) the former sense is manifest enough, the later is proved by these places of Scripture, Act. 18. v. 13. where all do translate these Greek words, Calu, super acta A post. ann. 1560. Beza edit. an▪ 1560. & 1565. & 1598. Henric. Steph. in thesauro linguae Graecae Tom. 〈◊〉 in dictione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be against the Law: so hath not only the vulgar edition, but also Calvin and Beza, and all the French Bibles of Geneva. Likewise in the first to the Romans the 26. verse. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth against Nature: so hath the vu●…gar edition and all the french Bibles of Genena, yea Cicero, as witnesseth Henricus Stephanus doth thus translate this phrase out of Greek. Again in the 4. to the Romans the 18. verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth against, as the vulgar edition, and Beza hath in all editions. Moreover in the 11. to the Romans the 24. verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth against, as the vulgar edition and all the Bibles of Geneva have: finally in the last to the Romans the 17. vers▪ aswell the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Latin word (praeter) in our interpreter signifieth the same thing that contra doth, as manifestly appeareth by the precedent words, for dissensions and scandals are contrary or against the doctrine of Christ, and not only besides his doctrine. 〈…〉 Wherefore Calvin in his Commentaries set forth in the year 1557. upon the Epistle to the Romans, and Sebasti●…n Castalio, and all the French Bibles of Geneva have contrary or against the doctrine: and albeit Beza translateth it besides the doctrine, yet in his last edition set forth in the year 159●…. he translateth it contrary to the doctrine and in his Annotations he warneth that it is rather so to be translated. It is not therefore strange or absurd that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Latin praeter should signify the same that contra doth. 3. But now that this word may not only be thus used, but that also it must necessarily be so understood and taken in this place, we have showed by the absurdities which would otherwise follow▪ The first is that S. Paul would have said Anathema to S. john Evangelist, who many years after the preaching of S. Paul to the Galathians, yea after his death, wrote his Apocalyps, wherein there are many new revelations which S. Paul had not preached to the Galathians, because they were not then revealed by God. 4. The second absurdity, that S. Paul had pronounced an Anathema upon all those who in his time by a prophetical spirit did daily prophecy new things. For in 1. ad Cor. 14. v. 2. 4. 26. & 30. the Apostles time there were many such as appeareth by the first epistle to the Corinthians. And S. Paul could not preach to the Galathians, which God had not yet revealed. 5. The third absurdity, the Apostle for the same reason had pronounced Anathema against S. Luke who in the Acts of the Apostles relateth many things which happened long after S. Paul left Galatia. 6. The fourth absurdity, the Apostle for the same cause also had condemned himself with the said Anathema. For he wrote many Epistles after he had left Galatia, wherein he relateth many things which happened afterward unto him either at Rome, or in other places. 7. Lastly it is an absurd thing to think either God after those words of S. Paul to the Galathians could reveal to men nothing more by an Angel sent from heaven, or that the said Angel who by the commandment of God should reveal any new thing, but not contrary to faith, should incur that▪ Anathema by S. Paul, seeing that this were to wrest the Anathema upon God himself, who commanded the Angel to do so. This place therefore cannot be understood of divers and distinct things from those which S. Paul taught the Galathians, but only of contrary and opposite things unto them. But according to this sense of the word (praeter) all the foresaid Absurdities do cease. For neither S. john in his Apocalyps, nor S. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, nor any other which did prophecy, nor S. Paul himself, ever wrote or taught any thing contrary to that which S. Paul taught the Galathians. But even God himself cannot Ad Hebr. 16. v. 18. reveal the contrary by an Angel, because according to the Apostle, It is impossible for God to lie. 8. Neither is it sufficient for me to say that those things which were afterward revealed and written, were not necessary points of faith to salvation. For S. Paul did not say, if any shall evangelize unto you any point necessary to salvation: but absolutely, if any shall evangelize any thing contrary to that which you have recevued. Moreover all these things which were afterward set down in holy Scripture were true points of faith, the which every Christian is necessarily bound to believe, if not expressly, yet at the least virtually and generally every one is bound to believe with an assured faith all those things which are in holy Writ to be most certain and true. 9 Finally even our adversaries confession doth convince this to be most true▪ for now they acknowledge that all those things which by a necessary consequence are deduced out of the Scriptures do belong unto the word of God and are points of faith, and therefore they may be lawfully Suprac. 3●… preached unto the people as we have said before. But all these are distinct things from those which are expressly written in holy Scriptures. For the antecedent whereby some other thing may be inferred, is distinct from that which is inferred. For it were a ridiculous illation if one and the same thing should be inferred from itself. But that which is inferred in a good collection is never contrary to the antecedent. The Apostle therefore speaketh of doctrine contrary to his, and not absolutely of any other distinct doctrine. 10. And in this sense the Fathers do often say that S. Paul affirmed in this place S. August. Tom. 7▪ ontra literas Petil Donatist. lib 3▪ cap. 6. S August. Tom▪ 9 Tract. 98. in evang. joan. sub. finem. that nothing was to be taught besides that which is in the holy Scripture. For so S. Augustine speaketh in one place. But in another he clearly explicateth himself by this word (praeter) to understand (contra) because we must preach nothing contrary to the holy Scripture. That this is the true sense and meaning of S. Augustine, it is manifest by the words themselves, whereby also he proveth that the word (praeter) in those words of the Apostle, doth signify divers, but not contrary things. For in this manner he writeth when he warneth his scholars to take heed of the opinions of the Manichaeans & other heretics, because these are not only distinct but also Ad Gal. 1. v. 9 contrary to those which the Apostles taught. Let the admonition, saith he, of the holy Apostle never depart from your heart. If any shall evangelize unto you besides that which you have received, let him be an Anathema. He doth not say 1. ad Thess. 3. v. 10. more than you have received, but besides that which you have received. For if he should say that, he should be prejudicial to himself who coveteth to come to the Thessalonians, that he might supply that which was wanting to their faith. Now he which supplieth addeth that which is lacking, taketh not away that which was. But he which overpasseth joan. 1●…. v. ●…. the rule of faith doth not go on in the way, but departeth from the way. That therefore which our Lord saith, I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now, were to be added to those things which they knew, and not to be overthrown by those they had already learned. Hitherto S. Augustine. CHAP. X. Wherein other objections of our Adversaries against Traditions are resuted. THE fourth argument is deduced Apoc. vlt v. 18. confess. Rupell. Artic. 5. out of those words of the Apocalyps which they also cite and allege in their confession at Rochel. If any man shall add to these things, God shall add upon him the plagues written in this book. But who doth not see that S. john speaketh expressly of the book of the Apocalyps only, and not of the whole Scripture, for he saith, I testify to every one hearing the words of the Prophecy of this book, if any man shall add to these things etc. and in the 19 verse following. If any man shall diminish of the words of the book of this prophecy etc. he speaketh therefore only of the prophetical words of the Apocalyps. For it is manifest otherwise out of Ecclesiastical histories, that S. john wrote his Gospel after the Apocalyps, and consequently that he added many things S. Hier. de script. Eccles. in joan. Apost. besides the Apocalyps. But let our Adversaries take heed lest they incur those pains which S. john threateneth to those which add or detract any thing from the Apocalyps; seeing that they so often and so boldly wrest the prophecies of the Apocalyps to many strange senses against the Pope and the Catholic Church. 2. Our Adversaries allege many other things, but their arguments which be of less moment are taken out of those places of Scripture which commend unto us the great excellency of holy Scripture. But all these are very easily confuted by that Supra c. 25. one ground, which as we have declared before even our Adversaries do admit, to wit, that to the end the holy Scripture be perfect in itself and sufficient to everlasting salvation, it is not necessary that it should expressly contain all points of faith, but it is sufficient, that all such points may be deduced by a good consequence out of it. But all the Traditions of the Church which belong unto faith may be gathered Supra c. 25. as we have said out of Scripture, the which also we declare more at large in every one of these controversies. Our Adversaries therefore have not reason to say that we teach the Scripture to be imperfect or insufficient. For as concerning this sufficiency and perfection of Scripture they are forced at least to yield and subscribe unto our opinion herein: but these their arguments, whereof they make great account, we have therefore alleged, to the end all may know how badly they interpret the holy Scriptures, and by how frivolous reason they are persuaded to forsake the Catholic faith. 3. But even this sufficiency of Scripture which they pretend, they prove very foolishly by those words of the Apostle, wherein he teacheth, that the Scripture Ad Tim. 3. v. penul●…. is very profitable; as though forsooth every thing which is profitable for obtaining some particular end or purpose, were also absolutely sufficient then the which nothing can be spoken more absurdly. The head truly is not only profitable, but also necessary, that a man may live, but who I pray you will say that the head only without the rest of the body is sufficient for the life of man. But to our late Adversaries to the end they may make this their discourse or reason the stronger, say, that in human things not every thing which is profitable is also sufficient, but in divine matters whatsoever is profitable, is also sufficient, whereunto junius contra Bell. controu. 1. lib. 4. c. 10. nota 44. junius like a fine young stripling addeth, that this can be overthrown by no sophistry. But who doth not see that the Eucharist by the divine virtue thereof is profitable to the obtaining of eternal salvation, and yet notwithstanding without Baptism it is not sufficient, as also without faith and penance: the same may be said of Baptism and of every book of Scripture. Yea even the Apostle doth not speak of the whole Scripture, as our Adversaries think he doth, when he saith, that every Scripture is profitable, but of every particular part thereof. For how S. Hier. de Script. Eccles. in joan Apost. 2. ad Tim. ●…. v. penult. could he speak of a thing which was not then extant. But as then the Gospel of S. john was not yet written nor the Apocalyps. For these were after S. Paul's death written by S. john: hence it is that the Apostle S. Paul doth not say the whole Scripture▪ but even Scripture inspired by God is profitable. For there is not one part of Scripture which is not profitable unto us if it be well understood. Yea for all that notwithstanding every one part precisely in itself abstracting from the rest of the Scripture (as all do very well know) is not sufficient. 4▪ Finally it is also to be considered that all those places wherein the integrity, perfection and utility of the Scripture is commended unto us, must needs be understood not of the bare words only, but Supra c. 3. of the same well and rightly understood. But this true understanding of the words cannot otherwise be had then by Tradition Supra c. 4 and the unwritten doctrine of the Church itself, as we have already declared. Wherefore all those places which do commend unto us the holy Scriptures, do also consequently commend unto us Traditions and the unwritten Word of God, seeing that therein consisteth the principal part of holy Scripture, to wit, the true sense of the words. CHAP. XI. Wherein is declared how we may know the Apostolical Traditions. AMONG the other arguments of our Adversaries this is one that we cannot know certainly which are the Traditions of the Apostles, seeing that many Heretics in times past pretended also that their heresies were agreeing to Apostolical Traditions. Moreover they object that Traditions may easily be corrupted and changed, and for this cause, Scripture was ordained that the doctrine delivered by word of mouth might continue the longer without any falsification▪ or corruption. But we answer to this their reason: that the ancient Heretics also by supposed and false Scriptures which they attributed falsely to the Apostles, did confirm and prove their heresies. Many things, saith S. Augustine, 8 Aug. de Civit. Dei l. c. & 〈◊〉. sub finem. were alleged by heretics as though they were the sayings of the Prophets and Apostles. But yet for all that they were not judged to be the most certain and Canonical Scriptures. 2. But the Traditions of the Apostles may so certainly and easily be known from supposed and false Traditions, as the Canonical Scriptures may be known from the Apocryphal, for they are both known by the same means and authority, that is to say, by the authority, doctrine, and testimony of the Catholic Church, which neither can deceive any nor be deceived herself. 3. And albeit speaking of human matters the Scripture is more certain than Tradition alone, yet it happeneth otherwise in matters concerning God, because in these there is the authority of God, and the continual assistance of the holy Ghost hath place, which doth not suffer the Church to err, and hence it is, that the Tradition only of the Church which is not so much written in paper as is printed in the hearts of Christians, is a most certain, and faithful keeper of all the 2. ad Cor. 3. V. 3. 4. points of our divine ●…aith. 4. Moreover, if even Christ himself had with his own hand written in brass all the points of our faith, they should notwithstanding not have had so great certainty, as now Ecclesiastical Traditions have, unless the same keeper of the divine doctrine had been also present. For that which is imprinted in brass, may be razed and blotted out, and the brass itself may be consumed by fire. But those things which are imprinted in the hearts of Christians by the holy Ghost, can never perish, or be any way changed. 5. And what we have said of knowing the Apostolical Traditions, is to be understood whether the Church assembled in a general Council declared it so, or it became known and manifest by the continual and general custom of the whole Church. Also, whether the question be of Tradition belonging to faith, or only belonging to rites and Ceremon●…es▪ For of the Tradition belonging to faith (that is to say, of not baptizing again those which are baptised once before by heretics) are these words of St. Augustine. Albeit indeed of this thing, saith he, S. Aug. Tom. 7. contra Crescon. Grammat. l. 1. cap. penult. there can no example be alleged out of Canonical Scriptures, yet notwithstanding we hold the truth of the same holy Scriptures in this matter, when we do that which generally the whole Catholic Church holdeth, the which even the authority of the Scriptures themselves commend unto us: so as, because the holy Scripture cannot err, whosoever feareth to be deceived by the difficulty or obscurity of this question, let him go to the same Church for counsel, the S. Aug. Tom. 7. de baptismo contra Donatist. l. 4. cap. 24. which the holy Scripture very clearly showeth and demonstrateth unto us. Hitherto S. Augustine. And disputing in another place against the Donatists, concerning the baptism of Infants. That, saith he, which the whole Catholic Church holdeth, nor was ordained by general councils, but yet always kept and observed by all, is most truly to be believed to have been delivered unto us by Apostolical authority. 6. But of the Ecclesiastical rites and S. Aug. Tom. 2. Epist. 118. ad januar. c. 5. Calu. l. 4. Instit. c. 4. sect. ultima sub finem. & l. 3. c. 3. sect. 10. in medio. Ceremonies, the same S. Augustine speaketh in this manner. Is the Catholic Church through the whole world hold and practise any thing, it is a sign of great madness to dispute, whether it is to be done so or Noah. By which words of S. Augustine it may easily be understood what was the opinion and uniform doctrine of the whole ancient Church concerning this point. For our Adversaries themselves do say, that S. Augustine was a most faithful witness of antiquity, unto whom I refer the Readers, if they desire to know certainly any more of the sense of Antiquity, The end of the second Part of the first Controversy. FINIS.