A TREATISE TOUCHING THE WORD OF GOD WRITTEN, against the Traditions of men. Handled both Schoolelike, and Divinelike. Where also is set down a true Method to dispute Divinely and Schoolelike. Made by A. SADEELE. And translated into English, by john Cox, Minister of the word of God. Ephe. 5. Awake thou that sleepest, stand up from death, and Christ shall give thee life. Imprinted at London for john Harison, & are to be sold at the white Greihound in Paul's churchyard. 1583. TO THE FAITHFUL SERVANTS OF JESUS CHRIT, THE GODLY AND learned Pastors and Doctors in the Churches of France, professing the true doctrine of the Gospel, his dear brethren and faithful fellow Ministers: ANTHONY SADEELE wisheth all grace & peace from God. CHRISOSTOM writing on the 34. In Psa. 43. Ios. 6. Psalm, compareth the Pastors of Christ's Church, unto those Trumpets, by whose sound the walls of jericho were quite overthrown. The which saying (my dear brethren) the great diligence you use in your function and office whereunto you are called, and your extreme labours which you have sustained of late, (yea, and that not without great fruit) maketh me apply the same unto you, For although the the Romish doctrine (i● in any place it prevailed) most chief flourished it 〈◊〉, because there it was difended by the forces of men and as it were compassed about with most high and strong wall● yet notwithstanding by your voice & preaching the Gospel it is at the last brought to pass that the whole foundation of the Popish doctrine thrown down, & the Walls thereof being ●ased, the horrible corruption, abuses &, errors there of is made manifest to the eyes of all men. Wherefore when I compare this our time with the time of the Israelites, I cannot sufficiently accuse and condemn the sluggish slothful 〈…〉 This our age, in respect of the great 〈…〉 and watchfulness of the old 〈…〉 they so soon as they saw 〈…〉 ●ho overthrown, strait ways 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 the whole For City but 〈…〉 age although they have seen, yea, and that now a long time the heresies of the P●pish 〈…〉 to be made manifest and brought into 〈…〉 notwithstanding so far from 〈…〉 and raze them 〈…〉 of their minds, that rather they help them with all their force. But to you my brethren which have suffered many and so great storms, troubles, and griefs even to you (I say) behold new labours daily arise, which must be overcome with great constancy & invincible fortitude of mind. For that I may omit divers & almost infinite other discommodities, I perceive that you are exercised chief in two kinds of battles. The one is for that daily wicked slanderers (to wit) the ministers of lies, oppone themselves against the ministers of the truth, which by their lying Libels go about to vex and deface the innocency of the godly Pastors of the Church, with most horrible untruths and impudent slanders. Of this sort are some whom the heat of persecution hath devoured, who by force, and as it were, with a storm and vehement tempest, carried unto the Popish heresies, do now, with most obstinate minds cleave unto the same, as it were unto a most firm rock. Yea, and that which is to be lamented, they begging as it were thereby the popish prelate's good will and favour make no end of their malicious slandering and wicked writings. This kind of conflict in my opinion) you shall right well sustain not by striving against it, but by calling to mind the saying of David in his 54. Psa. 54. Psalm, to wit, that it will at last come to pass that the slanderous tongue of these wicked slanderets, will rebound & fall upon themselves. For so it always happeneth, that the wicked wound themselves with their own weapons, and the innocency of the godly remaineth unspotted, being delivered from their unjust reports. The other kind of conflict resteth, in the which you must think to labour both earnestly and diligently, as I know right well ye do. For about a few years past, there hath risen up certain men, who abusing liberal arts and sciences, and chief that science which is ordained to the searching out of the truth, to wit, Logic: whereby they might confirm & establish the Popish heresiesei and that they may the better carry away the matter with crafty conveyance they turn the habit and form of good learning, into a certain sophysticall and contentious manner of disputing, and such are chiefly those false named jesuits, for so I term those Monks which wickedly take upon them that most holy name of jesus, attributing it to their devilish sect, and that not without great blasphemy: And these now of late have stuffed Universities, which in times past were of great fame: and do even as it were possess them alone, bearing an outward show of great learning, and chief challenging unto themselves the exact and right knowledge of disputing. Whose enterprises sith I perceive you go about most chiefly and valiantly to resist: I thought it meet and convenient to publish some thing according to the ability which is 〈◊〉 me. And I whom no force, no tempest; no distance of place could separate from you, thought it good (I say) to ●ee joined a fellow companion with you in this conflict and most happy labour. And furthermore, I have determined with myself to follow that method of disputation, which seemeth to be most fit for their purpose, as Theological, and therefore that kind which most truly giveth resolutions to arguments: And this shall not only be void of all subtle Arguments, and sophysticall fallacies, but also of all Rethorical exercise. And I have chosen rather to draw this same method of disputing as much as in me 〈◊〉) from the pure fountains of the 〈◊〉 Fathers, then follow the filthy 〈…〉 of those which 〈◊〉 of late 〈…〉 kind and order of disgu●●ing: and touching this thing, I expect both 〈…〉, and the judgement of rather the best learned Divines: to 〈◊〉 I willingly submit both this my opini●●●●●, and also myself, and although I 〈…〉 short kind of disputing, 〈…〉 my purpose hereby 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 of other men's large and copious are 〈◊〉▪ For as a certain man was ●ont to say, that the hand may be spread abroad and again 〈◊〉 him together the finger's, be brought 〈…〉 likewise one matter may by copious eloquen●● behand that 〈◊〉, and being drawn together by short 〈◊〉, may as effe●●●llie be 〈◊〉, more brief. Let therefore each treatise whit● is written at large with copious & slowing style have his 〈◊〉 honour, so that it he ●at 〈◊〉 to confirm the truth. Plut. in Cic. For (as Plutarch saith) truth 〈◊〉 invineible if it be truly declared & rightly applied. And to Augustine (not without good cause,) eloquence seemeth so much the more to terrify, De doct. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 14 in how much the more it is plaintie pronounced. Nevertheless, when need requireth, let us also embrace this short kind of disputing, which is very profitable so oft a● we be occupied in the searching out of the truth, inasmuch as it draweth us back, that we follow not the similitude of truth, for truth itself, and so should be deceived with a counterfeit probability of truth: which things; sith they are so, some man may demand, wherefore that great Orator Tully, comparing Oratory with this sharp and school like Disputation, De nat. deor, l●, 2. and peradventure over-well liking his own Art, saith thus: As a flowing River can scarce or not at all be corrupted or putrefied, but a standing water may very soon: so likewise by the flood of eloquence, the faults of the reprehender are soon wiped away, when as niggishnes of speech, and want of eloquence, scarce can defend itself: thus much Cicero. The which as I confess that it may happen both in the sophistical and probable kind of disputing, so do I deny that it can chance or agree with true and demonstrativeie Silogismes. For as the River (that we may not serve from the similitude which we have proposed) while it runneth afloat 〈◊〉 above his banks, doth gather most foul and filthy things of 〈◊〉 sort, which 〈◊〉 and are covered while as the floods are aloft: so oftentimes great errors (with copiousness of speech did) are by true and brief disputations declared & laid open for the copy of eloquence taken away, things do appear both naked and manifest as they are. But hereof we will speak more in the Preface. And now I set down first a disputation touching the word of god written, which as it is chief, so ought it to be the very foundation of all disputations. The other disputations as of the true human nature of Christ, of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, of the true and lawful making of Ministers, (touching which things I wrote some thing about two years passed against Turrianus that false named jesuit, and will handle it more at large, whensoever he shall give any new occasion to write) also free will, Purgatory, and such like, may be grounded on this said Disputation. And this my brethren I hope you will do, either according to this method which I have followed, or according to that which you shall better like of. Wherefore I beseech the defenders of the Romish Church, and chiefly those which challenge unto them such skill in disputing, that they will bring the same from the dark shadow of the Schools, into the open and clear light, yea, to the true point of disputing in deed, and that all malice put a part, all nipping taunts set aside, let them modestly and with quiet minds pursue this my treatise, and when they have entered into disputation with me, let them first note what is worthy of reprehension, and then let them give solutions unto my arguments: and on the other side, let them confirm their opinions with plain and evident Sylogismes and Arguments, and so I hope it shall at the last come to pass (if GOD permit) that when both our opinions are conferred together, the truth will show itself, and be manifestly seen even of those which be almost blind. Let therefore those books which are replete with nothing else but with bitter choler, spotted & stained with the sores of their masters' yea, and those seditious Sermons which blow forth nothing else but fire & sword, let them (I say) cease & be quite banished, & in steed hereof let there be meekness & tranquillity: yea, let the love & inward affection of the truth bear sway: & let those which so greatly affect that excellent name of Catholics (which so often with open mouths repeat & pronounce the same) remember what S. Augustin hath written, to wit, that the Catholic Church doth teach that we own love unto all, and injury to none. But if there be any such, which go forward with shameless faces and obstinate minds still to write and spread abroad their sichophanticall and infamous Libels, or if there be any such which so far degenerateth from men, that they had rather obstinately to bark against the truth, then to embrace the same, the which amongst others I hear there is one especially, upon whom the fearful example of Gods most just judgement is manifest, not only for other his ungodliness, but chief for his wicked Apostasy and back sliding from the Gospel, which sometime he professed. If I say there be any such, I wish unto them better minds, & oppose this my vow and wish against their shameless wickedness and malicious railing, professing that I will not vouchsafe to answer such their pamphlets, knowing right well that such their doings may be utterly wiped away even with one little spark of patience. Again, touching myself, I profess that I will not read those their writings in the which they spew forth their foul poisoned choler, because I have determined to dispute, and not to brawl, to contend with arguments, and not with impious railings. And you my reverend brethren, fight 〈…〉 of faith (for I may lawfully use the Apostles exhortation unto you fight 〈…〉 worthy battle of faith, and apprehend everlasting life, for which cause you are called, & have professed a good profession before many witnesses. And therefore regarding nothing at all this wicked rabble, run your course with stout courage, unremoved constancy, and invincible patience, in the truth of the Gospel of God, as you have begun: that is that you go forward with exact diligence and integrity, to fight against man's errors, that the course of your labours most manfully being finished, ye may leave unto the posterities to come, the purity of 〈◊〉, and the true use of ecclesiastical discipline. From my study the 23, of Februarie● An Domini. 1580. FINIS. A COMMON PLACE TOUCHING THE WORD OF GOD WRITTEN, AGAINST THE TRAditions of Men. Handled both School like, & Divinely. Wherein is entreated of the true method of Disputing. THE PREFACE. THE Apostle Paul writing to Timothy, 2. Epist. 3. affirmeth that the holy Scripture is profitable both to teach, as also to reprove: thereby showing that men are not only to be taught, but also often times to be reproved. The preacher ought to teach & reprove. For truly it is manifest, that men are so corrupt, that they do not only remain in ignorance of the truth, even as it were in a palpable and thick darkness, but also for the most part, they hate & fly the light of the same. And although both are greatly to be lamented, yet it is better to have to do with those which are ignorant and willing to learn, then with them which are delighted with their blindness and ignorance: because it is a great deal more tolerable to be ignorant, than not to be willing to learn. Whereby it cometh to pass, that because the ministers and the instructors of the congregations, Tit, ●, must have to do with both these kind of men, they are therefore willed by the Apostle to be such, as should hold fast the word of truth: so that they should be able to instruct by wholesome doctrine, and also to confute the gainesaiers thereof. And as touching these two points in the true Preacher, Aug, Enc. ad Laure, when Augustine had disputed and compared the one with the other: It is an easy matter (saith he) to declare what we ought to believe, what we ought to hope for, and what we ought to love: but to defend the truth, and refel the wicked opinions of others which think to the contrary, is the greater and better part of learning. These are Augustine's words: The which 〈◊〉 they are, experience itself long time since hath taught us: for what great troubles the godly fathers of the Church had in times passed with the old heretics, and chief with those which did excel in the sophistical and litigious kind of disputation, we may easily see by the writings of the catholic Doctors, and those which on our part did enter into that sharp conflict of disputation, To reprove false doctrine the right use of disputation is no small help In laud. Basil better furnished, to wit, armed with weapons of good learning, dispersed without any great ado, the thick mists of sophistical disputation, by the manifest light of the truth. Amongst which ancient Fathers, Nazianzenus seemeth to give the chiefest commendation to Basil, for that he above all others, excelled in the true science of disputation and reasoning, the which praise we may attribute also to Gregorius Nissenus. And Augustine (that I may use his own words, Epist. 151 who was wont to rejoice of his disputations, and therein delighted himself) did freely confess, Contra Aca. li. 3 ca 13. that the Art of Logic was a very great & ready help unto him in the understanding and undoing of the Heretics Sophistical and subtle Arguments. And Tertulian, 〈…〉 who was long time before Augustine, doth not deny in these his Books, in which most happily he contended with the heretics, that he was often times driven to dispute with them in Philosophy: which things I here bring in, They are refuted which would not have divines me dle with the true art of disputing. Col. 2. because I see all (for the most part) somewhat to mislike this Art of Logic, otherwise most profitable: as though Paul had utterly excluded the same from divinity, where he warneth, that we must take heed lest any man spoil us through Philosophy: & here they gather much out of the writings of the old Fathers, which they suppose maketh for them against Logic, and against the exact knowledge of disputation. Aduer. 159. Epis. in cap. 2. Esa. And therefore they willingly hearken to Nazianzene, in that place where he compareth the Logicians, unto the Moabites and Ammonites: and now they snatch after that place of Basil, where he termeth Logic to be the mother of contention: & sometimes they cry out with Tertulian, saying. De praescri. haer. O miserable Aristotle, which first armed the heretics with Logic, whereby like crafty artificers, they might (as they listed) set up & destroy. To whom in few words I do thus answer: The Apostle Paul did not reject the good & right knowledge of disputing, which by certain necessary principles produceth and bringeth forth the knowledge of the truth: but rather that vain art of deceiving with those sophistical and deceitful snares, the which the heretics are wont full subtly to fold together, whereby they may deceive the godly & faithful. And that this was the mind of the Apostle, it is manifest not only by the order of the Apostles speech, but also by that he useth this word [Apates] which is 〈◊〉 craft or circumvention by subtlety. Sith then the good use of Logic chief tends unto this end, to disperse abroad the fallaces and subtle crafts of sophistry, to expel errors, to reprove lies, and to set before our eyes most manifestly the light of the truth: Who can with good conscience think that the Apostle at any time did reject this so worthy & necessary science? For how can it be possible, that he which doth profess himself an enemy to false sophistications, should not love the science of right disputing, which is Logic, being altogether contrary to false & subtle reasoning: and ordained to this end, that by the help and aid thereof, we may more easily avoid the snares of those which are captious? For as he which hateth darkness, A similitude. must of necessity greatly rejoice in the beauty of the light: so he that will shut out of the church the false deceits of arguments, he I say, must of necessity, leave a place in the Church for sound and true reasoning, by the which the vain deceits of those men may be the easier reproved, and the better avoided: Except peradventure we think the science and art of physic is altogether to be rejected, because it teacheth men to know those things which are hurtful; whereby to take he●d of them, & to use only those things which appertain to the preservation of health & life. Wherefore Nazianzene saith (yea, truly right excellent is his saying) for somewhat the must answer to the former objection) that the Sophisters are like unto the Moabites & Ammonits which were prohibited the temple of God: so y● also we acknowledge this, that the true art of Logic is not compared to the Morbites & Ammonits, but rather to them of Tyrc and Sidon, by whose help Solomon was greatly furthered in building of the 〈…〉 also is worthy of great praises, in that he saith, the Sophistre is the mother of contentions, so that thereby we lou● the more the armour, by which the form of good learning maketh us able to fight for the truth 〈◊〉 Finally we may hearken to Tertulian crying out against the same, calling it the crafty art of setting up & plucking down again, to wit, even indeed that part of Logic which is always occupied in contentions, and never maketh end. But let us reverence the other part, which giveth resolutions to false arguments, & severeth things necessary from those which are not, and doth so maintain the truth and beat down falsehood, that it remaineth always one, because it is joined to the firm foundation of the truth. And that this was the mind of the old Fathers touching the right order of disputing, whosoever shall diligently mark the ancient doctors, will easily agree unto us. For what saith Nazianzenus whom those men so often cast in our teeth; Ad 150. Epi, in S, ca isaiah. The truth (saith he) by Logical disputations is filled and brought to light. And furthermore what saith Basil? That the true force of Logic is distinctly to divide the nature of things, The ancient Fathers commended ● right use of Logic whereby we may know those things which are of affinity, and distinguish those which are contrary. And Augustine severing the true use of Logic from the abuse of Sophistry, saith: Con. Acali. 3 If Logic be the knowledge of the truth, so than it behoveth the wise to have knowledge thereof, that thereby he may utterly raze out the malicious falsehood of the crafty disputers, & contemn the same. But there cannot be a more excellent witness for this, than the testimony of S. Augustine, where he saith, that Logic is the only Science of all other, De ord, li. 2. ca 12 which teacheth both how to teach, and how to learn: and doth show a man how to perceive, and to make other to understand: Thus much Augustine. Wherefore, sith the case so standeth, let this so worthy art & science, have her condign and due praise, and let us be bold to say, that they reason nothing wisely, which in these our days start up, and foolishly speak against Logic. But here peradventure some man may demand of me, Touching the writings and disputations of the school Doctors. whether this my commendation doth extend itself to the Schoolmen, and chiefly unto those which have taken their original from the Master of sentences, and whether their writings do appertain to that good and true part of Logic, which resolveth doubtful arguments? Truly, as I am not willing at this time to set down my absolute opinion (touching so many me●) herein: for, for my own part let each one of them have his due reverence for his travail and labour, so am I not afeard to speak both boldly & freely my mind, what I think, always (not withstanding) keeping myself within my compass: In. 3. sent. dist. 24. quest. 1. john Duns Scotus (commonly called the subtle Doctor) saith that the Divines have in some places mixed Philosophy with Divinity, & that with great profit: I truly confess that they have mingled it with divinity, yea I add they have therewith confused Divinity, but if he think it was done with any fruit, I beseech master Doctor pardon me if I cannot herein agree with him: for sithen the Schoolmen have not followed that good part of disputing, which giveth true resolutions to arguments (as we shall hereafter declare) but have as it were dallied & sported themselves in probabilities, & being for the most part vain & frivolous arguments, me thinks they have not brought into the Church of God the true use, but rather the abuse of Philosophy: and truly, I say it seemeth to me, that into the midst of the Church, the Schoolmen have brought sophistication and shameless falsehood, decked and adorned with the colour & name of Philosophy, as of an honest matron, to the great detriment & hurt of the Church. But you will say, they have not gotten this sharp knowledge of disputing without great labour and pains: I grant it to be so: for oftentimes when I see these school men labouring, sweeting, and as it were out of breath in these their, subtle disputations, they make me to remember the Trojans, which with great labour and care brought into their City, the counterfeit Grecian Horse, whereby ensued the ruin of the whole Kingdom of Troy. Great, but unprofitable is the labour of the school Doctors. So these schoolmen with great industry and labour, have brought into the church false Philosophy: that therehence, as from the Trojan horse might spring infinite errors: by which, while these who should have been the watchmen over the Church, were even over whelmed in school ignorance, those errors have crept in, corrupted and wasted the Church of God (so as I may use the saying of Esayas) Except the Lord had left us a small remnant, we had had no church at all. A proof hereof is the Church of Rome, so depraved and corrupted, that while we seek the Church in the Church, we are constrained, not without great sorrow and tears, only to behold the ashes of the true Church. But because I may not seem here more willing to lament, then to dispute: mark what I say, to wit, that the schoolmen and questionary Doctors, have neither followed the true manner of divine disputations, Certain Errors which are to be found in the disputations of the school Doctors The first error to make their ground Logic See Scotus and others, who have written upon the master of sentences, and in their disputations called Quodlibets, etc. neither lawful use of Logic: & that this may the more evidently appear, out of divers & sundry their errors, I will gather certain, by the which we may plainly see, that they have erred not a little in their disputations, from the true manner of divine Disputing. The first error that the schoolmen admit in their disputations is this: that they are wont to dispute by the principles of Logic, and from thence to fetch their conclusions. So questions being proposed, they make the ground thereof Logic, and not Divinity, so that the Scriptures in these their Disputations, are dumb and speechless: for they oftentimes allege the Philosophers as authors in their Disputations, but very seldom the Apostles. And if at any time they bring in the Doctors, they confusedly mingle their authority with the authority of the Scriptures, neither doubt they to term their writings, by the name of the Scriptures. Lomb. li. 1. Sent. dist. 34. & li. 2. sent. dist. 9 etc. But we have learned and that out of divinity to take our principles from divinity, when so ever we dispute thereof: and that we ought so to do, it is manifest even by Logic, which doth forbid to go from the principles of one art to another, or to wander without the compass of the science, wherein we have begun to dispute. Sithen then, divinity is far above all other sciences, it were not only very foolish, but also impious and ungodly, to make it subject to the principles of Philosophy. And also to make the Doctor's equal with the Prophets and Apostles, is altogether a thing intolerable. Wherefore I think no man doubteth (except he will reason like an Atheist) but that I have sufficiently proved this first error of the Shoolemen. The second error is this, that in matters of divinity which are most true and plain, ●. Error. To reason probably on plain truths. they dispute both Pro and Contra, as it were with probable argument upon the grounds thereof: when as they ought not so to do in these points: it being both from the use of true reasoning, as also from the nature of divinity: for Topical talk of disputations are to be left to common kind and exercises. But treatises or disputings standing upon infallible grounds (of which sort most chief are the disputations of divinity) do require demonstrative, plain, and evident disputations, which ought to stand on most true, necessary, and infallible Sylogismes or arguments. Indeed the Philosophers were wont sometimes to dispute both Pro and Contra, touching the principles of their arts and sciences, that the truth might thereby more manifestly appear. But the divines dispute not about the principles of divinity, because they are of themselves most true, and without all controversy. And furthermore there is nothing more contrary to the nature of faith, than doubtfulness, and that accademical wavering in giving consent; the which being a long time a go buried and clean wiped away by the most learned disputations of Saint Augustine, Contra Aca. and other the old Fathers, is now at last most unluckily (I know not by what means) raised new by the School Doctors, and even as it were brought out again from hell. Apolog, ad 〈◊〉, Lovin Very sharply did Jerome taunt jovinian, for that he disputed in a question of divinity after the manner of the Schools, and not according to the true use of doctrine: If then he so taunted him, how much more sharply would he inveigh against these our School men▪ which have accustomed themselves to dispute no other ways even in the principles and grounds of divinity. And moreover it cometh to pass and often times happeneth to the School men which are tossed now on this side, and now on that side, as in many▪ and sundry waves of Arguments: at the last (I say) it cometh to pass, that they themselves know not to what haven, as to a sure port to betake themselves: Yea, even so, that that subtle Scotus, as also many other do leave their matter even raw and undetermined, giving leave to their Readers to be on which side they will. If you be of this side (say they) then must you answer the contrary arguments: but if you had rather to be on the other side, then lo, this have you to answer to the contrary part. Nay: what is this: That in many objections they say nothing, but bid the Reader seek the resolution himself if he will have it: yea, and again sometime they say, let him answer that can. I pray you now tell me, are these divine-like disputations wherein above all other things is required a certain persuasion of faith? or is this analytical or resolute, where as the Philosophers will have nothing taken for resolute & certainty, except it be brought to an infallible knowledge: and then to place these things in the most firm degree of truth? The third error is that they obscure and do not beautify the truth with their subtle craftiness: 3. Error▪ They darken the truth. for they make those things which be difficult and hard, more hard by their crooked and ill favoured questions: and again, those things, which are easy, and not hard of themselves, they altogether darken by their intricate obscurity and darkness of questions; and as the common saying is, they seek to undo a knot where none is. And is there any man (I pray you whatsoever) except he have altogether hardened himself with these their barbarisms, which doth not utterly fly them: yea if he do but only hear the horrible hissing of their barbarous words, right soon persuadeth himself, g he shall never be able to carry in his mind those things, which his ears cannot abide to hear. Wherefore, that which Augustine sometime spoke of Sophistry, Con. Aca. may very well (as me thinketh) agree with the school doctors, to wit, that it was like to Cacus cave: for while as the Schoolmen do so rejoice in strange opinions as in foreign riches, they so affect obscurity & seek such starting holes, that so often as they dispute, they seem not to explicate the matters, but rather to make the same intricate, and in truth there is not so much heard the voice of men, as the bellowing of beasts, out of those dark caves of their obscure questions. And finally the fourth error is, Error. 4 Is their vain questions that the schoolmen or rather questionary Doctors, do spend their time in vain and frivolous questions, and those not so expounded, as darkened by them: the which vainness in words the Apostle would have altogether abandoned from him, who is a preacher in the Church of God. For a little after he saith, Foolish and unprofitable questions forsake, 2. Tim. 2 knowing that they breed strife. And how true this is, it doth enidently appear in the questionary Doctors, of whom you shall scarce find two that do agree in one opinion. For so Scotus doth disagree from Thomas of Aquine, and Occam from Scotus, and the other from Occam, that you can scarce enter into their writings, but that you must be partaker of their contention and strife: when as indeed those are the true divine treatises and exercises in divinity, which establish & confirm our faith, and are made to the edifi●ng & comfort of the whole church. And therefore r●ght well doth Augustine admonish vel, saying: E●chi. ●d Lauren. cap. 55. That there is no need to determinate or open those things with danger, which may be unknown without danger or hurt▪ whereby we may easily perceive that the kind of disputing which the Popish school doctors have used, hath very little or no fellowship, with the true divine treatises or exercises. Wherefore that I may have some favour of those which profess themselves eni●ious to Logic: here I show them how that they may turn their former upbraid & repr●hentions: and may say that the philosophy of these questionary doctors & schoolmen is altogether vain deceit, yea, the mother of contention, that crafty art of building and destroying, which ought utterly to be repulsed from the true Church of God, together both with the Moabites & Ammonits: Thus let them say, and then I must needs confess, that I have nothing to say against them. But the Popish School men of this our age, The Popish schol doctors of ou● time frame not such arguments in their disputations as the ancient learned were want. fa●e unto themselves another ●inde of writing: for these contrive not together naked Silogismes as the other were want, but they use long and tedious declamations, chief against those which profess the sincerity of pure doctrine of the Gospel: in doing of which matter, they willingly abstain from silogismes or arguments. For where as for the most part they blow forth their malicious 〈◊〉, & 〈…〉 their vile 〈◊〉, thinking it cannot be aptly concluded in mode and figure after a short form of argument, therefore they rather 〈…〉 a more larger scope of disputing. Sith than as I suppose▪ it is manifest even by those things which I have before declared, that the disputations of the popish doctors are neither true divine disputations, nor ordered by the rules of logic. It shall be necessary & needful therefore to set down some method, The method to dispute both divinely & school like, necessity in our time. whereby we may dispute both divinely & also schoolike: & (to repeat Augustine's words) that we may be able utterly to banish the false brawling of sophistry, the which (I would to God) the learned divines & those which are skilful in the same most excellent art of Logic, (of the which sort I doubt not but there be many) would determine with themselves to do, & so to set down both to us now, & also to the posterities hereafter, the way to dispute both schoolike & divinelike. For if S. Augustine most excellently compared the knowledge of human sciences, D● doct. Chri. lib. 2. cap. 40. unto the treasure of Egypt, which the Israelites carried away with them: truly then we which see many in these our days to abuse those so●en ornaments and riches, to the f●aming of error, that Idol: it were not amiss but very requisite & necessary, that the good & learned men, should willingly bestow those riches, to the building of the tabernacle of God, and to the fortifying of the truth against the errors of men. And until those which do excel in the study of divinity, as also in the science of Logic, do take in hand to perform this matter, I will set down something as touching this, (although slender) for those young men's sakes, which are studious of Divinity: so that they which hereafter write, may add the true colours to these my first and rude lineaments. There are two ways how to entreat of Divinity, Two ways to entreat of divinity. the one compact with a full and flowing style, which teacheth the simple, & stirreth up the slothful to embrace the doctrine of truth: The other more pithy, but short, the which putting away those things that may move the affections of the mind, and divesting itself of all flowers of Rhetoric, showeth unto us things simple and plain as they are of themselves, and setteth down plain and naked arguments, so that the truth of matters may be manifestly seen, and as it were touched with our hands. And this last way perchance, is not so well welcome to those which, are delighted in plesantness of speech but truly no less profitable to all those which are both lovers of simplicity, and desirous of the truth. A similitude. For like as the view of man's body is a great deal more pleasant to behold, while it is clad with the flesh, & the blood running in each vain, having a comely colour: yet notwithstanding if we come at any time to the Anatomy, than the faculty of each part, and the constitution of the whole body is a great deal better known: so if any will wisely & diligently weigh those larger and pleasanter treatises, The brief & school like treatises are as it were an Anatomy of the large and copious writing or speakings and bring them to arguments as unto Anatomies, then without doubt he shall easily perceive, whether they be absolute & perfect in every point; or whether there be any thing wanting: and as the Physician showeth forth even as it were with the finger, the original and causes of diseases, so shall he here do touching errors, if there be any. The former sort doth indeed delight the minds, as will of those which are learned, as those which are unlearned: but this latter manner of exercise, sith it is occupied in that only kind of matter, which appertaineth to doctrine, is more meet for those which are best learned, who are nothing moved with the flood of vain words, if especially there be no force of matter contained in them, because that speech without reason, is not to be counted any thing worth. Augustine, Cyprian, Hilary, Hieronimus, and divers old learned Fathers, have used this kind of disputing very much: & this also the schoolmen seemed to profess, but with what success I have showed already. But chiefly we must consider and have great care on doth sides, that when we dispute touching doctrine, all our arguments be necessary and pertaining to doctrine, so that they be grounded upon most sure principles and infallible grounds of Divinity. And above all things, we must beware that we take not things which may be disputed on both sides, for things necessary: things which be strange, for those that are known: falsehood, for truth; the which truly doth happen oftentimes in much lavishing out of speech, the which the adversaries of the truth, most commonly abuse, where by they may the more conveniently hide themselves under the covert of many words: so that when they have said much, ●hey would also seem to have spoken truth. The best & chiefest for this mischief is, if after the long circumstances, that then there be● fet down a brief Logical handling of those their words spoken before, to be as it were an Anatomy and recapitualation of all subtle sophemes, and crafty fallaces: And when the falsehood of words is clean taken away, it will bewray those things which are false, it will set truth against falsehood, and bear them both out: yea finally it will bring to pass (even as Augustine sometime said) That each thing with other, Cout. Ma●. lib. 3. cause with cause, and reason with reason may strive together. And here who seeth not, that when errors are clean taken away, how easily the truth will overcome: and the same truth which the huge flood of words had over whelmed, will even willingly as it were advance herself up again. Sith then that schoollike handling of matters will bring so great profit (so the Logic be directed by the true rules of divinity) I then entreat & beseech these learned divines of this our age, which are defenders of the gospel, that they have ●are hereof, & set down unto us some certain & easy method of this schoolike way, how to handle each point: the which we may follow, and the which also may be both to us present, as also to the posterities hereafter a most true touchstone whereby we may try the sundry works of divers men, which have written of divinity: the which if they shall perform, they shall greatly profit the Church of God, especially in these times, in which each man striveth in setting forth of books touching the principal points of divinity, who may do best. For where as the civilians only write touching their laws, the Physicians of their faculty, and so all others of those arts and sciences which they profess, & in the which they are conversant: yet notwithstanding it cometh to pass (I know not by what means) that not only divines, but also men clean void of divinity, of all sorts, are wont now every where to dispute in their books touching divinity: so that herein I assent with Nazianzene, De mod. in disp. Ser. which before time hath most grievously complained of this matter. And we have thought good to publish this our small labour abroad, not that we think we have obtained the same method which we desire, but that by this means we may at the least give a testimony that we look for a more exact method from the learned divines, yea, and earnestly desire them to perform the same. Behold than we here set down a schoolelike treatise of divinity, taken out of the first Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, to wit, A treatise of the word of God written. touching the word of God written, against man's traditions, about which matter there is great controversy between us and the Papists. And for this cause I omit the handling of this point at large, because it may be easily seen in the writings of late, set forth on both parts: of which writings I will make as it were a certain resolution or anatomy in this school like treatise. How the disputations of divinity differ from others, & that they ought reverently to be handled. But before I come to this my purpose, I am willing somewhat to admonish the Reader, how that these disputations touching the Scriptures doth far differ from all others. For in disputations of Philosophy, Physic, civil government, and such other, there eloquence showeth itself, there desire to excel doth rule, there oratory pleading bursteth out: yea, oftentimes in such matters, men desire nothing but to show forth the braveness of their wits, or else seek after glory and praise. But in divine disputations, where (as Augustine saith) Bravery must not be sought, De doct. Chri. li. 4. cap. 19 but good documents and lessons, and that with great reverence: yea, and very reverently we must dispute of holy things, not as upon the stage before men, but as in the midst of the Church before the living God and his Angels: not for the desire of victory, but for the maintenaurce of the truth, in as much as Paul forbiddeth the Pastors of the Church, once to speak of vain questions, 1. Tim. 6. or contentions of words, which can scarce be done without the detrument of the truth. Wherefore praying aid at the hands of almighty God, that he will direct and establish this our labour by his holy spirit, let us proceed into this most holy conflict, in the which the word of GOD is the place of combat, God himself the chief judge, truth the victory, salvation the garland of triumph. And hereby with more valiant minds we take upon us this most noble conflict, because it otherwise happeneth in this, then in other battles, for there he alone is crowned which vanquisheth, but the end of this battle is such, that even he which is vanquished (so that he acknowledge himself overcome and embrace the truth) shall likewise be crowned, Quest. ver. 108. together with the victor. And Augustine saith, that it is better to be overcome of the truth, then to be willing to overcome the truth with falsehood. For whatsoever men practise against the truth, yet this must they know, to wit, that verity cannot be vanquished: the which Augustine also calleth perpetual victory. De Civie. Dei. li. 2. cap. 29. 1 Furthermore, this point of doctrine, The use of this disputation. touching the which our disputation is, is of so great weight that it may be thought (and that worthily) to be the very foundation of all Religion. And therefore (not without great cause) the Prophet David doth acknowledge the word of GOD to be a Lantern, Psal. 119. the which except it lighten our feet, of necessity we must walk in most horrible darkness: yea, also we both stumble and fall. But the defenders of the Popish Church, do so hotly strive and contend for man's Traditions, and think them no less worthy to be retained, than some precious Picture of Pallas, the which being taken away, they think it not possible any longer to defend or maintain their pontificial chair, wherein there have been so many Vicars assaulted, and now at the last (Truth prevailing) shall be quite overthrown and brought unto nought. But that we may come to the matter, The division of this work this disputation shall be divided into six parts. First, we will set down our own opinion and then the opinion of the adversary: & then we will try them both, so that thereby may appear what is the state of our controversy. Secondly, we will confirm our opinion by manifest proof of scriptures, and by most sure and flat demonstrations grounded on those places so collected. Thirdly, we will refel the opinion of the other party by negative disputations. Fourthly, we will wipe away the objections of the adversary, which they wrist out of the scriptures. Fiftly, we will take away the foundations which they take out of the writings of the Doctors, to ground their opinions on. And sixtly, we will hear the old Doctors touching this point, agreeing both with us, and the word of God. ⁂ THE FIRST CHAPTER. He, 1. ve. ● ¶ At sundry times, and in divers manners, God spoke in the old time to our Fathers by the Prophets: In these last days, he hath spoken unto us by his son. WHen Tertulian would enter into the conflict of disputation, and join with the adversary: he was wont to bonder the whole sum of the question, with certain bonds (for so himself saith) whereby he might not serve from the matter which he had in hand. And that we also may do the like, Our opinion and mind touching the word of God. we will first propone or set down our mind and opinion (which is the opinion of each reformed Church,) touching the word of God, by the testimony of the same word of God which is this. All necessary principles of christian faith, are contained in the holy Scriptures. This our sentence or opinion we thus expound, out of that place of the Epistle to the Hebrews which ministereth unto us, The declaration of our opinion or mind. sufficient matter for this disputation. God spoke in the time of the old Testament in divers and sundry manners to our fathers, to wit, by oracles, visions, dreams, by urim and Thummim, finally by the prophets, speaking by the motion or inspiration of the spirit of God, and the same word of God, (the spirit of God so commanding) was committed to writing, both by Moses, and also by other Prophets, and most holy men: Now in these last days, jesus Christ, the chief and most perfect Doctor and teacher of his Church being given to the world, taught the Apostles by mouth, & ordained them teachers for his Church, which did publish in writing the doctrine of the Gospel received from Christ, & by them taught by mouth. Sith than the word of God is the measure of our faith, & that that word of God remaineth in the most holy monuments or writings of the scriptures, it followeth of necessity, that all the principles which are necessary to faith and salvation of the Church, are contained in the holy Scriptures: and whatsoever the Apostles have taught, we ought to look for them in the holy Scriptures: neither ought we to receive any tradition in matter of faith. And because matters are made more manifest by ummilitudes, we will take our similitude from a King, which by mouth proclaimeth an Edict, & then willeth the same to be printed, the which being done, men are not wont curiously to inquire of others, which either heard or were present at the proclamation, what is contained in the King's Edict, because the Edict is in print, to the which they must stand, and the which they must also believe. So then I affirm, in as much as the word was proclaimed and declared by the Apostles and evangelists, and by them committed to writing, it were in vain and foolish now a days any other where to be sought, then in the Scriptures: what the Apostles and Evangelists did teach by mouth. But now the opinion of the adversary is this. That all principles of Religion necessary for our Christian faith, The opinion and mind of the papists. are not contained in the holy Scriptures. The which their opinion they thus expound. Although the word of God be the measure of our faith, yet the whole word of God is not extant in the scriptures: The declaration & exposition of their opinion. for many things were spoken by the Apostles & Evangelists which they writ not. Furthermore the Catholic church say they, (meaning the Church of Rome) is so endowed with the spirit of God, that she is able of herself to deliver those things which are necessary both to faith & salvation. Wherefore that we may have the whole word of God, the Apostolical and eccle●●asticall traditions must be added to the scriptures: this is their opinion. The state & point of this controversy Now than you may see manifestly, what is the state or issue of our controversy: for this is that which must be discussed: whether the whole word of God delivered by the Prophets and Apostles, and necessary for our salvation, be contained in the Scriptures, which is the word written, or not: we affirm that it is: they say nay: so then there ●anne be but one of our opinions true: as is manifest by the first grounds of Logic. The terms of this question expounded In any reasoning, the affirmative or negative 〈◊〉 needs be true, but before we go about the confirmation of our opinion, we will set down the bounds & limits of our question both briefly and short. What the word of God is. When we say the word of God, we mean not that eternal Word the Son of the eternal and everlasting father, being the second person in Trinity: but that external word by the which God hath made manifest unto men his will and pleasure, and therefore we add and say that word which was delivered & taught by the Apostles and Prophets, so that it may be more manifest what we mean by the word of God. What tradition is. Also this word Tradition may not only be referred to the word taught by mouth, but also to the word written, as it is manifest in the second to the Thessalonians, the second chapter, where the Apostle saith, Stand fast and keep the traditions or instructions which you have been taught either by word or by Epistle. And even after this sort also, have the old fathers used to speak, as we will show in the proper place: notwithstanding in this question, according to the manner of speaking, it is restrained to that word which is taught by mouth. What is meant by this word: Necessary to salvation. Furthermore we mean by the word of God, necessary to our salvation, all those things which God hath commanded us to believe with a most sure persuasion of faith, so that we may make a difference, between faith and opinion, and between the principles of Christian religion, What is meant by holy Scripture. and the probable disputations and ordinances of men. Last of all, by the name of the holy Scripture, we understand all the books Canonical both of the new and old testament. And thus much I thought good to speak briefly touching the explication of our question. The second Chapter. Hither to we have declared our mind & opinion touching the word of God: A demonstrative or evident disputation. now it resteth that we confirm the same by most certain proofs and arguments derived and taken out of the same word of God, and so at the last a flat demonstrative or most true argument being gathered from most true principles, we may rid the whole matter out of all obscurity, placing it in the most manifest light of truth. And to bring this to pass, we will follow this order. First to set down certain places of scripture, from whence we will draw our arguments. Secondly the places of Scripture being collected and brought together, we will fet a true definition of the word of God: the which definition also, shall be the proof of our argument, cutting away all exception & doubt. And although in the reciting of the places of scripture, I do not curiously labour touching the order thereof (for each place of scripture is of sufficient authority to make any conclusion) yet notwithstanding, I have taken some care, that the order of the places of scripture, may answer unto each parts of the definition, as much as may be. Wherefore let us begin with this place of the Apostle, which hath ministered occasion unto us of this disputations. The first place. God at sundry times and indivers manners in the old times, Heb. 1 spoke to our fathers by the Prophets, but in these last days, he hath spoken unto us by his son. Whereby we conclude thus. If the word of God being sufficient or necessary unto the salvation of the church, The Syllogism or argument was delivered first unto us by the Prophets and then by Christ and his Apostles, and that word of GOD so delivered by the Prophets, is this day only to be sought for in the writings of the Prophets. Then truly the word of God delivered unto us by Christ and his Apostles, must be sought for only in the writings of the Apostles, except any good reason may be given to the contrary. But the word of God necessary to the salvation of the Church, was delivered first unto us by the Prophets, & then by Christ & his Apostles, & the same word of God delivered by the Prophets, is this day only to be sought in the writings of the Prophets & no where else: neither any good reason to the contrary can be rendered, why the like should not be, touching the word of god delivered by Christ and his Apostles. Wherefore we conclude, that the word of god necessary to the salvation of the church, is only to be sought for in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles. Now let us try our argument. The explication or proof of the argument. This syllogism or argument is hypothetical or double, the use whereof is very necessary so often as we shall be occupied in the comparing of things together. And the hypothetical or double arguments are very needful in divine disputations, is manifest both by the old Doctors, also by the new schoolmen, who most often use them. Wherefore I doubt not to use these, even as well as the categorical arguments: because the matter or grounds of our disputations are not Topical, or standing on the invention of art, but grounded on expressse places of Scriptures, and therefore those kind of arguments, are not inferior to others. The ground or matter therefore of our argument is made manifest even by the light of nature, The confirmation of the conference. who biddeth us of things like, to judge the like. And these principles which we have drawn from nature herself, the Apostle teacheth us that they are not to be rejected, when as in the matter of regeneration, he bringeth the Corinthians to the consideration of nature: For being schooled by nature's rule, saith Tertulian, Tert. de resur. car. thou mayst the easilier believe the prophesy. Now if we mark the substance, we shall find the word of God both in the old testament and in the new to be all one: For the Apostle professeth, saying: That he hath spoken nothing, but that which the Prophets and Moses had before spoken. Act. 26. I confess that the publishing of the word of God in the new Testament, was a great deal more excellent and fruitful then before: yea, and that maketh for our cause, and therefore far wide is it, that it should hurt us or our matter, as hereafter in our disputation, we will more at large prove. Let us then make a comparison between the old and new Testament, as much as appertaineth to the word of God exhibited in them both after this sort: If God spoke by the Prophets in the old testament, than also he hath spoken by the Apostles in the new testament. And if the prophets taught the word of God by mouth, the like so then the apostles have done. And if the prophets committed to writing the word of God, so also have the Apostles. Wherefore if the prophets comprehended the whole doctrine of the old testament in their writings, why should not we say, that the Apostles have also comprised the whole doctrine of the gospel, in their books? Now let the defenders of the contrary opinion, bring forth & show some reason to disprove this my assertion. I say some good reason, not borrowed from the dreams of men's brains, nor from topical & cavilling arguments, but derived from the word of God. But this they cannot do. Furthermore, I urge this place of the Apostle which we have in hand, & reason thus. If the word of God delivered after divers manners, ways, and at many times, be now altogether to be found in the writings of the prophets: why should not we say the like of the Gospel, being the word of god, which (as the apostle witnesseth) was not at sundry times or in divers manners delivered? For otherwise who seeth not, that the apostles comparison in the recited text, were of no force. For if the Apostle had said thus, then were our adversaries opinion true: to wit, Like as in times passed under the old testament God spoke at sundry times & in divers manners: so now likewise hath he also spoken to us in the time of the new testament at sundry times, & in divers manners that is by the writings of the apostles, by apostolical traditions not written, & also now speaketh by the traditions of the church: the which how it repugneth & is contrary to the mind of the apostle, even our adversaries themselves cannot deny the same: & thus much touching the first part of our argument. The minor, The confirmation of the second part of the argument. which is the second part of our argument, containeth in itself, three members. First, that the word of god (necessary to the salvation of the Church) was delivered unto us, first by the prophets, & then after by Christ and his Apostles: and this is manifest by this place of the Apostle, in that he saith, In times past he spoke by his Prophets, but in these last days by his son: And that this last speaking appertaineth also to the Apostles, it is manifest by the words of the Apostle, in his second chapter of this Epistle, where he saith, that the gospel was first preached unto us by Christ, and then confirmed by those which heard him. And again john the 20. and 17. Christ saith, Ioh, 20. 17 As my Father sent me, even so send I you. And it cannot be denied but that the Apostles published the Gospel in writing. The second part of the minor is, that the word of God delivered by the Prophets, is now only to be sought for in the writings of the Prophets. And this is proved by the usual phrases of the Scriptures, which by the Prophets, mean the writings of the Prophets, as Romans the first, where he saith: Put a part for the Gospel, Rom. 1. which he had promised before by his Prophets, in the holy Scriptures. Lu. 16 And again Luk. 16. They have Moses and the Prophets. john. 6. john. 6. It is written in the Prophets. Acts. 26. Paul saith. Act. 26. O king Agrippa believest thou the Prophets? I know thou believest. Luke. 24. And he began at Moses, Lu. 24 & at all the Prophets, and interpreted unto them in all the Scriptures the things which were written of him. To conclude, because I will not recite many places, finally Peter by the words of the Prophets meaneth the writings of the Prophets. 2, Pet. 1. 2. Epistle, chapter. 1. And in the last end of the same chapter he saith thus: For the prophesy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost. Now if our adversaries will not yield unto us, let them bring good proof unto us to the contrary: but y●, (as I have already said) they cannot do. Now the third and last member is, that they of the contrary part, can bring forth no proof to the contrary, but that we may conclude touching the word of God delivered unto us by Christ and the Apostles, that it is wholly contained in the writing of the Apostles, as well as the word of God delivered by the Prophets, is contained in the writings of the Prophets, to wit, so much as is necessary for our faith & salvation. But if at any time our adversaries affirm that they can bring some good reason to the contrary, than they must bring such as must be both true and also agreeing to the Scripture. And thus the parts of our argument being confirmed, the conclusion thereof must needs be true. The second place. It seemed good to me most noble Theophilus, Act. 1 to write unto thee thereof from point to point that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, whereof thou hast been instructed. To this purpose also these places may serve. jude. I gave my diligence (saith he) to write unto you of the common salvation. Philip. chap. 3. Philip. 3. It grieveth me not to write the same things unto you, and it is profitable for you. 1. john. 1. john. 1. Epistle. chap. 1. We declare unto you that which we have seen. 2. Peter. chap. 3. 2. Pet. 3. This second Epistle I now write unto you beloved, wherewith I stir up your pure minds, to call to your remembrance the words which were spoken before of the holy Prophets, & also the commandments of us, the Apostles of the Lord and saviour. 2. 2. Pet. 1. Peter. chap. 1. I will not cease to put you always in remembrance of these things, although ye be already instructed therein. From these and such other places, we draw this argument. If the Apostles and Evangelists published in writing the Gospel, to his end, The argument. that the truth of those things which they taught by mouth, might be the better known & confirmed, and that thereby also it should the better sink into the mind and memory of men: then truly the Apostles and Evangelists, left all those things in writing, which by mouth they had taught, being necessary to faith and salvation. The Antecedent is true, And therefore my conclusion is also true The ground of our argument which is the first part cannot be denied, The explication or proof of the argument. for then the middle would repugn with the end: the which far be it from us, that we should once think, especially in them which did both speak & write the gospel, with one & the self same spirit. As for the second part of our argument it is confirmed by the former places in plain words. The third place. Thou shalt not add to the word which I teach & command thee. And again, Deu, 4. Prou. 30. Thou mayst not add unto his word lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Wherefore I say, The argument if it be not lawful for man to add any thing to the writings of Moses, then truly, after that the writings of the Apostles, were joined to the writings of Moses and the Prophets, we may plainly say, that the scriptures do contain all those things, the knowledge and faith whereof is necessary and sufficient, to salvation. The antecedent is true: Wherefore we ought not to doubt of the truth of the consequence. The first part of our syllogism is manifest not only by the similitude, The examining or trial of the argument but also by the often comparing of the word of God delivered by Moses, as also by the Apostles, as it is proved in the first place. Our Minor is proved by the places before recited: which proveth that we may not add unto the word of God. And lest our adversaries should say, that that place of Moses is not tied unto the word of God written by Moses: we will recite certain places, which shall cut off all shifts of our adversaries. Moses Exodus. 24. Writ all these words of the Lord. Again, Deut. Moses wrote this law. Again, Deut. 28. Exod. 24. All the words of this law, Deu. 31. which is written in this book. Deu. 28. And Paul in the Act. 24. I believe (saith he) all those things which are written in the Law & in the Prophets. Act. 24. And that which Moses saith Deut. 27. Let each one be accursed which abideth not in all the words of this law: Deu. 27. Paul thus expoundeth Gal. 3. saying, Gal. 3 In all things which are written in the book of the law. By which places we may easily perceive, that the word of God touching the which Moses speaketh, is not to be interpreted the writings of Moses alone, neither to be applied unto certain unwritten verities delivered only by the mouth of Moses, as the jews doctors do falsely surmise, whose errors have long time since been even hissed out of the Church of Christ. The 4. place. Get thee to the law and testimony: Esa. 8. If they say not after this word, there is no light in them. Hereof we frame this argument. If the people under the law ought to repair to the Scriptures, The argument. and nothing was to be received in matters of faith the which was not contained in the holy Scriptures: then truly by greater reason, afterward that the doctrine of the Gospel written of the Apostles, was joined to the writings of the old Testament, (the which Apostles did explicate and teach the true meaning of the law) those things alone must be received in matters of faith, which are contained in the writings of the old and new testaments. The antecedent is true: Wherefore also the consequent must be true. The first part of our argument is manifest of itself, The examining or trial of the argument through the force of comparison. Although, (if we have respect to the ground and substance thereof) the Apostles spoke no other thing, then the which was before spoken by Moses & the prophets as Paul affirmeth. Act. 26. Act. 26. Yet no christian hath at any time doubted, but that the publishing of the word of God was far more excellent and plentiful, after the Incarnation of Christ, than it was before: like as the apostles in divers places have taught. 2. Cor, 3. etc. Wherefore; if before his incarnation, they ought to be ruled by the word of god written, how much more than ought we now? The minor is manifest by the recited places. And h●re I am not ignorant, that this afore recited place of the prophet, is diversly. expounded of the learned: but howsoever they expound these words, it cometh to this effect: that they live in most horrible darkness which despising the word of God, take unto themselves the errors of enchanters, witches, and man's dreams. The fift place. Thou hast known the holy Scriptures of a child, 2. Tim. 3. which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through the faith which is in Christ jesus: for the whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, & to instruct, in righteousness: that the man of God may be absolute being made perfect to every good work. If such be the force of the holy Scriptures, The argument. that it maketh a man wise & perfectly instructed unto salvation, then ought we to be content with the holy Scriptures in causes and matters of faith. The Antecedent is true, And therefore the consequent must be the like. The first part of our argument is manifest through the nature of perfection: The examining or triail o● the syllogism for if the scriptures make us perfect, to what end then serve traditions not written? And unto this end serveth the saying of Paul before alleged. The minor is manifest and proved by the place recited of Paul. But peradventure our adversaries will here object and say, that Paul spoke here only of the scriptures of the old Testament, because Timothy was instructed from his youth. But sith Paul here addeth and saith, Through the faith that is in Christ jesus, he doth manifestly declare, that the doctrine of the Gospel, was joined with the knowledge of the old Testament. But they may say, that the Gospel was not then published in writing, but only delivered and taught by mouth. First let them tell me, whereby they gather this? for it is manifest by the fourth Chapter of that his Epistle, that Paul wrote this same Epistle, very near about the time of his death. And here if you will make a good account of the times, you shall easily perceive, that then: when this Epistle was sent unto Timothy, all the Epistles of the Apostles, (or well near all) were put in writing. And furthermore, what matter were it, if then the doctrine of the Gospel had not been published in writing, inasmuch as it was afterward done. Finally, if ye would that Paul should here speak touching the writing of the old Testament only, then would I make mine argument of more force and reason thus: If the writings of the old Testament were of such force that they were able to make men wise unto salvation, how much more shall the whole Scripture of the old and new Testament, be able to perform the same? But he which shall deny that this same excellent sentence of Paul touching the whole Scriptures, (to wit, that it was given by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teach) doth appertain unto the writings of the new testament, he is not only to be thrust out of the number of divines, but is also to be banished out of the society of Christians. Neither yet let them go about to cavil with us, for that the old translation hath this word Prepared, and not absolute Perfect to all good works. For truly (that I may not omit any thing, and so serve from our argument) the Greek word signifieth Perfection, as in the Acts. 21. ver. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But when the days were full perfected and ended, we went on our journey, etc. Where and in which place, Luke useth the same Greek word which Paul doth use in the Text to Timothy, signifying as you see Absolute and Perfect. Also the compound of the same verb in Greek hath the like signification: As Matthew. 21. ver. 26. By the mouths of babes and sucklings, thou hast made perfect thy praise. Again. 1. Thessa. 3. ver. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Night & day praying exceedingly, that we might see your face, and might accomplish or make perfect, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that which is wanting in your faith. And again, Heb. 13. ver. 22. The 6. place. Search the Scriptures, for in them you think to have eternal life. john. 5. If the people in times passed under the law, The argument. do think, and that not without good cause to have eternal life in the Scriptures, that is, that all those things were contained in the Scriptures, the knowledge and faith whereof attained everlasting life: then truly by greater reason we ought to believe the self same, being now under the Gospel: after that to the scriptures of the old testament, the writings of the Apostles was also joined, which interpret and teach the verity and truth of the old testament. The antecedent is true: The explication or trial of the argument. And therefore there is no doubt of the consequent. The force of comparison, confirmeth the first part of our argument: for such kinds of reasons hath both Christ and his Apostles Lu, 23. 31. used, 1. Pet. 4. 17 etc. neither can our adversaries defy, but that the writings of the new Testament, are more excellent than the writings of the old. The other part of our argument is proved by the express words of Christ: for so far was it from Christ, that he would reprove the jews for searching the Scriptures: but did himself rather reason after that manner. The 7. place. That ye may learn by us: that no man presume above that which is written, 1. Cor. 4. etc. If we ought not to presume to be wise above that which is written: The Syllogism and the principles of faith, appertain unto true and perfect wisdom: then truly ought we to be contented with the scriptures in causes and matters of faith. The antecedent is true: Therefore the consequent cannot be denied. The first part of our Argument is manifest of itself: The exaamination of the syllogism The other part is proved by the place of the Apostle. Yet here I must also confess, that this place of the Apostle Paul, is otherwise expounded of certain new Writers (to wit) of those things, which Paul himself had before written. The which sense if any man be willing to follow, than thus make we our argument: If Paul called back the Corinthians unto his own writings, how much more than ought we to be called back unto the writings of the whole Scriptures? But because the old writers whom our adversaries follow most, do expound this place of Paul generally, I had rather to frame mine argument from the interpretation of them. There may be also framed an evident and plain syllogism in the second mode of the second figure, flatly denying their assertion in this sort. Whosoever groundeth any Article of faith upon traditions not written, taketh upon him to be wise above that which is written. An evident argument But no man truly obeying the Christian & Apostolic, doctrine, doth take upon him, to be wise above that which is written. Ergo, No man truly obeying the christian & apostolic doctrine, doth ground any principle of faith upon traditions not written. The 8. Place. Many other things did jesus which are not written in this book: john. 20. but these things are written that you might believe that jesus Christ is the son of God, and in believing you might have everlasting life through his name. If the Apostles and Evangelists wrote those things which seemed sufficient and necessary, The argument. that we which believe may have eternal life: then truly the Articles of our faith, are to be grounded upon the Scriptures, and not upon traditions which are unwritten, which our adversaries term Apostolic. The Antecedent is true. And therefore the consequent cannot be denied. The truth of the first part of our Argument is manifest, The explication of the argument. except peradventure any man would go about to think himself wiser than either the Apostles or Evangelists: the which God forbidden that any man should do. The consequent is proved by the words of john. The 9 place. The law of the Lord is perfect, giving life & true wisdom unto man: yea, Psa. 19 the law of the Lord is right and just, Psa. 119 more precious than gold, Deu. 4. sweeter than honey: the wisdom and understanding of the Church, Psa. 4. & he is blessed that meditateth or occupieth himself therein. If the scriptures of the old testament in their kind were perfect, The argument. because therein is contained true wisdom, and made those blessed even as many as willingly and constantly did meditate therein: then truly after that the writings of the Apostles were joined unto the old testament, (the which writings of the Apostles do explicate and teach the verity and truth of the said old testament) then (I say) by good right & consequence the whole scriptures both of the old and new testament, may be called perfect, as that which perfectly containeth all necessary doctrine for the church of Christ. The antecedent is true: The explication of the argument. And therefore the consequence must be also true. The antecedent is manifest enough of itself. The minor is proved by the recited places. For by the name and title of the law, is often understood the whole scriptures of the old testament, as it is manifest by the Apostle Paul Gal. 4. ver. 21. as also the circumstance of the afore alleged place doth most manifestly prove. Gal. 4. 21. Now from these and such other places we will gather a true definition of the holy Scriptures after this sort. * A definition of holy Scripture. Heb. 1. 1 2. Ti. 3. 16 Heb 1. 1. 2. Pet. 1. 21 Lu. 1. 3 1. john. 1. 1. joh. 20. 31 etc. The holy scripture is the word of God given by divine inspiration from God, and by the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, (moved by the spirit of God) was written in the books Canonical of the old and new testament, that the verity and truth of God, might be taken and set free from the oblivion and corruptings of men, & that the Church might be perfectly instructed and confirmed in all those things, the knowledge and faith whereof is necessary to salvation. This definition is most perfectly & substantially true. The explicating of the definition. 2. Pe. 3. 1. 2 Col. 3. 1 Pro. 30. 6 Esa. 8. 20 etc. Psa. 1. & 19 & 1. 9 etc., 2. Tim. 3 16. 17. 2. Pe. 1. 12 joh. 20. 31 2. Tim. 3 15 john. 5. 39 For it standeth upon the Genus & difference, & containeth all those causes, both which the Logicians say belong to the Subiectum, as also that belong unto the Attributum. And especially it containeth the efficient cause, under the which is added the instrumental, & then the final cause, which two causes in such kind of matters, are especially to be considered. The spirit of god is the cause efficient, who used the prophets & apostles as instruments: the conineruation of the truth, & confirmation of the church, is the end wherefore the word of God was put in writing: so this definition standeth upon his full parts: and the thing defined, and the definition, do both agree together. Now from this definition as from a most perfect & true ground, we make thus our demonstrative argument. Whatsoever is the word of God given by inspiration from God, The argument. and written by the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, by the motion of God's spirit, etc. that containeth all principles necessary to christian faith. But the holy Scripture is the word given by divine inspiration, etc. Ergo the holy Scriptures contain all principles necessary to the christian faith. This argument is most evident and necessary, and standeth grounded upon grounds of the former places, and containeth the verity and truth of our whole question. Wherefore doth the Scriptures contain all these things, the knowledge & faith whereof are necessary unto salvation. Truly because the word of God was written by the Prophets and Apostles to this end, that the Church should be perfectly instructed, etc. Again, whatsoever is spoken of the one party may be said of the other. The unfolding of the former reason. Furthermore, if any do ask what these things be, the knowledge and faith whereof are necessary to salvation? I answer, the Scriptures. And again when I name the Scriptures, I name all those things, the knowledge whereof is necessary to salvation. The like also may be said touching the ground of our argument, the which is the definition of the Scripture, as is before said: wherefore this our demonstration and argument is most manifest, and hath brought the truth of our opinion out of all question or doubt: to wit, that the holy scriptures contain all those principles necessary to Christian faith, the which was our purpose to prove. The third Chapter. NOW after that the truth of our opinion is made manifest by the former demonstrations & affirmative disputation as at the first we did determine: A disputation confutative, uherein is refelled or confuted the opinion or judgement of the Papists, so will we now come unto the negative disputation, which is to refel and refute the opinion of our adversaries. For although the truth being made manifest, the falsehood must needs be confuted & overthrown, & by this our affirmative disputation we have manifestly proved, that the scriptures do contain all those things, the knowledge & faith whereof is necessary to salvation: yet notwithstanding this ou●●egatiue disputation proceedeth as rising of necessary consequence, which is this: That there is nothing to be sought for out of the holy scriptures, the knowledge and faith whereof, is necessary to salvation. And by force of the consequence, traditions not written by the Apostles, are not to be received in any Article and principle of faith: yet notwithstanding, it cometh to pass (I know not by what means) that we are more delighted in the confuting of error and falsehood, then in confirming the truth. Wherefore I could not let slip this kind of disputation, whereby the reader may be thoroughly confirmed in the knowledge of the truth. This therefore is the opinion of our adversaries which repugneth with ours, even as it were Ex Diametro, to wit. That the holy scriptures, do not contain all things, the knowledge & faith whereof is necessary to salvation. The which error we thus confute. If Moses, the Prophets, Christ, & the Apostles, The first argument against papistical traditions did always confirm the principles of faith by the Scriptures, and not by unwritten traditions: & our adversaries on the contrary part will confirm the principles of faith very seldom by the Scripture, but most vsualli●a●y unwritten traditions, then truly our adversary's do otherwise teach the Church, than either did Moses, the Prophets, Christ, or the Apostles. The Antecedent is true, And so is the consequent. And by force of the consequent our adversaries are not to be allowed in the manner of instructing the church. The unfolding of the former reason. The antecedent is true: & the consequent is proved by this induction, collected from places of holy scripture. Moses doth call them back to the law written, as S. Paul doth interpret it. Deu. 27. Gal. 3 The same Moses, Deu. 31 commandeth the law written to be published before all the people. josua exhorteth the Israelits, josu. 23 that they do those things which are written in the book of the law. In the time of josia king of Israel, 2. Kin. 23. the people swore to observe those things which were written in the law. The Prophets each where call the Israelites, Esa, 8. to the writings of Moses. After the people returned from the captivity, Nehem, 8. the law of Moses was recited: & the worshipping of God was taken from that law written. Christ biddeth them search the Scriptures. john. 5. Mat. 22. Christ speaking to the 〈◊〉 saith, ye err, because ye know not the Scriptures. They have Moses and the Prophets, Lu. 16. let them hear them. And Christ opened the understanding of the Apostles, Lu. 24. that they might understand the Scriptures. Paul preached Christ, alleging the law and the Prophets. Act. 26. Apollo's reproveth the jews & proveth that jesus is Christ by the Scriptures. Act. 28. etc. The Thessalonians or chief of Beraea are praised, Act. 18. because they searched the Scriptures, Act. 17. whether it were so, yea, or no, as Paul had preached. And thus I conclude, that I may not bring in all those places of Scripture, which Christ and the Apostles most often times alleged. This kind of induction is most firm and cannot be refelled by any argument. And the force of the consequent to what end it is directed doth manifestly appear, for the prophets & apostles are ordained of god, to be instructors of the church, & were inspired by the holy Ghost. And Christ himself is the most perfect doctor of the Church, whereby we see that they which teach the church of Christ other wise than Christ himself, his Apostles and Prophets have taught: that is, not laying those foundations which they laid, but other: that they instruct the Church of Christ amiss. But our adversaries teach otherwise, inasmuch, as they call the church not to the Scriptures alone, as is before said: but to traditions not written. And out of the former argument, there ariseth this conclusion. If the Apostles (who although they were endued with the spirit of God) and taught by mouth, The second argument against traditions. yet notwithstanding did refer themselves unto the Prophetical scriptures: then a great deal more ought our adversaries to refer their principles of doctrine, unto the holy Scriptures. And sith they do not so: they are not to be heard. The antecedent is true: And therefore the consequent must be true. The antecedent is manifest by comparison: The explication of the argument. And the truth of the consequent is confirmed in the former argument. If all things be not contained in the scriptures, the knowledge and faith whereof, The third argument against traditions, is necessary to salvation, than it followeth, that the spirit of God did not accomplish his effect, when he gave the scriptures unto the Church. But the consequent is most false & blasphemous: So likewise is the antecedent. The consequent of the former proposition was proved, when we went to search out the causes of the scriptures in the second chapter of this our disputation, The unfolding of the argument. where we affirmed that the word of God was to this end & purpose committed to writing, that it might be freed and delivered from the corruption of man, and that it might help the memory of the godly, and finally, that the Church might more and more be instructed and confirmed in those things, the knowledge & faith whereof, is necessary to salvation. Now, if all those things be not contained in the scriptures, then truly it followeth, that the spirit of God did not perfectly, but in part accomplish his effect: the which God forbidden. And certainly, if you grant this, (which cannot be denied) that the scriptures were given unto the church not rashly nor in vain, but by the great providence and wisdom of God: then I urge this and say: If the scriptures were given by God, that the word of god should be set free and delivered from the corruption of men, I pray you would the spirit of God then, have some certain things necessary to salvation to be set free from the corruption of men, and some things not? If the Scriptures were given to help the memory of the godly: was it then given in part only? or shall we say, that of those things which were necessary to salvation, that some things are to be committed to memory, and some things not? or if the memory of those things could have been kept and preserved without the scriptures, to what end were the Scriptures? for the spirit of God doth nothing in vain. If the Scriptures were written, to the end our memory might be helped, who then can deny, that our memory must be helped by the Scriptures, in all things necessary to salvation? Finally, and to conclude, If the Scripture were given by the spirit of God, that thereby the Church might be the better instructed, why then should not the Scriptures have in them all those things, which are necessary to salvation? Wherefore, what starting holes so ever our adversaries seek: yet the truth of our former proposition remaineth: to wit, that they go about to frustrate the spirit of God, of his effect in giving the Scriptures, except in them be contained whatsoever is necessary to our salvation. The consequent no Christian can deny. If the Apostles were led into all truth by the spirit of God, The 4. argument against traditions. as it appeareth joh. 16, and wrote not all things that were necessary to salvation, that came to pass either because they ought not to write them, or because they would not write, or because they could not. But to affirm that they ought not, is false: that they would not, is absurd: and that they could not, is the part of one that disputeth like an Atheist. Wherefore the antecedent is false, absurd, and altogether from Divinity. The consequence of the former proposition is manifest, The opening of the argument, except our adversaries can bring any thing to the contrary. For we dispute not here of every man, but only of the Apostles, whom the spirit of God governed, and directed in the writing of the Gospel. The minor is manifest, except our adversaries can prove what reason there is of dissimilitude or unlikeness in things not only like, but also even being the self same. And this truly is most certain and most undoubted amongst all Christians: that if the Apostles wrote not all things which are necessary to salvation, that it was because they ought not so to do. Qur adversaries of necessity, must prove some one of these causes, or else them what was the cause, that the Apostles ought to write some things which were necessary to salvation, and to omit other some, or else truly that the Apostles themselves have by manifest & plain words testified, that they have not written all things which appertain unto Christian faith and Religion, for good and necessary causes, which God himself would not that men should know. But undoubtedly our adversaries can prove neither of these, and therefore the conclusion of this argument, resteth most firm and unviolable. If the Canonical books of the old Testament, The fift argument against traditions do contain all things which appertained unto the old testament. And the Canonical books of the new Testament, do not contain all such things, as do appertain unto the new testament: then doth it follow, that the old testament is more perfect than the new. The consequence is false: And therefore the antecedent is false. The consequent of the mayor is thus proved. The unfolding of the argument 2. Cor. 3. 14 The books of the old testament are called the old testament of Paul where as he doth entreat of the reading of the old testament. To this may be added, that which Moses saith: Deu. 29. 21 The covenant (saith he) which is written in the book of the law: 2. Reg. 23. and in the divine and holy history, there is mention made of the book of the covenant. Wherefore there is no doubt, but that the old Testament, (that is the writings of the old testament) is agreeable to his title. For nothing can be alleged beside that scripture, which may rightly be said to appertain to the old testament: to wit, the knowledge whereof were necessary to the salvation of those godly fathers, that lived under the old testament. Now if you say not the like of the new testament, who doth not see that the new testament is more weak & unperfect than the old? For it is as much as if you would thus expound the title: The new testament: (that is to say), Some certain things, appertaining to the new testament. The which how absurd it is▪ I suppose I shall not need with 〈◊〉 more arguments to proved, for no 〈◊〉 hath at any time heretofore affirmed; that the Scriptures and writings of th●● we 〈…〉 not so perfect, as the writings at the old. Wherefore we will 〈…〉 more to the proving of our 〈◊〉▪ If the Scripture of the new testament be a covenant, The 6 argument against traditions will, or testament, & nothing must be added unto a will or Testament, then truly it is not lawful to a●de any thing to the writings of the new Testament. The Antecedent is true: And the consequent is the like. And by the force of the same consequent, the traditions not w●tten of the Apostles, are not to be received. The antecedent is manifest. The minor doth contain two parts the 〈◊〉 part is mainfest and proved by the very title, The trial of the argument to wit, that it is a will or a testament, neither needeth the●e any other probation. The latter part is proved by Paul, when he sayeth: Gal. 3. That it is not lawful to add unto a man's Testament: and from thence he gathereth that we ought not to add unto the divine Testament of God. But if ye interpret it to be a testament, and not a rovenant: then our conclusion remaineth of more source: for dareth any man add unto the Will and Testament of a man? The which if it be not lawofull to do in the Will and Testament of a man, how much less than is it lawful so to do in the Testament of God. If till the later end and consummation of the world, The 7. argument against traditions we ought not to look for any other books canonicalt, besides these which we have already in the writings of the old & new Testament: Then it followeth that the Scripture is absolute and perfect in every part. The antecedent is true, And therefore so is the consequent: & by force of the said consequent the Scripture hath no need of any traditions not written. The Mayor is evident enough, especially sith God is the author of the said scripture, The explication of the argument. which would not suffer the same during the world to remain unperfect, because he being the author is most perfect. The Minor our adversaries themselves cannot deny, for they are not ignorant that the time (now after Christ is exhibited & given to the world) is called the fullness of time, as the Apostle saith. If traditions not written are as well to be received as the Scriptures (as our adversaries would have it) then must we believe the writings of the Doctors with the like persuasion of faith, The 8. argument against traditions as we believe the writings of the Prophets and Apostles. But the consequent is false, And therefore the Antecedent cannot be true: and by force of the consequent traditions not written, are not to be received in matters of faith. The consequent of the mayor proposition is thus proved. For so often as our adversaries propove unto the traditions of men, The explication of the argument. which they call Apostolic, we deny that they are the traditions of the Apostles: then they recite Tertulian, Ireneus, and especially one Clement, I know not who, which of late years hath stepped out of the Monkish Cloisters: all these Doctors, say our adversaries, affirm the traditions to be the traditions of the Apostles. But if such kind of traditions are to be received with like authority with the scriptures, than it followeth, that with like constancy of faith we must believe that those traditions are the traditions of the (〈◊〉, even: as we believe that the hoy Scripture was twitten by the commandment of the holy Ghost: The which if it be true, than it followeth again, that we must even give the like credit to the writings of Tertulian, Irenaeus, and Clement, as we give to the writings of the Prophets and Apostles. But let it be that sons demandeth why I do believe that the Apostles did preach by mouth, that Christ was 〈◊〉 for our salvations I ●●●swere, that I believe because, that the 〈◊〉 and Evangelists 〈◊〉 so written. But if I should● demand our 〈…〉 wherefore they believe that the Apostles ta●ght those 〈◊〉 by mouth whi●● do appertain with their 〈◊〉▪ then they▪ will answer, they do 〈◊〉 it because some of the old Doctor's 〈…〉 believe the writings of the 〈…〉, with the 〈…〉 belé the 〈…〉 Apostles I do not here dispute 〈…〉 the mind & opinion of the old fathers, of which we will speak in his proper place, but here only I am willing to ma●●e the consequent of our former proposition, somewhat more plain. The Minor is manifest: for what godly man did ever make the writings of the old father's equivalent with the writings of the Apostles? Nay; I suppose our adversaries themselves will not say so, except they be altogether unmindful of their own Canon taken out of Augustine. Can. ● go solis Dist. 9 And the force of the consequent which we have added unto the end of the argument is manifest, as it shall appear in the argument here following. We may not believe any traditions touching the which there remaineth no certainty. The 9 argument against traditions But all traditions not written, the which our adversaries bring forth are even such, that there remaineth no certainty touching them: Ergo we may not believe any traditions not written, which our adversaries bring or allege. And by force of the consequent all traditions are to be rejected and not to be received in causes of faith. The opening of the argument. The truth of the Mayor proposition is manifest of himself. And the minor is proved by these inductions following. Clemens Alexandrinus affirmeth That the Apostles delivered certain secrets unto some men as traditions from the apostles, & citeth this place of Paul. 1. Lib. 1. stro 〈◊〉. li. 5. Cor. 2. We speak wisdom amongst those which are perfect. Tertulian contrariwise, Li. de prescri. refelleth that error with most grave arguments. And Irenaeus saith, Iraen. lib. 13. ca 2. That this was the opinion of the old Heretics, and answereth that place of Paul which those Heretics did corrupt. Many do attribute the whole cannon of the Mass unto the Apostles. Contrariwise, Saint Jerome and some other of the old Fathers affirm, that the Apostles were content with the lords prayer. Epiphanius saith, Aduer. he res. in Epilog. That the Apostles did command both thursday and friday to be fasted through the whole year, and that in the whole time of Lent only to use bread, salt, and water. Contrariwise, Augustine saith, That it was never determined by Christ nor his apostles, what days we should fast. And Irenaeus writing to Eusebius saith. That that fast of Lent was diversly used in times past, Epist. 86. li. 5. c. 26. when some fasted one day, some two, some more: neither doth he call it a tradition of the Apostles, but a custom of a simple and private institution. Also Tertulian when he had made his revolt from the Church unto Montanus, reckoning up the objections of the Catholics, which they used against the Montanists: Because (saith he) we observe the eating of dry meats, they say, that the constituted fasting being worn out, Lib. de. 〈◊〉 touching any other, we may fast at our own will, & not by the commandment of any law or discipline, etc. And in that controversy touching Easter day, which a long time in times past troubled the Church: Soc, lib. 5. c. 22 those of the West (saith Socrates) referred their institution to Peter and Paul, and those of the East, to other of the Apostles: but neither of them brought forth any certain or approved scripture for the proof thereof: & therefore I think it was a custom. Tertulian saith, Adu. Mar. li. 1. & de cor. 〈◊〉 That by traditions of the Apostles, milk and honey was wont to be poured into the mouth of the infant in baptism. And Saint Jerome maketh mention only of wine and not of honey, In cap. 55. Es●ei cont. Lucifer, and calleth it custom. Our adversaries contrariwise observe not themselves those rites & ceremonies, although they would be accounted observers of the traditions which the Apostles left. Tertulian in the former place maketh mention of oblations and offerings for birth days, As afore. to be amongst the rites and ceremonies which came from the Apostles. Contrariwise, the Church left this custom after the Nicene counsel, Tertu, as afore. for that it savoured of Paganism. Many of the old Fathers referred these things unto the Apostles: first, that it was not lawful to kneel when they prayed on the Sunday: And again, that it was not lawful to deck the head with garlands and flowers, and many such like things. Contrariwise our adversaries themselves think these things may be observed because they put garlands about the necks & heads of their Images, etc. Cyprian witnesseth, Ser de 〈◊〉. that the Eucharist or Communion was wont to be given to infants. And contrariwise our adversaries themselves think not this expedient to be done. Irenaeus saith, that by tradition Christ suffered when he was almost fifty years old. Contrariwise the Church hath most constantly refused that saying. Clemens referreth his Canon to the Apostles, making them authors thereof. On the other side even the Church of Rome herself hath a long time rejected those Canons, In Cannon Apost. as if they had been forged by heretics. Furthermore, Zepherius Bishop of Rome, Cont, Can. Dist. 16 ibi, C●placuit ibi. hath received sixty of the same Canons, and after the sixth Synod received 85, etc. Finally, that we may leave infinite of such examples, and come unto our adversaries, those things which they refer unto the Apostles, histories attribute to others, as Lent to Telephorus, etc. So that now by these examples, the truth of our minor proposition is made manifest. It the old heretics for the most part, (when the word of God failed them) did ●he unto traditions, The 10. argument against traditions & falsely fathered them upon the Apostles: and our adversaries do thee same now at this time. Then truly in this point, they are to be accounted rather among the heretics, then with the true Catholics. The Antecedent is true, Therefore the consequent is also true. The Mayor proposition is manifest of humselfe. The vnfol●ding of the argu●ment And the Minor is thus proved. They which urged the ceremonies of the law, did shroud themselves under traditions, which they called Apostolic, as the old Doctors do testify. And in the Acts of the Apostles, Act, 15. 24 chap. 15. ver. 24. Luke séemth to touch the like. 2. Cor. 11. 13 And Paul in 2. Corint. chap. 11. verse. 13. saith, That the old heretics were wont falsely to take upon them the names and titles of the Apostles: And in another place he exhorteth the Thessalonians, 2. The, 2. 2 cha. 2. ver 2. not to suffer themselves to be seduced from the faith, neither by word, neither yet by epistle, as coming (saith he) from us▪ The which last words I do not so restrain unto this word Epistle, but refer it unto that that they should not be deceived by word: for there is no doubt, but that the Heretics would often times boast that they had heard those things which they did teach, even from the Apostles: whereby they might get unto themselves credit. Li. 3. ca 2 Li. 3. cap. ulti, This thing doth Ireneus testify, lib. 3. cap. 2. And Eusebius declareth the one Papias did forge his errors, as though (saith he) they came from unwritten traditions. I will not here speak any thing of the jews Calaba, which maintain by their dreams unwritten traditions, as the chiefest pillar of their religion, as Elias, in Thisbith: as in the Radical Kara Baruck appeareth. If the traditions which repugn the writings of the Apostles are not apostolic, The 11. argument against traditions and the traditions of our adversaries are altogether such: then truly the traditions of our adversaries are not Apostolic. The Antecedent is true, Wherefore the consequent is also true. The verity of the Mayor proposition is most plain, The expounding of the argument. or else it would follow that the Apostles did not write by the same spirit by which they did speak, the which God forbidden that we should once think. The Minor shall appear by this induction, which the reader shall most castly find in the writings of the Doctors: whereby it is manifest, that those principles of Religion in controversy between us, which they refer unto the unwritten traditions of the Apostles, do manifestly repugn with the writings of the Apostles▪ so that whether soever our adversaries turn them, they shall be constrained to refer their principles of Religion, unto the writings of the Apostles. For I will urge the former ground and argument: that if those principles repugn with the writings of the Apostles, than they are not Apostolic: If they confess that they do repugn, then have we our purpose: if they deny it, then of necessity they must turn to the writings of the Apostles, that these their opinions, whereof the question is, may be tried by them, whether they repugn with the writings of the Apostles, yea or nay: whereby it cometh to pass, that our adversaries (after many errors) will they or nill they, must needs return again within the compass of the scriptures. But lest we should be overlong in these our arguments, we will comprehend the sum of all our former arguments in this one syllogism. If that these Errors do follow the opinion, The 12. argument & sum of all that hath been said against traditions. of our adversaries touching traditions not written, to wit, that they otherwise teach in the Church, than the Prophets and Apostles have taught: that the spirit of God hath not accomplished his effect in publishing of the scriptures: that the Apostles neither aught, neither could, or would write all things necessary to salvation: that the writings of the old testament, is more perfect, than the writings of the new: that the holy Bible is not correspondent to the title, which is a Testament (if it be lawful for men to add to the will of God): that the holy scriptures given after Christ's incarnation, and afterward the writings of the Apostles are not absolute in every point. And that the same credit must be given unto the writings of the old Doctors, which is given unto the scriptures of God: that we must believe those things whereof there is no certainty: that the cause of the old heretics was not a little helped which leaned unto unwritten traditions: and finally that the Apostles did not speak with that spirit with the which they did write. If (I say) these former absurdities do follow the opinion of our adversaries touching Traditions not written. Then truly the mind and opinion of our adversaries touching traditions not written, is of all godly and true Catholics to be utterly refused and rejected. The antecedent is true: And therefore the consequent cannot be false. The mayor proposition cannot be denied. The trial of this argument The minor is made manifest in this our former negative disputation: wherein we have overthrown the opinion of our adversary. And here we end the third Chapter: and now we will proceed to the wiping away of all the objections which our adversaries can make. The 4. Chapter. IN our former disputation we have confuted the opinion of our adversaries, and have even as it were with our finger pointed out their manifold errors in which they must needs remain, so long as they do obstinately strive for these their traditions, which they call unwritten. And we affirm, that they were never written of the Apostles, neither yet to be written of any others. But because they maintain their opinion by divers and sundry arguments, so to hide the falsehood thereof, and to deceive the simple: I think it very needful to answer all their arguments, so many as we know. First of all therefore, we will sift out their objections, which they wrist out of the holy scriptures. Then we will come unto the testimony of the doctors which they object against us. Their first objection is this. The doctrine of the Gospel was not written with ink, The first objection. but with the spirit of God, not in Tables of stone, but in the heart. Ergo, we must return unto the doctrine taught by the mouth of the Apostles. Neither must we cleave so precisely unto the writings of the Apostles. The antecedent is manifest by jeremy, chap. 31. This is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel, lere. 3 ●. I will put my law into their mind, and will write it in their heart, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Again Paul. 2. Cor. 3. 2. Cor. 3. It is manifest (saith he) that you are the Epistle of Christ ordained by us, not written with ink, but with the spirit of the living god: not in tables of stone, but in the fleshy tables of the heart. That we may orderly answer unto each part: The answer. First we will try the antecedent, then will we come to the consequent: and this order will we keep, to help the memory of the reader. Now, will I answer the antecedent, concerning the which, I see they cannot well agree, no not the Popish schoolmen among themselves: for when the Apostle unto the Heb. 8. Heb, 8. had set down a difference between the old & new testament, he bringeth forth this place above recited of jeremy, where the schoolmen begin to question, what should be the cause wherefore it is said, that the gospel should be written in the mind? Some bring forth this reason: for because the grace of God cannot be written. Of which opinion is Thomas, whom the whole swarm of schoolmen and Questionarye Doctors do most esteem. But some had rather this to be the cause: for that the doctrine of the Law, began from writing, (for by and by the Tables of the Law being written, were published): but the doctrine of the gospel began from the preaching of Christ & his Apostles. Touching the which controversy, that we may not wander out of our determined limits) let the Reader look Lira his eight chapter in the Epistle to the Hebrews chap. 10. But for as much as appertaineth to the former Objection, we say, that neither jeremy nor Paul do there deny the writings of the new Testament, but that they only dispute there touching the esstcacie of the spiritual gifts of the holy Ghost, which were far greater in the time of the new Testament, than ever at any time before, loel. 2. Act. 2. according to the Prophecy of joel, which Peter expoundeth the second to the Acts. Wherefore those places must be understood by comparison: for otherwise it would follow, that the law of God was not written in the mind and heart of the godly, which lived in the time of the old Testament: which thing, these places of Scripture, which here we allege do otherwise prove. Esa. 51. hearken unto me, Esay. 51. ye which know justice, the people in whose heart is my law. And Psa. 37. Psal. 37. The law of the Lord is in his heart. Also 51. Recreate a new heart within me O God, Psal. 11 and renew a right spirit within me. Also Deut. 30. Deu. 30 The Lord will circumcise the heart. And again Psal. 1. Psa. 1. His delight is in the law of the Lord, & doth meditate therein day and night. And in divers other places, doth David testify, that he hath the law of the Lord even as it were engraffed within his mind. And finally, that I may pass over many such like places, Pro. 3 when Solomon showeth forth precepts out of the law of God, he biddeth that they should be written in the tables of the heart. And thus much touching the Anteredent, where our adversaries commit most great error, Taking their argument from that which is in some sort granted, to be granted generally. The errors of the objection reasoning: Secundum quid ad id quod impliciter. Now therefore I deny their consequent, the errors of the which I will particularly recite. The first error is, that the consequent cannot follow: for it followeth not to say the doctrine of the law was written in Tables, ergo the doctrine of the Gospel is not written at all. Again, the Gospel is written in the heart, ergo it is not written in Tables: Who seeth not that these are frivolous arguments, and that their consequents are false. Again, they bring in a new kind of reasoning and reason from an universal affirmative, to a particular negative, for thus they say. God wrote all the doctrine of the Gospel in the mind of the godly: Ergo certain things appertaining unto the doctrine of the Gospel are not written by the Apostles. The which kind of concluding even children would hiss at: for of necessity thus they must reason. Nothing that is written in the heart is written in tables, but the whole doctrine of the Gospel is written in the heart, ergo no part of the doctrine of the Gospel is written in tables. The Mayor is so false that every man may see it. The second error is, Falacia in figura dictionis, as the Logicians term it, The 2. error. for they confound words of one signification, with those of diverse significations: for, to write in tables is a proper kind of speech, but to write in the heart, is a borrowed kind of speech, and therefore of divers significations, spoken by a Metaphor, and similitude: Whereby it cometh to pass, that Paul used another kind of speaking, when he said that the Corinthians were his Epistle, (for he went forward with the argument he had in hand) which was when false Apostles would have crept into the minds of the Corinthians by Letters of commendations, than (saith he) I have no need of such Epistles, for you are mine epistle, for my labour & my diligence is manifest towards you, even in the eyes of all men. For all see, and (as I may say) may read in you the doctrine of Christ, which I have preached unto you: and to conclude, this is the sum, that the Corinthians were so perfectly instructed, and so well taught in the doctrine of the gospel, that they might well remain therein. Whosoever therefore doth gather by these words of the apostle, that the apostles did not write all things necessary to salvation, truly he may be thought not to be well in his wits. The third error is, for that they make the efficient cause to repugn with the cause instrumental. The 3. error. For God is he who writeth the Gospel in the heart: but Matthew, Paul, and the rest, writ the doctrine of the Gospel in tables, and were the instruments of the spirit of God. Therefore Paul in that place said, that the Corinthians were his Epistle: & the epistle of Christ ministered saith he by us, Lo here you may see that he maketh distinction between his own ministery and the efficacy of the holy Ghost. Wherefore our adversaries conclude as if one should reason thus. God hath restored a sick person unto his former health, ergo the Physician prescribed nothing, gave him nothing to drink, neither yet used any outward remedies. Now if this conclusion be of any force, than this must needs follow, GOD wrote the Gospel in the mind, ergo the Apostles wrote not the whole doctrine of the Gospel in Tables. The fourth error is, The 4. error. because the consequent agreeth not with their antecedent: for if in the antecedent they oppone the invisible Scriptures unto the visible, then truly they would bring this to pace, the one scripture being, the other cannot be: for unto what other end do they apply their opposition opponing the invisible scriptures to the visible, but that they may conclude somewhat? But in the consequent they come back again and say, that certain things are not written necessary to salvation, when as they should have said (if so be they would reason like logicians, as before it is showed, that there was nothing written necessary to salvation. But the manifest truth in this point hath amazed them. And that they may see how unhansomely they go to work in their ●pposition: I demand this, whether the faithful have not all those things written in their hearts, which are written in Tables, being necessary to faith and salvation? Truly I think yes. For Saint john saith, john. 20. These things are written that ye might believe, and in believing have eternal life. So far void is it therefore, that the one being, the other should be clean taken away: but rather the one is a help to the other: to wit, that the visible writings of the Apostles, is a furtherance unto the invisible writings of the spirit of God. The 5. Error is, The fift error. Secundum ignorantiam Elenchi, as the Schoolmen say; because they put in other words, than the Apostle Paul used. For thus Paul saith, Ye are our Epistle not written with ink, but with the spirit of God: for he speaketh of the invisible Scriptures, neither doth he therefore utterly take away the visible, as his Epistle which he then wrote to the Cornthians is witness. But our adversaries reason far otherwise, for they say, the Epistle not written in Tables, but delivered by hand: the which is far both from the words and mind of the Apostle. The absurdities which followeth the former objection Now let us overthrow the consequence of our adversaries, being full of absurdities and without reason. If we must not absolutely stick unto the writings of the Apostles, because God hath written the Gospel in the minds of the godly: the should it follow, that the writings of the Apostles are not necessary for godly men: If all things (as they say) are not written which are necessary to salvation, to what end then appertaineth the scriptures? For all things (say they) that are necessary to salvation, God hath written in the minds of the godly. But this argument cannot be concluded in one part only: for either it is universally true, or else universally false, & so the whole authority of the scriptures must be utterly abolished, the which God forbidden. Again, If this consequence be of any force, that is to say, we must have recourse to unwritten traditions, because GOD hath written the gospel in the minds of the godly: then would it follow that the spiritual efficacy of God should be confounded with the external and visible ministery of the Apostles, and that traditions delivered by mouth, are the invisible Scriptures of God, the which the holy Ghost did imprint in the mind of the faithful, the which thing is most false. Again, if they make any good conclusion out of that place of jeremy, that all things are not written that appertain to the Gospel, because under the new testament God doth write his law in the minds of the faithful, when as it was written in tables under the old testament: Ergo by the force of this opposition it followeth, that God in the old testament did only remit sin in part, and that he was the God of the Israelites but in part also: because that jeremy addeth, saying, that it will come to pass that in the new testament God will remit the sins of the people, and be their God. The which is too too absurd and contrary to the opinion of all men. Now finally let us turn this argument of our adversaries upon themselves, The objection is turned upon the adversaries. & say thus. All the laws of God are written in the hearts and minds of the faithful, as our adversaries seem to affirm by the former places cited: (for Paul saith, it is not written with ink, but with the spirit of God) but none of the traditions of our adversaries are written in the minds of the godly, for they are written with ink, and not with the spirit of God: Ergo none of our adversaries traditions are the laws of God. So that hereby it is most manifest as I suppose how foolish or rather no argument at all, The correcting of the former objection this argument of our adversaries is, the which that we may correct, we must say with the word of God, that the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists, doth contain all that doctrine of the Gospel, the which the Apostles and Evangelists did teach and afterward put in writings, the which also God by his spirit did write in the minds of the godly, & thus much touching this objection. And now we come unto the second. The Church of Christ for the space of 20. years wanted the writings of the Apostles, The 2. objection and was only contented with their traditions: Ergo the writings of the Apostles are not absolutely necessary unto salvation, neither is it needful that all things appertaining to the doctrine of the Gospel, should be contained in the writings of the Apostles. The Antecedent is manifest by reading of histories. Although I do not meddle much with the antecedent, The answer neither do dispute touching the number of years: yet would I that the readers should call to their remembrance, that the Church wanted not the scriptures, before that the Gospel was extant by the writings of the Apostles. Yea, that Christ himself and the Apostles did preach the Gospel out of the writings of the Prophets, as before in his proper place we have showed. Wherefore the antecedent of our adversaries is no other thing then a foundation laid upon sand or water: so that the conclusion which they bring cannot stand. Therefore I deny the consequent, The error of the objection. for the error is (as the Logicians term it) Secundum ignorantiam Elenchi: for they change the form of affirmation, & come from the time past, unto the time present, and the time to come. The Church (say they) wanted the gospel. Be it so, although the writings of the Prophets to contain the promises of the Gospel, insomuch that the Apostles did altogether depend upon the said writings of the Prophets: add here unto also (if it please you) that the writings of the Apostles, were not altogether necessary: what do you hereof conclude? That they are not now therefore necessary, or hereafter shall not be: What man is so ignorant to grant that? This is the difference that the Apostles ought first to have preached by mouth before they committed any thing to writing: And when the Apostles did preach the gospel, they did then publish by mouth those things which afterward they wrote: But sithence the Apostles died & could not by mouth instruct the Church, without doubt their writings are now so necessary unto us, as their preaching by mouth was in those days: in steed whereof their writings do now remain. An absourditie. Let us bring them therefore to an absurdity. If the consequence of our adversaries be of force or value: this is also of force or value, the Church of the Isralites, not twenty years, but two thousand years, or somewhat more, wanted the law written: therefore it was not necessary to the Church, that the law should be written, or the law written contained not all those things the were necessary to the doctrine of the old testament. But this is very absurd? Let us turn the argument of our adversaries against themselves after this manner. If God being perfect wise, The objection is returned. hath not suffered the church of Christ, long time to want the writings of the Apostles, both that he might maintain the truth of the Gospel, as also he might provide for the safeguard of his church: Ergo, these men are blasphemous against the providence of god: which deny that all things are contained in the apostolical writings, which are necessary to the doctrine of the Gospel. For to what end would God by his divine providence, that the Apostles should write the gospel, which they by mouth did preach? was it because they should deliver an uncertain and imperfect doctrine? Furthermore, if at any time the Church was contented with the preaching of the Apostles: to wit, in the first primitive church: I beseech you why shall not she now at this time be contented with the writings of the Apostles, that which (as is before said) are now in steed of the apostles preachings, rather then to run to the feigned, forged, & false traditions, which were never written by the Apostles. Wherefore the argument of our adversaries is false, the which we thus correct. In the first primitive Church the Apostles depending upon the writings of the Prophets, The corction. did first of all preach by mouth the evangelical doctrine out of the writings of the Prophets. And afterward, lest that the doctrine by them preached, should be either corrupted of men: or else, (such is the infirmity of man) the remembrance thereof should by little and little slide out of the hearts of men. That therefore they might leave that holy verity, which they preached unto us, most firm & sure, they committed the same unto writings, by the working of the holy ghost, to be a pledge for the posterities, which after should come. Christ being conversant with his apostles. 40 days after his resurrection, 3. Objection. taught them those things which did appertain unto the kingdom of god, neither are those things which he taught them now extant in any writings, Ergo all things appertaining to the kingdom of god, are not written of the apostles: & therefore are to be sought for in traditions not written of the apostles. The antecedent is manifest in the first chap. of the Acts of the Apo. ver. 3 I admit the former part of the Antecedent, Answer but I deny the latter, for the Error is in Fallacia petitionis principij, as the Schoolmen say. I therefore deny the consequence. The error For from whence have they learned or rather dreamt, that those things which Christ did then teach, were not written of the apostles: nay, that dream of our adversaries, is plainly and manifestly refelled and confuted. Matthew. 28. Mark. 16. Luke. 24. john. 20. and. 21. All which four Evangelists do show us things which Christ then taught. And Luke in special words doth witness the Christ did expound those things which were written of him: so unlikely it is that he should call us back to traditions not written. But let us bring them to an absurdity. If Christ after his resurrection, did teach all those things which did appertain unto the kingdom of God (for that seemeth to Absurdity. be the very sense & meaning of the words of Saint Luke, which are these, Act. the first, verse. 3. He spoke those things which appertain to the kingdom of God. And those things which he then taught are not written of the Apostles: Ergo, those things which are written of the Apostles, do not appertain unto the kingdom of God. An absurd and a blasphemous argument. Let us turn it against themselves thus. Objection returned. If the Apostles were fully instructed and taught of Christ touching those things which appertain to the kingdom of God: And the holy Ghost inspiring them, did write touching the same kingdom of God: ergo they wrote all things most fully, and omitted nothing whereby we should run to fetch any thing from traditions not written. That therefore we may now correct and amend this their error, we say, The correcting of the former objection. the Christ to the end he might appoint his Apostles to be most perfect Doctors and teachers of the Church, did after his resurrection for the space of 40. days, most diligently instruct them touching all those points of doctrine which appertained unto the Gospel, that the Apostles being so instructed, might not only declare the same doctrine by mouth, but also that they might commit all those things unto writings which appertain to the kingdom of God & salvation of his Church. Paul confesseth that he wrote in part Objection. and not in whole, ergo Paul wrote not all things which are necessary to the salvation of the Church. The antecedent is proved Rom. 15. I have written unto you brethren somewhat boldly (saith he) after a sort, or as the very Greek is: In part. Now let us make plain the antecedent. Answer. Paul saith, that he hath written to the Romans in part, and this word In part, the which the old interpreters have translated word by word, is not to be joined with this vearbe, I have written: but this word More boldly: the which the very order of the text, and the Greek phrase, do most manifestly show: for otherwise the Apostle must have said [Tomeros] & not have added the Preposition [Apio] the like phrase is manifest in the 2. Co. 2. c. 5. ve. which is thus: If any have caused sorrow, the same hath not made me sorry, but partly or in part, lest it should more grieve you al. I deny the consequence of their argument. The error is, The error secundum figuram dictionis, & their consequence hangeth not which their antecedent. For Paul wrote not all to the Romans say they, ergo he wrote not all necessary to salvation. But Paul wrote more than that which he wrote to the Romans: so here we see that their consequent on conclusion agreeth not with their first proposition. Paul wrote not all, ergo all things necessary to salvation is not contained in the writings of the apostles. This is too too absurd an argument and not worth the answering. Christ said unto his Apostles, that he had many things to speak unto them which they could not bear away: 5. objection. ergo the apostles have not written all things necessary to salvation. The antecedent is proved in the 16. chapter of the Gospel after john. Now touching their antecedent: Answer first of all I do greatly wonder that our adversaries do stick their ship upon those rocks upon which the heretics heretofore have made so great shipwrecks. S. Augustine in his Tract. 97. upon john, doth testify, that the heretics were wont to take this place of john to colour their errors, In joan Tract. 97. but Augustine himself doth handle those words of Christ with so great reverence, that if they would hear him he would easily withdraw our adversaries from their curiosity: for Augustine upon the same saith: Which of us can declare those things, In loan Tract. 96. that Christ would not speak: which of us can do that, for which there is not sufficient authority of prophets or Apostles. Thus far August. But let Augustine cease to inquire those things, for the Papists are now grown to this point, that they rehearse unto us things which Christ never spoke, and that with great boldness, when as they commend & set forth unto men the rites and ceremonies of their Mass, and other like trumpery. And I would to God that they would be persuaded, that those their traditions, that is to say, the foul filth of their errors and superstitions, could never flow from so pure a fountain, to wit, as Christ. But let us return unto the exposition of the same place, the which we will take and draw from the very place itself. Christ his words are these: john. 16 I have many things to speak unto you, but you cannot bear them away now, but when the spirit of truth shall come, he shall lead you into all truth. Wherefore that we may now use rather the words of Tertulian, than our own, we say thus: De prae. haeret. Christ said plainly, I have many things to say unto you, but yet adding this, When the spirit of truth shall come, he shall lead you into all truth: he hereby showeth, that the Apostles were not ignorant of any thing, etc. Whereby it cometh to pass, that the Apostles taught all those things, which were necessary to salvation: & as Tertulian saith, did publish a sufficient rule unto all men. Therefore Christ in this place meaneth thus, that then the Apostles should be fully & perfectly instructed, when they should be endowed with the visible & miraculous gifts of the holy ghost, & this our exposition is easily gathered from john. joh. 14. 26 Now I come to the consequence or conclusion: in the which truly I find not any show of truth, nor any kind of taste of true divinity, for their error is secundum ignorantiam elenchi, The error as the schoolmen say, inasmuch as the like proportion of time is not observed. The Apostles before the resurrection of Christ & before they had received the miraculous gifts of the holy ghost, were not able sufficiently to bear away all things which appertained to the mysteries of christian religion: ergo say they, the Apostles were ignorant of those mysteries after the resurrection of Christ, & after the receiving of the gifts of the holy Ghost. Truly a very foolish kind of reasoning. Christ had many things to declare unto them, ergo say our adversaries, they must be those which the papistical massing priests do fond dream of. No doubt of that, their consequence hangeth not with their antecedent, therefore we may urge them to this absurdity. If the Apostles wrote not all things which were necessary to salvation, Absurdity. because they could not bear away many things which Christ had to speak before his resurrection, and before the sending of the Holy ghost, then would it follow that the Apostles were not led into all truth by the holy ghost after that he was sent unto them. The which is most false, and reproved even by the place of john. For he saith, And he shall lead you into all truth. Also it would follow, that Paul did never declare the full counsel of god, the which thing is most false, as Paul himself affirmeth Act 20. and 27. Now therefore we will turn this their argument upon their own heads, saying thus. The argument returned. If the apostles wrote not all things because they could not bear away all things, them truly did they never teach all things by mouth. And by force of the consequent, this place of john can nothing appertain unto traditions of the apostles not written. But perchance they will say, that those mysteries of salvation, the which Christ hide from his apostles, were revealed to the Bishops of Rome, the which if it were true, then truly the Bishops of Rome, were no more to be called the successors of the Apostles only, but those who far did exceed all the Apostles: the which God forbidden that we once should think. Let us therefore amend this error in this sort, Error corrected and affirm, that although the Apostles before the sending of the holy Ghost were not so fully capable of the mysteries of God, which appertain unto the doctrine of the Gospel: yet notwithstanding, after the comforter was sent, and after they were led into all truth, it is most undoubted, that the whole truth which appertaineth unto our salvation, was both taught by mouth by the Apostles, as also published in writing. Paul commendeth the Corinthians, because they kept his traditions. 6. Objection. Ergo, Paul taught many things by mouth which he wrote not. The antecedent is proved. 1. Cor. 11. I praise you brethren (saith Paul) that you remember all my things, and keep the traditions or ordinance, as I have delivered them unto you. Now let us come to the examining of their Antecedent. Answer. This place of Paul is expounded by Chrisostome and Ambrose, as also of many other learned of this our time, not touching doctrine, but touching ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies. Others again confess indeed, that Paul doth here entreat of certain rites both appertaining to good order and comeliness. But yet notwithstanding, our adversaries deny, that these words which they object unto us, are to be restrained to those rites: and they rather understand and interpret this place generally, because Paul here hath spoken it generally: for he saith, I commend you brethren, for that you have remembered all my things, etc. Also they add this word Tradition here used indefinite or generally, scarce sound in the writings of the Apostles, restrained or tied only to traditions which appertain to orders and rites of the Church. Wherefore they expound Paul's words after this sort: You will keep in memory all those things which I have taught, & therein truly I greatly praise you. But because amongst other things which I delivered unto you, to be observed touching rites and ceremonies in your Ecclesiastical assemblies, and for that certain are contentious amongst you, which do not so well like of them: & therefore I declare these my reasons, by the which I was led to deliver them unto you: this is their exposition of this place. But after what sort soever our adversaries do understand it, yet truly their conclusion shall never be of any force. For if he dispute there touching rites and ceremonies only, then is this place without the compass of our disputation: for we dispute touching those things which are necessary to salvation, and not of rites and ceremonies, which may be changed for divers causes. Again, if they be willing here, that he should entreat of doctrine, yet serveth it not any thing for their purpose, as I will now declare, for I deny the consequent. Paul delivered many things to the Corinthians. The error Ergo some of them (say they) are not written. The consequent hereof is false. Yet I confess that this place hath deceived Theophilact and some others. Yet truly (that I may speak it by the favour of all the godly) they have here foully stumbled in a plain & level way. For first Paul did write that same tradition touching the rites of the which, he there speaketh. Again although he had not written to the Corinthians, yet he might write unto others. To conclude, if they were not extant in the writings of Paul, yet might they be found in the writings of the other Apostles. But Paul saith, Be followers of me, as I follow Christ. He therefore delivered nothing, that might in one jot be repugnant with Christ, the which notwithstanding our adversaries do. I will here annex certain other places, which also our adversaries abuse. 2. Thessa. 3. 2. Thes. 3 We warn you brethren, in the name of the Lord jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh inordinately, and not after the traditions which he hath received of us. And then followeth the very same tradition, which Paul wrote. Again. Acts. 16. And as they went through the Cities, Act. 16. they delivered them decrees to keep ordained of the Apostles & Elders. But yet notwithstanding even those very decrees of the Apostles were then written, as it is manifest Acts. 15. verse. 23. and 24. Again in the foresaid 11. chapter of the first Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, That which I received of the Lord, I delivered unto you. Also in the same Epistle, chapter. 15. vers. 3. he saith the like. But yet notwithstanding all those things are written, wherefore he that doth thus conclude, saying: Paul taught by mouth, Ergo he wrote not: truly he is altogether ignorant of the right order of Disputation. Let us therefore now bring them to an absurdity. Absurdity. If by reason that Paul taught by mouth, traditions to the Corinthians, it follow that those traditions be not written: Ergo, the traditions that women should be covered in Ecclesiastical assemblies, and touching prophesying bare headed and many such like, are not written: which is false, as appeareth in the forenamed. 1. Cor. 11. We will now therefore, Objection returned. turn their Argument upon themselves, saying thus. If the traditions which Paul doth there, dispute of, to wit, touching Propheciengs bore headed, and touching women to be covered, are neglected even of our Adversaries themselves, because their Monks preach not bare headed, but covered with their hoods? how much more shall it be lawful for us, to neglect those traditions, which our adversaries feign, being not written in the word of God, & only falsely cloaked under the names of the Apostles? That we may therefore amend this error, The correcting of the objection. we must say that Paul doth in that Epistle put them in mind of those things which he had taught them by mouth, when as he had diligently considered how great the inconstancy and levity of man is. Whereby we see, that we must altogether cleave to the writings of the Apostles, lest the forged devices of men, do withdraw us from the truth of the gospel. Paul biddeth the Thessalonians to keep the traditions which they had learned either by word or by Epistle: 7. Objection. Ergo, Paul wrote not all Traditions necessary to faith. The antecedent is proved 2. Thessa. 2. vers. 15. Now let us try the antecedent. Answer In these words of Paul, Either by word or Epistle: they are willing to make this word Either an absolute distunctive: to which their opinion I do not agree. For I mark in the writings of the Apostles (that I may here speak nothing of other Authors) this perticle or word so repeated to be a copulative rather than a disjunctive. I prove it by these places. 1. 1. Cor. 13, ● Cor. 13. ver. 8. where the Apostle saith, Whether propheciengs be abolished, whether tongues cease, and knowledge vanish away. Again, 1. 1. Crr. 15. 11 Cor. 15. ver. 11. Whether I or they, so we have preached, and so ye have believed: that is both I and they have preached, etc. Also to the Colloss. 1. Col. 1. 20 verse. 20. Reconciling to himself all things by himself, yea, I say, reconciling to himself all things, whether they be in heaven, whether they be in earth. So also he useth this word [Meet] in this Epistle, in the same chapter. verse. 2. wherefore it is as though he should say, stand ye fast in the doctrine, which you have learned both by our words when we were present, as also after in our writings. Therefore I deny their consequence, The error for the error as I have said is Secundum fallatiam dictionis: for first it followeth not, if the Thessalonians were taught both by word and Epistle, that those things were taught by mouth, were contrary to those things which were taught by Epistle. But secondly, admit that other things were taught, yet it hurteth us nothing: for if they were not written in the Epistle to the Thessalonians, yet truly they might be written in other his Epistles. But admit that Paul did not write them at all, yet it doth not therefore follow, that they were not written of the other Apostles, as of Baptism, & the supper of the Lord, etc. Let us now overwhelm them with an absurdity. If it be true by this kind of speaking, Absurdity. either by word or by Epistle, that therefore it should follow, that Paul did not write all things necessary to salvation, ergo on the other side it would follow, that Paul did not preach by mouth all things necessary to salvation, the which is absurd and false, as I prove by these places following. The 2. 2. Thes, 2. 13. 14. Thessa. 2. verse 13. and 14. You are elected unto salvation through the santification of the holy Ghost, and through the faith of the truth, unto the which ye were called by our Gospel. Again in the same Chapter, Ibi. ver. 5 verse. 5. Do you not remember that when I was with you I told you these things. Again the 1. 1. The. 4 Thessa. 4. Ye know what commandment I gave you to abstain from fornication. 1. Thes. 2. Again, 1. Thessa. 2. We did not only desire to impart unto you the Gospel of GOD, but our own selves. And in another place he attributed unto them a most sure persuasion of faith, which they received by preaching, Whereby it is proved, that Paul did deliver to the Thessalonians, all things necessary to salvation: the which things could not be if the argument of our adversary might prevail. Therefore we will turn their argument upon themselves, saying. If the Theslalonians were throughly instructed in christian religion, The objection returned, and that by the preaching of the Apostle, which he preached by mouth, and nevertheless were to be confirmed by the writings of the Apostle: how much more ought we to cleave to the writings of the Apostles, which were not present at their Sermons, neither yet instructed or them by mouth. Therefore the error of our adversaries must be amended, The correcting. and we must say, that Paul instructed the Thessalonians not only by word, but also by Epistle, when he had seen of what great value his writings were, to confirm the faith of the godly. And thereby also that the holy Scripture might be more highly commended unto us. Paul prayed that he might see the face of the Thessalonians, 8. objection. and that he might accomplish or fulfil those things which were wanting in their faith: Ergo he reserved many things to traditions, which he spoke by mouth, being necessary both to faith and salvation. The Antecedent is proved 2. Thes. 3. Answer. I do thus answer their antecedent. Many of the old writers do understand this place touching doctrine: Chrisost. For Chrisostome referreth it to the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. Ambr. Ambrose to the trinity. Although Chrisostome seem not to agree with himself, for thus he saith: not as though unto you (saith he) there were any part of faith wanting, or that you ought or need to learn any thing. And I see this opinion of interpreters greatly to please certain of the learned new writers. But other expound the name of faith touching the constancy of faith, as in the same chapter he saith: 1. Thes. 3. I sent that I might know your faith, lest Satan had tempted you by any kind of means, and that our labour had been in vain. But our adversaries stand upon these points: First there is attributed unto the Thessalonians the fullness of faith, 1. Thes. 1. as is before said: Secondly there is no doubt but that they were baptized, and therefore perfectly instructed in christian religion. They bring forth many other arguments unto this end: and chief the whole 2. cha. of the first epistle unto the Thessalonians. But let our adversaries choose which interpretation they will, yet shall it not serve any thing for their purpose. Now concerning their consequent, The error I deny it: for if by this word faith, they understand a through persuasion or constancy of faith: the error is in the divers signification of the word. But if they had rather expound it touching doctrine, than their consequence is false. For they do not well conclude: thus they say, some thing was wanting to the faith of the Thessalonians, ergo Paul did not declare by mouth all things unto them: or else all things were not written by the apostles necessary to faith. For it is one thing to teach, & another to learn: and there may be a defect in the scholar, when as there is none in the master. Therefore Paul saith Phil. 3. Phi. 3. 1 It is profitable for you & not troublesome unto me to repeat those things again unto you. But that we may return to the Thessalonians: You know (saith he) what commandments we gave unto you, that you should abstain from fornication, etc. But let us grant this, yet truly it followeth not, because there was some thing wanting unto the faith of the Thessalonians: that therefore Paul & the rest of the Apostles wrote not all the things necessary to the doctrine of that gospel. These arguments truly are of no value nor force, neither yet scantly hang together. Therefore we may well bring them to an absurdity, saying. If this argument of our adversaries do prevail, Absurdity. that the apostles reserved many things which they taught by mouth unto traditions, being necessary to the salvation of the Church, because Paul wished that he might see the face of the Thessalonians, that he might supply those things which were wanting to their faith: them it would follow, that Paul himself was all the apostles, & the Thessalonians the whole universal church, the which is too absurd. And therefore we may turn their argument upon themselves, Objection returned. sayings If our adversaries do hereby prove their traditions because Paul desired to see the face of the Thessalonians, that being present, he might fully instruct them by mouth: Then would it follow that this appertaineth nothing unto us, which a long time since could not see the face of Paul. But perchance they will say that the old fathers wrote those things which Paul then taught when he was present. But because I will not say y● that is false, I will make them this answer. If those things were worth the writing, why did not Paul himself write them? If not, why should the old doctors writ them? Therefore thus we may avoid their error, saying: That Paul did therefore desire to see the Thessalonians, Correction that thereby he might the more firmly establish their faith, when as he did manifestly perceive of what great efficacy the presence of their teacher was. But seeing we cannot enjoy this benefit, we must plainly cleave to the writings of the Apostles, and those their writings ought to be of so great value unto us, as if that the Apostles themselves were present to speak unto us, & so much the rather because in those writings, we may hear even the voice of Christ. Paul wrote unto the Corinthians, that when he came unto them, 9 object. he would set the rest in order, ergo he reserved many things to be taught by mouth. The antecedent is proved. 1. Cor. 11. Thus I answer their antecedent, Paul doth not here speak of the chief points of faith, Answer but of Ecclesiastical order. For the Greek word which he useth, signifieth to determine some matter according to some order. As Paul to Tit. 1. chap. saith: Ordain elders as I have commanded thee, where Paul useth the very same Greek word. And again, 1. Cor. 16. Paul useth the same word in the active voice, touching the bestowing of their liberality, & saith, because I have commanded, etc. And speaketh of an order to be kept in the same matter, & so the french men say, Ordonner in their tongue, and we say Ordain. Now I deny their consequent: Error for the error is Secundum figuram dictionis, for the proper signification of the word, signifieth another thing, than they mean. Also their consequence is false. Paul would set in order certain things amongst the Corinthians when he was present: Ergo say they, he would constitute new principles of faith. Again they reason thus: Paul deferred certain things until his coming, the which he would set in order among the Corinthians, ergo he never wrote them. Also those things are they which the Prelates of Rome do obtrude and thrust upon us as traditions springing from the Apostles. All these arguments are foolish and false, or worse if worse may be. And therefore we may well bring them to an absurdity, Absurdity, saying: If that be true which our adversaries would, to wit, that Paul then when he wrote that Epistle, had not delivered to the Corinthians all those things which were necessary to faith: then would it come to pass (which GOD forbidden) that those thing which follow in his Epistle, were not true: to wit, that the Corinthians were made rich in all knowledge: 1. Cor. 1 The 1. Corinth. Also he saith: I declare unto you the Gospel the which I preached, the which also ye have received, in the which ye stand, and by the which also ye are saved. 1. Cor. 15 1. Cor. 15. And again, Ye abound in all things, in faith, in word: in knowledge, in all zeal, and in all love towards us, even so see that ye abound in this grace also. 2. Cor. 8 2. Cor. 8. And again, What is it in the which you are inferior to other churches. 2. Cor. 12 2. Cor. 12. And many such like examples. Finally, this their objection may be turned upon themselves, and correted as we have done in the former arguments, john would not write much, Objection Ergo, he wrote not all things necessary to faith. The antecedent is proved in the 2. and 3. Epistles of john, where he saith thus: When I had many things to write unto you, yet would I not write with paper and ink. I admit their antecedent, Answer Error yet I deny their consequent. For these things hang not together. john had many things to write, Ergo they were principles of faith. Ergo, also they are not any where extant, for otherwise this absurdity would follow. That the same Lady unto the which john wrote, Absurdity. was not fully instructed in christian religion: therefore those hang not together with john's speeches, when as he commendeth the faith of the same lady, as also of her children, whom he affirmeth to walk in the truth. And therefore this argument may be turned upon themselves, as the other before. Many other things did jesus, 11. obiec. beside those which were written, the which if they were every one written, the whole world would not contain the books: Ergo, all things necessary to faith are not written by the Apostles. The antecedent is proved john. 21. I gaunt their antecedent: Answer yet I deny their consequent. For the error is, Secundum ignorantiam Elenchi: for they wander here without the compass of our question. john speaketh in that place of miracles which Christ did, & our disputation is of doctrine necessary to faith & salvation. For these are the words of john, Christ did many things, & therefore hereof cometh no consequent. All the miracles that Christ did, are not written: ergo say they, all the principles of christian religion & doctrine are not written. Now see here how our adversaries beat themselves with their own weapons: For if our adversaries refer their traditions unto those things which john faith are not written: The papists over throw their own traditions Ergo, those traditions are infinite & with out number, & so by the force of the consequent, without the compass of knowledge. And truly I easily confess, that such kind of traditions are so greatly increased, that the world now can scantly bear them. We may therefore turn their argument upon themselves thus: The objection returned. john saith, Christ did many other things, which are not written: but he also affirmeth, That those things which are written, are written to the end we might believe & have eternal life. Ergo, those things which are written, are sufficient to salvation. The error therefore of our adversaries may thus be amended, Correction saying. john and the rest of the Evangelists, did choose out of those things which Christ did, being otherwise infinite, those which seemed necessary: whereby it cometh to pass, that we aught to be contented with the writings of the apostles. The Apostles did often recite testimonies taken from the traditions of such ancient men, 12. Obiec. as lived before their days. Ergo, we must not only stick to the Scriptures. The antecedent is manifest. 2. Tim 3. As jannes' & jambris withstood Moses. Again, Jude ver. 9 Michael the Archangel disputed about the body of Moses. And a little after he reciteth the Prophecy of Enoch, Behold the Lord cometh with many thousands of his saints. To their antecedent I answer thus, Answer Indeed I confess, that the Apostles did sometimes recite certain sentences taken out of the books apocrypha: And to answer the place of Paul in Timothy, I do not doubt but in his time that some book did remain touching those Magis jannes' and jambris: for Pliny in his 30. book of his natural history. chap. 1. doth there reckon up jannes' amongst the ancient Magi, the which he would not have done, except he had learned it out of some book. And furthermore, I answer that those Ethnics, were not altogether to be refused of the Apostles: Act. 17 Tit. 1. for so Paul reciteth certain verses out of Aratus and Epiminides: but I do affirm, that the Apostles did not therefore use these testimonies, that by them they would confirm any principle of faith, 1. Cor. 15. for when they would so do, they had always ready express places taken out of the writings of the Prophets, and those they did expound according to the motion of the holy Ghost. But when they would teach any doctrine touching manners, or declare some thing, touching the which very few or none did doubt, them if peradventure they remembered any thing written in the books apocrypha, or in the writings of those Ethinks, they did not so dislike their sentences, but that they would apply them unto their purpose: yet notwithstanding, the Apostles did not attribute so great authority unto them, that they should be of sufficient authority themselves: for god forbidden we should once think so. But they were willing by that means to move men's minds the more, that they might thereby the easier receive their doctrine, which notwithstanding was otherwise sufficiently confirmed, even by the word of God. As for examples sake it is manifest in Exodus, that the Magi or wise men of Egypt withstood Moses, what matter is it by what name those Magi were called, or can those their names be applied to any principle of faith? No, to none truly. Also Michael would not use railing words unto the devil, as Saint Jude saith: whereby we may learn much less to speak evil of Magistrates ordained of God. This exhortation of Jude to the reverencing of Magistrates, is in many places to be found in the scriptures. The like is that which Peter saith, 2. Pet. 2 That the Angels do not rail on those that have authority. 2. Pet. 2. Also the Lord will come saith Jude, to reward the wicked, the which threatenings is usual in the holy scriptures. Whereby we manifestly see, to what end the Apostles culled out certain sentences from the books apocrypha, to the serving of their own purpose. Now we come unto the consequent, which I deny. The Apostles did use certain sentences taken out of the books apocrypha: Ergo, they used them to the confirmation of faith. And again therefore also we ought to run to traditions so often as we dispute of faith, as though the testimonies of the holy scriptures did fail us. This is a false argument, & no good consequent can come hereof. For the Apostles used not such testimonies to confirm principles of religion. Yea: and even those testimonies themselves (if you mark well the matter) you shall see them confirmed by many & express places of scriptures. Wherefore our adversaries seem to be forgetful of our purposed question, while they go about to object these things to us: for this is the state of our question (when there ariseth controversy touching faith, whether we ought to stick only to the testimonies of the Scriptures, or else to add thereunto traditions, to the which we may give the like credit, as we may to the scriptures. But you shall find no such thing in these testimonies which the Apostles used, as I have before showed. Yea, and I may say that this argument is not rightly applied against us in this cause, taken from the Apostles. Let us return this absurdity on our adversaries, saying thus. If because the Apostles did recite certain sentences out of books not Canonical, Absurdity. that therefore it followeth the Apostles did attribute authority to those books & such like in matters of faith. Ergo, because some of the Apostles did recite some out of the Ethnics books, it must follow, that the Apostles did attribute authority to those books in matters of faith, which thing is absurd and contrary to the opinion of all men. Let us turn this objection upon our adversaries, after this sort. If the Apostles did at any time recite the traditions of ancient fathers, Objection returned. but only to beautify those things which were established and confirmed by most firm testimonies of holy scriptures? How much less than ought we to recite the traditions of the old fathers, to the confirming of those things which want testimony of the Scripture. Thus therefore we may amend the error of this their objection, and say, Correction. that the Apostles whereas they did apply themselves to the capacity of men, that they might thereby the better stir them up, or the more easily convince them, they used some times the books apocrypha, as also sentences gathered from Ethincks, to wit, when they did dispute of those things, the truth whereof was manifest in the holy scriptures. The heretics did wrest the writings of Paul, 13. object & that in the very time of the Apostles, and also it is most manifest that the heretics: yea, & Satan himself have cloaked their heresies even with the Scriptures: ergo we must not cleave to the Scriptures alone. The antecedent is proved, 2. Pe. 3. as also by the Ecclesiastical history, and also Math 4. If thou be the son of GOD cast thyself down headlong, for it is written he shall give his Angels charge over thee, etc. I admit their antecedent. But I deny their consequent. Answer Neither doth Peter so conclude, but rather calleth them unto the writings of Paul, then in any part to abridge the same. The error is as the Logicians say, Secundum non causam ut causam. The heretics abused the Scriptures, Error & wrested the writings of the Apostles into a contrary sense, ergo say they, we ought to run other where then to the scriptures, to the establishing of our faith. The Scripture is not in fault, but only men themselves, which do wrest so worthy a matter unto their own errors. Wherefore this is so far from the Apostles mind, that we should leave the aid of the scripture, because heretics have abused them, that rather the heretics are by the very scriptures to be convinced, like as we have already proved out of the places of Paul, 2. Tim. 3. Tit. 1. And when Satan abused the Scriptures, 2. Tim. 3. Tit. 1. that he might weaken the faith of Christ, truly Christ went not to traditions, but with the Scriptures again overthrew the enemy. For sathan objecting and saying it is written: Christ also on the other side answered, it is written, and not left in tradition. Absurdity, And therefore we must bring them to this inconvenience, saying. If because the heretics falsified the Scriptures, we may not therefore only cleave unto the Scriptures: then truly because the heretics falsely fathered traditions to be Apostolic, as we have proved before both out of the writings of the Apostles, as also out of Irenaeus and Eusebius: therefore we may not stick only to traditions. And again, because heretics abused both Scriptures and traditions, therefore we must neither cleave to Scriptures, nor to traditions: the which is absurd, and even our adversaries themselves yield to the same. Let us therefore turn their argument upon themselves, saying. Objection returned. If like as Satan abused the Scriptures against Christ, so likewise the heretics do against true Christians. Then truly as Christ used the Scripture only to repel Satan: so likewise the true Christians must use only the Scriptures in repelling of heretics. And therefore we may amend their error thus: Correction. If such be the wickedness of the heretics, the they abuse the scriptures, than ought we to give all diligence, that the scripture may keep both their authority and purity, the which will be if the heretics be convinced by the Scriptures alone, and those places which shall seem somewhat obscure, may take their interpretation from places more plain. But if our adversaries hearken not unto us: yet at the least ways let them give ear even unto themselves, Can. rela. Dist. 37 in whose decretals this sentence remaineth: That from the Scriptures themselves, the sense of truth must be taken. The doctrine touching the baptism of Infants is not found in the holy Scriptures, 14. obiec. neither these words, Trinity, like substance, persons, & many such like: all which words notwithstanding do appertain unto grounds and principles of faith: Ergo all things appertaining unto faith are not to be found in the Scriptures. The antecedent is found true by reading of the Scriptures. Now touching their antecedent, Answer I say thus: In that they affirm the doctrine concerning Baptism of children not to be found in the Scriptures is most false, like as our late writers have taught in their learned works against the anabaptists, touching the which I will not here make any longer disputation, lest I should seem to wander without the compass of my proponed question. Now touching these words Trinity, like substance, and persons: I confess they are not found in the writings of the Apostles, but yet I say that the very doctrine which is signified by these words, is derived from the Scriptures: for when certain heretics rose up which denied the verity of the doctrine, than the godly Fathers which lived in those days, having care of the circumstances, added these words: by the which they might the more easily explicate & declare the doctrine touching the trinity, the which doctrine they had before confirmed by express and manifest testimonies of the holy Scriptures. Now touching their consequence. The error is, Error Secundum fallaciam figurae dictionis. These words Trinity, the baptism of infants, like substance, are not found in the Scripture, it is called [Omonomos] for the words indeed are not found in the holy Scriptures, but the things signified by the words are there found. And our christian faith consisteth not in the title of words, but in substance of matter, not in many volumes of books as S. Hierom saith, but in the very ground of reason. Tract. de ver. & pia fid. And therefore Basil confesseth, that he used against the heretics certain terms, which were not found written: but yet notwithstanding (saith he) they were nothing contrary to the sense of the holy Scriptures. And therefore our adversaries reasoning thus, we may well bring them to an absurdity, saying. If because the persons, the trinity, Absurdity. and such like words be not extant in the holy Scriptures, it therefore followeth, that all things necessary to faith are not found in the holy scriptures: Ergo these words are necessary to faith, and so by force of the consequent: Sith this word [Omoousios] that is like substance, and such other words were only found out by the godly Doctors after the heresy of Arius began to spring, than would it follow that the Church of Christ, before the time of Arius, yea, & the Apostles themselves knew not all things necessary unto faith: The which thing is most absurd & savouring of Atheism. And therefore we may well turn this argument home again unto our adversaries, saying. Objection returned. If such were the religion of the ancient fathers, that they would not invent any one word to the entreating upon any principle of faith, the which was not grounded upon express places of scriptures (as it is manifest by these words, trinity, substance, & persons: & such like) what shall we then think of our adversaries which do not only invent words, but also even matter itself, altogether abhorring & contrary to the Scriptures of God. And therefore we may amend the error of this their objection, Correction saying: That it is lawful for the godly fathers of the church of God, to use & invent certain words and terms, whereby the matter contained in the scriptures, may the better & easier be expressed. If we must altogether believe the church & in no part serve from the credit of the church, Obiec. 15. & we believe the church in this part affirming, that the scriptures came from the spirit of God, them truly we ought to believe the church, likewise affirming that these & such other like traditions came from the Apostles. The antecedent is true: and therefore it must follow that the consequent is also true. The Mayor hath two parts, touching the which we will particularly speak. Answer And touching the first point, I do make a distinction of the Church, which Paul calleth the house of God, the pillar & foundation of truth, which heareth the voice of her spouse, & only dependeth upon his mouth, and is always governed by the spirit of God, & cannot be seen because she is not tied to circumstances of place, time or persons, yet notwithstanding we believe that the same church is upholden by the word of God, & that she nothing esteemeth man's traditions. But this or the visible Church, or the company of many visible congregations may serve from the truth, as it is manifest touching the Churches in the East, of which the most part have turned to Mahumet. I will not here bring in the ancient counsels, which have both allowed & brought into the church great & grievous errors. And touching this church we may thus determine: inasmuch as she is subject to many errors, she is not otherwise to be heard, except she speak those things which are agreeable to the Scriptures, touching which matter I have disputed more at large in another place: wherefore this hath here no place which they say & affirm, that we must altogether believe the church, & in part serve from the credit of the same, them must we believe the visible Churches, when as they propound nothing else unto us but the word of God: & on the other side we ought not to believe the visible churches when they serve from the word of God, for I make my example by the Synagogue which very religiously hath reserved the Cannons or books of the Scriptures, yet notwithstanding she hath innumerable errors. So then we may believe the same Synagogue, whereby she saith, that the Canonical books have sprung from the spirit of God: & again we may not believe her, when she rejecteth & casteth away the doctrine of Christ. Mat. 23. Therefore in the respect Christ saith: lbi. ve. 16. The Scribes & Pharisees sitting in Moses chair are to be heard, Mat. 16. & yet notwithstanding in another place he reprehendeth & reproveth their traditions, whereby we see proved, that in one part they ought to be heard, & on the other not. Wherefore their Minor is not true, & so the consequence cannot stand, because there is an error, Error Secundum fallaciam figurae dictionis. And they reasoning thus, we may well bring them to a great inconvenience, saying. In the time of Tertulian the church did affirm, Absurdity. that an oblation for birth days was a tradition received from the Apostles, but in the time of the Nicene counsel, the church did affirm, that oblation for birth days was not a tradition of the Apostles, as in his proper place I have proved: ergo if we must in all parts believe the Church, and in no part serve from the Church, then must we believe the things which are manifest opposite & contarrie one to the other, the which is impossible. Wherefore we may turn their objection upon themselves, Objection returned. after this sort, saying: Whosoever affirmeth the scripture to be the word of god the which we ought to believe: & likewise affirmeth that traditions not written are to be received, speaketh contraries. But the Church of Rome affirmeth the scriptures to be the word of god which we ought to believe, & also affirmeth that traditions not written are to be received. Ergo the church of Rome affirmeth contraries, & by force of the consequent we must believe her in one part, & in another not, & if this be of any force, that we must believe the church in all parts, & serve from her in no part, then this followeth by their argument, Vnsolding of the former argument that the Church may not well be called the Church, For the truth of the mayor proposition is proved thus. If you did me belée●e the scriptures, truly I will believe that there is nothing to be added thereunto, because that it is so commanded in them, Deut, 4 Pro. 30 as I have in divers places of my book proved: & therefore this sentence of Tertulian is highly to be embraced, Deprescr. When we believe (saith he) this first we must believe, that there is nothing else that we ought to believe. Now if we will consider the traditions of our adversaries, we shall easily perceive that they are not only added by inventions, but also contrary to express places of scripture: so ye see, that we cannot believe the scriptures, & also the traditions of our adversaries. And therefore we may amend the error of the former objection after this manner: Sith we ought to believe God alone, Correction. then most diligently ought we to take heed, lest under the show of piety, we be seduced into error, and because the name of the Church is very glorious, therefore, if any thing be proposed unto us under the title of the Church, we ought to give attentive diligence, whether it be the voice of the true church or not, which we hear: & that we may be able so to do, we must take counsel with the word of God set forth unto us in the Scriptures, from the which, the true church of God never swerneth: when therefore the Church affirmeth unto us, that the scriptures are the word of God, we acknowledge the same to be true, not only because the church so affirmeth, but because of the inward efficacy of the spirit of God, by the which the truth of the scriptures is sealed in our hearts: & like as the church by the conduction of the spirit of God, affirmeth unto us that the scripture is the word of God, so we by the conduction of the same spirit, believe that that is true, which the Church affirmeth that our faith may never rest upon men, but for ever upon God alone. The Apostles did add unto the law: to wit the doctrine of the Gospel: Ergo, 16. obiec. it is lawful to add unto the word of God. To the antecedent I thus answer. Answer Although the doctrine of the Gospel be more full and fruitful than the writing of the old Testament, yet notwithstanding, if ye well mark the matter: in the new and old testament, the self same doctrine of salvation is contained in them both, for that is most true which Paul saith Acts, 26. Act. 26. that he taught no other thing, then that which the prophets and Moses had before taught. And again in the first to the Rom. Rom. 1. he showeth that the gospel was before promised by the Prophets, & therefore this is false which they say, that the Apostles added to the law: for it is one thing to add to the law, and another to erpound and refer it to his own proper scope and purpose. For let some man bring forth an obligation (that we may use this similitude) and the payment being made, he addeth at the end that the Obligation is satisfied, I pray you can he well be said to add any thing to the same Obligation? So when the Apostles gave testimony to the scriptures that Christ by his coming had fulfilled both the law and the prophets, they did not add either to the law, or writings of the Prophets. Now, their consequent, Error. I deny: for here is an error, Secundum figuram dictionis, as it is manifest by these things which I have already spoken. Yea, also the argument cannot well proceed from the Apostles to other men: for grant this, that God would add unto his law, and that it was done by the ministery of the Apostles, which wrote by the influence & motion of the spirit of God: yet truly hereby can nothing happen, whereby it should be lawful for other men to add unto the same word of God. Wherefore sithen by the argumentation of our adversaries, there would follow the overthrow of this most noble & excellent doctrine, touching the similitude of the old and new Testament. Therefore we may well amend their error by this most excellent saying, Correction which is extant in the works of justinus Matyre, In interg. & resp. where he asketh this, and saith, What is the Law? he answereth & saith: It is the Gospel foreshowed. Again he demandeth, What is the Gospel? he auns weareth, The Law fulfilled. By which words it is manifest, that the Gospel is not a new doctrine added unto the law, but a new fulfilling of the old promise. And thus we suppose that we have sufficiently disputed touching the objections of our adversaries, which they have wrested out of the word of God. The 5. Chapter. FOrasmuch as the adversaries themselves sufficiently know how weak & feeble those arguments are which they take out of the scriptures against the scriptures: then at the last they fly to the testimonies of the ancient Fathers: the which they very diligently endeavour to beat into our heads with Orations long and tedious, to the end that by the heap thereof, they might over whelm us. Wherefore it seemeth convenient in this part of our treatise, to set down some thing whereby not only the objections of the Papists, but also our answers, may the more easier be understood. Now therefore that we may gather most true and infallible principles, let us add some certain rules to this our disputation, That we may use profitably the writings of the Fathers, certain rules are 〈◊〉 to be observed. by whose help the minds of the old Doctors may be expounded, and so by the conduction of those rules, as by a clue of thread, we may both enter into the many & variable writings of the Doctors, as into a most dangerous Labyrinth, and there also keep ourselves occupied most safely and without hurt. Let this therefore be the first Rule. THe writings of the ancient Doctors, The first rule for the establishing and confirmation of our faith, are so far forth to be received, as they agree with the holy and divine scriptures, Although this first rule be plain enough of himself, Confirmation of this rule. especially to those that know the truth, yet will I for the confirmation of the same, Gal. 1. 8. lay down certain proofs. If any preach unto you otherwise, then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed, saith S. Paul. And again, Warn some that they teach no other doctrine. And again, 1. Tim. 1. Mark them diligently, which cause division and offences, Rom. 16. contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them. And again, 1. Tim. 6. If any man teach otherwise, he is puffed up, and knoweth nothing. And again, Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines: with many more places to this effect. Heb, 13. Yet least happily our adversaries should say, that these places repeated are to be understood of the word delivered by tradition, and not of the word written: leaving those things, which in the former part of this treatise are handled copiously and at large, I will ask them this Question: whether they think the Apostles to have uttered & spoken any thing in their lectures & sermons, which doth disagree with those things which they have committed to writing? I am sure they will in no wise confess it. Wherefore, maugre their heads, they must agree with us, that this our first Rule is infallible and most true: to wit, that the writings of the ancient doctors, are so far forth to be received, as they do agree with the sacred Scripture. But if they shall perceive the ancient Doctors themselves to be of our mind: I hope then (all doubt removed) they will together with us agree to our former rule. This therefore is the mind of Origen: It behoveth us to bring the holy Scriptures for witnesses: for because our senses, 1. jerem. and allegations, without the witness of them, are altogether void of credit. Mat. hom, ●5 And again, Even as there is not any gold sanctified without the temple: so there is no sense without the Scripture that is holy. Tertulian. What is there contrary to us in our writings (he speaketh of the holy Scriptures.) Do preser. heret. Ibidem. And again. The same that we are, the same they be. Chrisostome, In Psa. 95. If any thing be spoken without the Scriptures, the mind of the hearers is thereby brought into doubt. Jerome. In Psa. 86 Whatsoever hereafter shall be spoken besides the Apostolical writings, let it be abrogated, of no value, & altogether without credit. Agustine. In Epi. 48. add ●●ncen. Do thou not bring us any cavelles from the writings of the Bishops, as of Hilary, or Cyprian, against the infallible testimony of the divine scriptures. Because as it behoveth us to put a difference between that kind of writing, and the Scriptures of GOD: for, the writings of men are not so to be read, that it is not lawful for us to think the contrary, if at any time they have peradventure thought otherwise then the truth requireth. And again, De unita. Eccl, ca, 10 we must not agree to the catholic Bishops if at any time they are deceived, taking opinion contrary to the canonical scriptures. And again, In Epi, ad Hiero. 19 Aug, count l. 11. I have learned to give this honour and reverence only to those writings which are called Canonical, that I faithfully believe the authors of them, have not in any point at any time erred in their writings: but other men's writings I do so read, that though they excel in sanctimony or holiness: yet I do not therefore think it true, because they so affirm, but because they are able to persuade me either by Canonical Scripture, or by probable reason those things which descent not from the truth: Thus far he. These things have our adversaries themselves recorded amongst their decretals, Can. Eg● solis, dist. ● insomuch that they may not deny this first rule: lest they seem to deny their own decretals. The second Rule. THE ancient Doctors do oftentimes by the name of Traditious, understand the same doctrine that is contained in the Apostolical writing. That this rule is true, it shall appear by that which followeth. Irenaeus (as it is reported by Eusebius) doth say, Confirmation. Hist. Eccl. l●. 4. ca 14 That Policarpus taught these things which he had learned of the Apostles: which things both the Church delivered, and are only to be accounted true: thus much he. He saith Tradit: the Church doth deliver: that is, doth teach, namely out of the writings of the Apostles. If he were not thus to be understood, how could that stand which he hath said? And those things are only true: which thing is very easy to be gathered of the forenamed Irenaeus, whose words are by Eusebius reported. Li. 5. c. 20. Policarpus (saith he) did report those things which he had heard of the Apostles, altogether agreeable to the holy Scriptures. And the said Irenaeus saith in another place, Li. 3. ca 3 The Church of Rome wrote to the Church of Corinth, showing them the same tradition which they had received of the apostles: to wit, that there was one God almighty: & so consequently the doctrine contained in the books of Moses. Cap. 4. And a little after he saith: Many of the unlearned and barbarous people, being ignorant of the Scriptures, do diligently keep the old & ancient traditions, believing in one God, & in jesus Christ born of the virgin Marie. Tertulian. The Apostolical doctrine doth allow nothing contrary to the rule of God's word, Con. M●●, lib. 1. namely, those things which the Apostles have taught and committed to writings. The third Rule. THE ancient Doctors do name that unwritten traditions, which in express words are not found in the holy Scriptures: but notwithstanding if you diligently mark, the effect thereof is contained in the Scriptures. So Basil confesseth that he used certain terms against heretics, Confirmation. Tract. de pia & verafid. which are not written, but yet notwithstanding (faith he) are not contrary to the true sense of the Scriptures. And Nazianzenus refuteth the Macidonians, De Theol. or. 5. which did deny the deity of the holy Ghost, because he is not termed with plain words in the holy Scriptures, to be the third person in the deity, saying: that there are divers things in the Scriptures which are not plainly expressed: As for example. If y● say twice, De Bapt. con. Dona▪ li. 4. ca 23 two I will say (saith he) that thou sayst four. In like manner Augustine doth prove, that the baptism of infants is contained in holy Scriptures, and that they should not be rebaptized. Ibid lib. 2 cap. 14. The like is to be said of the word or term [Omoousion] the trinity, & such like, concerning the which we have spoken in the former chapter. The 4. Rule. THE ancient Doctors under the name of traditions, do not mean any certain grounded opinion touching religion, but ecclesiastical ceremonies: and to the end they may the more beautify and set forth the order of the Church, they commonly ascribe the said ceremonies to the Apostles as if they were the principal authors of the same. Now many and divers the rites and ceremonies of the Church have been, Confirmation. & with what study and diligence the ancient fathers have set forth the same, that by all means possible they might stop Schisms and divisions in the Church: It needeth not here particularly to declare, sith the volumes of the Fathers do every where abound with those things, wherefore let the readers consider what Augustine hath written in two Epistles to januarius. Epist. 118. & 119. Jerome hath thus set forth the order and ceremonies of the Church. Ad Lucium. Let each Province (sayeth he) have authontrie to determine touching the Institutions of the elders, and traditions of the Apostles: which words of Jerome are diversly to be considered: And that many and sundry orders and institutions of the ancient Fathers, are to be altered and changed by reason of many circumstances, even our adversaries themselves have not denied, neither were it meet in this behalf, that the Ecclesiastical ceremonies should be made equal to the grounded doctrine of Religion. And therefore hath Tertulian said: That the only law of saith doth remain immutable. And Jerome himself doth give counsel, Ad Lucium. that such orders and customs of the church, are to be kept: which (saith he) do not hinder or hurt our faith. The 5. Rule. SOme of the old Fathers (having their faults) did overmuch favour these unwritten traditions, and therefore did sometime true consent to heretics. We have heard afore out of Irenaeus, Confirmation. that the ancient heretics did defend their heresies by unwritten traditions. And Eusebius maketh mention of one Papias, Li. 3. Hist. Eccl, ca vl. which brought in certain strange doctrine into the Church, affirming the same to be delivered, as coming from the Apostles by tradition. The like error there was of the Chiliastians', into the which error Tertulian & justinus Martyr, & others have fallen. And therefore the works of the ancient Fathers are not to be read without great judgement. The 6. Rule. Many and diverse books have been put forth under the name and title of the ancient Fathers, which notwithstanding are counterfeit. It hath come to pass through the fault of those who have been the writers & printers of books: Confirmation. the diverse books have falsely borne the name of those ancient Doctors, which antiquity hath commended. As for erample, the books entitled Rapsodiae, were attributed to Clement S. Paul's Disciple, and also the book of the Revelation of S. john Baptist his head, is authorized under the name of Cyprian: when notwithstanding there is mention made of Pipin king of France: and to conclude, there are diverse volumes under the title and name of Augustine, in the which the opinion of Augustine is refuted. I need not to make mention of an infinite number like unto these. Wherefore that which Jerome did somtune speak of the books apocrypha, Ad Laetam may very fitly be spoken of the writings of the old Fathers: Let a man take heed (saith he) of the books apocrypha, and if at any time he be disposed to read them, not for trial of truth, but for examples sake of good manners, let him know they are not books of them whose titles and names they bear, but that there are many corrupt things mixed in them, and therefore it is great wisdom how to choose out gold amongst dirt and clay: thus much Jerome. Now these foundations being laid, it behoveth us a little to search and sift the objections of our adversaries, which they take from the old and ancient doctors. Clemens Alexandrinus. 1. objection. The workman that is sent forth into the Harvest of the Lord, Li. 1. stro. hath a double husbandry: to wit, the unwritten and the written. lbid, lib. 5 Again, As the Philosophers had certain secrets touching their opinions, which they delivered by traditions: so likewise the Apostles. And therefore Paul saith, 1, Gor. 2 We speak wisdom amongst those that are perfect. To this I answer thus: First, Answer. that this Author hath not handled the question sincerely and purely: and this fault is easily to be found, even by the authority of the scriptures: for Christ saith thus, What soever I speak unto you in secret, Mat. 12 that speak openly, & that you heard in the ear, that preach upon the house top, etc. Wherefore Alexandrinus is plainly deceived when he goeth about to mix the mystery of Christian religion, Lib. 3. cap. 2 de pre. with the hid secrets of philosophy. And Irenaeus and Tertulian do both witness and testify that the old heretics were of that mind, which here Alexandrinus doth hold: and therefore abused those words of Paul, Ibidem. saying: I speak wisdom amongst those that are perfect: as Irenaeus as I have before said doth affirm. And Clemens doubted not to say, the even the Grecians were saved by Philosophy: Lib. 6 stron where and ceremonies, amongst the which, he ●●●koneth up that most ancient custom, whereby the Christians did always stan● when they did pray, from the time of Easter until Whitsuntide. In this disputation therefore Basil doubteth not to propone that which was commonly spoken touching the Apostolic mysteries: and this is it that our adversaries so greatly triumph against us out of the words of Basil: but truly as with all my heart, I do acknowledge the goodness of the cause whereupon Basil then stood, when he affirmed the holy ghost to be god, yet not withstanding (without offence of Basil be it spoken) me thinketh he did too curioustye seek for strange Arguments, when as that matter might be proved by plain, proper, and true grounds of Scriptures. The Deity of the holy Ghost is in divers places of the holy Scriptures to be proved: to what end then sho●●d the Apostles deliver by Tradition, certain secret forms touching that matter: and as it were (as Basil sayeth) whisper it into the ears of certain men? I pray you, was there any thing to be kept close in this point of doctrine, that behoved the Christians, especially to know and profess? Furthermore, to call that thing secret or hid, which was then publicly taught almost in the whole world, I know not well how Basil could do it. And inasmuch as this feigned Apostolic mysteries was in times past the very ground of heresies, as before it is showed: neither furtherod the cause of Basil, which otherwise is to be proved with most firm reasons: I wish that Basil had reform that kind of Argument, (if it be worthy to be called an argument) especially sith the old Fathers very wisely have warned us to foresee, that many labours should not grow of one. But howsoever the matter goeth, our adversaries have nothing here whereof they may glory or boast, for when Basil affirmeth this hind of speaking of the holy ghost, That it hath sprung from the Apostles tradition. By the name of Tradition, here he understandeth that which although not in manifest and flat words remaineth in the Scripture: yet notwithstanding the sum and matter itself is there contained, touching the which read our third Rule. What if our adversaries themselves long time since, have not observed and kept this kind of speaking in their Churches? And that I may not urge that, that same custom is now grown out of use & forgotten amongst them, whereby they heretofore did stand when they did pray between Easter and Whitsuntide, as is before said. Wherefore let our adversaries consider how properly they expound the words of Basil, which are these: Which both are of like force & effect to godliness, and how well they agree with Basil himself. Chrisostome. 5. obiectin. Hear it is manifest that they delivered not all things by writing: but many things by tradition, In 2. Thes. hom. 4 ldem Damascen. de orth. fid. li. 4. cap. 17. 2. Thes. 2. without writing: and these are as worthy to be believed, as those which are written. Therefore we think the traditions of the Church worthy to be believed. It is a tradition: therefore search no farther for the matter. Chrisostome entreating of these words of Paul written to the Thessalonians the second Epistle and second chapter, Answer saying: Hold fast the Traditions, which you have learned, either by word or by Epistle. He gathereth that not only Paul, but also the rest of the Apostles did not deliver & commit all things to writings, the which how sure an argument it is, we have declared in our former chapter: But to let this thing pass lest we should seem to make a nèedlesse repetition: I therefore say, that Chrisostome doth speak touching those traditions, which although they are not expressed by word in the holy Scriptures, yet in substance are there contained: for otherwise these words of Chrisostome could not stand, saying: It is a tradition, thou mayst seek no farther thereof●. For than it should follow, that we should no more search in holy Scriptures, the which God forbidden that it should come in the mind of so godly a Father, who doth most often inculcate and beat into the mind the reading of the holy Scriptures: Therefore I suppose by this word, Tradition of the Church, by Chrisostome is meant that doctrine the which the Church (being instructed by the writings of the Prophets & Apostles) doth deliver over unto the church: that is to say, doth teach & instruct whatsoever she hath drawn out of the most pure fountain of the Scriptures, touching which matter seek the second rule. Nazianzene. The doctrine of the Gospel is more excellent through the figures of the Church: 6. obiecti, In lulian or. 1 which being received by tradition, we have kept even until this time. I expound this place as I did the other afore going, Answer to wit, that, he speaketh of those traditions which may be proved by the scriptures, of the which see the second and third rules; for if that our adversaries shall say, that the Gospel is made the better through their holy water, and through such like trumper●es appertaining to their Mass, they would make men laugh, nay rather I should say, weep, who reverently think, and are well affctioned toward the true worshipping of God. Epiphanius, We must also use traditions, 7. object. Heras. 61 75. adver. Arianos. for all things cannot be taken from the holy Scripture. Wherefore some things the holy Apostles delivered, unto us by the Scriptures, and some thing by Tradition. Here Epiphanius disputeth touching certain rites and ceremonies, Answer which the christians in tunes past did observe (as in the fourth rule we have spoken) & also reckoneth up many more rites & ceremonies, all the which long time since have been out of use, even in the Church of Rome. So that herein, our adversaries do not only contend with us, but even with Epiphanius himself, and with other, whose objections they use against us. For if those old rites and ceremonies be traditions of the Apostles, or if they have like force with the scripture, or if they be worthy of the like credit together with the scripture. If also sith they be traditions, and therefore we must seek no farther: if faith ought to be the observer and keeper of these traditions, as the old and ancient Doctors say, whom our adversaries bring for the maintenance of their cause, what impudent boldness were this then, not only to neglect those traditions, but also now that they have been these many years put clean off from the Church; and grown out of the memory of man: being forlorn with time, so that they seem to be altogether mouldy and covered with hoariness? What shall they then which are adversaries of traditions do, if they dare do these things themselves, which are the great defenders of traditions. Jerome. 8. Objection. Do you demand where it is written? I answer, in the Acts of the Apostles: yea, Aduersu●s Lucifer. also if it had no authority of Scripture, yet the consent of the whole world in this part obtaineth the like authority as a precept: for many other things which are observed and kept in the Church by tradition, take unto themselves the like authority, as hath the law written, as in baptism three times to dip the head under water, of the tasting of Milk and honey, etc. Here Jerome disputed of the unposition of hands after Baptism, Answer and of other rites and ceremonies, touching the which thing we have spoken in our fourth rule: but we do dispute now and in this place of those things which are necessary and do appertain unto faith and salvation, among the which if you will number v●●hose rites and ceremonies: what will our adversaries answer, which admit & use not the tasting of milk and honey, which Jerome here maketh mention of, And also Jerome witnesseth, that that was confirmed by the consent of the whole world, which is now rejected by the like. Augustine. Touching those things whereof the Scripture hath not determined, 9 Object. therein the custom of the people and ordinance of our fathers, Ad Casul. Epist. 86 are to be observed in steed of a law. And again, Those things which are not written, Ad janua. Epist. 118. but are kept by tradition, which are observed throughout the whole world: it appeareth by the authority either of the Apostles or general counsels, whose authority in the Church is most profitable, that those things ordained and constituted, are to be kept and observed as the passion of our Lord and his resurrection, etc. Augustine here disputeth not touching principles of faith, Answer but of Ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies, touching the which we have spoken in the fourth rule. And truly sith Augustine is lead only by conjecture, thereby it sufficiently appeareth that he entreateth not of things necessary to faith. But the self same Augustine in his Epistle following, doth greatly lament the cause that the Scriptures being neglected, all the whole world was full of suppositions, and giveth us admonishment to submit ourselves unto the easy yoke of Christ. I beseech you what would he then have said if he had seen that huge Chaos and mountain of ceremonies and traditions, a burden more grievous and heavier than Aetna hill, wherewith the Bishops of Rome long time since have oppressed the Church? And peradventure many other more such like examples as these, may be taken out of the old fathers and alleged: but the solution of them may easily be gathered & had from the answers which I have already set down. And lest the defenders of traditions, should think that the ancient Doctors did so commend Traditions, that thereby they would derogate the authority of the scriptures: behold even the old Doctors themselves as witnesses in this matter, and shall declare their own minds what they think touching the Scriptures, and touching traditions not written, and we ourselves will say nothing. And that the wound which by their former objections, they seem to give us, be even by their own hands healed up again: That we may lawfully affirm it much better to follow the Doctors with the Scriptures, than the same Doctors wandering without the Scripture: (if it so happen at any time) and so to be carried from the truth: which thing indeed doth rather deserve pardon than foolish imitation. But now let us hear the Doctors themselves. The sixth Chapter. IRenaeus. First the Apostles did preach the word of God, Aduer. haeret. lib. 3 cap. 1. and afterward by the will of God committed it to writings, and delivered it to us, that the same Gospel so written, should be the foundation and pillar of our faith. Lib. 5. Again, It behoveth us to fly unto the Church, and to be fostered in her bosom, and nourished by the word of God written. The paradise of the Church is planted here in this world, thou mayst eat of the tree of the Paradise saith the spirit of God: that is, feed you of every Scripture of God. Tertulian. Take away from the heretics those things wherein they agree with the ethnics, De resur. carnis. that they may ground their questions upon the holy Scriptures alone, & then they cannot prevail. Thus did Tertulian in times past confute the Heretics, but now they are accounted Heretics of the Bishops of the Romish Church, which would confirm their opinions by the Scriptures. And again the said Tertulian: De pros. We ought not to be curious now after the coming of Christ jesus, neither ought we to be inquisitive after the manifestation of the Gospel. When we do believe, we desire nothing else to believe: for this first we do believe, that there is nothing else that we ought to believe, but only faith. And again, Aduersus Hermog. Let Hermogenes see that he teach that which is written: but if it be not written, let him fear that curse which is prepared for those that either add too, or diminish any thing from the holy Scriptures. Origen. We must of necessity call the holy Scriptures for witness, In hire. for as well our senses as also our interpretations, without the witness of the Scriptures are worthy of no credit. justinus Martyr. In Tryph. justinus did fly unto the holy Scriptures, that he might be safe in all things. Athanasius. Con. Idol. The holy and divine Scriptures of GOD, are sufficient to the declaration and manifestation of the truth. Hilary. It is sufficient for us, De Trini. lib 3. that we be contented with the Scriptures. Cyril. All things which Christ did are not written: In loan li. 22. c. 68 but what things the writers thought sufficient both for manners & doctrine, are written. Chrisostome. In Tim. hom. 9 If we have need either to learn or to forsake any thing, let us learn it in the holy Scriptures. Again, If any of those men which are reported to have the holy spirit of God, De sancto & ado. stir. do say any thing of himself which may not be proved by the holy Scriptures, believe him not. Doth Manes the Heretic say, that the sum or the money work any thing of themselves: Where hast thou read this? If he have not read it in the Scriptures, but speaketh it of himself, it is manifest that he hath not the spirit of God. And again, those that are true Christians, Mat. hom. 49. let them betake themselves to the Scriptures, because there can be no other proof of true christianity, than the divine and holy Scriptures. Basil. It is a manifest Argument of infidelity, Tract. de vera & a flat sign of pride, if any man will reject any of those things which are not written, pia fid. or bring into the Church any of those things which are not written, sith the Lord himself saith: My sheep hear my voice, and follow not a stranger. Again, Whatsoever we speak or do, In morae ●i. Reg. 26 that aught to be confirmed by the testimony of the holy Scriptures. Also the Apostle taking the example from men, Tract de ver. & pi. fid. (Gal. 3.) doth most vehemently forbid that any of those things which are in the holy Scripture should be put out: or else (which God forbidden) that any thing should be added. Again, In moral. Reg. 8● If whatsoever is not of faith is sin, and faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of GOD: Then without doubt, sith whatsoever is without the scriptures, is not of faith, the same is sin. And in another place: Epist. 80 Let us stand to the judgement of the holy Scriptures proceeding from GOD, and with whom so ever are found points of religion agreeing to the holy Scriptures, to them let the whole opinion of truth be allotted. Again, of all those things which we have in use both of words and deeds, In Reg. br●uior inte, ● some are distinctly set down in the Scriptures, some omitted, but those things which are contained in the scriptures, by no means must be omitted: but of those things which are not found in the scriptures, we have a flat rule delivered unto us by Paul, All things are lawful: but all things are not necessary. Jerome. Hierom in Mic. lib. 1. cap. 1. The universal Church of Christ having in possession all the Churches in the world: is united together by the unity of the spirit, and hath the words of the Law, of the Prophets, of the Gospel, and of the Apostles: and she may not pass her bounds, that is, from the holy Scriptures. Again, In Agge cap. 1. Those things which men feign with out authority of Scripture, as coming from the Apostles by Tradition, the sword of God (which is his word) doth cut away. In Mat. cap. 23. And also that which hath not the authority of the Scriptures, is with the same facility contemned, with the which it was allowed. Augustine. Neither ought I to allege the Nicene counsel, Con. Max. C. 3. c. 14 neither thou the counsel of Aremineus, as though we would determine causes therewith: for neither I am bound unto the authority of the one, neither thou of the other: but let each thing with other: & each cause with cause: & reason with reason be tried by the authority of the scriptures. And again, Con. Crese, gram. li. 2 There is constituted & ordained one ecclesiastical cannon or rule, unto the which belongeth the books of the Prophets and Apostles, by whose writings we ought to judge touching the writings of others, whether they be faithful or unfaithful. Again, Con. Faust. Our Lord would that we should believe nothing against the confirmed authority of the Scriptures. Again, Mam. l. 13 c. 5. Let us bring forth the divine Balance of the holy Scriptures, and let us weigh in them what so ever is of any weight or value. Damascene. De Bapt. con. Dona. lib. 2. De orth fid. li. 4. c. 18 As a tree planted by the rivers of waters, even so doth the soul of man, which is moistened by the heavenly scriptures bring forth timely fruit, which is true and perfect faith. And again, Let us receive, Ib. li. 1. c. 1 acknowledge, and reverence all those things which are delivered unto us by the Law, Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, seeking nothing which is not contained in them. And lest we should seem altogether to neglect and despise the Schoolmen, hear what Scotus saith. It is most manifest that the Scriptures In prol. lomb. q. ● sufficiently do contain all doctrine necessary to the pilgrim that travaileth here in the world. Peter Stelliaco. 〈◊〉 prin. 4. sent. We must run unto the scriptures alone, that we may attain eternal life. And Gracianus in his decrees, Can. Ego 〈◊〉. dist, 9 doth repeat that sentence of Augustine, which we have before rehearsed. And many more may be recited unto the like effect, but here we cease because we will wander no farther. That we may now therefore make an end of the objections of our adversaries, which they gather from the writings of the Doctors, we will comprehend the effect of all those their objections, which they have or can bring forth in an argument, which is thus. The Doctors of the Church have thought that besides the holy Scriptures, The conclusion of the objections out of the ancient Doctors. traditions not written ought also to be received. Ergo all those things which are necessary unto faith and salvation are not contained in the Scriptures. Let us now try their antecedent. Answer It is manifest by the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, which before we have alleged, that those ancient fathers have not written all alike touching traditions: for first it behoved to know the mind and opinion of the old Doctors before they object them to us. But let this be the full sum of all those things which the ancient doctors who are most to be accounted of, have written touching Traditions. All those things which are delivered, either appertain to the principles of religion and constitution of manners, or else unto ecclesiastical rites and orders of the Church, but those things which appertain to principles of faith and manners, are most surely contained in the Scriptures, neither is it any hindrance if certain kinds of speech to the easy explication of doctrine & principles of religion, be not found by express words in the holy Scriptures, so that the matter itself, & the sense signified by these terms be extant in the scriptures: But as touching those things which appertain unto rites & ecclesiastical order if they agree with the Scriptures, and serve to the edification of the Church: Yea, finally, if they be received with the common consent of the whole Church, then are they with great reverence to be received, and that this was the opinion and mind, of the ancient Fathers, I think it is sufficiently made manifest by these things which have been alleged before: whereby we may see, that the ground and matter of our adversaries is false. Now therefore I deny their consequent: The error of the former objection for the error is in form of reasoning: the Argument is grounded upon the misunderstanding of the fathers. Another error is this: for that they take that to be granted; which lieth between us in controversy. For thus standeth the case between us, whether in confirming principles of faith, the scriptures alone be to be hard, yea or nay. But our adversaries strait ways propone to us the opinion of Doctors, and thereby they by and by conclude, that the Scriptures alone are not to be heard, to wit, being unmindful, that this self same thing is a controversy between us. For if this opinion touching the which we do dispute, may be determined by the writings of the Doctors, than it followeth, that the scriptures alone are not to be heard in establishing articles of faith. Wherefore our adversaries do not rightly dispute, their first principle being not rightly applied. Wherefore the error of their former conclusion, is thus to be corrected: In as much as the writings of all the Doctors, Correcting of the former objection must be brought unto the rule of the holy scriptures, both the word of God so commanding it, and also the Doctors themselves consenting thereunto: and the old Doctors of the Church themselves, have taught that every article of our faith must be grounded upon the scriptures only: furthermore Ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies if they agree with the scriptures, if they serve to the edification of the church: yea, finally, if they be received with common consent of the whole Church, that then they are to be received with great reverence: Now here we must diligently search out, whether that this opinion of the Doctors, be agreeable to the word of god, so that so far it is to be received, as it hath his confirmation by the Scriptures. And because our whole Disputation is here had only touching principles of doctrine necessary to faith and salvation, that we may not seem to wander from our proposed question, we here cease: neither will we take upon us the disputation of ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies, which disputation's if the matter so require, and God so permit us, we will take in hand: But now we defer it unto another time. Thus have I ●●●●ding to the method proposed, to wit, d●●●ely and schoolelike, The conclusion of the whole disputation. by the authority 〈◊〉 most learned Fathers disputed in defence of the word written, against the traditions of men. Whereby the truth of our cause appeareth, and the obscure deceits and errors of our adversaries, are brought into open show: for in such sort have we set down, opened, and confirmed our mind and judgement, and so confuted and dissolved the errors and arguments of our adversaries, both by the holy scriptures and also by the writings of the ancient fathers, that every man may easily see, this doctrine which our reformed church by the word of God (which is therefore the true Catholic Church) doth hold and profess, is most true, which is: That All doctrine necessary to our Christian faith and Religion is contained in the holy Scriptures. Laus Deo.