HAVING already in the pre­cedent Treatise spoken of the written Word of God, and of all other things therunto belonging, now it remayneth we speake a litle of the vnwritten word cō ­monly called Traditiōs. But to the end that the state of this controuersy may more easi­ly be vnderstood, I will heere set downe foure things diligently to be considered in this matter we treate of. The first is, that by the vnwritten Word we only vnderstand that which is not written in the old or new Testament, for of the vnwritten word of God in this sense is our whole Contro­uersy in this place. Wherefore that obie­ction [Page 4] of our Aduersaries is both friuolous and nothing worth, to wit, that the word of God which we call the vnwriten word, may be found extant eyther amonge the holy Fathers, or in the books of the Coun­cells, or other Canons of the Church. But this nothing belongeth vnto this purpose: for it is sufficient for vs that this word of God is not written in any booke, eyther of the old or new Testament.

2. The second is that a thing may be cō ­teined in the holy Scripture 2. wayes. The one way is implicite, that is to say, in some generall principle from whence this other may be certaynly deduced, and in this sense we acknowledge that the whole word of God is conteined in holy writ, and not only in Scripture, but also in the Apostles Creed, yea euen in that one article, I belieue the Catholike Church, so that it be diligently examined and well vnderstood, as S. Augu­stine S. Aug. in the 140. quest. vpon Exodus. Tom: 4. Matt. 22. v. 40. very well noteth. For so, sayth Christ▪ the whole Law and Prophets doe de­pend vpon two precepts of charity, as in the same place S. Augustine noteth. For seing that the holy Scripture teacheth that we are bound to belieue the Church in all things, & that it can neyther deceiue vs nor be deceiued, as we will euidently proue in the next Controuersy in the [...]. Chapter, [Page 5] it consequently also teacheth the whole and entire word of God, seing that all that which is not expressed in the holy Scri­pture, is conteined expresly in the do­ctrine of the Church, the which the Scri­pture commendeth vnto vs as infallible, as S. Augustine very well sayth, and decla­rethS. August: Tom. 7. contra Crescon. Grammat. c. 33. & de vnie. Ec­cles. c. 22. in fine. Matt. 17. v. 5. Matt. 18. v. 17. Luc. 10. v. 16. in many places. For euen as God the Father comprehended in these few words (This is my wellbeloued Sonne, heare him) the whole word of God, so Christ proposed vnto vs the whole word of God, when he commaunded vs to heare the Church.

3. And in this sense do the holy Fa­thers oftentymes say, that all the points of fayth are conteined in the holy Scriptures, to wit, in that generall principle in the which they admonish vs to belieue the Church: but many of the holy Fathers say­ings are falsifyed & corrupted by Martinꝰ Kē ­nitius. and some Caluinists, as may be seene in Iudocus Ruesten in his first tome defending the Councell of Trent against Kemnitius.

4. Secondly a thing may be conteined in expresse words in the holy Scriptures, as that Christ is borne, suffered, and risen a­gaine &c. And in this sense we deny that the whole word of God is conteined in the Scriptures. That obiection of our Aduer­saries by this may easily be answered, when [Page 6] they say that we affirme, that Traditions are the vnwriten word of God, and yet we goe about to proue thē by Scriptures. For we do not proue euery particuler Tradi­tion by expresse words of Scripture, but we only deduce and gather them out of it, and conuince in generall, that there are Traditions.

5. The third thing which is to be con­sidered, is, that our Aduersaries being con­uinced by truth, doe acknowledge that many things were deliuered vnto vs by the Apostles, besids those which are written. ‘But, say they, those were only externall rites and ceremonies, seruing only for the ornament or discipline of the Church, but nothing concerning doctrine of fayth was deliuered by the Apostles, which they haue not set downe in writing.’ So Caluin andCaluin cōt. 4. sess. Con. Tri­dēt. in suo [...]ntid. Be­ [...]a de notis Eccles. tom. 3. Tract. Theol. p. 137. edit. An. 158 [...]. some others which follow his opinion. Wherfore it remayneth for vs to proue that not only external ceremonies, but also those which belong vnto the doctrine of fayth were deliuered vnto vs by the Apostles, and that they were neuer expressely set downe in writing.

6. The fourth thing is, that seing our Aduersaries cannot deny that which was obiected vnto them by Catholikes, to wit, that the Scripture in many places maketh [Page 7] expresse mentiō of the word of God prea­ched, deliuered, and diuulged ouer the whole world (as we haue already decla­red euen out of the holy Scriptures) they are wont to answere, that long since in the Apostles tyme this word of God was deliuered, preached, and not written, but the Apostles afterwards set downe in wri­ting all the preached word of God, or at the least as much therof as was necessary vnto saluation. The which solutiō albeit it be very weake and friuolous, seing that it relyeth vpō no sure ground, yet notwith­standing that it may more fully be confu­ted we will declare hereafter, that many of the chiefest points of faith were not ex­pressely set downe in writing by the Apo­stles. And thus much of the state of this Question.

THE first argument wherby we proue Traditions, is taken out of some of the chiefest principles of faith. For there are three chiefe and most necessary points of faith, yea the thiefe grounds of our whole faith which are not to he found expressely in Scri­ptures.

2. The first, that there must needes be some Catalogue or Canon of the sacred Bookes aswell of the old as of the new Te­stament, the which all Christians with an assured faith should imbrace as a most cer­taine and an vndoubted truth, and this is a very necessary point of faith, yea of it de­pendeth the authority of all the bookes of holy Scripture, because by this Canon the sacred and true books of Scriptures are dis­cerned and made knowne from all those which be Apochriphall; especially because aswell in times past as in these our daies [Page 9] there hath byn so many, and so great Con­trouersyes about the Canonicall and Apo­chriphall bookes of Scripture; and such a Canon was altogeather necessary aswell in the auncient Church before Christ, as in our present Church after Christes tyme; the which also our Aduersaries themselues haue learned by experience. For they haue also placed their new Canon of the bookes of holy Scripture in their Confession made atConfess. Rupellana. Act. 3. Rochell, and in the later end of some of their Bibles, and yet neyther in the tyme of the old Testament, nor in the tyme of the new Law, was this Canō euer written downe in the Bibles themselues.

2. I know our Aduersaries, that they may escape this argument, do runne to the inward instinct of the holy Ghost, wher­by say they, we know what booke is Cano­nicall, and what is not. But this answere is refuted & reiected before, where we haue shewed that the holy Ghost doth not moue vs to belieue any thing with the Catho­like faith, which is not the word of God. IfSupra c. 5. therfore the holy Ghost moue vs to belieue that some bookes are Canonicall, and some are not, it is necessary that this be the word of God. We aske therefore of them, whether this is the written word of God or the vnwrittē, if it be the written word, [Page 10] in what Booke or Chapter is it to be foūd? if it be no where to be found, our Aduersa­ries must needes cōfesse, that by the instinct of the holy Ghost they also belieue the vn­written word of God, or Traditions.

3. The second principle of faith is, that we must necessarily, with an assured and firme faith belieue, that all those Bookes eyther of the old or of the new Testament which we now retaine, are sa­fely deliuered vnto vs entyre and vncor­rupted through so many handes, so many ages, so many vexations and persecutions of the Christians, for otherwyse the whol credit and authority of those bookes will decay and perish. But this is no where ex­tant or written, for neyther the Prophets or Apostles haue euer written, that their bookes should neuer be falsified or cor­rupted by any, yea it appeareth sufficientlySupra c. 9. 10. 12. & 13 by that which hath byn already said that they were falsified and corrupted in many bookes by the Iewes and Heretikes. Let our Aduersaries therfore tell vs where it is written, that this holy Scripture which we haue now, is not corrupted or falsi­fyed.

4. The third principle of fayth is the true sense of the letter. For the true word of God consisteth rather in the true sense or [Page 11] meaning of the words then in the words themselues as we haue declared before.Suprae. 3. But the true sense of the words, that is to say, in what sense or meaning the words are to be vnderstood, eyther properly or figuratiuely, cannot be had from the holy Scripture alone, but also from the doctrine and Traditions of the Church, as we haue sayd before in the fourth Chapter: wher­by it also followeth, that the writtē word of God conteyneth in it the least part of the word of God, to wit, the bare letter only: but the word of God preached and deliuered keepeth and professeth vnto vs the cheife part of the word of God, that is to say, the true & natiue sense of the same.

5. And this is that which S. Basil S. Basil. l. de Spiritū sanct. c. 27. Brent. con­tra Petrū à Soto in suis prol [...] ­gomenis. Kemnitius contra 4. sess. Concil. Trid. cùm agit de 2. genere Tradi [...]. sayth, that those who reiect the vnwriten points of fayth, as vndiscreet persons, do wrong and damnify the chiefe parts of the Gospell, yea they euen as it were cō ­tract or bring the whole preaching of the Gospell, to the bare name therof.

6. Many of our Aduersaries who deale more sincerely with vs, conuinced by these arguments, do acknowledge, that these grounds or principles of our faith are only to be had by Traditions, without any written word of God, as Ioannes Brentius, and Martin Kemnitius, who adde also, that [Page 12] those Traditions which doe not repugne to the written word of God are to be ad­mitted and receiued of all, and those only are to be reiected which are opposit vnto the holy Scriptures.

7. But whatsoeuer our Aduersaries do answere, it is altogeather necessary that they confesse these three principles of our fayth do belong indeed to the very word of God it selfe. They must also needs con­fesse these are not extant in playne and ex­presse tearmes in any booke either of the old or new Testament; out of which ne­cessarily followeth that the whole & in­tire word of God is not conteyned ex­presly in the holy Scripture.

THE second argument whereby we proue Apostolicall Tradi­tions, is taken out of other parti­culer poynts of fayth, the which almost all our Aduersaryes belieue with vs, albeit they be no where expressely [Page 13] conteyned in the Scriptures. There are many poyntes of fayth of this sort, wherof for example sake we will alledge some few. But to the end, we may vse our accu­stomed breuity, we will rehearse only those which do also manifestly shew out of this opinion of our Aduersaries (that nothing appertayneth to the doctrine of fayth, which is not expresly conteyned in holy Scripture) there are many gree­uous errours and heresies in this our age arisen.

2. The first point is, that in God there are three persons really distinct among themselues, and one only substance, for this is no where extant in holy Scripture, yea in it nothing is to be found ex­presly writen eyther of the substance or of the person in that signifycation wherein these words are vsed, when we speake of the Blessed Trinity.

3. This indeed the Caluinists to their great losse and domage haue sufficiently learned by experience fourty yeares agoe in Transiluania. For when one Iohn Huniades whom they called Iohn the secōd King of Hūgary was then Gouernour in Trāsiluania, a Coutry or Prouince of Hungary, had ordai­ned a publike dispuratiō betwixt the Cal­ [...]inists and the Antitrinitarians, that is to say [Page 14] those who oppugned the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and that according to the cōmon doctrine on both syds, they should dispute only out of the holy Scriptures, the Caluinists could neuer proue out of the Scriptures alone, that there is eyther a substance or person in God, neyther could they by the Scriptures only declare what is a person, or what is a substance.

4. Wherefore at the last this was the end of the disputatiō, that almost all those which were present iudged, that the Anti­trinitarians got the victory, and that the Caluinists were shamefully ouercome: wher­upon it came to passe that the sayd Prince of Transiluania, of a Caluinist became an An­titrinitarian, yea one of their cheife friends; in so much that he tooke some publike Churches from the Caluinists, and gaue them to the Antitrinitarians, and he conti­nued miserably in that wicked heresy euen till death, which happened in the yeare 1571. the 14. of March.

5. All which things are aboundātly declared by one Ioannes Sommerus Pirnensis in the funerall Oration which he made at his death, wherein among other things he af­firmeth, that the cheife cause why this Prince left the Caluinists, and became an An­titrinitarian, was this, because for sooth in the [Page 15] Scriptures he could fynd nothing of the Blessed Trinity, and for that the Caluinists were forced to confesse, that the words wherby the mystery of the Blessed Trinity is explicated are not extāt in the holy Scri­pture: but because this funeral. Oration is scarse any where to be found & least some should thinke that I falsely coyned these things my selfe, I will heare set downe his owne words. For after he had most bla­sphemously spoken, as the Antitrinitarians are wont to doe, against the Blessed Trinity, the which he calleth heere and there the Roman Idolatry, these things he addeth of his Prince.

6. But this our Prince (saith he)This fu­neral Orat▪ of Iohn Sommer was prin­ted at Clau­diopoli an. Domini 1571. being instructed by God, easily vnderstood what was the truth, and with earnest de­sire imbraced it, and with no lesse pleasure of mind defended it: for being accustomed euen from his childhood to reade the ho­ly Scriptures, he made them very familiar vnto him, & presently he found thatsuch things which were contrary to the phrase of Christ and his Apostles, were in the en­suing ages by a wicked curiosity brought into the Church; and that they are not at all to be numbred amongst those things which add any firmity or strength to the Author of our saluation, especially seing [Page 16] that the Aduersaries themselues acknow­ledge, that the words wherby these subtil­ties of this new opinion are explicated if not rather (as I may well say) more obscu­red, are not to be found in the writings of the Apostles.

7. And a little after. Wherfore little regarding eyther the multitude of wran­glers, or the torments and paints which o­thersHe mea­neth Serue­tus who was burnt at Geneua. an. 1553. as Beza writ [...]th in vi [...]a Cal­uini. had endured, who first endeauored to breake this ice, he manifestly condem­ned the falsity of the Trinity, freely pro­fessing his owne opinon therein. And after a few words. For what hath he not done? what assemblies and disputations hath he not ordayned and caused to be had about this matter, both in Hangary, and in Transiluania, that the sense or meaning of the Scripture might the better be explica­ted by conferring those thinges togeather which were then said or spoken of, where he would not only be present himselfe, but also taking the place or office of the Iudge and vmpyre in the said disputations, he very wisely and grauely confuted the great absurdities of that superstition, warning often the Aduersaries, that reiecting the fancies or fond expositions of men, they should lesse impudenily and more sincerly carry themselues in the explication of the [Page 17] heauenly doctrine. Thus farre Sommerus of the great care & diligence of the Prince of Transiluania in defending the heresy of the Antitrinitarians.

8. Moreouer it is also manifest that out of this opinion of our Aduersaries, to wit, that we must not belieue any thingSeruetus l. 1. de erro­ribus Tri­nitatis fol. 32. pag. 1. Edit. an. 1531. which is not expressed in Scriptures, this wicked heresy of the Antitrinitariās in these our dayes had her beginning. For that Michael Seruetus who in our age was the first of them that by printed bookes presu­med to oppugne the mystery of the Blessed Trinity, doth plainely testify, writing in this manner: ‘For the solution, saith he, of all things which may heere be alledgedL. Item a­pud. §. Ai [...] Praetor. f [...]. de iniurijs. by the Philosophers (for thus he calleth the Catholikes) thou must obserue this rule, which is an axiome among lawiers, that those thinges which do not deserue any speciall note or marke, are vnderstood and esteemed as things neglected, vnlesse they be specially noted. But I pray thee iudge, whether this article of the Tri­nity deserue any speciall note or no, se­ing that it is the chiefest and first ground of all our faith, wherof the whole know­ledge of God and Christ dependeth. And whether it be expressely noted or no, may be seene by reading ouer the Scriptures, [Page 18] seing that there is not one word to be foūd of the Trinity in the whole Bible, nor of the persons therof, nor of the essence or vnity of the supposition, nor of the vnity of nature in many distinct thinges, and such like.’ Thus farre Seruetus. By these it euidently appeareth that all these mon­strous & strange opinions of latter Arrians, who are also called Antitrinitarians do pro­ceed from this one principle of our Ad­uersaries, to wit, that we must only be­lieue Scriptures, and by this they are encreased. But let vs now see other mat­ters.

9. The second point of faith is, that Infants are to be baptized. For our Ad­uersaries will neuer shew this in the holy Scriptures. For that one place which dothIoan. 3. v. 1. clearly conuince this, to wit, vnlesse he be borne againe of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God, they wrest and ex­pound it in another sense. For they willCalu. in c. [...]. Ioan. v. 5. not haue this word (water) to signify the element of water, but the holy Ghost: so Caluin: hence arose that wicked sect of the Anaba­ptistes, who affirme now adayes that it is an vnlawfull and prophane thing, to baptize Infants, seing that there is no solide reason heere­of extant in the Scriptures.

10. For that wherunto Caluin, and his [Page 19] followers do fly for refuge, to wit, that in the old Law Infantes were circūcised,Genes. 17. v. 10. the Anabaptistes do easily confute both, be­cause cōcerning that, there was an expresse precept of God, but there was none of the baptisme of Infants; and the similitude al­so betwixt circumcision and baptismeS. Aug. Tom. [...]. de haeres. cap. 84. S. Hieron. cōtra Hel­uidium Author de Eccles. dogmatib. cap. 69. S. Ambr. in Epist. 7. ad Siriciū Papam. Epiphan. haeres. 78. [...]nnius cō ­tra Bellar. Controu. 1. lib. 4. cap. 9. not [...] 5. doth not hold in all thinges, for otherwise women should not be baptized but only men.

11. The third point of faith is, that the Blessed Virgin Mary the mother of God remayned alwayes a Virgin euen af­ter her childbyrth. For this is extant no where in Scripture, and yet Heluidius was condemned as an Heretike by the whole auncient Church, because he presumed to deny this.

12. When Bellarmine had alleadged this vnwrittē poynt of faith, to proue that all such pointes of faith were not expre­sly set downe in holy writ, Franciscus Innius to answere vnto this difficulty was forced to take and approue the condem­ned heresy of Heluidius. For he denyeth that we ought to belieue as a point of faith the perpetuall Virginity of our B. Lady. But the ancient Fathers had neuer condemned Heluidius as an Heretike vn­lesse he had denyed a point of faith. But [Page 20] in this manner are our Aduersaries forced to renew the old heresies of tymes past, to the end they may defend this their pa­radoxe, that we must only belieue Scri­ptures.

THE fourth point that our Ad­uersaries also belieue, but with­out expresse Scripture for it, is that Christians cannot lawfully haue more wyues at once: for the Councell Concil. Trident. sess. 24. c. 2. of Trent hath very well defined this to be a point of faith against the heresy of these tymes, wherof we will speake more pre­sently. But yet our Aduersaries can neuer proue this out of Scriptures only, abstra­cting from the authority of the Church, albeit they also agree with vs in the be­liefe heerof. Yea the examples of holy Scripture do rather perswade the cōtrary. For those most holy men Abraham, Iacob, Dauid, and many others had more wyues [Page 21] at once, yet neuer did God reprehend this in them, albeit he often spake vnto them.

2. When Bernardine Ochine one of Cal­uins schollers did consider this, he was not afrayd to perswade both by word and writing, that Polygamy was yet lawfull, of whome and of his most wicked lyfe Be­za Beza Epist. 1. ad An­dream Du­ditium. writeth at large.

But Ochinus grounded only this his heresy in that principle of our Aduersaries before alledged, to wit, that we must be­lieue nothing which is not expresly in Scriptures. And whereupon Beza himself in his booke which he wrote against the same Ochinus doth testify, that Ochinus vsed this argument: where Beza also manifestly acknowledgeth that Polygamy is not for­bidden in holy Scriptures by any expresse Law. The other argument (saith Beza) of Ochi­nus, Beza in lib. de Po­ligamia. extat. in initio vo­luminis [...]. suarum Tract. Theol. is that Polygamy is not forbidden by any expresse law to the contrary: but I answere, that there are not lawes written of all thinges. Thus Beza.

3. But afterward indeed Beza goeth about to proue that Poligamy is contrary to the Law of Nature, but the same diffi­culty still remayneth. For according to our Aduersaries doctrine all thinges neces­sary to saluation are expressed in holy Scriptures: but the obseruatiō of all things [Page 22] belonging to the Law of Nature, is altogea­ther necessary to saluation, therefore the obseruation of these thinges is expressed in Scriptures, or els truly many thinges necessary to saluation must be sought for out of the Scriptures. Moreouer that Po­lygamy is vnlawfull, is a point of faith, but this as Beza confesseth is not expre­ssely contayned in Scriptures, therfore all the pointes of faith are not expressely con­tained in Scriptures.

4. The first point of faith is, that the Sacrament of Baptisme may only be giuen in water. For this point is also very ne­cessary for the Church, least so great and worthy a Sacrament be prophaned, con­trary to the institution of Christ: and yet our Aduersaries will neuer be able to proue this out of the Scriptures only, who deny that the forsaid place of S. Iohn is to be vnderstood of true water, as we haue said before in the second point. For the examples of holy Scripture do proue in­deed that water is the fit matter of Baptisme, §. [...]. cap. praeced. Beza Epist. [...]. ad Tom. Tilium Fratrem & Symmi­stam suam. but they do not proue that there can be no other matter.

5. When Beza did consider this well, least that his foresayd principle that we must belieue nothing but Scripture might seeme to be called in question, he was not [Page 23] ashamed to write that Baptisme might be giuen in any liquour, and by this meanes it wilbe true and lawfull Baptisme, though it be giuen in milke, wyne, yea in Inke or any other filthy liquour. Thus are our Aduersaryes forced to admit these absur­dityes, least they might be forced to depart from that their principle of belieuing only Scripture.

6. Furthermore to the end that Beza might more easily perswade the igno­rant common people to admit this his strange paradoxe, addeth presently a very grieuous slaunder against the Catholike Doctors. Let water be wanting, saith, Be­za, and yet the Baptisme of any cannot be deserred with edification, nor must not be, I Beza [...]adē Epist. 2. truly would as well and as lawfully baptize in any other liquour as in water: neyther are the most superstitious Deuines of any other opinion in these matters. Thus far Beza. But these thinges which he writeth are most false. For there is no Catholike nor Scholasticall DoctorConcil. Trid. sess. 7. can. 2. de baptism. who hath euer eyther thought or written so, yea the playne contrary is defined by the Catholike Church as a poynt of Fayth.

7. The sixt poynt of fayth, is that bread and wyne is only the necessary mat­ter of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucha­rist. [Page 24] This poynt of faith is also very neces­sary for the Church, least so great and so excellent a Sacrament should be propha­ned; yet our Aduersaries will neuer be able to proue it effectually out of Scri­pture only. For by this word (Bread) any kind of meate is oftentymes signifyed in Scripture; of wine it is farre more doubt­full. For the Scripture maketh only men­tion of the Chalice, and not of the li­quor which was in the Chalice; and Caluin himselfe acknowledgeth thatLuc. 22. v. 18. Calu. ibid. insua har­monia. Beza Epist. 2. citata. those words (of the fruite of the vyne) were spoken before the institution of this Sa­crament.

8. The which when Beza easily pre­ceaued, heere also he went about to bring in another error, least indeed he should be forced to forsake his former principle of belieuing only Scriptures. For he was not afraid to write that he erred nothing from the institution of Christ, who in the con­secration of the Eucharist should vse in­steed of the bread appointed for that purpose, any other vsuall meate; and in­steed of the wyne any other ordinary kind of drinke, and by this meanes one may consecrate the Eucharist eyther in cheese, flesh, fish, or egges, as also in milke, water, beare, or vineger, or any other liquor [Page 25] which hitherto was neuer heard of in Gods Church. And yet for all this Beza is not ashamed to attribute this most absurd error of his to all the Scholasticall Doctors. For of both these errors he treateth in the words before alledged, because when he sayth the Scholasticall Doctors were of no other opinion, he speaketh as well cōcerning the matter of the Eucharist, as of the matter of Baptisme. After this manner our Aduer­saries do force so many and so great errors out of that their principle of belieuing only Scriptures, wherof more might be alledged, which for breuities sake we omit.

9. But there is one thing I cannot let passe, because therby we clearly conuince that the Traditions of the Church do not only contayne vnwritten points of fayth, but (that which is more) euen in our Aduersaries iudgment they change and a­bolish such things as are expresly com­maunded in Scriptures: for euen in the Table of the Law of God, which is sayd to be written by Gods owne hand, inExod. 34. v. 1. Exod. 20. v. 8, 9, 10, 11. many and manyfest words the keeping of the Sabboth day is comaunded, the which notwithstanding, now all, except a few A­nabaptists, do confesse to be abrogated by Ec­clesiasticall Tradition only, without any ex­presse [Page 26] testimony of Scripture. The Ana­baptists I say being also deceiued by that Common principle of our Aduersaries of blieuing only Scriptures, they go about to bring the obseruation of the Sabboth day into vse and custome agayne, and for this cause they are called Sabatharians, but notVide Pra­teolum V. Saba­tharij: so much the heresy as the madnesse of these men is condemned of all, and namely of Luther in his booke against the Sabbata­rians, in the seauenth Tome.

THE third argument wherby we proue, that all the poynts of our fayth are not set downe in wri­ting by the Apostles, is the au­thorityCoccius Tom. 1. l. [...]. Antic. vltimo. Bellarm. Tom. 1. l. 41. de ver­bo Dei c. 7. of the aunciēt Fathers, who affirme and teach this in many places. The which places of the holy Fathers, as well the Greeks as the Latins Iodocus Coccius hath very diligently gathered togeather in his booke, intitled Thesaurus Catholicus, and be­fore him Bellarmine did the same. But least [Page 27] we be longer then the order of Epitomes doth permit, especially in a thing so ma­nyfest, it shall suffice vs to alledg one chiefe Doctor of the Greeke, and another of the Latine Church.

2. Among the Grecians S. Chrysostome is the most famous, who doth not only affirme it but also manifestly proueth it out of holy Scripture. For when he ex­poundeth those words of the later Epistle2. ad Thes. c. 1. v. 14. to the Thessalonians: Therefore brethren stand and hold the Traditions which you haue lear­ned, whether it be by word or by our Epistle, he writeth thus: Hence it appeareth, sayth S. Chrysostome, that he did not deliuer all things vnto them by his Epistle but many things also without his letters, but as well these, as those other, worthily de­serue S. Chrisost. Hom. 4. in. 2. ad Thes­sal. to be belieued; therfore we esteeme the Tra­dition also of the Church to be worthy of credit. It is a Tradition, seeke no further. Thus S. Chryso­stome. But it is most certayne that the Apostle and consequently S. Chrysostome also,Caluin l. 4. Instit c. 14. sect. vlt. S. August. Tom. 7. de baptismo. contra Do­natist. l. 2. cap. 7. who expoūdeth him, doth not only speake of ceremonies and customes, but also of poynts of Fayth.

3. S. Augustine whom Caluin acknow­ledgeth to be the best and most faythfull wit­nesse of antiquity, writeth in this manner. Many things are not to be found in the Apostles wri­tings, nor in the ensewing Councells, and yet not­withstanding, [Page 28] because they are generally kept through out the whole Catholike Church, they are iuged to haue byn deliuered and commended by none, but by them. Thus S. Augustine. Neyther can it be sayd, that S. Augustine speaketh of ceremo­nies and not of poynts of fayah. For in that place he proueth against the Donatists that those which were baptized in the ac­customed forme and matter by heretikes were not to be baptized againe, but none vnlesse he be an Anabaptist, will deny that this is a point of fayth.

THE fourth argument wherby we proue Traditions, is taken out of the doctrine of our Aduersaries. For all those things which our Aduersaries do affirme to be poyntes of fayth against the Catholike doctrine, they teach and belieue them without any ex­presse Scripture. For it cannot be found expressely in Scripture, that fayth only iusti­fyeh, that there are only two Sacraments of [Page 29] the new law, that none should pray for the dead &c. for all these things and many others which they teach against vs, they gather only out of Scriptures, and that by some false and very weake consequence; but it is no where expresly written, that fayth only iustifieth, that there are only two Sa­craments, that we must not pray to Saynts or for the dead &c.

2. Moreouer there can no Catholike be found who doth not receaue and assu­redly belieue the whole authenticall text of the holy Scripture, why do they ther­fore condemne vs, when they affirme that nothing is to be belieued besids the text of Scripture, wheras the whole Controuersy betwixt them and vs, is of the vnwritten points of fayth which, we affirme, & they deny?

3. Our Aduersaries being conuinced by this argument, do now at the last con­fesse, that not only that is to be admitted and belieued as the pure word of GodBeza de notis Eccl. pag. 137. volum. 2. Theol. Tract. edit. an [...]. 1581. which is expresly written in holy Scri­pture, but all that also which by a neces­sary consequence may be gathered out of it.

4. But when they answere thus, they are forced to depart and forsake that their first principle, wherby they affirmed that [Page 30] all the poynts of fayth are expresly con­teyned in Scriptures, and that they were set downe in writing by the A­postles.

5. Furhermore not perceauing so much, they ioyne in opinion with vs, so that they must needes indeed confesse that the Traditions of the Church are altogeather necessary. For such things as are gathered out of Scriptures do rather belong to Tra­ditions then to expresse Scripture. For that which only, consequently, & by reasoning & discoursing is gathered out of Scripture albeit it very well and necessarily may be deduced from thence, is not expressely in Scripture, but only obscurly, secretly, or vir­tually is conteined therin. For no man can truly say, that the conclusion which is only inferred out of the premisses is ex­presly conteyned in the same premisses, for otherwise our discourse and arguing were vayne and to no purpose. But ther­fore do we reason and discourse to the end, that, that which lyeth hidden virtu­ally in the premisses may be expresly ma­nyfested in the conclusion.

6. And that we may alleadge an ex­ample out of the Scriptures themselues, when God the Father sayd, This is my welbe­loued Matt. 17. v. 5. Sonne, heare him. Out of these wordes [Page 31] we may very well gather, and by a necessa­ry consequence, that the whole doctrine of Christ our Lord is to be heard and re­ceiued of all: yet none will say, that all the doctrine of Christ is conteyned expresly in those few wordes. And truely the holy Scripture is so fertill & plentifull that many pointes of faith do as yet lye hid­den and vnknowne therin, which hither­to hath neuer byn gathered togeather by any, but these thinges are conteyned vir­tually and not expressely in it.

7. Moreouer after so many debates and contentions, after so many bookes set forth against vs, after so many slaunders wherby our Aduersaries charge vs, as though we taught that the Scriptures are imperfect, they at the last returne to our opinion. For we do not deny, yea we willingly acknowledge, that all those things which rightly and without errour are deduced or gathered out of the expresse wordes of the holy Scriptures, do belong vnto the written word of God, and are contayned in holy writ obscurely, not ex­pressely, virtually, and not plainly. For in that God doth reueale any thing in ex­presse wordes, consequently, and virtually he reuealeth all things which necessarily and without any errour may be deduced [Page 32] from thence.

8. We graunt also that the Scripture consequently, mediatly, & virtually, as in a generall principle conteyneth all things necessary to saluatiō, yea in that one only article of the Creed, I belieue the holy Catholike Church; in those few words also of Christ,Luc. 10. v. 16. he who heareth you, heareth me, if the collection be rightly framed, as we haue also said be­fore in the 25. Chapter. But when these thinges are gathered togeather which are not expressely in Scripture, there is scarse any of them which is not vncertayne & doubtful without the authority and Tra­ditions of the Church. Wherefore these col­lections do manifestly conuince the ne­cessity and authority of Traditions.

9. But that these collections may be vncertayne and deceytfull, both experiēce & reasō teacheth vs: experiēce, because al­most all Heresies haue had their begin­ning not from the Scripture alone in it selfe, but from these collections badly framed and made. For there is not almost any one heresy which is only grounded on the expresse wordes of Scripture with­out some other collection, seing that al­most all Heretikes both in tymes past as now also go about to proue and gather their heresies from the Scripture by cer­tayne [Page 33] deceytfull & sophisticall argumēts. Arius for example, out of those wordes of Christ, the Father is greater then I, did gatherIoan. 14. v. [...]. 28. but badly, that Christ euen according to his diuine Nature was interiour to his Fa­ther. The new Arians out of those words of the ten cōmaūdemēts, thou shalt not haue strāge Exod. 20. v. 3. Gods before me, do gather but foolishly that the Sōne is not God, the holy Ghost is not God. So the Diuell himself against ChristMatth. 4. v. 6. vsed this reason, It is written, God hath giuen his Angells charge of thee, therfore cast thy selfe downe headlong. Lastly all the arguments indeed which our Aduersaries at this tyme alleadge against vs out of Scriptures, and all the errours which they haue inuē ­ted, do take their beginning and strength from their new illations and reasons, and not out of the bare and playne words of Scripture, as will manifestly appeare in e­uery one of the Controuersies.

10. The reason also is manifest why these their collections and reasons are vncertaine and doubtfull. For in nothing can one more easily or more often erre, then in these illations. The which may proceed of many causes; ey­ther because the illation it selfe is bad and Sophisticall, or because the place of Scripture from whence it is gathered is [Page 34] falsified by some false exposition therof, or because the proposition which is assumed and adioyned to the wordes of Scripture is false and ambiguous, or because one or more wordes in that collection are vsed doubtfully, that is to say, in one sense in the premises, and in another in the con­clusion; or lastly because there hapneth some errour to be in the collection which maketh it weake, Sophisticall, and erro­neous.

11. Besides that, there are so many and so contrary illations of diuers men, that the authority of the Church is alto­geather necessary in matters of faith, that there may arise a certaine and an vndoub­ted faith of these matters, of which sort Traditions are, that is to say, the doctrine of the whole Church.

12. But when one belieueth such an illation with a diuine or Catholike faith, he must needes know two thinges, the one is, that the expresse place of Scripture from whence this conclusion is deduced must certainly be well vnderstood by him which disputeth: the other is, that he who maketh such a deduction and colle­ction can neyther deceiue others not be deceyued himselfe. But none can know eyther of these without the Traditions of [Page 35] the Church, seeing that otherwise there is none which may not be deceiued some­tymes: All collections therefore which produce or breed fayth in vs, do most clear­ly conuince and shew the authority and necessity of Traditions.

THE fift argument wherby we proue, that many things are to be belieued which are not expressed in holy Scriptures, is taken out of the absurdities which do ensue of the contrary doctrine. For hauing once ad­mitted, that nothing is to be belieued which is not expressed in Scripture, all old heresies are renewed, and a great vn­certaynty and confusion of all things is brought into the Church of God, yea euen the way to Atheisme is layd open, because hauing once reiected & despised the Tra­dition of the Church, all the poynts of fayth from the Apostles tyme till now explicated and proued by the auncient [Page 36] Fathers against heretiks, all those things also which were decreed and determined by all the generall Councells in times past against the said heretiks, leese their chiefest strength and authority; the which not­withstanding our Aduersaries do acknow­ledge themselues to receiue and belieue.

2. Neyther do we know by an assured Catholike fayth, whether there were euer any Fathers or Councells but by the Traditions of the Church But neyther do we know any other way but by fayth, whether since the Apostles tyme till now there were any Catholikes or not? because of those things which were done since the tyme and death of the Apostles, there is nothing ex­tant in holy Scripture, seeing that all the bookes therof were written before the death of the Apostles. But such things as haue byn donne since till now, cannot o­therwyse be knowne but by the Tradi­tion of the Church.

3. Neyther is it sufficient to say, that we know these things by the Ecclesiasti­call histories. For that fayth which pro­ceedeth of histories without the autho­rity or Traditions of the Catholike Church, is but an humaine fayth which oftentymes deceaueth others, and may be deceiued it selfe, and therfore these kind of histories [Page 37] cannot produce a diuine fayth in vs: this experience it selfe doth clearly teach vs. For our Aduersaries do somtymes doubt whether S. Peter was euer at Rome, or no, because forsooth this is not to be found ex­presly in holy Scriptures, wheras notwith­standing it is most assuredly proued and testified in many bookes both of the aunci­ent Historiographers and holy Fathers: Why may they not as lawfully call other matters in question which are notwith­standing expressely set downe in other auncient writers. Our Aduersaries ther­fore do make all things very doubtfull and vncertayne, whyles they will only belieue and admit the Scripture: but now let vs answere their arguments.

THE first argument wherby our Aduersaries oppugne Traditions, and which they vse very often, the which also as inuincible they haue added to the confession of theirRupellana confessio Artic. 5. Deut. 4. v. 2. Deut. 12. v. vltimo. fayth, they take out of those words of Deu­teronomy, Thou shalt not add any thing to the word which I speake vnto you; nor shall you take any thing from it. And againe, that which I commaund thee do that only; neyther add or diminish any thing from it. By these places of Scriptures our Ad­uersaries do inferre, that nothing is to be receiued as a poynt of fayth, which is not expressely set downe in Scriptures.

2. But this argument is erroneous and the weaknes thereof is very great for many causes. First because in those words there is no mention made of the Scripture nor of the written word of God, but only of the word preached and deliuered viua voce. Thou shalt not add (sayth the Scripture) to the word that I speake vnto you, he doth not [Page 39] say, that I write vnto you. Againe, Do only sayth he, that which I commaund thee, he doth not say, that which I write vnto thee.

3. Moreouer in these words the holy Scripture doth not only speake of matters of sayth to be belieued, but also of cere­monies and customes to be done and ob­serued: but our Aduersaries themselues confesse, that these customes may be added by the authority of the Church, yea they haue ordeined themselues very many, the which they chang euen yet when theyCaluin cō ­tra 4. sess. Concil. [...]rident. please. Caluin also acknowledgeth that many vnwritten customes were deliuered vnto vs by the Apostles.

4. That also according to the phrase of Scripture is said to be added to the word of God which is contrary & opposite vn­it. For Iosue did not transgresse this com­maundement of Deuteronomy, when he ad­ded his booke to the bookes of Moyses. Nor did others transgresse it who added the bookes of the Iudges, Ruth, and of the Kinges, which were not written by Moyses, & which are also to be belieued as contay­ning pointes of faith. But in these bookes there is nothing contrary to that which Moyses wrote. And the Hebrew text agre­eth very well to this answere, for in both [Page 40] places of Deuteronomy this word (Ghal) is vsed, which signifieth oftentines con­trary, or against, so that the sense is, do not add any thing contrary to the word which I commaund: and againe, yee shall not add any thing contrary to the word which I say vnto you. For so is that par­ticle (Ghal) taken in the 40. Psalme (or ac­cording to the Hebrewes 41. in the 2. Psalme also, the second verse. And in the 14. of Numbers the 2. verse, & els where very often. Euen as also in the new Testa­ment [...], which answereth to the He­brew Ghal, signifieth also contrary, or a­gainst; when the Apostle writeth to the Corinthians, that in vs you may learne one not [...]. ad Cor. 4. v. 6. to be puffed vp against another aboue that is writiē. that is to say, against the Scripture, the which saith, we must not be puffed vp in pryde as S. Chrysostome, and after him Theo­philactus & others do note vpon that place. The which place some bodliy alledge a­gainst Traditions, wheras the Apostle in that place doth not speake of the wholeCaluin. in illa verba 1. ad Corin. 4. v. 6. word of God, but of this one point, that we must not be puffed vp in pryde, as euen Caluin himselfe acknowledgeth.

5. But to omit all such thinges as other Catholike Doctors haue very well, and learnedly written of the proper and [Page 41] literall sense of these wordes, yea that we may also graunt to our Aduersaries that this which they alledge is the true sense, they erre very much in that they thinke that these wordes of Moyses belong vnto vs, and that we are no lesse now bound and obliged by them, then the Iewes were in tymes past. For these wordes do no more appertaine vnto vs then those of theDeuteron. 27. v. vlt. same booke of Deuteronomy. Cursed be he that abideth not in the wordes of this Law, and fulfilleth them not in worke. From which wordes S. Ad Galat. 3. v. 10. & 13. Paul manifestly teacheth that we are deli­uered and freed, by the grace of Christ Iesus. But seing that in these wordes which they do heere alledge Moyses commaundeth that the Childrē of Israel should obserue & ful­fill euery word which he had commaun­ded them, for so it is expresly set downe Deuteronomy [...]2. the last verse, in the Hebrew text, and in all the Bibles of our Aduersa­ries, and he presently addeth that nothing is to be added or detracted from all these, he manifestly commaundeth the keeping of the whole Moysaicall Law, and of all the Sacraments, Sacrifices, and Ceremonies of the old Testament. For he doth not only commaund, that nothing should be added but also that nothing is to be detra­cted of all those thinges by him commaū ­ded. [Page 42] Wherefore if our Aduersaries obiect against vs that we adde any thing against this precept, we may more iustly obiect vnto them, that they detract farre more then we add, seing that they neyther ob­serue the Circumcision, nor the legall Sacrifices, nor other Ceremonies which are so often and so straitely commaunded in Deutero­nomy. It cannot truly be denyed, but that this is to detract somewhat from those thinges which Moyses commaunded; and therfore our Aduersaries must needes con­fesse that these are the wordes of the old Law, and consequently to appertaine no­thing vnto vs. Out of this which hath byn said, it followeth, that our Aduersa­ries do very indiscretly & foolishly boast and bragge of those wordes of Moyses. For in the exposition, thereof they erre farre from the truth, and a great deale more in the application, when they go about to proue that we are also bound and obli­ged by them.

6. Our Aduersaries take their second argument out of these wordes of Salomons prouerbs: Euery word of God is fiery, it is a shyeld Prouerb. 30. v. 5. & [...]. of defence to those which hope in it: do not add any thing to the wordes thereof, and thou shalt be found and reprehended as a lyar. I answere that this place maketh nothing against vs: for in [Page 43] that place there is no mention made of Scripture only, but of al the word of God. And it is most true that nothing should be added to all the whole word of God, the which is to be belieued with a Catholike faith as the true word of God. For as we haue said before, our faith relyeth only of the word of God, but the Scripture only is not all the word of God, because all Traditions also which contayne poynts of faith belong therunto, as we haue suffi­cientlySupra. c. 2. proued already. But they add to the word of God, & are lyars who affirme that God sayd this, or that, which indeed he neuer spake. And of this sort are those false Prophets, of whome God by the Prophet Ieremy conplayneth, saying, They speake the vision of their hartes, not from the mouth Hier. 23. v. 16. & 21. of our Lord: & againe, I did not speake vnto them, and they did prophesy. This place also may very well be vnderstood, of those who add any thing contrary to the word of God. For in the Hebrew text, there is set downe that particle (Ghal) which of­tentymes signifieth contrary, or against, as we haue already declared in our answere to the first argument.

THE third argument our Ad­uersaries take out of the firstConfess. Rupell. Art. 3. Chapter to the Galathians, the which they haue also added to their confession of fayth as inuincible. For they haue omitted their second argument as not strong inough for their purpose. But thus they frame their argument: The A­postle sayth twice an Anathema to thoseGal. 1. v. 8. & 9. who teach any thing besids that which he hath taught: therefore nothing is to be re­ceiued or belieued but Scripture. Our Ad­uersaries haue this place of the Apostle often in their mouthes, wherefore it shalbe examined more exactly. We answere ther­fore that our Aduersaries do erre heere for two reasons, first because our whole con­trouersy is of the written word of God, but in these words there is no mention made of the writtē word, or of Scripture, but only of the word preached and deliue­red [Page 45] viua voce to the Galathians by S. Paul. And hence it is that S. Augustine farre otherwiseS. August. Tom. 7. de vnit. Ec­cles. c. 24. then our Aduersaries, disputing against the Donatists proueth by these words of the Apostle, that we are bound to admit and belieue the Traditions of the Church: as for exāple, that those who are once order­ly and lawfully christened by Heretiks, are not to be baptized againe. And well truly; for that which is viua voce deliuered, is a Tradition, and not Scripture. Moreouer if the Scripture only conteyned expressely all the poynts of fayth, the Apostle would rather haue proposed the Scripture as the rule of faith then his owne preaching, se­ing that the Scripture is manifestly well knowne to all Nations, but his owne preaching to the Galathians only. But our Aduersaries vrge againe and say, that all that which the Apostle preached to the Galathians was written eyther before that tyme or afterward by S. Paul and the other Apostles: they say this, but they proue it not. For this is no where written in holy Scripture, and so whyles they goe about to perswade vs, that all points of fayth are writtē, they coyne & inuent a new point, which is no where extant in Scripture, that is to say, that all such things as S. Paul viua voce taught the Galathians, are written. [Page 46] But we following herein S. Augustine, doS. Aug. Tom. 9. Tract. 96. in loan & Tom. 7. de v [...]itat, Eccles. c. 21. in fine. gather much better by these words, and infer thus against them. If there must be nothing belieued, but that which S. Paul preached to the Galathians, and that none knoweth certainly what are those things which he preached, but by the Traditions and doctrine of the Church, it followeth manifestly that besids the Scripture we must also belieue the Traditions and doctrine of the Church; seing that without them we cannot certainly and without errour know what were those things which the Apostle taught the Galathians.

2. Secondly our Aduersaries do erre in that they doe not rightly expound that particle in the wordes of S. Paul (praeter) (besides) but rather contrary to the Apostles meaning. For the Latine word praeter, as also the Greeke word [...], and the Hebrew (Ghal) haue two signi­fications. In the former it signifyeth all that which is not the selfe same thing whereof we doe speake: in the later sense it signifieth that only which is contrary to that we speake of. In which sense praeter signifieth the same that contra doth, to wit (against:) the former sense is manifest inough, the later is proued by these places of Scripture, Act. 18. v. 13. [Page 47] where all do translate these Greeke words,Calu, super acta A post. ann. 1560. Beza edit. an▪ 1560. & 1565. & 1598. Henric. Steph. in thesauro linguae Graecae Tom. [...] in dictione [...]. [...], to be against the Law: so hath not only the vulgar edition, but also Caluin and Beza, and all the French Bibles of Geneua. Likewise in the first to the Romans the 26. vers. [...] signi­fieth against Nature: so hath the vu [...]gar edition and all the french Bibles of Genena, yea Cicero, as witnesseth Henricus Stephanus doth thus translate this phrase out of Greeke. Againe in the 4. to the Romanes the 18. verse, [...] signifieth against, as the vulgar edition, and Beza hath in all edi­tions. Moreouer in the 11. to the Romans the 24. vers, [...] signifieth against, as the vulgar edition and all the Bibles of Geneua haue: finally in the last to the Romans the 17. vers▪ aswell the Greeke word [...], as the Latin word (praeter) in our interpre­tor signifieth the same thing that contra doth, as manifestly appeareth by the prece­dent wordes, for dissensions and scandals are contrary or against the doctrine of Christ, and not only besides his doctrine. [...] Wherfore Caluin in his Commentaries set forth in the yeare 1557. vpon the Epistle to the Romanes, and Sebasti [...]n Castalio, and all the French Bibles of Geneua haue cōtrary or against the doctrine: and albeit Beza translateth it besids the doctrine, yet in [Page 48] his last edition set forth in the yeare 159 [...]. he translateth it contrary to the doctrine and in his Annotations he warneth that it is rather so to be translated. It is not therfore strange or absurd that the Greeke word [...], or the Latyne praeter should signify the same that contra doth.

3. But now that this word may not only be thus vsed, but that also it must ne­cessarily be so vnderstood and taken in this place, we haue shewed by the absurdi­ties which would otherwise follow▪ The first is that S. Paul would haue sayd Anathema to S. Iohn Euangelist, who many yeares after the preaching of S. Paul to the Galathians, yea after his death, wrote his A­pocalyps, wherein there are many new re­uelations which S. Paul had not preached to the Galathiās, because they were not thē reuealed by God.

4. The second absurdity, that S. Paul had pronoūced an Anathema vpon all those who in his tyme by a propheticall spirit did dayly prophesy new things. For in1. ad Cor. 14. v. 2. 4. 26. & 30. the Apostles tyme there were many such as appeareth by the first epistle to the Co­rinthians. And S. Paul could not preach to the Galathians, which God had not yet re­uealed.

5. The third absurdity, the Apostle [Page 49] for the same reason had pronounced Ana­thema against S. Luke who in the Actes of the Apostles relateth many thinges which happened long after S. Paul left Galatia.

6. The fourth absurdity, the Apostle for the same cause also had condemned himselfe with the said Anathema. For he wrote many Epistles after he had left Ga­latia, wherein he relateth many thinges which hapned afterward vnto him ey­ther at Rome, or in other places.

7. Lastly it is an absurd thing to think either God after those wordes of S. Paul to the Galathians could reueale to men no­thing more by an Angell sent from hea­uen, or that the said Angell who by the commaundement of God should reueale any new thing, but not contrary to faith, should incurre that▪ Anathema by S. Paul, seing that this were to wrest the Anathema vpon God himselfe, who commaunded the Angell to do so. This place therfore cannot be vnderstood of diuers and di­stinct thinges from those which S. Paul taught the Galathians, but only of contrary and opposite thinges vnto them. But ac­cording to this sense of the word (praeter) all the foresayd Absurdities doe cease. For neyther S. Iohn in his Apocalyps, nor [Page 50] S. Luke in the Actes of the Apostles, nor any o­ther which did prophecy, nor S. Paul him­self, euer wrote or taught any thing con­trary to that which S. Paul taught the Ga­lathians. But euen God himself cannotAd Hebr. 16. v. 18. reueale the contrary by an Angell, be­cause according to the Apostle, It is im­possible for God to lye.

8. Neyther is it sufficient for me to say that those thinges which were after­ward reuealed and written, were not ne­cessary pointes of faith to saluation. For S. Paul did not say, if any shall Euangelize vnto you any point necessary to saluation: but absolutely, if any shall Euangelize any thing contrary to that which you haue recevued. Moreouer all these thinges which were afterward set downe in ho­ly Scripture were true pointes of faith, the which euery Christiā is necessarily boūd to belieue, if not expressely, yet at the least virtually and generally euery one is boūd to belieue with an assured faith all those things which are in holy Writ to be most certaine and true.

9. Finally euen our Aduersaries con­fession doth conuince this to be most true▪ for now they acknowledge that all those thinges which by a necessary consequēce are deduced out of the Scriptures do be­long [Page 51] vnto the word of God and are points of fayth, and therfore they may be law­fullySuprac. 3 [...] preached vnto the people as we haue said before. But al these are distinct things from those which are expresly written in holy Scriptures. For the antecedent wherby some other thing may be infer­red, is distinct from that which is infer­red. For it were a ridiculous illation if one and the same thing should be inferred from it selfe. But that which is inferred in a good collection is neuer contrary to the antecedent. The Apostle therefore speaketh of doctrine contrary to his, and not absolutly of any other distinct do­ctrine.

10. And in this sense the Fathers doe often say that S. Paul affirmed in this placeS. August. Tom. 7▪ ō ­tra literas Petil Donatist. lib 3▪ cap. 6. S August. Tom▪ 9. Tract. 98. in Euang. Ioan. sub. finem. that nothing was to be taught besids that which is in the holy Scripture. For so S. Augustine speaketh in one place. But in another he clearly explicateth himselfe by this word (praeter) to vnderstand (contra) because we must preach nothing contrary to the holy Scripture. That this is the true sense and meaning of S. Augustine, it is ma­nifest by the words themselues, wherby also he proueth that the word (praeter) in those words of the Apostle, doth signify diuers, but not contrary thinges. For in [Page 52] this manner he writeth when he war­neth his schollers to take heed of the opi­nions of the Manichaeans & other heretikes, because these are not only distinct but alsoAd Gal. 1. v. 9. contrary to those which the Apostles taught. Let the admonition, sayth he, of the holy Apostle neuer depart from your hart. If any shall Euangelize vnto you besids that which you haue receiued, let him be an Anathema. He doth not say 1. ad Thess. 3. v. 10. more then you haue receaued, but besides that which you haue receaued. For if he should say that, he should be preiudiciall to himselfe who coueteth to come to the Thessalonians, that he might supply that which was wanting to their fayth. Now he which supplieth addeth that which is lacking, taketh not away that which was. But he which ouerpas­seth Ioan. 1 [...]. v. [...]. the rule of fayth doth not goe on in the way, but departeth frō the way. That therfore which our Lord sayth, I haue yet many things to say vnto you, but you cannot beare them now, were to be added to those things which they knew, and not to be o­uerthrowen by those they had already learned. Hi­therto S. Augustine.

THE fourth argument is deducedApoc. vlt v. 18. con­fess. Ru­pell. Ar­tic. 5. out of those words of the Apoca­lyps which they also cite and al­ledge in their confessiō at Rochell. If any man shall adde to these things, God shall adde vpon him the plagues written in this booke. But who doth not see that S. Iohn speaketh ex­presly of the booke of the Apocalyps only, and not of the whole Scripture, for he sayth, I testify to euery one hearing the words of the Prophesy of this booke, if any man sall adde to these things &c. and in the 19. verse follow­ing. If any man shall diminish of the words of the booke of this prophecy &c. he speaketh ther­fore only of the propheticall words of the Apocalyps. For it is manyfest otherwise out of Ecclesiasticall histories, that S. Iohn wrote his Ghospell after the Apocalyps, and consequently that he added many thingsS. Hier. de script. Ec­cles. in Ioā. Apost. besids the Apocalyps. But let our Aduersaries take heed least they incurre those paynes which S. Iohn threatneth to those which [Page 54] adde or detract any thing from the Apoca­lyps; seing that they so often and so bould­ly wrest the prophesies of the Apocalyps to many strange senses against the Pope and the Catholike Church.

2. Our Aduersaries alledge many other things, but their arguments which be of lesse moment are taken out of those places of Scripture which commend vnto vs the great excellency of holy Scripture. But all these are very easily confuted by thatSupra c. 25. one ground, which as we haue declared before euen our Aduersaries do admit, to wit, that to the end the holy Scripture be perfect in it selfe and sufficient to euerla­sting saluation, it is not necessary that it should expresly cōteyne al points of fayth, but it is sufficiēt, that all such poynts may be deduced by a good consequence out of it. But all the Traditions of the Church which belong vnto fayth may be gathe­redSupra c. 25. as we haue sayd out of Scripture, the which also we declare more at large in euery one of these controuersies. Our Ad­uersaries therfore haue not reason to say that we teach the Scripture to be imper­fect or insufficient. For as concerning this sufficiency and perfectiō of Scripture they are forced at least to yield and sub­scribe vnto our opinion herein: but these [Page 55] their arguments, whereof they make great account, we haue therfore alledged, to the end all may know how badly they interpret the holy Scriptures, and by how friuolous reason they are perswaded to forsake the Catholike fayth.

3. But euen this sufficiency of Scri­pture which they pretēd, they proue very foolishly by those wordes of the Apo­stle, wherein he teacheth, that the Scri­ptureAd Tim. 3. v. penul [...]. is very profitable; as though for­sooth euery thing which is profitable for obtayning some particuler end or purpose, were also absolutely sufficient then the which nothing can be spoken more absurdly. The head truely is not only profitable, but also necessary, that a man may liue, but who I pray you will say that the head only without the rest of the body is sufficient for the lyfe of man. But to our late Aduersaries to the end they may make this their discourse or reason the stronger, say, that in humane thinges not euery thing which is profitable is al­so sufficient, but in diuine matters what­soeuer is profitable, is also sufficient, wher­vntoIunius cō ­tra Bell. controu. 1. lib. 4. c. 10. nota 44. Iunius like a fine young stripling ad­deth, that this can be ouerthrowne by no sophistry. But who doth not see that the Eucharist by the diuine vertue thereof is [Page 56] profitable to the obtayning of eternall sal­uation, and yet notwithstanding with­out Baptisme it is not sufficiēt, as also with­out faith and pennance: the same may be sayd of Baptisme and of euery booke of Scripture. Yea euen the Apostle doth not speake of the whole Scripture, as our Ad­uersaries thinke he doth, when he saith, that euery Scripture is profitable, but of euery particuler part thereof. For howS. Hier. de Script. Ec­cles. in Ioan Apost. 2. ad Tim. [...]. v. penult. could he speake of a thing which was not then extant. But as then the Ghospell of S. Iohn was not yet written nor the Apo­calyps. For these were after S. Pauls death written by S. Iohn: hence it is that the A­postle S. Paul doth not say the whole Scripture▪ but euen Scripture inspired by God is profitable. For there is not one parte of Scripture which is not profitable vnto vs if it be well vnderstood. Yea for all that notwithstanding euery one part precisely in it selfe abstracting from the rest of the Scripture (as all do very well know) is not sufficient.

4▪ Finally it is also to be considered that all those places wherin the integrity, perfection and vtility of the Scripture is commended vnto vs, must needes be vn­derstood not of the bare wordes only, butSupra c. 3. of the same well and rightly vnderstood. [Page 57] But this true vnderstanding of the words cannot otherwise be had then by Tradi­tionSupra c. 4 and the vnwritten doctrine of the Church it selfe, as we haue already decla­red. Wherefore all those places which do commend vnto vs the holy Scriptures, do also consequently cōmend vnto vs Tra­ditions and the vnwritten Word of God, seing that therein consisteth the principal part of holy Scripture, to wit, the true sense of the wordes.

AMONG the other arguments of our Aduersaries this is one that we cannot know certain­ly which are the Traditions of the Apostles, seing that many Heretikes in times past pretented also that their he­resyes were agreing to Apostolicall Tra­ditions. Moreouer they obiect that Tradi­tions may easily be corrupted and changed, and for this cause, Scripture was ordayned that the doctrine deliuered by word of [Page 58] mouth might continue the longer with­out any falsification▪ or corruption. But we answere to this their reason: that the auncient Heretikes also by supposed and false Scriptures which they attributed falsely to the Apostles, did confirme and proue their heresies. Many thinges, saith S. Au­gustine, 8 Aug. de Ciuit. Dei l. c. & [...]. sub finem. were alleadged by heretikes as though they were the sayings of the Prophets and Apostles. But yet for all that they were not iudged to be the most certaine and Canonicall Scriptures.

2. But the Traditions of the Apo­stles may so certainly and easily be known from supposed and false Traditions, as the Canonical Scriptures may be knowne from the Apocriphall, for they are both knowne by the same meanes and autho­rity, that is to say, by the authority, do­ctrine, and testimony of the Catholike Church, which neyther can deceiue any nor be deceyued her selfe.

3. And albeit speaking of humane matters the Scripture is more certaine thē Tradition alone, yet it hapneth other­wise in matters concerning God, because in these there is the authority of God, and the continuall assistance of the holy Ghost hath place, which doth not suffer the Church to erre, and hence it is, that the Tradition only of the Church which [Page 59] is not so much written in paper as is prin­ted in the hartes of Christians, is a most certayne, and faithfull keeper of all the2. ad Cor. 3. V. 3. 4. pointes of our diuine [...]aith.

4. Moreouer, if euen Christ himself had with his owne hand writtē in brasse all the pointes of our faith, they should notwithstanding not haue had so great certainty, as now Ecclesiasticall Tradi­tions haue, vnlesse the same keeper of the diuine doctrine had byn also present. For that which is imprinted in brasse, may be rased and blotted out, and the brasse it selfe may be consumed by fyre. But those thinges which are imprinted in the hartes of Christians by the holy Ghost, can neuer perish, or be any way changed.

5. And what we haue said of know­ing the Apostolicall Traditions, is to be vnderstood whether the Church assem­bled in a generall Councel declared it so, or it became knowne and manifest by the continuall and generall custome of the whole Church. Also, whether the que­stion be of Tradition belonging to faith, or only belonging to rites and Ceremo­n [...]es▪ For of the Tradition belonging to faith (that is to say, of not baptizing a­gaine those which are baptized once be­fore by heretikes) are these wordes of St. [Page 60] Augustine. Albeit indeed of this thing, saith he,S. Aug. Tom. 7. contra Crescon. Grammat. l. 1. cap. penult. there can no example be alleadged out of Canonicall Scriptures, yet notwithstanding we hold the truth of the same holy Scriptures in this matter, when we do that which generally the whole Catholike Church holdeth, the which euen the authority of the Scrip­tures themselues commend vnto vs: so as, because the holy Scripture cannot erre, whosoeuer feareth to be deceaued by the difficultie or obscurity of this que­stion, let him go to the same Church for counsell, the S. Aug. Tom. 7. de baptismo contra Do­natist. l. 4. cap. 24. which the holy Scripture very clearely sheweth and demonstrateth vnto vs. Hitherto S. Augustine. And disputing in another place against the Donatists, concerning the baptisme of Infants. That, saith he, which the whole Ca­tholike Church holdeth, nor was ordayned by generall Councells, but yet alwaies kept and obserued by all, is most truly to be belieued to haue byn deliuered vn­to vs by Apostolicall authority.

6. But of the Ecclesiasticall rites andS. Aug. Tom. 2. E­pist. 118. ad Ianuar. c. 5. Calu. l. 4. Instit. c. 4. sect. vltima sub finem. & l. 3. c. 3. sect. 10. in medio. Ceremonies, the same S. Augustine speaketh in this manner. Is the Catholike Church through the whole world hold and practise any thing, it is a signe of great madnesse to dispute, whether it is to be done so or noe. By which wordes of S. Au­gustine it may easily be vnderstood what was the opinion and vniforme doctrine of the whole auncient Church concerning this point. For our Aduersaries them­selues do say, that S. Augustine was a most [Page 61] faithfull witnesse of antiquity, vnto whome I referre the Readers, if they de­sire to know certainly any more of the sense of Antiquity,