WHen Tertulian would en­ter into the conflict of dis­putation, and ioyne with the aduersarie: hée was woont to bonder the whole summe of the question, with certain bondes (for so himselfe saith) whereby he might not swarue from the matter which he had in hand. And that we also may doo the like,Our opinion and mind touching the vvorde of God. we will first propone or set down our minde and opinion (which is the opinion of each reformed Church,) touching the word of God, by the testimo­nie of the same word of God which is this.

All necessarie principles of christiā faith, are contained in the holy Scriptures.

[Page 30] This our sentence or opinion we thus expound, out of that place of y^e Epistle to y^e Hebrewes which ministreth vnto vs,The de­claration of our opinion or minde. suffi­ciēt matter for this disputation. God spake in the time of the olde Testament in di­uers and sundrie manners to our fathers, to wit, by oracles, visions, dreames, by V­rim and Thummim, finaly by y^e prophets, speaking by the motion or inspiration of the spirit of God, and the same worde of God, (the spirit of God so commaunding) was committed to writing, both by Moy­ses, and also by other Prophets, and most holy men: Now in these last dayes, Iesus Christ, the chiefe and most perfect Doctour and teacher of his Church being giuen to the world, taught the Apostles by mouth, & ordained them teachers for his Church, which did publish in writing the doctrine of the Gospell receiued from Christ, & by them taught by mouth. Sith then y^e 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 necessitie, that al the principles which are necessarie to faith and saluation of the Church, are contay­ned in the holy Scriptures: and whatsoe­uer [Page 31] the Apostles haue taught, we ought to looke for them in the holy Scriptures: nei­ther ought we to receiue any tradition in matter of faith. And because matters are made more manifest by ūmilitudes, wée 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 curi­ouslye to enquire of others, which eyther heard or wer present at the proclamation, what is contained in the Kings Edict, be­cause the Edict is in print, to y^e which they must stand, and the which they must also beléeue. So then I affirme, in as much as the word was proclaimed and declared by the Apostles and euangelists, and by them committed to writing, it were in vayne and foolish now a dayes anye other where to be sought, then in the Scriptures: what the Apostles and Euangelistes did teach by mouth.

But now the opinion of the aduer­sarie is this. That all principles of Re­ligion necessarye for our Christian faith,The opinion and minde of y^e Papist [...]. are not contained in the holye Scrip­tures. The which theyr opinion they thus expounde. Although the worde of [Page 32] God be the measure of our faith, yet the whole worde of God is not extant in the scriptures:The de­claration & exposi­tion of their opinion. for many things were spoken by the Apostles & Euangelists which they writ not. Furthermore the Catholike church say they, (meaning the Church of Rome) is so endowed with the spirite of God, that she is able of hir selfe to deliuer those things which are necessarie both to faith & saluation. Wherefore that we may haue the whole word of God, the Apostoli­call and eccle [...]asticall traditions must bée added to the scriptures: this is their opi­nion.The state & point of this cō trouersie Now then you may sée manifestlye, what is the state or issue of our controuer­sie: for this is that which must be discus­sed: whether the whole word of God deli­uered by the Prophets and Apostles, and necessary for our saluation, be contained in the Scriptures, which is the word writ­ten, or not: we affirme that it is: they saye naye: so then there [...]anne bee but one of our opinions true: as is manifest by the first groundes of Logicke.The tearms of this question expounded In a­nye reasoning, the affirmatiue or ne­gatiue [...] needes be true, but before we goe about the confirmation of our opini­on, we will set downe the bounds & limits [Page 33] of our question both briefely and shorte.What the vvorde of God is. When we say the word of God, we mean not that eternall Word the Sonne of the eternall and euerlasting father, being the second person in Trinitie: but that exter­nall worde by the which God hath made manifest vnto men his will and pleasure, and therefore we adde and say that worde which was deliuered & taught by the Apo­stles and Prophets, so that it may be more manifest what we meane by the word of God.What tra­dition is. Also this word Tradition maye not onely 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 keepe the traditions or instructiōs which you haue ben taught either by word or by Epistle. And euen af­ter this sort also, haue the old fathers vsed to speake, as we will shewe in the proper place: notwithstanding in this question, according to the manner of speaking, it is restrained to that worde which is taught by mouth.What is meant by this word: Necessarie to saluati­on. Furthermore we meane by the word of God, necessary to our saluation, al those things which God hath commaund­ed vs to beléeue with a most sure perswa­sion [Page 34] of faith, so that we maye make a dif­ference, betwéene faith and opinion, and betwéene the principles of Christian reli­gion,What is meant by holye Scripture. and the probable disputations and or­dinaunces of men. Last of all, by y^e name of the holy Scripture, we vnderstand all the bookes Canonicall both of the new and olde testament. And thus much I thought good to speak briefly touching the explica­tion of our question.

HEther to we haue declared our minde & opinion tou­ching the worde of God:A demonstratiue or eui­dent dis­putation. nowe it resteth that wée confirme the same by most certaine proofes and argu­ments deriued and taken out of the same word of God, and so at the last a flatte de­monstratiue or most true argument being gathered from most true principles, wée may rid the whole matter out of all obscu­ritie, placing it in the most manifest lyght of truth. And to bring this to passe, we wil 1 follow this order. First to set downe cer­taine places of scripture, from whence we 2 will draw our arguments. Secondly the [Page 35] 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 y^e proofe of our argu­ment, cutting away all exception & doubt. And although in the reciting of the places of scripture, I doo not curiously labor tou­ching the order thereof (for each place of scripture is of sufficient authority to make anye conclusion) yet notwithstanding, I haue taken some care, that the order of the places of scripture, maye aunswere vnto each parts of the definition, asmuch as may be. Wherefore let vs begin with this place of the Apostle, which hath ministred occa­sion vnto vs of this disputations.

NOW after that the truth of our opinion is made manifest by the former de­monstrations & affirma­tiue disputation as at the first we did determine:A disputation confutatiue, vherein is refelled or confuted the opiniō or iudge­ment of y^e Papistes, so will we now come vnto the negatiue dis­putation, which is to refell and refute the opinion of our aduersaries. For although y^e truth béeing made manifest, y^e falsehoode must néeds bée confuted & ouerthrowen, & by this our affirmatiue disputation wée haue manifestly proued, y^t the scriptures do containe all those things, the knowledge & faith whereof is necessarye to saluation: [Page 58] yet notwithstāding this ou [...] [...]egatiue dis­putation procéedeth as rising of necessarie consequence, which is this: That ther is no­thing to be sought for out of the holie scrip­tures, the knowledge and faith whereof, is necessarie to saluation. And by force of the consequence, traditions not written by the Apostles, are not to be receiued in anie Ar­ticle and principle of faith: yet notwith­standing, it commeth to passe (I know not by what meanes) that we are more deligh­ted in the confuting of errour and false­hoode, then in confirming the truth. Wher­fore I could not let slip this kind of dispu­tation, wherby the reader may be through­ly confirmed in the knowledge of y^e truth. This therefore is the opinion of our ad­uersaries which repugneth w^t ours, euen as it were Ex Diametro, to wit. That the holy scriptures, do not cōtain al things, the know­ledge & faith whereof is necessarie to salua­tion. The which error we thus confute.

If Moses, the Prophets, Christ, & the A­postles,The first argument against papistical traditions did alwaies confirme the principles of faith by the Scriptures, and not by vn­written traditions: & our aduersaries on the contrarie part will confirme the principles of faith verie seldome by the Scripture, but [Page 59] most vsualli [...]a [...]y vnwritten traditions, then truelie our a [...]ersaries doo otherwise teach the Church, then 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 ad­uersaries are not to be allowed in y^e man­ner of instructing y^e church.The vnfolding of y^e former reason. The antecedent is true: & the cōsequēt is proued by this in­ductiō, collected frō places of holy scripture.

Moses doth call them backe to the lawe written, as S. Paule doth interprete it.Deu. 27. Gal. 3

The same Moses,Deu. 31 cōmandeth the law wri­ten to be published before all the people.

Iosua exhorteth the Israelits,Iosu. 23 that they do those things which are written in the booke of the lawe.

In the time of Iosia king of Israel,2. Kin. 23. the people sware to obserue those things which were written in the lawe.

The Prophets each where call the Isra­elites,Esa, 8. to the writings of Moses.

After the people returned from the cap­tiuitie,Neh [...]m, 8. the lawe of Moses was recited: & the worshipping of God was taken from that lawe written.

Christ biddeth thē search the Scriptures.Iohn. 5. Mat. 22.

[Page 60] Christ speaking to the [...] saith, yee erre, because ye know not the Scriptures.

They haue Moses and the Prophets,Lu. 16. let them heare them.

And Christ opened the vnderstanding of the Apostles,Lu. 24. that they might vnderstand the Scriptures.

Paule preached Christ, alleadging the law and the Prophets.Act. 26.

Appollos reproueth the Iewes & proueth that Iesus is Christ by the Scriptures.Act. 28. &c.

The Thessalonians or chiefe of Beraea are praised,Act. 18. because they searched the Scrip­tures,Act. 17. whether it were so, yea, or no, as Paule 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 alledged.

This kind of induction is most firme and cannot be refelled by any argument. And y^e force of y^e consequēt to what end it is direc­ted doth manifestly appeare, for y^e prophets & apostles are ordeined of god, to be instruc­ters of y^e church, & were inspired by the ho­ly Ghost. And Christ himselfe is the most perfect doctor of the Church, wherby we sée y^t they which teach y^e church of Christ other wise then Christ himself, his Apostles and [Page 61] Prophets haue taught: that is, not laieng those foundations which they layde, but other: that they instruct the Church of Christ amisse. But our aduersaries teach otherwise, inasmuch, as they call y^e 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 wer indued with the spirit of God) and taught by mouth,The secōd argument against traditions. yet notwithstanding did referre themselues vnto the Prophetical scriptures: then a great deale more ought our aduersa­ries to referre their principles of doctrine, vnto the holye Scriptures. And sith they doo 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 necessarie to saluation, then it followeth, that the spirit of God did not accomplish [Page 62] his effect, when he gaue the scriptures vnto the Church.

But the consequent is most false & blas­phemous:

So likewise is the antecedent.

The consequent of the former propos [...] ­tion was prooued, when we went to search out the causes of the scriptures in y^e second chapter of this our disputation,The vn­folding of the ar­gument. where wée affirmed y^t the word of God was to this end & purpose committed to writing, that it might be freed and deliuered from the corruption of man, and that it might help the memorie of the godly, and finally, that the Church might more and more bée in­structed and confirmed in those things, the knowledg & faith whereof, is necessarie to saluation. Now, if all those things be not contained in the scriptures, then truly it followeth, y^• the spirit of God did not per­fectly, but in part accomplish his effect: the which God forbid. And certainly, if you graunt this, (which cannot be denied) that the scriptures were giuen vnto the church not rashly nor in vaine, but by the great prouidence and wisedome of God: then I vrge this and say: If the scriptures were giuen by God, that the word of god shuld [Page 63] be set frée and deliuered from the corrupti­on of men, I pray you would the spirite of God then, haue some certaine things ne­cessarie to saluation to be set frée from the corruption of men, and some things not? If the Scriptures were giuen to helpe the memorie of the godly: was it then giuen in part onely? or shall we say, that of those things which were necessarie to saluati­on, that some things are to be committed to memorie, and some things not? or if the memorie of those things could haue bene kept and preserued without the scriptures, to what ende were the Scriptures? for the spirite of God doth nothing in vaine. If the Scriptures were written, to the ende our memorie might be holpen, who then can denie, that our memorie must bée holpen by the Scriptures, in all things ne­cessarie to saluation? Finally, and to con­clude, If the Scripture were giuen by the spirite of God, that thereby the Church might be the better instructed, why then should not the Scriptures haue in them al those things, which are necessarie to sal­uation? Wherefore, what starting holes so euer our aduersaries séeke: yet the truth of our former proposition remaineth: to wit, [Page 64] that they goe about to frustrate the spirit of God, of his effect in giuing the Scrip­tures, except in them be contained whatso­euer is necessarie to our saluation.

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 Ioh. 16, and wrote not all things that were necessa­rie to saluation, that came to passe either because they ought not to write them, or because they would not write, or because they could not.

But to affirme 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 Diuinitie.

The consequence of the former proposi­tion is manisest,The ope­ning of the argu­ment, except our aduersaries can bring any thing to the contrary. For we dispute not héere of euerye man, but only of y^e Apostles, whom y^e spirit of God gouerned, and directed in the writing of the Gospell.

The minor is manifest, except our ad­uersaries can proue what reason there is of dissimilitude or vnlikenesse in things [Page 65] not onely like, but also euen béeing the selfe same. And this truly is most certaine and most vndoubted amongst all Christi­ans: that if the Apostles wrote not all things which are necessary to saluation, that it was because they ought not so to doo. Qur aduersaries of necessitie, must proue some one of these causes, or els them what was the cause, that y^e Apostles ought to write some things which were necessa­ [...]ie to saluation, and to omit other some, or else truly y^t the Apostles themselues haue by manifest & plaine words testified, that they haue not written all things which appertaine vnto Christian faith and Reli­gion, for good and necessarye causes, which God himselfe would not that men should know. But vndoubtedly our aduersaryes can prooue neither of these, and therefore the conclusion of this argument, resteth most firme and vnuiolable.

If the Canonicall bookes of the old Te­stament,The fifte argument against traditions doo containe all things which ap­pertained vnto the olde testament. And the Canonicall bookes of the new Testament, doo not containe all such things, as doo ap­pertaine vnto the new testament: then do­eth it follow, that the old testament is more [Page 66] perfect then the new.

The consequence is false:

And therefore the antecedent is false.

The consequent of the maior is thus prooued.The vnfolding of the argument 2. Cor. 3. 14

The bookes of the old testament are cal­led the olde testament of Paule where as hée dooth intreate of the reading of the old testament. To this maye be added, that which Moses saith:Deu. 29. 21 The couenant (saith he) which is written in the booke of the lawe:2. Reg. 23. and in the diuine and holy historie, there is mention made of the booke of the couenaunt. Wherefore there is no doubt, but that the olde Testament, (that is the writings of the olde testament) is agréea­ble to his title. For nothing can be allea [...] ­ged besides y^t scripture, which may rightly be said to appertaine to the old testament: to wit, the knowledge whereof were ne­cessarie to the saluation of those godly fa­thers, that liued vnder the olde testament. Now if you say not the like of the newe testament, who dooth not sée that the newe testament is more weake & unperfect then the olde? For it is as much as if you wold thus expound the title: The newe testa­ment: (that is to saie), Some certain things, [Page 67] appe [...]taining to the new testament. The which how absurd it is▪ I suppose I shall not néede with [...] more arguments to prooud, for no [...] hath at anie time héeretofore affirmed; that the Scriptures and writings of th [...] we [...] not so perfect, as the writings at the old. Wherefore we wil [...] more to the pr [...]uing of our [...] ▪

If the Scripture of the new testament be a couenaunt,The 6 ar­gument against [...] traditions will, or testament, & nothing must be added vnto a will or Testament, then trulye it is not lawfull to a [...]de anye thing to the writinges of the newe 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 receiued.

The antecedent is manifest.

The minor doth containe two parts the [...] part is mainfest and prooued by the verie title,The triall of the argument to wit, y^• it is a will or a testa­ment, neither néedeth the [...]e any other pro­bation. The latter part is prooued by Paule, when hée sayeth:Gal. 3. That it is not lawfull to adde vnto a mannes [Page 68] Testament: and from thence hée gathe­reth that we ought not to adde vnto the diuine Testament of God. But if yée in­terpret it to bée a testament, and not a ro­uenant: then our conclusion remaineth of more sorce: for dareth anie man adde vnto the Will and Testament of a man? The which if it be not lawofull to doe in the Wil and Testament of a man, how much lesse then is it lawfull so to doe in the Te­stament of God.

If till the later end and consumation of the world,The 7. ar­gument against traditions we ought not to looke for anie other bookes canonicalt, besides these which we haue alreadie in the writings of the old & new Testament: Then it followeth that the Scripture is absolute and pefect in eue­rie part.

The antecedent is true,

And therfore so is the consequent: & by force of the saide consequent the Scripture hath no need of anie traditions not writtē.

The Maior is euident inough, 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 remaine vnperfect, because he being the author is most perfect.

The Minor our aduersaries themselues [Page 69] cannot denie, for they are not ignorāt that the time (now after Christ is exhibited & giuen to the world) is called the fulnesse of time, as the Apostle saith.

If traditions not written are as wel to be receiued as the Scriptures (as our aduersaries would haue it) then must wee beleeue the writings of the Doctors with the like per­swasion of faith,The 8. ar­gument against tradition [...] as we beleeue 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 bee receiued in matters of faith.

The consequent of the maior propositi­on is thus proued. For so often as our ad­uersaries propoue vnto the traditions of men,The explication of the argu­ment. which they call Apostolike, wée denie that they are the traditions of y^e Apostles: then they recite Tertulian, Ireneus, and es­pecially one Clement, I knowe not who, which of late yeres hath stepped out of the Monkish Cloisters: all these Doctors, saie our aduersaries, affirme the traditions to be the traditions of y^e Apostles. But if such kind of traditions are to be receiued w^t like authoritie with the scriptures, then it fol­loweth, [Page 70] that with like constancie of fayth we must beléeue that those traditions are the traditions of the ( [...], euen: as we beléeue that the hoye Scripture was [...]witten by the commaundement of the ho­lie Ghost: The which if it bee true, then it followeth againe, that wée must euen giue the lyke credite to the writinges of Tertulian, Irenaeus, and Clement, as we giue to the writinges of the Prophetes and Apostles. But let it bée that sons demaundeth why I doe beleeue that the Apostles did preach by mouth, that Christ was [...] for our saluation [...] I [...] ­swere, that I beléeue because, that the [...] and Euangelis [...]e [...] [...] so writ­ten. But if I should [...] demaunde our [...] wherefore they beléeue that the Apostl [...] ta [...]ght those [...] by mouth whi [...] doe appertaine with their [...] ▪ then they▪ will aunswere, they doe [...] it because some of the olde Doctors [...] beléeue the writings of the [...], with the [...] belé the [...] Apostles I do not héere dispute [...] the mind & opinion of the old fa­thers, [Page 71] of which we wil speak in his proper place, but héere only I am willing to ma [...]e the consequent of our former proposition, somewhat more plaine.

The Minor is manifest: for what godly man did euer make the writings of the old fathers equiualent with the writings of y^e Apostles? Naie; I suppose our aduersaries themselues will not say so, except they bée altogether vnmindfull of their owne Ca­non taken out of Augustine. Can. [...] go solis Dist. 9. And the force of the consequēt which we haue added vn­to the end of the argument is manifest, as it shall appeare in the argument heere fol­lowing.

We maie not beleeue anie traditions touching the which there remaineth no cer­taintie.The 9. argument against traditions But all traditions not written, the which our aduersaries bring forth are euen such, that there remaineth no certaintie tou­ching them: Ergo wee maye not beleeue anie traditions not written, which our ad­uersaries bring or alleadge.

And by force of the consequent all tra­ditions are to bee reiected and not to be re­ceiued in causes of faith.The ope­ning of the argu­ment.

The truth of the Maior proposition is manifest of himselfe.

[Page 72] And the minor is prooued by these induc­tions following.

Clemens Alexandrinus affirmeth That the Apostles deliuered certaine secrets vnto some men as traditions from the apostles, & citeth this place of Paul. 1.Lib. 1. stro [...]. li. 5. Cor. 2. We speak wisdome amongst those which are perfect.

Tertulian contrariwise, Li. de pre­scri. refelleth that er­ror with most graue arguments.

And Irenaeus saith, Iraen. lib. 13. ca. 2. That this was the opinion of the olde Heretikes, and aunswe­reth that place of Paule which those Here­tikes did corrupt.

Manie doo attribute the whole cannon of the Masse vnto the Apostles.

Contrariwise, Saint Hierome and some other of the olde Fathers affirme, that the Apostles were content with the Lordes praier.

Epiphanius saith, Aduer. he res. in Epi­log. That the Apostles did command both thursdaie and fridaie to be fasted through the whole yeare, and that in the whole time of Lent onelie to vse bread, salt, and water.

Contrariwise, Augustine saith, That it was neuer determined by Christ nor his a­postles, what daies we should fast.

And Irenaeus writing to Eusebius saith. [Page 73] That that fast of Lent was diuersly vsed in times past,Epist. 86. li. 5. c. 26. when some fasted one daye, some two, some more: neither doth he call it a tradition of the Apostles, but a custome of a simple and priuate institution.

Also Tertulian when he had made his reuolt from the Church vnto Montanus, reckoning vp the obiections of the Catho­likes, which they vsed against the Monta­nists: Because (saith he) we obserue the ea­ting of drie meates, they saie, that the consti­tuted fasting being worn out,Lib. de. [...] touching anie other, we maie fast at our owne will, & not by the commaundement of anie lawe or discipline, &c.

And in that controuersie touching Easter daie, 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 Paule, and those of the East, to other of the Apostles: but neither of thē broght foorth anie certaine or approued scripture for the profe thereof: & therefore I thinke it was a custome.

Tertulian saith, Adu. Mar. li. 1. & de cor. [...] That by traditiōs of the Apostles, milke and honnie was wont to be poured into the mouth of the infant in bap­tisme.

[Page 74] And Saint Hierome maketh mention one­ly of wine and not of honnie,In cap. 55. Es [...]ei cont. Lucifer, and calleth it custome.

Our aduersaries contrariwise obserue not thēselues those rites & ceremonies, although they would bee accounted obseruers of the traditions which the Apostles left.

Tertulian in the former place maketh mention of oblations and offerings for birth daies,As afore. to be amongst the rites and ceremonies which came from the Apostles.

Contrariwise, the Church left this cu­stome after the Nicene counsell,Tertu, as afore. for that it sauoured of Paganisme.

Manie of the olde Fathers referred these things vnto the Apostles: first, that it was not lawfull to kneele when they praied on the Sundaie: And againe, that it was not lawfull to decke the head with garlands and flowers, and manie such like things.

Contrariwise our aduersaries themselues thinke these thinges maye bee obserued be­cause they put garlands about the neckes & heads of their Images, &c.

Ciprian witnesseth,Ser de [...]. that the Eucharist or Communion was wont to bée giuen to in­fants.

And contrariwise our aduersaries them­selues [Page 75] thinke not this expedient to bee done.

Irenaeus sayth, that by tradition Christ suffered when he was almost fiftie yeres old.

Contrariwise the Church hath most con­stantlye refused that saying.

Clemens referreth his Canon to the A­postles, making them authors thereof.

On the other side euen the Church of Rome her selfe hath a long time reiected those Canons,In Cannō Apost. as if they had bene forged by heretikes.

Furthermore, Zepherius Bishoppe of Rome,Cont, Can. Dist. 16 ibi, C [...]pla­cuit ibi. hath receiued sixtie of the same Canons, and after the sixt Synode receiued 85, &c.

Finally, that we may leaue infinit of such examples, and come vnto our aduersaries, those things which they referre vnto the A­postles, histories attribute to others, as Lent to Telephorus, &c. So that nowe by these examples, the truth of our mi­nor proposition is made manifest.

It the olde heretikes for the most part, (when the worde of God failed them) did [...]he vnto traditions,The 10. argument against traditions & falsely fathered them vpon the Apostles: and our aduersaries [Page 76] doo thee same now at this time. Then tru­ly in this point, they are to be accounted ra­ther among the heretikes, then with the true Catholikes.

The Antecedent is true,

Therefore the consequent is also true.

The Maior proposition is manifest of humselfe.The vnfol [...]ding of the argu [...]ment And the Minor is thus prooued. They which vrged the ceremonies of the lawe, did shroude themselues vnder tradi­tions, which they called Apostolike, as the olde Doctors doo testifie. 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 Paule in 2. Corint. chap. 11. verse. 13. saith, That the olde here­tiks were wont falsely to take vpon 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 thēselues to be seduced frō y^e faith, neither by word, neither yet by epistle, as cōming (saith he) from vs▪ The which last words I do not so restraine vnto this word Epistle, but refer it vnto that that they shoulde not be de­ceiued by worde: for there is no doubte, but that the Heretikes would often times boast that they had hearde those thinges which they did teach, euen from the Apo­stles: [Page 77] whereby they might get vnto them­selues credit.Li. 3. ca. 2 Li. 3. cap. vlti, This thing doth Ireneus te­stifie, lib. 3. cap. 2. And Eusebius declareth y^e one Papias did forge his errours, as though (saith hée) they came from vnwritten tra­ditions. I will not héere speake anie thing of the Iewes Calaba, which maintaine by their dreams vnwritten traditions, as the chiefest piller of their religion, as Elias, in Thisbith: as in the Radicall Kara Baruck appeareth.

If the traditions which repugne the wri­tings of the Apostles are not Apostolyke,The 11. argument against traditions and the traditions of our aduersaries are al­together such: then truelie the traditions of our aduersaryes are not Apostolike.

The Antecedent is true,

Wherefore the consequent is also true.

The veritie of the Maior proposition is most plaine,The ex­poūding of the argument. or else it would followe that the Apostles did not write by the same spirit by which they did speake, the which God forbid that we should once thinke. The Minor shall appeare by this inducti­on, which the reader shall most castly finde in the writings of the Doctors: where­by it is manifest, that those principles [Page 78] of Religion in controuersie betwéene vs, which they refer vnto the vnwritten tra­ditions of the Apostles, doo manifestly re­pugne with the writings of the Apostles▪ so that whether soeuer our aduersaries tourne them, they shall be constrained to referre their principles of Religion, vn­to the writinges of the Apostles. For I will vrge the former grounde and ar­gument: that if those principles repugne with the writings of the Apostles, then they are not Apostolike: If they confesse that they doo repugne, then haue we our purpose: if they denie it, then of necessity they must turne to the writings of the A­postles, that these their opinions, whereof the question is, may be tried by them, whe­ther they repugne with the writings of the Apostles, yea or nay: whereby it com­meth to passe, that our aduersaries (after manie errors) will they or nill they, must néeds returne again within the compasse of the scriptures. But least we should bée ouerlong in these our argumentes, wée wil comprehend the summe of all our for­mer arguments in this one sylogisme.

If that these Errors doo follow the opi­nion,The 12. argumēt & summe of all that hath ben sayde a­gainst traditions. of our aduersaries touching traditions [Page 79] not writtē, to wit, that they otherwise teach in the Church, then the Prophets and Apo­stles haue taught: that the spirite of God hath not accomplished his effect in publi­shing of the scriptures: that the Apostles neither ought, neither could, or would write all things necessarie to saluation: that the writings of the old testament, is more per­fect, then the writings of the new: that the holy Bible is not correspondent to the title, which is a Testament (if it bee lawfull for men to adde to the will of God): that the holy scriptures giuen after Christs incarna­tion, and afterward the writings of the A­postles are not absolute in euerie point. And that the same credite must bee giuen vnto the writings of the olde Doctors, which is giuen vnto the scriptures of God: that we must beleeue those things whereof there is no certaintie: that the cause of the old he­retikes was not a little holpen which leaned vnto vnwritten traditions: and finally that the Apostles did not speak with that spirit with the which they did write.

If (I saye) these former absurdities doo followe the opinion of our aduersaries tou­ching Traditions not written. Then truely the minde and opinion of our aduersaries [Page 80] touching traditions not written, is of all godlie and true Catholikes to bee vtterlie refused and reiected.

The antecedent is true:

And therefore the consequent cannot be false.

The maior proposition cannot be de­nyed.The triall of this argument

The minor is made manifest in this our former negatiue disputation: wherin we haue ouerthrowen the opinion of our aduersarie.

And héere we ende the third Chapter: and now we will procéed to the wiping a­waie of all the obiections which our ad­uersaries can make.

IN our former disputation we haue confuted the opini­on of our aduersaries, and haue euen as it were with our finger pointed out their manifolde errours in which they must néedes remaine, so long as they doo obstinately striue for these their tradi­tions, which they call vnwritten. And we [Page 81] affirme, that they were neuer written of the Apostles, neither yet to be written of anie others. But because they maintaine their opinion by diuers and sundrie argu­ments, so to hide the falshood thereof, and to deceiue the simple: I thinke it verye néedful to aunswere all their arguments, so many as we know. First of all there­fore,1 we wil sift out their obiections, which they wrest out of the holy scriptures. Then 2 we will come vnto the testimonie of the doctors which they obiect against vs. Their first obiection is this.

The doctrine of the Gospel was not wri­ten with inke,The first obiection. but with the spirite of God, not in Tables of stone, but in the heart.

Ergo, we must returne vnto the doctrine taught by the mouth of the Apostles. Nei­ther must we cleaue so precisely vnto the writings of the Apostles.

The antecedent is manifest by Ieremie, chap. 31.

This is the couenaunt which I will make with the house of Israel,lere. 3 [...]. I will put my lawe into theyr minde, and will write it in their heart, and I will bee their God, and they shall be my people.

Againe Paule. 2. Cor. 3.2. Cor. 3. It is manifest [Page 82] (saith he) that you are the Epistle of Christ ordained by vs, not written with inke, but with the spirit of the liuing god: not in tables of stone, but in the fleshie ta­bles of the heart.

That we may orderly aunswere vnto each part:The aun­svvere. First we will trie the antece­dent, then wil we come to the consequent: and this order will we kéepe, to helpe the memorie of the reader.

Now, will I aunswere the antecedent, concerning y^• which, I sée they cannot well agrée, no not the Popish schoolmen among themselues: for when the Apostle vnto the Heb. 8.Heb, 8. had set downe a difference betwéen the old & new testament, he bringeth forth this place aboue recited of Ieremie, where the schoolemen beginne to question, what shuld be the cause wherfore it is said, that the gospell shuld be written in the minde? Some bring forth this reason: for because the grace of God cannot be written. Of which opinion is Thomas, whom y^e whole swarme of schoolemen and Questionarye Doctors doo most estéeme. But some had rather this to be the cause: for that y^e doc­trine of the Lawe, began from writing, (for by and by the Tables of the Law be­ing [Page 83] written, were publyshed): but the doctrine of the gospell began from the pre­ching of Christ & his Apostles. Touching the which controuersie, that we maye not wander out of our determined limits) let the Reader looke Lira his eight chapter in the Epistle to the Hebrewes chap. 10.

But for as much as appertayneth to the former Obiection, wée saye, that ney­ther Ieremie nor Paule doo there denie the writings of the newe Testament, but that they onelye dispute there touching the es­stcacie of the spirituall giftes of the ho­lye Ghost, which were farre greater in the time of the newe Testament, then euer at any time before,loel. 2. Act. 2. according to the Pro­phecie of Ioel, which Peter expoundeth the second to the Acts.

Wherefore those places must be vnder­stoode by comparison: for otherwise it would followe, that the lawe of God was not written in the minde and heart of the godly, which liued in the time of the olde Testament: which thing, these places of Scripture, which héere we alleadge doo otherwise prooue.

Esa. 51. Harken vnto me,Esay. 51. ye which know iustice, the people in whose hart is my law.

[Page 84] 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 renue a right spirit within me. Also Deut. 30.Deu. 30 The Lord will circum­cise the heart. And againe Psal. 1.Psa. 1. His de­light is in the lawe of the Lord, & doth me­ditate therein daie and night. And in diuers other places, doeth Dauid testifie, that hée hath the lawe of the Lord euen as it were ingraffed within his minde. And finally, that I may passe ouer many such like pla­ces,Pro. 3 when Salomon sheweth forth precepts out of the law of God, he biddeth that they should be written in the tables of y^e heart. And thus much touching the Anteredent, where our aduersaries commit most great errour,Taking their argument frō y^t which is in some sort gran­ted, to be graun­ted generally. The er­rors of y^e obiection reasoning: Secundum quid ad id quod impliciter. Now therefore I de­nie their consequent, the errours of the which I will perticularly recite. The first errour is, that y^e consequent cannot follow: for it followeth not to saie the doctrine of the lawe was written in Tables, ergo the doctrine of the Gospell is not written at all. Againe, the Gospell is written in the heart, ergo it is not written in Tables: Who séeth not that these are friuolous ar­gumentes, and that their consequents are [Page 85] false. Againe, they bring in a new kind of reasoning and reason from an vniuersall affirmatiue, to a particular negatiue, for thus they say. God wrote al the doctrine of the Gospell in the minde of the godly: Er­go certaine things appertaining vnto the doctrine of the Gospell are not written by the Apostles. The which kinde of conclu­ding euen children would hisse at: for of necessitie thus they must reason. Nothing y^t is written in the heart is written in ta­bles, but the whole doctrine of the Gospell is written in the heart, ergo no part of the doctrine of the Gospel is written in tables. The Maior is so false that euery man may sée it.

The second errour is, Falacia in figura dictionis, as y^e Logitians terme it,The 2. errour. for they confound words of one signification, with those of diuerse significations: for, to write in tables is a proper kinde of spéech, but to write in the heart, is a borowed kinde of spéech, and therefore of diuers significati­ons, spoken by a Metaphore, and simili­tude: Whereby it commeth to passe, that Paule vsed another kinde of speaking, when hée sayde that the Corinthians were his Epistle, (for hée went forwarde with [Page 86] the argument he had in hande) which was when false Apostles would haue crept in­to the mindes of the Corinthians by Let­ters of commendations, then (sayth he) I haue no néed of such Epistles, for you are mine epistle, for my labor & my diligence is manifest towards you, euen in the eies of all men. For all sée, and (as I may saie) may reade in you the doctrine of Christ, which I haue preached vnto you: and to conclude, this is the summe, that the Co­rinthians were so perfectly instructed, and so well taught in the doctrine of y^e gospel, y^t they might well remaine therin. Who­soeuer thefore doth gather by these words of y^e apostle, that the apostles did not write all things necessarie to saluation, truly he may be thought not to be well in his wits.

The third errour is, for that they make the efficient cause to repugne with the cause instrumentall.The 3. errour. For God is hée who writeth the Gospell in the heart: but Ma­thew, Paule, and the rest, write the doctrine of the Gospell in tables, and were the in­struments of the spirit of God. Therefore Paule in that place sayd, that the Corinthi­ans were his Epistle: & the epistle of Christ ministred saith hée by vs, Loe héere you [Page 87] may sée that hée maketh distinction be­twéene his owne ministerie and the effica­cie of the holie Ghost. Wherefore our ad­uersaries conclude as if one should reason thus. God hath restored a sicke person vn­to his former health, ergo the Phisition prescribed nothing, gaue him nothing to drinke, neither yet vsed anie outwarde re­medies. Now if this conclusion be of anie force, then this must néeds followe, GOD wrote the Gospel in the minde, ergo the A­postles wrote not the whole doctrine of the Gospell in Tables.

The fourth errour is,The 4. errour. because the con­sequent agréeth not with their antecedent: for if in the antecedent they oppone y^e inui­sible Scriptures vnto y^e visible, then trulie they would bring this to pase, y^e one scrip­ture being, y^e other cānot be: for vnto what other ende doe they applie their opposition opponing y^e inuisible scriptures to the visi­ble, but y^t they may cōclude somwhat? But in the consequent they come backe againe and say, that certaine things are not writ­ten necessary to saluation, when as they should haue said (if so be they wold reason like logitians, as before it is shewed, y^• ther was nothing writtē necessary to saluatiō. [Page 88] But the manifest truth in this point hath amased them. And that they may sée howe vnhansomely they goe to worke in their [...]pposition: I demaund this, whether the faithfull haue not all those things writ­ten in their hearts, which are written in Tables, being necessarie to faith and sal­uation? Truly I thinke yes. For Saint Iohn saith,Iohn. 20. These things are written that ye might beleeue, and in beleeuing haue eter­nall life. So farre void is it therefore, that the one being, the other shuld be cleane ta­ken awaie: but rather the one is a helpe to the other: to wit, that the visible wri­tings of the Apostles, is a furtherance vn­to the inuisible writings of the spirite of God.

The 5. Error is,The fift errour. Secundum ignorantiam Elenchi, as the Schoolemen saie; because they put in other words, then the Apostle Paule vsed. For thus Paule saith, Yee are our Epistle not written with inke, but with the spirite of God: for he speaketh of the inuisible Scriptures, neither doth he ther­fore vtterly take awaie the visible, as his Epistle which he then wrote to the Corn­thians is witnesse. But our aduersaryes reason farre otherwise, for they say, the E­pistle [Page 89] not written in Tables, but deliuered by hand: the which is farre both from the words and minde of the Apostle.

Now let vs ouerthrowe the consequence of our aduersaries, being ful of absurdities and without reason.

If we must not absolutely stick vnto the writings of the Apostles, because God hath written the Gospell in the mindes of the godly: the should it followe, that the wri­tings of the Apostles are not necessarie for godlie men: If all things (as they saie) are not written which are necessarie to saluati­on, to what end then appertaineth the scrip­tures? For all things (saie they) that are ne­cessarie to saluation, God hath written in the mindes of the godlie. But this argument cannot bee concluded in one part onely: for either it is vniuersallie true, or els vniuersally false, & so the whole authoritie of the scrip­tures must bee vtterly abolished, the which God forbid.

Againe, If this consequence be of anie force, that is to saye, we must haue recourse to vnwritten traditions, because GOD hath written the gospell in the minds of the godly: then would it followe that the spiri­tuall efficacie of God should be confounded [Page 90] with the externall and visible ministerie of the Apostles, and that traditions deliuered by mouth, are the inuisible Scriptures of God, the which the holie Ghost did imprint in the mind of the faithfull, the which thing is most false.

Againe, if they make any good conclusion out of that place of Ieremie, that all thinges are not written that appertaine to the Gos­pell, because vnder the new testament God doth write his law in the minds of the faith­full, when as it was written in tables vnder the old testament: Ergo by the force of this opposition it followeth, that God in the old testament did onely remit sinne in part, and that he was the God of the Israelites but in part also: because that Ieremie addeth, sai­eng, that it wil come to passe that in the new testamēt God will remit the sins of the peo­ple, and be their God. The which is too too absurde and contrarie to the opinion of all men.

Now finally let vs turne this argument of our aduersaries vpon themselues,The ob­iection is turned vpon the aduersa­ries. & saie thus.

All the lawes of God are written in the hearts and minds of the faithfull, as our ad­uersaries seeme to affirme by the former [Page 91] places cited: (for Paule saith, it is not written with inke, but with the spirit of God) but none of the traditions of our aduersaries are written in the minds of the godly, for they are written with inke, and not with the spi­rit of God: Ergo none of our aduersaries tra­ditions are the lawes of God.

So that héereby it is most manifest as I suppose how foolish or rather no argumēt at al,The cor­recting of y^e former obiection this argument of our aduersaries is, y^• which that we may correct, we must saie with the word of God, that the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists, doth con­taine all that doctrine of the Gospell, the which the Apostles and Euangelistes did teach and afterward put in writings, the which also God by his spirit did write in the mindes of the godly, & thus much tou­ching this obiection. And now we come vnto the second.

The Church of Christ for the space of 20. yeares wanted the writings of the Apo­stles,The 2. obiection and was only contented with their tra­ditions: Ergo the writings of the Apostles are not absolutely necessarie vnto saluation, neither is it needfull that al things appertai­ning to the doctrine of the Gospel, shuld be contained in the writings of the Apostles.

[Page 92] The Antecedent is manifest by reading of histories.

Although I doo not meddle much with the antecedent,The aun­svvere neither doo dispute touch­ing the number of yeares: yet would I that the readers should call to their remē ­braunce, that the Church wanted not the scriptures, before that the Gospell was ex­tant by the writings of the Apostles. Yea, that Christ himselfe and the Apostles did preach the Gospell out of the writings of the Prophets, as before in his proper place we haue shewed.

Wherefore the antecedent of our aduer­saries is no other thing then a foundation laid vpon sand or water: so that the con­clusion which they bring cannot stand.

Therefore I denie the consequent,The error of the ob­iection. for the errour is (as the Logitians tearme it) Secundum ignorantiam Elenchi: for they chaunge the forme of affirmation, & come from the time past, vnto the time present, and the time to come. The Church (saye they) wanted the gospel. Be it so, although the writings of the Prophets to contayne the promises of the Gospell, insomuch that the Apostles did altogether depende vppon the sayd writings of the Prophets: adde [Page 93] héer vnto also (if it please you) that the wri­tings of the Apostles, were not altogether necessarie: what doo you héereof conclude? That they are not now therfore necessarie, or héereafter shall not bée: What man is so ignorant to grant that? This is the dif­ference y^• the Apostles ought first to haue preached by mouth before they committed anie thing to writing: And when the A­postles did preach the gospell, they did then publish by mouth those thinges which af­terward they wrote: But sithens the A­postles died & coulde not by mouth instruct the Church, without doubt their writings are now so necessarie vnto vs, as their pre­ching by mouth was in those dayes: in stéede whereof their writinges doo nowe remaine.An absourditie. Let vs bring them therfore to an absurditie. If the consequence of our ad­uersaries be of force or value: this is also of force or value, the Church of the Isralites, not twentie yeares, but two thousande yeares, or somewhat more, wanted the law written: therefore it was not necessarie to the Church, that the lawe should be writ­ten, or the law written contained not all those things y^e wer necessarie to y^e doctrine of y^e old testamēt. But this is very absurd?

[Page 94] Let vs turne the argument of our ad­uersaries against themselues after this manner.

If God being perfect wise,The ob­iection is returned. hath not suffe­red the church of Christ, long time to want the writings of the Apostles, both that hee might maintaine the truth of the Gospell, as also he might prouide for the safegarde of his church: Ergo, these men are blasphe­mous against the prouidence of god: which denie that all things are contained in the a­postolicall writings, which are necessarie to the doctrine of the Gospell.

For to what end would God by his di­uine prouidence, that the Apostles should write the gospell, which they by mouth did preach? was it because they should deliuer an vncertain and imperfect doctrine? Fur­thermore, if at anie time the Church was contented with the preaching of the Apo­stles: to wit, in the first primitiue church: I beseech you why shall not she nowe at this time be contented with the writings of the Apostles, y^t which (as is before said) are now in stéed of the apostles prechings, rather then to runne to the fained, forged, & false traditions, which wer neuer writtē by the Apostles. Wherefore the argument [Page 95] of our aduersaries is false, the which wée thus correct.

In the first primitiue Church the Apo­stles depending vpon the writings of the Prophets,The cor­ction. did first of all preach by mouth the Euangelicall doctrine out of the wri­tings of the Prophets. And afterwarde, least that the doctrine by them preached, should be either corrupted of men: or els, (such is the infirmitie of man) the remem­brance thereof shoulde by little and little slide out of the hearts of men. That there­fore they might leaue y^t holy veritie, which they preached vnto vs, most firme & sure, they committed y^e same vnto writings, by the working of y^e holy ghost, to be a pledge for y^e posterities, which after should come. Christ being cōuersant with his apostles. 40 daies after his resurrection, 3. Obiec­tion. taught thē those things which did appertain vnto the king­dōe of god, neither are those things which he taught thē now extāt in anie writings, Ergo al things appertaining to the kingdō of god, are not writtē of the apostles: & therfore are to be sought for in traditions not writtē 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,Ansvvere [Page 96] but I denie the latter, for the Er­ror is in Fallacia petitionis principij, as the Schoolemen saie.

I therefore denie the consequence.The error For from whence haue they learned or rather dreamed, that those things which Christ did then teach, were not written of the a­postles: nay, that dreame of our aduersa­ries, is plainly and manifestly refelled and confuted. Mathew. 28. Marke. 16. Luke. 24. Iohn. 20. and. 21. All which foure Euange­lists doo shew vs things which Christ then taught. And Luke in speciall wordes dooth witnes y^e Christ did expound those things which were written of him: so vnlikely it is that he should call vs backe to tradi­tions not written.

But let vs bring them to an absur­ditie.

If Christ after his resurrection, did teach all those things which did appertaine vnto the kingdome of God (for that seemeth toAbsur­ditie. be the verie sense & meaning of the words of Saint Luke, which are these, Act. the first, verse. 3. He spake those things which apper­taine to the kingdome of God. And those things which he then taught are not writ­ten of the Apostles: Ergo, those thinges [Page 97] which are written of the Apostles, doe not appertaine vnto the kingdome of God. An absurde and a blasphemous argument.

Let vs turne it against themselues thus. Obiectiō returned. If the Apostles were fullie instructed and taught of Christ touching those things which appertaine to the kingdome of God: And the holie Ghost inspiring them, did write touching the same kingdome of God: ergo they wrote all things most fully, and omitted nothing whereby we should runne to fetch anie thing from traditions not writ­ten.

That therfore we may now correct and amend this their errour, we saie,The cor­recting of the for­mer ob­iection. y^e Christ to the end hée might appoint his Apostles to be most perfect Doctors and teachers of the Church, did after his resurrection for y^e space of 40. daies, most diligently instruct them touching all those points of doctrine which appertained vnto the Gospell, that the Apostles being so instructed, might not onely declare the same doctrine by mouth, but also that they might commit all those thinges vnto writings which appertaine to the kingdome of God & saluation of his Church.

Paule confesseth that he wrote in parteObiectiō. [Page 98] and not in whole, ergo Paule wrote not all things which are necessarie to the saluation of the Church. The antecedent is prooued Rom. 15. I haue written vnto you brethren somewhat boldly (saith hee) after a sort, or as the verie Greeke is: In part.

Now let vs make plaine the antecedent.Answere. Paule saith, that he hath written to y^e Ro­manes in part, and this word In part, the which the olde interpreters haue transla­ted worde by worde, is not to be ioyned with this vearbe, I haue written: but this word More boldly: the which the verie or­der of the text, and the Gréeke phrase, doo most manifestly shew: for otherwise the A­postle must haue sayde [Tomeros] & not haue added the Preposition [Apio] the like phrase is manifest in y^e 2. Co. 2. c. 5. ve. which is thus: If any haue caused sorow, y^• same hath not made me sorrie, but partly or in part, lest it shuld more gréeue you al. I deny y^e consequence of their argument. The errour is,The error secundū figuram dictionis, & their consequēce hangeth not w^t their ante­cedent. For Paul wrote not all to the Ro­manes say they, ergo he wrote not all neces­sarie to saluatiō. But Paul wrote more thē y^t which he wrote to the Romanes: so héere [Page 99] we sée y^t their consequēt on cōclusiō agréeth not with their first proposition. Paul wrote not all, ergo al things necessary to saluati­on is not contained in the writings of the apostles. This is too too absurd an argumēt and not worth the aunswering.

Christ said vnto his Apostles, that he had many things to speake vnto thē which they could not beare away:5. obiecti­on. ergo the apostles haue not written all things necessarie to saluatiō. The antecedent is proued in the 16. chapter of the Gospell after Iohn.

Now touching their antecedent:Ansvvere first of al I do greatly wonder y^t our aduersaries doo stick their ship vpon those rocks vpō which y^e heretikes héertofore haue made so great shipwracks. S. Augustine in his Tract. 97. vpon Iohn, doth testifie, y^t the heretiks were wont to take this place of Iohn to coulour their errours,In Ioan Tract. 97. but Augustine himselfe doth handle those words of Christ with so great reuerēce, y^t if they wold heare him he wold easily withdraw our aduersaries frō their curiositie: for Augustine vpon y^e same saith: Which of vs can declare those things, In loan Tract. 96. that Christ would not speak: which of vs can do that, for which ther is not sufficiēt authoritie of prophets or Apostles. Thus far August. [Page 100] But let Augustine cease to inquire those things, for the Papists are now growen to this point, y^t they rehearse vnto vs things which Christ neuer spake, and that with great boldnesse, when as they commend & set forth vnto men the rites and ceremo­nies of their Masse, and other like trumpe­rie. And I would to God that they would be perswaded, that those their traditions, that is to saie, the foule filth of their er­rours and superstitions, could neuer flow from so pure a fountain, to wit, as Christ. But let vs returne vnto the exposition of y^e same place, the which we will take and drawe from the verie place it selfe. Christ his words are these:Iohn. 16 I haue manie things to speake vnto you, but you cannot beare them awaie nowe, but when the spirit of truth shall come, hee shall leade you into all truth. Wherefore that we may now vse rather the wordes of Tertulian, then our owne, we saie thus:De prae. haeret. Christ sayd plainly, I haue manie things to saie vnto you, but yet adding this, When the spirit of truth shall come, he shal lead you into all truth: he héerby sheweth, that the Apostles were not ignorāt of any thing, &c. Wherby it cō ­meth to passe, that the Apostles taught all [Page 101] those things, which were necessarie to sal­uation: & as Tertulian saith, did publish a sufficiēt rule vnto al men. Therfore Christ in this place meaneth thus, y^t then y^e Apo­stles should be fully & perfectly instructed, when they shuld be indowed with y^e visible & miraculous gifts of the holy ghost, & this our expositiō is easily gathered from Iohn. Ioh. 14. 26 Nowe I come to the consequence or con­clusion: in y^e which truely I find not anie shew of truth, nor any kind of tast of true diuinitie, for their error is secundū ignorā ­tiam elenchi, The error as the schoolmen say, inasmuch as y^• like proportiō of time is not obserued. The Apostles before y^e resurrectiō of Christ & before they had receiued the miraculous gifts of y^e holy ghost, were not able suffici­ently to bere away al things which apper­tained to y^e mysteries of christian religion: ergo say they, the Apostles were ignorant of those mysteries after the resurrection of Christ, & after the receiuing of the gifts of y^e holy Ghost. Truly a verie foolish kind of reasoning. Christ had many things to de­clare vnto them, ergo say our aduersaries, they must be those which y^e papistical mas­sing prists do fondly dreame of. No doubt of y^t, their consequence hangeth not with [Page 102] their antecedent, therfore we may vrge thē to this absurditie.

If the Apostles wrote not all things which were necessarie to saluation,Absur­ditie. because they could not beare awaie manie things which Christ had to speake before his resurrecti­on, and before the sending of the Holie ghost, then would it followe that the Apo­stles were not led into all truth by the holie ghost after that he was sent vnto them. The which is most false, and reproued euen by the place of Iohn. For he saith, And he shal lead you into all truth. Also it would folow, that Paule did neuer declare the full counsel of god, the which thing is most false, as Paul himselfe affirmeth Act 20. and 27.

Now therefore we will turne this their argument vpon their owne heads, saieng thus. The ar­gument returned. If the apostles wrote not al things be­cause they could not beare awaie all things, thē trulie did they neuer teach all things by mouth. And by force of the consequent, this place of Iohn can nothing appertaine vnto traditions of the apostles not written.

But perchance they will say, that those mysteries of saluation, y^e which Christ hid frō his apostles, wer reueled to y^e Bishops of Rome, y^• which if it wer true, then truly [Page 103] the Bishops of Rome, were no more to be called the successors of the Apostles onely, but those who farre did excéede all the A­postles: the which God forbid that wée once should thinke.

Let vs therfore amend this error in this sort,Errour corrected and affirme, that although the Apo­stles before the sending of the holie Ghost were not so fully capable of the mysteries of God, which appertain vnto the doctrine of the Gospell: yet notwithstanding, after the comforter was sent, and after they were led into all truth, it is most vndoub­ted, that the whole truth which appertai­neth vnto our saluation, was both taught by mouth by the Apostles, as also publish­ed in writing.

Paule commendeth the Corinthians, be­cause they kept his traditions.6. Obiec­tion. Ergo, Paule taught manie things by mouth which hee wrote not.

The antecedent is prooued. 1. Cor. 11. I praise you bretheren (saith Paule) that you remember all my things, and keepe the tra­ditions or ordinaunce, as I haue deliuered them vnto you.

Nowe let vs come to the examining of theyr Antecedent.Ansvvere. This place of [Page 104] Paule is expounded by Chrisostome and Ambrose, as also of many other learned of this our time, not touching doctrine, but touching ecclesiasticall rytes and ceremo­nies. Others againe confesse indéede, that Paule doth héere intreate of certaine rytes both appertaining to good order and com­linesse. But yet notwithstanding, our ad­uersaries denie, that these wordes which they obiect vnto vs, are to be restrained to those rytes: and they rather vnderstande and interpret this place generally, because Paule héere hath spoken it generally: for he saith, I commende you brethren, for that you haue remembred all my thinges, &c.

Also they adde this word Traditiō héere vsed indefinite or generally, scarce sound in the writings of the Apostles, restrained or tied only to traditions which appertain to orders and rytes of the Church. Wher­fore they expound Paules words after this sort: You will keepe in memorie all those things which I haue taught, & therein truly I gretly praise you. But because amongst other things which I deliuered vnto you, to be obserued touching rytes and ceremo­nies in your Ecclesiastical assemblies, and [Page 105] for that certaine are contencious amongst you, which doo not so well lyke of them: & therfore I declare these my reasons, by the which I was ledde to deliuer them vnto you: this is theyr exposition of this place. But after what sorte soeuer our aduersa­ries doo vnderstand it, yet truly their con­clusion shall neuer be of any force. For if he dispute there touching rites and cere­monies only, then is this place without the compasse of our disputation: for we dis­pute touching those things which are ne­cessarie to saluation, and not of rites and ceremonies, which may be chaunged for di­uers causes.

Againe, if they be willing héere, that he should intreate of doctrine, yet serueth it not anie thing for their purpose, as I wil now declare, for I denie the consequent.

Paule deliuered many things to the Co­rinthians.The error Ergo some of them (saye they) are not written. The consequent hereof is false.

Yet I confesse that this place hath de­ceiued Theophilact and some others. Yet truly (that I may speake it by the fauour of all the godly) they haue héere fowlie stū ­bled in a plain & leuel way. For first Paul [Page 106] did write that same tradition touching the rytes of the which, he there speketh. Again although he had not written to the Corin­thians, yet he might write vnto 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 Paule saith, Be followers of me, as I follow Christ. He therfore deliuered nothing, that might in one iote be repugnaunt with Christ, the which notwithstanding our ad­uersaries doo. I will héere annexe certaine other places, which also our aduersaries a­buse. 2. Thessa. 3.2. Thes. 3 We warne you bretheren, in the name of the Lord Iesus Christ, that you withdraw your selues from euerie bro­ther that walketh inordinatelie, and not af­ter the traditions which he hath receiued of vs. And then followeth the very same tra­dition, which Paule wrote. Againe. Actes. 16. And as they went through the Cities, Act. 16. they deliuered them decrees to keepe ordai­ned of the Apostles & Elders. But yet not­withstanding euen those verie decrées of the Apostles were then written, as it is manifest Actes. 15. verse. 23. and 24. Againe in the foresaid 11. chapter of the first Epi­stle of Saint Paule to the Corinthians, [Page 107] That which I receiued of the Lord, I deli­uered vnto you. Also in the same Epistle, chapter. 15. vers. 3. he saith the like. But yet notwithstanding all those things are wri­ten, wherefore he that doth thus conclude, saying: Paule taught by mouth, Ergo he wrote not: truelye hée is altogether ig­noraunt of the right order of Disputa­tion.

Let vs therefore now bring them to an absurditie.Absur­ditie.

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 shoulde bee couered in Ecclesiasticall assemblies, and touching prophecieng bare headded and manie such like, are not written: which is false, as appea­reth in the forenamed. 1. Cor. 11.

We will nowe therefore,Obiecti­on retur­ned. tourne theyr Argument vppon themselues, say­ing thus.

If the traditions which Paule doth there, dispute of, to wit, touching Propheci­engs bare headed, and touching wo­men to bee couered, are neglected euen of our Aduersaryes themselues, because [Page 108] their Monkes preach not bare headed, but couered with their hoods? how much more shall it be lawful for vs, to neglect those tra­ditions, which our aduersaries faine, beeing not written in the word of God, & onelie falsely cloked vnder the names of the Apo­stles?

That we may therefore amend this er­ror,The cor­recting of the ob­iection. we must say that Paule doth in that Epistle put them in minde of those things which he had taught them by mouth, whē as he had diligently considered how great the inconstancie and leuitie of man is. Whereby we sée, that wée must alto­gether cleaue to the writings of the Apo­stles, least the forged deuices of men, doe withdrawe vs from the truth of the gos­pell.

Paule biddeth the Thessalonians to keep the traditions which they had learned either by word or by Epistle:7. Obiec­tion. Ergo, Paule wrote not all Traditions necessarie to faith.

The antecedent is prooued 2. Thessa. 2. vers. 15.

Now let vs trye the antecedent.Ansvvere In these woordes of Paule, Either by word or Epistle: they are willing to make this [Page 109] word Either an absolute distunctiue: to which their opinion I doo not agrée. For I marke in the writings of the Apostles (that I may héere speake nothing of other Authors) this perticle or word so repea­ted to be a copulatiue rather then a dis­iunctiue. I prooue it by these places. 1.1. Cor. 13, [...] Cor. 13. ver. 8. wher the Apostle saith, Whether propheciengs be abolished, whether tōgues cease, and knowledge vanish away. Againe, 1.1. Crr. 15. 11 Cor. 15. ver. 11. Whether I or they, so wee haue preached, and so yee haue beleeued: that is both I and they haue preached, &c. Also to the Colloss. 1.Col. 1. 20 verse. 20. Reconciling to himselfe all things by himselfe, yea, I say, reconciling to himselfe all things, whether they be in heauen, whether they be in earth.

So also he vseth this word [Mete] in this Epistle, in the same chapter. verse. 2. wherefore it is as though he shoulde saye, stande ye fast in the doctrine, which you haue learned both by our wordes when we were present, as also after in our wri­tings.

Therefore I deny their consequence,The error for the errour as I haue said is Secundum fallatiam dictionis: for first it followeth not, if the Thessalonians were taught both [Page 110] by worde and Epistle, that those thinges were taught by mouth, were contrarie to those things which were taught by Epi­stle. But secondly, admit that other things were taught, yet it hurteth vs no­thing: for if they were not written in the Epistle to the Thessalonians, yet true­ly they might bée written in other his E­pistles. But admit y^t Paule did not write them at all, yet it doeth not therefore fol­lowe, that they were not written of the other Apostles, as of Baptisme, & the sup­per of the Lord, &c.

Let vs now ouerwhelme them with an absurditie.

If it bee true by this kinde of speaking,Absur­ditie. either by word or by Epistle, that therefore it should follow, that Paule did not write all things necessarie to saluation, ergo on the other side it woulde follow, that Paule did not preach by mouth all things neces­sarie to saluation, the which is absurde and false, as I prooue by these places follow­ing. The 2.2. Thes, 2. 13. 14. Thessa. 2. verse 13. and 14. You are elected vnto saluation through the san­tification of the holie Ghost, and through the faith of the truth, vnto the which yee were called by our Gospell.

[Page 111] Againe in the same Chapter,Ibi. ver. 5 verse. 5. Doo you not remember that when I was with you I tolde you these things. Againe the 1.1. The. 4 Thessa. 4. Yee knowe what com­maundement I gaue you to abstaine from fornication.1. Thes. 2. Againe, 1. Thessa. 2. Wee did not onely desire to imparte vnto you the Gospell of GOD, but our owne selues. And in another place hee attributed vnto them a most sure perswasion of faith, which they receiued by preaching, Whereby it is proued, that Paule did deliuer to the Thes­salonians, all thinges necessarie to saluati­on: the which thinges could not bee if the argument of our aduersarie might pre­uaile.

Therefore we wil turne their argument vpon themselues, saying.

If the Theslalonians were throughlye instructed in christian religion,The ob­iection returned, and that by the preaching of the Apostle, which hee preached by mouth, and neuerthelesse were to be confirmed by the writings of the A­postle: howe much more ought wee to cleaue to the writinges of the Apostles, which were not present at their Ser­mons, neyther yet instructed or them by mouth.

[Page 112] Therefore the errour of our aduersa­ries must be amended,The cor­recting. and we must saye, that Paule instructed the Thessalonians not onely by word, but also by Epistle, when he had séene of what great value his wri­tings wer, to confirme the faith of the god­ly. And thereby also that the holy Scrip­ture might be more highly commēded vn­to vs.

Paule praied that he might see the face of the Thessalonians,8. obiecti­on. and that he might ac­complish or fulfill those things which were wanting in their faith: Ergo hee reserued many things to traditions, which hee spake by mouth, beeing necessarie both to faith and saluation. The Antecedent is prooued 2. Thes. 3.Answere.

I doo thus aunswere their antecedent. Manie of the olde writers doe vnderstand this place touching doctrine:Chrisost. For Chriso­stome referreth it to the doctrine of the re­surrection of the dead.Ambr. Ambrose to the tri­nitie. Although Chrisostome séeme not to agrée with himselfe, for thus he saith: not as though vnto you (saith he) there were a­nie part of faith wanting, or y^t you ought or néed to learne anie thing. And I sée this opinion of interpreters greatly to please [Page 113] certaine of the learned new writers. But other expound the name of faith touching the constancie of faith, as in the same chap­ter he sayth:1. Thes. 3. I sent that I might know your faith, least Sathan had tempted you by anie kinde of meanes, and that our labour had bene in vaine. But our aduersaries stande vpon these points: First there is attribu­ted vnto the Thessalonians the fulnesse of faith,1. Thes. 1. as is before sayd: Secondly there is no doubt but that they were baptised, and therefore perfectly instructed in christian religion. They bring forth many other ar­gumēts vnto this end: and chiefly y^e whole 2. cha. of y^e first epistle vnto y^e Thessaloniās. But let our aduersaries choose which in­terpretation they will, yet shal it not serue anie thing for their purpose.

Now concerning their consequent,The error I de­ny it: for if by this word faith, they vnder­stand a through perswasion or constancie of faith: the error is in the diuers significa­tion of the word. But if they had rather ex­pound it touching doctrine, then their cōse­quence is false. For they doe not well con­clude: thus they say, some thing was wan­ting to y^e faith of y^e Thessalonians, ergo Paul did not declare by mouth all thinges vnto [Page 114] them: or else all thinges were not written by the apostles necessarie to faith. For it is one thing to teach, & another to learne: and ther may be a defect in the scholler, whē as there is none in the master. Therfore Paul saith Phil. 3.Phi. 3. 1 It is profitable for you & not troublesōe vnto me to repeat those things againe vnto you. But that we may return to y^e Thessaloniās: You know (saith he) what cōmaundements we gaue vnto you, that you should abstein from fornication, &c. But let vs graunt this, yet truly it followeth not, because ther was some thing wāting vnto the faith of the Thessalonians: that therfore Paule & the rest of the Apostles wrote not all the things necessarie to the doctrine of y^t gospell. These arguments truely are of no value nor force, neither yet scātly hang to­gether. Therfore we may wel bring thē to an absurditie, saying. If this argumēt of our aduersaries do preuaile, Absurdi­tie. that the apostles re­serued many thinges which they taught by mouth vnto traditions, beeing necessary to the saluation of the Church, because Paule wished that hee might see the face of the Thessalonians, that hee might supply those things which wer wanting to their faith: thē it wold follow, that Paule himselfe was all [Page 115] the apostles, & the Thessalonians the whole vniuersall church, the which is too absurde. And therefore wée may turne their argu­ment vpō themselues,Obiectiō returned. saying [...] If our aduer­saries do heereby prooue their traditions be­cause Paule desired to see the face of the Thessalonians, that being present, he might fully instruct them by mouth: Then wold it follow that this appertaineth nothing vnto vs, which a long time since could not see the face of Paule. But perchance they wil say y^• the olde fathers wrote those things which Paule then taught when he was present. But because I will not say y^• that is false, I will make them this answere. If those things were worth y^• writing, why did not Paule himselfe write thē? If not, why shuld y^e old doctors write thē? Therefore thus we may auoid their error, saying: That Paule did therfore desire to sée y^• Thessalonians, Correctiō y^t therby he might the more firmely establish their faith, when as he did manifestly per­ceiue of what great efficacie y^e presence of their techer was. But séeing we cannot in­ioy this benefit, we must plainly cleaue to the writinges of the Apostles, and those their writings ought to bée of so great va­lue vnto vs, as if that the Apostles [Page 116] themselues were present to speak vnto vs, & so much the rather because in those wri­tings, we may heare euē y^e voice of Christ.

Paule wrote vnto the Corinthians, that when he came vnto them,9. obiect. he would set the rest in order, ergo he reserued many things to be taught by mouth. The antecedent is proued. 1. Cor. 11.

Thus I answere their antecedent, Paule doth not héere speak of the chiefe points of faith,Ansvvere but of Ecclesiasticall order. For the Gréeke word which he vseth, signifieth to determine some matter according to some order. As Paule to Tit. 1. chap. saith: Ordain elders as I haue commaunded thee, where Paule vseth the verie same Gréeke worde. And againe, 1. Cor. 16. Paule vseth the same word in the actiue voice, touching the be­stowing of their liberalitie, & saith, because I haue commanded, &c. And speaketh of an order to be kept in the same matter, & so the french men say, Ordonner in their tongue, and we say Ordaine.

Now I denie their consequent:Error for the error is Secundum figuram dictionis, for y^• proper signification of the worde, signifi­eth another thing, then they meane. Also their consequence is false.

[Page 117] Paule would set in order certaine things amongest the Corinthians when hée was present: Ergo saie they, hée would consti­tute new principles of faith. Againe they reason thus: Paule deferred certaine things vntill his comming, the which he woulde set in order among the Corinthians, ergo hée neuer wrote them. Also those things are they which the Prelates of Rome doo obtrude and thrust vppon vs as traditi­ons springing from the Apostles. All these arguments are foolish and false, or worse if worse may be.

And therefore wée maye well bring them to an absurditie, Absur­ditie, saying: If that be true which our aduersaryes would, to wit, that Paule then when hee wrote that E­pistle, had not deliuered to the Corinthi­ans al those things which wer necessarie to faith: then would it come to passe (which GOD forbid) that those thing which fol­lowe in his Epistle, were not true: to wit, that the Corinthians were made rich in all knowledge: 1. Cor. 1 The 1. Corinth. Also hee sayth: I declare vnto you the Gospell the which I preached, the which also ye haue receiued, in the which yee stande, and by the which also yee are saued. 1. Cor. 15 1. Cor. 15.

[Page 118] And againe, Ye aboūd in al things, in faith, in word: in knowledge, in all zeale, and in all loue towardes vs, euen so see that yee a­bound in this grace also.2. Cor. 8 2. Cor. 8. And a­gaine, What is it in the which you are in­feriour to other churches.2. Cor. 12 2. Cor. 12. And ma­nie such like examples.

Finally, this their obiection may be tur­ned vpon themselues, and correted as wée haue done in the former arguments,

Iohn would not write much,Obiectiō Ergo, hee wrote not all things necessarie to faith.

The antecedent is proued in the 2. and 3. Epistles of Iohn, wher he saith thus: Whē I had manie things to write vnto you, yet would I not write with paper and inke.

I admit their antecedent,Ansvvere Error yet I denye their consequent. For these things hang not together. Iohn had manye things to write, Ergo they were principles of faith. Ergo, also they are not any wher extāt, for otherwise this absurditie would followe.

That the same Ladie vnto the which Iohn wrote,Absurdi­tie. was not fullie instructed in chri­stian religion: therefore those hang not to­gether with Iohns speeches, whē as he com­mēdeth the faith of the same ladie, as also of hir childrē, whō he affirmeth to walk in the [Page 119] truth. And therefore this argument may be turned vpon themselues, as y^e other before.

Manie other things did Iesus,11. obiec. beside those which were written, the which if they were euerie one written, the whole world would not containe the bookes: Ergo, all things ne­cessarie to faith are not written by the Apo­stles.

The antecedent is proued Iohn. 21.

I gaunt their antecedent:Ansvvere yet I denye their consequent. For the error is, Secun­dum ignorantiam Elenchi: for they wan­der héere without the compasse of our que­stion. Iohn speaketh in that place of mira­cles which Christ did, & our disputation is of doctrine necessarie to faith & saluation. For these are y^e words of Iohn, Christ did manie things, & therfore héerof commeth no consequent. Al y^e miracles y^t Christ did, are not written: ergo say they, all y^• principles of christian religiō & doctrin are not writē.

Now sée héere how our aduersaries beat themselues with their owne weapons: For if our aduersaries refer their traditions vnto those things which Iohn faith are not writ­ten:The pa­pists ouer throwe their own traditions Ergo, those traditions are infinit & with out number, & so by the force of the conse­quent, without the cōpasse of knowledge. [Page 120] And truly I easely confesse, that such kind of traditions are so greatly increased, that the world now can scantly beare them.

We may therefore turne their argu­ment vpon themselues thus: The ob­iection returned. Iohn saith, Christ did manie other things, which are not written: but he also affirmeth, That those things which are written, are written to the ende we might beleeue & haue eter­nall life. Ergo, those things which are writ­ten, are sufficient to saluation.

The error therefore of our aduersaries may thus be amended,Correctiō saieng. Iohn and the rest of the Euangelists, did choose out of those things which Christ did, being other­wise infinite, those which séemed necessary: whereby it commeth to passe, y^• we ought to be contented with the writings of the a­postles.

The Apostles did often recite testimo­nies taken from the traditions of such aun­cient men,12. Obiec. as liued before their daies. Ergo, wee must not onelie sticke to the Scrip­tures.

The antecedent is manifest. 2. Tim 3. As Iannes & Iambris withstood Moses. Againe, Iude ver. 9. Michael the Archangell dispu­ted about the bodie of Moses. And a little [Page 121] after he reciteth the Prophecie of Enoch, Behold the Lord cōmeth with manie thou­sands of his saints.

To their antecedent I aunswere thus,Ansvvere Indéede I confesse, that the Apostles didde sometimes recite certaine sentences taken out of the bookes Apocripha: And to aun­swere the place of Paule in Timothie, I doo not doubt but in his time y^• some booke did remaine touching those Magis Iannes and Iambris: for Plinie in his 30. booke of his naturall historie. chap. 1. doth there rec­ken vp Iannes amongst the auncient Ma­gi, the which he would not haue done, ex­cept he had learned it out of some booke. And furthermore, I aunswere that those Ethnickes, were not altogether to bée refused of the Apostles:Act. 17 Tit. 1. for so Paule reci­teth certaine verses out of Aratus and Epi­minides: but I doo affirme, that the Apo­stles did not therfore vse these testimonies, that by them they wold confirme any prin­ciple of faith,1. Cor. 15. for when they would so doo, they had alwaies readie expresse places ta­ken out of the writings of the Prophets, and those they did expounde according to the motion of the holy Ghost. But when they would teach any doctrine touching [Page 122] manners, or declare some thing, touching the which very few or none did doubt, thē if peraduēture they remembred any thing written in the bookes Apocripha, or in the writings of those Ethinks, they did not so dislike their sentences, but that they wold apply them vnto their purpose: yet not­withstanding, the Apostles did not attri­bute so great authoritie vnto them, that they should be of sufficient authoritie thē ­selues: for god forbid we shuld once think so. But they were willing by that meanes to mooue mens mindes the more, that they might thereby the easier receiue their doc­trine, which notwithstanding was other­wise sufficiently confirmed, euen by the word of God. As for examples sake it is manifest in Exodus, that the Magi or wise men of Aegipt withstood Moses, what mat­ter is it by what name those Magi were called, or can those their names be applyed to any principle of faith? No, to none tru­ly. Also Michael woulde not vse railing words vnto the diuell, as Saint Iude saith: wherby we may learn much lesse to speak euil of Magistrates ordained of God. This exhortation of Iude to the reuerencing of Magistrates, is in many places to be found [Page 123] in the scriptures. The like is that which Peter saith,2. Pet. 2 That the Angels doo not raile on those that haue authoritie. 2. Pet. 2. Also the Lord will come saith Iude, to rewarde the wicked, the which threatnings is vsual in the holy scriptures. Whereby we mani­festly sée, to what ende the Apostles culled out certaine sentences from the bookes A­pocripha, to the seruing of their own pur­pose. Now we come vnto y^e cōsequēt, which I denie. The Apostles did vse certain sen­tences taken out of the bookes Apocripha: Ergo, they vsed them to the confirmation of faith. And againe therefore also we ought to runne to traditions so often as we dis­pute of faith, as though the testimonies of the holy scriptures did faile vs. This is a false argument, & no good consequent can come héerof. For the Apostles vsed not such testimonies to confirme principles of reli­gion. Yea: and euen those testimonies them selues (if you marke well the matter) you shall sée them confirmed by many & expres places of scriptures. Wherfore our aduer­saries séeme to be forgetful of our purposed questiō, while they go about to obiect these things to vs: for this is y^e state of our que­stiō (whē ther ariseth cōtrouersie touching [Page 124] faith, whether we ought to sticke onelye to the testimonies of the Scriptures, or els to adde thervnto traditions, to the which we may giue the like credite, as we maye to the scriptures. But you shall finde no such thing in these testimonies which the Apo­stles vsed, as I haue before shewed. Yea, and I may say that this argument is not rightly applied against vs in this cause, taken from the Apostles.

Let vs retourne this absurditie on our aduersaries, saieng thus.

If because the Apostles did recite certaine sentences out of bookes not Canonicall,Absurdi­tie. that therefore it followeth the Apostles did attribute authoritie to those bookes & such like in matters of faith. Ergo, because some of the Apostles did recite some out of the Ethnicks bookes, it must follow, that the A­postles did attribute authoritie to those bookes in matters of faith, which thing is absurde and contrarie to the opinion of all men.

Let vs tourne this obiection vppon our aduersaries, after this sort.

If the Apostles did at anie time recite the traditions of auncient fathers,Obiectiō returned. but one­lie to beautifie those things which wer esta­blished [Page 125] and confirmed by most firme testi­monies of holie scriptures? How much lesse then ought wee to recite the traditions of the olde fathers, to the confirming of those things which want testimonie of the Scrip­ture.

Thus therefore we may amend the er­rour of this their obiection, and saye,Correc­tion. that the Apostles whereas they did applie thē ­selues to the capacitie of men, that they might thereby the better stirre them vp, or the more easily conuince them, they vsed some times the bookes Apocripha, as also sentences gathred from Ethincks, to wit, when they did dispute of those things, the truth whereof was manifest in the holye scriptures.

The heretikes did wreast the writinges of Paule,13. obiect & that in the verie time of the A­postles, and also it is most manifest that the heretiks: yea, & Sathan himselfe haue cloked their heresies euen with the Scriptures: ergo we must not cleaue to the Scriptures alone. The antecedent is proued, 2. Pe. 3. as also by the Ecclesiasticall historie, and also Math 4. If thou be the sonne of GOD cast thy selfe down headlong, for it is written he shal giue his Angells charge ouer thee, &c.

[Page 126] I admit their antecedent.

But I denie their consequent.Ansvvere Neither doth Peter so conclude, but rather calleth them vnto the writings of Paule, then in anie part to abridge the same. The error is as the Logitians say, Secundum non cau­sam vt causam.

The heretikes abused the Scriptures,Error & wrested the writings of the Apostles into a contrarie sence, ergo saye they, we ought to run other where then to the scriptures, to the establishing of our faith. The Scrip­ture is not in fault, but onely men them­selues, which doo wrest so worthie a mat­ter vnto their owne errours. Wherefore this is so farre from the Apostles minde, that we should leaue the aide of the scrip­ture, because heretikes haue abused them, that rather the heretikes are by the verie scriptures to be conuinced, like as we haue alreadie proued out of the places of Paule, 2. Tim. 3. Tit. 1. And when Sathan abused the Scriptures,2. Tim. 3. Tit. 1. that he might weaken the faith of Christ, truely Christ went not to traditions, but with the Scriptures again ouerthrew the enimy. For sathan obiecting and saying it is written: Christ also on the other side answered, it is written, and not [Page 127] left in tradition.Absur­ditie, And therefore we must bring them to this inconuenience, saying.

If because the heretikes falsified the Scrip­tures, we may not therefore only cleaue vn­to the Scriptures: then truely because the heretikes falsely fathered traditions to be A­postolike, as wee haue prooued before both out of the writings of the Apostles, as also out of Irenaeus and Eusebius: therefore wee may not sticke onely to traditions. And a­gaine, because heretikes abused both Scrip­tures and traditions, therefore we must ney­ther cleaue to Scriptures, nor to traditions: the which is absurde, and euen our aduersa­ries themselues yeeld to the same.

Let vs therefore turne their argument vpon themselues, saying.Obiectiō returned.

If like as Sathan abused the Scriptures a­gainst Christ, so likewise the heretiks do a­gainst true Christians. Then truly as Christ vsed the Scripture onely to repell Sathan: so likewise the true Christians must vse onely the Scriptures in repelling of here­tikes.

And therefore we may amend their error thus:Correc­tion. If such be the wickednes of the here­tikes, y^e they abuse y^e scriptures, then ought we to giue al diligēce, y^t the scripture may [Page 128] kéepe both their authoritie and puritie, the which will be if the heretiks be conuinced by the Scriptures alone, and those places which shall séeme somewhat obscure, maye take their interpretation from places more plaine. But if our aduersaries hearken not vnto vs: yet at the least waies let them giue eare euen vnto themselues,Can. rela. Dist. 37 in whose decretalls this sentence remaineth: That from the Scriptures themselues, the sence of truth must be taken.

The doctrine touching the baptisme of Infants is not found in the holy Scriptures,14. obiec. neither these words, Trinitie, like substance, persons, & manie such like: all which words notwithstanding do appertaine vnto groūds and principles of faith: Ergo all things ap­pertaining vnto faith are not to be found in the Scriptures.

The antecedent is found true by reading of the Scriptures.

Now touching their antecedent,Ansvvere I saie thus: In that they affirme the doctrine concerning Baptisme of children not to be found in the Scriptures is most false, like as our late writers haue taught in theyr learned workes against the Anabaptistes, touching the which I will not héere make [Page 129] any longer disputation, least I shuld séeme to wander without y^e compasse of my pro­poned questiō. Now touching these words Trinitie, like substance, and persons: I con­fesse they are not found in the writings of the Apostles, but yet I saie y^• the verie doc­trine which is signified by these words, is deriued from the Scriptures: for when cer­taine heretiks rose vp which denied y^e ve­ritie of y^e doctrine, then the godly Fathers which liued in those daies, hauing care of y^e circumstances, added these wordes: by the which they might the more easily explicate & declare the doctrine touching y^e trinitie, y^• which doctrine they had before confirmed by expresse and manifest testimonies of the holy Scriptures.

Now touching their consequence. The error is,Errour Secundum fallaciam figurae dictio­nis. These words Trinitie, the baptisme of infants, like substance, are not found in the Scripture, it is called [Omonomos] for the words indéede are not found in the holie 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 bookes as S. Hierom saith, [Page 130] but in the verye ground of reason.Tract. de ver. & pia fid. And therefore Basil confesseth, y^• he vsed against the heretikes certaine termes, which were not found written: but yet notwithstand­ing (saith he) they were nothing contrary to the sence of the holy Scriptures.

And therfore our aduersaries reasoning thus, we may wel bring them to an absur­ditie, saying.

If because the persons, the trinitie,Absur­ditie. and such like words be not extant in the holy Scrip­tures, it therfore followeth, that all things ne­cessarie to faith are not found in the holye scriptures: Ergo these words are necessarie to faith, and so by force of the consequent: Sith this worde [Omoousios] that is like sub­stance, and such other wordes were onely found out by the godly Doctors after the heresie of Arius began to spring, then wold it followe that the Church of Christ, be­fore the time of Arius, yea, & the Apostles thēselues knew not al things necessarie vn­to faith: The which thing is most absurd & sauouring of Athisme.

And therefore we may well turne this argument home againe vnto our aduersa­ries, saying.Obiectiō returned.

If such were the religion of the auncient [Page 131] fathers, that they would not inuent anie one word to the intreating vpon anie principle of faith, the which was not grounded vpon expresse places of scriptures (as it is manifest by these words, trinitie, substance, & persons: & such like) what shal we then think of our aduersaries which do not only inuēt words, but also euē matter it self, altogether abhor­ring & contrarie to the Scriptures of God.

And therefore we may amend y^e error of this their obiection,Correctiō saying: That it is lawfull for the godly fathers of the church of God, to vse & inuent certaine words and tearmes, whereby the matter contained in the scriptures, may the better & easier bée expressed.

If we must altogether beleeue the church & in no part swarue from the credit of the church,Obiec. 15. & we beleeue the church in this part affirming, that the scriptures came from the spirit of God, thē truly we ought to beleeue the church, likewise affirming that these & such other like traditions came from the A­postles. The antecedent is true: and therfore it must follow that the cōsequēt is also true.

The Maior hath two parts, touching the which we will particularly speake.Ansvvere And touching the first point, I doe make a di­stinction [Page 132] of the Church, which Paule calleth the house of God, the piller & foundation of truth, which heareth y^e voice of her spouse, & onely dependeth vpon his mouth, and is al­waies gouerned by the spirit of God, & can­not be séene because shée is not tied to cir­cūstances of place, time or persons, yet not­withstāding we beleeue y^• the same church is vpholden by the word of God, & that she nothing estéemeth mans traditions. But this or y^e visible Church, or the companie of many visible congregations may swarue from the truth, as it is manifest touching the Churches in the East, of which y^• most part haue turned to Mahumet. I will not héere bring in the ancient counsells, which haue both allowed & brought into y^e church great & gréeuous errors. And touching this church we may thus determine: inasmuch as she is subiect to many errors, she is not otherwise to be heard, except shée speake those thinges which are agréeable to the Scriptures, touching which matter I haue disputed more at large in another place: wherefore this hath héere no place which they say & affirme, y^• wée must altogether beléeue the church, & in part swarue frō the credit of the same, thē must we beléeue the [Page 133] visible Churches, when as they propound nothing els vnto vs but the word of God: & on the other side we ought not to beléeue the visible churches when they swarue frō the word of God, for I make my example by the Sinagogue which very religious­ly hath reserued the Cannons or bookes of the Scriptures, yet notwithstanding she hath innumerable errors. So thē we may beléeue the same Sinagogue, whereby she saith, y^• the Canonicall bookes haue sprong from y^e spirit of God: & againe we may not beléeue her, when she reiecteth & casteth a­way the doctrine of Christ.Mat. 23. Therfore in y^• respect Christ saith:lbi. ve. 16. The Scribes & Phare­sies sitting in Moses chaire are to be heard,Mat. 16. & yet notwithstanding in another place he reprehendeth & reproueth their traditions, whereby wée sée proued, that in one parte they ought to be heard, & on the other not. Wherfore their Minor is not true, & so the consequence cannot stand, because there is an error,Errour Secundum fallaciam figurae dictio­nis. And they reasoning thus, we may well bring thē to a great inconuenience, saying. In the time of Tertulian the church did af­firme, Absur­ditie. that an oblation for birth daies was a tradition receiued from the Apostles, but in [Page 134] the time of the Nicēe coūsel, the church did affirme, that oblation for birth daies was not a tradition of the Apostles, as in his proper place I haue proued: ergo if wee must in all parts beleeue the Church, and in no parte swarue from the Church, then must we be­leeue the things which are manifest opposit & contarrie one to the other, the which is impossible.

Wherefore we may turne their obiecti­on vpon themselues,Obiectiō returned. after this sort, saying:

Whosoeuer affirmeth the scripture to be the word of god the which we ought to be­leeue: & likewise affirmeth that traditions not written are to be receiued, speketh cō ­traries. But the Church of Rome affirmeth the scriptures to be the word of god which we ought to beleeue, & also affirmeth that traditions not writtē are to be receiued. Er­go the church of Rome affirmeth contra­ries, & by force of the consequent we must beleeue hir in one part, & in another not, & if this be of anie force, that we must beleue the church in all parts, & swarue frō hir in no part, thē this foloweth by their argumēt, Vnsold­ing of the former argument that the Church may not wel be called the Church, For y^e truth of the maior proposi­tion is proued thus. If you did me belée [...]e [Page 135] the scriptures, truly I will beléeue y^t there is nothing to be added thervnto, because y^t it is so commanded in them,Deut, 4 Pro. 30 as I haue in diuers places of my booke proued: & there­fore this sentence of Tertulian is highly to be imbraced,Deprescr. Whē we beleeue (saith he) this first we must beleeue, that there is nothing els that we ought to beleue. Now if we wil consider the traditions of our aduersaries, we shal easily perceiue y^t they are not on­ly added by inuentions, but also contrarie to expresse places of scripture: so ye sée, y^t we cannot beléeue the scriptures, & also the traditions of our aduersaries.

And therefore we may amend the error of the former obiection after this manner: Sith we ought to beléeue God alone,Correc­tion. then most diligently ought we to take héede, least vnder the shew of pietie, we be sedu­ced into errour, and because the name of the Church is verie glorious, therefore, if anie thing be proposed vnto vs vnder the title of the Church, we ought to giue attē ­tiue diligence, whether it be y^e voyce of the true church or not, which we heare: & y^t we may be able so to doo, we must take coun­sell with the word of God set foorth vnto vs in the Scriptures, from the which, the [Page 136] true church of God neuer swerneth: whē therefore the Church affirmeth vnto vs, that the scriptures are the word of God, we acknowledge the same to be true, not onely because the church so affirmeth, but because of the inward efficacie of the spi­rite of God, by the which the truth of the scriptures is sealed in our hearts: & lyke as the church by the conduction of the spi­rite of God, affirmeth vnto vs y^t the scrip­ture is the word of God, so we by the con­duction of the same spirit, beléeue that that is true, which the Church affirmeth y^t our faith may neuer rest vpō men, but for euer vpon God alone.

The Apostles did adde vnto the lawe: to wit the doctrine of the Gospell: Ergo,16. obiec. it is lawfull to adde vnto the worde of God.

To the antecedent I thus aunswere.Ansvvere Although the doctrine of the Gospell bée more full and fruitfull then the writing of the olde Testament, yet notwithstand­ing, if ye well mark the matter: in y^e new and olde testament, the selfe same doctrine of saluation is contained in them both, for that is most true which Paule saith Acts, 26.Act. 26. that he taught no other thing, then that [Page 137] which the prophets and Moses had before taught. And againe in the first to y^e Rom. Rom. 1. he sheweth y^t the gospel was before promi­sed by the Prophets, & therfore this is false which they say, that the Apostles added to the law: for it is one thing to adde to the lawe, and another to erpound and referre it to his owne proper scope and purpose. For let some man bring forth an obliga­tion (that we may vse this similitude) and the payment being made, he addeth at the ende that the Obligation is satisfied, I pray you can he well be sayd to adde any thing to the same Obligation? So when the Apostles gaue testimonie to the scrip­tures that Christ by his cōming had ful­filled both the lawe and the prophets, they did not adde either to y^e law, or writings of the Prophets.

Now, their consequent,Errour. I denie: for héere is an error, Secundum figuram dictionis, as it is manifest by these things which I haue alreadie spoken. Yea, also the argu­ment cannot well procéed from the Apo­stles to other men: for graunt this, that God would adde vnto his lawe, and that it was done by the ministerie of the Apo­stles, which wrote by the influence & mo­tion [Page 138] of the spirit of God: yet truly héereby can nothing happen, whereby it shoulde be lawfull for other men to adde vnto y^e same word of God.

Wherefore sithen by the argumentation of our aduersaries, there would follow the ouerthrowe 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 saieng,Correctiō which is extant in the workes of Iustinus Matyre, In interg. & resp. wher he asketh this, and saith, What is the Lawe? he aunswereth & saith: It is the Gospell foreshewed. Againe he demaundeth, What is the Gospell? he auns wereth, The Lawe fulfilled. By which words it is manifest, that the Gospell is not a newe doctrine added vnto the lawe, but a new fulfilling of the olde promise. And thus we suppose that we haue suffici­ently disputed touching the obiecti­ons of our aduersaries, which they haue wreasted out of the worde of God.

FOrasmuch as the aduersa­ries themselues sufficiently knowe how weake & féeble those argumēts are which they take out of y^e scripturs against the scriptures: then at the last they flie to the testimonies of the auncient Fathers: the which they ve­ry diligently endeuour to beate into our heads with Orations long and tedious, to the ende that by the heape thereof, they might ouer whelme vs. Wherefore it sée­meth conuenient in this part of our trea­tise, to set downe some thing whereby not onely the obiections of the Papists, but al­so our aunsweres, may the more easier be vnderstood.

Now therefore y^t we maye gather most true and infallible principles, let vs adde some certaine rules to this our disputati­on,That we may vse profita­blye the vvritings of the Fathers, certaine rules are [...] to be ob­serued. by whose helpe the mindes of the olde Doctors may be expounded, and so by the conduction of those rules, as by a clue of thred, we may both enter into the many & variable writings of the Doctours, as [Page 140] into a most daungerous Laborynth, and there also kéepe our selues occupied most safely and without hurt.

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 deliuered it to vs, that the same Gospell so written, should be the foundation and piller of our faith.Lib. 5. Againe, It behooueth vs to flie vnto the Church, and to be fostered in her bosome, and nourished by the word of God written. The paradise of the Church is plan­ted heere in this worlde, thou maist eate of the tree of the Paradise saith the spirit of God: that is, feede you of euerie Scripture of God.

Tertulian. Take awaie from the heretikes those things wherein they agree with the Ethnikes,De resur. carnis. that they may ground their que­stions vppon the holye Scriptures alone, & then they cannot preuaile.

Thus did Tertulian in times past con­fute the Heretikes, but nowe they are [Page 165] accounted Heretikes of the Bishoppes of the Romish Church, which woulde confirme their opinions by the Scrip­tures.

And againe the sayde Tertulian:De pros. We ought not to bee curious nowe after the comming of Christ Iesus, neither ought wee to bee inquisitiue after the manifestati­on of the Gospell. When we doo beleeue, wee desire nothing else to beleeue: for this first wee doo beleeue, that there is nothing else that wee ought to beleeue, but onelye faith. And againe, Aduersus Hermog. Let Hermogenes see that he teach that which is written: but if it be not written, let him feare that curse which is prepared for those that either adde too, or diminish anie thing from the holy Scrip­tures.

Origen. Wee must of necessitie call the holy Scriptures for witnesse,In hier. for as well our senses as also our interpretations, without the witnesse of the Scriptures are worthy of no credit.

Iustinus Martyre.In Tryph. Iustinus did flye vnto the holye Scriptures, that hee might bee safe in all things.

Athanasius.Con. Idol. The holie and diuine Scriptures of GOD, are sufficient to [Page 166] the declaration and manifestation of the truth.

Hilarie. It is sufficient for vs,De Trini. lib 3. that we bee contented with the Scriptures.

Cyril. All thinges which Christ did are not written:In loan li. 22. c. 68 but what thinges the writers thought sufficient both for manners & doc­trine, are written.

Chrisostome.In Tim. hom. 9. If wee haue neede ei­ther to learne or to forsake anie thing, let vs learne it in the holy Scriptures. Againe, If anie of those men vvhich are reported to haue the holie spirit of God,De sancto & ado. stir. doo saie anie thing of himselfe vvhich may not be pro­ued by the holie Scriptures, beleeue him not. Doth Manes the Heretike say, that the summe or the monie worke anie thing of themselues: Where hast thou read this? If he haue not read it in the Scriptures, but speaketh it of himselfe, it is manifest that he hath not the spirit of God. And againe, those that are true Christians,Mat. hom. 49. let them be­take themselues to the Scriptures, because there canne be no other proofe of true chri­stianitie, then the diuine and holy Scrip­tures.

Basil. It is a manifest Argument of in­fidelitie,Tract. de vera & a flat signe of pride, if anie man [Page 167] will reiect anie of those thinges which are not vvritten,pia fid. or bring into the Church a­nie of those things vvhich are not vvrit­ten, sith the Lord himselfe sayth: My sheep heare my voyce, and follovve not a straun­ger.

Againe, Whatsoeuer vve speake or doo,In morae [...]i. Reg. 26 that ought to be confirmed by the testimo­nie of the holie Scriptures. Also the Apo­stle taking the example from men,Tract de ver. & pi. fid. (Gal. 3.) doth most vehemently forbid that anie of those thinges which are in the holy Scrip­ture should be put out: or else (vvhich God forbid) that anie thing should be added. A­gaine, In moral. Reg. 8 [...] If vvhatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne, and faith commeth by hearing, and hearing by the vvorde of GOD: Then vvithout doubt, sith vvhatsoeuer is vvithout the scrip­tures, is not of faith, the same is sinne. And in another place:Epist. 80 Let vs stande to the iudgement of the holy Scriptures procee­ding from GOD, and vvith vvhome so euer are founde pointes of religion agree­ing to the holie Scriptures, to them let the vvhole opinion of truth bee alot­ted. Againe, of all those things vvhich vve haue in vse both of vvords and deeds,In Reg. br [...] uior inte, [...] some are distinctly set dovvne in the Scriptures, [Page 168] some omitted, but those things which are contained in the scriptures, by no meanes must be omitted: but of those things which are not found in the scriptures, we haue a flat rule deliuered vnto vs by Paule, All things are lawful: but all things are not necessarie.

Hierome.Hierom in Mic. lib. 1. cap. 1. The vniuersall Church of Christ hauing in possession all the Church­es in the world: is vnited together by the v­nitie of the spirit, and hath the words of the Lawe, of the Prophets, of the Gospell, and of the Apostles: and she may not passe hir bounds, that is, from the holie Scriptures. A­gaine, In Agge cap. 1. Those things which men faine with out authoritie of Scripture, as comming frō the Apostles by Tradition, the sworde of God (which is his word) doth cut away.In Mat. cap. 23. And also that which hath not the authoritie of the Scriptures, is with the same facili­tie contemned, with the which it was al­lowed.

Augustine. Neither ought I to alleadge the Nicene counsell,Con. Max. C. 3. c. 14 neither thou the coun­sell of Aremineus, as though we would de­termine causes therewith: for neither I am boūd vnto the authoritie of the one, neither thou of the other: but let each thing with other: & each cause with cause: & reason [Page 169] with reason be tried by the authoritie of the scriptures. And again, Con. Crese, gram. li. 2 Ther is cōstituted & ordained one ecclesiasticall cannon or rule, vnto the which belongeth the bokes of the Prophets and Apostles, by whose writings we ought to iudge touching the writings of others, whether they be faithfull or vnfaith­full. Againe, Con. Faust. Our Lord wold that we shuld beleeue nothing against the confirmed au­thoritie of the Scriptures. Againe, Mam. l. 13 c. 5. Let vs bring foorth the diuine Ballaunce of the holie Scriptures, and let vs weigh in them what so euer is of anie waight or value.

Damascene.De Bapt. con. Dona. lib. 2. De orth fid. li. 4. c. 18 As a tree planted by the riuers of waters, euen so doth the soule of man, which is moistened by the heauenlie scriptures bring foorth timelie fruite, which is true and perfect faith. And againe, Let vs receiue,Ib. li. 1. c. 1 acknowledge, and reuerence all those things which are deliuered vnto vs by the Lawe, Prophets, Apostles, and Euange­lists, seeking nothing which is not contained in them.

And least we should seeme altogether to neglect and despise the Schoolemen, heare what Scotus saith.

It is most manifest that the ScripturesIn prol. lomb. q. [...] sufficiently doo containe all doctrine neces­sarie [Page 170] to the pilgrime that trauaileth heere in the world.

Peter Stelliaco. [...] prin. 4. sent. Wee must runne vnto the scriptures alone, that we may attain eter­nall life.

And Gracianus in his decrees,Can. Ego [...]. dist, 9 doeth re­peat that sentence of Augustine, which wee haue before rehersed. And many more may be recited vnto the like effect, but heere we cease because wee will wander no farther.

That we may now therefore make an ende of the obiections of our aduersaries, which they gather from y^e writings of the Doctors, we will comprehend the effect of all those their obiections, which they haue or can bring forth in an argument, which is thus.

The Doctors of the Church haue thought that besides the holie Scriptures,The con­ [...]lusion of the obiections out of y^• aun­ciēt Doc­tors. traditi­ons not written ought also to be receiued.

Ergo all those things which are necessarie vnto faith and saluation are not contained in the Scriptures.

Let vs now trie their antecedent.Ansvvere It is manifest by y^e testimonies of the ancient Fathers, which before wée haue alleadged, y^t those auncient fathers haue not written all alike touching traditions: for first [Page 171] it behooued to knowe the minde and opi­nion of the olde Doctors before they obiect them to vs. But let this be the full summe of all those things which the auncient doc­tors who are most to be accounted of, haue written touching Traditions. All those things which are deliuered, either apper­taine to the principles of religion and con­stitution of manners, or else vnto ecclesia­sticall rites and orders of the Church, but those thinges which appertaine to prin­ciples of faith and manners, are most sure­ly contained in the Scriptures, neither is it anie hinderāce if certaine kinds of spéech to the easie explication of doctrine & prin­ciples of religion, be not found by expresse words in the holy Scriptures, so that the matter it selfe, & the sence signified by these tearms be extant in the scriptures: But as touching those things which appertain vn­to rites & ecclesiasticall order if they agrée with the Scriptures, and serue to the edi­fication of the Church: Yea, finally, if they be receiued with the common consent of the whole Church, then are they with greate reuerence to be receiued, and that this was the opinion and minde, of the auncient Fathers, I thinke it is [Page 172] sufficiently made manifest by these things which haue bene alleadged before: where­by we may sée, that the ground and mat­ter of our aduersaries is false.

Now therfore I denie their consequent:The error of the former obiection for the errour is in forme of reasoning: the Argument is grounded vpon the mis­vnderstanding of the fathers. Another er­rour is this: for that they take that to bée graunted; which lyeth betwéene vs in con­trouersie. For thus standeth the case be­twéene vs, whether in confirming princi­ples of faith, the scriptures alone be to bée harde, yea or nay. But our aduersaries straight waies propone to vs the opinion of Doctours, and thereby they by and by conclude, that the Scriptures alone are not to be heard, to wit, being vnmindful, that this selfe same thing is a controuersie betwéene vs. For if this opinion touching the which we doo dispute, may be determi­ned by the writings of the Doctors, then it followeth, that the scriptures alone are not to be heard in establishing articles of faith. Wherefore our aduersaries doo not rightly dispute, their first principle béeing not rightly applyed.

Wherefore the errour of their former [Page 173] conclusion, is thus to be corrected: In as­much as the writings of all the Doctors,Correc­ting of y^e former obiection must be brought vnto the rule of the holy scriptures, both the word of God so com­maunding it, and also the Doctors them­selues consenting therevnto: and the olde Doctors of the Church themselues, haue taught that euery article of our faith must be grounded vpon the scriptures only: fur­thermore Ecclesiastical rytes and ceremo­nies if they agrée with the scriptures, if they serue to the edification of the church: yea, finally, if they be receiued with com­mon consent of the whole Church, that then they are to be receiued with great re­uerence: Now héere we must diligently search out, whether that this opinion of the Doctours, be agréeable to the word of god, so that so farre it is to be receiued, as it hath his confirmation by the Scriptures. And because our whole Disputation is heere had onely touching principles of doc­trine necessarie to faith and saluation, that we may not seeme to wander from our proposed question, we héere cease: neyther will we take vppon vs the disputation of ecclesiasticall rites and ceremonies, which disputatio [...] if the matter so require, and [Page 144] God so permit vs, we will take in hand: But nowe we defer it vnto another time.

Thus haue I [...]ding to the methode proposed, to wit, d [...]ely and schoolelike,The con­clusion of y^e whole disputati­on. by the authoritie [...] 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 deceipts and errors of our ad­uersaries, are brought into open show: for in such sort haue we set down, opened, and confirmed our minde and iudgement, and so confuted and dissolued the errours and arguments of our aduersaries, both by the holy scriptures and also by the writings of the auncient fathers, that euerie man may easily sée, this doctrine which our reformed church by the word of God (which is ther­fore the true Catholike Church) doth hold and professe, is most true, which is: That All doctrine necessarie to our Chri­stian faith and Religion is con­tained in the holie Scrip­tures.

Laus Deo.