A TREATISE TOVCHING THE WORD OF GOD WRITTEN, against the Tradi­tions of men. Handled both Schoolelike, and Diuinelike. Where also is set downe a true Method to dispute Diuine­ly and Schoolelike. Made by A. SADEELE. And translated into English, by Iohn Coxe, Minister of the vvord of God.

Ephe. 5.
Awake thou that sleepest, stand vp from death, and Christ shall giue thee life.

Imprinted at London for Iohn Ha­rison, & are to be sold at the vvhite Greihound in Paules churchyard. 1583.

TO THE FAITH­FVLL SERVANTS OF IE­SVS CHRIT, THE GODLY AND learned Pastors and Doctors in the Chur­ches of Fraunce, professing the true doctrine of the Gospell, his deere bretheren and faithfull fellowe Ministers: AN­THONIE SADEELE wisheth all grace & peace from GOD.

CHRISOSTOM wri­ting on the 34.In Psa. 43. Ios. 6. Psalme, compareth the Pastors of Christs Church, vnto those Trumpets, by whose sound the walls of Iericho were quite ouerthrowen. The which saying (my deere brethren) the great diligence you vse in your function and office wherevnto you are called, and your extreame labours which you haue susteyned of late, (yea, and that not without greate fruite) ma­keth mee applye the same vnto you, [Page] For although the the Romish doctrine (i [...] in a­nie place it preuailed) most chiefly flourish­ed it [...], because there it was difended by the forces of men and as it were compas­sed about with most high and strong wall [...] yet notwithstanding by your voice & prea­ching the Gospell it is at the last brought to passe that the whole foundation of the Po­pish doctrine throwen downe, & the Walls therof being [...]ased, the horrible corruption, abuses &, errors there of is made manifest to the eies of all men. Wherfore when I com­pare this our time with the time of the Isra­elites, I cannot sufficiently accuse and con­demne the sluggish slothful [...] This our age, in respect of the greate [...] and watchfulnesse of the olde [...] they so soone as they sawe [...] [...]ho ouerthrowen, straight waies [...] and [...] the whole For Citie but [...] age although they haue seene, yea, and that now along time the heresies of the P [...]pish [...] to be made manifest and brought into [...] notwithstanding so far from [...] and rase them [...] of their mindes, that rather they helpe them with all their force. [Page] But to you my brethren which haue suffred many and so greate stormes, troubles, and griefes euen to you (I saie) beholde new la­bours daily arise, which must be ouercome with gret cōstācie & inuincible fortitude of minde. For that I may omit diuers & almost infinit other discommodities, I perceiue that you are exercised chiefly in two kindes of battailes. The one is for that daily wicked slaunderers (to wit) the ministers of lyes, op­pone themselues against the ministers of the truth, which by their lying Libels go about to vexe and deface the innocencie of the godly Pastours of the Church, with most horrible vntruths and impudent slaunders. Of this sort are some whome the heate of persecution hath deuoured, who by force, and as it were, with a storme and vehement tempest, carried vnto the Popish heresies, do now, with most obstinate mindes cleaue vnto the same, as it were vnto a most firme rocke. Yea, and that which is to be lamen­ted, they begging as it were thereby the po­pish prelates good will and fauour make no end of their malitious slaundering and wic­ked writings. This kinde of conflict in my opinion) you shall right well sustaine not by [Page] striuing against it, but by calling to minde the faying of Dauid in his 54.Psa. 54. Psalme, to wit, that it will at last come to passe that the slanderous tongue of these wicked slan­derets, will rebound & fall vpon themselues. For so it alwaies happene [...], that the wicked wound themselues with their owne wea­pons, and the innocencie of the godly re­maineth vnspotted, beeing deliuered from their vniust reports. The other kind of con­flict resteth, in the which you must thinke to labour both earnestly and diligently, as I know right wel ye do. For about a few yeres past, there hath risen vp certaine men, who abusing liberall artes and sciences, and chiefly that science which is ordained to the searching out of the truth, to wit, Logicke: wherby they might cōfirme & establish the Popish heresiesei and that they may the bet­ter carrie awaie the matter with craftie con­ueiaunce they turne the habite and forme of good learning, into a certaine sophysti­call and contentious manner of disputing, and such are chiefely those false named Ie­suits, for so I tearme those Monkes which wickedly take vppon them that most ho­ly name of Iesus, attributing it to theyr [Page] diuelish sect, and that not without greate blasphemie: And these nowe of late haue stuffed Vniuersities, which in times past were of great fame: and doo euen as it were possesse them alone, bearing an outwarde shew of greate learning, and chiefly chal­lenging vnto themselues the exact and right knowledge of disputing. Whose enterpri­ses sith I perceiue you goe aboute most chiefely and valiauntly to resist: I thought it meete and conuenient to publish some thing according to the abilitie which is [...] mee. And I whome no force, no tempest; no distaunce of place coulde separate from you, thought it good (I saie) to [...]ee ioyned a fellowe companion with you in this con­flict and most happie labour. And further­more, I haue determined with my selfe to followe that method of disputation, which seemeth to bee most fit for their purpose, as Theologicall, and therefore that kinde which most truely giueth resolutions to ar­guments: And this shall not onely be voide of all subtill Argumentes, and sophysti­call falacies, but also of all Rethorical ex­ercise.

[Page] And I haue chosen rather to drawe this same methode of disputing as much as in mee [...]) from the pure fountaines of the [...] Fathers, then followe the filthie [...] of those which [...] of late [...] kinde and order of disgu [...]ing: and touching this thing, I ex­pect both [...], and the iudge­ment of rather the best learned Diuines: to [...] I willinglie submit both this my opi­ni [...], and also my selfe, and although I [...] short kinde of disputing, [...] my purpose heereby [...] the [...] of other mens large and copious are [...] ▪ For as a certain man was [...]ont to saie, that the hande maie be spread abroad [...] and againe [...] him to­gether the [...]ingers, be bro [...]ght [...] likewise one matter maie by copi­ous eloquen [...] behand that [...], and bee­ing drawen together by short [...], maie as effe [...]llie be [...], more briefe. Let therfore each treatise whit [...] is written at large with copious & slowing stile haue his [...] honour, so that it he [...]at [...] to cō ­firme the truth.Plut. in Cic. For (as Plutarke saith) truth [Page] [...] inuineible if it be trulie declared & right­lie applied. And to Augustine (not without good cause,) eloquence seemeth so much the more to terrifie,De doct. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 14 in how much the more it is plaintie pronounced. Neuertheles, when need requireth, let vs also imbrace this short kinde of disputing, which is verie profitable so ofte a [...] we be occupied in the searching out of the truth, inasmuch as it draweth vs backe, that we follow not the similitude of truth, for truth it selfe, and so shoulde bee deceiued with a counterfaite probabilitie of truth: which things; sith they are so, some man maie dema [...]nd, wherefore that great Orator Tullie, comparing Oratorie with this sharp and schoole like Disputation,De nat. deor, l [...], 2. and peraduenture ouer-well liking his owne Arte, saith thus: As a flowing Riuer can scarce or not at all be corrupted or putrifi­ed, but a standing water maie verie soone: so likewise by the floud of eloquence, the faults of the reprehender are soone wiped awaie, when as niggishnes of speach, and want of eloquence, scarce can defend it selfe: thus much Cicero. The which as I confesse that it maie happen both in the sophisti­call and probable kinde of disputing, so do [Page] I denie that it can chaunce or agree with true and demonstratiueie Silogismes. For as the Riuer (that we maie not swarue from the similitude which wee haue propo [...]ed) while it runneth afloate [...] aboue his bankes, doth gather most foule and filthie things of [...] sort, which [...] and are couered while as the flouds are aloft: so of­tentimes great errors (with copiousnesse of speach did) are by true and briefe disputa­tions declared & laid open for the copie of eloquence taken awaie, things doo appeare both naked and manifest as they are. But heereof we will speake more in the Pre­face. And now I set downe first a disputa­tion touching the word of god writtē, which as it is chiefe, so ought it to be the verie foū ­dation of all disputations. The other dispu­tations as of the true humane nature of Christ, of the presence of Christ in the sa­crament, of the true and lawfull making of Ministers, (touching which thinges I wrote some thing about two yeares past against Turrianus that false named Iesuit, and will handle it more at large, whensoeuer he shal giue anie newe occasion to write) also free will, Purgatorie, and such lyke, maye bee [Page] grounded on this sayde Disputation. And this my bretheren I hope you will dooe, either according to this methode which I haue followed, or according to that which you shall better like of. Wherefore I be­seech the defenders of the Romish Church, and chiefelye those which challenge vn­to them such skill in disputing, that they will bring the same from the darke shad­dowe of the Schooles, into the open and cleere light, yea, to the true point of dispu­ting in deede, and that all mallice put a parte, all nipping tauntes set aside, let them modestlye and with quiet mindes pursue this my treatise, and when they haue ente­red into disputation with me, let them first note what is worthie of reprehention, and then let them giue solutions vnto my argu­mentes: and on the other side, let them confirme theyr opinions with plaine and euident Sylogismes and Argumentes, and so I hope it shall at the last come to passe (if GOD permit) that when both our opinions are conferred together, the truth will shewe it selfe, and bee manifest­ly seene euen of those which bee almost blinde.

[Page] Let therefore those bookes which are re­pleat with nothing els but with bitter cho­ler, spotted & stained with the sores of their masters [...] yea, and those seditious Sermons which blovve forth nothing else but fire & sword, let them (I say) cease & be quite bani­shed, & in steed hereof let there be meeknes & tranquilitie: yea, let the loue & inward af­fection of the truth beare swaie: & let those which so greatly affect that excellent name of Catholikes (which so often with open mouthes repeat & pronounce the same) re­member what S. Augustin hath written, to wit, that the Catholike Church doth teach that wee owe loue vnto all, and iniurie to none. But if there be anie such, which go for­ward with shamelesse faces and obstinate mindes still to write and spread abroad their sichophanticall and infamous Libells, or if there bee anie such which so farre degene­rateth from men, that they had rather obsti­nately to bark against the truth, then to im­brace the same, the vvhich amongest others I heare there is one especially, vpon whom the fearful exāple of Gods most iust iudg­ment is manifest, not onlie for other his vn­godlinesse, but chiefly for his wicked Apo­stacie [Page] and backe sliding from the Gospell, which sometime he professed. If I say there bee anie such, I vvish vnto them better mindes, & oppose this my vowe and wish against their shamelesse wickednesse and malitious railing, professing that I will not vouchsafe to ansvvere such their pamphlets, knowing right well that such their dooings may be vtterly wiped awaie euen with one little spark of patience. Againe, touching my selfe, I professe that I will not reade those their vvritings in the vvhich they spue forth their foule poisoned choler, because I haue determined to dispute, and not to braule, to contend vvith arguments, and not vvith im­pious railings. And you my reuerend bre­thren, fight [...] of faith (for I may lavvfully vse the Apostles exhorta­tion vnto you fight [...] vvor­thie battaile of faith, and apprehend euer­lasting life, for vvhich cause you are called, & haue professed a good profession before manie vvitnesses. And therefore regarding nothing at all this vvicked rable, run your course vvith stout courage, vnremoued con­stancie, and inuincible patience, in the truth of the Gospell of God, as you haue begun: [Page] that is that you go forvvard vvith exact di­ligence and integritie, to fight against mans [...]rrors, that the course of your labours most manfully being finished, yee may leaue vn­to the posterities to come, the puritie of [...], and the true vse of ec­clesiasticall discipline.


[Page] [Page 1] A COMMON PLACE TOVCHING THE WORD OF GOD WRIT­TEN, AGAINST THE TRA­ditions of Men. Handled both Schoole like, & Diuinely. Wherein is intreated of the true method of Disputing.


THE Apostle Paule writing to Timothie, 2. Epist. 3. affirmeth that the holie Scripture is pro­fitable both to teach, as also to reproue: thereby shew­ing that men are not onely to be taught, but also often times to be re­proued.The preacher ought to teach & reproue. For truly it is manifest, that men are so corrupt, that they doe not onely re­maine in ignorance of the truth, euen as it were in a palpable and thicke darknesse, but also for the most part, they hate & flie the light of the same. And although both [Page 2] are greatly to be lamented, yet it is bet­ter to haue to doo with those which are ig­norant and willing to learne, then with them which are delighted with their blind­nesse and ignorance: because it is a great deale more tollerable to be ignorant, then not to be willing to learne. Whereby it commeth to passe, that because the mini­sters and the instructors of the congregati­ons,Tit, [...], must haue to doo with both these kind of men, they are therefore willed by the A­postle to be such, as shoulde holde fast the word of truth: so that they shuld be able to instruct by wholsome doctrine, and also to confute the gaine-saiers thereof. And as touching these two points in ye true Prea­cher,Aug, Enc. ad Laure, when Augustine had disputed and compared the one with the other: It is an easie matter (saith he) to declare what wee ought to beleeue, what wee ought to hope for, and what we ought to loue: but to de­fend the truth, and refell the wicked opini­ons of others which thinke to the contrarie, is the greater and better part of learning. These are Augustines words: The which [...] they are, experience it selfe long time since hath taught vs: for what great troubles the godly fathers of the Church [Page 3] had in times past with the olde heretikes, and chiefly with those which did excell in the sophisticall and litigious kinde of dis­putation, we may easilye sée by the wri­tings of the catholicke Doctors, and those which on our part did enter into yt sharpe conflict of disputation,To re­proue false doctrine the right vse of disputation is no small helpe In laud. Basil better furnished, to wit, armed with weapons of good lerning, dispersed without any great adoo, the thick mystes of sophisticall disputation, by the manifest light of ye truth. Amongst which auncient Fathers, Nazianzenus séemeth to giue the chiefest commendation to Ba­sil, for that he aboue all others, excelled in the true science of disputation and reaso­ning, the which praise we maye attribute also to Gregorius Nissenus. And Augustine (that I maye vse his owne wordes,Epist. 151 who was woont to reioyce of his disputations, and therein delighted himselfe) did fréely confesse,Contra Aca. li. 3 ca 13. that the Arte of Logicke was a very great & ready helpe vnto him in the vnderstanding and vndooing of the He­retickes Sophisticall and subtill Argu­ments.

And Tertulian, [...] who was long time before Augustine, doeth not denye in these his Bookes, in which most happelye [Page 4] he contended with the heretikes, that hée was often times driuen to dispute with them in Philosophie: which things I héere bring in,They are refuted vvhich wold not haue di­uines me dle vvith the true art of dis­puting. Col. 2. because I sée all (for ye most part) somewhat to mislike this Art of Logicke, otherwise most profitable: as though Paule had vtterly excluded the same from diui­nitie, wher he warneth, that we must take héed least anie man spoile vs through Phi­losophie: & héere they gather much out of ye writings of the olde Fathers, which they suppose maketh for them against Logicke, and against the exact knowledge of dispu­tation.Aduer. 159. Epis. in cap. 2. Esa. And therefore they willingly har­ken to Nazianzene, in that place where he compareth the Logitians, vnto the Moa­bites and Ammonites: and now they snatch after that place of Basil, where he tearmeth Logicke to bée the mother of contention: & sometimes they crie out with Tertulian, saying.De prae­scri. haer. O miserable Aristotle, which first armed the heretiks wt Logick, wherby like crafty artificers, they might (as they listed) set vp & destroie. To whom in few words I doo thus answere: The Apostle Paule did not reiect the good & right knowledge of disputing, which by certaine necessarie principles produceth and bringeth forth [Page 5] the knowledge of the truth: but rather that vaine art of deceiuing with those sophisti­call and deceitful snares, the which the he­retikes are wont full subtilly to folde to­gether, whereby they may deceiue the god­ly & faithfull. And that this was the mind of the Apostle, it is manifest not onely by the order of the Apostles spéech, but also by that he vseth this word [Apates] which is [...] craft or circumuention by subtiltie. Sith then the good vse of Logicke chiefly tends vnto this end, to dispearse abroade the fallaces and subtill crafts of sophistrie, to expell errours, to reproue lies, and to set before our eies most manifestly the light of the truth: Who can with good consci­ence thinke that the Apostle at anie time did reiect this so worthie & necessarie sci­ence? For how can it be possible, that hée which doth professe himselfe an enimie to false sophistications, should not loue ye sci­ence of right disputing, which is Logicke, being altogether contrarie to false & sub­til reasoning: and ordained to this end, that by the helpe and aide therof, we may more easily auoide the snares of those which are captious? For as he which hateth darknes,A simili­tude. must of necessitie greatly reioyce in ye beu­tie [Page 6] of the light: so he that will shut out of the church the false de [...]eits of arguments, he I say, must of necessitie, leaue a place in the Church for sound and true reasoning, by the which ye vaine deceits of those men may be the easier reproued, and the better auoided: Except peraduenture we thinke the science and art of phisicke is altogether to be reiected, because it teacheth men to knowe those thinges which are hurtfull; wherby to take he [...]d of them, & to vse onely those things which appertaine to y preser­uation of health & life. Wherfore Nazian­zene saith (yea, truly right excellent is his saying) for somwhat the must answere to the former obiection) y the Sophisters are like vnto the Moabites & Ammonits which were prohibited the temple of God: so y al­so we acknowledge this, yt the true art of Logicke is not compared to the Morbites & Ammonits, but rather to them of Tyrc and Sidon, by whose helpe Solomon was great­ly furthered in building of the [...] also is worthie of great praises, in y he saith, y Sophistre is the mother of con­tentions, so y thereby wée lou [...] the more ye armour, by which y forme of good learning maketh vs able to fight for the truth [...]

[Page 7] Finally we may hearken to Tertulian crying out against the same, calling it the craftie art of setting vp & plucking downe againe, to wit, euen indéede that parte of Logicke which is alwaies occupied in con­tentions, and neuer maketh end. But let vs reuerence the other part, which giueth resolutions to false arguments, & seuereth things necessary from those which are not, and doth so maintaine the truth and beat downe falsehood, that it remaineth alwaies one, because it is ioyned to the firme foun­dation of the truth. And that this was the minde of the olde Fathers touching the right order of disputing, whosoeuer shall diligently marke the auncient doctors, wil easily agrée vnto vs. For what saith Nazi­anzenus whom those men so often cast in our téeth;Ad 150. Epi, in S, ca. Esai. The truth (saith he) by Logicall disputations is filed and brought to light. And furthermore what sayth Basil? That the true force of Logicke is distinctly to di­uide the nature of things, The aun­cient Fa­thers cō ­mended [...] right vse of Logick whereby we may knowe those things which are of affinitie, and distinguish those which are contra­rie. And Augustine seuering the true vse of Logicke from the abuse of Sophi­strie, saith:Con. Aca­li. 3 If Logicke bee the know­ledge [Page 8] of the truth, so then it behooueth the wise to haue knowledge thereof, that therby he may vtterly race out the malitious false­hod of the craftie disputers, & contemne the same. But there cannot be a more excellent witnesse for this, then the testimonie of S. Augustine, where he saith, that Logicke is the onely Science of all other, De ord, li. 2. ca. 12 which teach­eth both how to teach, and how to learne: and doth shew a man how to perceiue, and to make other to vnderstand: Thus much Augustine. Wherefore, sith the case so standeth, let this so worthie arte & science, haue hir condigne and due praise, and let vs be bold to say, that they reason nothing wisely, which in these our dayes start vp, and foolishly speake against Logicke.

But héere peraduenture some man may demand of me,Touch­ing the writings and dispu­tations of y schoole Doctors. whether this my commen­dation doth extend it selfe to the Schoole­men, and chiefely vnto those which haue taken their originall from the Master of sentences, and whether their writings doo appertaine to that good and true parte of Logicke, which resolueth doubtfull ar­guments? Truly, as I am not willing at this time to set down my absolute opinion (touching so many me [...]) héerein: for, for my [Page 9] owne part let each one of them haue his due reuerence for his trauaile and labour, so am I not afeard to speake both boldly & fréely my minde, what I thinke, alwayes (not withstanding) kéeping my selfe with­in my compasse:In. 3. sent. dist. 24. quest. 1. Iohn Duns Scotus (com­monly called the subtill Doctor) saith that the Diuines haue in some places mixed Philosophie with Diuinitie, & that with great profit: I truly confesse that they haue mingled it with diuinitie, yea I adde they haue therewith confused Diuinitie, but if he thinke it was done with any fruite, I beséech master Doctor pardon me if I can­not héerein agrée with him: for sithen the Schoolemen haue not followed that good part of disputing, which giueth true reso­lutions to arguments (as we shall héeraf­ter declare) but haue as it were dallied & sported themselues in probabilities, & bée­ing for the most part vaine & friuolous ar­gumēts, me thinks they haue not brought into the Church of God the true vse, but rather the abuse of Philosophie: and tru­ly, I say it séemeth to me, that into ye midst of ye Church, the Schoolemen haue brought sophistication and shamelesse falshood, dec­ked and adorned with the colour & name [Page 10] of Philosophie, as of an honest matrone, to the great detriment & hurt of the Church. But you will saye, they haue not gotten this sharpe knowledge of disputing with­out great labour and paines: I graunt it to be so: for oftentimes when I sée these schoole men labouring, sweating, and as it were out of breath in these their, subtill disputations, they make me to remember the Troyans, which with great labour and care brought into their Citie, the counter­faite Grecian Horse, whereby ensued the ruine of the whole Kingdome of Troy. Great, but vnprofita­ble is the labour of the schoole Doctors. So these schoolemen with great industrie and labour, haue brought into the church false Philosophie: that therehence, as from the Troyan horse might spring infinit errors: by which, while these who should haue ben the watchmen ouer the Church, were euen ouer whelmed in schoole ignoraunce, those errors haue crept in, corrupted and wasted the Church of God (so as I maye vse the saieng of Esayas) Except the Lord had left vs a smal remnant, we had had no church at all. A proofe héereof is the Church of Rome, so depraued and corrupted, that while we séeke the Church in the Church, we are constrained, not without great sor­row [Page 11] and teares, onely to behold the ashes of the true Church. But because I maye not séeme héere more willing to lament, then to dispute: mark what I say, to wit, that the schoolemen and questionarie Doc­tors, haue neither followed the true man­ner of diuine disputations,Certaine Errours which are to bee found in the dispu­tations of the schoole Doctors The first errour to make their ground Logicke See Sco­tus and others, who haue vvritten vpon the master of sentences, and in their dis­putations called Quodli­bets, &c. neither lawful vse of Logicke: & that this may the more euidently appeare, out of diuers & sundry their errors, I will gather certaine, by the which we may plainly sée, that they haue [...]rred not a little in their disputations, from the true manner of diuine Dispu­ting.

The first errour that the schoolemen ad­mit in their disputations is this: yt they are wont to dispute by the principles of Logicke, and from thence to fetch their conclusions. So questions being proposed, they make the grounde thereof Logicke, and not Diuinitie, so that the Scrip­tures in these their Disputations, are dumme and speachlesse: for they often­times alleadge the Philosophers as Au­thoures in theyr Disputations, but ve­rye seldome the Apostles.

And if at anye time they bring in the Doctours, they confusedlye mingle [Page 12] their authoritie with the authoritie of the Scriptures, neither doubt they to tearme their writings, by the name of the Scrip­tures.Lomb. li. 1. Sent. dist. 34. & li. 2. sent. dist. 9. &c But we haue learned and that out of diuinitie to take our principles from di­uinitie, when so euer we dispute thereof: and that we ought so to doe, it is manifest euen by Logicke, which doth forbid to goe from the principles of one art to another, or to wander without the compasse of the science, wherein wée haue begun to dispute. Sithen then, diuinitie is farre a­boue all other sciences, it were not onely v [...]rie foolish, but also impious and vngod­ly, to make it subiect to the principles of Philosophie. And also to make the Doctors equall with the Prophets and Apostles, is altogether a thing intollerable. Where­fore I thinke no man doubteth (except hée wil reason like an Atheist) but that I haue sufficiently proued this first errour of the Shoolemen.

The second errour is this, that in mat­ters of diuinitie which are most true and plaine, [...]. Error. To reasō probably on plaine truths. they dispute both Pro and Contra, as it were with probable argument vpon the grounds thereof: when as they ought not so to doo in these pointes: it béeing [Page 13] both from the vse of true reasoning, as al­so from the nature of diuinitie: for Topi­call talke of disputations are to be left to common kinde and exercises. But treati­ses or disputings standing vpon infalla­ble grounds (of which sort most chiefly are the disputations of diuinitie) doe require demonstratiue, plaine, and euident dispu­tatiōs, which ought to stand on most true, necessarie, and infallable Sylogismes or arguments. Indéede the Philosophers were wont sometimes to dispute both Pro and Contra, touching the principles of their artes and sciences, that the truth might thereby more manifestly appeare. But the diuines dispute not about the principles of diuinitie, because they are of themselues most true, and without all con­trouersie. And furthermore ther is nothing more contrarie to the nature of faith, then doubtfulnesse, and that accademicall wa­uering in giuing consent; the which being a long time a goe buryed and cleane wi­ped awaie by the most learned disputati­ons of Saint Augustine, Contra Aca. and other the olde Fathers, is nowe at last most vn­luckely (I know not by what meanes) raised newe by the Schoole Doctors, and [Page 14] euen as it were brought out againe from hell.Apolog, ad [...], louin Verie sharply did Hierome taunt Iouinian, for that hée disputed in a que­stion of diuinitie after the manner of the Schooles, and not according to the true vse of doctrine: If then hée so taunted him, how much more sharply would he inueigh against these our Schoole men▪ which haue accustomed themselues to dispute no other wayes euen in the principles and grounds of diuinitie.

And moreouer it commeth to passe and often times happeneth to the Schoole men which are tossed nowe on this side, and nowe on that side, as in many▪ and sun­drie waues of Argumentes: at the last (I saie) it commeth to passe, y they them­selues knowe not to what hauen, as to a sure porte to betake themselues: Yea, euen so, that that subtill Scotus, as also many other doo leaue theyr matter euen rawe and vndetermined, giuing leaue to theyr Readers to bée on which side they will. If you bée of this side (saie they) then must you aunswere the contrarie argu­mentes: but if you had rather to bée on the other side, then loe, this haue you to aunswere to the contrarie parte. [Page 15] Naie: what is this: That in many ob­iections they saye nothing, but bidde the Reader séeke the resolution himselfe if hée will haue it: yea, and againe some­time they saie, let him answere that can. I pray you now tell me, are these diuine­like disputations wherein aboue all other things is required a certaine perswasiō of faith? or is this analitical or resolute, wher as the Philosophers wil haue nothing ta­ken for resolute & certaintie, except it bée brought to an infallible knowledge: and then to place these things in the most firm degrée of truth?

The thirde errour is that they obscure and doo not beautifie the truth with their subtill craftinesse:3. Error▪ They darken the truth. for they make those things which be difficult and harde, more harde by their crooked and ill fauoured questions: and againe, those thinges, which are easie, and not harde of them­selues, they altogether darken by theyr intricate obscuritie and darkenesse of que­stions; and as the common saieng is, they séeke to vndoo a knotte where none is.

And is there anye man (I praye you whatsoeuer) except hée haue altogether [Page 16] hardened himselfe with these their barba­rismes, which doth not vtterly flie them: yea if he doo but onely heare the horrible hissing of their barbarous wordes, right soone perswadeth himselfe, g he shal neuer be able to carrie in his mind those things, which his eares cannot abide to heare. Wherfore, that which Augustine somtime spake of Sophistrie,Con. Aca. may very well (as me thīketh) agrée with ye schoole doctors, to wit, that it was like to Cacus caue: for while as the Schoolemen doo so reioyce in strange opinions as in forreine riches, they so affect obscuritie & séeke such starting holes, that so often as they dispute, they séeme not to explicate the matters, but rather to make the same intricate, and in truth there is not so much heard the voyce of men, as the bellowing of beastes, out of those darke caues of their obscure questions.

And finally the fourth error is,Error. 4 Is theyr vaine questions that the schoolemen or rather questionarie Doctors, doo spend their time in vain and friuolous questions, and those not so expounded, as darkened by them: the which vainnesse in words the Apostle would haue altogether abandoned from him, who is a preacher in the Church of God. For a little after hée [Page 17] saith, Foolish and vnprofitable questions forsake,2. Tim. 2 knowing that they bréede strife. And how true this is, it doeth enidently appeare in the questionarie Doctors, of whome you shall scarce finde two that doo agrée in one opinion. For so Scotus doeth disagrée from Thomas of Aquine, and Oc­cam from Scotus, and the other from Oc­cam, that you can scarce enter into theyr writings, but that you must be pertaker of their contention and strife: when as indéed those are the true diuine treatises and ex­ercises in diuinitie, which establish & con­firme our faith, and are made to the edifi­ [...]ng & comfort of ye whole church. And ther­fore r [...]ght well doth Augustine admonish vel, saying:E [...]chi. [...]d Lauren. cap. 55. That there is no neede to deter­minate or open those things with daunger, which may be vnknown without danger or hurt▪ wherby we may easily perceiue that ye kind of disputing which y Popish schoole doctors haue vsed, hath verie litle or no fel­lowship, with ye true diuine treatises or ex­cercises. Wherefore y I may haue some fa­ [...]uour of those which professe thēselues eni­ [...]ious to Logicke: héere I shew them how y they may turne their former vpbraidings & repr [...]hentions: and may say y the philoso­phie [Page 18] of these questionarie doctors & schoole­men is altogether vain deceit, yea, the mo­ther of contention, that craftie art of buil­ding and destroying, which ought vtterly to be repulsed from ye true Church of God, [...]ogether both with the Moabites & Ammo­nits: Thus let them saie, and then I must néeds confesse, that I haue nothing to saie against them.

But the Popish Schoole men of this our age,The Po­pish schol doctours of ou [...] time frame not such argumentes in their dis­putations as y auncient lear­ned vvere vvont. fa [...]e vnto themselues another [...]inde of writing: for these contriue not together naked Silogismes as the other were want, but they vse long and tedious declamations, chiefly against those which professe the sinceritie of pure doctrine of ye Gospell: in dooing of which matter, they willingly abstaine from silogismes or ar­guments. For where as for the most parte they blowe forth their malitious [...], & [...] their vile [...], thinking it cannot be aptly concluded in mode and fi­gure after a short forme of argument, ther­fore they rather [...] a more larger scope of disputing. Sith thē as I suppose▪ it is manifest euen by those thinges which I haue before declared, y the disputations of ye popish doctors are neither true diuine dis­putatiōs, [Page 19] nor ordered by ye rules of logicke. It shall be necessarie & néedfull therefore to set down some method,The me­thod to dispute both di­uinely & schoole like, ne­cessatie in our time. wherby we may dispute both diuinely & also schoolike: & (to repeat Augustines words) y we may be a­ble vtterly to banish the false brauling of sophistrie, the which (I woulde to God) the learned diuines & those which are skilfull in ye same most excellent art of Logick, (of the which sorte I doubt not but there bee many) would determine with themselues to doo, & so to set downe both to vs nowe, & also to the posterities héereafter, ye waie to dispute both schoolike & diuinelike. For if S. Augustine most excellently compared ye knowledge of humane sciences,D [...] doct. Chri. lib. 2. cap. 40. vnto ye tre­sure of Aegypt, which ye Israelites carried a­way with them: truely then we which see many in these our daies to abuse those so­ [...]en ornaments and riches, to the f [...]aming of error, that Idoll: it were not amisse but very requisite & necessarie, that the good & learned men, shuld willingly bestow those riches, to the building of the tabernacle of God, and to the fortifying of the truth a­gainst the errors of men. And vntill those which doe excell in the studie of diuinitie, as also in the science of Logicke, doo take [Page 20] in hand to perfourme this matter, I will set downe something as touching this, (although slender) for those young mens sakes, which are studious of Diuinitie: so that they which héerafter write, may adde the true colours to these my first and rude liniaments.

There are two waies how to intreate of Diuinitie,Tvvo vvayes to intreat of diuinitie. the one compact with a full and flowing style, which teacheth the sim­ple, 1 & stirreth vp the slouthfull to imbrace 2 the doctrine of truth: The other more pithie, but short, the which putting away those things that may moue the affections of the minde, and deuesting it selfe of all flowers of Rhetoricke, sheweth vnto vs things simple and plaine as they are of themselues, and setteth downe plaine and naked arguments, so that the truth of mat­ters may be manifestly séene, and as it were touched with our hands. And this last way perchaunce, is not so well wel­come to those which, are delighted in ple­santnesse of speach but truly no lesse pro­fitable to all those which are both louers of simplicitie, and desirous of the truth.A simili­tude. For like as the view of mans bodie is a great deale more pleasaunt to beholde, [Page 21] while it is clad with the flesh, & the bloud running in each veyne, hauing a comelye colour: yet notwithstanding if we come at any time to the Anatomie, then the fa­cultie of each part, and the constitution of the whole bodie is a great deale better knowne: so if any wil wisely & diligent­ly weigh those larger and pleasanter trea­tises,The brief & school like treatises are as it vver an Anatomy of ye large and copi­ous vvri­ting or speakings and bring them to arguments as vn­to Anatomies, then without doubt he shal easily perceiue, whether they be absolute & perfect in euerie point; or whether there be anye thing wanting: and as the Phisiti­on sheweth foorth euen as it wer with the finger, the original and causes of diseases, so shal he héere doo touching errors, if there be any. The former sort doeth indéede de­lyght the mindes, as wll of those which are learned, as those which are vnlearned: but this latter manner of exercise, sith it is occupied in that onely kinde of matter, which appertaineth to doctrine, is more méete for those which are best learned, who are nothing moued with the floud of vain wordes, if especially there be no force of matter contained in them, because that speach without reason, is not to be coun­ted any thing worth. Augustine, Ciprian, [Page 22] Hillarie, Hieronimus, and diuers olde lear­ned Fathers, haue vsed this kinde of dis­puting very much: & this also the schoole­men seemed to professe, but with what suc­cesse I haue shewed alreadie. But chieflye we must consider and haue great care on doth sides, that when we dispute touching doctrine, all our arguments be necessarye and pertaining to doctrine, so that they bée grounded vppon most sure principles and infallible groundes of Diuinitie. And a­boue all things, we must beware that we take not things which may be disputed on both sides, for things necessarie: things which be strange, for those that are know­en: falshoode, for truth; the which trulye dooth happen oftentimes in much lauish­ing out of speach, the which ye aduersaries of the truth, most commonly abuse, where by they may the more conuenientlye hyde themselues vnder the couerte of manye words: so that when they haue said much, [...]hey would also séeme to haue spokē truth. The best & chiefest for this mis­chiefe is, if after the long circumstaunces, that then there be­ [...] fet downe a briefe Lo­gicall handling of those their wordes spo­ken before, to be as it were an Anatomie [Page 23] and recapitualation of all subtil sophemes, and craftie fallaces: And when the false­hood of words is cleane taken away, it wil bewray those things which are false, it wil set truth against falshood, and beare them both out: yea finally it wil bring to passe (euen as Augustine sometime said) That each thing with other,Cout. Ma [...]. lib. 3. cause with cause, and reason with reason may striue together. And héere who séeth not, that when errors are cleane taken awaye, how easely the truth will ouercome: and the same truth which the huge floud of words had ouer whelmed, will euen willingly as it were aduaunce hir selfe vp againe. Sith then that school­like handeling of matters will bring so great profit (so ye Logick be directed by the true rules of diuinitie) I thē intreat & be­séech these learned diuines of this our age, which are defēders of ye gospel, yt they haue [...]are héerof, & set down vnto vs some certain & easie methode of this schoolike way, how to handle each point: y which we may fol­low, and the which also may be both to vs present, as also to ye posterities héereafter a most true touchstone wherby we may trie the sundry workes of diuers men, which haue written of diuinitie: ye which if they [Page 24] shall performe, they shal greatly profit the Church of God, especially in these times, in which each man striueth in setting forth of bookes touching the principall pointes of diuinitie, who may doo best. For where as the Ciuilians only write touching their lawes, the Phisitions of their facultie, and so all others of those artes and sciences which they professe, & in ye which they are conuersant: yet notwithstanding it com­meth to passe (I knowe not by what meanes) that not onely diuines, but also men cleane voide of diuinitie, of all sorts, are wont now euerie where to dispute in their bookes touching diuinitie: so yt héere­in I assent with Nazianzene, De mod. in disp. Ser. which be­fore time hath most gréeuously complai­ned of this matter. And we haue thought good to publish this our small labour a­broad, not yt we thinke we haue obteyned ye same methode whith we desire, but that by this meanes we may at the least giue a testimonie that wée looke for a more exact methode from the learned diuines, yea, and earnestly desire them to performe the same.

Beholde then wée héere set downe a schoolelike treatise of diuinitie, takē out of [Page 25] the first Chapter of the Epistle to the He­brewes, to wit,A treatise of ye word of God vvritten. touching the word of God written, against mannes traditions, about which matter there is great controuersie betwéene vs and the Papists. And for this cause I omit the handling of this point at large, because it may be easily séene in the writings of late, set forth on both partes: of which writings I wil make as it were a certaine resolution or anatomie in this schoole like treatise.Hovv the disputati­ons of di­unitie differ frō others, & that they ought re­uerently to bee handled. But before I come to this my purpose, I am willing somewhat to admonish the Reader, howe that these disputations touching ye Scriptures doth farre differ from all others. For in dispu­tations of Philosophie, Phisicke, ciuill go­uernment, and such other, there eloquence sheweth it selfe, there desire to excell doeth rule, there oratorie pleading bursteth out: yea, oftentimes in such matters, men desire nothing but to shew forth the brauenesse of their wits, or else séeke after glorie and praise. But in diuine disputations, where (as Augustine sayth) Brauerie must not bée sought,De doct. Chri. li. 4. cap. 19 but good documentes and les­sons, and that with great reuerence: yea, and verie reuerently wée must dispute of holy things, not as vpon the stage before [Page 26] men, but as in the middest of the Church before the liuing God and his Angelles: not for the desire of victorie, but for the maintenaurce of the truth, in as much as Paule forbiddeth the Pastours of the Church, once to speake of vaine questions,1. Tim. 6. or contentions of wordes, which can scarce be done without the detrument of the truth. Wherfore praying aide at the hands of almightie God, that he will direct and establish this our labour by his holy spi­rit, let vs procéede into this most holy con­flict, in the which the worde of GOD is the place of combat, God himselfe the chiefe Iudge, truth the victorie, saluation the garland of triumph. And héereby with more valiant mindes we take vpon vs this most noble conflicte, because it otherwise happeneth in this, then in other battayles, for there hée alone is crowned which vanquisheth, but ye ende of this bat­taile is such, that euen hée which is van­quished (so that hée acknowledge himselfe ouercome and imbrace the truth) shal like­wise bée crowned,Quest. ver. 108. together with the vic­tour. And Augustine sayth, that it is bet­ter to be ouercome of the truth, then to be willing to ouercome the truth with false­hoode. [Page 27] For whatsoeuer men practise a­gainst the truth, yet this must they know, to wit, that veritie cannot be vanquished: the which Augustine also calleth perpetu­all victorie.De Ciuie. Dei. li. 2. cap. 29. 1

Furthermore, this point of doctrine,The vse of this disputation. touching the which our disputation is, is of so greate weight that it maye bée thought (and that worthelye) to bée the verie foundation of all Religion. And therefore (not without greate cause) the Prophet Dauid doeth acknowledge the worde of GOD to bée a Lanterne,Psal. 119. the which except it lighten our féete, of neces­sitie wée must walke in most horrible darkenesse: yea, also wée both stumble and fall. But the defenders of the Po­pish Church, doo so hotly striue and con­tende for mans Traditions, and thinke them no lesse worthie to bée retayned, then some precious Picture of Pallas, the which béeing taken awaye, they thinke it not possible any longer to defend or main­taine their pontificiall chaire, wherein there haue bene so manye Vicars assaulted, and nowe at the last (Truth preuaylyng) shall be quite ouerthrowen and brought vnto naught. But that wée maye [Page 28] come to the matter,The diui­siō of this vvorke this disputation shall be diuided into sixe parts. First, we will 1 set downe our owne opinion and then the opinion of the aduersarie: & then we will trie them both, so y thereby maye appeare 2 what is the state of our controuersie. Se­condly, we will confirme our opinion by manifest proofe of scriptures, and by most sure and flat demonstrations grounded on 3 those places so collected. Thirdly, we will refell the opinion of the other partie by ne­gatiue 4 disputations. Fourthly, we will wipe away the obiections of the aduersa­rie, which they wrest out of the scriptures. 5 Fiftly, we will take away ye foundations which they take out of the writings of the Doctors, to ground their opinions on. 6 And sixtly, we will heare the olde Doctors touching this point, a­greeing both with vs, and the word of God. ⁂


He, 1. ve. [...] ¶At sundrie times, and in diuers manners, God spake in the olde time to our Fa­thers by the Prophets: In these last dayes, he hath spoken vnto vs by his sonne.’

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 ye Epistle to ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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.

The second Chapter.

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 ye 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.

The first place.

God at sundrie times and indiuers man­ners in the old times,Heb. 1 spake to our fathers by the Prophets, but in these last daies, he hath spoken vnto vs by his sonne.

Whereby we conclude thus.

If the word of God being sufficient or necessarie vnto the saluation of the church,The Sylogisme or argument was deliuered first vnto vs by the Prophets and then by Christ and his Apostles, and that worde of GOD so deliuered by the Prophettes, is this daye onelye to bee [Page 36] sought for in the writings of the Prophets. Then truly the word of God deliuered vn­to vs by Christ and his Apostles, must bee sought for onely in the writings of the A­postles, except any good reason may be gi­uen to the contrarie.

But the word of God necessarie to the saluation of the Church, was deliuered first vnto vs by the Prophets, & then by Christ & his Apostles, & the same word of God deliuered by the Prophets, is this day onely to be sought in the writings of the Prophets & no wher els: neither any good reson to the cōtrarie can be rendred, why the like shuld not be, touching the word of god deliuered by Christ and his Apostles.

Wherefore we conclude, that the word of god necessarie to the saluatiō of the church, is onely to be sought for in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles.

Now let vs trye our argument.The expli­cation or proofe of the argu­ment. This syllogisme or argument is hypothetical or double, ye vse wherof is verie necessarie so often as we shall be occupied in ye compa­ring of things together. And ye hypotheti­cal or double arguments are verie néedful in diuine disputations, is manifest both by the old Doctors, also by ye new schoolemen, [Page 37] who most often vse them. Wherefore I doubt not to vse these, euen as well as the categoricall arguments: because the mat­ter or grounds of our disputations are not Topicall, or standing on the inuention of art, but grounded on expressse places of Scriptures, and therefore those kind of ar­guments, are not inferiour to others. The ground or matter therefore of our argu­ment is made manifest euen by the light of nature,The con­firmation of the cōference. who biddeth vs of things like, to iudge the like. And these principles which we haue drawne from nature her selfe, the Apostle teacheth vs that they are not to be reiected, when as in the matter of regene­ration, he bringeth the Corinthians to the consideration of nature: For being schoo­led by natures rule, sayth Tertulian, Tert. de resur. car. thou maist the easilier beléeue the Prophesie. Now if wée marke the substance, we shall finde the worde of God both in the olde testament and in the new to bée all one: For the Apostle professeth, saying: That he hath spoken nothing, but that which the Prophets and Moses had before spoken.Act. 26. I confesse that the publishing of the word of God in ye new Testament, was a great deale more excellent and fruitfull then be­fore: [Page 38] yea, and that maketh for our cause, and therefore farre wide is it, that it shuld hurt vs or our matter, as héereafter in our disputation, we will more at large proue. Let vs then make a comparison betwéene the olde and newe Testament, as much as appertaineth to the word of God exhibited in them both after this sort: If God spake by the Prophets in the old testament, then also he hath spoken by the Apostles in the new testament. And if the prophets taught the word of God by mouth, the like so thē the apostles haue done. And if the prophets committed to writing the word of God, so also haue the Apostles. Wherefore if the prophets comprehended the whole doctrine of ye old testament in their writings, why should not we say, yt the Apostles haue also comprised the whole doctrine of the gospel, in their bookes? Now let the defenders of the contrarie opinion, bring foorth & shewe some reason to disprooue this my assertion. I say some good reason, not borowed from the dreames of mens braines, nor from to­picall & cauilling arguments, but deriued from the word of God. But this they can­not doo. Furthermore, I vrge this place of the Apostle which we haue in hand, & rea­son [Page 39] thus. If the word of God deliuered af­ter diuers manners, waies, and at manie times, be now altogether to be found in ye writings of the prophets: why should not we say the like of ye Gospell, being ye word of god, which (as ye apostle witnesseth) was not at sundrie times or in diuers man­ners deliuered? For otherwise who séeth not, y the apostles comparison in the reci­ted text, were of no force. For if ye Apostle had saide thus, then were our aduersaries opinion true: to wit, Like as in times past vnder ye old testamēt God spake at sundry times & in diuers manners: so now like­wise hath he also spoken to vs in ye time of the new testamēt at sundry times, & in di­uers manners that is by ye writings of the apostles, by apostolicall traditiōs not wri­ten, & also now speaketh by the traditions of ye church: ye which how it repugneth & is contrarie to ye mind of ye apostle, euen our aduersaries thēselues cānot denie ye same: & thus much touching ye first part of our ar­gument. The minor,The con­firmation of the second part of the argu­ment. which is ye secōd part of our argumēt, containeth in it selfe, thrée mēbers. First, y the word of god (necessary to ye saluation of ye Church) was deliuered vnto vs, first by ye prophets, & then after by 1 [Page 40] Christ and his Apostles: and this is mani­fest by this place of the Apostle, in that he sayth, In times past he spake by his Pro­phets, but in these last dayes by his sonne: And that this last speaking apperteineth also to the Apostles, it is manifest by the words of the Apostle, in his second chapter of this Epistle, where he sayth, y the gospel was first preached vnto vs by Christ, and then confirmed by those which heard him. And againe Iohn the 20. and 17. Christ sai­eth,Ioh, 20. 17 As my Father sent me, euen so send I you. And it cannot be denied but that the Apostles published the Gospel in writing.

2 The second part of the minor is, that the word of God deliuered by the Prophets, is now only to be sought for in the writings of the Prophets. And this is proued by the vsuall phrases of the Scriptures, which by the Prophets, meane the writings of the Prophets, as Romanes the first, where hée saith: Put a part for the Gospell,Rom. 1. which he had promised before by his Prophets, in the holy Scriptures.Lu. 16 And againe Luk. 16. They haue Moses and the Prophets. Iohn. 6.Iohn. 6. It is written in ye Prophets. Acts. 26. Paule saith.Act. 26. O king Agrippa beléeuest thou ye Prophets? I know thou beléeuest. [Page 41] Luke. 24. And he began at Moses, Lu. 24 & at all the Prophets, and interpreted vnto them in all the Scriptures ye things which were written of him. To conclude, because I will not recite many places, finally Peter by the wordes of the Prophets meaneth the writings of the Prophets.2, Pet. 1. 2. Epistle, chapter. 1. And in the last ende of the same chapter he saith thus: For ye prophesie came not in olde time by ye wil of man, but holie men of God spake as they were moued by ye holy Ghost. Now if our aduersaries will not yéeld vnto vs, let thē bring good proofe vnto vs to the contrarie: but y, (as I haue alreadie said) they cannot doo.

Now the third and last member is, that they of the contrarie part, can bring forth no proofe to the contrarie, but that we may conclude touching the word of God deliue­red vnto vs by Christ and the Apostles, y it is wholy conteined in the writing of the Apostles, as well as the word of God deli­uered by the Prophets, is contained in the writings of ye Prophets, to wit, so much as is necessarie for our faith & saluation. But if at any time our aduersaries affirme that they can bring some good reson to ye contra­rie, then they must bring such as must be [Page 42] both true and also agréeing to the Scrip­ture. And thus the parts of our argument béeing confirmed, ye conclusion therof must néeds be true.

The second place.

It seemed good to me most noble The­ophilus,Act. 1 to write vnto thee thereof from point to point that thou mightest knowe the certaintie of those things, whereof thou hast ben instructed.

To this purpose also these places maye serue. Iude. I gaue my diligence (saith he) to write vnto you of the common saluation. Phi­lip. chap. 3.Philip. 3. It greeueth mee not to write the same things vnto you, and it is profita­ble for you.1. Iohn. 1. Iohn. 1. Epistle. chap. 1. We de­clare vnto you that which wee haue seene. 2. Peter. chap. 3.2. Pet. 3. This second Epistle I now write vnto you beloued, wherewith I sturre vp your pure mindes, to call to your remē ­brance the words which wer spoken before of the holie Prophets, & also the comman­dements of vs, the Apostles of the Lorde and sauiour. 2.2. Pet. 1. Peter. chap. 1. I will not cease to put you alwaies in remēbrance of these things, although yee bee alreadie instructed therein.

From these and such other places, we [Page 43] drawe this argument.

If the Apostles and Euangelists published in writing the Gospell, to his end,The argu­ment. that the truth of those things which they taught by mouth, might be the better knowne & con­firmed, and that thereby also it should the better sinke into the mind and memorie of men: then trulie the Apostles and Euange­lists, left all those things in writing, which by mouth they had taught, being necessarie to faith and saluation.

The Antecedent is true,

And therfore my conclusion is also true

The ground of our argument which is ye first part cannot be denied,The expli­cation or proofe of the argu­ment. for then ye mid­dle would repugne with ye end: the which far be it from vs, y we should once thinke, especially in them which did both speake & write ye gospel, wt one & the self same spirit. As for ye secōd part of our argumēt it is cō ­firmed by ye former places in plaine words.

The third place.

Thou shalt not adde to the word which I teach & command thee. And againe, Deu, 4. Prou. 30. Thou maist not adde vnto his word least hee re­proue thee, and thou be found a liar. Wherfore I saie,The argu­ment if it be not lawful for mā to ad anie thing to the writings of Moses, then [Page 44] truely, after that the writings of the Apo­stles, were ioyned to the writings of Moses and the Prophets, we may plainly saie, that the scriptures doo containe all those things, the knowledge and faith whereof is neces­sarie and sufficient, to saluation.

The antecedent is true:

Wherefore we ought not to doubt of the truth of the consequence.

The first part of our sylogisme is ma­nifest not onely by the similitude,The exa­mining or triall of ye argument but al­so by the often comparing of the worde of God deliuered by Moses, as also by the A­postles, as it is prooued in the first place. Our Minor is prooued by the places be­fore recited: which prooueth that we may not adde vnto the word of God. And least our aduersaries should say, that that place of Moses is not tyed vnto the worde of God written by Moses: we will recite certain places, which shall cut off all shifts of our aduersaries. Moses Exodus. 24. Writ all these words of the Lord. Againe, Deut. Moses wrote this law. Again, Deut. 28.Exod. 24. All the words of this law, Deu. 31. which is wri­ten in this booke. Deu. 28. And Paule in the Act. 24. I beleeue (saith he) all those things which are written in the Lawe & in the Prophets. Act. 24. [Page 45] And that which Moses saith Deut. 27. Let each one be accursed which abideth not in all the words of this lawe: Deu. 27. Paule thus ex­poundeth Gal. 3. saieng,Gal. 3 In all things which are written in the booke of the lawe. By which places we may easily perceiue, that the word of God touching the which Mo­ses speaketh, is not to be interpreted the writings of Moses alone, neither to be ap­plied vnto certaine vnwritten verities de­liuered onely by the mouth of Moses, as the Iewes doctors doo falsly surmise, whose errors haue long time since bene euen his­sed out of the Church of Christ.

The 4. place.

Get thee to the lawe and testimonie:Esa. 8. If they say not after this worde, there is no light in them.

Héereof we frame this argument.

If the people vnder the lawe ought to repaire to the Scriptures,The argu­ment. and nothing was to be receiued in matters of faith the which was not contained in the holy Scriptures: then truly by greater reason, afterward that the doctrine of the Gospell written of the Apostles, was ioyned to the writings of the olde Testament, (the which Apostles did explicate and teach the true meaning of the [Page 46] law) those things alone must be receiued in matters of faith, which are contained in the writings of the olde and new testaments.

The antecedent is true:

Wherefore also the consequent must be true.

The first part of our argument is ma­nifest of it selfe,The examining or triall of the argument through the force of com­parison. Although, (if we haue respect to the ground and substaunce thereof) the A­postles spake no other thing, then y which was before spokē by Moses & the prophets as Paul affirmeth. Act. 26.Act. 26. Yet no christian hath at anie time doubted, but y the pub­lishing of the word of God was far more excellent and plentifull, after the Incar­ [...]ation of Christ, then it was before: lyke as ye apostles in diuers places haue taught.2. Cor, 3. &c. Wherefore; if before his incarnation, they ought to be ruled by the word of god wri­ten, how much more then ought we now? The minor is manifest by the recited pla­ces. And h [...]re I am not ignorant, that this afore recited place of the prophet, is diuers­ly. expounded of the learned: but howso­euer they expound these words, it cōmeth to this effect: that they liue in most hor­rible darknesse which despising the worde [Page 47] of God, take vnto themselues the errors of inchanters, witches, and mans dreames.

The fift place.

Thou hast knowne the holie Scriptures of a childe,2. Tim. 3. which are able to make thee wise vnto saluation, through the faith which is in Christ Iesus: for the whole Scripture is gi­uen by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teach, to reproue, to correct, & to instruct, in righteousnesse: that the man of God may be absolute beeing made perfect to euerie good worke.

If such be the force of the holie Scriptures,The argu­ment. that it maketh a man wise & perfectlie in­structed vnto saluation, then ought we to be content with the holie Scriptures in causes and matters of faith.

The Antecedent is true, And therefore the consequent must be the like.

The first part of our argument is ma­nifest through the nature of perfection:The examining or triail o [...] ye silogisme for if ye scriptures make vs perfect, to what ende then serue traditions not written? And vnto this ende serueth the saying of Paule before alleadged. The minor is ma­nifest and prooued by the place recited of Paule. But peraduenture our aduersaries will héere obiect and saye, that Paule [Page 48] spake héere onely of the scriptures of the olde Testament, because Timothie was instructed from his youth. But sith Paule héere addeth and saith, Through the faith that is in Christ Iesus, he doeth manifestly declare, that the doctrine of the Gospell, was ioyned with the knowledge of the old Testament. But they may saye, that the Gospell was not then published in wri­ting, but onely deliuered and taught by mouth. First let them tell me, whereby they gather this? for it is manifest by the fourth Chapter of that his Epistle, that Paule wrote this same Epistle, verie néere about the time of his death. And héere if you will make a good account of the times, you shall easilye perceiue, that then: when this Epistle was sent vnto Timothie, all the Epistles of the Apostles, (or well néere all) were put in writing. And furthermore, what matter were it, if then the doctrine of the Gospell had not bene published in writing, inasmuch as it was afterward done. Finally, if ye would that Paule should héere speak touching the writing of the olde Testament onely, then woulde I make mine argument of more force and reason thus: If the writings of [Page 49] the olde Testament were of such force that they were able to make men wise vnto sal­uation, how much more shall the whole Scripture of the olde and new Testament, be able to perform the same? But he which shall denie y this same excellent sentence of Paule touching the whole Scriptures, (to wit, that it was giuen by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teach) doth ap­pertaine vnto the writings of the new te­stament, he is not onely to be thrust out of the number of diuines, but is also to be banished out of the societie of Christians. Neither yet let them goe about to cauill with vs, for that the olde translation hath this word Prepared, and not absolute Per­fect to all good workes. For truly (that I maye not omit anie thing, and so swarue from our argument) the Gréeke word sig­nifieth Perfection, as in the Actes. 21. ver. 5. [...]. But when the daies were full perfected and ended, we went on our iournie, &c. Where and in which place, Luke vseth the same Gréeke word which Paule doth vse in the Texte to Timothie, signifieng as you sée Absolute and Perfect. Also the compounde of the same verbe in Gréeke hath the lyke signification: As Mathew. 21. ver. 26. By [Page 50] the mouthes of babes and sucklings, thou hast made perfect thy praise. Againe. 1. Thessa. 3. ver. 10. [...]. Night & day praieng ex­ceedingly, that we might see your face, and might accomplish or make perfect, [...]. that which is wanting in your faith. And again, Heb. 13. ver. 22.

The 6. place.

Search the Scriptures, for in them you thinke to haue eternall life.Iohn. 5.

If the people in times past vnder the lawe,The ar­gument. doo thinke, and that not without good cause to haue eternall life in the Scriptures, that is, that all those things were contained in the Scriptures, the knowledge and faith wherof attained euerlasting life: then trulie by greater reason we ought to beleeue the selfe same, being now vnder the Gospell: after that to the scriptures of the old testa­ment, the writings of the Apostles was also ioyned, which interprete and teach the veri­tie and truth of the olde testament.

The antecedent is true:The explication or triall of the argu­ment.

And therefore there is no doubt of the consequent.

The force of comparison, confirmeth the first part of our argument: for such kinds of reasons hath both Christ and his Apo­stlesLu, 23. 31. [Page 51] vsed,1. Pet. 4. 17 &c. neither can our aduersaries de­uie, but that the writings of the new Te­stament, are more excellent then the wri­tings of the olde.

The other part of our argument is proued by the expresse words of Christ: for so far was it from Christ, that he wold re­prooue the Iewes for searching the Scrip­tures: but did himselfe rather reason af­ter that manner.

The 7. place.

That ye may learne by vs: that no man presume aboue that which is written,1. Cor. 4. &c.

If we ought not to presume to be wise aboue that which is written:The Sy­logisme and the prin­ciples of faith, appertain vnto true and per­fect wisedome: then trulie ought wee to be contented with the scriptures in causes and matters of faith.

The antecedent is true:

Therefore the consequent cannot be de­nied.

The first parte of our Argument is manifest of it selfe:The exaaminatiō of the Silogisme The other part is prooued by the place of the Apostle.

Yet héere I must allso confesse, that this place of the Apostle Paule, is otherwise expounded of certayne newe [Page 52] Writers (to wit) of those things, which Paule himselfe had before written. The which sence if anye man be willing to fol­lowe, then thus make we our argument: If Paule called backe the Corinthians vnto his owne writings, how much more then ought we to be called backe vnto the wri­tings of the whole Scriptures? But because the olde writers whome our aduersaryes followe most, doo expounde this place of Paule generallye, I had rather to frame mine argument from the interpretation of them. There maye be also framed an euident and plaine sylogisme in the second mode of the second figure, flatlye denieng their assertion in this sort.

Whosoeuer groundeth anie Article of faith vpō traditions not writtē, taketh vpon him to be wise aboue that which is written.An euidēt argument

But no man truly obeying the Christi­an & Apostolike, doctrine, doth take vpon him, to be wise aboue that which is writtē.

Ergo, No man truly obeying the christian & apostolike doctrine, doth groūd any prin­ciple of faith vpon traditions not written.

The 8. Place.

Manie other things did Iesus which are not written in this booke:Iohn. 20. but these things [Page 53] are written that you might beleeue that Ie­sus Christ is the sonne of God, and in be­leeuing you might haue euerlasting lyfe through his name.

If the Apostles and Euangelists wrote those things which seemed sufficient and necessarie,The argu­ment. that we which beleeue may haue eternall life: then truely the Articles of our faith, are to be grounded vppon the Scrip­tures, and not vpon traditions which are vn­written, which our aduersaries tearme Apo­stolike.

The Antecedent is true.

And therefore the consequent cannot be denied.

The truth of the first part of our Argu­ment is manifest,The expli­cation of the argu­ment. except peraduenture a­nie man would goe about to thinke him­selfe wiser then either the Apostles or E­uangelists: the which God forbid that a­nie man should do. The consequent is pro­ued by the words of Iohn.

The 9. place.

The lawe of the Lord is perfect, giuing life & true wisdome vnto man: yea,Psa. 19 the law of the Lord is right and iust,Psa. 119 more precious then golde,Deu. 4. sweeter then honnie: the wise­dome and vnderstanding of the Church,Psa. 4. & [Page 54] he is blessed that meditateth or occupieth himselfe therein.

If the scriptures of the olde testament in their kinde were perfect,The argument. because therein is contained true wisedome, and made those blessed euen as manie as willinglie and con­stantlie did meditate therein: then trulie af­ter that the writings of the Apostles were ioyned vnto the olde testament, (the which writings of the Apostles doo explicate and teach the veritie and truth of the saide olde testament) then (I say) by good right & con­sequence the whole scriptures both of the olde and new testament, may be called per­fect, as that which perfectlie containeth all necessarie doctrine for the church of Christ.

The antecedent is true:The explication of the argu­ment. And therefore the consequence must be also true.

The antecedent is manifest inough of it selfe. The minor is prooued by the reci­ted places. For by the name and title of the law, is often vnderstood ye whole scrip­tures of the olde testament, as it is mani­fest by the Apostle Paule Gal. 4. ver. 21. as also the circumstance of the afore alleaged place doth most manifestly proue.Gal. 4. 21. Now frō these and such other places we will ga­ther a true definition of the holye Scrip­tures [Page 55] after this sort.

A definitiō of ho­ly Scrip­ture. Heb. 1. 1 2. Ti. 3. 16 Heb 1. 1. 2. Pet. 1. 21 Lu. 1. 3 1. Iohn. 1. 1. Ioh. 20. 31 &c. The holie scripture is the word of God giuen by diuine inspiration from God, and by the Prophets, Apostles, and Euangelists, (mooued by the spirit of God) was written in the bookes Canonicall of the olde and new testament, that the veritie and truth of God, might be taken and set free from the obliuion and corruptings of men, & that the Church might be perfectlie instructed and confirmed in all those things, the knowledge and faith whereof is necessarie to saluation.

This definition is most perfectly & sub­stancially true.The explicating of the definition. 2. Pe. 3. 1. 2 Col. 3. 1 Pro. 30. 6 Esa. 8. 20 &c. Psa. 1. & 19. & 1. 9 &c, 2. Tim. 3 16. 17. 2. Pe. 1. 12 Ioh. 20. 31 2. Tim. 3 15 Iohn. 5. 39 For it standeth vpon ye Ge­nus & differēce, & containeth al those causes, both which ye Logitiās say belōg to ye Sub­iectū, as also y belōg vnto ye Attributū. And especially it cōtaineth ye efficiēt cause, vn­der ye which is added ye instrumētal, & thē ye final cause, which two causes in such kind of matters, are especially to be considered. The spirit of god is ye cause efficiēt, who v­sed ye prophets & apostles as instrumēts: ye cōīeruatiō of ye truth, & cōfirmation of the church, is the end wherefore ye word of God was put in writing: so this definition standeth vppon his full partes: and the thing defined, and the definition, doo both [Page 56] agrée together. Now from this definition as from a most perfect & true ground, we make thus our demonstratiue argument.

Whatsoeuer is the word of God giuen by inspiration from God,The argu­ment. and written by the Prophets, Apostles, and Euangelists, by the motion of Gods spirit, &c. that contay­neth all principles necessarie to christian faith. But the holie Scripture is the word gi­uen by diuine inspiration, &c. Ergo the ho­lie Scriptures containe al principles necessa­rie to the christian faith.

This argument is most euident and ne­cessarie, and standeth grounded vppon grounds of the former places, and contay­neth the veritie and truth of our whole question. Wherefore doth the Scriptures containe all these things, the knowledge & faith whereof are necessarie vnto saluati­on. Truely because the word of God was written by the Prophets and Apostles to this end, that the Church should be perfect­ly instructed, &c. Againe, whatsoeuer is spo­ken of the one partie may be sayde of the other.The vnfolding of ye former reason. Furthermore, if anie doe aske what these things be, the knowledge and faith whereof are necessarie to saluation? I an­swere, the Scriptures. And againe when [Page 57] I name the Scriptures, I name all those things, the knowledge whereof is necessa­rie to saluation. The like also may be said touching the ground of our argument, the which is the definition of the Scripture, as is before said: wherfore this our demon­stration and argument is most manifest, and hath brought the truth of our opinion out of all question or doubt: to wit, that the holy scriptures containe all those prin­ciples necessarie to Christian faith, the which was our purpose to proue.

The third Chapter.

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 ye Papistes, so will we now come vnto the negatiue dis­putation, which is to refell and refute the opinion of our aduersaries. For although ye truth béeing made manifest, ye falsehoode must néeds bée confuted & ouerthrowen, & by this our affirmatiue disputation wée haue manifestly proued, yt 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 ye truth. This therefore is the opinion of our ad­uersaries which repugneth wt 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 ye man­ner of instructing ye church.The vnfolding of ye 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 ye force of ye consequēt to what end it is direc­ted doth manifestly appeare, for ye prophets & apostles are ordeined of god, to be instruc­ters of ye church, & were inspired by the ho­ly Ghost. And Christ himselfe is the most perfect doctor of the Church, wherby we sée yt they which teach ye 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 ye 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 ye second chapter of this our disputation,The vn­folding of the ar­gument. where wée affirmed yt 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 ye Apostles, whom ye 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 ye Apostles ought to write some things which were necessa­ [...]ie to saluation, and to omit other some, or else truly yt 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 yt 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 ye 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 ye Apostles. But if such kind of traditions are to be receiued wt 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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.

The 4. Chapter.

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 ye whole swarme of schoolemen and Questionarye Doctors doo most estéeme. But some had rather this to be the cause: for that ye 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 ye heart. And thus much touching the Anteredent, where our aduersaries commit most great errour,Taking their argument frō yt which is in some sort gran­ted, to be graun­ted generally. The er­rors of ye 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 ye 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 yt 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 ye 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 ye gospel, yt they might well remaine therin. Who­soeuer thefore doth gather by these words of ye 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 ye inui­sible Scriptures vnto ye visible, then trulie they would bring this to pase, ye one scrip­ture being, ye other cānot be: for vnto what other ende doe they applie their opposition opponing ye inuisible scriptures to the visi­ble, but yt 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.

The ab­surdities which follovveth ye former obiection

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 ye 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 ye wer necessarie to ye doctrine of ye 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, yt 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 yt holy veritie, which they preached vnto vs, most firme & sure, they committed ye same vnto writings, by the working of ye holy ghost, to be a pledge for ye 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 ye 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. ye Christ to the end hée might appoint his Apostles to be most perfect Doctors and teachers of the Church, did after his resurrection for ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye consequence of their argument. The errour is,The error secundū figuram dictionis, & their consequēce hangeth not wt 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 yt which he wrote to the Romanes: so héere [Page 99] we sée yt 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 yt our aduersaries doo stick their ship vpon those rocks vpō which ye heretikes héertofore haue made so great shipwracks. S. Augustine in his Tract. 97. vpon Iohn, doth testifie, yt 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, yt if they wold heare him he wold easily withdraw our aduersaries frō their curiositie: for Augustine vpon ye 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, yt 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 ye 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, yt then ye Apo­stles should be fully & perfectly instructed, when they shuld be indowed with ye 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 ye 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 ye resurrectiō of Christ & before they had receiued the miraculous gifts of ye holy ghost, were not able suffici­ently to bere away al things which apper­tained to ye 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 ye 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 ye papistical mas­sing prists do fondly dreame of. No doubt of yt, 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, ye which Christ hid frō his apostles, wer reueled to ye 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 yt 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 yt 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 ye whole 2. cha. of ye first epistle vnto ye 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 ye faith of ye 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 ye 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 yt 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 ye old doctors write thē? Therefore thus we may auoid their error, saying: That Paule did therfore desire to sée y Thessalonians, Correctiō yt therby he might the more firmely establish their faith, when as he did manifestly per­ceiue of what great efficacie ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye words of Iohn, Christ did manie things, & therfore héerof commeth no consequent. Al ye miracles yt 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 ye 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 ye 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, ye they abuse ye scriptures, then ought we to giue al diligēce, yt 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 ye 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 ye ve­ritie of ye doctrine, then the godly Fathers which liued in those daies, hauing care of ye circumstances, added these wordes: by the which they might the more easily explicate & declare the doctrine touching ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye truth of the maior proposi­tion is proued thus. If you did me belée [...]e [Page 135] the scriptures, truly I will beléeue yt there is nothing to be added thervnto, because yt 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 yt they are not on­ly added by inuentions, but also contrarie to expresse places of scripture: so ye sée, yt 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 ye voyce of the true church or not, which we heare: & yt 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 yt 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 yt 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 ye 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 ye Rom. Rom. 1. he sheweth yt 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 ye 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 ye 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.

The 5. Chapter.

FOrasmuch as the aduersa­ries themselues sufficiently knowe how weake & féeble those argumēts are which they take out of ye 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 yt 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.

Let this therefore be the first Rule.

THe writings of the auncient Doctors,The first rule for the establishing and confirmation of our faith, are so farre foorth to be receiued, as they agree with the holie and diuine scriptures,

Although this first rule be plain inough of himselfe,Cōfirma­tion of this rule. especially to those that knowe the truth, yet will I for the confirmation of the same,Gal. 1. 8. lay downe certaine proofes. If anie preach vnto you otherwise, then that which we haue preached vnto you, let him be accurssed, saith S. Paule. And againe, Warne some that they teach no other doc­trine. And againe,1. Tim. 1. Marke them diligentlie, which cause diuision and offences, Rom. 16. contrarie to the doctrine which ye haue learned, and auoide them. And again,1. Tim. 6. If anie man teach otherwise, he is puffed vp, and knoweth no­thing. And agayne, Be not carried about with diuers and straunge doctrines: with many more places to this effect.Heb, 13.

[Page 141] Yet least happely our aduersaries shoulde say, that these places repeted are to be vn­derstood of the word deliuered by traditi­on, and not of the word written: leauing those things, which in the former parte of this treatise are handeled copiously and at large, I will aske them this Question: whether they think ye Apostles to haue vt­tered & spoken anie thing in their lectures & sermons, which doth disagrée with those things which they haue committed to wri­ting? I am sure they will in no wise con­fesse it. Wherefore, mauger their heades, they must agrée with vs, that this our first Rule is infallible and most true: to wit, that the writings of the auncient doctors, are so far foorth to be receiued, as they doe agrée with the sacred Scripture. But if they shall perceiue the auncient Doctours themselues to be of our mind: I hope then (all doubt remooued) they will together with vs agrée to our former rule.

This therefore is the minde of Origen: It behooueth vs to bring the holie Scrip­tures for witnesses: for because our senses,1. Ierem. and allegations, without the witnesse of them, are altogether voyde of credite.Mat. hom, [...]5

And againe, Euen as there is not anie [Page 142] golde sanctified without the temple: so ther is no sence without the Scripture that is ho­lie.

Tertulian. What is there contrarie to vs in our writings (hee speaketh of the holye Scriptures.)Do preser. heret. Ibidem. And againe. The same that we are, the same they be.

Chrisostome,In Psa. 95. If anie thing bee spoken without the Scriptures, the minde of the hearers is thereby brought into doubt.

Hierome.In Psa. 86 Whatsoeuer heereafter shall be spoken besides the Apostolicall writings, let it be abrogated, of no value, & altogether without credit.

Agustine.In Epi. 48. ad [...]ncen. Doo thou not bring vs anie cauelles from the writinges of the Bi­shoppes, as of Hillarie, or Ciprian, against the infallible testimonie of the diuine scrip­tures. Because as it behooueth vs to put a difference betweene that kinde of wri­ting, and the Scriptures of GOD: for, the writings of men are not so to be read, that it is not lawfull for vs to thinke the contrarie, if at anie time they haue per­aduenture thought otherwise then the truth requireth.

And againe, De vnita. Eccl, ca, 10 wee must not agree to the Catholyke Bishoppes if at anie time they [Page 143] are deceiued, taking opinion contrarie to the canonical scriptures. And againe, In Epi, ad Hiero. 19 Aug, cont. l. 11. I haue learned to giue this honour and reuerence onely to those writinges which are called Canonicall, that I faithfully beleeue the au­thours of them, haue not in anie point at a­nie time erred in their writings: but other mens writings I doo so reade, that though they excell in sanctimonie or holynesse: yet I doo not therefore thinke it true, be­cause they so affirme, but because they are able to perswade mee either by Canoni­call Scripture, or by probable reason those thinges which dissent not from the truth: Thus farre he.

These things haue our aduersaries them­selues recorded amongest their Decretalls,Can. Eg [...] solis, dist. [...] insomuch that they maie not denie this first rule: least they seeme to denie their owne Decretalls.

The second Rule.

THE auncient Doctours doo oftentimes by the name of Traditious, vnderstand the same doctrine that is cōtained in the A­postolical writing. That this rule is true, it shall appeare by that which followeth.

[Page 144] Irenaeus (as it is reported by Eusebius) doth saie, Confir­mation. Hist. Eccl. l [...]. 4. ca. 14 That Policarpus taught these things which he had learned of the Apo­stles: which things both the Church deli­uered, and are onely to bee accounted true: thus much he. He saith Tradit: the Church doth deliuer: that is, doeth teach, namely out of the writings of the Apostles. If hée were not thus to be vnderstood, how could that stand which he hath sayde? And those things are onely true: which thing is ve­rie easie to be gathered of the forenamed Irenaeus, whose wordes are by Eusebius re­ported. Li. 5. c. 20. Policarpus (saith he) did report those things which he had heard of the Apostles, altogether agreeable to the holy Scriptures. And the said Irenaeus saith in another place,Li. 3. ca. 3 The Church of Rome wrote to the Church of Corinth, shewing them the same traditi­on which they had receiued of the apostles: to wit, that there was one God almightie: & so consequently the doctrine contained in the bookes of Moses.Cap. 4. And a little after he saith: Manie of the vnlearned and barba­rous people, beeing ignoraunt of the Scrip­tures, doo diligently keepe the olde & aun­cient traditions, beleeuing in one God, & in Iesus Christ born of the virgin Marie.

[Page 145] Tertulian. The Apostolicall doctrine doth allow nothing contrarie to the rule of Gods word, Con. M [...], lib. 1. namely, those things which the Apo­stles haue taught and committed to wri­tings.

The third Rule.

THE auncient Doctors do name that vn­written traditions, which in expresse words are not found in the holy Scriptures: but notwithstanding if you diligently mark, the effect thereof is contained in the Scrip­tures.

So Basil confesseth that he vsed certaine tearmes against heretikes,Confir­mation. Tract. de pia & ve­rafid. which are not written, but yet notwithstāding (faith he) are not contrarie to the true sence of the Scriptures. And Nazianzenus refuteth the Macidonians, De Theol. or. 5. which did denie the deitie of the holy Ghost, because he is not tearmed with plaine words in the holy Scriptures, to be the third person in the deitie, saying: y ther are diuers things in the Scriptures which are not plainly expressed: As for ex­ample. If y say twise,De Bapt. con. Dona▪ li. 4. ca. 23 two I will say (saith he) y thou saist foure. In like manner Au­gustine doth proue, that the baptisme of in­fants [Page 146] is contained in holy Scriptures, and that they shoulde not be rebaptised.Ibid lib. 2 cap. 14. The like is to be sayde of the word or tearme [Omoousion] the trinitie, & such like, con­cerning the which we haue spoken in the former chapter.

The 4. Rule.

THE auncient Doctors vnder the name of traditions, do not meane anie certaine grounded opinion touching religion, but ec­clesiasticall ceremonies: and to the end they may the more beautifie and set foorth the order of the Church, they commonly a­scribe the sayde ceremonies to the Apo­stles as if they were the principall authours of the same.

Now many and diuers ye rites and cere­monies of the Church haue béene,Confir­mation. & with what studie and diligence the auncient fa­thers haue set foorth the same, that by all meanes possible they might stoppe Schis­mes and diuisions in the Church: It née­deth not héere perticularlye to declare, sith the volumes of the Fathers doo eue­rie where abound with those things, wher­fore let the readers consider what Augu­stine [Page 147] hath written in two Epistles to Ia­nuarius. Epist. 118. & 119. Hierome hath thus set forth the order and ceremonies of the Church.Ad Luciū. Let each Prouince (sayeth he) haue authōtrie to determine touching the Institutions of the elders, and traditions of the Apo­stles: which words of Hierome are diuers­ly to be considered: And that manye and sundrie orders and institutions of the an­cient Fathers, are to bée altered and chaunged by reason of many circumstaun­ces, euen our aduersaries themselues haue not denyed, neither were it méete in this behalfe, that the Ecclesiasticall ceremo­nies shoulde be made equall to the groun­ded doctrine of Religion. And therefore hath Tertulian said: That the onely lawe of sayth doth remaine immutable. And Hierome himselfe doeth giue counsell,Ad Luciū. that such orders and customes of the church, are to be kept: which (saith he) doo not hinder or hurt our faith.

The 5. Rule.

SOme of the olde Fathers (hauing theyr faultes) did ouermuch fauour these vn­written traditions, and therfore did some­time [Page 148] true consent to heretikes.

We haue heard afore out of Irenaeus, Confir­mation. that the auncient heretiks did defend their heresies by vnwritten traditions. And Eusebius maketh mention of one Papias, Li. 3. Hist. Eccl, ca. vl. which brought in certaine straunge doc­trine into the Church, affirming the same to be deliuered, as comming from the Apo­stles by tradition. The like errour there was of the Chiliastians, into y which error Tertulian & Iustinus Martire, & others haue fallen. And therfore the works of the aun­cient Fathers are not to be read without great iudgement.

The 6. Rule.

MAnie and diuerse bookes haue beene put forth vnder the name and title of the ancient Fathers, which notwithstanding are counterfait.

It hath come to passe through the fault of those who haue ben the writers & prin­ters of bookes:Confir­mation. ye diuerse bookes haue falsely borne the name of those auncient Doctors, which antiquitie hath commended. As for erāple, the bookes intituled Rapsodiae, were attributed to Clement S. Paules Disciple, [Page 149] and also the booke of the Reuelation of S. Iohn Baptist his head, is authorised vnder the name of Ciprian: when notwithstan­ding there is mention made of Pipin king of Fraunce: and to conclude, there are di­uerse volumes vnder the title and name of Augustine, in the which the opinion of Au­gustine is refuted. I néed not to make mē ­tion of an infinit number like vnto these. Wherefore that which Hierome did som­tune speake of the bookes Apocripha, Ad Laetam may verie fitly bée spoken of the writinges of the olde Fathers: Let a man take heede (sayth hée) of the bookes Apocripha, and if at anie time he bee disposed to read them, not for triall of truth, but for examples sake of good manners, let him knowe they are not bookes of them whose titles and names they beare, but that there are manie cor­rupt things mixed in them, and therefore it is great wisdome how to choose out gold amongest dirt and claie: thus much Hie­rome. Now these foundations béeing laid, it behooueth vs a little to search and sifte the obiections of our aduersaries, which they take from the olde and auncient doc­tors.

Clemens Alexandrinus.1. obiectiō. The worke­man [Page 150] that is sent foorth into the Haruest of the Lord,Li. 1. stro. hath a double husbandrie: to wit, the vnwritten and the written.lbid, lib. 5 Againe, As the Philosophers had certain secrets touch­ing their opinions, which they deliuered by traditions: so likewise the Apostles. And therefore Paule saith,1, Gor. 2 We speake wisedome amongst those that are perfect.

To this I aunswere thus: First,Answere. that this Author hath not handled the questi­on sincerely and purely: and this fault is easely to be found, euen by the authoritie of ye scriptures: for Christ saith thus, What soeuer I speak vnto you in secret, Mat. 12 that speak openly, & that you heard in the eare, that preach vpon the house top, &c. Wherefore Alexandrinus is plainly deceiued when he goeth about to mixe the mysterie of Chri­stian religion,Lib. 3. cap. 2 de pre. with the hid secrets of phi­losophie. And Irenaeus and Tertulian doo both witnesse and testifie that the olde he­retikes were of that minde, which heere Alexandrinus doth hold: and therefore a­bused those words of Paul, Ibidem. saieng: I speake wisdome amongst those that are perfect: as Irenaeus as I haue before said doth affirm. And Clemens doubted not to say, ye euen ye Grecians were saued by Philosophy:Lib. 6 strō wher [Page 155] and ceremonies, amongst the which, hée [...]koneth vp that most auncient custome, whereby the Christians did alwaies stan [...] when they did praye, from the time of Ea­ster vntill Whitsontide. In this disputa­tion therefore Basil doubteth not to pro­pone that which was commonlye spoken touching the Apostolike mysteries: and this is it that our aduersaries so greatlye triumph against vs out of the wordes of Basil: but truly as with all my heart, I doo acknowledge the goodnesse of the cause wherevpon Basil then stood, when he affir­med the holy ghost to be god, yet not with­standing (without offence of Basil be it spo­ken) me thinketh hée did too curioustye séeke for straunge Argumentes, when as that matter might be prooued by playne, proper, and true groundes of Scrip­tures.

The Deitie of the holye Ghost is in diuers places of the holye Scriptures to bée prooued: to what ende then sho [...]d the Apostles delyuer by Tradition, certaine secrete formes touching that matter: and as it were (as Basil sayeth) whis­per it into the eares of certayne men? I praye you, was there any thing to [Page 156] be kept close in this point of doctrine, that behooued the Christians, especially to know and professe? Furthermore, to call that thing secrete or hidde, which was then publikelye taught almost in the whole worlde, I knowe not well how Basil could doe it. And inasmuch as this fained Apo­stolike mysteries was in times past the verie grounde of heresies, as before it is shewed: neyther furtherod the cause of Basil, which otherwise is to bée prooued with most firme reasons: I wish that Basil had reformed that kinde of Argu­ment, (if it bée worthie to bee called an argument) especially sith the olde Fathers verie wisely haue warned vs to foresée, that many labours shuld not grow of one. But howsoeuer the matter goeth, our ad­uersaries haue nothing heere wherof they maye glorie or boast, for when Basil affir­meth this hind of speaking of ye holy ghost, That it hath sprong from the Apostles tra­dition. By the name of Tradition, héere hée vnderstandeth that which although not in manifest and flat words remaineth in the Scripture: yet notwithstanding the sum and matter it selfe is there contained, tou­ching the which reade our third Rule. [Page 157] What if our aduersaries themselues long time since, haue not obserued and kept this kinde of speaking in their Churches? And that I maye not vrge that, that same custome is now growen out of vse & for­gotten amongst them, whereby they héere­tofore did stand when they did praye be­twéene Easter and Whitsontide, as is be­fore sayd. Wherefore let our aduersaries consider how properly they expounde the words of Basil, which are these: Which both are of like force & effect to godlines, and how well they agrée with Basil him­selfe.

Chrisostome.5. obiectī. Heere it is manifest that they deliuered not all things by writing: but manie things by tradition,In 2. Thes. hom. 4 ldem Da­mascen. de orth. fid. li. 4. cap. 17. 2. Thes. 2. without writing: and these are as worthie to bee beleeued, as those which are written. Therfore we think the traditions of the Church worthie to be beleeued. It is a tradition: therefore search no farther for the matter.

Chrisostome intreating of these wordes of Paule written to the Thessalonians the second Epistle and second chapter, Ansvvere saieng: Holde fast the Traditions, which you haue learned, either by word or by Epistle. Hée gathereth that not only Paule, but also the [Page 158] rest of the Apostles did not deliuer & com­mit all things to writings, the which how sure an argument it is, wée haue declared in our former chapter: But to let this thing passe least wée shoulde séeme to make a nèedlesse repetition: I therefore saye, that Chrisostome doeth speake touching those traditions, which although they are not expressed by word in the holy Scriptures, yet in substance are there contained: for otherwise these wordes of Chrisostome could not stand, saying: It is a tradition, thou maist seeke no farther thereof [...]. For then it should followe, that wée shoulde no more search in holy Scriptures, the which God forbid that it should come in the minde of so godly a Father, who doeth most often inculcate and beat into the minde the rea­ding of the holy Scriptures: Therefore I suppose by this worde, Tradition of the Church, by Chrisostome is meant that doc­trine the which the Church (being instruc­ted by the writings of the Prophets & A­postles) doth deliuer ouer vnto the church: that is to saie, doeth teach & instruct what­soeuer she hath drawne out of ye most pure fountaine of ye Scriptures, touching which matter séeke the second rule.

[Page 159] Nazianzene. The doctrine of the Gos­pell is more excellent through the figures of the Church:6. obiecti, In lulian or. 1 which beeing receiued by tradition, wee haue kept euen vntill this time.

I expound this place as I did the other afore going,Ansvvere to wit, that, hée speaketh of those traditions which maye bée prooued by the scriptures, of the which sée the second and third rules; for if that our aduersaryes shall say, that the Gospell is made the bet­ter through their holie water, and through such like trumper [...]es appertaining to their Masse, they would make men laugh, nay rather I should saie, wéepe, who reuerent­ly thinke, and are well affctioned to­ward the true worshipping of God.

Epiphanius, Wee must also vse traditi­ons,7. obiect. Heras. 61 75. aduer. Arianos. for all thinges cannot bee taken from the holy Scripture. Wherefore some things the holy Apostles deliuered, vnto vs by the Scriptures, and some thing by Traditi­on.

Héere Epiphanius disputeth touching certaine rites and ceremonies,Ansvvere which the christians in tunes past did obserue (as in the fourth rule we haue spoken) & also rec­koneth vp many more rites & ceremonies, [Page 160] all the which long time since haue ben out of vse, euen in the Church of Rome. So that héerein, our aduersaries doo not onely contend with vs, but euen with Epiphani­us himselfe, and with other, whose obiecti­ons they vse against vs. For if those olde rytes and ceremonies be traditions of the Apostles, or if they haue like force with the scripture, or if they be worthie of the like credite together with the scripture. If also sith they be traditions, and therefore we must séeke no farther: if faith ought to be the obseruer and kéeper of these tra­ditions, as the olde and auncient Doctors saye, whom our aduersaries bring for the maintenaunce of their cause, what impu­dent boldnesse were this then, not onelye to neglect those traditions, but also nowe that they haue bene these many yeres put cleane off from the Church; and growen out of the memorie of man: béeing for­lorne with time, so that they séeme to be altogether mouldie and couered with hoa­rinesse? What shall they then which are aduersaries of traditions doo, if they dare doo these things themselues, which are the great defenders of traditions.

Hierome.8. Obiec­tion. Doo you demaund where [Page 161] it is written? I aunswere, in the Acts of the Apostles: yea,Aduersu [...]s Lucifer. also if it had no authoritie of Scripture, yet the consent of the whole worlde in this parte obtaineth the like au­thoritie as a precept: for many other things which are obserued and kept in the Church by tradition, take vnto themselues the like authoritie, as hath the lawe written, as in baptisme three times to dippe the head vn­der water, of the tasting of Milke and hon­nie, &c.

Héere Hierome disputed of the unpo­sition of handes after Baptisme,Ansvvere and of other rites and ceremonies, touching the which thing we haue spoken in our fourth rule: but we doo dispute now and in this place of those things which are necessarie and doo appertaine vnto faith and salua­tion, among the which if you will number v [...] [...]hose rites and ceremonies: what will our aduersaries aunswere, which admit & vse not the tasting of milke and honnie, which Hierome héere maketh mention of, And also Hierome witnesseth, that y was confirmed by the consent of the whole world, which is now reiected by the like.

Augustine. Touching those things wher­of the Scripture hath not determined,9. Obiect. ther­in [Page 162] the custome of the people and ordinance of our fathers,Ad Casul. Epist. 86 are to be obserued in steede of a lawe. And againe, Those things which are not vvritten,Ad Ianua. Epist. 118. but are kept by tradition, vvhich are obserued throughout the vvhole vvorld: it appeareth by the authoritie ei­ther of the Apostles or generall counsells, vvhose authoritie in the Church is most profitable, that those things ordained and constituted, are to be kept and obserued as the passion of our Lord and his resurrecti­on, &c.

Augustine héere disputeth not touching principles of faith,Ansvvere but of Ecclesiasticall rytes and ceremonies, touching the which we haue spoken in the fourth rule. And truly sith Augustine is lead onely by con­iecture, thereby it sufficientlye appeareth that he intreateth not of things necessarye to faith. But the selfe same Augustine in his Epistle following, doth greatly la­ment the cause that the Scriptures being neglected, all the whole world was full of suppositions, and giueth vs admonishment to submit our selues vnto the easie yoake of Christ. I beséech you what wold he thē haue saide if he had séene that huge Cha­os and mountaine of ceremonies and tra­ditions, [Page 163] a burden more gréeuous and hea­uier than Aetna hill, wherewith the Bi­shoppes of Rome long time since haue op­pressed the Church? And peraduenture many other moe such like examples as these, may be taken out of the old fathers and alleadged: but the solution of them may easily be gathered & had from the an­sweres which I haue alreadie set downe. And lest the defenders of traditions, shuld thinke that the auncient Doctours did so commend Traditions, that thereby they would derogate the authoritie of the scrip­tures: behold euen the old Doctors them­selues as witnesses in this matter, and shall declare their owne mindes what they thinke touching the Scriptures, and touching traditions not written, and wée our selues will say nothing. And that the wound which by their former obiections, they séeme to giue vs, be euen by their owne handes healed vp againe: That we maye lawfully affirme it much better to followe the Doctours with the Scrip­tures, then the same Doctours wande­ring without the Scripture: (if it so happen at anie time) and so to be car­ried from the truth: which thing indeede [Page 164] doth rather deserue pardon thē foolish imi­tation. But nowe let vs heare the Doc­tours themselues.

The sixt Chapter.

IRenaeus. First the Apostles did preach the word of God,Aduer. hae­ret. lib. 3 cap. 1. and afterward by the will of God committed it to wri­tings, and 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 ye 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 ye testimonies of the ancient Fathers, which before wée haue alleadged, yt 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 ye 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 ye 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.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.