which was deliuered taught by the Apostles and Prophets so that it may be more manifest what we meane by the word of God 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 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 of faith so that we maye make a difference betwéene faith and opinion and betwéene the principles of Christian religion and the probable disputations and ordinaunces of men Last of all by y e name of the holy Scripture we vnderstand all the bookes Canonicall both of the new and olde testament And thus much I thought good to speak briefly touching the explication of our question The second Chapter HEther to we haue declared our minde opinion touching the worde of God 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 follow this order First to set downe certaine places of scripture from whence we will draw our arguments Secondly the places of Scripture being collected and brought together we will fet a true definition of the word of God the which definition also shall be y e proofe of our argument cutting away all exception doubt And although in the reciting of the places of scripture I doo not curiously labor touching the order thereof for each place of scripture is of sufficient authority to make anye conclusion yet notwithstanding I haue taken some care that the order of the places of scripture maye aunswere vnto each parts of the definition asmuch as may be Wherefore let vs begin with this place of the Apostle which hath ministred occasion vnto vs of this disputations The first place God at sundrie times and indiuers manners in the old times 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 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 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 This syllogisme or argument is hypothetical or double y e vse wherof is verie necessarie so often as we shall be occupied in y e comparing of things together And y e hypothetical or double arguments are verie néedful in diuine disputations is manifest both by the old Doctors also by y e new schoolemen 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 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 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 I confesse that the publishing of the word of God in y e new Testament was a great deale more excellent and fruitfull then before 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 y e old testament in their writings why should not we say y t 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 thus If the word of God deliuered after diuers manners waies and at manie times be now altogether to be found in y e writings of the prophets why should not we say the like of y e Gospell being y e word of god which as y e apostle witnesseth was not at sundrie times or in diuers manners
comparison confirmeth the first part of our argument for such kinds of reasons hath both Christ and his Apostles vsed 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 c. If we ought not to presume to be wise aboue that which is written 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 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 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 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 but these things 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 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 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 the law of the Lord is right and iust more precious then golde sweeter then honnie the wisedome and vnderstanding of the Church he is blessed that meditateth or occupieth himselfe therein If the scriptures of the olde testament in their kinde were perfect 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 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 y e 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 Now frō these and such other places we will gather a true definition of the holye Scriptures after this sort 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 For it standeth vpon y e Genus differēce containeth al those causes both which y e Logitiās say belōg to y e Subiectū as also y ◠belōg vnto y e Attributū And especially it cōtaineth y e efficiēt cause vnder y e which is added y e instrumētal thē y e final cause which two causes in such kind of matters are especially to be considered The spirit of god is y e cause efficiēt who vsed y e prophets apostles as instrumēts y e cōīeruatiō of y e truth cōfirmation of the church is the end wherefore y e word of God was put in writing so this definition standeth vppon his full partes and the thing defined and the definition doo both 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 except our aduersaries can bring any thing to the contrary For we dispute not héere of euerye man but only of y e Apostles whom y e spirit of God gouerned and directed in the writing of the Gospell The minor is manifest except our aduersaries can proue what reason there is of dissimilitude or vnlikenesse in things not onely like but also euen béeing the selfe same And this truly is most certaine and most vndoubted amongst all Christians that if the Apostles wrote not all things which are necessary to saluation that it was because they ought not so to doo Qur aduersaries of necessitie must proue some one of these causes or els them what was the cause that y e Apostles ought to write some things which were necessaâ—ie to saluation and to omit other some or else truly y t the Apostles themselues haue by manifest plaine words testified that they haue not written all things which appertaine vnto Christian faith and Religion for good and necessarye causes which God himselfe would not that men should know But vndoubtedly our aduersaryes can prooue neither of these and therefore the conclusion of this argument resteth most firme and vnuiolable If the Canonicall bookes of the old Testament 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 perfect then the new The consequence is false And therefore the antecedent is false The consequent of the maior is thus prooued 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 The couenant saith he which is written in the booke of the lawe 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 alleaâ—ged besides y t scripture which may rightly be said to appertaine to the old testament to wit the knowledge whereof were necessarie to the saluation of those godly fathers that liued vnder the olde testament Now if you say not the like of the newe testament who dooth not sée that the newe testament is more weake unperfect then the olde For it is as much as if you wold thus expound the title The newe testament that is to saie Some certain things appeâ—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 thâ—â— we 〈…〉 not so perfect as the writings at the old Wherefore we wil 〈…〉 more to the prâ—uing of our 〈◊〉 If the Scripture of the new testament be a couenaunt will or testament nothing must be added vnto a will or Testament then trulye it is not lawfull to aâ—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 wâ—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 to wit y â— it is a will or a testament neither néedeth theâ—e any other probation The latter part is prooued by Paule when hée sayeth That it is not lawfull to adde vnto a mannes 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 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 writteÌ„ The Maior is euident inough especially sith God is the author of the said scripture 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 cannot denie for they are not ignoraÌ„t 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 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
their antecedent 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 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 truth And therefore this argument may be turned vpon themselues as y e other before Manie other things did Iesus 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 yet I denye their consequent For the error is Secundum ignorantiam Elenchi for they wander héere without the compasse of our question Iohn speaketh in that place of miracles which Christ did our disputation is of doctrine necessarie to faith saluation For these are y e words of Iohn Christ did manie things therfore héerof commeth no consequent Al y e miracles y t Christ did are not written ergo say they all y ◠principles of christian religiō doctrin are not writē Now sée héere how our aduersaries beat themselues with their owne weapons For if our aduersaries refer their traditions vnto those things which Iohn faith are not written Ergo those traditions are infinit with out number so by the force of the consequent without the cōpasse of knowledge 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 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 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 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 after he reciteth the Prophecie of Enoch Behold the Lord cōmeth with manie thousands of his saints To their antecedent I aunswere thus 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 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 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 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 thēselues 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 in the scriptures The like is that which Peter saith That the Angels doo not raile on those that haue authoritie 2. Pet. 2. Also the Lord will come saith Iude to rewarde the wicked the which threatnings is vsual in the holy scriptures Whereby we manifestly sée to what ende the Apostles culled out certaine sentences from the bookes Apocripha to the seruing of their own purpose Now we come vnto y e cōsequēt which I denie The Apostles did vse certain sentences taken out of the bookes Apocripha Ergo they vsed them to the confirmation of faith And againe therefore also we ought to runne to traditions so often as we dispute of faith as though the testimonies of the holy scriptures did faile vs. This is a false argument no good consequent can come héerof For the Apostles vsed not such testimonies to confirme principles of religion Yea and euen those testimonies them selues if you marke well the matter you shall sée them confirmed by many expres places of scriptures Wherfore our aduersaries séeme to be forgetful of our purposed questiō while they go about to obiect these things to vs for this is y e state of our questiō whē ther ariseth cōtrouersie touching 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 that therefore it followeth the Apostles did attribute authoritie to those bookes such like in matters of faith
of Arius yea the Apostles theÌ„selues 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 If such were the religion of the auncient 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 inueÌ„t words but also eueÌ„ matter it self altogether abhorring contrarie to the Scriptures of God And therefore we may amend y e error of this their obiection 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 we beleeue the church in this part affirming that the scriptures came from the spirit of God theÌ„ 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 coÌ„sequeÌ„t is also true The Maior hath two parts touching the which we will particularly speake And touching the first point I doe make a distinction of the Church which Paule calleth the house of God the piller foundation of truth which heareth y e voice of her spouse onely dependeth vpon his mouth and is alwaies gouerned by the spirit of God cannot be séene because shée is not tied to circuÌ„stances of place time or persons yet notwithstaÌ„ding we beleeue y â— the same church is vpholden by the word of God that she nothing estéemeth mans traditions But this or y e visible Church or the companie of many visible congregations may swarue from the truth as it is manifest touching the Churches in the East of which y â— most part haue turned to Mahumet I will not héere bring in the ancient counsells which haue both allowed brought into y e church great gréeuous errors And touching this church we may thus determine inasmuch as she is subiect to many errors she is not otherwise to be heard except shée speake those thinges which are agréeable to the Scriptures touching which matter I haue disputed more at large in another place wherefore this hath héere no place which they say affirme y â— wée must altogether beléeue the church in part swarue froÌ„ the credit of the same theÌ„ must we beléeue the 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 froÌ„ 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 theÌ„ we may beléeue the same Sinagogue whereby she saith y â— the Canonicall bookes haue sprong from y e spirit of God againe we may not beléeue her when she reiecteth casteth away the doctrine of Christ Therfore in y â— respect Christ saith The Scribes Pharesies sitting in Moses chaire are to be heard 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 Secundum fallaciam figurae dictionis And they reasoning thus we may well bring theÌ„ to a great inconuenience saying In the time of Tertulian the church did affirme that an oblation for birth daies was a tradition receiued from the Apostles but in the time of the NiceÌ„e couÌ„sel 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 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 coÌ„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 writteÌ„ 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 froÌ„ hir in no part theÌ„ this foloweth by their argumeÌ„t that the Church may not wel be called the Church For y e truth of the maior proposition is proued thus If you did me beléeâ—e the scriptures truly I will beléeue y t there is nothing to be added thervnto because y t it is so commanded in them as I haue in diuers places of my booke proued therefore this sentence of Tertulian is highly to be imbraced WheÌ„ we beleeue saith he this first we must beleeue that there is nothing els that we ought to beleue Now if we wil consider the traditions of our aduersaries we shal easily perceiue y t they are not only added by inuentions but also contrarie to expresse places of scripture so ye sée y t we cannot beléeue the scriptures also the traditions of our aduersaries And therefore we may amend the error of the former obiection after this manner Sith we ought to beléeue God alone 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 atteÌ„tiue diligence whether it be y e voyce of the true church or not which we heare y t we may be able so to doo we must take counsell with the word of God set foorth vnto vs in the Scriptures from the which the true church of God neuer swerneth wheÌ„ therefore the Church affirmeth vnto vs that the scriptures are the word of God we acknowledge the same to be true not onely because the church so affirmeth but because of the inward efficacie of the spirite of God by the which the truth of the scriptures is sealed in our hearts lyke as the church by the conduction of the spirite of God affirmeth vnto vs y t the scripture is the word
truth requireth And againe wee must not agree to the Catholyke Bishoppes if at anie time they are deceiued taking opinion contrarie to the canonical scriptures And againe 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 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 Irenaeus as it is reported by Eusebius doth saie 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 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 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 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 Tertulian The Apostolicall doctrine doth allow nothing contrarie to the rule of Gods word 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 which are not written but yet notwithstāding faith he are not contrarie to the true sence of the Scriptures And Nazianzenus refuteth the Macidonians 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 two I will say saith he y ◠thou saist foure In like manner Augustine doth proue that the baptisme of infants is contained in holy Scriptures and that they shoulde not be rebaptised 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 y e rites and ceremonies of the Church haue béene 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 hath written in two Epistles to Ianuarius Hierome hath thus set forth the order and ceremonies of the Church 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 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 true consent to heretikes We haue heard afore out of Irenaeus that the auncient heretiks did defend their heresies by vnwritten traditions And Eusebius maketh mention of one Papias 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 y e 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 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 mētion of an infinit number like vnto these Wherefore that which Hierome did somtune speake of the bookes Apocripha 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