of God so we by the conduction of the same spirit beléeue that that is true which the Church affirmeth y t our faith may neuer rest vpō men but for euer vpon God alone The Apostles did adde vnto the lawe to wit the doctrine of the Gospell Ergo it is lawfull to adde vnto the worde of God To the antecedent I thus aunswere Although the doctrine of the Gospell bée more full and fruitfull then the writing of the olde Testament yet notwithstanding if ye well mark the matter in y e new and olde testament the selfe same doctrine of saluation is contained in them both for that is most true which Paule saith Acts 26. that he taught no other thing then that which the prophets and Moses had before taught And againe in the first to y e Rom. he sheweth y t the gospel was before promised by the Prophets therfore this is false which they say that the Apostles added to the law for it is one thing to adde to the lawe and another to erpound and referre it to his owne proper scope and purpose For let some man bring forth an obligation that we may vse this similitude and the payment being made he addeth at the ende that the Obligation is satisfied I pray you can he well be sayd to adde any thing to the same Obligation So when the Apostles gaue testimonie to the scriptures that Christ by his cōming had fulfilled both the lawe and the prophets they did not adde either to y e law or writings of the Prophets Now their consequent 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 of the spirit of God yet truly héereby can nothing happen whereby it shoulde be lawfull for other men to adde vnto y e same word of God Wherefore sithen by the argumentation of our aduersaries there would follow the ouerthrowe of this most noble excellent doctrine touching the similitude of the old and new Testament Therefore we may well amend their error by this most excellent saieng 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 y e scripturs against the scriptures then at the last they flie to the testimonies of the auncient Fathers the which they very diligently endeuour to beate into our heads with Orations long and tedious to the ende that by the heape thereof they might ouer whelme vs. Wherefore it séemeth conuenient in this part of our treatise to set downe some thing whereby not onely the obiections of the Papists but also our aunsweres may the more easier be vnderstood Now therefore y t we maye gather most true and infallible principles let vs adde some certaine rules to this our disputation 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 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 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 especially to those that knowe the truth yet will I for the confirmation of the same 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 Marke them diligentlie which cause diuision and offences contrarie to the doctrine which ye haue learned and auoide them And again 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 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 y e 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 and allegations without the witnesse of them are altogether voyde of credite And againe Euen as there is not anie 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 And againe The same that we are the same they be Chrisostome If anie thing bee spoken without the Scriptures the minde of the hearers is thereby brought into doubt Hierome Whatsoeuer heereafter shall be spoken besides the Apostolicall writings let it be abrogated of no value altogether without credit Agustine 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 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
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 The workeman that is sent foorth into the Haruest of the Lord hath a double husbandrie to wit the vnwritten and the written Againe As the Philosophers had certain secrets touching their opinions which they deliuered by traditions so likewise the Apostles And therefore Paule saith We speake wisedome amongst those that are perfect To this I aunswere thus First that this Author hath not handled the question sincerely and purely and this fault is easely to be found euen by the authoritie of y e scriptures for Christ saith thus What soeuer I speak vnto you in secret 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 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 saieng I speake wisdome amongst those that are perfect as Irenaeus as I haue before said doth affirm And Clemens doubted not to say y e euen y e Grecians were saued by Philosophy wher and ceremonies amongst the which hée â—â—â—koneth vp that most auncient custome whereby the Christians did alwaies stanâ— 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 shoâ—â—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 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 y e 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 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 Heere it is manifest that they deliuered not all things by writing but manie things by tradition 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 saieng Holde fast the Traditions which you haue learned either by word or by Epistle Hée gathereth that not only Paule but also the 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 thereofâ— 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 y e most pure fountaine of y e Scriptures touching which matter séeke the second rule Nazianzene The doctrine of the Gospell is more excellent through the figures of the Church which beeing receiued by tradition wee haue kept euen vntill this time I expound this place as I did the other afore going 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 trumperâ—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 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 which the
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. 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 For although the the Romish doctrine iâ— 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 wallâ— 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 â—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 〈…〉 â—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 Pâ—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 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 coÌ„staÌ„cie 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 striuing against it but by calling to minde the faying of Dauid in his 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 happeneâ—â— 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 coÌ„firme 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 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 â—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 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 disguâ—â—ing and touching this thing I expect both 〈…〉 and the iudgement of rather the best learned Diuines to 〈◊〉 I willinglie submit both this my opiniâ—â—â—â—â— 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 â—ont to saie that the hande maie be spread abroadâ— and againe 〈◊〉 him together the â—ingers be broâ—ght 〈…〉 likewise one matter maie by copious eloquenâ—â— behand that 〈◊〉 and beeing drawen together by short 〈◊〉 maie as effeâ—â—â—llie be 〈◊〉 more briefe Let therfore each treatise whitâ— is written at large with copious slowing stile haue his 〈◊〉 honour so that it he â—at 〈◊〉 to coÌ„firme the truth For as Plutarke saith truth 〈◊〉 inuineible if it be trulie declared rightlie applied And to Augustine not without good cause eloquence seemeth so much the more to terrifie 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 aâ— we be occupied in the searching out of the truth inasmuch as it draweth vs backe
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 y e 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 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 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 Furthermore this point of doctrine 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 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 come to the matter this disputation shall be diuided into sixe parts First we will set downe our owne opinion and then the opinion of the aduersarie then we will trie them both so y â— thereby maye appeare 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 those places so collected Thirdly we will refell the opinion of the other partie by negatiue disputations Fourthly we will wipe away the obiections of the aduersarie which they wrest out of the scriptures Fiftly we will take away y e foundations which they take out of the writings of the Doctors to ground their opinions on And sixtly we will heare the olde Doctors touching this point agreeing both with vs and the word of God â‚ THE FIRST CHAPTER ¶ 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 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 christiaÌ„ faith are contained in the holy Scriptures This our sentence or opinion we thus expound out of that place of y e Epistle to y e Hebrewes which ministreth vnto vs sufficieÌ„t matter for this disputation God spake in the time of the olde Testament in diuers and sundrie manners to our fathers to wit by oracles visions dreames by Vrim and Thummim finaly by y e prophets speaking by the motion or inspiration of the spirit of God and the same worde of God the spirit of God so commaunding was committed to writing both by Moyses and also by other Prophets and most holy men Now in these last dayes Iesus Christ the chiefe and most perfect Doctour and teacher of his Church being giuen to the world taught the Apostles by mouth ordained them teachers for his Church which did publish in writing the doctrine of the Gospell receiued from Christ by them taught by mouth Sith then y e word of God is the measure of our faith that that word of God remaineth in the most holy monuments or writings of the scriptures it followeth of necessitie that al the principles which are necessarie to faith and saluation of the Church are contayned in the holy Scriptures and whatsoeuer 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 uÌ„militudes wée will take our similitude from a King which by mouth proclaimeth an Edict then willeth the same to be printed the which being done men are not wont curiouslye to enquire of others which eyther heard or wer present at the proclamation what is contained in the Kings Edict because the Edict is in print to y e which they must stand and the which they must also beléeue So then I affirme in as much as the word was proclaimed and declared by the Apostles and euangelists and by them committed to writing it were in vayne and foolish now a dayes anye other where to be sought then in the Scriptures what the Apostles and Euangelistes did teach by mouth But now the opinion of the aduersarie is this That all principles of Religion necessarye for our Christian faith are not contained in the holye Scriptures The which theyr opinion they thus expounde Although the worde of God be the measure of our faith yet the whole worde of God is not extant in the scriptures 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 eccleâ—â—asticall traditions must bée added to the scriptures this is their opinion 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 â—anne bee but one of our opinions true as is manifest by the first groundes of Logicke 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 of our question both briefely and shorte 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
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
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 not written in Tables but deliuered by hand the which is farre both from the words and minde of the Apostle Now let vs ouerthrowe the consequence of our aduersaries being ful of absurdities and without reason If we must not absolutely stick vnto the writings of the Apostles because God hath written the Gospell in the mindes of the godly the should it followe that the writings of the Apostles are not necessarie for godlie men If all things as they saie are not written which are necessarie to saluation to what end then appertaineth the scriptures For all things saie they that are necessarie to saluation God hath written in the mindes of the godlie But this argument cannot bee concluded in one part onely for either it is vniuersallie true or els vniuersally false so the whole authoritie of the scriptures must bee vtterly abolished the which God forbid Againe If this consequence be of anie force that is to saye we must haue recourse to vnwritten traditions because GOD hath written the gospell in the minds of the godly then would it followe that the spirituall efficacie of God should be confounded 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 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 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 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 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 The Antecedent is manifest by reading of histories Although I doo not meddle much with the antecedent neither doo dispute touching the number of yeares yet would I that the readers should call to their remēbraunce 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 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 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 Let vs bring them therfore to an absurditie If the consequence of our aduersaries be of force or value this is also of force or value the Church of the Isralites not twentie yeares but two thousande yeares or somewhat more wanted the law written therefore it was not necessarie to the Church that the lawe should be written or the law written contained not all those things y e wer necessarie to y e doctrine of y e old testamēt But this is very absurd Let vs turne the argument of our aduersaries against themselues after this manner If God being perfect wise hath not suffered the church of Christ long time to want the writings of the Apostles both that hee might maintaine the truth of the Gospell as also he might prouide for the safegarde of his church Ergo these men are blasphemous against the prouidence of god which denie that all things are contained in the apostolicall writings which are necessarie to the doctrine of the Gospell For to what end would God by his diuine prouidence that the Apostles should write the gospell which they by mouth did preach was it because they should deliuer an vncertain and imperfect doctrine Furthermore if
at anie time the Church was contented with the preaching of the Apostles to wit in the first primitiue church I beseech you why shall not she nowe at this time be contented with the writings of the Apostles y t which as is before said are now in stéed of the apostles prechings rather then to runne to the fained forged false traditions which wer neuer writtē by the Apostles Wherefore the argument of our aduersaries is false the which wée thus correct In the first primitiue Church the Apostles depending vpon the writings of the Prophets did first of all preach by mouth the Euangelicall doctrine out of the writings of the Prophets And afterwarde least that the doctrine by them preached should be either corrupted of men or els such is the infirmitie of man the remembrance thereof shoulde by little and little slide out of the hearts of men That therefore they might leaue y t holy veritie which they preached vnto vs most firme sure they committed y e same vnto writings by the working of y e holy ghost to be a pledge for y e posterities which after should come Christ being cōuersant with his apostles 40 daies after his resurrection 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 but I denie the latter for the Error is in Fallacia petitionis principij as the Schoolemen saie I therefore denie the consequence For from whence haue they learned or rather dreamed that those things which Christ did then teach were not written of the apostles nay that dreame of our aduersaries is plainly and manifestly refelled and confuted Mathew 28. Marke 16. Luke 24. Iohn 20. and. 21. All which foure Euangelists doo shew vs things which Christ then taught And Luke in speciall wordes dooth witnes y e Christ did expound those things which were written of him so vnlikely it is that he should call vs backe to traditions not written But let vs bring them to an absurditie If Christ after his resurrection did teach all those things which did appertaine vnto the kingdome of God for that seemeth to 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 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 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 y e Christ to the end hée might appoint his Apostles to be most perfect Doctors and teachers of the Church did after his resurrection for y e space of 40. daies most diligently instruct them touching all those points of doctrine which appertained vnto the Gospell that the Apostles being so instructed might not onely declare the same doctrine by mouth but also that they might commit all those thinges vnto writings which appertaine to the kingdome of God saluation of his Church Paule confesseth that he wrote in parte 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 Paule saith that he hath written to y e Romanes in part and this word In part the which the olde interpreters haue translated worde by worde is not to be ioyned with this vearbe I haue written but this word More boldly the which the verie order of the text and the Gréeke phrase doo most manifestly shew for otherwise the Apostle must haue sayde Tomeros not haue added the Preposition Apio the like phrase is manifest in y e 2. Co. 2. c. 5. ve which is thus If any haue caused sorow y ◠same hath not made me sorrie but partly or in part lest it shuld more gréeue you al. I deny y e consequence of their argument The errour is secundū figuram dictionis their consequēce hangeth not w t their antecedent For Paul wrote not all to the Romanes say they ergo he wrote not all necessarie to saluatiō But Paul wrote more thē y t which he wrote to the Romanes so héere we sée y t their consequēt on cōclusiō agréeth not with their first proposition Paul wrote not all ergo al things necessary to saluation is not contained in the writings of the apostles This is too too absurd an argumēt and not worth the aunswering Christ said vnto his Apostles that he had many things to speake vnto thē which they could not beare away 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 first of al I do greatly wonder y t our aduersaries doo stick their ship vpon those rocks vpō which y e heretikes héertofore haue made so great shipwracks S. Augustine in his Tract 97. vpon Iohn doth testifie y t the heretiks were wont to take this place of Iohn to coulour their errours but Augustine himselfe doth handle those words of Christ with so great reuerēce y t if they wold heare him he wold easily withdraw our aduersaries frō their curiositie for Augustine vpon y e same saith Which of vs can declare those things 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 But let Augustine cease to inquire those things for the Papists are now growen to this point y t they rehearse vnto vs things which Christ neuer spake and that with great boldnesse when as they commend set forth vnto men the rites and ceremonies of their Masse and other like trumperie And I would to God that they would be perswaded that those their traditions that is to saie the foule filth of their errours and superstitions could neuer flow from so pure a fountain to wit as Christ But let vs returne vnto the exposition of
though vnto you saith he there were anie part of faith wanting or y t you ought or néed to learne anie thing And I sée this opinion of interpreters greatly to please 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 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 as is before sayd Secondly there is no doubt but that they were baptised and therefore perfectly instructed in christian religion They bring forth many other argumēts vnto this end and chiefly y e whole 2. cha of y e first epistle vnto y e Thessaloniās But let our aduersaries choose which interpretation they will yet shal it not serue anie thing for their purpose Now concerning their consequent I deny it for if by this word faith they vnderstand a through perswasion or constancie of faith the error is in the diuers signification of the word But if they had rather expound it touching doctrine then their cōsequence is false For they doe not well conclude thus they say some thing was wanting to y e faith of y e Thessalonians ergo Paul did not declare by mouth all thinges vnto 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. It is profitable for you not troublesōe vnto me to repeat those things againe vnto you But that we may return to y e Thessaloniās You know saith he what cōmaundements we gaue vnto you that you should abstein from fornication c. But let vs graunt this yet truly it followeth not because ther was some thing wāting vnto the faith of the Thessalonians that therfore Paule the rest of the Apostles wrote not all the things necessarie to the doctrine of y t gospell These arguments truely are of no value nor force neither yet scātly hang together Therfore we may wel bring thē to an absurditie saying If this argumēt of our aduersaries do preuaile 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 the apostles the Thessalonians the whole vniuersall church the which is too absurde And therefore wée may turne their argument vpō themselues saying◠If our aduersaries do heereby prooue their traditions because Paule desired to see the face of the Thessalonians that being present he might fully instruct them by mouth Then wold it follow that this appertaineth nothing vnto vs which a long time since could not see the face of Paule But perchance they wil say y ◠the olde fathers wrote those things which Paule then taught when he was present But because I will not say y ◠that is false I will make them this answere If those things were worth y ◠writing why did not Paule himselfe write thē If not why shuld y e old doctors write thē Therefore thus we may auoid their error saying That Paule did therfore desire to sée y ◠Thessalonians y t therby he might the more firmely establish their faith when as he did manifestly perceiue of what great efficacie y e presence of their techer was But séeing we cannot inioy this benefit we must plainly cleaue to the writinges of the Apostles and those their writings ought to bée of so great value vnto vs as if that the Apostles themselues were present to speak vnto vs so much the rather because in those writings we may heare euē y e voice of Christ Paule wrote vnto the Corinthians that when he came vnto them 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. And againe What is it in the which you are inferiour to other churches 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 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 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
Scriptures Againe If anie of those men vvhich are reported to haue the holie spirit of God 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 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 a flat signe of pride if anie man will reiect anie of those thinges which are not vvritten 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 that ought to be confirmed by the testimonie of the holie Scriptures Also the Apostle taking the example from men 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 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 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 some are distinctly set dovvne in the Scriptures 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 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 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 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 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 with reason be tried by the authoritie of the scriptures And again 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 Our Lord wold that we shuld beleeue nothing against the confirmed authoritie of the Scriptures Againe 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 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 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 Scriptures sufficiently doo containe all doctrine necessarie to the pilgrime that trauaileth heere in the world Peter Stelliaco Wee must runne vnto the scriptures alone that we may attain eternall life And Gracianus in his decrees doeth repeat that sentence of Augustine which wee haue before rehersed And many more may be recited vnto the like effect but heere we cease because wee will wander no farther That we may now therefore make an ende of the obiections of our aduersaries which they gather from y e writings of the Doctors we will comprehend the effect of all those their obiections which they haue or can bring forth in an argument which is thus The Doctors of the Church haue thought that besides the holie Scriptures 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 It is manifest by y e testimonies of the ancient Fathers which before wée haue alleadged y t those auncient fathers haue not written all alike touching traditions for first 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 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 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 conclusion is thus to be corrected In asmuch as the writings of all the Doctors 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 disputatioâ— if the matter so require and God so permit vs we will take in hand But nowe we defer it vnto another time Thus haue I â—â—â—â—ding to the methode proposed to wit dâ—â—â—ely and schoolelike 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 In Psa 43. Ios 6. Psa 54. Plut. in Cic. De doct Christ lib. 3. cap. 14 De nat deor lâ— 2. 2. Epist 3. The preacher ought to teach reproue Tit â— Aug Enc. ad Laure To reproue false doctrine the right vse of disputation is no small helpe In laud. Basil Epist 151 Contra Aca. li. 3 ca 13. 〈…〉 They are refuted vvhich wold not haue diuines me dle vvith the true art of disputing Col. 2. Aduer 159. Epis in cap. 2. Esa De praescri haer A similitude Ad 150. Epi in S ca. Esai The auncient Fathers coÌ„mended â— right vse of Logick Con. Acali 3 De ord li. 2. ca. 12 Touching the writings and disputations of y â— schoole Doctors In. 3. sent dist 24. quest 1. Great but vnprofitable is the labour of the schoole Doctors 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. Lomb. li. 1. Sent. dist 34. li. 2. sent dist 9. c â— Error To reasoÌ„ probably on plaine truths Contra Aca. Apolog ad 〈◊〉 louin 3. Error They darken the truth Con. Aca. Error 4 Is theyr vaine questions 2. Tim. 2 Eâ—chi â—d Lauren. cap. 55. The Popish schol doctours of ouâ— time frame not such argumentes in their disputations as y â— auncient learned vvere vvont The method to dispute both diuinely schoole like necessatie in our time Dâ— doct Chri. lib. 2. cap. 40. Tvvo vvayes to intreat of diuinitie A similitude The brief school like treatises are as it vver an Anatomy of y e large and copious vvriting or speakings Cout Maâ— lib. 3. De mod in disp Ser. A treatise of y e word of God vvritten Hovv the disputations of diunitie differ froÌ„ others that they ought reuerently to bee handled De doct Chri. li. 4. cap. 19 1. Tim. 6. Quest ver 108. De Ciuie Dei li. 2. cap. 29. 1 The vse of this disputation Psal 119. The diuisioÌ„ of this vvorke He 1. ve â— Our opinion and mind touching the vvorde of God The declaration of our opinion or minde The opinion and minde of y e Papistâ— The declaration exposition of their opinion The state point of this coÌ„trouersie The tearms of this question expounded What the vvorde of God is What tradition is What is meant by this word Necessarie to saluation What is meant by holye Scripture A demonstratiue or euident disputation Heb. 1 The Sylogisme or argument The explication or proofe of the argument The confirmation of the coÌ„ference Tert. de resur car Act. 26. The confirmation of the second part of the argument Ioh 20. 17 Rom. 1. Lu. 16 Iohn 6. Act. 26. Lu. 24 2 Pet. 1. Act. 1 Iude. Philip. 3. 1. Iohn 1. 2. Pet. 3. 2. Pet. 1. The argument The explication or proofe of the argument Deu 4. Prou. 30. The argument The examining or triall of y e argument Exod. 24. Deu. 31. Deu. 28. Act. 24. Deu. 27. Gal. 3 Esa 8. The argument The examining or triall of the argument Act. 26. 2. Cor 3. c. 2. Tim. 3. The argument The examining or triail oâ— y e silogisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iohn 5. The argument The explication or triall of the argument Lu 23. 31. 1. Pet. 4. 17 c. 1. Cor. 4. The Sylogisme The exaaminatioÌ„ of the Silogisme An euideÌ„t argument Iohn 20. The argument The explication of the argument Psa 19 Psa 119 Deu. 4. Psa 4. The argument The explication of the argument Gal. 4. 21. * A definitioÌ„ 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 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 The argument The vnfolding of y e former reason A disputation confutatiue vherein is refelled or confuted the opinioÌ„ or iudgement of y e Papistes The first argument against papistical traditions The vnfolding of