A Learned Treatise of Traditions

CHAP. 1. Concerning the nature of this Controversy.

Our Adversaries were accustomed a great while to dispute by way of Scripture; but at length perceiving themselves weak in the cause, and being much disquieted that the Scripture doth lock them up into so narrow a room, they spurn against it, laboring to make it appear doubtful, and without authority. By this means our Controversies change their nature; for instead of disputing by ground of Scripture, we are now led back to dispute of the Scripture it self, and to defend the Authority and Perfection of it. This is now the field wherein our Adversaries do sport, and display the metal of their conceits. They accuse the Scripture of imperfection and insufficiency, of obscurity and vncapablenesse to determine any difference, calling it a dumb and imperfect rule, a nose of wax, a rock of scandal, a scabbard, that receiveth as well a leaden, as a steel blade. And though Church of Rome be party in the cause, yet will it be Judge supreme, and infallible. If the Church be Judge, she of Rome will be Judge, and will have it appertain to her to prescribe her task unto her self, and to be sovereign Judge of her own proper duty. Our Adversaries make the Church of Rome the Judge infallible of her own proper infallibility, and that she shall be sovereign Judge of the interpretation of the same Laws, whereby God doth judge her sins. They stick not to say, that the Church of Rome is no way subject to the Scripture, that is to say, to God speaking by his Prophets and Apostles. So on the other side they maintain, that the Scripture is subject to the Church of Rome, and ought to be regulated by the Faith of that Church. They avow that to be the singular and only Church which giveth authority to the Scripture, and will have the Scripture inferior to the Church in Dignity, in Stability, in Certainty, in Antiquity, and in Amplitude: Yea, so far they proceed, that the Pope may add to the Creed, dispense contrary to the Apostles, alter that which God hath ordained in the holy Scriptures, and dispose of his Commandments. They hold, that the sacred Scripture be therefore entertained and received amongst men, because the Pope doth approve and ordain it so to be: as if the Pope were more to be credited then God, speaking in his holy Scriptures; or that he were no whit subject to the Law of God conta • ned in the Scripture.

In all this controversy between the Scripture and the Church, concerning the preeminence, by this word Church, our adversaries always understand the Romish, although there be many other more ancient and more pure; namely, the Greek, the Syrian, the African, &c. and by the Romish church they understand the Pope alone, in whom resideth the sovereign authori • ie, & who judgeth all • hings without possibility to err; yea, then especially when he judgeth alone motu proprio, of his own mere motion, and speaking in the Chair Apostolic; and when it is his pleasure to join unto him some Prelates for his assistance in Decreeing, he reinvesteth them with infallible knowledge and understanding, yea in the points which he himself understandeth not.

Whosoever will here open his eyes, and not forbid himself the use of reason, shall easily perceive, that Satan by this proceeding endeavoreth slily to bring in Atheism, and to undermine the foundations of Christian Religion For by this means the Christian Faith is not founded upon the Word of God contained in the holy Scriptures, but upon human and uncertain evidence, yea the most uncertain that can be conceived; they justifying the authority of the Church of Rome to be only established upon the testimony of the Romish Church, making her Judge, witness, and party in the same cause, and endeavoring to make men believe, that the Church of Rome hath more authority then the Scriptures, for she her self doth say it.

If it be so, that the authority of the Scripture be grounded upon the authority of the Church of Rome, why do they allege unto us passages of Scripture to support the authority of the Church of Rome?

And when instead of directing the Faith of a Christian by the Word of God, speaking in the Scriptures, they send him to the Church, the simple people are perplexed and hindered from choosing the best Church amongst many contrary. How shall they choose? Church from the false? shall they know it in examining her doctrine by the Scripture? that may not be; for the Scripture is a Book that the people are not permitted to read: and our adversaries affirm, that the Church is not subject or bound to the Scripture, and that the Church may change the same which God commanded in the Scripture.

Shall they discern the true Church by antiquity and succession? nor that; for the Syrian and Greek Churches (contrary to the Romish) are more ancient then that of Rome, deriving their succession from the Apostles; and punctually to judge in this succession and antiquity, infinite Histories both Greek and Latin ought to be read, wherein the people understand little or nothing: And amongst the Clergy it self, scarce one of an hundred is found, that hath but ordinary or competent knowledge therein. He that but entereth into the view thereof, shall discover the seat of the Roman Pontifies defiled with heresies and enormous crimes, yea mangled and rent with Schisms that are decided by stroke of sword; and according to the power of Emperors and Kings doeth the scale weigh down.

Shall they have respect to the generality and multitude? no, Jesus Christ calleth his Church a little flock, Luke 12. 32. and signifieth unto us, that the multitude and broad way lead to perdition, Math 7. 13, 14.

Shall they give heed to miracles? no, the Apostle hath foretold us, that the son of perdition, who is Antichrist, shall come with signs and miracles, 2. Thess. 2. 9. And Jesus Christ admonisheth us, that false prophets shall arise, and shall make signs & wonders to seduce, Math. 24. 24. Now seeing that so many false miracles are wrought, and the most predominant Courts of Justice have made many Decrees against the workers of them, how and by what marks shall the poor people distinguish the true miracles from the false, seeing there is no knowledge of the true doctrien declaring God's will that we should discern the miracles? Deut. 13. v. 1, 2, & 3. Briefly, it is certain, that the Scriptures authority being no more the foundation and direction of the believers faith, all Religion vanisheth, and turneth into smoke, and there remains nothing but to believe at adventure, to follow the generality, and like blind men to lay hands on him that marcheth next before us.

It is answered, that in this perplexity the people are to follow their Doctors and Pastors, for they are the men that undertake with God for the people. What? must every man believe the Pastors of his own country? must they follow the Church wherein they are borne? shall man owe his Religion to his birth, or the custom of his country, or the success of affairs? If it be answered, that by the Pastors and Doctors, those of the Church of Rome are to be understood, therein lies the point of difficulty. For the question is, if those Doctors be sound and good, teachign the true way of health, conformably to the Word of God, which they conceal from the people, in denying them to read the holy Scriptures; then are the people bound to believe, that these are good Doctors, before they know the good doctrine; and that this church is the true church, before they know or apprehend the truth. They are also bound to believe what the church of Rome believeth, not knowing what that Church ought to believe. But if it be their tenent, that every particular person be assisted with the Spirit of God, to be able to discern the true Church; why hold they not that he be assisted with the same spirit to discern the true doctrine, and to examine it by the holy scriptures, seeing that the true Church cannot be distinguished but by the true doctrine? for the true faith is first to be known before the true faithful can be distinguished; and the true rule is to be well understood, before those that follow it can be known. Christ must first be known, before there is possibility of knowing undoubtedly, what Church is truly his flock.

Add likewise hereunto, that the faith of the Romish Doctors dependeth entirely upon the Popes faith; nevertheless they (for the greatest part) do believe that the Pope may err; and the Popes themselves do confess the same, as we have elsewhere proved. Yea, their errors are condemned by those Councils, which the Church of Rome did allow. And it is hard to believe that he cannot err, who boasteth of his authority and power, to change that which God hath ordained, & to dispense with his commandments.

Add moreover, that the greatest •• atterers of the Popes, that have written their histories and lives, do lament the corruption of that seat, and complain of the traffic it exerciseth, and of the infamous •• ving of many Popes, and their intolerable pride: for what doth the Pope? he is advanced so far as to call himself God, and the divine Majesty, to cause himself to be adored, to reach forth to Emperors a pantable to be kissed, to dispose the crowns and lives of Kings, and to release souls out of Purgatory: insomuch as from a poor Biship of a city, who in the Primitive time appeared not but in the martyrdoms, is by degrees become a great Monarch of the earth, that surpasseth in riches and treasure the greatest Kings of the world.

These things considered may we fix in our minds a just cause to suppose, that the Pope is the same man that the Scripture hath foretold to come into the world, to lift himself up into the shrone of Roman Emperors, style himself God, vaunt of signs and miracles; he that should be • clothed in scarlet, should possess his seat in a town of seven mountains, (which is Rome's description), should seduce Kings, wage war against the Church, and vanquish it, and all this under the name of Christian, assuming to himself the title and authority of Jesus Christ. For so saith the Spirit of God in the 13 of the Apocalypse: He shall have the horns of a Lamb, but shall speak like a dragon. These things having been foretold above fifteen hundred years past, no man since that time hath so swelled himself to so high a pitch, as to have these recived things appropriated unto him, but the Pope of Rome. Is it by chance or adventure, that such pre • ogatiues have met in one man? Surely these considerations are sufficient to cause a suspicion in • s, that this is the man who should have more authority then the Scripture, that would have himself believed, when he saith that the Scripture is subject unto him, and that he hath power to change it, that is to say, to contradict it. For no man can extol himself above the Scripture, unless it be merely to impugn it.

Now though man fearing God, and touched with the zeal of his house, cannot see the Scriptures, (that are divinely inspired) to be so injuriously despighted, without extreme horror and grief; and though it be a very prodigy or wonder of men, that call themselves Christians, but so pour out their hearts in invectives against the Scripture, (whereof neither Porphyry, nor Lucian, nor the most capital enemies of the Christian name were ever advised): yet to us is it a subject of joy, and no little consolation in the midst of reproaches cast upon us, to be employed to speak in God's behalf, and to defend the honor of his word, against men perversely ingenious to defame it. For it is better to suffer for him, then to triumph without him. There is not a more honorable blemish, nor more honest disgrace, then to be defamed, and oppressed for his name.

True it is, that the stain and disreputation exceed our strength, and it is no easy matter to speak worthily of the condign honor belonging to holy Scripture, and with imperfect minds to defend her perfection, it were in some sort to light the day with a candle, and to demonstrate the Sanne with the finger, as to endeavor to arrive at the bright evidence of the Scripture: for at all times all that we can perform is less clear then her perfection. I hold it therefore expedient to publish to the light the scandals and accusations which our adversaries do raise against the Scripture, and to show how God hath stricken them with the spirit of amazement: as also to compare the wickedness and vanity of the Romish Traditions, with the perfection and sanctity of the holy Scripture. And we hope that in this so holy and just quarrel God will assist us, and that he will vouchsafe us the grace to maintain the honor of his Word, by such means as are most agreeable to his Word: and that he who hath confounded the tongues of the builders of Babel, will confound the thoughts and spirits of those that labor daily to rebuild it.

In my three former Treatises, entitled, The Judge of Controversies, I have defended the authority of the Scripture, and shown, that our adversaries in this cause have not only the Scripture contradicting them, but also themselves, common sense, antiquity, and experience; and that they are not only at variance among themselves, but everyone particularly thwarteth himself. It remains now to speak of the perfection of the Scripture, and to show that our Adversaries wrongfully find fault therein, and most injuriously accuse it of insufficiency.

These two Questions, the one touching the authority of the Scripture, the other as concerning her perfection, are linked together inseparably. These two properties of Scripture reciprocally embrace one the other, and afford to themselves mutual succor. For the Scripture it self by her authority maintaineth her sufficiency, and her sufficiency giveth her authority. And whosoever withstandeth the authority of the Scripture, fighteth also against her perfection: for if the Scripture be sovereign Judge, it is deficient in nothing to judge well And it is certain that she cannot be Judge of points whereof she speaketh not. If she be wanting in anything, some superior authority must supply her default. And if our Adversaries have reason to say that the Church of Rome is the rule of Scripture, for a certain it is of that Church wherein we ought to learn, whether there be any imperfection in the Scripture: but the decision of the question touching the Scriptures authority, levelleth the way for us to the question concerning her perfection: which shall be (if God permit) this last Treatise, wherein we defend the absolute perfection of the Scripture, against the Appendixes and Additions of the Romish Church, which men call Traditions; yea against men that with a depraved subtlety search and hunt after defects in Scripture: like unto Holland spectacles, that discover spots and stains in the shining sun.

When we compare the Romish Traditions with the doctrine of holy Scripture, they will be found not only infinitely beneath the sanctity and excellency of the Scriptures, and as coals mingled amongst Diamonds: but also contrary to them, and mere insurrections against God's commandments, under color of addition. It will be found, that these Traditions, which they derive and make to descend from the Apostles, are forged de novo, and resemble the Gibeonites who being very near, spake as if they were come from far. It will appear, that these Traditions which men exalt in general, when they come to a particular scanning, they are but a frivolous bundle of human Inventions, contrived for gain, and of malicious deceits, to subdue the people under the Ecclesiastiques, and to retain them in blind ignorance.

CHAP. II. Of the word Tradition.

IT will be necessary to expound the word before we speak of the matter. This word Tradition signifieth a doctrine given by succession from hand to hand. From whence we conclude, that the holy Scripture, the Law of God, and the Gospel are Traditions. The Apostle S ^t . Paul, in his first chapter to the Galat. v. 14. affirmeth himself to be exceedingly zealous of the Traditions of his Fathers; calling so the Law of Moses, whereof he had been very zealous, or at least comprehending it in these Traditions. The same Apostle in the second to the Thessal. chap 2. v. 15. exhorteth them to preserve the Traditions which they had learned either from his mouth or by his Epistle, calling the doctrine which he had written unto them a Traditon. And in the 15 chap. to the Corinth. the I. I have given you by tradition, (for so is the Greek word) that Jesus Christ is dead for our sins, according to the Scriptures. He then calleth Tradition that which is in the Scripture. Just in the same manner speaketh he in the same Epistle at the 23. verse. of the 11. chapter.

Thus speak the Fathers. Cyprian in his 74. Epist. to Pomp. If it be commanded in the Gospel, or contained in the Epistles of the Apostles, or in the Acts, let this divine and holy Tradition be observed. And Basil in the third Book against Eunomius: The Lord himself in the tradition of saving Baptism, gave this order, saying, As you go along, baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost.

But Custom hath prevailed, that by this word Tradition, some Document, Rule Recitall, or Ceremony in matter of God's Service, not contained in the holy Scriptures be observed. And so shall the word be taken in all this Treatise.

CHAP. III. The belief of our Churches. The calumny of Regourd a Jesuit.

THe fifth article of our confession expresseth, that the holy Scripture is the rule of all verity, containing all that is necessary for the service of God and our own salvation, whereunto it is not lawful to add, diminish, or change.

Hereby we intend not absolutely to reject all Tradition: for if there be a Tradition that addeth nothing to the Scripture, but serveth only to maintain her authority and perfection, we embrace that most willingly. Such a Tradition is that the Books of the old and New Testament are sacred and Canonirall. This Tradition is so far from adding to the Scripture, that on the contrary it saith, that nothing ought to be added thereunto. Neither is it without the compass of the Scripture, seeing that it springeth and results from the perfection of the Scripture it self; and the credit or testimony that a Church (be it true or false) conferreth upon these Books, is but a probable and human testimony, until God (giving efficacy to this Scripture to touch and stir up devotion) imprinteth in it a more effectual persuasion. For it is not the Church that giveth faith, but the spirit of God that worketh in our hearts by his powerful word.

As a river that passeth through a town, is sufficient to refresh and water it throughout, yet notwithstanding is it behooveful that some Pipe or channel should conduct it from the source into the place: so the holy Scripture is sufficient to instruct us to salvation, nevertheless it must come to us as it were by the course of successive Tradition. Such a Tradition addeth no more to the Scripture, then the channel addeth to the water of the River.

Also when we reject unwritten Traditions, we intend not to reject all the words that are not found in the Scripture, in regard that we may there find the matter in substance and equivalent terms, and that these words do add nothing to the doctrine of salvation contained in the Scriptures. Such are the terms of God's providence, and of the Immortality of the soul. Likewise the words of Trinity, Consubstantial, and the Procession of the holy Ghost, words profitably employed by our forefathers, to make that perspicuous which is contained in the Scriptures, and to shut up heretics into a more narrow strait.

Also we willingly admit of unwritten Traditions which concern not the doctrine, but only the Ecclesiastical policy, and outward order, in regard that such Laws and Customs are not given for absolutely necessary, and equalled with the doctrine of salvation: as also, because they serve not the Pastors use for traffic, avarice, or ambition; and that in this order and outward policy there is nothing dishonest, and contrary to good morality, or that may expose the Christian Religion to ridiculousnesse; and lastly, because that with these Ceremonies and observations the multitude is not excessive, neither do they divert the piety by postures of the countenance, or the spiritual service by corporal exercise. For as the Romans having conquered a Province, did amuse the people with Sports and pompous Triumphes, feasting them with their spoils, whilst they were then busy in plotting and aggravating the people's servitude: so doth the enemy of our salvation amuse the people by the splendor of Ceremonies, whilst he then inthralleth consciences, and tacitly insinuateth idolatry; to which, the very inclination of the people doth much contribute. For a man naturally loveth rather to recreate his sense, then to instruct his understanding; to behold public spectacles, then hear wholesome doctrines; to admire pictures, then edify by good precepts; and findeth less difficulty to shape stones to the image of man, then to unshape or reform man to the image of God.

Our confession then rejecteth only the Traditions, that add something to the doctrine of faith & manners contained in the Scripture, and which are given forth to supply that which is thought to be wanting in the doctrine of the holy Scriptures.

The Iesuire Regourd in his book intitled, Catholic Demonstrations, in the sixth Demonstration, proposeth salsely our Beliefe. He alledgeth the words of the fifth Article of our confession of the faith, where he makes us say, that the Word of God contained in the Books received by us, is guided with all verity, and containeth all that is necessary for the service of God, and for our own salvation, and that by it all things ought to be examined and squared; Antiquity, Customs, the Multitude, human Wisdom, Judgments, Sentences, Edicts, Decrees, Councils, Visions, Miracles. But he changeth the words of our Confession by a most notorious falsification: for we say only that these things must not be opposed against the Scripture. Mark our very words: It is not lawful for men nor Angals to add thereunto, nor diminish, nor change. Whence it followeth, that neither Antiquity, nor Customs, nor the Multitude, &c. ought to be opposed against the holy Scripture. We condemn not Antiquity, nor Councils, as Regourd imposeth upon us; but we say, that he that would oppose these things against the Scripture, ought not to be believed. We affirm this, because our Adversaries say, that the Romish Church may change that which God hath commanded in the Scripture, dispense God's word contrary to the Apostle, and esta • lish new Articles of Faith: whereof we have set down multitudes of proofs, in the forepart of our first Book, and will produce more here following.

CHAP. IV. The opinion of the Romish Church. That our Adversaries with one consent accuse the Scripture of insufficiency, and of not containing all the doctrines necessary to salvation.

WHen our Adversaries dispute against Pagans, and compare the holy Scripture with human wisdom, they exalr the sanctity, perfection, authority, perspicuity, and divine efficacy of the holy Scripture; yea, you would imagine they accorded with us, and borrowed our terms. But when the question is of comparing the Scripture with the church of Rome, then alter they their language, debasing the dignity of the Scripture, to the end to magnify the authority of the Pope. They uphold, that the Scripture is not Judge, & that this title appertains unto the Pope, and to the Prelates which he authorizeth; then (I say) they make all authority of the Scripture to depend upon the power and testimony of the Romish Church. They accuse the Scripture of incertitude, of being depraved, of obscurity, of insufsiciencie, and imperfection.

But if one represent unto them their own proper words, wherein they commend the perfection of the Scripture, and acknowledge that it containeth all that is necessary to salvation, they have an evasion ready at hand: for they say that the Scripture may be called • erfect, because she referreth to the • hurch, which supplieth all her • efects. Wherein they apparently • putradict themselves. For if the Scriptures send back to the church to learn of her wherein they are de fectiue, by the same message and •• nding back they confesle their • wne imperfection. The Merchant that sendeth away his Chapman to another shop, to find that which he hath not in his own, by this dismission he confesseth that his own shop is ill furnished. And if it be sufficient for the Scripture to be called perfect, when as she sends is to the Church, it is most cer • aine, that instead of all the Scrip • ure, one sole line might suffice, spcaking thus; Go but to the Church of Rome, and she will teach you all things infallibly.

Now to understand what is the imperfection where of our adversaries accuse the Scripture, let v •• observe what they discourse upon the same.

The Council of Trent in the fourth Session pronounceth that the Church shall rece • ue and honor the unwritten Traditions with equal affection of piety and reverence as the holy Scripture. The hallowed Synod (say these Fathers) receives and honoreth with like affection of godliness and reverence all Books as well of the Old as the New Testament, and the Traditions appertaining to faith and manners, as dictated only by the mouth of Christ, or by his holy spirit. Yea by this decree the commandments of the Church of Rome are equal to the Law of God, and the doctrine of the Gospel contained in the New Testament. By this rule the Invocation of Saints commanded by Tradition, ought to be done with like piety and reverence, as the Invocation of God commanded in the holy Scripture.

By the authority of this Council a Catechism was framed, which in the very entry and be ginning placeth this Maxim that all doctrine which ought to be given to the faithful, is contained in the Word of God, which is divided into Scripture and Traditions; whence grew up the distinction of the word written and unwritten.

Gregory de Valentia the Jesuit in the fifth Book of his Analysis, and Title of the third Chap. The Scripture is not a sufficient rule of faith, for it containeth not all things.

Cardinal Bellarmine a Jesuit, in his Book of the Vnwritten word Chap. 4. The Scriptures without Traditions are not simply necessary nor sufficient. And there again he calleth the Scripture regulam non totalem, sed partialem, a rule not entire, but a piece or parcel of a rule.

The Jesuit Baile in the 9 question of his Catechism: I will make you point it with your finger, that the Scripture is not sufficient.

Peter Charren in the fourth Chap. of his third Verity, saith, that to require all to be proved by Scripture, is an unjust demand. And not much after: The Scripture is nothing but a little par cell of truth revealed.

Salm ron the Jesuit in his 13. Tome of the first Book of his Commentaries upon the Epistles of Saint Paul: It is a sottishness to think that the Apostle have written all things, or have given all by Tradition, that would turn to an injury against the holy Ghost operating and revealing: and it would be a thing repugnant to our nature, that comprehenaeth not all things at a clap.

Of which vn written Traditions that have been started since the Apostles time, he fercheth some examples: to wit, the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, that is to ay, the Papal Monarchy, with the subordinate degrees; the service of Images, and the suffrages of the dead, the Mass and manner of sacrificing, and the Tradition that Jesus Christ hath made a sacrifice in bread and wine: & that he then made the Chrism, &c. He rendereth the reason why these things should not be written: to the end that the Commandment of Jesus Christ be kept, who chargeth in this manner: Give not to dogs that which is holy. Upon this Jesuits reckoning, the doctrine of the birth and death of our Savior was given to dogs, when it was digested in writing. And God gave his Law to dogs, when he wrote it in two Tables. But as for the Papal Hierarchy, Image-service, Romish Indulgences, Invocation of Saints, &c. God would not have such holy things to be cast to dogs, nor hath he permitted them to be written.

And there again: Waxing insolent and froward, they cannot be vanquished by the Scriptures, therefore must their throats be cut with one Tradition alone.

Coster a Jesuit in the Preface of his Manuell: The Heretics of our time do stick to the Scriptures as to a rock. That displeaseth the Doctor, for (saith he) In the Parchments as well of the Old as New testament many things are wanting. And further: they fear not to affirm with great impudence, that all things are contained in the Scripture. And a little after: It seems that Jesus Christ forbad all the doctrines of Faith to be couched in writing, when he said: Give not to • ggs that which is holy. As if the Scripture were made for the dogs. And who may these dogs be but the Christian people? Now seeing that Jesus Christ hath given the Scripture to these dogs, that is to say, to the people, wherefore doth the Pope take from them that which Jesus Christ hath given unto them, in debarring them of the reading?

Reason would require, that our Adversaries specify unto us, what are the Doctrines that are wanting in the Scripture, and that they make us a catalogue of their Traditions. But they have not dared to do it hitherto, fearing to affright the people with the multitude of doctrines, which they have patched to the word of God.

We learn by the History of the Council of Trent, that besides the public Sessions of the Council, they caused Congregations to be made of Prelates and Doctors to make draughts of the Decree which should be proposed to the Council: and when these were afterwards to be read in full Council, the Fathers gave their suffrage by the word Placet, without scruple or difficulty therein, receiving the said Decree as a Law already ratified by the Popes Legates. Before the fourth Session was held, where in was established the Decree touching Traditions, some selected Doctors were assembled to frame this Dectee, which was for a long space debated. Some interposing that it was necessary a Decree should be made, wherein it should be declared that all the Catholic doctrine is founded upon Tradition, in regard that the Scripture it self is not to be believed, but by the leave and means of Tradition that ministereth authority unto it.

Vincent Lunel, a Cordelier was of opinion to make a Decree of the authority of the Church, before Traditions should be mentioned, because these are grounded upon the authority of the Church, and the Church is that which affor • eth all authority to the Scriptures. To which opinion the Legates would not condescend, fearing that hereby the memory of the Councils of Constance and Basel should be revived, which have adjudged, and definitively determined, that the sovereign authority of the Church abideth in the Council, and not in the Pope, and that the Pope is subject to the Council, and that to enter into dispute hereon, were to signify that it is not yet known who should be Judge.

But Anthony Mariner the Carmelite, a sage and learned man, was of opinion, that nothing at all should be spoken of Traditions, alleging, that without all doubt God under the Old Testament had commanded Moses to write his Book of the Law, charging the Kings to read it carefully, and to put a copy of it into the Ark of the Covenant; but saith, that under the New Testament the Scripture is not necessary, in respect that Jesus Christ hath written his doctrine in men's hearts, without need either of Tables, Ark, or Book. He further saith, that if there were no Scripture at all, yet the Church should loose nothing of her perfection: It is true, that God hath not forbidden his Apostles to write, but so also is it certain that they have not written by his commandment, and it is an abuse to say, that God hath commanded them to write one part of the doctrine, and forbidden them to write the other. Again he presseth, that if any man he of a contrary opinion, he should have too main difficulties to unfold, the one to declare the things forbidden to be written; the other to tell us who hath made those men that came after the Apostles so adventurous and bold, to commit to writing that which God had forbidden his Apostles to write. Lastly he saith, that if any man avowed it to be chance and without express commandment from God, that some things have been written, and others not, he should accuse the providence of God, in taking no care of so important a matter, and should call into doubt the assistance of the holy Spirit, that hath instructed the Apostles to write. For these reasons was he of opinion to make no comparison of Traditions with the Scripture, since by this mean also they might pass over the Scripture.

But Cardinal Poole an English man, and third Legat, did utterly renounce this opinion. Yet for all • that there was a decree framed wherein (without mentioning the authority of the Church, or that Traditions are above the Scripture) it is averred, that simply the Scripture and Traditions ought to be received with equal piety and reverence. Which is a perpetual rule that the Council hath observed, to devise empty Decrees, not expressing the moity of the church of Rome's opinion, and that in ambiguous words, to the end, that upon all occasions they may make Interpretations fit for their own turns.

CHAP. V. That our Adversaries say there are doctrines and articles of Christian Faith, yea in the very essential things, which the Apostles have neither taught by mouth nor writing.

Our Adversaries are not contented to accuse the Scripture alone of imperfection, but they find also a deficiency in the Aposties preacaing, and say, that they have not taught all by word of mouth. So as by their account the holy Scripture and Apostolic Traditions coupled together make no an entire body of the Christian doctrine. They also freely con •• sse, that the Popes have added from age to age divers Traditions, according as they have thought them necessary; and that not only •• things of less importance, but also in matters essential to the Christian faith.

Bellarmine in his 4. Book of the Vnwritten word of God, chap. 2. calleth some Traditions Divine, which Jesus Christ hath taught by mouth, & have not been set down in writing. Others he calleth Apostolic, which the Apostles have taught by word of mouth, and never wrote them. And the last he calleth Ecclesiastical, which he saith, are introduced from ancient customs by the Prelates, or by the people, and creepingly by the silent and vnquestioning agreement of the people, have gained as it were strength of law. In which distinction he clearly acknowledgeth, that the Traditions which he styleth Apostolic, are not Divine; and that Ecclesiastical are neither Divine nor Apostolical. Whence it is manifest with what subtlety our adversaries commonly attribute the title of Apostolical to all Traditions indifferently, as if they were all derived from the Apostles; and how falsely they comprehend Traditions under the title of The unwritten word of God, when as by their own confessions a great part of these Traditions is not the Word of God. For Traditions that are not divine, are necessarily human. And this is evidently seen in the Prayer Books for certain hours, and the duties wherewith they charge the people, unto whom they first commit God's ten Commandments, and then the commandments of the Church: which is an argument of their confession, that the commandments of the Church are not God's commandments.

In this interim the Council of Trent, at the before recited place, maketh no difference between Traditions; avouching, that the • are all received with like affectio • of piety and reverence as the hol • Scripture, & equalleth those Ecclesiastical Traditions (brought in b • the Popes at several times) to th •• ten commandments of the divine Law, and to the Doctrine of the Gospel written in the New Testament.

The same Cardinal disputing against Barkley touching the Popes power to depose Kings, and cause them to be killed, as also concerning his authority over all the Temporaltie of the world, not finding either in Scripture, or in ancien • History of the Church, any passage or example to countenance and underprop so abhominable a doctrine, defendeth himself in this manner: He judgeth not rightly of the Church, who admitteth nothing but what he expressly readeth to have • en practiced or done in the ancient • hurch: as if the Church of these • tter times had c • ased to be a Church, • had not power to unfold and d • clare, • a to establish and ordain the things •• at appertain to faith and manners • f Christians. This power then of • he Pope over the life and crown • f Kings is not a divine Tradition, • or Apostolic, but Eccl • siasticall, • rought in by the church of Rome • n latter times, that is to say, by • he Pope.

And when our adversaries attribute to the Pope the power of adding to the Creed, and of making articles of Faith, it is apparent that they hold the Pope able to bring in. Traditions essential to Christian faith. which the Apostles have neither written nor taught by word of mouth.

This is that which Thomas Aquinas teacheth in the second part of his Summs, saying, It belongeth s • lely to the authority of the sovereign Pope, to make a new edition of Creed, as also all things that concern the universal Church. Upon which passage, Andradius that assisted at the Counsel of Trent, spake thus in the second Book of the defense of the Tridentine faith: The Roman Pontifies in defining many things which had been formerly hidden, have accustomed to augment the Creed.

This question hath been moved to the Council of Florence, between the Greeks and Latins; the Latins maintaining against the Greeks, that the Pope and church of Rome may add to the Creed. Finally in the last Session is concluded in favor of the Latins, that the Church of Rome hath right of power to add to the Creed; and in the margent is noted, Rom: Pontificis potestas, the power of the • ope, for by the church you must • understand the Pope.

To this doth the Jesuit Vasques • gree, who disputing of the Apo • les commandment, that biddeth • he people of Corinth, 1. Cor. 11. verse. 28 to eat of this bread and drink of this cup, speaking thus: Though we should grant, that it hath been the Apostles commandment, yet nevertheless the Church and the sove reign Pope were able to abolish this commandment upon just reasons: for the power of the Apostles to give commandments, hath not been greater then that of the Church and the Pope. Seeing therefore that the Pope hath as much power over the Church as the Apostles, and that the Apostles have had the power to form a Creed, and to establish in the Church Articles of Faith, which had not been written before, nor taught by word of mouth in the Church: it follows, that the Pope hath the same power, and that he can forma a Creed, or add to that which the Apostles have formed, and can ordain matters which the Apostles have neither written nor taught by mouth.

Whereupon Leo the tenth in his Bull Exurge, which is annexed to the end of the last Lateran Council, thundereth and pronounceth an anathema again • Luther, for having spoken amongst other things, that it is no way in the power of the Church or of the Pope to establish articles of faith.

Salmeron the Jesuit is express in his 13 Tome, and the third part of the sixth Disputation, saying, The doctrine of faith suffereth addition in the things that are essential. These words are worth observation: for if you believe this Jesuit, the Pope and Church of Rome •• ay add to the Traditions that • re called Apo • tolicall, and to the •• written word, not only matters • cciden • all, but also essential, not • aught by the Apostles. Which • ikewise doth i • feere, that the A • ostles have not taught all that is • ecessary to Christian Religion, • nd that then there wanted some • hing that was essential in the doctrine of the Apostles.

The same Jesuit in his 8. Disputation, gives a reason why the Apostles have not written nor preached all things: The affairs (saith he) in the Apostles time di • not so hit and fall out, as that all things could be decided; and the Church at that time was of a condition differing from her now pr • sent estate, and from her estate since that very time. Moreover, our nature cannot apprehend all things at once, but by progress and succession of time: neither is it capable of all truths at a time, &c. It were then to abuse the holy Ghost (that an • oynteth Christ's members with ointment, and that operateth until thi • instant) to reject all that hath not be • spoken by the Apostles. Whereupon he concludeth, therefore may there • be new Traditions concerning faith and manners, though they were never made or explicated by the Apostles.

Now I leave to judge, with wha • conscience it may be maintained that the Traditions are ancient and Apostolical, seeing that our adversaries do confess, that there are many of them moderne and new, whereof the Apostles never spake word.

And to the ende that no man may conceive these new Traditions to be spungie & of no weight, unnecessary, or unessentiall to Christian Religion, he speaks directly, that the new Traditions are touching faith and manners, and that the •• ctrine of the Christian faith re •• veth yet an addition even in • ings that are essential: yea and • ore expressly in the same 8. Dis • tation: Hence (saith he) may be col • cted, that the Apostles have not given • l by Tradition, but only the thing • • at then were necessary, and that were • oper for the believers salvation. Ac • ording to this Jesuits Tenet, the Apostles have not taught all that • s necessary in these our days; and • here are now articles of faith necessary to salvation, which in the Apostles time were not necessary.

Of the number of these new Traditions neither written nor preached by the Apostles, and that are now decreed for necessary and essential to Religion, are Romish Indulgences, and Treasure of the Church, wherein the Pope gathereth up the superaboundance of satisfactions made by Saints an • Monks, and distributes them •• others by his Pardons, to satisfi • the justice of God. This is an essen • iall doct • ine of the Romish Religion, and the arch or Buttres •• that shoreth • p Papism. For i • there anything of more importance in Religion, then the remission of sins, and the means to satisfy the justice of God? yet in this while our adversaries do confess that this is a new Doctrine, and that there is found no trace or footstep of it in all Antiquity, as we shall hereafter discover.

When we produce the Council of Laodicea, and multitudes of Fathers, Meliton, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Gregory Nazianzen, Hilary, Ruffin, &c. that unanimously exclude the Books of Macabees, out of the list of Canonical books; our adversaries • nswer that then the apprehensions •• d opinions were much differing, • r that the Church had not yet • ecided anything upon this point. • ere then by their own confession •• a Tradition which the Apostles • ever taught, nor decided either by • outh or writing, to wit, that these Books of Maccabees are canonical, which they do now falsely • nsert amongst the Apostolical Traditions.

In this classe I rank Invocation of Saints, adoration of Relics and Images, the painted Trinity, the power of the Pope to dispense with oaths and vows; to dispose of kingdoms, and depose Kings; to canonize Saints; to release distressed souls out of Purgatory, the Communion under one kind, the Limbus for little Infants, private Masses, particular men's prayers, and public service in an unknown tongue; the assumption • the Virgin Mary bodily into he • ven, together with her coronatio • in the dignity of Queen of heaven and Lady of the world; and many other the like things, wherein • this present they make God's Service to consist; of these is the body of Papistry composed, and herein are the people more carefully instructed and exercised, then in the Doctrine of salvation contained in the holy Scripture. All which are new Traditions and unheard of in the ancient church; yea and that by the confession of our adversaries, as we shall prove in fit place.

It would be very proper and convenient, to know when the Christian doctrine shall be perfect, and whether the Popes shall ever be able to add new articles of faith thereunto.

And if it be so that the Apostles • e neither taught by mouth or • iting, all the Doctrines essen • lie belonging to Christian • th, it would be necessary to • derstand whether the Apostles • ew the Doctrines which th • y • ue not taught: for if they knew • em, why did they not public • teach them? why have they • ssembled Doctrines essentially • elonging to Religion? But if • hey knew them not, it must be • cknowledged, that the Popes sur • asse the Apostles in knowledge, • nd that Saint Paul deceives himself, when he delivereth that he had taught the Ephesians all • he counsel of God, Acts 2. verse. 27.

CHAP. VI. A proof of the same, because our a • versar • es do affirm that the Pop • and the church of Rome may change • that which God commandeth in th • Scriptures, and infringe or null •• the Apostles commandments.

WHosoever teacheth thing • contrary to the Apostles consequently teacheth things that are differing and rep • gnant. The Traditions whereby the ordinance of Jesus Christ and the Apostles is changed and abrogated, cannot be Apostolical Traditions, unl • sse we would have the Apostles to be contrary to themselves. Seeing then the Pope & church of Rome attribute to themselves the power of altering the Apostles ordinances by their Traditions, it followeth that they may make traditions •• ich the Apostles never taught, •• er by mouth or writing. This • hat which is practiced in the •• rch of Rome, and that our ad • saries do openly maintain.

We have already heard the Ie • e Vasques speaking, that the •• rch and sovereign Pontifie may •• ish and break the Apostles come • dement, because the Apostles power • iue precepts hath not been greater •• the Popes.

The Council of Trent, in the • Session, chap. 1. & 2. declareth▪ • t this power hath the Church a • •• es had in ministering of the Sacra •• ts, (saving their substance) to • r •• e or alter that which she judge • •• st expedient for the utility of th • se • t receive them. This Council • deed specifieth that exception, • eir substance remaining safe; but • e Pope assumeth power to him •• fe to judge, and define in the authority of a Judge, what things •• Sacraments are essential, or whether they be so or no. By th • means he boundeth his pow •• with what limits he pleaseth, an • changeth matters essential in • matters accidental. As for exa • ple, it is essential to the Sacrame • of the holy Supper to be a signif • catiue sign of our participatio • of the body and blood of Ies • Christ: This signification is dim • nished to the people, by the priv • tion of the Cup, as Cardinal Perron ingenuously acknowledgeth • It is essential to the Sacrament 〈◊〉 be taken for the remission of sins • as it was first instituted by th • Lord: Now this essence is cha • ged in the Masses that are said •• the corn, for horses and disease • sheep, for the success of a voyag • &c. It is likewise essential to th • holy Supper, to be a communio • •• e Apostle telleth us, 1. Corinth. • The bread which we break, is it • he Communion with the body of •• st? for as much as we that are • y in number are one bread and one 〈◊〉 . This communion is aboli • d in private Masses, where no •• doth communicate, & where 〈◊〉 man doth assist. And these • rds of the Institution, Take, eat, 〈◊〉 become ridiculous, since no 〈◊〉 is there either to take or eat. •• e real and propitiatory sacri • e of Christ's body, is it not of 〈◊〉 essence of the Mass? yet is •• re an addition to the Lord's In • tution, wherein is neither men • n made of sacrifice, or of sacri •• ing his body, or of making any • lation to God. The Pope then 〈◊〉 the Sacraments changeth essen • all things as well as accidental. • nd by the way observe but the • ride of this Council, and detestable impiety, to be of opinio • that the Church of Rome knoweth better then Jesus Christ, wh • is expedient for the people's sa • vation.

Doeth not the Council Constance, in the thirteenth Session confess, that in the primitiv • Church, (and consequently in th •• of the Apostles) this Sacrame • is to be received by the faith full under both kinds? yet after wards forbad the Cup to be •• ven to the people. This Tradi • tion which a little while sino • hath changed the Apostles observation, cannot be an Apostolical Tradition.

The Gloss upon the Canor • Lector, in the four and thirtieth Distinction of the Romish Decree, saith, that Papa dispensat contra Apostolum, the Pope dispenseth again • the Apostle. Pope Innocent the third saith in manner, We may according to fullness of our power dispose of the 〈◊〉 and dispense above the Law. And • reover the Gloss of the Doc • rs addeth: For the Pope dispen • against the Apostle and against the Testament, as also in the vows and • hs. And the Gloss of the Ca •• Sunt quidam in the 1. question the 25. cause: Papa dispensat in angelio interpretando ipsum, the • pe dispenseth in the Gospel in • ving it interpretation.

In the first book of Gregory, the • nth decretal, at the 7. title, Chap. • e 3. we have an Epistle of Inno • nt the 3. where he speaketh • us: Those which the Bishop of Rome • th separate, it is not a man that sepa • teth them but God. For the Pope holeth place on earth, not simply of a man • ut of true God. Which the Gloss • xplaineth by the example of Jesus Christ, who is very God at very man; informing us likewi • that the Pope though he be ver • God, yet leaveth not to be some • thing the same that man is. In pro • secution where of the same Gloss • declareth how far forth the Pope power doth ex • end, which is, Th • he hath celestial government, and there • fore may change the nature of thing • applying the substance of the o • e to th • other, of nothing can create something and a Decree that is void, he ca • make it in force; for in matters the he will have come to pass, his will i • his reason; and no m • n questione • him wherefore do you that? for he ca • dispense above the Law; and of in justice can make justice; and proveth all this by multitudes of Canons and Decrees.

Cardinal Bellarmine speaks as much in the 31. Chap. against Barkley: In good sense and judgment • rist hath given to Peter (and conse • ently to the Pope) the power of ma • g that to be sin which is no sin, It • d that which is no sin to be sin. It no wonder then if by the same • wer he can make justice to be in • tice, and sin to be no sin, that • can nullify the Apostles ordi • nces, and make them v • just, as so cancel the old Traditions, and • stablish new. The same Cardinal • roceedeth so far as to say: if • he Pope erred in commanding vices • nd forbidding virtues, yet the Church • hold be obliged to believe that the • ices are good and the virtues evil, • nlesse it would sin against the • onscience.

Andradius in his second book of the defense of the Tridentiue faith acknowledgeth that His ancestors, men excelling in piety have broken and annulled many Decrees of the Apostles. And moreover pronounceth this sentence: It is evident that those have not erred who say that the Romish Pontifies can sometimes dispense with obeying the Law of the Apostle S. Paul, and the four first Councils.

Whereupon Cardinal Tolet in his first book of Sacerdotal institution, Chap. 68. giveth this reason: For all that the Apostles have instituted, is not ordained jure diuino, that is to say, it ought not to be held for the word of God. Now amongst the Apostles ordinances, to discern such as are jure diuino from those as are not, the Church of Rome hath no other rule but the Popes will and pleasure, who can make a commandment of the Apostle to be or not to be held for the word of God. This venerable Cardinal giveth us the Apostles commandment for an example, 1. Timot. 3. Let the Bishop be husband of one wife. For the Pope can admit and allow of bigamies to the Priesthood.

Cardinal Perron in his book against the King of great Bretaine makes a Chapter expressly to that purpose, entitled: Of the authority of the Church to alter matters contained in the Scripture: And in the same book in the Chapter that handleth the Communion under both kinds, he saith, that when in the form of the Sacraments some great inconveniencies are met withal, the Church may therein dispense and alter. And speaking of the Lord's commandment, Drink ye all of it, he maintaineth that this precept was not immutable nor indispensable, alleging that the Church hath judged that there may be dispensation for it.

Charles Bovius in his observations upon the 24. Chap. of the 7. book of the Apostles constitutions, saith that The Church of Rome challenging to her self Apostolical authority, can change and alter everything to better, according to the condition of the times, yet there complaineth that a custom of the ancient Church to fast on wednesdayes, and many other very good Laws were abolished.

Gregory of Valence, in the fourth Tome of his Commentaries, and the sixth Disputation, maketh no difficulty to affirm that Many things in these latter times are better ordained in the Church then they were in the beginning, that is to say, from the Apostles time.

The sacred Scripture in the 18. and 20. of Leviticus, layeth down certain degrees of consanguinity & alliance which hinder marriage, whereof the most removed is the marriage of the Uncle with the Niece, or the Aunt with the Nephew; which are marriages forbidden and declared incestuous by the word of God, which permitteth marriages in other degrees more removed. But the Pope usurpeth power to himself in giving liberty to marriages forbidden in the Scripture, yea extending so far as to a toleration of marrying two sisters, as also he permitteth the Uncle to mary the Niece. On the other side he forbiddeth marriages in more remote degrees, and which God permitteth in his holy word; as marriages between the issues of cosen germanes, and between cosen germanes removed. Whereupon the Council of Trent in the 24. Session at the 3. Canon denounceth an Anathema against all those that shall say, that the church of Rome cannot forbid marriage in degrees allowed by the word of God, and cannot dispense in degrees forbidden. Thus runneth the Canon: If any man saith that there are no more degrees of consanguinity and alliance, then what are expressed in Leviticus, that can hinder from contracting of marriage, or separate that which is contracted, and that the Church cannot dispence in some of these degrees, nor ordain that many other degrees hinder or separate the marriage, let him be an Anathema. This Council curseth those which say, that the Church of Rome cannot alter God's ordinance, nor dispense with that which God hath forbidden in his holy Word. It is true that in the same Session this Council giveth an exception in these words: Let no dispensation be given in the second degree, unless between great Princes and for public cause. For the laws of the Church of Rome open or shut according to the quality and riches of the persons. Now it were good to know whether to marry a wives sister, or his • eece, or cosen; a dispensation were ever asked of Saint Peter, and whether he gave dispensation to the rich and sent the poor away.

According to this power that the Pope arrogateth to himself to dispense against God's commandment contained in the Scriptures, • he dispenseth with persons concerning their oaths and vows; he dispenseth with subjects and officers of a King, for keeping the fidelity sworn to their Sovereign Prince. He separateth marriages lawfully contracted, under the shadow of Religion, against the Lord's commandment, speaking of the dissolution of Marriages, Math. 19. 6. What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. For the same that Tolet speaketh of the Apostles, may be spoken of Jesus Christ, that all that he hath institut • d is not Iure divino. He exempteth children from obedience to their parents, contrary to the Law of God, when they are cast into Monast • ries against the willes of their fathers and mothers. He suffereth whoredom, yea in Rome it self, and there establisheth Brothel-houses against the Law of God. He hath forbidden the public Service in • known tongue, appointed Masses without Communicants, and ordained Image-service against the express commandments of Jesus Christ, and the Apostle Saint Paul: and against the practice of the primitive Church, yea against the very Law of God, as we will show in fit place.

These things and many more the like do explain, that the question between us and our adversaries, is not alone, whether the Apostles have taught Traditions by mouth, which they would not have to be set down in writing, and whether besides the Scripture, there ought also Apostolical Traditions to be received. For the principal point of difference is touching the Traditions which our Adversaries confess not to have been written nor taught by the mouth of the Apostles, and which have been long since introduced. And touching the Popes power to add to the Creed, and to establish new articles of faith. Yea especially and above all, touching an arrogance without example, wherein the Pope and Church of Rome attribute to themselves the power of annulling God's commandments, and of the Apostles contained in holy Scriptures, and to alter the institution of our Lord, and to judge, (as Cardinal Perron speaketh) that such and such commandments of our Lord are dispensable. These kind of Traditions ought to be called after the Italian word Tradimenti, treasons or conspiracies against God.

CHAP. VII. Passages extracted out of the Writings of our adversaries, which prove that in the Church of Rome, Traditions are without comparison more esteemed and respected then the holy Scripture, and the Scripture reviled and charged with injuries. Jesuit Regourds boldness to blemish and defame the Scripture.

THe Council of Trent in the fourth Session, seemeth contented to equal Tradition with the Scripture, ordaining that the one and the other be received and honored with like affection of piety & reverence. But this Council doth now, (as customarily it doth) propose its doctrine in doubtful terms, involving it self in darkness and obsuritie. For whosoever is never so little versed in the writings of our adversaries, or hath exactly considered the practice and customs of the Romish Church, shall easily discover that the holy Scripture is of no comparison with the value and account of Tradition, which is exalted with praises and magnificall titles, as also most carefully observed, whilst the Scripture is rejected and made odious to the people as a dangerous book.

I. We have seen in the former Chapter, how our adversaries affirm openly, that the Pope and Church of Rome can alter the Lord's Institution, and nullify his Ordinance: the which being granted, it necessarily followeth, that the tradition of the Church which correcteth the holy Scripture, and altereth what is therein ordained, be of greater authority then the Scripture.

II. When our adversaries unanimously affirm that the Scripture is not Judge, but that the authority of judging belongeth to the Church; hereby they withdraw us from the Scriptures judgment to rely upon the Churches Tradition: for by the Tradition of the Church they only understand the Laws of the Church of Rome, by the which they would have us judged.

III. When they say that the Scripture is not the rule of our faith, but that it is the faith of the Church that ruleth the Scripture, they manifestly prefer Tradition of the church before Scripture: for the faith of the Church, and Tradition of the Church are all one.

IIII. These goodly Maxims wherewith they dull our ears; That the Church ought to have more authority over us then the Scripture; That it is the Church which giveth authority to the Scriptures; and that the authority of the Scripture over us is founded upon the authority of the Church: what are their meaning other then that the Scripture oweth that authority she hath, to the Tradition of the Church? For the Tradition of the Church is nothing else but the voice and judgment of the Church, whereby she pronounceth as being a sovereign and infallible Judge, that the Scripture ought to be received?

V. If the Scripture must be believed, because the Tradition of the Church so ordained it, what followeth, but that Tradition of the Church of Rome is more credible then the Scripture?

VI. The Jesuit Coster in his Enchiridion, chap. 1. calleth the doctrine imprinted in the heart of the Church another species or kind of Scripture, and compareth it also with holy Scriptures. The excellence (saith he) of this kind of Scripture surpasseth much the holy Scripures which the Apostles have left us in parchment, especially because this is witten with the finger of God, the other was written with Apostles pens. By his leave, I would willingly ask him whether the Apostles pens were not guided by the spirit of God.

VII. Carranza in the second Controversy: The Church is a rule that is elder and more known, yea much more ample then the Canonical Scripture, and this ought to be governed by that, but not on the contrary. • n saying that the Church is a rule, • t is evident, that by the Church • ee understandeth the Tradition and laws of the Church: for the persons are not the rule.

VIII. Bellarmine in his fourth book of the Word of God, chap. 6. There are Traditions that are greater then some Scriptures, in point of obligation.

IX. Salmeron in his first Prolegomenon: Though the authority as well of the Church as of the Scripture be of God, yet the authority of the Church is more ancient, yea and more worthy; for the Scripture is made for the Church. By the same reason one might say, that subjects have more authority then Laws and Kings: for the people are more ancient then Laws and Kings, and Laws and Kings are made because of the people.

Now, the authority of the Church of Rome cannot be promoted above the Scripture, but that by the same reason the authority of Tradition in the Church of Rome is to be advanced above the Scripture: for Tradition is the law of the Church of Rome.

X. Cordubensis: To decide contr • versies of the Faith, Tradition of the Catholic Church is the most certain Rule.

XI. We have formerly heard Coster and Salmeron the Jesuits speaking, that God would not have Traditions that are taught out of the Apostles mouth to be written for fear lest holy things should be given to dogs. Herein do they not clearly signify that the Scriptures are for the dogs, but that God would not have Traditions to be in such danger, as being more sanctified things, and worthy of greater respect.

XII. To what end do these men say, that Jesus Christ hath commanded the Apostles to preach, and not to write, but that unwritten Tradition might be preferred before the Scripture, and have much more authority?

XIII. Did it ever happen that any of our adversaries have reported the same of Traditions which they have said of Scripture? Have they ever called the Traditions a dumb rule, a part or parcel of a rule, an ambidexter sword, a stone of scandal, a nose of wax? have they ever accused Traditions of obscurity, of ambiguity, or of imperfection, as they have the Scripture?

XIV. But the Jesuit Salmeron shall suffice for all: for in the third part of his 13 Tome, and 8 Disputation, he treateth of this matter punctually and at large, and thus compareth Scripture with Tradition: Tradition (saith he) is above all things necessary to sa • vation, yea high •• then Scripture it self. And a little after: The Scripture rather recommendeth Tradition, then Tradition the Scripture▪ and therefore Tradition is more necessary, for Scripture is made to recommend Tradition to us. And there again: Tradition is nec • ssary, because of many doubts that are not contained, nor expressly defined in the Scriptures. And again, He that believeth not the Tradition received in the Church, but s • archeth the Scripture, resembl • th an ill debtor, who refuseth to pay unless he see a quittance, or the bond, when as to produce fit witnesses would be enough. Which is as much to say, as the people may▪ pretermit and balk the Scrip • ure, but must cling close to the Testimony and Tradition of the church of Rome.

He further alledgeth, Tradition is more ancient then Scripture; whence he inferreth, that it is more excellent then Scrip • ure; and saith a gain, that the same which recommendeth the Traditions abou • Scrip • ure, is their clearness and evidence: for the people have no knowledge▪ of the Scripture: and the Scripture may be wrested by the Heretics to whatsoever they will. He addeth likewise, that the Scripture hath not been able to judge of doubts, because it is difficult and dumb; and that he that is troubled with any doubt in the New Testament is sent to the Church, Acts 15. but not to the Scriptures, which like a waxen nose are molded and twisted at pleasure. Whereupon (saith he) those that will be perverse cannot be vanquished by the Scriptures, their throats then must be cut by Tradition alone. And further, That Tradition is more firm then scripture, it appeareth in this, that the Church and the sanctity of the Apostles is more known then Scripture, because this is known by that. Wherein he speaketh against common sense: for it is by the Scripture that we learn the sanctity of the Apostles: and we know not that God will have but one Church in the world, if he did not teach it us in the Scriptures.

Again, he dareth to say, that the Scriptures are true, because they are conformable to the Tradition already▪ made. Will we know if the unwritten Word of God in two Tables ought to be received? will we know if the doctrine contained in the Psalms of David, in the Prophets, and in the Evangelists be true? let us inquire what the Popes opinion is, and what Tradition of the Romish Church is, and we shall soon be satisfied: for, (say our adversaries) the Scripture must be examined by the Tradition of the Church of Rome, which is the rule of Scripture, and is not ruled by the Scripture. Truly these things cannot be read without horror and detestation.

Of the self same stuff is that which he addeth: The Apostles have not written by one common consent, but some have written for particular respects, & to preserve Tradition. When you hear these kind of people speak, you would say that the Scripture is nothing but a letter of credence, to give authority to the Church of Rome, and her Traditions.

Wherefore he concludeth, that no man ought to depart from the Church, instructed by living Traditions, notwithstanding the allegations of Scripture.

He compareth also the amplitude and large extent of Tradition, with the narrow limits of the scripture. Tradition (saith he) is much more vn • versall then Scripture, and reacheth to further time, to more matter, and more persons then the scripture. To be short, if these men were to be believed, Tradition comprehendeth all the doctrine of faith and manners, but many things are wanting in the Scripture.

Having in this manner dishonored the Scripture, and placed it far below Tradition, he makes them fight, and plotteth to have the allegations of Scripture to be repulsed by Tradition. To those (saith he) who demand the Scripture, Tradition is to be offered in opposition: as if he should tell us: You ask me passages of Scripture, but content your s • lfe that I allege unto you Tradition, and the op • nion of the Church of Rome. For this is the more necessary rule, more ancient, more firm, more easy, more universal, and by which the truth of the Scripture ought to be examined. Thus is the Word of God handled; and it is so come to pass, that the same Jesuit in his tenth Disputation having said, that the Scripture cannot be Judge, addeth, that the Heretics (for so he qualifies us) have a diabolical sense, and do worse to addict themselves to the Scripture, then to apply themselves to fables.

But nothing doth more plainly show, w ^th what a loud voice our adversaries cry up the traditiō of the Church of Rome above the Scripture, then when they say, that the church is not subject nor bound to the Scripture, but the Scripture is subject to the church, that is to say, God is subject to men. For our adversaries acknowledge, that the scripture is the word of God. These are the words of Lindanus in hi • Panoplia: The Church hath not been obliged to the Scriptures by Christ's will and commandment.

Coster the Jesuit in his 3. chapter of his Manual: Christ was not willing that his Church should depend upon Scriptures in paper, nor was he pleased to commit his mysteries to parchment.

Salmeron in his second Prolegomenon: In the Church of God (understanding always the Romish) is the holy spirit, which is Author of the Scripture: it is no marvel then if the Scripture be subject to the Church that hath the spirit. What? is not the Pope subject to the Scripture? is he not subject to the Law of God, which God hath given us written in two tables? Is he not obliged to obey the Doctrine of the Gospel written in the New Testament? Now if the head of the Church of Rome be subject to the Scripture, how much more the Church of Rome, that is subject to the Pope? But is it not a transcendent blasphemy to defend, that the Scripture is subject to the Church of Rome? For is not the holy Scripture the Word of God? It must otherwise follow, that the word of God is subject to men, and that God's commandments are subordinate to the Pope, to whom the Church of Rome is subject. Now tell me after such abomination, whether these men do believe that there is one God, and one Religion.

Thomas Stapleton an English Doctor, in his second Book of the Authority of the Scripture, chap. 11. I have said, and do say, that the Scripture in it self is not the rule of faith, but the faith of the Church is the rule of Scripture. Now the faith of the Church is nothing but Tradition of the Church. His scope then is, that the Scripture shall be regulated and examined by the Tradition of the Romish Church, and that it shall be subject to that rule; whence is to be concluded, that God speaking to us in the holy Scriptures is directed by men, and subject to their judgment. The Prophets whose writings are extant with us, were extraordinarily stirred up to reprehend the church of that time, and to chastise the Priests, the Sacrificers, and the Scribes that erred in manners and doctrine. Now in reason tell me, were the prophesies of these Prophets subject to the authority of that Church? Was the faith of these Sacrificers a rule, by which those divine Prophesies were to be examined, and which we have kept to this present time? Go to then, if the prophecies were not subject to Priests and Sacrificers, that lived about the Prophets time, how are they now subject to the Pope? by what occasion are they become subject to the superintendency of the Church of Rome's Tradition?

Briefly, we are now arrived at an age wherein blasphemy is come to the highest degree, men openly professing, to pull God with violence from his Throne, and most insolently to climb above him. Surely the Mohammedans do speak of the Scripture with more respect and reverence.

What is the scope or purpose of Jesuit Regourds late book, intitled Catholic demonstrations, but to prove, that to rest upon the Scripture, is the way to all impiety and atheism? If herein he meant only our French Bibles, or the diversity of latin translations, or the sundry interpretations which he discovereth in some of our Doctors, (though all this which he saith are but calumnies, and a Fardell of unprofitable trifles, which we have refuted in a former treatise) yet this were to forge untruths with Method, and scarce to touch upon the question: but he meaneth the originals, Hebrew and Greek, wherein he findeth no certainty▪ He discovereth in them manifest contradictions, and error in the calculation of times. He says that S. Paul used fraud (but an honest fraud) towards the Corinthians. He telleth us that many books of the Scripture are lost, that the Scriptures were burnt in time of persecution, and the Copies perished: that many devout Doctors do affirm, that under the captivity of Babylon, all the Old Testament was depraved, rent in pieces, and burnt, until Esdras did newly re-compose the same Scriptures: that the Jews (our Saviors enemies) have made vowells in the Old Testament, and so changed the sense of the scripture, and made it doubtful. The same (saith he) is true of the New Testament, the which having been written without accents, and without marks and distinctions of words, no man can assure himself of the true sense, seeing that the sense dependeth upon the accents, &c. And a little further: We have not therefore any true knowledge of the sense of the Scripture, and consequently we are pointed and referred over to the mercy of the contestations of Grammarians, to the litigious craft of critical spirits, to the capritious fancies of Dictionary-makers, to the Gallimafries and Chimeraes of scholiasts. Now for all these difficulties, there is but one single remedy, to weet, we must repair to the Church, that is to say, the Pope, and whom it shall be his pleasure to authorise. Whereupon it were good to know, when there i • a question concerning the exposition of an Hebrew or Greek passage, whether a Pope, who understands neither Hebrew nor Greek shall therein be a good Interpreter: whether sitting in the Apostoli • ke chair, he shall give infallible interpretations of a Text whereof he knoweth not a letter: whether having called the Doctors to instruct him thereupon, he instantly reinuesteth them with an infallible spirit, and enableth them with power not to err in matters, wherein he himself understandeth nothing. Whence then proceedeth so great a diversity and contrariety amongst these Doctou • s in the Scriptures interpretation? why amongst their writings do they refute the interpretations of one the other? Is it not the Pope and the Church of Rome that by the Council of Trent hath authorised the vulgar • atine translation, and ordained • hat it should only be received for • uthenticall, although it be the worst interpretation of all; and stuffed with a thousand errors and absurdities? have not the Popes themselves since the Council of Trent caused multitudes of faults to be amended therein? do not the most learned of the Romish Church, Pagnin, Arias Montanus, Isidorus Clarius, Andradius, Sixtus Senensis complain of the corruption of this translation? wherein the Jesuits themselves are not silent, especially Salmeron in his ninth Prolegomenon: of these things we have written at large in our first Treatise of the Judge of controversies.

The perverseness of this Jesuitical spark is most of all discovered herein, that having once displayed (as he supposeth) the defaults of the Scripture, he rejoiceth that such defaults are therein found, and giveth God thanks for it; to the end that men finding no stedinesse or certainty in the Scripture, may subject themselves to the tyranny of the Church, that is to say, of the Pope, and there to find instruction, these are his words: The providence of God to contstrain us yet more powerfully to undergo the yoke of the Church with humility and simplicity, permitteth that there be not only some alteration in certain parcels of the Scripture, and in some copy, but the more the books of the Scripture are dispersed, the more they shall alter and perish by tract of time, whether they be in original tongues or translations. Without doubt, he that rejoiceth at the deprauations which he imagineth to be in Scripture, and at the loss of some books, and praiseth thererein the providence of God, would much more solace himself and rejoice if all the Scripture were abolished. For to what purpose serveth it, if Tradition of the Church of Rome be a perfect rule, more certain, and of more authority then the holy Scripture; and if the Pope judge soueraignly and infallibly of all the points of faith? for he hath forbidden the people to read the Scripture, as a book not only unnecessary, but also dangerous, and that which hath made a great breach in the Popedom.

The same Jesuit pleaseth himself with this conceit of his, inculcating it with often repetition; As in the third Demonstration, when he hath said, that a man cannot assure himself of the sense of the Greek Testament, because it first was written without accents and distinctions (whereon depends the sense), he addeth: It is a work of the providence of God, to stoop our minds and inclinations to the sovereignty of the Church, that is to say, of the Pope, who by consequence, hath more authority then the Apostle S. Paul speaking to the Corinthians, not that we have dominion over your faith, 2. Cor. 1. 24. But may not we affirm it with more probability, to be a work of God's providence, that he hath suffered so many schisms and heresies, so much simony, uncleanness of life, and cruelty to have infected the seat of Rome, whereby to refer us to the Scripture, to make us forsake those wicked guides, and to subject us to his holy word? and that God by his providence, hath permitted that the Popes themselves have confessed their own errors? And lastly, that the Popes sycophants have recorded unto us their crimes and heresies, as I have proved in my first Book.

In short, to be thoroughly informed with what spirit this Jesuit is lead, it is but to read the same that he hath written in his third Demonstration, pag. 190. They cause them (saith he) to renounce the Church (pretending that it consisteth of men that are faulty and liars) under a fair semblance of Scripture, and under a plausible promise to govern all by the word of God. But the truth is, they depute a blear-eyed Leah unto them in lieu of a fair Rachel, and submit faith to the sovereign command of the will of Ministers, who put into their hand a Scripture that is human, erroneous, mutable, subject to correction, &c. This miserable Jesuit will one day render an account to God of so damnable a speech, wherein he compareth the holy Scripture to blear-eyed Leah, and the Church of Rome to beautiful Rachel. It is very false that we renounce the Church; but yet we maintain that it ought to be subject to the Scripture; and we renounce the doctrine of those who say, that the Scripture is subject to the Church of Rome: for God cannot be subject to men.

As for the sovereign power of the Ministers function, that might well be retorted upon us for a reproach, if we boasted amongst us that they cannot err, that they have power to change God's commandments contained in the holy Scriptures, to add to the Creed, and to make new articles of faith; or if we should style our selves Judges infallible and sovereign of the points of faith. We leave these usurpations, and proud titles to the Pope, by the which he exalteth himself above God. Only we exhort the people to believe the Word of God contained in holy Scriptures: wherein if we find any obscure passages, we take not upon us to be Judges of the sense, and to determine it with authority. It is enough, that as much as therein is perspicuous and plain, (not needing the help of an Interpreter) is sufficient for our salvation. And to contest much about Translations, we busy not our selves; for the Translation approved by the Church of Rome fufficeth us, discovering clearly therein the very condemnation of Papistry. All Translations agree in the matters necessary to salvation, and the original texts both Hebrew and Greek, are at this day familiar and agreeing to our Translation.

Of these things have I treated at large in my first Book of The Judge of Controversies, and have discussed all the slender objections wherein our Adversaries do side with Pagans and Infidels, and endeavor to extenuate the firmness and authority of the Scripture, which Saint Paul calleth The divine Oracles, Rom. 3. 2. and The Scripture divinely inspired, 1. Tim. 3. 16. which I say, Jesus Christ himself hath uttered, holding up his own vocation by the testimony of the Prophets; and by it hath repelled the temptation of the Devil, Math. 4. Yea S. Paul saith, that the Scripture can make a man wise to salvation, and is most proper for man's accomplishment in every good work; without it we have not means to know that God will have but one Church in the world. And when our adversaries have wretchedly reviled it, yet are they afterwards constrained to return unto it, and to beg of it, (though with an ill stomach) some clauses of Text to found their Church upon the Scriptures authority: without it Christianity had been long since abolished. The divine efficacy of it is manifest in this, that the Pope hath suppressed it, so as the people may not see it: yet when God is pleased to lay it open to the people's view, and that it be translated into vulgar tongues, Papistry doth immediately vanish in many Provinces. Yea if Emperors and Kings had not hastened to succor, using both fire and sword, and the rigor of Inquisitions, without doubt Papistry had been utterly extinguished. Wherefore it is no marvel if the Pope by his scouts labor to blemish the Scripture, rendering it doubtful and without authority; which ungodly instruments at this day borrow the weapons of Pagans, who to restore Paganism and ruin Christianity, have had no surer course then to difsame the holy Scripture. Loe whither Satan strives to lead us: He strives to shake the only foundation of Christian religion, to the end that the people distasting the Scripture, may for their faith and salvation rely upon the conductors of the Romish church, wherein have lived multitudes of Popes notorious heretics, and so judged by the Councils which the Church of Rome hath approved, and by the Popes favorites themselves: Wherein also you may perceive to the number of three and twenty Schisms, and many contrary Popes at the same time, mutualy entitling themselves Antichrists. Yea wherein have lived many infamous Popes, Necromancers, Adulterers, Murderers, advanced to the Popedom by whores, by Simony, and by violence. Such as take upon them the title of God, causing themselves to be adored, and Kings to kiss their feet, and the Scripture to be prostrate before them when they enter into the Councils; such as vante they cannot err, that they can make another Creed, can change God's ordinances, can transport souls out of Purgatory into Paradise, and rank whom they please in the Catalogue of Saints by canonizing them: under color whereof they exercise an abhominable commerce and traffic by Dispensations, Absolutions, Indulgences, Annates, Licences, and Benefices. So as from a poor Bishop of a City, who was no way eminent but in martyrdoms, the Pope is become a puissant temporal Monarch surpassing in riches the greatest Monarchs of the earth. To effect so great an alteration, it was needful that Religion should be changed: for the purity and plainness of christianity regulated by the Scriptures, could not serve to build up so great an Empire.

These things have I amply handled in my first Book, wherein I maintain the Authority of the Scripture. Which work went then forth almost the very day that lesuite Regourds Book against the Authority and Perfection of the Scripture was published. These two Books if any man will compare together, shall find that I answer all that he pleadeth against the authority of the Scripture; and that Regourds Book satisfieth nothing of all that I propose in mine. Before that he published his book, a Challenge was brought to the Pastors of this Church of Sedan, to enter into conference & dispute with some Doctors, amongst whō was Jesuit Regourd, wherein they threatened us. We accepted the Conference: the place and day were assigned, with all accommodations, that after so many Defiances every man's honor should oblige him not to recant. Nevertheless he durst not appear, and for two several times failed at the day appointed. But his humor serving him at last to dispute, and being thirsty of reputation, he went some where else to discharge his choler, and in Conference seizeth upon Monsieur Mestrezat, where he received all sort of disgrace, so far forth as his friends were fain to make use of superior power to draw him from the combat, and to hinder the Conference from Printing, for it could not be seen but to his dishonor: and that in a place where all things were favorable unto him, and where the language of Truth is very new and strange. And so retired this witty Doctor, as well contented as satisfied, being not so wisely advised but to make trophies and signs of victory, considering there were so many witnesses.

CHAP. VIII. A Proof of the same by the practice of the Primitive Church.

WEe have proved by many passages of our Adversaries, that in the Church of Rome, Traditions are much more esteemed, and of greater authority then the Scripture, which they so much under-value, and charge with a thousand reproaches; and that by injustice and most fraudulently the Council of Trent seems to make them equal. Now are we to prove the same by the practice and maxims of the Church of Rome.

I. In the first place, when our adversaries ground the authority of the Scripture upon tradition of the Church, and would have the Scripture received and believed, because the Church doth so ordain it; It is evident that they prefer Tradition before Scripture: for they make Scripture to depend upon Tradition, & esteem Tradition of the Church more worthy of belife then Scripture, and believe not the Scripture, but because the Church of Rome hath so commanded it.

II. Let us look upon experience, and we shall inform our selves, that in the Church of Rome the people is a thousand fold more carefully instructed in Tradition, then in the doctrine of salvation contained in holy Scriptures. The most ignorant know the meaning of Lent, and the four Seasons: they are instructed in the difference of meats; they are skilled in Festival days and Eve’s; they go in Pilgrimage, visit the Relics, gain Pardons; purchase Masses, Obits, and Suffrages for the dead; speak of Purgatory, mumble over their Chaplet or Beads, and their Rosary, or our Ladies Psalter; and discourse of the Popes succession in Saint Peters Chair, but they are ignorant in the holy Scripture, accounting it modesty and humility not to inquire much after it. Ask them upon the doctrine of our Redemption in Jesus Christ, upon Justification by faith, upon our free Adoption, upon the correspondency between the Law and the Gospel, upon the difference between the old and New Testament, upon the causes wherefore it was necessary that our Redeemer should be God and man in the unity of person, upon the ends of their Resurrection and Ascension, upon the Doctrine of faith and good works (which are the points wherein consisteth the essence of Christian Religion) and you shall find them as mute as fishes, and altogether uninstructed.

III. Baptism is a divine Institution; but Confirmation (such as is practiced in the Church of Rome ) and confection of the Crisome, are human Inventions. Yet are they much more honored then Baptism: for in the Church of Rome a woman, yea a Pagan and Jew may baptize, and give that which they have not: and Confirmation is not administered, nor Crisome consecrated but by the Bishop, with great solemnity.

IV. God hath commanded S ^t . Peter, and the other Apo •• les to preach the Gospel, but gave them no command to give Indulgences, nor to canonize Saints, nor to release souls out of Purgatory, nor to consecrate their Agnus Dei, and their blessed Beads. The first point is a commandment of God, the other things are human Traditions, which the Pope doth perform with preparation and solemnity: but he preacheth not the Gospel, esteeming the labor of preaching as a thing unworthy of his greatness. Insomuch as the Popes are industrious observers of their own Traditions, and adore their own proper Inventions, but dispense with the Lord's commandments.

V. Hence cometh it to pass, that the sins committed against God's Law, are held to be light, in comparison of those committed against the Traditions, Decrees, and Canons of the Pontifies. The inferior Priests give absolution of thest, of lying, and of whoredom, which are sins against the Law of God; but there are cases reserved, wherein no man in France can give absolution but at the point of death; and they are specified in the Bull De Coena Domini, which the Pope thundereth every year on Maunday Thursday before the Paschal. The sins that are most enormous, and whereof no man but the Pope maketh absolution, are not murder, parricide, incest, sodomy, and perjury: but to appeal from the Pope to a future Council, to withdraw Tythes from the Clergy, to take up Arms with heretics, to impeach those that go to Rome to obtain the great Pardons, to play the Pirate upon the coasts of the Papal territory from the hill Argentara to Terracina; of these heinous sins none but the Pope can give absolution; for these are transgressions against the Laws and Traditions, broached by the Popes for their profit, and to infringe them is rated a matter more grievous and capital, then sins against the Law of God contained in holy Scriptures.

VI. The Canon Violatores, in the 25. Cause, and 1. Question, pronounceth, that those blaspheme against the holy Ghost who violate the sacred Canons. Whence it followeth that this sin is unpardonable. The sins then against the Law of God are remi • table, and the Priests forgive them; but to violate the Canons of the Church of Rome, is a sin unabsolvable. This is that which is spoken by Pope Nicholas the first: If any one sin against the Decretals of the Apostolic Seat, let him know that it shall not be forgiven him, at the Canon Si Romanorum, in the 19. Distinction. And there again he declareth, that the Old and New Testament ought to be received, although they be not inserted in the Canons, for the holy Pope Innocent hath expressed his opinion touching the same. If the Old and New Testament must be received, because Pope Innocent hath so appointed it, we must conclude that the Decree of Pope Innocent, is of more authority then the Old and New Testament. For that which giveth authority, is greater then that which receiveth it. Yet the Old and New Testament had their plenary authority before Pope Innocent was in the world.

VII. Pope Gregory the first, before Nicholas had beat the path to this pride, in his Epistle to Antonine Subdeacon, complaineth of one Honorat, who (saith he) hath not only neglected the commandments of God, but also misprised our writings: as if his writings were of more authority then the commandments of God.

VIII. The single life of Priests is a mere human institution, as Thomas acknowledgeth; as also Bellarmine in his book concerning the Clergy, Chap. 18. And in very deed the Scripture speaketh nothing thereupon. But whoredom is forbidden by the Law of God; nevertheless if a Priest doth play the Fornicatour or Adulterer, it is but a laughing matter: But if a Priest do marry to obey the Apostle, speaking: If they cannot contain let them marry, 1. Cor. 7. 9. And let a Bishop be a husband but of one wife, 1. Tim. 2. 2. this marriage is called a sacrilege, & pointed at as a prodigious thing. In lust and whoring he transgresseth the Law of God, and the vow that he hath made to obey his word. In marrying he transgresseth the Tradition of the Church of Rome, and the vow invented by human Tradition, which is accounted the g • eater offense. For it hath pleased the Pope to allow of obscene whoredom, and to forbid marriage, which are two Traditions that have carried him away against the rules of holy Scripture.

IX Mark yet something worse. Pope Innocent the third declare h, that a Priest having many Concubines, is not therefore lapsed into irregularity, that is to say, doth not for this become incapable to exercise the Priesthood. Yea for Sodomy a Priest is not degraded, as is taught by Nauarras the Popes Penancer. But a Priest that marrieth, is forthwith degraded, is made a public execration, and chased with more maledictions then the Azazel or Scapegoat, although he have the Apostle on his side, to protect him against the Tradition.

It is certain that in the Church of Rome, to eat flesh on Goodfriday, is accounted an hundred degrees more horrible then to haunt brothell houses: and to break the arm of an Image, is more then to break the heads of ten living men. For Tradition is more religiously observed then the Law of God.

CAP. IX. Three reasons wherefore Tradition is preferred before the Scripture in the Church of Rome.

THe reasons that have moved the Pope to exalt Tradition above the Scripture are three. [unspec 1] The one is, because the succession of the Pope in the primacy of Saint Peter is a Tradition, which is the only prop of his dominion. And therefore it nearly concerns him to exalt Tradition, upon which his Empire is founded.

[unspec 2] The second is, because Traditions depend upon the Pope, and as he contrived them, so can he alter them. But he hath not the Scripture in his power; he cannot make another holy Scripture; nor change the Hebrew original which the Jews (who are not obedient to him) do carefully preserve; nor the Greek Testament, which the Greek Churches have saved for us. It concerns him therefore that the Traditions (whereof he is both Maker and Master) be had in great estimation.

[unspec 3] The third is, because all Traditions are gainful to the Pope and Clergy, and serve to extol the Papal Empire, and dignity of the Ecclesiastics: he and his Clergy rake up infinite profit by Indulgences, private Masses, Suffrages and Masses for the deceased, Dispensations, Annates, &c. By confessions the Priests know the secrets of families, & make themselves formidable, in reserving the participation of the chalice to themselves and Kings, they make themselves companions of Kings, and worshipful to the people: by Transubstantiation they attribute to themselue the power of making God with words, to create their Creator, and to have Jesus Christ within their jurisdiction, locked up in a Pix. By the sacrifice of Mass, they make themselves sacrificing Priests, sacrificing Jesus Christ to his Father. By the institution of festival days, the Pope usurpeth power in commanding all shops to be shut up, and causeth all Sessions of justice and Council to be interrupted at his pleasure. By the difference of meats, he governeth the Markets, Kitchens, and Tables of Kings. By the canonization of Saints, he makes his meanest groomes to be worshipped by the people, and lifteth up to heaven those that have most faithfully served him; and commandeth the people to invoke such Saints as he pleaseth. By the Sacrament of Penance, he imposeth corporal and pecuniary penalties & mulcts, yea upon Kings and Princes to the very whipping of them, usurpeth sway over bodies and goods, and changeth corporal punishments into pecuniary. By the Absolution of sins, the Priests make themselves Judges between God and the sinner, and will have God obliged to pardon a sinner, because the Priest hath pardoned him; yea in a cause where God is the party offended, the Priest maketh himself judge. Whereas God in the holy Scripture giveth to Pastors power to dispense with the punishment of sins as far as Ecclesiastical censure, these gallants make bold as far as the Conscience, and to the very judicial Seat of God. By Service in Latin, the Pope retaineth the people in ignorance, and planeth among all Nations a mark of his Empire, giving them the Roman language to subdue them to the Romish Religion. The Dispensations which the Pope giveth to Princes, to marry in degrees forbidden by the word of God, do oblige the children that spring from them to maintain the Papal authority; for if that were shaken, it would be doubted whether they be legitimate or no. The power of dis-enthroning Kings, disposing of Empires, causing their feet to be kissed by Monarks, canonizing Saints, and of releasing souls out of Purgatory, are Traditions which magnify the papal dignity, above all power spiritual or temporal that ever was on earth. Wherefore let us not marvel that the Pope laboreth to countenance these Traditions, and to crush the Scripture, which doth but molest him, disaccommodate him in his traffic, and staggereth his whole Empire.

Hereupon the Reader that hath heard the comparison, which our adversaries make of Tradition of the Romish Church, with the holy Scriptures (saying, that Tradition of the Church is more ancient, more ample, more clear, more certain, and of more authority over us then the holy Scripture) will call to remembrance the example of the Egyptians, who passing by long ranks of columns and pillars and by magnificall Temples, did lead the Worshipers to a place more solitary and retired, where stood the God of the Temple; there did they show them an Ape, or an Ox, or a Cat, in honor of whom the Temple was erected, even thus do our adversaries in this question. After such high titles and magnifications of Traditions (to the extolling of them above the word of God, contained in holy Scriptures) when we come to vnmaske their ugliness, and offer them to sight, they present us with absurd inventions, and such as expose Christian religion to laughter. They tell us of Images of the Trinity in wood or stone. Of souls that broile in a fire for sins pardoned. Of Indulgences for one hundred years. Of priuileged Altars, upon which whosoever causeth a Mass to be said, maketh choice of a soul to be released out of Purgatory. Of Adoration of Images, bones, and rags. Of solitary Masses without communicants, which chant after the intention of him that pays them. Of public prayers and particular in an unknown tongue. Of masses for horses. Of Jesus Christ carried away by mice. Of blessed beads, and Agnus Dei. Of pilgrimages. Of the difference of meats. Of borrowed satisfactions. Of fasting and being whipt one for another. Behold their Traditions, see what is preferred before the Scripture, observe the Laws and documents which they balance with the Law that God himself hath pronounced, and with the doctrine of our redemption, which the eternal Son of God hath brought from Heaven, and yet is found light in comparison of these venerable Traditions; for why? because they cast into the scale a massy stone, to weet, the names of Pope and Church of Rome, which in the hearts of men grown brutish, weigh down against God and the Scriptures.

CHAP. X. That in this question, by the word Church, our Adversaries understand not the Church whereof is spoken in the Creed, but the Pope alone.

FOrasmuch as our Adversaries do maintain, that the Church whereof mention is made in the Creed, is the whole body of the faithful people, and that to this people it belongeth not to be judge of doubts and controversies, it is evident that by this Church (which is said to be sovereign judge and infallible) another Church is understood, besides that whereof mention is made in the Creed; but as by the Church they understand only the Church of Rome, so by the Church of Rome, is understood the Pope, who attributeth this sovereign and infallible authority to himself. Thus do the Doctors accord, and in this manner do apprehend it.

Salmeron the Jesuit: seeing that▪ the Scripture is very obscure and difficult, and cannot be judge (for so the providence of God should be annihilated, because by it alone the controversies moved can • ot be appeased and determined) it remaineth therefore, that some certain Judge designed was left unto us. And he is thought to be no other then the same that ever was, to weet, the Bishop of Rome; for otherwise the Providence of God in so many ages had perished.

Cardinal Cajetan: It is most true that the authority of the universal Church and of Council, resideth principally and totally in the Pope, to determine the points of Faith. And there again he saith, that the Church adoreth the Pope.

Paschal the Pope avoucheth, that the Church of Rome is not subject to Councils, and that in whatsoever they ordain, the Pope is always excepted. Speaking thus: They say that this is not found to be decreed in the Councils. To the which he maketh this answer: as if any Councils had prescribed any Law to the Church of Rome, when as all the Councils have been made, and have taken their force by the authority of the Church of Rome; and in their statutes the authority of the Pope is clearly excepted. Who doth not perceive that in these words, by the Church of Rome the Pope alone is understood? for our Adversaries deny not, but that the people, and Clergy of the Church of Rome, are subject to the Councils.

The Jesuit Gregory of Valence in the title of the seventh book of his Analysis: The Pope of Rome is he in whom resideth all authority of the Church, to judge entirely of all doubts of the Faith.

Andradius in his first book of the defense of the Tridentine faith: Our faith consisteth in the faith of the Pope, and upon his authority alone dependeth all men's salvation. Judge whether man's salvation be not well derived. Whereupon he speaks there again that the authority of the Pope to decide all controversies, is not less then the authority of the whole Church. And we have formerly heard the Jesuit Vasques affirming, that the authority of the Pope is not less then that of the Apostles, and that he can abrogate and cancel the Apostles commandments. In the second Session of the last Lateran Council, these words are express: Behold Julius the Successor of Saint Peter, no less in authority then him. It is true that when the Pope will, he joineth some Prelates with him, to assist him in his decreeing. But whereas he calls and chooseth whom he will, these Prelates have not authority but by him, and the Pope an enact all without them. This is that which Cardinal Bellarmine hath, in his third book of the word of God, Chap. 9. That judge cannot be the Scripture; therefore is it the Ecclesiastical Prince, either alone, or with the advice & approbation of the brother Bishops.

For so our Adversaries do jointly hold, that when the Pope judgeth in the Apostolic chair, and as Pope, his sole opinion and decree is as firm and certain, as if a Council had voted upon it.

And to remove all doubt, our adversaries blush not openly to affirm, that by this word Church, the Pope is to be understood. Gregory of Valence the Jesuit after having said, that the full authority of judging controversies of the faith and manners, which concern the universal Church, doth plenarily reside in the Pope of Rome Christ's Vicar, he addeth: Now therefore when we say, that the Proposition of the Church is a condition necessary, to oblige the Faith to one agreement, by this word Church we understand her head, which is to say, the Pope of Rome, either alone, or with the Council. For he is not of opinion that the Council be necessarily required.

Bellarmine expoundeth it thus, in his second book of the Councils, Chap. 19. The Pope (saith he) ought to speak it to the Church, that is to say, to himself. And Pope Innocent the third, in his Chapter Novit extra de iudicijs, attributeth to himself the taking notice of a difference between Philip the second surnamed Augustus King of France, and Iobn King of England, for it is written, tell it to the Church. Now S. Peter was one of those to whom Jesus Christ spake, Tell it to the Church: was this Apostle able to divine that Jesus Christ understood, Tell it to thyself? and that Jesus Christ would have the party complainant to be judge? see then the Church (which is a word that signifieth an assembly) reduced to one man. And the sense of this Article of the Creed, I believe the Church shall be, I believe the Pope, who sometimes calls himself god, sometimes Jesus Christ, and sometimes the Church; so he shall be Bridegroom and Spouse; and one man shall cal himself an assembly.

And tell me to what purpose are Councils assembled, so long and so painful, seeing nothing is to be done, but to consult the Papal Oracle, with in one instant can decide all controversies without possibility of erring, seeing (I say) that in one man we have the universal Church, that the Council can do nothing without the Pope, and that the Pope can do all, and judge of all without the Council? Whereupon Bellarmine affirmeth with all the Doctors, that the Infallibilitie of a Council is not in the assembly of the Counsellers, nor in the Council of Bishops, but in the Pope alone; and yet in the mean time the Popes themselves never appear not in the Councils.

This Advertisment was very necessary, to the end that the Reader might know, that as by the authority of the Church, is understood the authority of the Pope; so by Traditions of the Church, nothing is understood but the Ordinances made or approved by the Pope: for they subsist not but by his authority and though they have passed through a Council, yet the Pope can change & abolish them, and institute new in their stead, without waiting for a Council. For should he have less authority over Traditions then over the holy Scripture, wherein he can alter the Ordinances, and Institutions of our Lord? He can dispense against the Apostle, should not he be able to dispense against a Council, or against the custom which hath authorised a Tradition? It is the same that Andradius expressly teacheth, in the second Book of his Defense of the Tridentine Faith: Those (saith he) err not who affirm that sometimes the Popes in their laws can dispence contrary to that of S. Paul, and the four first Councils, which are the universal Councils most ancient, of greatest authority, and which Pope Gregory the first equalleth to the four Evangelists. Pope Gelasius speaks the same: for in his Tome of the Bond of an Anathema, disputing against one of the four first Councils, to wit, against that of Chalcedon, where there were six hundred and thirty Bishops, he urgeth thus, The Apostolical Seat alone dissanulleth that which a Synodal Assembly though to have usurped against order. The subject of his choler against this so famous and honorable assembly was, for that in this Council is framed a Canon, ordaining that the Bishop of Constantinople should be equal to the Bishop of Rome in all things and that he should have the same preeminences.

CHAP. XI. Of what sort, how weak, and how uncertain the foundations are whereon Traditions of the Romish Church are built: and of the three maxims that serve for their defense and prop.

THe Traditions of the Church of Rome are of so great a number, that a mere Catalogue of them would furnish out a large volume. The whole rabble of them hath these three maxims for their foundation.

1. That the Pope is Successor to St. Peter, in the charge of Head of the universal Church.

2. Secondly, that the Pope cannot err in the faith.

3. That the Apostles have not set down in writing all that they did teach by word of mouth.

He that will comprehend the nature of these maxims, shall know that they evert the Christian faith, and consume all Religion into smoke: for if the Maxims whereon all Papistry is founded, and all the body of Romish Traditions, be imaginary maxims and purely human, (not to give a worse phrase) it is impossible that the Religion which is built thereupon can have the least tittle of assurance.

1. The first maxim that layeth down the Pope to be Saint Peters Successor, in the charge of Head of the universal Church, is destitute of all testimony of God's Word; and our. Adversaries to uphold it, produce nothing but human testimonies. Whence it followeth, that it is not an Article of the Christian Faith, and that it cannot be believed for a certainty of faith, for the Christian faith is grounded upon the Word of God: Faith cometh by • earing, and hearing by the Word of God, Rom. 10. 17.

But the Church of Rome giveth his maxim not only for an Ar • cle of Faith, but also for a foun • ation of all the other Articles of • aith, and of the whole Religion. For in the Church of Rome, the Popes authority is planted to be a Foundation of the Church, and of all the doctrine of salvation, to the very subjecting of the Scripture (that is to say, the word of God) to his authority: and to cause that the authority of the Scripture depend upon the opinion of the Church of Rome; and all this by virtue of that pretended Succession to S ^t . Peter. Briefly, our Adversaries make all Christian Religion to hang upon this point: as Bellarmine acknowledgeth, at the entrance of the Preface in his Books of the Pope, speaking thus: To say in a word, when mention is made of the Popes supremacy, the sum of all Christianity is at stake: for the question is, whether the Church ought to subsist any longer, or whether it must be dissolved and fall. Thereunto do all the Controversies refer, and all the Traditions aim at the profit and greatness of the Pope; yet the same Cardinal at the 12. chap. of the second Book of the Pope, acknowledgeth, that the Scripture maketh no mention of the Popes succession in the place of Saint Peter, and that this poyut is not jure divino. Nevertheless he affiemeth that this succession, though it be not jure divino, leaveth not to appertain to the Catholic faith; In the same manner as the Catholic faith believeth, that Saint Paul had a Friers weed, though that were not jure divine, and that God had not commanded anything to that purpose.

Hence it is manifest, that all the divine doctrine is founded upon a plain human Tradition, to weet, a Tradition unwritten, That God hath ordained the Pope of Rome for Successor in the Primacy of Saint Peter. Thus you see Tradition grounded upon tradition, that is, upon it self: and this infinite Mass of traditions is founded upon a Traditions that is no more jure diuino, then Saint Paul's weed, whereof never was any divine Testimony extant.

I will not at this time enter into proofs of the falsity of this matter, which we have handled in diverse places, especially in my book that went before, and shown the untruths by abundance of reason and authority drawn from antiquity. I say but this, that the ancient Bishops of Rome were called Successors of Saint Peter, in the Bishopric only of the City of Rome; but not in the Apostleship, nor in the government of the universal Church. Just as the Bishops of Jerusalem were called Successors of Saint James, and those of Antioch of Saint Peter, and those of Ephesus of Saint Paul and of Saint John: not in the Apostle ship, but in the Bishopric of th • towns, wherein these Apostles had planted the Church. Our adversaries produce not any example or passage of the ancient Church, whereby it may appear, that ever the Bishops of Rome attributed any authority to themselves, over the Churches that are out of the Roman Empire.

I say also, that when the Bishop of Rome was heretofo • e Successor to Saint Peter, in place of head of the Church, so it was that the heresies which infected this seat (as our adversaries themselves do confess, and the Popes complain of it) and the Schisms which have rent it, (there having been two Popes at once, sometimes three at the same instant, prosecuting one the other to extremity, and calling one the other Antichrist) did long since break the chain of this succession. In which Schisms ordinarily the most vicious and most cunning carried it; and he excluded his adversary, who had the favor of those Emperors and Kings on whom the fortune of war did smile. This continued strain of succession, not being possibly known, but by the multitude of Histories and Authors, both Greek and Latin (who very often jar among themselves, so far as not to agree upon the next Successors to Saint Peter ) it is impossible that the people should know anything in this succession, o • should have any assurance hereof, but by the Testimony of those, who brag of it and live by it.

Moreover, our adversaries do confess, that the Pope and church of Rome may err in the question de facto. Now these questions, to weet, whethe • Saint Peter hath left the Bishop of Rome Successor of his Apostleship, or of his Supremacy; and whether this succession hath not been interrupted by Schisms and heresies, are questions de facto, and consequently of the nature of those, wherein our adversaries hold, that the Church of Rome may err. And the proofs which our adversaries bring forth are drawn, from books which theirselues convince of falsity, and from such fragments as for the most part are supposititious.

I forbear to censure any further the certainty of Romish traditions, seeing they are all founded upon one Maxim, which is, a Tradition human, not upheld by any Ordinance of God; a Tradition which is not an Article of the Christian faith, yet at this time is put down for the ground of Faith; a Tradition which is of the nature of those wherein our adversaries confess, that the Church may err; a Tradition whereof the people can have no certainty nor knowledge, but by books, both Greek and Latin of infinite length, wherein they understand nothing, and by the Testimony of those especially who propose it, that is to say, the Popes, who receiving not the Scripture for Judge, cal themselves supreme Judges and infallible in all controversies, more especially in that wherein is pleaded their succession, and their own proper authority and infallibility.

Now it is an easy matter, to guess, at what the proceedings of the Enemy of our salvation do level. Their butt & scope is to distill (as it were) all Religion into a vapor, and to make it depend upon presuppositions, not only vain and uncertain, but also false and imaginary: as he that should bear up an obeliske upon a small feskue. When some demand, Wherefore is it behooveful to receive Traditions? the answer is, because the Pope hath ordained it. Again, if it be demanded, whence cometh this authority of the Pope? it is answered, Because Saint Peter dying hath left the Bishop of Rome Successor of his Supremacy, over the Church of the whole world. Moreover when it is asked, Can you produce any Ordinance of God for this succession; for this point being estated by you, for the foundation of the Church, and of all the Christian faith, it is not credible that God hath ordained nothing of it? there they stand caught by the nose, not uttering one syllable of the word of God, and do confess, that this succession is not lure diuino, nor by the Ordinance of God. Only the Popes will be therein believed, and call themselves supreme and absolute, in a case wherein they are so much interested, and wherein it is disputed of their succession and authority. Thus you may see all the Ius diuinum founded upon a point which is not Iure diuino; and all the divine doctrine founded upon human Tradition, yea upon human Testimony, the most uncertain of all, for the certainty of the Popes succession is founded upon the Testimony and authority of the Pope himself, who is party in this cause, and who by this Tradition ruleth and upholdeth his Empire.

Nay, they do worse, they make not only these Traditions, but the very authority of the holy Scripture, to depend upon this Tradition. Let it be demanded, wherefore ought we to believe that God hath created man after his own Image, that he hath given his Law to Moses in two Tables, and that the Son of God hath taken flesh in the womb of the blessed Virgin, and is dead for us? It is answered, that this is to be believed, because it is written in the holy Scripture that God hath inspired his Prophets and Apostles. Again let it be asked, wherefore ought the holy Scriptures to be believed, and why are we obliged to put our faith therein? The answer is, Because the Church of Rome hath so ordained it, which hath this authority by virtue of her succession in Supremacy of Saint Peter. But upon this question, have you any commandment from God? they answer, the holy Scripture indeed speaks nothing of it, but the church of Rome is supreme Judge and hath more authority over us then the Scripture. Nevertheless in this point it is disputed of the authority of the Church of Rome, wherein it is no reasonable thing that she should be Judge, much less to assign her self Judge above the Scripture.

Do but observe what becometh of all Christian Religion in the account of these Merchants. Their will is that God should be believed, because men ordained it, and that the divine truth should have no other foundation, then the evidence and authority of lying men, yea such as will be Judges in their own cause, and who having invented a thousand Traditions (all tendi • g to their profit) hold them all up by one Tradition alone, which hath no other foundation then their own authority. There is no such pernicious stratagem to pervert the Christian Religion, as to confound the things that are certain by uncertain proofs, to plead human Tradition for their highest and concluding principle, and to order that the Christian faith should have a Maxim that is no Articie of faith, and is upheld by no other authority then of those that publish it, and such as by this Maxim enrich themselves, and build them up an Empire on the earth: yea all the Churches in the world (except the Romish) do reject this Maxim, and laugh at this succession, as a story contradicted by all antiquity, and especially by all the Bishops of Rome; who whilst the Roman Empire was in flourishing estate, never intermeddled in any affaire beyond the limits of that Empire; as I have proved at large in my first Treatise.

[unspec 2] The second Maxim is of the same nature, and dependeth upon the first. Our adversaries (to maintain all their Traditions) say that the Pope cannot err in the Faith, and that likewise, by virtue of the same succession. For they will have the Pope Successor not only of the power of Saint Peter, but also of his infallibility.

Now if the Pope should be Successor of the Supremacy of Saint Peter, it followeth not thereupon that the Pope cannot err; for he that is Successor of the charge of another, is not therefore Successor of his virtue. The Doctors that have succeeded in the chair of Moses, have often corrupted the Law of Moses, and have caused the people to depart out of the way, and to stumble at the Law, Malachi. 2. 8. And the Scribes and Pharisees that were in the Chair of Moses, taught that Jesus Christ was a Seducer. And we have formerly seen diverse Popes condemned for heresy and impiety by the Councils, and many Popes complaining of their Predecessors heresies. And seeing that our adversaries confess that there have been multitudes of profane Popes and of infamous life, it is hard to believe that he which is not Successor of the good life, and of the virtues of Saint Peter, can be Successor infallible of his purity in the Faith. For if the wicked doctrine of the Leaders of the Church bring in errors, their ungodly life bringeth in profaneness and Atheism; and as the Canon Si Papa hath it in the 40. distinction, it casteth headlong innumerable troops of people into hell, it exposeth the Christian Religion unto Scandal, and bringeth errors into the very Faith. It being the custom of lewd Pastors to change the doctrine, for the better accommodation of their vices, and to make it serve their avarice and ambition. Let Saint Peter preaching the Gospel be compared with the Pope that preacheth not at all; Saint Peter going on bare foot, with the Pope carried upon Princes shoulders; Saint Peter not suffering Cornelius to worship him, Act. 10. with the Pope expecting himself to be adored, and that Kings should kiss his feet; Saint Peter reprehending Simon Magus for holding the gift of God purchasable with money, Act. 8. 20. With the Pope drayning so much money to himself by Absolutions, Dispensations, Indulgences, Annates, Archiepiscopall robes, &c. Saint Peter recommending chastity to women, 1. Pet. 3. With the Pope suffering whoredom, and establishing brothell houses publicly at Rome; Saint Peter that was married, Mark. 1. 30. With the Pope forbidding the Clergy to live in state of matrimony; S. Peter who in his second Epistle, Chap. 1. Exhoreth the faithful to be attentive to the word of the Prophets, With the Pope not allowing the reading of Scripture; Saint Peter writing to all the faithful, and commanding them to obey their Kings, 1 Pet. 2. 3. and 14. With the Pope exempting the Clergy from subjection to their Kings; Saint Peter making no mention in his Epistles of invocation of Saints, of adoration of Images, of Relics, of Purgatory, of Indulgences, of the Treasure of the Church, of Limbus, of the Service in an unknown tongue, of his Supremacy, nor usurping any title to himself, that was not common to the other Apostles, with the Pope, who teacheth all these things, and in his Bulls attributeth to himself such titles as Saint Peter never admitted of in his Epistles; then may it easily be conjectured what little modicum of assurance there is, that the Pope cannot degenerate from the purity of Saint Peter, nor be alienated from his doctrine.

And note, that although Saint Peter was exempted from error, by the continual assistance of the Spirit of God, which Jesus Christ had promised to the Apostles, nevertheless neither he, nor any Apostle used this arrogant language, vaunting of their impossibility to err. As the Pope is the only Christian Prelate which maketh himself to be called God, so is he the only creature which qualifieth himself with Infallibilitie, to the end to make him resemble God. Imitating herein the false Doctors who taught the Jews to say: The Law shall not perish from the Priest, nor the Counsel from the Wise, nor the Word from the Prophet.

It is not requisite to prove this Maxim any further, That the Bishop of Rome cannot err in the Faith, to be false and contradicted (in the experience of so many ages) by so many holy Doctors, who have so often condemned the Bishops of Rome; by so many Councils, damning the Romish Church, and the Bishop of Rome for error and heresy; by the testimony of numbers of our adversaries, who reject this Maxim; and by the confession of the Popes themselves. This hath been amply proved in my first Treatise.

Upon which so false a Maxim, are grounded all Traditions of the church of Rome, as a multitude of flies sitting upon a floating plank; or a number of Chymera's hanging at a spiders thread, which breaketh at a blast. It is their plaster for all evil. They make new Articles of faith most gainful to his Holiness. Idolatry, Merchandise, tyranny, corruption of the benefit and nature of Jesus Christ is established. And in conclusion they pay us with this maxim, that the Church cannot err; and by the Church they understand the Romish; and by the Romish Church the Pope of Rome. Thus the Romish Church forbiddeth all sorts of errors by an error, in saying, I cannot err, supplying with presumption that which is wanting in reason. She is exempted from giving reason of her doctrine, for she her self judgeth that she hath reason. Such an error is the worst of all; for by this means a man becometh Judge of the Word of God, and maketh Religion to depend upon his will. And he that saith, I cannot err, will never reform his error, nor subject himself to any rule; for he believeth himself to be the Rule. How shall he be raised up, who believeth he cannot fall?

[unspec 3] The third Maxim whereon our adversaries ground their Traditions, hath no more certainty, then the other two precedent. They presuppose without proof, that Jesus Christ and the Apostles have spoken many things which they did not commit to writing. Upon this presupposition they build another, the most inconsiderate and unreasonable that can be. For they would have it believed, that those things which the Apostles did not set down in writing, are the Traditions of the Romish Church at this time; and therefore conclude, that when Jesus Christ spake severally and apart to his Disciples, he conferred with them about the service of Images, and adoration of Relics, about Indulgences and superabundant satisfactions of the Saints, which the Pope ought to lock up in his Treasury; about Invocation of Saints, about the crowning of his Mother in the dignity of Queen of heaven, and of the Angels; about private Masses, the Communion under one kind, blessed Beads, & Agnus Dei, &c. This is a daring conjecture, whereon if the faith of the faithful be founded, all Religion shall consist of supposition: and the Pope shall have good recreation to invent Traditions which shall turn to his profit; for such conjectures are taken for Oracles, and laid down for a foundation of the Christian faith.

But they are ashamed of this, and *contradict themselves: for knowing that these Traditions are new Inventions, they speak freely that neither Christ nor the Apostles have taught all, either by mouth or by writing, and that the Popes from time to time have added many doctrines essential and necessary, reserving to themselves the power of altering that which God hath comanded in the Scripture, of adding to the Creed, of dispensing against the Apostle, and of establishing new Articles of faith, a • we have shown by multitudes of proofs, & by the practice of the church of Rome. So as now we are not to consider what doctrines have been taught from the mouth of the Apostles, but it is endeavored to make us receive all the Traditions which the Popes have added, not only to the Scriptures, but also to the preaching of the Apostles, for inviolable laws and infallible rules.

Our adversaries then come back to this, that the Church of Rome cannot err in her Traditions, for she cannot err in this Tradition, that she cannot err. They would have us believe the Tradition of the Romish Church, because the Tradition of that Church hath so ordained it. So as this third Maxim leadeth us back to the second, which holdeth, that the Pope cannot err: and this Maxim that the Pope cannot err, leadeth us to the first, that is to say, to the Succession of Saint Peter, (whereof God ordained nothing) from whence they have made this infallibility to spring forth.

It is lamentable to hear, how they speak of the antiquity of their Traditions, yea, when they be fresh and moderne. They heard their fathers say, that they heard from others, and they again from others, that the Apostles have taught these things by mouth only, and did disperse them amongst some few. Thus they make a brittle cord which bindeth not the consciences, and their belief striving to rove back through fifteen or sixteen ages, wherein they see not one jot, is lost in the way; instead of beginning at the fountain, to wit, at Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and to learn in their writings that which they have taught: for, a Commandment of the Lord, or of the Apostles, had in one word freed them from all doubt and difficulty.

CHAP. XII. That our Adversaries alleging the Scripture do contradict themselves, and allege Scripture for Traditions in general without touching the particulars, wherein they find the Scripture contrary.

IT is the property of lying to say and unsay, involving it self in contradictions. Our adversaries build the authority of the Scripture upon the Tradition of the Church: and then contradicting themselves, they labor to ground Tradition upon the testimony of Scripture.

Their custom is to allege Scripture, not to defend everyone of their Traditions in particular; but they endeavor to prove in general, that the Scripture speaketh of Traditions, & approveth them, Presupposing without proof, th •• the traditions whereof the Scripture maketh mention, are those which in our times are received by the Church of Rome, and where of the body of Papistry is compounded.

And herein they do wisely. For what should they find in the scripture, that may be of use to uphold so many new inventions? unless • perhaps they would ground the abridgement of the cup upon the words of our Savior, Drink ye • of it. And upon the words of Sain • Paul writing to the people of Co • rinth, Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread, an drink of that Cup. As likewise, • are all partakers of one and the same Bread; and one and the same Cup, according to the vulgar translation.

Or they would ground the single life of Priests and Bishops upon the Apostles Commandment, wherein he chargeth a Bishop to be husband of one wife, having his children in subjection with all gravity: as also, If they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry then to burn.

Or Invocation of Saints, upon the words of Solomon, that God only knoweth the hearts of men. And upon those of Saint Paul, How shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed? And upon those words of Jesus Christ, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, &c. Luk. 11. 2.

Or private Masses and without Communicants, upon this reason that Saint Paul calleth the holy Supper A Communion. And upon this that Jesus Christ giving bread to his disciples, hath said, Take, eat: for in their solitary Masses, no man assisteth, to whom the Priest may say, Take.

Or the power of the Pope to depose Kings, and to make them kiss his feet, upon these sentences of the Apostles, Fear God, Honor the King: and upon this, Let every man be subject to superior powers: and upon the example of Jesus Christ, who paid tribute, and washed his Apostles feet.

Or Service and Prayers in a strange language, upon that which the Apostle speaketh: Except you utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. And, I had rather speak in the Church five words with my understanding, then ten thousand in an unknown tongue.

Or difference of meats, upon that which the Apostle saith: If any of them that believe not, invite you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go, whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. And upon that which the same Apostle calleth the instructions of those that said, ( touch not, taste not, handle not, ) human Commandments and doctrines, although they were made for devotion, and to subdue the flesh, as he hath it in the 2 chap. to the Colos. 21. 22. 23.

Or merit of works of condignity as they are called, or of equivalence and congruity, upon the words of our Savior, When you shall have done all that is commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants.

Or works of supererogation not commanded, upon the sum of the Law, which enjoineth to love God with all the heart, and with all the strength. For in these words is commanded all the good that man can do, and upon that where Saint Paul in the 4. to the Phil. 8. chargeth us to addict ourselves to all things commendable and virtuous, whereupon it followeth that if the works of supererogation are virtuous and praise worthy, they are commanded; and upon this that the perfection of the Angels doth consist in obeying the Commandment of God, Psal. 103. 20. and not to do more then he hath commanded.

Or borrowed satisfactions, upon that which the Apostle testifieth, that every man shall carry his own burden, Galat. 6. 5. and that every man shall receive his own proper reward, according to his own labor. 1 Cor. 3. 8.

Or offerings of Priests, in making sacrifices for the living and the dead, upon that which Jesus Christ hath said, Do this in remembrance of me: which is the place for proof thereof, that the Counsel of Trent in the 22. session will have to be received of every man, under pain of an Anathema.

Or festival play days, upon the commandment of God speaking: six days shalt thou labor.

Or the power of the Pope to set at liberty under ground, and to give Indulgences to the dead, upon that which Jesus Christ saith, Whatsoever ye shall bind and loose on earth, &c.

Or cases reserved to the Pope, upon the words of our Savior uttered to all the Apostles, Whose sins soever ye shall pardon they shall be pardoned.

Or images of the Almighty upon that which God discoursing to the People of Isreal, giveth the reason why in speaking to them from heaven he suffered none to see any image or resemblance: For fear (saith he) Lest ye might forget the Covenant which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of anything male or female.

Or establishing of brothell-houses at Rome by the authority of his holiness, upon the commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Or the doctrine of the Council of Trent, affirming in the fifth Session that covetousness is no sin, upon the law of God, speaking, Thou shalt not covet: and upon the testimony of the Apostle, saying, that he hath learnt out of the law, that covetousness is sin.

Or forbidding the People to read the Scripture, upon that which is written in the Apocal. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy; and upon the example of the people of Berea who searched the Scriptures daily; and upon the commandment made to Kings, to read carefully the book of the law of God.

Or swearing by relics, upon the commandment of God: Thou shalt fear the Eternal, and swear by his name.

Or Purgatory, upon that which the Lord said unto the Thief upon the Cross: Thou shalt be with me this day in Paradise; and upon the example of Lazarus, whose soul was carried by the Angels into Abraham's bosom immediately after his death; and upon the Apostle Saint John, speaking, That the blood of Jesus Christ purgeth us from all sin.

Or the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ in the Mass, upon that which the Apostle to the Hebrews (speaking of the sacrifice of the death of Jesus Christ made up on the Cross) declareth, that We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. and that Jesus Christ offereth not himself ofien: for as it is ordained for all men to die once, so Christ hath been offered once to take away our sins, making the sacrifice of Jesus Christ no more reiterable then the death of men.

Without all doubt if contrariety to the Scripture can give authority to the Romish Traditions, these traditions which I have specified, ought to be of great authority.

Yea to sum up all, our adversaries are too licentious and rash in their conjectures, and I cannot conceive that they believe it themselves, when they would have us to believe, that Jesus Christ speaking in private with his Disciples, did confer about the service of Images, and great Pardons to be made by the Pope, of Chaplets, and Blessed-beads, of lessening the torment of Souls in Purgatory by Masses and Indulgences, &c. To what may this tend but to expose Jesus Christ to laughter? or to delight themselves in feigning matters without proof? and to allure those that will be deluded, to believe things that are incredible? for such kind of presuppositions work their effect, according as he is awed that propoundeth them.

CHAP. XIII. That our adversaries to distinguish the good Traditions from the bad, do give us a Plea wherein they wholly convict themselves.

TO discern the good Traditions from the bad, our adversaries lay down certain Pleas which we hold fit to have strictly examined. They say that the Traditions ought to be both received and believed to be divine, which have always been approved by the universal Church, as Vincentius Lyrinensis confirmeth it, allowing that to be received for truth which hath ever been believed wholly and by all; and Saint Augustine in his Epistle. 118. If the Church throughout the world observe anything, it is a distracted impudence to dispute whether it ought to be so or no; and in his 4. Book against the Donatists Chapter 4. That which the universal Church holdeth, and hath not been instituted by Councils, but ever maintained, is to be believed in all just reason, not to have been ordained by other power then the Apostolic Authority.

Now though these passages of Saint Augustine be unseasonably alleged, because they speak of customs not necessary to salvation, & indifferent in their nature, or of opinions without the knowledge whereof a man may be saved, as we shall hereafter discover: yet I say that by this Plea, the Traditions of the Church of Rome do fall to the ground, and are not currant or receiueable: for it is easy to prove, that they have not been received from the beginning by the Catholic Church.

How is it that Purgatory (which is by interpretation, a subterraneall fire, where the souls of the faithful are purged by orment) could be believed in the ancient church: seeing that a great part of the Fathers did believe, that the souls could not be tormented without the bodies: And that the Mass prayeth for souls that sleep in a peaceable rest: it being a clear case that when this piece was patched to the Canon of the Mass, the Church of Rome did not believe that the souls of the faithful were tortured in a fire. Pope Gregory the 1. In his Dialogues, s • ateth Purgatory in the smoke of baths, and in the wind; for this underground fire was not yet devised: and yet this time was so far advanced as to the year 590. of our Lord.

Invocation of Sts. was unknown under the three first ages of the Christian Church, and more then half of the fourth. Cardinal Befla. in his third book of worshipping Saints, Chap. 9. saith, that When the holy Scriptures were written, the custom was not yet to make vows to Saints. Which is as much to say in plain terms, that about the Apostle time, Saints were not called on, nor did the Apostles (who survived the Virgin Mary ) address their vows unto her. And Cardinal Perron (to whom this commendation is due, to be the best versed in the study of the Father's) confesfeth freely, that in the Authors nearest approaching to the Apostles time, there appeareth no trace of this custom of invoking Saints. Yea, he acknowledgeth that then when S. Augustine wrote, (which was some 420. years after the birth of our Savior) the doctrine of those which hold that the Saints know not the occurrences of things acted here below, was not condemned, and that the Church had not yet made a decision thereupon: and indeed all that our Adversaries allege out of the Fathers of the three first ages, and more then half the fourth upon this question, are passages ser ving to prove that the Saints pray for us, which is a point that willingly we condescend unto; but not to prove it behooveful for us to invoke the Saints, nor to allow them a religious service.

The approbation of the books of Maccabees (amongst other books Divine and Canonical) is inserted by our Adversaries, in their unwritten Traditions. Yet this is not a Tradition received from the beginning by all the Catholic Church: the Council of Laodicea rejecteth them: and Meliton Bishop of Sardius, near the time of the Apostles: and Origen: and Tertullian: and Eusebius: and Athanasius: and Cyril of Jerusalem: and Hilary: and Gregory of Nazianzen: and Amphilochius Bishop of Iconia: and Epiphanius Bishop of Salamine: and Philustreus Bishop of Bresse: and Saint Jerome in Prolog • Galeato, and in his Preface upon the Books of Solomon: and Ruffin upon the Lord's Prayer: all of these were persons remarkable in the third and fourth age • . Yea, and Pope Gregory the 1. who wrote near upon the end of the fifth age in the 19. of his Morals, Chap. the 17 as we have proved elsewhere in amplemanner: wherefore, this is no Tradition received wholly and at all times by the Church universal.

By this very Plea the Romish Indulgences ought to be rejected, the which Indulgences I understand to be a Tradtion, wherewith the Pope heapeth up the superfluity of the satisfactions of Jesus Christ and the Saints, to the treasure of the Church, and convertech them to payment for others by his Indulgences: which he hoardeth in certain Churches of Rome, and causeth that the people from all parts repair thither to purchase pardons. I say that these Indulgences are new and that neither the Apostles nor their disciples did convert the superaboundance of the sufferings of Abraham, or of Saint John the Baptist, or of the Virgin Mary to payment for others, and kept no treasury to hold the superabounding satisfactions of the Saints, and gave no pardons of one or two hundred thousand years, as the Pope doth: and that these Indulgences have been altogether unknown in the first ages of the Christian Church, by the plain confession of our Adversaries. Cardinal Cajetan in the 2. Chap. of his Treatise of Indulgences, hath these words; If we could have any certainty concerning the original of Indulgences, it would help as much in the disquisition of the truth: but we have not by writing any authority, either of the holy Scripture, or of ancient Doctors, Greek or Latin, that affordeth us the least knowledge thereof. Gabriel Biel Lect. 57. upon the Canon of the Mass: We must confess that before the time of Gregory (that is to say in the six first ages) the use of Indulgences was very little or none at all: but now the practice of them is grown frequent, for without doubt the Churoh hath the Spirit of Christ her Spouse, and therefore erreth not. Navarrus the Popes Penitentiary: What is the cause that among the ancients, so little mention is made of Indulgences, and among it the moderne they are in such use? John of Rochester most holy and reverend for his dignity of Bishop and Cardinal, hath taught us the reason, saying: that The explicit faith, whether it be of Purgatory, or of Indulgences, was not so necessary in the Primitive Church as now. And a little after: Whil▪st there was no heed taken to Purgatory. no man inquired after Romish Indulgences, because thereupon dependeth the proper • y and worth of them.

Antonine Archbishop of Florence (whom the Pope canonized for a Saint) speaketh to the same purpose: Touching Indulgences we have nothing expressly recited in holy Scripture, although the saying of the Apostle be alleged upon this subject, 1 Cor. If I have pardoned anything, I have done it for your sake, in the person of Christ. Nor are found at all in the writings of the ancient Doctors, but of the moderne. It is therefore no small abuse to place Indulgences amongst Apostolic Traditions.

Of the same rank is that Tradition which excludeth the people from the communion of the Cup: it is a moderne Tradition, and forged de novo: concerning the which we have the confession of the Council of Constance, held in the year 1416. which is the first Council that ever made the abridgement of the Cup to pass with legal authority. Mark the words: Though in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds, yet this custom was introduced with good reason, that it should be taken in both kinds by those that consecrate, but by the Laics under the species of bread only. And the Council of Basil in the 30. Session: The Laics are not bound by the Commandment of our Lord, to receive the Sacrament under both kinds. These Councils do acknowledge, that God's Commandment, and the custom of the ancient Church, is to give both kinds to the people, but they will not suffer the Church to be obliged to this Commandment: and when our Adversaries endeavor to defend themselves in this point by antiquity, they vouch examples of some sick persons receiving but in one kind, or of some that could not taste or endure wine, or of some superstitious people, who would carry the consecrated Bread from the Church home to their houses, and there lock it up in coffers: but they bring no prohibition of giving the Cup to the Laics, nor any example of any ancient Church, which hath celebrated the holy Sacrament in the assembly of the faithful, without offering the Cup to the Communicants; nor any example of denial to administer the Cup to the people: yet this is the point of difference, and which is now in controversy. It was upon this abridgement of the Cup, that Cardinal▪ Perron and Jesuit Vasquez former • y told us, that the Church was a • le to change the institution of our Lord, and the commandment of • he Apostle.

As for painting God and representing the Trinity in stone or in wood, this tradition hath not been • eceived by all, nor at all times, and • onsequently is neither Divine nor Apostolic, I could produce mul • tudes of passages of Ancients • hat condemn this abuse, but for • he present, the testimony of Pope Gregory the second, and Cardinal Baronius shall suffice. This Cardi • all in the year 726. of his an • ales, citeth an Epistle of the same Gregory, wherein are found these words: Why do not we place before • ur eyes, and set forth in painting the • ather of our Lord Jesus Christ? it is because we know not what he is, and the • ature of God c • nnot be painted or brought in sight. Upon which words Baeronius noted this saying in the margent: Afterwards it came by custom in the Church, that God the father and the holy Ghost were painted, this is therefore new, and hath not been received by all and at all times in the Catholic Church.

The service of Images was so generally unknown in the primitive Church of the three first ages, that the very trades of painting and graving were execrable amongst the Christians. Tertull •• reproacheth Hermogenes his trade of painting as a thing infamous. Clemens Alexandrinas in his doctrinal, and I • stin Martyr against Tryphon speak of these trades as of unlawful Arts.

The power of Popes to depos • Kings, and give and take Kingdoms, is yet of a fresh date, and there is not sound any rule for •• nor example, nor the least sign of footing in all antiquity. Perron in his Oration pronounced before the States of Paris the 15 of Ian. 1615. could not yield one example for the five first ages, and those which he allegeth before the yere 1076. are all either false or useless. Gregory the seventh in the yere 1076. pronouncing sentence of deposition against the Emperor Henry the 4. enterprised a thing without example, which also turned to his confusion. Cardinal Bellarmine disputing this same question against Barkley, perceiving himself destitute of all testimony of antiquity, hath recourse to the authority of the Church of the latter ages, saying: He judgeth not rightly of the Church of Christ, who receiveth nothing but that which he readeth, to have been expressly written or done in the ancient Church, as if the Church of this latter time had ceased to be a Church, or had not the faculty of unfolding and declaring, yea of establishing, and commanding things appertaining to the Faith and manners of Christians. In brief, this usurpation is not a Tradtion received by all, and in all time, nor could be at that time practiced, when the Christian Emperors deposed Popes, and made them prisoners, and punished them with death, and took of them a sum of money for their reintegration in the Bishopric, as may be seen in the 123. Nov. of Iustiniam, chap. 3.

And how can the Cannon o • the Mass be an Apostolic Tradition, when the persons therein named were after the Apostle • time, more then two hundred years? namely Cosmus and Di • mian, who suffered martyrdom in the year of our Lord, 285. like wise we could produce many autuors amongst our adversaries, who affirm that this Pope and that Pope have added such and such a parceil to the Mass, and yet the whole Canon of the Mass is contrary both to Porgatory, to the merit of Works, and to Transubstantiation, for in the Canons of the Mass the Priest prayeth for the souls that sleep in peaceable rest and tran quility, and not for those that are formented in a fire, and craveth at God's hands that he will not weigh our merits, but that he will grant us pardon, and holding the consecrated host, saith, These are the good things which God always createth sanctifieth, and blesseth, offering them through Jesus Christ, and humbly beseecheth that God would as freely accept of these gifts and presents, as of the Calf or Lamb offered by Abel, of all this there is nothing but may sort well and agree with Jesus Christ, and true it is that the Mass being punctually considered, appeacheth and condemneth the Romish Church of this time, and (as now it is,) must be far differing from that of heretofore; for Gregory the first, in the 63. Epistle of his 7. book affirmeth, that the Apostles did consecrate the Eucharist with only the Lord's prayer.

As for Monastical profession, it can neither be a Divine nor A. postolicall Tradition, nor believed always by all, for Paul the Hermit was the first of that calling, and made no disciples at all, but died in the year of our Lord 343. Particularly in the Church of Rome, this profession was neither seen nor practiced, until about the year of our Lord 370. for this is the time whereof Saint Jerome speaketh, in his Epitaph of Marcella, No Women (saith he) of great parentage knew yet at Rome what this Monacall profession did mean, nor durst take this name, which was so vile and ignominious amongst the people, because of the novelty of the thing, as then it was esteemed, moreover the Monks of that time were of a far different condition from these of this our time.

In sum, (not to run over all the traditions of the Romish Church,) I maintain that in the four first ages (I could descend a little lower) no ancient Church can be shown unto us, which hath approved, 1. The Masses without Communicants. 2. The images of the Trinity. 3. Or that hath made mention of the treasure of Romish Indulgences. 4. Or that hath forbidden the people to read the sacred Scripture. 5. Or that hath deprived the people of the Communion of the Cup. 6. Or that hath rendered any Religious service to Images. 7. Or that hath instructed the People to pray to God in a tongue not understood by him that prayeth. 8. Or that hath called the virgins Mary Queen of heaven, and Lady of the word. 9. Or that hath believed the Limbus for little infants. 10. Or that hath taught, that the Pope can give and take kingdoms. 11. Or that the Pope can canonize Saints, and free souls out of Purgatory, I could rehearse many more if need were.

Pope Martin in his Canon S • quis Presbiter the 30. Dist. ordaineth for an Apostolical Tradition, the prohibition of kneeling at Prayer, between the Paschal and Pentecost; yet doth it well appear in the 20, of the Acts ver. 36. and in the 21. ver. the 5. that Saint Paul and the faithful with him, humbled themselves upon their knees at that time, whereupon Baronius in his Annals, reprehendeth this Pope for having celebrated the Pentecost nequaquam Christiano more, not after a Christian fashion. Ann. 58. Sect. 102. but if this custom be an Apostolic Tradition, why doth not the Church of Rome contain the practice thereof?

CAP. XIIII. A proof of the same, by the Traditions which our adversaries do suppose to be the most ancient and best grounded in antiquity.

TO the end it may not be said, that for our advantage, we pick out their most moderne Traditions, and least countenanced with antiquity. I will incist upon three, wherein our adversaries take themselves to stand upon surest ground, and labor to overwhelm us with texts and places out of the Fathers; the first is prayer for the Dead, secondly Lent, thirdly single life of the Clergy.

For the first, I say that prayers for the Dead, which the Romish Church doth exercise, and are made for the comfort of Souls in Purgatory, are so moderne as not to have any mention or trace of them in all antiquity. For we have already expressed, and will further demonstrate in its proper place, that the ancient Christians prayed for the dead, sleeping in a peaceable repose, and kept in hidden receptacles, expecting the Resurrection; praying likewise that the dead should rise again to salvation, or that they should be raised at a better hour then others, or that the fire at the last day of judgment should burn them more superficially and sparingly, but for a prayer to ease and mitigate a burning soul in the fire of Purgatory, there is not any found in all antiquity: yea, in all the prayers of the Church of Rome, which are found in the Mass for the dead, there is not so much as any whispering of Purgatory; and yet the Canon of the Mass prayeth for the souls that sleep in peaceable quietness: and at this day the Greek and Oriental Churches pray for the dead, and deny Purgatory. The second book of the Maccabees at the 12. c. wisheth us to pray for the dead, having respect to the resurrection, saying likewise that to pray otherwise then thus, were trifling and dotage; briefly, I say that the prayers which the ancient Christians did make for the dead, are utterly abolished in the Church of Rome; and that he who should pray at this time for the dead, after the manner of the ancient Church, shall be branded for an Heretike, and not escape the Inquisition, for such kind of prayers would not be gainful to the Romish Clergy; and the power of the Pope (not long since invented) to give Indulgences to the dead, (and condemned by Pope Gelasius, ) should vanish by such prayers, and the traffic therein should be dissolved.

Secondly, Lent, (that is to say, the custom of not eating flesh, nor eggs for six and forty days before Easte • ) is not a tradition received into the Church from the beginning; indeed the word Quadrag • ssima is found often times in the Fathers of the fourth and fifth ages: but in the pure and unsuspected writings of the Fathers of the three first ages, I never met with it, and we must note that this word (to take it originally) did signify a fast of forty hours before Easter, which observation the ancient Christians grounded upon that which Jesus Christ spake in the 9. of Saint Matthew, They shall fast when the Spouse shall be taken from them. Now the spouse, to weet, Jesus Christ was taken from his Disciples for forty hours: for there are just so many hours from the time that he was nailed to the Cross unto his resurrection. Nevertheless the customs did forthwith vary, some fasting two days, some three, some five, but though the custom did alter, yet the ancient name did still remain, and according as the observation hereof did increase, so in conclusion, this Fast of forty hours is become by little and little a Fast of forty days, whereof everyone among the people did fast his day, according as he saw good, except the Sabbath days: for to fast on God's day was judged a crime, the Spouse being rendered to the Church on that day by his resurrection. There was none but the Church of Rome that fasted on Saturdayes, whereof also it was condemned by the sixth general Council at the 55. Canon: yea at Milan which is near Rome, they fasted not on Saturdayes, as Saint Augustine testifieth in his 118. Epistle.

Thirdly, single life of Priests and Bishops cannot be an Apostolical Tradition, because it was not practiced at the time of the Apostles, nor many ages after them. But having spoken of this elsewhere at large, I will content myself for the present, with the testimony of the two most famous Cardinals of this age, Barronius, and Perron. Baronius in the 58. year of his Annals acknowledgeth, that married men were received to the function of Bishop at the Apostles time, whereof he alledgeth divers causes, and namely amongst the rest, the scarcity of unmarried men, especially in Crete. And Perron affirmeth, that this permission lasted until the time of Constantine, that is to say, during the three first ages. But if he would have confessed the whole truth, he had acknowledged that Greek Churches, never was any time when Priests were not married, yea they so continue to this very day. And the 13. Canon of the sixth general Council, called at the Imperial Palace of Constantinople, doth formally condemn the Church of Rome upon this subject. Estius Doctor and Professor at Douay, in his Commentary upon this passage of the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. Let the Bishop be husband of one wife, speaketh thus: We must confess that the Apostle suffereth us to choose a Bishop that is married to one wife: but he teacheth this according to the time, because of the fewness of unmaried men, and of such as were fit for the function of a Bishop. Therefore this Tradition claimeth not the Apostles to be the Authors of it, and consequently is not Apostolical; nor hath it been received at all times, and in all places.

I have insisted hereupon, not that we should have need of the authority of the ancients, to fight against Romish Traditions, (for refutation whereof, the word of God is sufficient, and is only that which ought to judge us:) but to show that our Adversaries, supposing to establish their Traditions, do plainly destroy them, and do give such notes, whereby they draw their own inditement and conviction.

Nevertheless it is not without craft, that they will have Traditions to be examined by this touchstone: to wit, whether they have been universally received at all times. For they know, that of those who would examine their Traditions by this way, scarce one amongst a thousand can attain to the head of them, and that the people can inform themselves nothing at all therein: for this examination cannot be made, but by the reading of all the Greek and Latin Fathers, and of all the Ecclesiastical histories since the continuation of sixteen hundred years. All the books to this purpose would fill a spacious room, and are no more then sealed letters to the people; yea amongst the Clergy, not one of a hundred will be found that hath but ordinary knowledge therein. By this means our Adversaries contrive the matter, that when their Traditions come to be examined, a way must be undertaken that is endless, wherein the people walk blindfold, and are constrained to repair to the testimony of such men as preach these Traditions, and live by them: truly if by these directions men expect to arrive at the knowledge of salvation, I know not who can be saved.

The which most clearly appeareth in this, that the holy Scripture being the short and sure means to examiue Traditions, they sequester it far from the people's eyes, and divert them from reading thereof, appointing them to books, wherein they are neither comprehensive, nor capable. It appeareth likewise in the examination of Traditions by the history of every age, wherein ordinarily they commence with the last age, and so walk retrograde in the calculation of their times, to the end they may arrive as late as possibly they can at the Apostles time and their writings.

CHAP. XV. The second mark set by our Adversaries, to distinguish the good Traditions from the bad, to wit, Succession.

To discern the good Traditions from the bad, our Adversaries agree, that those ought to be held for divine and Apostolical, which are received by the Churches that derive their succession from the Apostles.

This mark hath no more certainty then the former, and maketh as much against our Adversaries. The doubtfulness of it is manifest in this, that the Churches of Antioch, of Alexandria, of Ephesus, of Thessalonica, of Candia, &c. (which are contrary to the Romish Church, and more ancient) do boast themselves to be of equal succession, and one part of them challengeth a succession from Saint Peter: yea before the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch did suffer any interruption, by the persecutions of the Mohammedans, they were often in discord with the Church of Rome, and were not in any wise subject unto it: and more particularly, the Church of Thessalonica founded upon Saint Paul, and the Church of Candia where Saint Paul established Titus, (from whom descended the Bishops of Candia) keep a succession from the Apostles, which never was interrupted, and hath continued since the time of Christ, who speaking from heaven, sent the Apostle Saint Paul; yet notwithstanding these Churches are separated from a communion with the Church of Rome, and the Pope holdeth them for Schismatics and Heretics.

As for the Bishop of Rome, so many schisms dividing, and so many heresies tainting his Seat, (as our Adversaries themselves confess, and we have elsewhere proved) have long since broken the rank of this imaginary succession.

Also the uncertainty of this succession betrayeth it self, in that it is a mere tradition, so as if the service of Images, or the Communion under one kind, be founded upon succession; behold then Traditions founded upon a Tradition, and this Tradition founded upon human histories, which may mistake, yea often do jar and disagree: wherefore this is an uncertainty founded upon another uncertainty, as atoms and motes carried upon the air.

But how shall a Mechanicke, or a woman know this succession? How shall they be assured that the second Bishop of Rome hath believed in the points of Religion as the first, the third as the second, the fourth as the third, and so for sixteen hundred years, though there never might have happened any alteration? Who doth not perceive that these men, by a palpable falsehood invent projects, whereof they know that the knowledge is impossible, and wherein the search is a labor in vain, to the end that the ignorant finding themselves muffled up in darkness, may catch hold and grasp the hand, which these men stretch forth to them, to be conductours of their blindness?

Yet let us briefly observe, what this succession of the Church of Rome may signify or be: they bring us clauses of ancient Authors, reporting the Bishop of Rome to be Saint Peters Successor; and show a Nomenclature of the Bishops from Saint Peter to this day: but we find that the ancients make such another Catalogue of the Bishops of Jerusalem, and of Antioch, whose succession is of greater antiquity then that of the Bishops of Rome. The Bishops of Alexandria likewise draw out their succession from Saint Peter. But our Adversaries will not have this succession to be esteemed, for (say they) those Churches are heretical, and yet the same Churches also call the Church of Rome heretical and schismatical. Herein then lieth the point of difficulty, the ancients reckon up the Successors of Saint Peter, and other Apostles in Iernsalem, in Antioch, at Rome, and at Alexandria: but they mean not they should be Successors of the Apostles in the Apostleship, they mean only in the government of such and such a particular Church, planted by one of the Apostles. So, putting the case that Saint Peter founded the Church of Rome, and was there Bishop, (which nevertheless is doubtful and mistrusted) I will also agree that the Bishops of Rome of the first ages have been Successors to Saint Peter, but in the Bishopric of the Church of the city of Rome only. In the same manner as Simon was Successame manner to Saint James the Apostle in the Bishopric of Jerusalem, and Timothy Successor to Saint Paul in the Bishopric of Ephesus, but not in his Apostleship.

Our Adversaries profit nothing by their allegations, if they prove not first by testimonies both divine and irrefragable, that God hath ordained Saint Peter to have a Successor in his Apostleship, and that the Bishop of Rome was Successor to Saint Peter, in the dignity of the head of the universal Church. For ought not this succession to have come from God? Did God establish a supreme and successive head over the Church of all the world, without making any mention of it in his word? And did Saint Peter himself forget to speak of this succession, from whence we have two long Epistles? See then whereupon we stand, and how our Adversaries are taken. All their Religion is founded upon this Tradition, to wit, that the Pope hath been ordained from God, to be the Successor of Saint Peter, in the charge of head of the universal Church; hereunto they bend their force, this is the scope of all the controversies. And yet concerning this Tradition, they cannot produce one poor divine truth, nor one single word out of the word of God: yea, when it cometh to human testimonies, it is apparent that they are contrary to this Monarchical succession of the Pope of Rome.

In one thing our Adversaries find themselves much encumbered: We demand of them, when they speak of a succession, whether they understand it of persons without succession of doctrine, or of a succession of persons in the same doctrine: If they understand a succession of persons, sitting in the same chair, without succession of doctrine, this succession is impious, serving for a title of succession to make war against God. He that corrupteth the Doctrine of his Predecessors, succeedeth them as sickness succeedeth health, and darkness light; so Gregory of Nazianzen speaketh in his Oration upon Athanasius: To have the same Doctrine (saith he) is to have the same Seat; but to have a contrary Doctrine, is to have a contrary Seat: one hath the name, the other hath the truth of the succession, &c. Unless a man will call it succession, when the malady succeedeth health, and darkness the light.

But if our Adversaries speaking of succession, understand it of persons, not only in the same Chair, but also in the same Doctrine, this succession is excellent, and a singular ornament in a Church: no man can err in adhering to such a succession, for it carrieth conformity of Doctrine with the Apostles: and before this succession can be known, it is behooveful to be instructed in the writings of the Apostles, and in their Doctrine.

Such a succession is that whereof Irenaeus speaketh, saying, That we ought to obey Priests, who are in the Church, who have the succession of the Apostles, and with the succession of the Bishopric have received the certain talent of the truth. Not acknowledging succession in the Bishopric, without succession in the truth of the Doctrine. And Tertullian speaking of the Heretics: Their Doctrine being compared with that of the Apostles, by the diversity and contrariety therein, will plainly demonstrate, that it hath not any Apostle for Author, nor any one that is Apostolical. Snatching this specious title of Apostolic succession from those, who taught otherwise then the Apostles had done.

It is no small abuse (when we would know whether a Religion be true or no) to give us a list of Bishops in painting and pictures, without knowing whether the latter do teach as the first; pinning religion unto the Chaires, to the end to suppress the true rules and institutions: as also to divert the people from reading of the holy Scripture, for fear lest they should apprehend the conformity in Doctrine with the Apostles, which is the true succession.

We must note by the way, that in the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian, who wrote about six score years after the Apostles, it was easy to show the succession; Then (I mean) when the Churches wherein the Apostles had taught, did hold one and the same faith: I say, when the succession was of no great length, and the memory of the Apostles and their disciples preaching was fresh and familiar. But now that the Churches which were planted by the Apostles are divided into contrary Sects, and separated from communion, and that the confusions abounding in space of some fifteen hundred years, have thrown down so many Chaires, and reared up others, and that particularly the Bishopric of Rome is turned into a temporal Monarchy, and the Pope of a Bishop is become a temporal Prince, this successive derivation of Chaires in the East and West is impossible, considering that the entayle of this succession hath been thousands of times cut off, so that it is a mere imposture, to enter into this lea of Histories and confusions, to the end to examine the Traditions, instead of addressing ourselves to the word of God.

CHAP. XVI. That the Pharisees and ancient Heretics had recourse to Tradition, and the unwritten word, and that Clemens Alexandrinus suffered himself to be too much carried away in the same.

THe custom of Heretics (both ancient and moderne) is, when they are at default in Scripture, to have recourse to Traditions, Josephus in his 3. book of Antiquities ch. the 18. affirmeth, that The Pharisees had very many observations by the successive Tradition of their Fathers, which are not written in the law of Moses. Whereupon Jesus Christ at the 15. of Saint Matt. the 3. & 9. accuseth them to have transgressed the Law of God by their Tradition; which Pharisaical Traditions were doctrines, that for the most part commanded things not expressly forbidden in the Law of God: as to cleanse their Pots and Vessel, to wash their bodies at return from Market, to lengthen out their Phylacteries, to fast twice in a week, to pour forth longer prayers then ordinary, to make conscience of healing the sick, or journeying more then two miles upon the Sabbath. This I observe, to the end it may not be said, that Jesus Christ condemneth them only for teaching things expressly forbidden in the law of God.

Tertullian in his book of prescriptions, chap. the 25. telleth us, that the Heretics of his time affirmed, That the Apostles had not revealed all things to all, but that they had commanded some things openly, and some in secret and to few.

But the same Tertullian after he had written this book, applieth himself to defend the heresies of Montanus, by the unwritten word, speaking in the second Chapter of his book of Monogamy, that Christ pronounced his opinion thereupon, when he said, I have many things to tell you, but you cannot at this time bear them away.

Irenaeus lived at the same time, who in his first Book and fourth Chap. saith, that The Carpocratian Heretics affirmed, that Jesus had spoken in private to his Disciples, and had required of them, that they should teach these things a part to the worthy, and to such as give their approbation thereof, and in his 2. ch. of the 3. book. When they are confuted by the Scriptures they revile, and turn again to accuse the Scriptures themselves; as if they were not as they should be, and had not sufficient authority, and because matters therein are diversely spoken, and that in them the truth cannot be found by those who are ignorant of Tradition; which they say was not givē by writing but, viva voice, by word of mouth.

Some twenty years after the death of Saint John, one of his disciples named Papias Bishop of Hierapolis, addicted himself to the unwritten Traditions, the which were Parables, and strange doctrines, and other fabulous devices, as Eusebius witnesseth, at the last Chapter of the 3. Book of his Ecclesiastical History.

Clemens Alexandrinus a most worthy Author to be read, (but one who hath his infirmities) venteth many vain things and false doctrines, drawn from Tradition, as for example, that the Greeks were justified by Philosophy; that Jesus Christ descended into hell to Preach to the Jews; that the Apostles also descended thither, to Preach to the Gentiles; and many other the like fancies, all his books of his Stromatae are full of them, especially the sixth.

The followers of Artemon the heretic teaching matters not contained in the Scripture, professed that They did exercise them from their predecessors, yea from the Apostles, as Eusehius hath it in the 5. book of history chap. the 25.

Saint Augustine writing upon Saint John at his 97. Treatise, hath these words: The most senseless Heretics, who would be called Christians, strive to color their bold inventions (which are abhorred by human sense) with the pretext of this evangelical sentence, where our Lord speaketh, I have yet many things to tell you, but you cannot bear them at this time, as if these were the same things which the Apostles could not then carry, we shall not therefore affront or wrong Cardinal Bellarmine, if we rank him amongst those, which Augustine calleth most senseless Heretics, seeing that he speaketh as these heretics, employing the same quotation to prove Romish Traditions, speaking thus in the 5. Chapter of his book of the unwritten word: It is proved by testimony of Scripture, that there are some true Traditions, the first testimony is at the 16. of Saint John: I have many things to tell you, &c. Thus have the ancient Heretics no want at all of Disciples.

CHAP. XVII. An examination of the passages of Scripture, whereon they found Traeditions.

Our adversaries ground the authority of the Scripture upon unwritten Tradition, whence it followeth (if they had but reason for it) that unwritten Tradition is not grounded upon the Scripture: they contest therefore against themselves, when they endeavor to ground Tradition upon the Scripture, but let us hear their proofs.

In imitation of the ancient Heretics, they allege these words of our Lord Jesus to his Apostles, at the 16. of Saint John, verse 12. I have yet more things to tell you, &c. This is the passage that served the ancient He • erikes turn, to prove their Traditions, as Tertul. witne • . f • th in his book of Prescriptions; Chap. 22. such imaginations (if men would believe them) are; The succession of the Pope in the Apostleship of Saint Peter; invocation of Saints, service to images, the power of the Pope to draw souls out of Purgatory, &c. And they pronounce this without any proof, save only because theirselves do say it, and the Pope will have it fo to be, unto whom these Traditions are very gainful; But we had rather believe in Jesus Christ, who expoundeth himself in the same place: for at the verse following he declareth to his Disciples, that the spirit of truth should approach, and teach them the come, that is to say, the future •• vents of things foretold in the Epistles written by the Apostles; as for example, that there should arise false Doctors, teaching to abstain from marriage and victual; and that the son of perdition should name himself God, and should practice with signs & miracles to seduce; and that the great Whore clothed in scarlet, sitting in a Town of seven mountains, should intoxicate Kings and glut her self with the blood of the faithful, &c. As also the estate and condition of the Christian Church, and of the spiri • uall kingdom of Jesus Christ, which the Apostles did not as then fully comprehend.

Above all, they press the 15. verse of the second chapter of the second to the Thessalonians: Therefo • e (brethren) stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have b • ene taught, whether by word, or our Epistle.

The word Tradition which the Apostle maketh use of, doth purport and signify all instruction. In this sense the Scripture it self is a Tradition, as we have already proved.

As touching this passage our adversaries do infer, that besides the Epistle which S. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, he had uttered unto them many things by word of mouth: unto which I shall willingly condescend; for we would not maintain that the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, contained all the doctrine of salvation; our dispute is not whether a little Epistle of Saint Paul, but whether the old and New Testament contain all that is necessary to salvation; therefore this passage is not to purpose.

Moreover, when the same Apostle did say, Hold the traditions which you have learned by our word or by the holy Scriptures, it must not be thereupon concluded, that the mysteries which he had told them, were others then those that are written: for the same thing may be taught by divers means.

And when the precepts delivered by the Apostles mouth, had some disparity with those that are written, we could say, that such things flowing from the Apostles mouth (over and above that which is found in the Scriptures) were not points of Faith, but Ordinances touching Ecclesiastical policy.

Yea when we shall have yielded to our adversaries all that they wish and long for, yet is all fruitless and nothing done by them, unless they prove that these Traditions, which they say were given to the Thessalonians by mouth, are the points whereof consisteth our controversy: to wit, the Popes Supremacy over the Church of the whole world, Romish Indulgences, single life of Priests, the Communion under one kind, borrowed Satisfactions, a restraint of reading the Scripture, Masses without Communicants, Prayers wherein the Petitioner understandeth nothing, the power of the Pope to release souls out of Purgatory, and to depose Kings, &c. which are Traditions of a new impression, and which the Church of the Thessalonians (yet subsisting, and hath so continued since the Apostle Saint Paul ) did never believe, nor as yet alloweth of their validity, but defieth them with all loathing and detestation.

Saint Ambrose in his Commentary upon this place, by the Tradition whereof the Apostle speaketh understands the doctrine of the Gospel, which our Adversaries would not deny to be contal • nd in the New Testament: To the • d. (saith he) that the foreknowledge • f God should remain in their salua • ion; he admonisheth them to stand • ast, and persevere in the tradition of • he Gospel.

I am of opinion I shall prevent • ur Adversaries, from interrupting • ee more in the passages which • hey allege. Saint Paul saith, • Ve speak wisdom among those that • re perfect, 1. Cor. 2. 6. And again • aue before thine eyes, and hold fast the • atterne or form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, 2. Tim. 1. 13. In a third place, now I praise • ou that you remember me in all • hings, and keep my Ordinances, as I delivered them unto you, 1. Cor. 11. • . Ergo (for so they conclude) the things which are preached are dif • ering from those that are written. And what are the things? Invocation of Saints, service to Image • &c. In all this what a defect then is of common sense? The jawbone of Samson's Ass, or Tobi • dog might be as well employed.

Concerning the words in the 16. of the Acts at the 4. That Paul and Silas, passing through the Cities, instructed them to keep the Ordinances decreed by the Apostles, and by the Elders of Jerusalem: In these Ordinances are understood, the restraints of eating blood, & strangled creatures whereof mention is made in Acts the 15. for in this voyage Paul and Silas were bearers of this Ordinance: and Paul wa • expressly sent to perform th • same. Now, this Ordinance i • written, as also the alteration wa • made since the Apostles time; an • it is but a Ceremony ordained fo • a time, and not a doctrine necessary to salvation: and when, some • Ordinances should be here understood, how shall it be proved unto • s, that these Ordinances are others then those that are written? how shall it be proved unto us, that these ordinances were invocation of Saints, adoration of Re • iques, the Popes Supremacy, & • . This will never be proved.

CHAP. XVIII. An answer to that which is objected unto us, that the Church hath been sometime without the Scripture.

TO undervalue the authority of the Scripture, and to make it annecessary, it is objected unto us, that the Church from the creation until Moses, for the space of 2454 years, hath been without the Scripture. And that (as Irenaeus is witness) from the time of the Apostles and their Disciples, ••• nations whercunto the wrirings of the Apostles were not yet at that time come, have not omitted conserve the purity of the Gospel.

To which we answer, that when God speaketh from heaven, or sendeth Angels to instruct men concerning his will, the Scripture might easily be neglected: if at this day God spake from heaven, and published his Oracles from above, as he spake heretofore to the Fathers and Patriarchs before Mases, we should not seek for any other instruction. But this is no more; and God having fully imparted his will unto us, by the writings of his Prophets and Apostles, we are obliged to follow the means, wherewith his goodness hath furnished us. and it is necessary to be bound and compelled thereunto.

I say, the same of the Church in the Apostles time, whilst it was clearly illuminated by the preaching and miracles of so renowned instruments of the holy Spirit, who were instructed by God in all verity; those people which were taught by their mouth, made no great esteem of their writings: but God having inspired them to leave in writing the effect of his will, wherein he had well tutered them, and they having not left behind them one person of like authority and knowledge, nor that hath the Spirit of God in equal measure; nothing remaineth more for us, but to be instructed by their writings, wherein the Apostles speak unto us, and their word is yet alive and full of efficacy since their death and departure.

It is a profane presumption, or affected negligence, to speak of these writings (divinely inspired) as of unnecessary scripts and scroles: for they which talk that language, do it for this end, to withdraw the people from the holy reading thereof, as from a frivolous business, and for the end to distribute the rules therein contained unattentively and in huggermugger. Shall we call them unnecessary means. which God hath chosen to inform us concerning his will? The which if they were not absolutely necessary of their own nature, yet they are made altogether necessary by the will of God, and by the counsel of his providence: for he hath left but this infallible means to instruct us. And men that speak in the Chaires may err, they are likewise subject to avarice and ambition, the two ports thorough which errors do enter by troops and throngs, the Pastors ever accommodating religion to their profit.

And truly whosoever shall know what was the estate of the Romish, church, some six score years passed, and how it consisted only in fabulous Legends, in adoration of Relics, in miracles made by images, in virtues and perfections of the Frocke or Cowle of S. Francis and Saint Dominick; and that Jesus Christ scarce appeared amongst the S ^ts , and that the holy Scripture was utterly estranged & unknown; will easily acknowledge, that the main bar which hath hindered Papistry, that it should not pass into Paganism, (whereinto it was running post) hath been, that these holy Books were drawn forth of dark ignorance, and translated into the vulgar Tongues. He will (I say) acknowledge that the people of the Romish Church owe unto us that little knowledge which remaineth with them, and that we have diminished their servitude.

CHAP. XIX. That the Church of the Old Testament, after the Law given by Moses until Jesus Christ, hath had no unwritten Traditions.

To the maintenance and increase of their Traditions, our Adversaries do join some examples of them, which they say have been received in the Church of the Old Testament, without form of Scripture, since the Law written by Moses.

Cardinal Perron putteth forward some histories, and certain commandments made to particularmen: as the commandment to carry the Ark of the Covenant in procession; the transferring of the Ark of God, from Shilo to another place; the charge made to Solomon, to build a Temple; and yet nevertheless the first of them is found in the 3. chap. of Ioshuae, verse the 3. and 6. the second at the 78. Psalm verse the 60. the thread in the 2. of Sam. chap. the 7. verse the 13. and 1. of Kings 5. 5. So little was this Cardinal versed in God's book. A and though these passages were not found in the Scripture, yet could it not be prejudicial to us; for they are Histories and commandments, made to particular men, not rules and doctrines of Religion.

Also he octiecteth unto us (and others after him) the immortality of the soul, which they say appeareth not in the five books of Moses; these men without doubt scaree turn over the Sacred Pages of the Scripture. At the 23. chap. of Numbers, Balaam speaketh. Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like unto theirs. He that calleth death a dissolution, acknowledgeth that the soul suruiueth the body; & he that accounteth the death of the Righteous to be bliss-full, doeth not believe that their souls perish, as they do of Beasts. At the 59. chapter of Gen. verse the 18. Jacob dying, speaketh, O eternal, I have understood thy salnation. And at the 35. of Gen. 18. it is said of Rachel dying, and as her soul was in departing. Which perpetuity cannot be said of souls in Beasts, for they perish with the body. At the 31. of Deut. 16. God speaking to Moses, Behold, thou shall keep with thy Fathers. Which doth fully make good, that the souls have their repose after death. Never did man in his right wits call the estate of some horse after death, a sleep. At the 47 of Genef. Jacob calleth his life in this world; and that of his fathers a pilgrimage, and acknowledgeth himself a stranger in the world. The Apostle to the Hebrews, chap. 11 14. declareth, that they which say such things, declare plainly that they seek a country, that is to say, a cel estiall one, as it appeareth by the 16 verse. Icsus Christ at the 22 of S. Matthew to the same purpose (and to prove the Resurrection) allegeth the words of God himself, at the 30 of Exodus; I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of lacob: for (saith he) God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. But what moveth these men to persuade, that the immortality of the soul is not fovnd at all in the books of of the Law of God, except it be because they themselves doubt of it? or because they endeavor to make the Sacred books contemptible, as failing in a point, without the which, the same that is called Religion, is a mere fallacy and imposture, and all the service of God, is a superfluous toil and care.

To the same purpose they add, that the resurrection of bodies, the final Judgment, Paradise and Hell, are not contained evidently in all the Old Testament, whereby it appeareth, that the whole study of these men, is to read only the writings of their doctors, in coppying forth their reasons, without the pains of coming to the fource, which is, to finger over the leaves of the Scriptures, for when should we have done collecting together the passages of the Old Testament, which speaks of these things? the very Psalms alone might suffice; and consider with me some passages among the rest. Psal. 16. 12. Thou shalt show me the path of life, in thy presence is the futnesse of toy, and at thy right hand there is pleasure for evermore. And at the 17. Psal. 16. I will behold thy presence in righteousness, and when I awake up after thy likeness, I shall be satisfied with it. God's face is not to be seen with satiety but after the last alarm of the resurrection And in the 49. Psal. 16. God shall redeem my soul from the Tyranny of Hell, (meaning of death) When he shall take me unto him. And at the 73. Psal. 23. Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel and after that receive me with glory. At the 31. Psal. 6. Into thy hands I commend my spirit, for thou hast redeemed me, O Lord thou God of truth. At the 50 Psal. 3. 4. 5. Our God shall •• me, having a consuming fire before him, and a mighty tempest shall be stirred up round about him; he shall call the heaven from above, and the earth, that he may judge his people, saying, Gather my Saints together unto me, &c. At the 102. Psal. 26. The heavens shall perish, but thou shalt enaure. The Prophet Daniel at the 12. 2 Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt. At the 26. of Isaiah 19. Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise; awake and fing ye that dwell in the dust. At the 65. chap. verse 17. Behold, I create new heavens, and new earth; and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. Job a • the 19. the 25. 26. 27. Speaketh amply of the coming of his redeemer upon the earth, and of his resurrection, after his body shall b • devoured with worms, and of th • assurance he hath to see God one day with his eyes. The Prophet Isaiah, at the 66. pronounceth this of reprobates: Their worm never dieth, and their fire shall never be extinguished, Balaam desiring to die the death of the just, At the 23 of Num. 10. Accompreth the death of the wicked to be wretched and woeful. These passages as I conceive are express and punctual concerning Paradise, the resurrection, the torment of the damned, and the eternal judgment.

They offer yet more; that in the Book of the Old Testament, no mention is made of the Creation, nor of degrees of Angels, nor of the Creation and essence or being of devils; which nevertheless are points clearly found to be therein, as in Job the 2. the 1. And at the 38. 7. The Angels are called the sons of God, whereupon it followeth, that God is their Father, & that he hath formed them, and when the Scripture saith. Let the Angels do worship to him, Psalm the 97. 7. And let them execute his commandment. and obey his word Psa. the 103. 20. It presupposeth that God created them, for if God had not created them: injustice would have been laid to his charge, for usurping an Imperial Dominion over the workmanship of another power: Yea this alone, where in the Scripture affirmeth, that there are Angels, is sufficient to prove, that God created them, for it is impossible that they should create themselves.

As for the degrees of Angels, it is a mere vanity for any man to distill and consume the brain therein. It concerneth neither faith nor morallitie.

And for the essence of devils, the old Testament sufficiently doth determine it in saying, that there are devils. (He that confesseth there is a Sun, presupposeth that the Sun hath a being) and there is no necessiity that we should be skilled in the knowledge of their nature. As for their fall, seeing God hath made nothing but what is very good, the 1. of Genes. 31. It followeth that these evil spirits in the beginning were good, and consequently that they are lapsed from their integrity, how, and by what occasions, or by what degrees they are fallen, are matters which God hath not revealed, for they are not reputed necessary to salvation.

They also report many Histories, which they say are not found written in the old testament. As for that The Magicians which withstood Moses were called Jannes and I am. bres: That Moses being at the foot of the mountain, spake, I exceedingly fear and tremble. The placing of the Censer in the Ark of the Covenant, and the combat of Michael the Archangel with Satan, for the body of Moses. Which are not rules either of good belief or good life: but only histories of things happened, wherein consi • teth not the substance of our salvation.

As much may be said of some Ceremonies practiced in Israel once or oftener, but not ordinary, or indifferent customs in their nature, as washing of the feet before they went to eat of the Paschal-Lamb: which was a custom that the Jews ordinarily observed before the repast. And the mixture of water with blood, for the purification of the People, (as the Apostle) intimateth to the Hebrews, at the 10. chap.) which was not a law in the ancient Church, but a Ceremony practiced once by Moses.

They also object unto us some depraved and lewd customs: as the pardon of a capital malefactor at the feast of Easter, though he be a murderer, a custom contrary to the law of God, Nu. 35 31. and some other scrupulous and vain observations, as was that custom of not journeying above two miles on the Sabbath; grounded upon an act of Joshua passing over Jordan, when he kept the people at distance from the Ark of the Covenant, being removed from thence about two thousand cubits by measure. We are well contented that our adversaries uphold their Traditions, with such poor and unworthy examples.

Some of them thinking to be more sub • ile, object unto us that in the books of the Old Testament, three things are wanting which are necessary to salvation.

[unspec 1] There is not found (say they) a remedy in the Old Testament, that God hath provided to purge and cleanse the feminine sex from original sin, for none are circumcised but the Males. I answer that our adversaries themselves do not believe, that original sin was taken away by virtue of circumcision: but by the faith of the Parents applied to the children by form of impetration, and by the merit of him that circumciseth. For they hold that circumcision did not justify, nor confer grace, but only that it was a sign of grace, and not necessary to salvation.

The Jesuit Vasques speaking of Children, that under the law of Moses died without being circumcised, saith, If a Child died without any Sacrament, there was no hurt therein, for it was not conducible and necessary to salvation. It is certain that remission of original si • ne is necessary to salvation. Wherefore I say that origi • all sin was remitted and forgiven, as well to the Male as to the Female people of Israel, by virtue of the alliance which God had contracted with Abraham, saying, I shall be thy God, and to thy posterity after thee. Ge. 17. 7. for women were also fo the posterity of Abraham.

The Circumcision of the Males was sufficient to signify that all the people were taken into confederation with God, to discern God's people from the other nations. And for this, there needed no such particular sign or token in the Women. The Jews writing of 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 their Traditions, speak nothing of such a sign or Sacrament, nor have our adversaries produced any.

[unspec 2] They say in the second place, that the Israelites to be saved were to believe, that the sacrifices were not sufficient of themselves to expiate the sins, but that they drew their virtue from the death of Jesus Christ: and that those which did eat of the Paschal-lamb, were to have respect to Jesus Christ, and to understand the signification of this Lamb. Now (say these men) they could not learn this from the books of Moses, nor from the Prophets; therefore they learnt it by the unwritten Tradition.

In speaking thus they falsific the words of the Apostle Saint Peter, who at the 10. of the Acts 43. saith, that To Jesus Christ all the Prophets give witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him, shall receive remission of sins. And they contradict Saint Paul, who at the 26 of the Acts 22. Saith of himself, that he speaketh no other things then those, which the Prophets and Moses did foretell should come to pass. They also abuse themselves to think, that it was then necessary to everyone of the faithful, to have a clear insight and understanding of the sacrifices of the Law, and of the Paschal Lamb: for the faithful are not bound to believe of Jesus Christ, more then that which God by his Word hath revealed unto them. If any one about the time of Moses, offering sacrifice according to the Law, were not instructed in the doctrine of the death of our Redeemer, but only believed, that God through the means which he knoweth to be most agreeable and convenient, will forgive us our trespasies, it were rashness to go about to exclude such a man from salvation, and it is certain, that then the faithful were not without instruction, as touching this point, for they were prompted by the Scriptures, to expect this seed of the Woman, which should crush the head of the Serpent, and the seed of Abraham, wherein all Nations should be blessed.

[unspec 3] Cardinal Perron is advised of a third Tradition, not written in the Old Testament, which nevertheless (if we could believe it) was necessary to salvation. He supposeth that it was necessary for the Jews to believe, that the fire of their sacrifices after the captivity) was descended from Heaven, and that the same continual fire which was upon the Altar, was conserved by miracle, during the tranfmigration. Whereupon I say that this miraculous conservation of the fire being but a Judaical fable, the Jews were not bound to believe it. The charge of the Sacrificers, was to put the fire upon the Altar, as it is said, Levite. 1. 7. The sons of Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, did sin, not because they placed strange fire upon the Altar, but in putting into their Censers, the fire which they took from else-where, and not from off the Altar. Levite. 10. 1. Look upon the 8. of the Apoc 5. Moreover, put the case this fable were admitted for true, yet is it not a rule of Religion, nor a doctrine of Faith, but only a mere History, whereof whosoever had been ignorant, had not incurred eternal damnation.

And admit that under the Old Testament, the Church had unwritten Traditions, it should not therefore follow, that it was lawful for the Church of Rome to forge new ones, and to equal them in authority to the writings of the Prophets and Apostles.

CHAP. XX. An answer to our Adversaries affirming, that we receive many Traditions contained in the Scripture.

Our Adversaries upbraid us, in that we who reject traditions, are nevertheless constrained to admit of many. Ye believe (say they) that these books are canonical: ye allow of baptizing such as are Heretics, and the baptism of little infants: ye believe the procession of the holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and the translation of the Sabbath to the Dominicall day, and the perpetual virginity of Mary the mother of Christ: ye believe that women ought to sing in the Church: ye grant the words of Consubstantiation, of Trinity, of Person, and of Sacrament, which are not found in the holy Scripture.

I have already said, that we reject not all unwritten Traditions; but only those which add something to the doctrine of salvation, contained in holy Scriptures. For answer to their objection, that we receive this unwritten Tradition, to wit, These books are canonical; to say so much of the books, is not to add to the canonical books. And speaking in that manner, we are so far from adding to Scripture, that on the contrary, it is a declaration that nothing is to be added thereunto, and that it is the perfect rule of our faith. Yet to have a complete certainty of the sacrednesse of these books, there must be a stronger testimony then this Tradition. An illiterate man not instructed in the knowledge of God, receiveth the testimony of the Church of his own country, which telleth him that these books are canonical, as a probable testimony, and which he should not willingly contradict: but then he beginneth to have of it a divine testimony, and of sovereign efficacy, when the Spirit of God by the Doctrine contained in this Scripture, hath enlightened his spirit, and inflamed his heart with a secret virtue, whereof it is in vain to dispute with those that feel it not: the which cannot serve for a Law to another but serveth to everyone of the faithful in particular, to assure his conscience. It is also to be considered, that the testimony of showing such and such books to be canonical, might proceed as well from an heretical as from an orthodox Church. The Apostles received the holy Scripture from the Pharisees and Sacrificers, who were enemies to Jesus Christ. Whence it appeareth, that the testimony which the Church affordeth to the Scriptures, is not of supreme authority and indubitable, but invalid. It is by faith that we believe, that the contents of the Scripture are the word of God; which faith is not given by the Church, for it is an effect of the Spirit of God.

Touching the other points, I speak of them in general, that if they be Doctrines and Rules of the Christian faith, not contained in the Scripture, we are not bound to believe them. But when everyone of these points shall be examined asunder, some will be found contained in the Scripture, others are not Doctrines, nor Laws or Rules of the Christian faith, nor things requisite or necessary to salvation.

I am astonished to behold how our Adversaries dare to insert the Baptism of little infants, amongst the unwritten traditions, seeing that their selves disputing against the Anabaptists, prove it by many passages of Scripture. Bellarmine in his eighth Chapter of the first Book of Baptism, bringeth these proofs of Scripture, that Baptism succeeded Circumcision, which was applied to little infants. That Jesus Christ at the ninth of Saint Matthew, saith, Suffer the little ones t • come to me &c. That in the sixteenth of the Acts, Lydia is baptized by Saint Paul with all her house. And that in the same Chapter, the same Apostle baptizeth all the family of the Goaler. That Saint Paul baptized the family of Stephanus, 1 Cor. 1. 16. If these proofs are bad, Why do they make use of them? If they be good in their mouths, Why should they not be good in ours?

As for holding Baptism of Heretics to be good, we account not this article as necessary to salvation. Agrippine a man of holy life and Doctrine, and Saint Cyprian, Saint Firmilian, Saint Denis, Alexandrine, and Saint Basil have dissented in this point, from the Church of Rome; yet nevertheless they are held for Saints by our Adversaries. Yea more, many Councils approved by the Church of Rome ordain, that some Heretics should be re-baptized, by name the Paulianists, the Samosetanians, the Montanists, the Eunomians, the Sabellians, the Eucratites, &c. as is to be seen at the nineteenth Can • of the first Council of Nice. At the eighth Canon of the Council of Laodicea. At the seventh Canon of the first Council of Constantinople. And in the Epistle of Saint Basil to Amphilochius at the 47. Canon.

Yet this question shall be found decided in the Scripture by all probability. For Circumcision did still continue among the Israelites, of the ten idolatrous races, who were no more circumcised, when they were converted to the true Religion. The custom of circumcising the Samaritans again that were ranged into Judaism, (whereof Epiphanius speaketh in his boo • of measures and weights) practice • upon Symm • chus a Traducer of th • Scriptures, was invented afterwards. The same reason is for Baptism.

Concerning the procession of of the holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, it is to be seen in the Council of Florence, that the Latins defending themselves against the Greeks upon this question, do allege Scripture: but this controversei was devised, and is sustained with animosity, to strengthen the Schism, and it is an easy matter to accord them therein. For those who say that the holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father by the Son, do say also that it proceedeth from the Father and the Son. In a matter that passeth our capacities, it is better to say little then too much, and rather to be ignorant then to contest.

The change of the Sabbath, and observation of the Lord's day, are plainly enough collected out of the Scripture. The Apostle to the Colos. 2. 16. saying, Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new Moon, or of the Sabbath days, forbiddeth to condemn any man that doth not observe a distinction of meats, and keepeth not the new Moons, not Sabbaths. And by the placing of new Moons and the Sabbaths in the same rank, he showeth clearly, that as Christians were not obliged to keep the new Moons, so were they no more strictly bound to keep the Sabbaths. At the first Chapter of the Apoc. 10. is mention made of our Lord's day. Upon which passage the Jesuit Ribera speaketh thus, We see here that in the time of the Apostles, the solemnity of the Sabbath was changed to the Lord's day. This is the first day of the week whereon the Christians made their solemn assemblies, to celebrate the holy Supper, and to contribute their alms: as is to be seen at the 20. of the Acts 7. and in 1 Cor. 16. 2. as Thomas and Lombard have declared in their Commentaries upon this Epistle: and after them one Estius, speaking thus; The Church from that time began to call it the Lord's day, because on that day the Lord was raised from the dead. For it is so called by Saint John at the first of the Apocalypse Where fore it is not to be doubted but that the name and institution of the Lord's day ought to be fathered upon the Apostles. Nevertheless, let us grant that no mention is made of this in the Scripture, what availeth it against us, who affirm that all the Doctrines of the Christian faith are contained in the Scripture? For the observation of our Lord's day is not a Doctrine, but a Law of Ecclesiastical government.

The perpetual Virginity of the blessed Virgin, is believed in our Churches by way of decency: though it be not a Doctrine of faith, nor a point necessary to salvation. Basil in his Homily of the Nativity of Christ, saith, That if it were otherwise, yet would it be nothing prejudicial to our salvation. Howsoever, Helvidius had not his perfect senses about him, to move so impertinent a question, and call into doubt a matter, which were better supposed to be true, then argued on either side.

As for singing of Psalms in our Churches, as well by men as by women, it is no Article of the Christian faith, but an Ecclesiastical policy and custom, which neither addeth to, nor substracteth from the Doctrine of faith. And this custom is not practiced in all our Churches; for there are Churches which do assemble secretly, to avoid persecurion, as heretofore did Christians under the Pagan Emperors. These poor Churches have not the liberty of singing, yet are they not the less amiable in the sight of God. The Apostle to the Colos 3. 16. commandeth us to exhort one the other by Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs. He wrote this to the Colossians without distinction of Sex. The same Apostle in 1 Cor. 14. 14. and at 1 Tim. 2. 12. forbiddeth women to teach in the Church, but not to sing. For seeing they partake of the prayers and preaching, why not of the praises and actions of thanksgiving? If it be a seemly thing and religious in them, to chant forth the glorious commendations of God in their house at home, why not also in the house of God?

The terms of Consubstantion and Trinity, are words, but no Rules nor Doctrines: and these words as they add nothing to the Scripture, so they import nothing that is not contained in the Scripture in othertermes. The term of Person is found in Heb. 1. • for this word hypostasis in Greek signifieth person.

They have but little modesty who blush not to demand a passage of Scripture, where the word Sacrament may be found. The Apostles writing in Greek, regarded not to provide themselves of a Latin word. Surely these men speak as properly as if they inquired whether this very word horse is found in Virgil. In the Latin vulgar translation the word Sacramentum is rehearsed some dozen of times, and signifieth a mystery or secret. Whence it cometh, that the mystery of the great Whore, the signification of the seven stars, and the Sense or exposition of the dreams are called Sacraments. Apoc. 3. 1. and 17. 7. Dan. 2. 18.

Touching the Holy Supper, which we call Sacrament, herein we follow the custom, and by the word we understand no other thing, but that which Jesus Christ calleth a memorial or commemoration, saying. Do this in remembrance of me.

CHAP. XXI. A proof of the sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures, by the Testimony of God himself, speaking in the Scriptures.

WEe have offered to your understandings, both the novelty, and falsehood of Romish Traditions, and have proved that they are neither Divine, nor Apostolical. It is therefore to be concluded, that we ought entirely to adhere to the word of God, contained in the Holy Scriptures: for in two ways, when the one is blocked up, there remaineth but the other that is passable. Our adversaries themselves aide us in this point. The Popes having made so many decrees, and decretals, and extravagants; yet they dare not call these decrees the word of God. Yea, they produce no other book then the Scripture, that beareth this title of the word of God, or of the Testament or Covenant of God. This single proose may suffice, unless we would embrace the word of men for a rule of faith.

Our adversaries again tell us that the Holy Scripture cannot testify of it self, and when it is called Holy and Divine, It is • more to be credited then Titus Livius or Mahumets Alcoran. But let them know that this is God's true Prerogative, to be Judge and witness in her cause, who being the party offended, will not forget at the last day to be Judge of those that have offended him. Hearken to that of Jesus Christ, speaking at the 8. of S. John 14. Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true, and worthy to be believed. For God is not therefore to be the less believed, because there are so many incredulous and unbelieving; and the perversity of man shall never despoile God of his right. It is a non sequitur, and an unjust inference that because of the malice and depravednes of man, the dominion of God should suffer dimunition. Therefore we will not fear to allege the Scripture, for proof of the perfection of the Scripture; We know that the authentic Testimony which God giveth to his word, can be no way taxed, or justly suspected.

The Apostle Saint Paul, in the 2. to Tim 3. 15. speaketh thus to his disciple Timothy. From thine in▪ fancy thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Now what need we seek any further then to be so instructed, as that we may be able to attain unto salvation by our belief in Jesus Christ?

To shif • off this passage of Saint Paul to Timothy, our adversaries tell us, that Saint Paul speaketh not in that place, but only of the books of the Old Testament; and yet at that time the greatest part of the new was written. But I am contented to gr •• t what they say, for it maketh against them: being assured that if the sole books of the Old Testament can make a man wise to salvation, much more, and with stronger r • ason shall the old and the new coupled together, make us wise to salvation. The Holy Scripture never saith, that unwritten Traditions can make us wise to salvation. The Apostle had never said that the Scripture can make us wise to salvation, if it instructed us but by halfs, and if it were needful for us to seek the other part of our instruction, in another word that is unwritten.

Where they say that Timothy could not learn out of the old Testament, the immortality of the soul, nor Paradise, nor the resurrection, &c. It hath been formerly confuted. Of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and of his death, the Prophets speak • ▪ most clearly, and all the sacrifices lead thereunto. And when these things were less plainly and expressly set down, yet God required not of our forefathers (before the coming of Christ) a greater knowledge, then that which was revealed unto them.

There are those who play the Sophisters upon this word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , used by the Apostle, and do render it to instruct, and not to make wise. Wherein their own Bible teacheth the contrary, for at the 19. Psal. 7. There is in the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is the vulgar translation Sapientiam praestans parv • lis, that is to say, giving wisdom to the simple. And at the 119. Psal. 98. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Where Pagnin rendereth it, tu me s • pienti • rem reddidisti inimicis meis. Thou hast made me wiser then min • enemies. But upon the point it cometh all to one: for it sufficeth us to be instructed to salvation, Saint Paul speaketh not of any curtal'd or half instr • ction. He is instructed to salvation, who hath sufficient instruction to be saved: and whosoever is not wise to salvation, is not instructed to salvation; so are they one and the same thing. But if the Scripture could make Timothy wise to salvation, why should it not be as well sufficient to make others wise to salvation? For if any man profit therein lessen then Timothy, the reason is not, because it is more perfect for one then for another; but because one bringeth to it more light of spirit, more affection, and more attention then another: and because God conferreth his knowledge more abundantly upon those that fear him, and humbly crave the gist of understanding.

2. The Apostle Saint Paul at 1 Cor. 4. 6. limiting the power of the Pastors of the Church, saith, Let no man think above that which is written, there it is, above that which is written, and not above that which I have written. And whosoever imputeth to Beza, that he translated it, above that which I have written, is a detracting Calumniator.

3. The same Apostle at Act. 26. 22. protesteth, He never taught anything, save only such things as the Prophets and Moses had foretold should come to pass. He then confined his preaching to the Scriptures. And he shall be a good Minister of Christ, who (after the example of Saint Paul ) shall be able to say, that he never taught anything, except those things which Moses and the Prophets and Apostles (disciples of the Prophets) have taught. If it be moreover objected, that Saint Paul being restrained to the writings of the Prophets, it shall follow, that the writings of the Apostles (who have written since the Prophets) are unprofitable. I will answer that the Apostles have written the same things that the Prophets have written, for as much as concerneth the substance of salvation, but they have added thereunto much more clearness and light.

4. Yet the same Apostle at Act. 20. 27. speaketh to the Ephesians, I have not shunded to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Whereupon it followeth, that the essential things of faith, which Salmeron formerly told us were added since the Apostles time, and not taught of them either by mouth or by writing, are not of the counsel of God. Of which additions in matters of religion of the greatest importance, we have already vouched many examples, especially out of the confession of our Adversaries themselves.

It would be impertinent to reply, that by the same reason it should be said, that the Gospel of Saint John, and the Apocalypse are not of the counsel of God, because they were no • then written, when Saint Paul said, he had declared all the counsel of God. For these two books contain not any doctrine which is not found in the other books of the New Testament, and which the Apostles have not taught by mouth and by writing.

5. At Deut. 4. 2. and 12. 3. God speaketh thus, Ye shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it. He doth not say, you shall not change or alter any part, or you shall not teach anything to the contrary: but you shall add nothing, and diminish nothing. As to diminish & defalse something from the Law of god, is not to foist in a contrary c • mandement: so also to add doth not signify to impugn. Put the case it were not forbidden to add, and that it should be spoken thus: You shall change nothing of my word, yet the Pope would still be culpable of having infringed this restraint, by attributing to himself the power of changing the Laws and Ordinances of God, and of dispensing against the Apostle. In the books of the hourly prayers of our Lady (according to the custom of Rome) the ten Commandments of God are placed in the entrance. The third is couched in these terms, Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath and festival days. Can anything be more plainly added to the Commandment of God? Therefore if it were prohibited to add to the Law of Moses (without which was then no Doctrine of salvation) there is no color or appearance that at this time the Law of Moses, the Prophets, the Evangelists, and Apostles are not sufficient, and that it is lawful to add unwritten Traditions thereunto. And let it not seem strange, that the books of Moses alone were then sufficient unto salvation: for whosoever will examine the books of Joshua, of the Judges, & of the Prophets, who did set forth their writings afterwards, shall find that they add nothing to the Doctrine of salvation, which is contained in the books of Moses: only they add some confirmatory examples of the promises and menaces of God, some histories of the chastisements, judgments and deliverances of the Chu • ch, some Prophecies and future events, some particular expositions of that which the law of Moses spake in general, and some commandments made to some particular one, which were not general Laws nor perpetual in the Church. As for the Oracles which God gave amongst the Cherubims, they were not Doctrines nor Canons of Religion, but answers upon future successes, or upon the estate of the present affairs, of peace or war. It is true that Jesus Christ and the Apostles have since given a more ample instruction: but I say that whilst the Church had no other divine books, but those of Moses, they were sufficient to salvation: for the Church ought to be contented with that measure of knowledge which God hath revealed. But in succeeding ages, if God revealeth something more then he had done before, and p • esenteth himself more obviously to human understandings; this falleth out necessary for those, unto whom God's pleasure is to have himself manifested.

That Noses hath not distributed unwritten Traditions to the people, see his own testimony at Deut. 31. 24. in these words, And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of the Law in a book, until they were finished, that he commanded the Levites, which bare the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the Law, and put it in the side of the Ark &c.

6. After the death of M • ses, God gave to Joshua no other precept or document • hen this very book, as he himself speaketh to Joshua in the first Chapter: Be strong and courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the Law, which Moses my servant commanded thee; turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. This book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night. Surely God in this Law of Moses, commandeth to obey the Sovereign sacrificing Priest, as also the Levites, and the Judges, not when they should add to the Law of God, but when they should teach this Law: as it is said at the 17. of Deut. 9. and 11. Where also the Kings are commanded to have the book of the Law of God always before their eyes, and to read therein all the days of their life, verse the 18. and the 19.

7. None of our adversaries durst yet deny, that the doctrine of the Gospel is sufficient to salvation, or gain-fay that the Gospel is found whole and entire in the new Testament. Otherwise the title were false, and we should be forced to change the inscription, and set it down part of the Gospel, until the Pope doth publish the second part; or else be compelled to seek the other part of the Gospel in the unwritten word, which is not to be found. For our adversaries would never suffer it to be compiled and reduced into one body, nor do they divulge any book which is called the word of God, except the Holy Scripture.

Some answer, that the books of the Gospel, which are in the New Testament, do contain all the Gospel but implicitly, that is to say, after an involued and embroiled manner, the force of conscience hath extorted those words from them, for if the service of Images, adoration of Relics, Pardons of one hundred thousand years, single life of Priests, succession of the Pope in the Apostleship of Saint Peter, restraint of reading the Scripture, &c. are contained in the books of the New Testament, they must be lurking after an inveloped and obscure manner, for no man could ever descry them to be therein. Those that extract oils and salts, out of the stones, would idly employ their knowledge therein. For to speak in general, without any specification, that the Scripture approveth Traditions, is but a mockery, under this veil or shadow, there is neither tyranny, nor idolatry, nor bartering traffic, but may abound, and be practiced in the Church, presupposing without proof, that these are the Traditions which the Scripture meaneth, for the Pope so judgeth of them, who cannot err in the Faith, though all these Traditions tend only to his profit.

8. I affirm the same of the title of the whole Bible, being called the Testament or Covenant of God, which Title must be changed, if the Scripture be but a part of God's Testament. It were deluding of the World, to call contract of marriage a parchment that containeth but the moyetie of the clavses of the contract: or to call Testament, that which is but a part of the disposal of the last will.

9. Towards the conclusion of the Apocalypse, the Lord Jesus speaks as followeth: I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book; If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. Upon which passage the Council of Friuly speaketh thus: In the Apocalypse, John the Apostle under the name of one book, hath protested concerning the whole series or prosecv • ion of both Testaments, saying; If any man add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues that are written in this book.

10. The Apostle Saint John at the 20. Chapter of his Gospel. 31. saith. These things are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that believing, ye might have life through his Name. Upon which passage, Cyril of Alexandria speaketh in this manner. All things which our Lord hath done are not written, but those things only, which they that did write them, ha • e believed to be suff • cient, to the end, that shining in true faith, works, and virtue, we may attain to the Kingdom of heaven.

11. Our Lord Jesus at the 15. of Mat. 3. spake to the Pharisees, Why do ye transgress the commandment of God by your Tradition? Observe here that he saith not ye contradict, but ye transgress the commandment of God by your Tradition. Fo • indeed the Pharisaical Tradition • were for the most part simple aditions to the Law of God, having appearance of devotion, & thing • no otherwise forbidden, but a • God forbiddeth to add to hi • word: as to fast twice in a week to lengthen out their fringes an • Phylacteries of their garments, t • wash themselves at return fro • market, scrupulously to clean th • pots, and to accompt their pac • upon the Sabbath.

12. The Apostle to the Colo • chap. 2. 8. Beware lest any man spo • you through Philosophy and vain •• ceit, after the Tradition of men. A • that our adversaries may not come • here to distinguish human Tr • ditions, from those which •• Church of Rome will have to •• embraced for divine and Apostolical, the Apostle specifieth, and chiefly condemneth certain traditions, found to be amongst those that are taught by the Church of Rome: to wit, service of Angels, observation of Feasts, and the ordinance of those, who using a distinction of meats did say, eat not, touch not, taste not. And this not because they thought the meats to be hurtful or polluted in their nature, but (as the Apostle saith) teaching these doctrines through voluntary devotion, and humbleness of spirit, in that they no way spare the body, nor have they respect to the fullness of the flesh.

13. The same Apostle to the Ephesians 2. chap. 20. groundeth our faith upon the Prophets and the Apostles. Being built (saith he) upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles. If our faith be grounded upon the unwritten word, it is behooveful there be another foundation then the Prophets & Apostes. For if our adversaries say that S. Paul understandeth the Church to be grounded upon the word of the Apostles as well written as unwriten, they oblige themselves to say the same of the doctrine of the Prophets, and also to forge unto us Prophetical Traditions unwritten, which were never mentioned or spoken of about Saint Paul's time, mor • over we have formerly heard our adversaries maintaining, that there are more things essential in Religion, then the Apostles have taught by mouth or writing.

14. At the 16. chapter of Saint Luke 26. the wicked rich man being in hell, requesteth Abraham, that one amongst the dead should be sent to his brethren, to give them advertisement, and warn them of their duties, least that they should tumble into the like torment; to whom Abraham maketh answer, They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hearken to them. Which is clearly to say, that they ought to content themselves with the Doctrine of Moses and the Prophets, which was read in the Synagogues every Sabbath without expecting other revelation. For Jesus Christ speaketh of • he unhappy rich man, as of a man that had lived under the Old Testament, during the time that the Church had no other Doctrine, but that of the books of Moses and the Prophets.

Chrysostom doth so understand it in his Commentary upon Galat. 1. Abraham being required to send Lazarus, answereth, they have Moses and the Prophets, if they hearken not to them, n • ither will they believe the dead raised up to life. Now Jesus Christ bringeth in Abraham speaking thus, to declare that he would have more faith ascribed to the Scriptures, then if the dead were called back to life.

15. At Gal. 1. 8. Though we or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you, then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. The vulgar translation of our Adversaries interpreteth this passage as we do: Licet nos aut Angelus de coelo evangelizet vobis, praeterquam quod evangelizavimus vobis, anathema sit. Consider now that this translation which the Council of Trent declareth to be only authentical, rendereth it praeterquam not contra, that is to say, other then, but not contrary. For though this word praeter sometime signifieth contra, yet praeterquam cannot be so taken; and praeterquam quod can import nothing else, but other then that. So though the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used by the Apostle, signifieth sometimes contra, yet our Adversaries translation admitteth not this exposition. Chrysostom in his Commentary upon Gal. 1. understandeth it the same way, saying, The Apostle saith not, if they declare things contrary, or if they pervert all, but if they preach never so little other then we have preached, or if they have altered anything, be it never so little. And Theophilact after him: The Apostle hath not said, if they preach only things contrary but if they preach other then that which we have preached, that is to say, if they add never so little more thereunto.

Tertullian in his book of Prescriptions at the eight Chapter, speaking of the Scripture: In the first place we believe, that we ought not to believe other then this. And at Chap. 14. To know no other then this, is to know all. And at Chap. 29. If an Angel from heaven preach other then, &c. And truly the reason is plain, for if our Adversaries confess, that Saint Paul hath preached all that is necessary to salvation, as well by mouth as by writing, it followeth that he not only forbiddeth here to teach contrary to that which he hath taught, but also that he forbiddeth to add thereunto.

It is objected, that Paul himself hath added to that which he did preach, when he wrote more Epistles after that to the Galatians; and that Saint John after him wrote the Apocalypse, and are not therefore accused. The vanity of this objection answereth it self; for nothing can appear wherein Saint Paul in his last Epistles, or Saint John in the Apocalypse, have added to the Doctrine of salvation, which Saint Paul had preached by mouth, and digested into writing; and which was already contained in the books of the Apostles and Evangelists, written before this Epistle.

In sum, what availeth it to dispute, whether the Apostle condemneth those that preach other then, or contrary to that w ^ch S ^t . Paul had preached, seeing that whatsoever is other then the Doctrine of the Gospel concerning our salvation, is also contrary, in as much as God forbiddeth to add thereunto? It is an unn • cessary work to rehearse the passages of the Fathers, who affirm that the Apostle condemneth those, who taught contrary to that which he himself hath taught: no man denieth it; for whosoever preacheth contrary to that which Saint Paul taught, preacheth also other then the Doctrine of the Apostle: and addeth contrary things thereunto; contractions being also additions to the Scripture.

Our Adversaries being repulsed from this refuge or starting hole, find out another, and say that Saint Paul condemneth those who taught other then, or contrary to that which he had taught concerning the Doctrine of the Gospel: but Saint Paul himself hath not set down all in writing which he hath taught: this is that which they say without proof or reason. For who told them that Saint Paul was tender, and forbare to book down all the Doctrine of the Gospel in writing? Did he it in spleen, or was it of forgetfulness, or fearing lest the people might become too expert in the Doctrine of the Gospel? Surely they that speak thus, are bound to open unto us some particular points, that make a part of the doctrine of the Gospel, which Saint Paul would not set down in writing. Is it invocation of Saints, or papal Indulgences, adoration of relics, succession of the Pope in the Apostleship of Saint Peter, religious s • rvice of Images, single life of Priests, prayer in a tongue which the supplicant understādeath not, or Masses to free souls out of Purgatory? no Christian will believe it of these, unless it be such a one as hath a mind to be deceived: And this inconsiderate presupposition must be countenanced by some other proof, besides the testimony of our adversaries.

Saint Augustine gave no credit to it: for he expoundeth this passage unto us by way of paraphrase. If any man whether it concerneth Christ or his Church, or any other thing appertaining to faith, or government of life (I speak not, if any of us; but that which Paul hath suggested, if an Angel from heaven) declare unto you, other then you have received in the Scriptures, concerning the Law and the Gospel▪ let him be an Anathema. And Chrysostom in his exposition upon the 1. chap. to the Galatians, Saint Paul prefe • reth the Scriptures before Angels descending from heaven, and that most justly. And a little after. Wherefore he denounceth, that if any man preach unto you other then I have preached unto you, &c.

To conclude, how should those points before recited have been preached by Saint Paul, considering that in his Epistles there is found a flat condemnation of their doctrines?

If beside the holy Scripture there be some other word of God, it were fit our adversaries should lay them in view fairly above board, for the better avoidance of ail strife and controversy arising from them. But they cannot. Only they would have the Church of Rome to be believed, and especially the Pope; who is circumspect enough not to pronounce his own condemnation, nor to abolish the Traditions that are so beneficial unto him. Yea our adversaries themselves refute this, when they say that the Apostles have not taught by mouth, nor composed in writing all that is essential to Christian Religion.

CHAP. XXII. Whether to ground a Doctrine, it be lawful to use words equivalent to those that are found in the Scripture, or to use consequences and Anguments.

SOme smattering and unquie • Jesuits perceiving themselves weak in the combat, by the pressure of the evidence of truth, have thought upon a cavilling and impertinent course, whereby to entangle the disputation at the very entrance, and to prevent ever coming to the true scanning or examination of the doctrine.

Their cunning sleight is always to question and interrogate, instead of keeping themselves to a regular and methodical argumentation; and as soon as we open our mouths, they call to us Shew me that which you say, word by word in the Scripture. Now if there want but a syllable, or if it happen that we use these words, that is say, or by consequent, they fall into laughter and say that a Coach drawn by Horses is a consequent, and so break off, alleging they have reduced us to consequences. If we quote some passage of Saint Matthew or of Isaiah, they ask whether the book be Canonical: if we answer, yea; they require a passage of the Scripture that saith, Saint Matthew is Canonical. If we expound one passage by another, they say, show me a passage that alloweth this passage to be expounded by that. If we make an argument (though it be demonstrative) they deride and jeer it, saying, that syllogisms are but human discourse, and an invention of Aristotle, unfit to regulate our faith.

But those of our adversaries who are better stored with knowledge, as Thomas, Bellarmine, Baronius, Perron, Salmeron & Vasques rejecteth this wrangling Philosophy & froward reasoning, which carpeth at syllables, and is made for nothing else but to bring forth nothing, and to brave and swagger in the speed of running away.

Now, what an unjust case it is, that those who attribute to the Church of Rome the power not only of adding to the Scripture, but also to alter that which God hath ordained in the Scripture, and who hold that their Church hath no obligation to the Scripture, should use such rigor against us, to bind us precisely to the words and syllables of the Scripture: though we change nothing in the subst • nce?

It were an easy matter for us to proceed against them after the same wise: replying to the first word they offer us, Shew me what you say in as many words in the word of God written or unwritten, for they take both for the rule of their instruction. And if they make use of these words therefore and then, to tell them, these are your reasons and consequences; and instead of giving satisfactory answer, to enjoin them that they prove unto us, that we are bound to prove to them what they demand: and so to break off with laughter and insultation, this were the way (as the proverb hath it,) to counterfeit the fools with mad-men.

If in handling points of the Faith, it be not permitted to make use of other words besides those that are found in the Scripture, it shall not be suffered to preach, nor to write commentaries, nor to confer the passages of the Scripture together: for this collation cannot be made without employing some other words, which form the comparison, and show the resemblance. It shall not likewise be suffered to recite the Creed, nor to say there are but four Evangelists in the New Testament: for the Scripture speaketh not this in so many words.

Moreover by this pedanticall cavilation, neither Charles nor Anthony, nor any particular man, shall be obliged to believe in Jesus Christ, nor to obey him: For the Scripture neither speaketh of Charles nor Anthony. But the duty of particular men is drawn by necessary consequence, from the general rules that are in the Scripture.

So our adversaries believe that Pope Urbane is lawful successor in the supremacy of Saint Peter, which nevertheless they derive by consequence of this general Maxim, that the Bishops of Rome are lawful successors in the Primacy of S. Peter. If from an imaginary Tradition they draw consequences, why should not we draw them from the holy Scripture?

When I say that Purgatory, and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome are Traditions, whereof the Scripture maketh no mention, how should I show this in so many syllables, seeing I hold that it is not found therein at all? for if there were found a passage that saith, there is no such thing as Purgatory, the Scripture should make mention of Purgatory. These men require the same, as when I should say, that nothing is spoken of Jesus Christ in Virgil's Aeneades, some trifling Sophister urgeth me to show in the Aeneades, a passage affirming that Jesus Christ is not therein mentioned.

This peevish wrangling, no less injurious then troublesome, taketh from the Christians, all means of proving to a lew, by the Prophets, that Jesus is the Christ, for the name of Jesus Christ is not found in the Prophets; yet certain it is, that the thing it self is therein explained in equivalent terms.

To be short, in such juggling Theology, it is impossible to prove by Scripture, th • t an Ape or Cat is not to be adored: for this is not found totidem verbis in the Scripture; but it is drawn from necessary consequence of passages, wherein God alone will be worshipped.

If I say that the soul is immortal, and that God governeth the World by his providence; will these venerable Doctors take me by the throat, to show them this sillabically in so many words? Indeed it is not found in the same words, but in some other equivalent speaking of the life eternal, in this manner: God maketh all things according to the counsel of his will. Ephes. 1. 5. And a sparrow falleth not the ground without the will of God Matt. 10. 29. And God himself pronounceth: My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my pleasure. Isaiah 46. 10.

If the Scripture saith that God descendeth, or runneth, or is inflamed with choller, or sleepeth; shall it not be lawfvll to use▪ plain and intelligible words in expounding these figures?

Likewise I find not in the Scripture the word Trinity, but I have found the word three; Saint John telling us that there are three in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. 1. John 5. 7.

I find not in the Scripture, tolidem verbis, that the soul of the thief was not in Limbo. But I find that Jesus Christ assured him, Thou shalt this day be with me in Paradise.

I find not in the Scripture in the same terms, that the Saints know not our hearts, but I find there, how God alone knoweth the hearts of men. 2. Chron. 6. 30.

There is no mention made of single life of Prelates, in the same words, but there it is said. Let a a Bishop be husband but of one wife. 1. Tim. 3. 2.

Furthermore Jesus Christ disputing with the devil, Matth. 4. 11. told him; It is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Which is a passage of the 6. of Deut. 13. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and shalt serve him, and swear by his Name. To which passage, the Lord joineth another of the 1. of Sam. chap. 7. 3. Subject your hearts to the eternal God, and serve him alone. Jesus Christ made no scruple or difficulty to speak the same thing in sundry phrases.

At the 18. Acts 28. It is related that Apollos a lew, demonstrated by the Scriptures of the Old Testament, that Jesus was the Christ, though it be not therein expressed in so many words.

And S. Peter at the 10. Acts 43. speaketh thus. To Jesus Christ give all the Prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth in him, shall receive remission of sins. Yet this is not found among the Prophets in express words, but in equivalent terms, and by necessary consequence. Shall we then be rebuked, if we allege the Scripture after the same wont and form as Jesus Christ and the Apostles have done?

The Apostle S. Paul in the 2. to Tim. 1. 13. commanding us to hold fast the form of sound words, doth not bind us to syllables, for soundness and purity of doctrine, may copiously and in full sense dwell under the signification of several sorts of words, as health of body, may be clothed under another habit. It is so taught by Jerome upon the 1. chap. to the Galat. Let us not think that the Gospel consisteth in the bare words of the Scripture, but in the true meaning and signification: not in the superficies, but in the very marrow, not in the leaves decked with words, but in the root of solid reason.

The Fathers and ancient Councils were ignorant in such kind of importunate and unmannely divinity, when they defined by the Scripture in the first Nicene council, that the Son is consubstantial with the Father. And when the first Council of Ephesus decreed against Nestorius, that the Virgin Mary might and ought to be called the Mother of God.

The Arians pressed Athanasius to show them this word consubstantial in the Scripture: to whom Athanasius answereth in his book of the decrees of the Nicene council: Though the very words be not so couched in the Scripture, yet they have the sense and understanding of the Scripture.

Gregory of Nazianzen at the end of his Sermon touching Cyprian. calls the verbalists 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , hunters after syllables and words. And in his 37. Oration, which is the fifth concerning Theology, he faith that the love of the letter is to them a shadow or cloak for impiety.

Ambrose in his book concerning the Faith, written against the Arians, chap. 5. How do you say that consubstantial is not in the divine Scriptures? as if consubstantial were anything else but, I am issue of the Father, and the Father and I are one.

We learn out of Photios, his Bibliotheca, that Theodoret composed an express treaty upon this subject, the inscription whereof is, Against these who affirm that we ought to rely on the words, without having regard to the matter signified.

Touching this point, we have the most learned of our adversaries on our side. Bellarmine in his 3. book of justification, chap. 8 Nothing can be sure in certainty of Faith, unless it be contained immediately in the word of God, or drawn from the word of God by some evident consequence.

Salmeron in his 9. Prolegomenon: Not only the matter which is immediately contained in the Scriptures, hath divine authority, and ought to be allowed with faith; but also all things that are drawn from thence by necessary & evident consequence, which doctrine hath been derived unto us from Greg. that great Divine. And a little after, a thing is said to be in the Scripture two manner of ways; partly because it is therein contained expressly, and in the litter all sense: partly because it is contained virtually therein, and is drawn from thence by necessary consequence, now it ins lawful to dispute with Heretics both these ways. He bringeth Purgatory, merrits, and satiffactions for examples: words that himself confesseth not to be in the Scripture, but may be drawn from thence by consequence.

Jesuit Vasquez: It importeth not whether the word be in Scripture or no, so as that which it signifieth be in the Scripture. Jansen Bishop of Gant, affirmeth the same at the 107. Chapter of his Harmony.

Our confession is frivolously objected unto us, which saith in the 5. Article, that the Scripture is the Rule of all verity, containing all that is necessary for the service of God and our salvation, to the which it is not lawful to add, diminish, or alter. For if these Novice Doctors afforded themselves the leisure to read the following lines, they should there find, that we avow the three Creeds, to wit, the Apostles, the Nicene, and the Athanasian. Which notwithstanding are not found in the Scripture, in such and so many words. And in the Article following, we approve of that which hath been determined by the ancient councils, touching three persons in one individual essence, yet the determinations of Councils are not found to be in the Scripture in the same terms.

Our confession confineth u • •• more to the Scripture, then the Council of Trent bindeth our adversaries to the word written and unwritten. Yet they would not be interrupted thereupon, nor that we should enjoin them to show every word spoken by them, to be in so many syllables in the written word, or in that which is not written.

Whereas they suffer us not to bring one passage of Scripture, for exposition of another, unless we suddenly bring a third, that saith this passage expoundeth that. By such proceeding they take away and extingnish all means of expounding Scripture by Scripture: wherein also they contradict the Elders and Doctors of the Church of Rome, who grant that Scripture shall be interpreted by Scripture, as we have mentioned in my former book of the Judge of Controversies, Chap. 4. For the exposition of these words, This is my body, we allege the passage of the Apost. saying, This Bread which we break, Is it not the Communion in the body of Christ? Likewise, When youshall eat of this Bread, or drink of this Cup, you shall declare the death of the Lord. Hereupon these youngsters require a passage which saith, that these two last passages are the exposition of the first. We answer that it is not needful, for it is sufficient that these three passages speak of the same thing. For to understand the Doctrine of the Euchari •• , it is behoovefull to collect together all that the Scripture maketh thereof mention; seeing that passages so comparatively united, do manifest and interpret one the other.

These new Disputants in rejecting all syllogisms, and all arguments, are obstinate and inexcusable. For by what reason can they banish the use of reason from Divinity? It were fitter for them to address themselves to the Thomists and Scotists, who are full of School brambles, and do subject Saint Paul to the positions of Aristotle, and clothe Divinity with a Philosophical habit. Yet these very menwho forbid us to dispute, do make arguments (after their manner) to the which it is impossible to give answer, by the sole words of the Scripture. For we are constrained to say, I deny the major, or the minor, which are words not so much as touched in the Scripture.

What man, but a senseless, is ignorant, that when two Propositions are soddered together as they should be, the conclusion or inference must necessarily follow? And this is not an invention of Aristotle, but a work of God, and a natural impression; for peasants make good arguments, though il accommodated.

If of two propositions in an argument, one be drawn from the Scripture, the other be known by the sense, and allowed by the Adversary, the conclusion shall follow of necessity. As for example; speak according to Scripture, that every man is a liar. To this proposition, Iadde another well known by the sense, and confessed by the Adversary, Philip is a man, whereupon the conclusion that followeth, therefore Philip is a liar, cannot be denied, but by some witless Idiot, and such a one as will not stick to contradict himself, in denying that which necessarily followeth, upon the proposition which he hath confessed.

And to the end it may not be thought, that this Conclusion hath no certainty, but by virtue of the two propositions, I say that without a formal syllogism, this conclusion Philip is a liar is contained in that proposition every man is a liar: just as one crown is contained in ten, though there be no man to say it.

Thomas ought to have instructed them hereupon, who in the first part of his Sum Quest. 1. showeth, that Theology is disputative, and that by the Articles of faith it proceedeth to show some other thing: as when the Apostle in I Cor. 15. disputeth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, to prove the resurrection to be common. Upon which place Vasquez in the 12. Disputation Chap. 2. maintaineth, that in Theology if one proposition be taken out of a passage of Scripture, and the other known by natural light, a conclusion may be drawn from thence, which may serve for a definitive position in the faith.

It is true (say these men) that human reason may be deceived; and they say true. The same may be said of the sight and of the hearing But would they dig out their own eyes, under color that their eyes do sometimes deceive them? Under the pretext that reason is sometimes abused, shall they withhold us from the use of reason? Are there no good consequences, and necessary? Because some are evil, shall they reject those that are good? If they will have it so, when the Doctors read to us some passage of Scripture, May not we tell them, Perhaps it is not there as you read it, you must not believe your eyes, for the sight of a man may often be deluded and mistaken?

Therefore the manner of making arguments, where reason is not deceived, and whence the conclusion cannot be denied, is that which I have said, by joining to a proposition drawn from the Scripture, a second that is known by the sense, or by a natural light, and is allowed by the Adversary.

The way to put these Disputants of our age to a non plus, to stave them off from interrogations, and keep them to a syllogisticall method: for then they shall make an argument, wherein the second propositon shall be thus in substance: You are obliged by your own confession to say nothing but what is in the Scripture totidem verbis, the which ought to be denied them.

It would be easy for us to touch our Beliefe, in terms extracted word by word out of the Scripture, fastening one passage to another without knot or connection. The language indeed would ill cohere, having neither the word for, nor then, nor wherefore, nor all that serveth to dispose its discourse into parts, and to show the prosecution of the reason Bu • in doing this, we should close up the mouths of these harebrained spirits, who take it in indignity, and are offended if a word for used which is not in the Scripture.

In one thing they speak reasonably. But If (say they) Ye be permitted to make use of consequences, why shall it not be lawful for us to do the same? This cannot be contradicted, but on condition that they obtrude not unto us non seq • it • rs for consequences, drawing all things out of all things, like so many Chymists. You may see some patterns of the • consequences: Christ hath said, I have to tell you many things, but you cannot for the present bear them away: Therefore Christ hath taught that Saints ought to be invoked, images to be served, and the Trinity to be painted. Christ hath said, do this: therefore the Priest sacrificeth the body of Jesus Christ in the Mass. Christ hath said, tell▪ it to the Church: therefore the Churc • of Rome cannot err. Christ hath said, All that you shall loos • 〈◊〉 , shall be loosed in heaven: therefore the Pope can let loose under ground, and release souls out of Pugatory. God hath made man after his own image: therefore images ought to be adored. Likewise, Sin against the holy Ghoast is neither pardoned in this world, nor in the world to come: therefore there is a fire of Purgatory, to purge the souls. Consequences that would provoke laughter, were it not that thereby the word of God is trodden underfoot, and the service of our Lord utterly depraved.

CHAP. XXIII. Testimonies of the Fathers, touching the perfection of the Scripture.

AS the authority of the word of God contained in the holy Scriptures, is not supported by the authority of men, so also its perfection hath no want of their restimony. Jesus Christ spake at the 5. of John • 4. I seek not testimony from men. To believe that the word of God is perfect, because men affirm it, is to kindle a lamp to light the noon day; for God is not to be therefore trusted, because men say the word it must be so. The word of God is as forcible alone, as in company: yea being alone it better guardeth its own authority. How gross then and absurd our adversaries should show themselves, in attempting to prove the insufficiency of the Scripture, out of the Fathers, seeing that to defend her sufficiency by warrant of the Fathers, is to derogate from her authority.

But before we listen to the ancient Doctors in this question, give us leave to protest, that we allege them not to defend the Scripture, but by way of their justification: for they are made the advocates of error, contrary to their own intentiō. They are alleged to prove the insufficiency of the Scripture, whose actual perfection and absolute sufficiency they exalt above all, upon all occurrences and tracts concerning the doctrine of salvation.

Clemens Alexandrinus in the sixth book of his Stromata, We say nothing without the Scriptures.

Tertullian in his book against Hermogenes wrote before he became a Montanist Heretic, in his 22. chap. The shop of Hermogenes declareth to us that it is written, but in case it be not written, let that woe, denounced against those which add or diminish, be a terror unto them. But when he afterwards slid away into heresy, he betook himself to maintain his doctrine by unwritten Traditions. For in his book of Monogamy, which he compiled being an Heretic, at the 2. chap. he transmitteth us to Tradition, alleging these words of our Lord: I have many things to tell you, but you cannot carry them away at this time. which is the passage that our adversaries ordinarily produce for their Traditions.

Saint Hippolytus, There is but one God, whom we know not by other means, but by the sacred Scriptures. Even as he that would exercise the wisdom of this age, cannot seek and obtain it, but by reading the opinions and precepts of Philosophers: so all of us that would practice true Piety towards God, can learn and comprehend it no way else, but by the holy Scriptures.

Saint Athanasius in the beginning of his oration against the Gentiles, The holy and devinely inspired Scriptures, are sufficient to cause the truth to be understood. And in his book of our Savior's Incarnation, Are you so inordinately desperate as to relate things that are not written, and to keep your understanding at such distance from true piety?

Ambrose in his first book de officijs cha. 23. How can we allege things, not found to be in holy Scriptures?

Saint Hilary in his second book against Constantius, I do admire thee, O Emperor Constantius, showing thy desire, that men should believe, according as it is written.

Basil is excellent hereupon towards the end of his Ethics, which are among his Ascheticks: If (saith he) all that is not of Faith be sin, as the Apostle speaketh, and faith cometh by hearing, and hearing from the word of God, all that is without or beside the holy Scripture devinely inspired (not being of faith) is sin. And again in his Treatise concerning Faith: It is a manifest revolt from the faith, and a capital crime of pride and presumption to reject anything that is written, or to bring in anything unwritten. See also the same Father amongst his more compendious rules in the 95. definition.

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem is no less express. This good man in his fourth Catechism instructeth people in this manner: Touching the divine and sacred mysteries of the faith, the least matter is not to be taught without the holy Scriptures, nor suffered to be brought in after any sort whatsoever, either through probability, or through words fitly disposed. Yea, put no confidence in me that speak unto you these things, unless I give you proof, of that which I preach unto you, out of the holy Scriptures, for the integrity of our faith consisteth not in designs or conferences artificially invented, but in proof drawn from the divine Scrptures.

And Cyril of Alexandria in the 2. book upon Genesis, How can we admit of that which the holy Scripture hath not said, or range it amongst absolute verities? And in his seventh book against Julian, The holy Scripture is sufficient to make those wise, most approved, and of able understanding, who are therewith educated and instructed.

Theodoret in his first Dialogue entitled De Immutab. Bring not human reasons to me, for I believe not in anything, but the holy Scriptures. And in his second Dialogue, I am not so rash as to affirm anything, wherein the sacred Scripture is silent.

Chrysostom upon the second Epistle to the Thessalonians the second Chapter, All things that are in the divine Scriptures are clear and sincere, everything that is necessary, is therein plain. And upon Psalm. 95. When anything is spoken without the Scripture, the very cogitations of the hearers are lame.

The same Father in his third Homily upon the second to the Corinthians, calleth the Scripture an exact balance, the rule and square of all things. He saith not as Bellarmine (falsifying this passage) doth make him, that the Scripture is the most exact rule of all; but that it is the balance, square, and rule of all things.

Saint Jerome upon the first Chapter of the Prophet Aggay, The things which they invent and forge of themselves, as by an Apostolical Tradition, without the authority and testimony of the holy Scriptures, are stricken and dashed by the very sword of God. And upon the Prophet Micah l. c. 1. The Church of Christ is not strayed out of its limits, that is to say, from the holy Scriptures. So as to bring anything from without the Scripture in the Doctrine of salvation, is to wander out of the bounds that God hath prefixed to the Church.

The same Father against Helvidius. As we deny not that which is written, so we reject that which is not written▪ We believe that God is borne of a Virgin, because we read it: but we believe not that she was joined in marriage after her child-birth, because we read it not.

We have the life of Saint Anthony (which some attribute to Athanasius ) speaking, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that the Scriptures are sufficient for our instruction.

Saint Augustine in his 49. Treatise upon Saint John, The Evangelist testifieth that Jesus Christ both did and said many things that are not written▪ but we have chosen the things esteemed necessary to salvation, which have been written.

I • his second book De merito peccatorum & remiss. Chap. 36. When a matter of greatest obscurity and darkness is disputed, without the assistance of the divine Scriptures evident and most certain direction, human presumption ought to suppress it self. The knowledge that some impute to Saints concerning our cogitations, the Limbus for the Fathers, and that for little infants, are matters very obscure, yet concerning these points have we no passage in the word of God.

In the 142. Epist. chap 9. By the single Scripture alone, you may fully know the will of God. And if it be supposed, that this Epistle was not written by Saint Augustine, but by Pelagius, yet it is manifest, that Augustine never reprehended him for speaking in this manner.

Also in his book of nature and grace, Chap. 61. A Pelagian reciting to him some allegations of the Fathers, he answereth. I owe my approbation and consent only to the Canonical Scriptures, without refusal or excuse.

The same Doctor in his book of the Unity of the Church, disputeth against the Donatists, who affirmed that the true Church was on their side. Augustine to know which is the true Church, will have the question determined by the Scriptures alone; not by the Histories and human Testimonies, whereof the Donatists make their use & best advantage. These are his words in the 2 chap. What shall we do then? shall we seek the Church in our words, or in the words of her head, our Lord Jesus Christ? I conceive that we ought rather to seek it in the words of him, who is the truth it self. Diametrally opposing our adversaries, who will have the Scripture notified and received by the Testimony of the Church: He on the other side will have us take notice, and embrace the true Church, by the Testimony of the Scripture. And in the 3. chapter pursuing this discourse: But as I began to say, let us not hear it spoken, I say this, thou sayest that, but bet us hear, this saith the Lord. There are assuredly books of the Lord, to whose authority we both subscribe, therein we both believe, to them are we both subject, that is the place where we are to seek the Church, there we debate our cause. This pious Doctor spake not as too many do in these days that the Scripture is not judge, that it is a dumb Rule, that it is ambiguous, that it containeth not all things necessary to salvation, that the faith of the Church regulates the Scripture, and not on the contrary; he would have the question of the Church decided by the Scripture alone. Wherevpon he addeth. Let us despise and cast from •• those allegations, which we make one against another, and are not taken from the divine Canonical books, but from else-where. For (urging further) I desire that the Church be proved, not by human documents or instructions, but by divine Oracles. He calleth human instructions, all that is alleged without the Scripture. Can our adversaries by this course ever prove, that the Church of Rome is only the true Church, rather then the Graecian, or the Syrian? and that the Pope is Saint Peters successor, in the charge of head of the universal Church? At the last, after many passages of Scripture called to mind, and uttered in defense of it, turning his design towards the Donatists, he summoneth them to prove their positions by Scripture. Read us that in the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, the Gospel it self, or writings of the Apostles, and we shall believe. Observe directly how we proceed with our adversaries; for we call upon them. Read us invocation of Saints, Images of the Trinity, adoration of Relics, or succession of the Pope in the Apostleship of Saint Peter, in the writings of the Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, and we will believe them. But they are so nettled at this, that (following the example of the Donatists ) they censure this demand to be unjust, remanding us to Tradition, which they call the unwritten word, taught by the mouth of the Church, that is to say, the Pope and a few Prelates, who domineer by means of these Traditions, which are all accommodated to their profit, and subdued to their power.

This holy personage cannot be satisfied with long enough insisting upon this subj • ct, and if this book were not to be found in all Saint Augustine's works, or tha • it were without a title, our adversaries would say, that Calvin, or Beza had contrived it to their humor. For he addeth. Let Donat read me that in the holy Scriptures, and he shall be no Anathemae. Likewise, let them read us that in the holy Scriptures, and we will believe it. And a little after, rejecting the proofs of the Dotanists, who alleged miracles for themselves, and the Councils of their Bishops, and the belief of the people, saith, Such like matters being laid aside, let them demonstrate and prove their Church if they be able, not in discourses and rumors of Africans, not by the Councils of their Bishops, nor by the writings of such and such disputants, nor by cheating signs and miracles: for against those devices we are armed and prepared with the word of God: but by the ordinances of the Law, by the predictions of the Prophets, by the Canticles of the Psalms, by the words of the Sheepheard himself, by the preachings, and pains taking of the Evangelists, that is to say, by all the Canonical authorities of the holy Books.

But as concerning another difficulty proposed, to wit, that there was obscurity in the Scripture, and that there was difference and disagreement touching the sense of the passages which were alleged, he doth not in manner of our adversaries, who strive to make the Church infallible interpreter: for in so doing, one of the parties should be judge; and the Church should not be subject to any judgment; but he averreth that leaving the obscure passages, everyone may make use of those that are plain, presupposing that what is said obscurely in one passage, is clearly manifested in others. Assuring withal, that there is no other way to avoid doubtfulness and difficulty. I propose this (saith he) to the end we may choose the passages, that are most clear and manifest; the which being not found in the holy Scriptures, there should be no further means to open things that are shut up, and explain the obscure.

For (as he speaketh in another place) In matters that are plainly set down in the holy Scriptures, are found all things that concern the faith and good manners. As Basil hath it in his Breviores Regulae, at the 267. Answer. The matter that seemeth to be obscurely mentioned in some passages of the Scripture divinely inspired, are interpreted by that which is more clearly set down in other places

He in his third book against Maximine, Chap. 14. disputeth thus against an Heretic; Now I ought not allege the Nicene Council, nor thou the Ariminensian by way of prejudging. I am not bound to the authority of that, nor thou to the authority of this. Let one thing be opposed to another, one cause to another, and one reason to another reason, and this by authorities of the Scriptures, which are not particular to such and such, but are common witnesses to one and the other party.

Origen in his Homily upon Jeremiah, It is necessary that we bring the holy Scriptures to witness, for without them our opinions and reports are not worthy to be believed. Bellarmine answereth, that Origen speaketh only of obscure questions, concerning which, he thinketh it behoovefull, that they be taught by the Scripture. But besides that, the whole proceeding of Origen in this passage, maketh the contrary to appear: the Cardinal deceiveth himself, if he think that the things easy to be understood (as that God hath created the world, and that Jesus Christ is dead for us) have not as much need of the authority of the Scripture, as those that are obscure: but on the contrary, it is not necessary to penetrate into the knowledge of many obscure things; and God hath not deemed it requisite to satisfy curiosity therein. Moreover, Bellarmine speaking in that manner, condemneth a great number of Traditions in the Romish Church, which are most obscure; as the Tradition of Limbus for the Fathers, and that for little infants. The Tradition that the Saints know our thoughts, and behold all things in God's face. The Tradition of accidents without subject in the Eucharist. The Tradition that the Virgin Mary is crowned Queen of heaven; which are things wherein man's understanding is benumbed, all being full of uncertain presumptions. And it were most needful to have the Scripture testifying for them, if it be so that in obscure things we ought to be taught by the holy Scripture.

I will add the opinion of the Emperor Constantine the great for a close, who was the man in this world after the Apostles, that did most good to the Christian Church. Of him Theodoret reporteth, that at the overture of the great Nicene Council, exhorting the 318. Bishops assembled to determine controversies, he speaketh in this manner: The Evangelical and Apostolic books, and the Oracles of the ancient Prophets instruct us plainly in our Belief, concerning divine matters. Wherefore all unfriendly contention being thrown to the ground, let us draw the solving of doubts from the words divinely inspired. This holy discourse displeaseth Bellarmine, for he saith, That Constantine was a great Emperor, but no great Doctor of the Church, and that he understood not the secrets of religion. And Andradius affirmeth, that these words of Constantine pleased none but the heretical Arians. But who was he among the Ancients that ever blamed this Emperor for speaking so? Yea, do not all the Historians magnify his prudence and sage management of affairs in this Council? And verily this Council hath followed his counsel, and refuted not the Arians by other strength of Argument, then by the holy Scripture.

It is evident by this passage, that Constantine until then had allowed no other instruction but by the holy Scriptures, and that no man taught after the fashion of the Romish Church at this time, wherein men begin with Tradition, in saying that the authority of the Scripture is founded upon the Tardition of the Church.

If then in matters necessary to salvation, these Doctors for three or four ages after the Apostles did reject all Traditions not contained in the holy▪ Scriptures, much more and with stronger reason it standeth, that after so many ages transacted, there should be less probability of cause to make new additions. For when shall there be any cessation of adding? Bellarmine in his 3. chapter against Barkley, perceiving that the Popes power to depose Kings, is destitute of all Testimony of antiquity, saith, that he judgeth not soundly of the Church of Christ, who admitteth nothing but what he readeth expressly to have been done or said in the ancient Church. As if the Church of the latter time, had either discontinued and left off to be a Church, or had not the faculty of explicating, or declaring, constituting, and ordaining matters which concern the faith, and manners of Christians. Whence it followeth, that the Church of Rome is not yet complete and finished in her perfection, seeing that precepts touching the faith, and rule of morality may be added thereunto; as indeed there are yet many that are hot in the forge, and freshly hammered upon the anvil of avarice, and ambition. But this Cardinal ought to consider, that seeing this Tradition touching the Popes power to depose Kings, maketh the Pope King of Kings; It is not just or reasonable, that the Pope should be judge thereof, nor that he should be permitted without rendering accompt to any other person, to introduce such Traditions without the word of God, whereby to enveagle the temporal weal • h, and to make himself the mo • arch on earth.

By this very doctrine the Jesuit equalleth in authority the Romish Church of this time, to the Church of the Apostles time. Yet it is the Church of the Apostles time, which regulateth the succeeding ages And those first Heralds of grace in Jesus Christ, are yet seated upon the twelve thrones ludging the twelve Tribes of Israel.

From this source proceeded the Bull Exurge, which is at the end of the last Lateran Council, placing this amongst the heresies▪ of Luther, when he said that, It is not in the power of the Pope, and Church of Rome, to establish Articles of faith. Hence also proceeded the remonstrance, which the council of Florence published; that the Church of Rome had just power to add to the Creed.

CHAP. XXIIII. How the Texts and Passages of the Fathers, which our adversaries allege for the unwritten Traditions, ought to be understood.

SEeing that in matter of Christian faith, and the points necessary to salvation, the Fathers do unanimiously cleave to the sole word of God, contained in the Holy Scriptures, it were a strange thing if after this, they should seek to ground themselves upon Traditions, and to surmise in matter of salvation, another word unwritten. Certainly the Doctors who should destroy that which they have built up, ought not to be believed, by no means should they be credited, who credit not themselves.

Now for the better purging of them from this blame, it would be necessary to remember that which we have formerly spoken, to wit, that we reject not all sorts of Traditions; [unspec 1] for the Scripture it self is a Tradition, which is one reason. [unspec 2] A second is, because there are Traditions which are not matters of Faith, nor necessary to salvation, but customs, and reglements, touching Ecclesiastical policy: which we willingly approve, when we see that they have been received in the ancient Church by a general consent. And Satan having alienated any one of these customs, and turned it to Idolatry, or converted it to any other end unpractised before, we do not believe that in deserting such a custom, Christian Religion is a whit impaired; but it were wisely done to barge up that gate against the devil. [unspec 3] A third is, because there are also Doctrines taught in the Scripture, which are there not found in the same terms as the Ancients propose them, but are therein found in equivalent words, or are deduced from thence by necessary consequence. If any man will call these doctrines Traditions we will not quarrel him thereupon, provided that he allow such Traditions to be bottomed with the Scripture, and there to be found in substance.

I say then, as often as the Fathers mention and give way to Traditions, their meaning is of those three sorts afore recited: that is to say, either of the Scripture it self; or of customs and reglements of Ecclesiastical policy, and of matters not necessary to salvation; or of occurrences contained in the Scripture, yet not there found in the same words, as the ancients propose them, but in substance and • y consequence, to prove the which we have employed the Chapter following.

CHAP. XXV. A proof of that which went before.

SOme do object Irenaeus unto us (who wrote abou the end of the second age) that in his 3. book 4. chap. disputing against Heretics that gave no admission to the Scriptures, laboreth to convince them by Traditions, that is to say, (as he expoundeth himself) by the succession of the doctrine left from hand to hand, in the Churches erected by the Apostles. What? (saith he) If the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures, would it not have been needful to follow the order of Tradition, which they delivered to those, unto whose trust they committed the Churches? And to good purpose he said it: for if we had not the holy Scriptures, we should have been constrained to have recourse unto weaker means, and of less certainty. And it behooveth that when he speaketh in that manner, it be to such as are refractary and averse from the Scriptures, but not to us who cordially embrace them, and set up our last rest upon them. Moreover from the time of Irenaeas, the succession was but short, and the memory of things taught by the mouth of the Apostles fresh, of the which the remembrance would be razed and put out, if we had not the writings of the Apostles. For the continuation of time, and the subversion, corruption, and schism of so many Churches, which then unamimously concurred, and are now at variance, boasting of their succession, maketh this search and examination impossible to the Christian people, and full of uncertainty.

But at length what are these doctrines which Iren • us would have to be taught and learned by Tradition, if we had not the Scripture? Is it invocation of Saints, service of Images, adoration of Relickes, the Communion under one kind, or the Romish Indulgences? no such matter; it is the doctrine touching the Creation, and touching the nature and office of Jesus Christ contained most clearly in the Scripture: which appeareth not only for that herein he skirmisheth and contendeth against the Heretics, erring in these points; but also in that he saith, that we ought to seek these things by Tradition, if we have not the Scriptures; acknowledging that these things are taught by the Scriptures. Assuredly Irenaeus by Tradition, intendeth not to speak of any addition to the Scripture, but he speaketh of the succession from hand to hand, whereby the doctrine of the Gospel was trained on to his time: and in this very place speaking of certain barbarous people, that had received the Gospel by Tradition without Scripture, he interpreteth the articles of this Tradition, which are the articles of the Apostles Creed.

Also it is not amiss to have the Reader advertised, that Irenaeus in these same books, which he hath written against the Heretics, treateth concerning Traditions not contained in the holy Scriptures, which the Church of Rome approoveth not. He teacheth that Souls separated from the bodies have feet and hands, and a corporal figure. He holdeth that the Souls issuing out of the bodies m • uut not up to C • lestiall glory, but into a terrestrial Paradise. And that Before the publication of the Law, no Law was given to the Fathers, because they were just: and the Law was not ordained for the just, who had no need to be admonished by written letters. But when justice was lost in Egypt, then God gave his Law unto the people.

The same Father teacheth, that the kingdom of Jesus Christ ought to endure no longer then one thousand years, which is an error of the Chiliasts: and that they shall then feast themselves with delicate Wines, and exqusite Viands. So little certainty there is in men, as soon as they start aside from the sacred Scripture. With what conscience can our adversaries allege Irenaeus in the behalf of Traditions, seeing his are so distasteful to them? He also condemneth Invocation of Angels, and the hautinesse of Victor Bishop of Rome, as Eusebius recordeth it in the 5. book of his history, chap. 25.

They serve also their turns upon the testimony of Clemens Alex to back their Traditions. Euseb in the 6. book of his Ecclesiastical history, chap. 11. remembereth on • passage of him, where he reportet • that his brothers importuned him to teach them the Traditions which he had heard by the ancien Priests. But he maketh no mention whether these Traditions wer • matters not contained in the Scriptures. Now the Reader may her • note, upon what groundwork Papism is bu • lt: our adversaries to shoulder it up, do scrape together the most excrementall scum of the Fathers, like to the carraine-Crowes that forsake trees beautified with delicious fruit, to cast themselves down upon noy some carcasses. Observe this Clement full fraught with his idle and extravagant Traditions, fitting to his purpose, this passage of the 1. to the Corinthians: We declare Wisdom among the perfect, as our adversaries do in like manner. Listen then to his Traditions. He holdeth that the Greeks, that is to say, the Pagans were justified and saved by Philosophy. That there are four persons in God. That the Angels are fallen from their purity by their coha • itation with Women. That the death of Jesus Christ did not come to pass by the will of God. That afflictions do not seize upon us through God's will and command, but that he no way hindereth it, and by his simple permission. That God is a body. That the Apostle Saint Paul exhorted the Christians to read the books of the Grecians, of the Sybills, and of Hystaspes. That Christ had foretold to the Jews which should be converted, that their sins should be pardoned them within two years. That Christ hath preached to the Jews which were in hell, and that the Apostles also descended into hell to preach to the Gentiles, to work their conversion. And in the same sixth book of his Stromata, speaking of a sage or wise man in this present life, saith, he is not subject to any passion or alteration, and that he is without joy, or fear, or confidence; to be short, he maketh him a God in the shape of man, and calleth such a man a Gnosticke: and will have him to be skilled in Music and in the Mathematics, in Logic and Astronomy. He affirmeth that God hath given the Sun and Moon to the Pagans to worship them, to the end they might not be without a Religion And speaketh of gods in the plural, as if there were many of them. Are these the Traditions which our adversaries obtrude upon us to prove the insufficiency of the Scripture? or if these displease them, why do they rely upon the authority of one that rely coyneth Traditions, whereof the memory should be buried for everlasting?

At the same time Tertullian wrote his book de Militis Corona. In the 2. chap. of the same book, he fileth up a long list of unwritten Traditions, which are, that in Baptism the Christians of his time renounced the Devil, and his pomp, and his Angels: that they were plunged three times into the water: that they tasted the miscelane or hotchpot of milk and honey: that they made conscience of washing themselves seven days after: that they participated of the Sacrament of the Eucharist in the assemblies made before day, and would not receive it from any hand but of those that did preside: that they made offerings (so they called the gifts which the people did present) for the defunct, upon the day of the Nativity, one day every year. By the day of Nativity he understandeth that day, whereon the memory of Martyrs was yearly celebrated, as also whereon Off • ings were made, and Alms given in memory of them.

Further more he addeth the Tradi • ion wherein they accompt it a foul sin to fast upon the Lord's day, and to pray that day kneeling; and the custom (when they trample and walk abroad) in putting on their shoes, to mark themselves in the forehead with the sign of the Cross. summing all up with this saying; If thou expostulate the legal condition of these disciplines and others the like, thou shalt not find it. Tradition is pretended to thee which increaseth them, custom which confirmeth them, and faith which observeth them.

Our Adversaries do shroud themselves in the protection of this last passage, to establish their Traditions. Yet can there not be a more proper passage alleged to confirm the same which I have said concerning the Traditions which the Fathers have handled, that they are not Doctrines of faith, nor matters necessary to salvation, but only Ceremonies, and Customs, and Laws of Ecclesiastical policy, which the Church of Rome hath forsaken for the most part, and regardeth them no more. For all the Traditions of Tertullian are but Customs and Ceremonies; whereupon he calleth them Disciplines, and there is nothing therein which concerneth the Doctrine of faith, or is necessary to salvation. And concerning the question which he discusseth in this book, whether a Christian soldier at a day of muster, when all the soldiers were crowned with a Laurel, did better in choosing rather to suffer martyrdom, then to put the crown upon his head, contenting himself to hold it in his hand; I say it is not a point of faith, but an opinion wherein Tertullian had but a few to second him. For the other Christians accused this soldier of temerity, and to have drawn persecution upon his companions in a thing indifferent, saying, That there was nothing in the Scripture that obliged him to it. But Tertullian defendeth the action of this soldier by Tradition.

When we allege some passages of Tertullian express against invocation of Saints, and against Transubstantiation; our Adversaries on the other side, allege the words of Jerome against Helvidius, I have nothing more to say of Tertullian, but that he was not a man of the Church: that is to say, he was an Heretic. Whilst he was Orthodoxall, he condemned Traditions, as it hath formerly appeared unto us. But being turned Montanist, he falleth into much admiration of Traditions, vouching the words of our Savior, I have yet many things to deliver to you, but you cannot for the present bear them away. Which is the ordinary language of ou • Adversaries. Now, it doth no • import us, whether he hath written the book of the soldiers crown, being an Heretic, or being yet Orthodoxall; seeing the Traditions which he bundleth together, touch not the Christian faith. Nevertheless, it is certain that he was then an Heretic For in this book he maliced and repined at the Catholics, because they taught, that it was lawful for any man to save his own life, without exposing it to martyrdom; and because they rejected the prophecies of Montanus, who styled himself the holy Ghost. Hereunto those words of Tertullian at the second chapter, seem to have relation, It remains that they who have rejected the prophecies of the holy Ghost, do intend to decline and refuse martyrdoms. Also, I know their Pastors who are Lions in peace, and Harts in battle. The same hath likewise been observed by Pamelius. So then, these Gamesters have little reason, but less honesty to borrow the weapons of an Heretic.

There are found some other passages of Tertullian, wherein by Tradition, he understandeth the Doctrine of the Gospel contained in the holy Scriptures. But we willingly embrace this Tradition.

To this passage of Tertullian, we may compare another of Basil much alike, in Chap. 27. of his book De Spiritu Sancto, where he makes a long recapitulation of unwritten Traditions. Hearken to his words: Some of the precepts and lessons which the Church observeth, and are preached unto us, we have by written instruction; some others we do receive by way of mystery, having been conveyed unto us by the Tradition of the Apostles. Both of them have like force in matter of piety, and no man that hath insight (be it never so l • ttle) in the Ecclesiastical Laws will contradict it. For if we will reject the un • ritten Customs, as having but little virtue, we shall endammage the Gospel at unawares, especially in matters that are commodious and proper: or rather we shall reduce preaching to a simple and bare name. As for example, (that I may make mention of the first and most common): What writing hath taught us to mark those with the sign of the Cross, who have put their trust in the name of Jesus Christ? What Scripture hath taught us to turn towards the East in prayer? Which is he of the Saints that hath left unto us by writing the words of the invocatiō, whē the Bread of the Eucharist, and Cup of benedi • tion are shown? For we content not ourselves with that whereof the Apostle or the Gospel maketh m • ntion, but we add other things before and after, (as having great virtue in the mystery,) which we were taught by unwritten instruction. But by what Scripture do we bless the water of Baptism, and the oil used in the V • ction, especially that wherewith we baptize? Is not this a Tacite and mystical Tradition? He addeth the triple plunging in Baptism, and the renouncing of the devil and his angels. Also the custom of standing at prayer the first day of the week, and from the Paschal unto Pentecost, to show that we are raised up again with Christ, and do seek the things that are above; and because seven times seven days signifieth the eternity And (to make short) he inserts the belief in God the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, amongst the Traditions; saying, That these unwritten things are of sembl • ble authority with the written, and ma • ch them i • virtue, and that the Fath • rs have covered them with silence, as the more high and more venerable, of p • rpose to keep men in more awful observance by the obscurity: and that it is of these, as of a most sacred place, wherein only the chief sacrificing Priest did enter.

This passage indeed doth ill accord with those excellent ones of Basil, in the which he hath formerly acquainted us, that all which is not of faith is sin, and that faith is by hearing of the word of God, that whatsoever is without the verge of the Scrip • ure divinely inspired, is not of faith, and consequently is sin; and that to show a forwardness in adding to the holy Scripture, is a flat revolt from the faith. By reason of this contrariety, Beilarmine supposeth that these questions, which make a part of his Aschetickes, were not Basils own. For (saith he) the Author of these questions see • es unwilling to admit of unwritten Traditions But Cardinal Baronius affirmeth, that To call this into suspicion or doubt, is a notorious sottishness. And maintaineth these books to be Basils; as it is manifested by the style. Saint Jerome in his Catalogue, and Ph • tius in his Bibliotheca, put the Aschetickes amongst the Works of Basil. Yea more, Gennadius composed Homilies out of pieces of Basils Works compacted together, amongst the which many were taken out of Ascheticks. Wherefoer the conjecture of Erasmus is not improbable, who made a preface upon Basils book, de Sanct. Spiritu. Wherein he professeth, that having translated this book to the half way, he perceived the phrase to alter, and to be no more of the same authors; for he could discern a palpable other vain. Moreover though Bellarmine had something wherewith to defame and disgrace this piece of Ascheticks, yet could he cast no aspersion upon his Treatise of the true Faith, where Basil affirmeth that it is a manifest revolt from the Faith, and a brand of pride and presumption, to reject anything that is written, or to introduce anything which is not written: Jesus Christ having said; My sheep hear my voice; Nor any upon that place, where Basil speaketh to Eustachius the Physician, in his 80. Epist. If (faith he) custom be of force for proof of doctrine, it shall be lawful for us in this to imitate them. Let us then stick to the arbitration and award of the Scripture inspired by God, and hold the free suffrage & voice of the truth to be on their sides, whose doctrines shall be found concurring with the divine words.

Nevertheless, let us consider what benefit our adversaries can derive from this passage, about the which they make so much brute and clamour. In the first place, Basil maketh a recital of Traditions, which he affirmeth to be of equal authority with the Scripture; yet amongst them there are many not approved by the Church of Rome, as prayer towards the East, and making conscience to kneel on the Lord's day, and from the Paschal to Pentecost. Most especially it displeaseth our adversaries, that Basil in the Eucharist, putteth the consecration in the prayer or in the invocation (that is to say, in speaking to God) & not in the bread. If they believe Basil, why do they reject his Tradititions? or if they believe him not, why will they oblige us to believe him?

In the second place, all these unwritten Traditions (except the last) numbered by the Author of that book, are but ceremonies and laws of Ecclesiastical policy, not necessary to salvation, but subject to mutability, and such as consequently make nothing to the purpose. For our dispute is not of Traditions that concern not the Faith and Christian doctrine, but of those that concern the doctrine of salvation, not contained in holy Scripture. Yet I cannot dissemble, that the author of this book (be he Basil, or whatere he be) isgreatly mistaken in his not only equaling, but also preferring (both in height of dignity, and profoundnesse of mystery) certain petty ceremonies, before the Sacred doctrine of our redemption, contained in the Gospel. Can any man without unsufferable injury (not to use a more rigide exclamation) equal, ye prefer the Customs of standing at prayer on certain days, rather then kneeling? Of praying towards the East, rather then towards the West? And of giving a benediction to the water or oil, before the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God, the benefit of this death, the justification by Faith, the election eternal, and the internal seal of the Spirit of God? Can any man without impiety change any part or particle of these doctrines? But as for those ceremonies, they have suffered alteration, and the Romish Church it self hath disparaged and debased them. You see how preposterous and gross our adversaries are, who instead of covering the faults of those grave Fathers, do arm themselves with their dross and refuse, as birds that live on nothing else but caterpillars.

And touching the last unwritten Tradition, which is, that men ought to believe in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ his Son, & in the holy Ghost; Is it possible that Basil, where do shine so many virtues and perfections, never saw this in the Scripture? For Jesus Christ saith, at the 14. of Saint John, You believe in God, believe also in me. And in the 5. chap. 23. To the end that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. And as touching the holy Ghost, how oft times is he called God? therefore when the Scripture biddeth to believe in God, it commandeth to believe in the holy Spirit. Now to excuse Basil, we must say, that he calleth Traditions the doctrines that are not found in the Scripture in express words, but are there in ubstance, and in equivalent words. And we do willingly entertain such kind of Traditions. Only he is mistaken to have entermingled this high and divine Tradition, amongst Customs and Ceremonies indifferent in their nature, as things equally necessary, and which ought to be regarded with like duty and reverence.

These words of Saint Jerome, in an Epistle to Marcella, are alleged unto us: We fast one term of 40. days, at the time that we think meet, according to the Apostolical Tradition. This is but a ceremony, and not a doctrine of the Christian Faith: and we have elsewhere shown, that in the ages nearest approaching to the Apostles, the Christian Church fasted but forty hours: And that this fast was arbirtary, and diversely practiced.

The same Jerome against the Luciferians, makes the Heretic speak thus. Knowest thou not that it is the custom of the Churches to impose hands upon those who are baptized, and so to invoke the holy Ghost? Doest thou ask me where this is written? I answer, in the Acts of the Apostles. And if there could not be found authority of Scripture for it, the custom generally observed in this point should serve instead of a commandment: for many other things in like manner which are kept in use by Tradition in the Churches, have usurped the authority of the written Law: as in baptism to plunge the head three times; and being come forth of the washing place, • o taste the conjunction of milk and honey, for a signification of infancy; not to pray kneeling, nor to fast upon our Lord's day, and through out the whole Quinquagesima or fifty days: with many other unwritten things, which men's indifferent observation doth chall • nge to it self. Such is the language of the Heretic, to whom the Orthodox answereth; I d • ny not the custom of the Churches to be so, &c. This passage is considerable. For I doubt not but the reading of such passages maketh our adversaries sick at the very heart, seeing that the unwritten Traditions whereof the Fathers do make mention, as of Traditions descended from the Apostles, are Traditions which the Church of Rome hath rejected: and when the ancient Fathers do make recital of those unwritten Traditions, they put not invocation of Saints amongst them; nor Images of the Trinity; nor service to the Images of Saints; nor the Communion under one kind; nor Romish Indulgences; nor the forbidding to read the Scripture without special permission; nor the Limbus for the Fathers, or that for little infants; nor prayer in an unknown tongue; nor the assumption of the Virgin Mary bodily into heaven, or her Coronation in the Majesty of Queen of Heaven; nor Masses without communicants; nor the power of the Pope to give and take Kingdoms, and to release souls out of Purgatory, &c.

The Reader may note by the way, what little reason there is to insert the custom of standing in prayer (from Easter to Whitsuntide ) amongst the Apostolical Traditions, seeing that in the 20. chap. of the Acts 36. and at the 21. chap. 5. the Apostle Saint Paul prayeth kneeling, between the Paschal and Pentecost, as appeareth by the 6. and 16. verses of the 20. chap.

As for Jerome, his opinion touching these ceremonies and external observations, is far differing from that of Basil, if it be true that Basil is the author of that book de Sancto Spiritu. For mark what he saith in his 28. Epistle to Lucinius. I think is expedient briefly to advertise thee, that Ecclesi • sticall Traditions (especially those which offend not the Faith) ought to be observed, according as men have received them from their ancestors. And that the custom of some should not be subverted by the custom of others contrarily practiced. He will have every man to follow the custom of his own Church (in matters not contrary to the Faith) without taking in ill part, that other Churches have a contrary custom, which is as much to say, that he accounteth these things indifferent in their own nature. And it is the counsel that Saint Ambrose gave to Saint Augustine, saying. When I am at Rome, I fast on Saturday: but wh • n I am here (meaning at Milan) I do not fast. So at what Church s • ever thou shalt arrive, follow the custom of it, if thou desirest not to give occasion of dislike to any man, and that no man should scandalize or be offensive to thee.

Pope Gregory the first about the year of our Lord 595. sending Augustine the Monk into England, (not to plant Christianity there, for that was brought in long before, but to establish the Popes authority, to which the Christians of that Island were not then subject) was asked some questions by the said Augustine; amongst the rest, mark but the third: There being but one faith, why are the customs of the Churches so differing and repugnant? Why is there one custom of Masses observed in the Church of Rome, and another in that of France? This Pope that undertook not to regulate and shape other Churches to the form of his own answereth him, Your brotherhood knoweth well what is the custom of the Church of Rome, wherein you may remember you had your education. But I hold it requisite and good, if you find anything either in the Church of Rome, or in that of France, or in any other, which is more pleasing to God Almighty, that you make choice of it with all diligence and respect. To celebrate the Mass at this present in France otherwise then according to the Romish order, were a flat rebellion: and all that the Pope enjoineth to the Churches (which he subjecteth to himself, by the assistance of Kings and Princes) is granted for inviolable, and for an Apostolical Tradition.

More especially, our adversaries do flourish insultingly with the words of Chrysostom, in his 4. Homily upon the 2. to the Thessal. Hence (saith he) it appeareth, that the Apostles have not taught all by Epistles, but that they have also taught many things without writing, and as well these things as those are worthy to be believed. I have already said that although the intention of Chrysostom should be to affirm, that the Apostle have taught many Doctrines and Articles of the Christian Faith, not contained in holy Scripture, yet would it not follow that these were the same points which they of the Romish Church advance and put forward: as invocation of Saints, succession of the Pope in the Primacy of S ^t Peter, Images, Indulgences, &c. But Chrysostom suffereth us no • to doubt of his intention. He understandeth only the things that are not necessary to salvation: for as touching the Doctrines that are necessary to salvation, he affirmeth in the precedent Homily (being the third,) that they are all contained clearly in the Scripture. Observe his words: All that is in the divine Scriptures, is clear and legal: all things that are nec • ssary, are therein plainly couched. Nothing can be uttered more expressly.

The same Father in his third Homily upon the Epistle to the Philippians, speaketh of the commemoration of the dead in the Eucharist in these words: It is not without reason that he hath ordained by the Apostles, that in thereverend mysteries a commemoration be made of the dead, acknowledging that thereby much gain and good accrueth to them. But we must take notice, that the prayer which the ancient Church did make for the dead, is rejected by the Romish Church of this time. For the Church of Rome prayeth only for the souls of Purgatory, to the end their torment may be asswaged, or consummated. But the ancient Church, prayed for the Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs; and humbly besought that those for whom it petitioned, should be raised to salvation, or should rise earlier and at a better hour then the rest, or should be more superficially singed with the fire of the last judgment. Particularly, Chrysostom was of opinion that the Souls could not be tormented without the bodies, as he speaketh in his 39. Homily upon the 1. to the Corintbians. And in the same passage, where his 3. Homily upon the Ep • stle to the Philippians is objected to us, he supposeth that the dead which are comforted by lamentations and prayers, are not the faithful, but the infidels. So as this passage maketh altogether against the Church of Rome.

Though Saint Augustine be punctual and excellent in this subject, (as we have seen) yet they would make him an advocate to plead for unwritten Traditions in matter concerning the faith. This holy Father hath believed, and we with him, that the necessary Doctrines which concern faith and manners, are sufficiently contained in the holy Scriptures: And for some certain Customs, Ceremonies, and outward observations, because they are generally received, he believeth they are derived from ancient unwritten Tradition. It becometh none to gainsay this, but frantickes, or such as are given to a contradicting humor, and are enemies to the peace. Good reason for it. To give you some instance; It is not commanded in the Scripture to celebrate annually the day of our Savior's Nativity, nor of the Paschal, nor of the Lord's Resurrection, nor of Pentecost, which is the day whereo • the holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles. For Saint Augustine in his 118. Epistle, bringeth these examples, where he saith, To stir up dissensions hereupon, for matters in their own nature not necessary to salvation, but authorized by the general custom of so many ages, should be (according to my judgment) & according to the truth, a despiteful perverseness, yea, a symptom of distraction, confounding all concord and quietness. In like manner doth the Scripture give no charge, touching the precise hour of administering the holy Supper. Jesus Christ occasionally performed it after Supper, to place and substitute the holy Eucharist immediately to the Paschal Lamb. But it appeareth by the History of the Acts, that the Apostles were not obliged to this hour; and since that time, the general custom was to celebrate it in the morning. I say, for a man hereupon to separate himself from the Communion of the Church, and to make a schism, or trouble the peace of the Church in a matter that concerneth not the Doctrine of faith, nor is necessary to salvation; What is it but stubborn arrogance? It is most necessary not to molest the Church, for matters not necessary in their own nature. If the mischief be not great for as much as concerneth the Doctrine, yet is it of no small importance for what concerneth the manners, and the many inconveniences that ensue thereon. This is the same that Saint Augustine teacheth in his 118 Epistle to Ianuarius, where he argueth the case, whether they be well advised who appoint, that on Thursday before the Paschal, the holy Supper be twice solemnized, that is to say, in the morning & after evening repast. His answer is, If the authority of the holy Scripture, prescribe what is to be done, we are not to doubt but that we ought to do as we read, &c. As also if there be anything that the universal Church doth practice throughout the world. For to dispute whether this should be done or no, is a mere lunacie. But in other matters (as that concerning the hour of the holy Supper) which do vary according to the places, he alloweth that every man should follow the custom of his country.

He speaketh of the same otherwhere. As in the second book of Baptism against the Donatists the seventh Chapter. Which Custom (not to rebaptize Heretics) I believe to be derived from Apostolical Tradition, as many things are not found written in their books, nor the Councils of posterity after them. Nevertheless, because they are kept by the Catholic Church, it is believed that they were delivered by none but them. And in his fourth book chap. 24. That which the universal Church doth keep, and hath not been instituted by Councils, but hath always be • ne preserved, is justly believed to have been given for no other Tradition but Apostolical. And in his fifth book chap. 23. The Apostles have commanded nothing to that purpose, (speaking of the re-baptizing of Heretics) but we must believe that the other Custom which was opposed against Cyprian, took beginning from their Tradition. As there are many things which the universal Church observeth, and therefore are believed to be insti • uted by the Apostles, although they appear not in writing.

In this Tract he speaketh concerning the Custom of not re-baptizing those, who have been baptized by Heretics, which is no point necessary to salvation. For how many men are saved, that never heard discourse of this question? If a man once baptized, be re-baptized the second time, although his second Baptism be superfluous, yet nevertheless the fault not being in him that is rebaptized, he shall not be therefore debarred from salvation. Or, if the Baptism of Heretics be unlawful, yet he that is converted from heresy to the true faith having received no other Baptism, shall not be deprived of salvation, because it happeneth not by his default. It is not the privation, but the neglect and contempt of Baptism, that impeacheth man's salvation. Saint Cyprian and his Predecessour Agrippine, and with them all the Bishops of Afric, have in this point been of a contrary opinion to the Romish Church: and by express Councils have condemned the Doctrine held in that Church. Would our adversaries therefore exclude Saint Cyprian and his companions from salvation? Or do they believe that he failed in something necessary to salvation? Indeed Saint Augustine in the same chapter of his second book against the Donatists affirmeth, that This question of Baptism was not yet well dicussed and explained in Saint Cyprians time. But it is not credible that the Christian Church at that time, should be unresolved upon any point necessary to salvation.

This is above all to be considered, that Saint Augustine himself (who telleth us that the Apostles wrote nothing as touching this matter, and that this Custom cometh by Tradition) doth not stick to handle this question by the Scriptures, and bringeth many passages from thence, which he affirmeth to be certain, and the proofs to be clear. Whence it appeareth, that by the things unwritten, he understandeth matters which are not in express terms in the Scripture, but are deduced from thence by good consequence.

These things serve for the clearing of a passage in the same Father, at chap. 33. of his first book against Cresconius, where speaking of the re • baptization of Heretics, he hath it thus: Although there be no certain example vouched for this out of the Scriptures, yet herein we preserve the authority of the sacred word, when we do that which pleaseth the Church universal. For he speaketh of a point not necessary to salvation, and of a Custom, but not of a Doctrine of faith. The which Custom nevertheless, he groundeth upon the Scripture.

The same answers may serve, to resolve all other passages produced out of the ancients. For by these Traditions, whether they understand the holy Scriptures themselves, and the Doctrine of the Gospel; or whether they understand Doctrines not contained in the Scriptures in express terms, but drawn from thence by consequence; or that they understand Customs, Ceremonies, and Laws of Ecclesiastical policy allowed by the universal Church; we willingly embrace all these Traditions. For though we place this last sort of Traditions far below the two first, yet no Ceremony can be brought unto us, nor Law of Ecclesiastical policy, which hath been generally received by the universal Church of the first ages, but we also do approve of them.

CHAP. XXVI. Three ancient Customs which we are blamed to have forsaken.

THere are three Customs, and ancient observations, which are cast upon us for a reproach, that we have left them; that is to say, the sign of the Cross in the forehead; prayer for the dead; and Lent. Our answer is, that these are Customs which have not always been, and which the Apostles have not observed; and lastly, which were diversely practiced in divers Churches, and in divers ages: so as if we were to choose what age, and what Church we ought to adhere unto, we should find ourselves much puzzled. The best is, the Church of Rome hath changed these Customs, and under a shadow of keeping the words, hath wholly perverted the thing it self: having turned the sign of the Cross, ( which was but a mark of the Christian profession) into superstition and idolatry, into conjuration, preservatives, and spells, to repulse the Devils temptations, not only of men, but of Jesus Christ: For, In the Mass they make signs of the Cross by a prescribed number, not only upon the Bread not confecrated, but also upon the consecrated Hoste, for fear lest the assaults of the Devil should prevail against it: as Pope Innocent the third doth teach, in his 2. book of the mysteries of the Mass, chap. 58.

It is the same concerning prayer for the dead, whereof the first mention is found to be some two hundred years after the birth of our Savior: which was made for the Saints, Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, and for the faithful, to the and they might be raised at a better hour then the rest, or be the more lightly scalded with the fire •• the last judgment, and after • ome refreshment in the sleep of • eace, they might rise joyfully to • verlasting Salvation. But the Pope • ath changed these into prayers for • ormented souls in Purgatory, • king this occasion to eclipse the • erfection of the benefit of Jesus Christ, Whose blood purgeth us • rom all sin. 1. John 7. and so to • ache a trade and traffic, whereby • o heap up riches innumerable.

The same abuse is crept into • ent, which the Pope maketh use • f, to advance his Empire, usuring thereby the power to mode • ate the Bellies, Kitchens, Markets, • nd Tables; to give dispensations; • nd to change fasting into a diffe • ence of meats, and an exercise of • umility in matter of Merite and of satisfaction, as well for him that fasteth, as for another. And whereas heretofore this abstinence was free, and every man did fast before the Paschal as many days as he thought good, and that these reglements were made by ordinances of the Bishops in every Church; the Pope hath thereto imposed a precise necessity, unless a dispensation be obtained from him, or his Ministers. And lastly, he hath drawn to himself a power that he had not formerly, but only in the Bishopric of Rome, which was a particular Church.

This is our belief; that the things necessary to salvation ought not to be abolished, by reason of the abuses which are, and may be thrust into them, but we must take away the abuse, and return to the fountain, which is the word of God. But as for things not necessary, nor perpetual, nor observed from the beginning, and without which the Christian faith may • ubsist in its integrity; when corruption is infused amongst them; and the use is transformed into abuse and idolatry, or tyranny, or superstition; it is prudently done to shave off the occasions of abuse, and firmly to shut this gate against the Devil.

CHAP. XXVII. That the Traditions of the Romis • Church of this time, have nothing in common with the unwritten Traditions mentioned by the Fathers.

IT appeareth how weak, and how little to the purpose all is which our adversaries do produce in the behalf of the antiquity of their Traditions. For the unwritten Traditions which they have recited, are not Doctrines o • the Christian faith that add anything to the Doctrine of salvation contained in the Scriptures, as • have proved: but customs, and ceremonies, and observations o • Ecclesiastical policy. Now, th • Traditions of our adversaries ar • of another nature. They put fore most the Popes succession in th • Apostleship and supremacy of S • Peter over the universal Church: upon which Tradition they make all religion to depend. Yea they maintain that the Church is founded not only upon Saint Peter, but also upon the Popes that are his pretended successors.

They stuff our ears with Invocation of Saints, with religious service to Images, and with adoration of Relics, which are Traditions that shake and totter the service and religious adoration due to God alone, and do establish articles of the Christian faith, to weet, that the Saints do know our hearts, and that we must employ them for mediators, and that they can hear our prayers effectually.

So likewise doth the Church of Rome tell us, of superabundant satisfactions of the Saints, which the Pope gathereth into the Treasure of the Church, and distributeth them amongst others by his Indulgences. This Tradition ushereth in three new articles of faith. The first is, that man by his punishments and afflictions, can satisfy God more then his sins do merit. The second is, that God receiveth the satisfactions of another, for payment of our sins. The third is, that God hath established the Pope, to be distributor of the satisfactions of another, and commandeth him to gather them together into the treasure of the Church. What is all this but a new Gospel? Certainly if these Traditions be true, the holy Scripture is a book very imperfect in the principal materials of Christian faith. For what is there more important then the remission of sins?

Also the Tradition of Monasticke vows layeth down this Doctrine, (which is a new article of faith,) to weet, that man can perform works of supererogation, that is to say, more good works, and more perfect then those which God hath commanded in his Word.

I say as much of the Communion under one kind, wherein is impleaded the abridgment of the moity of the Sacrament instituted by the Son of God. Not to speak of so many other Traditions, which are not only additions to the Scripture, but merely diametrall contradictions to it.

This also is worthy of consideration, that when the Fathers do rehearse some examples of unwritten Traditions, they do not mention those of the Romish Church at this time, but others that the Church of Rome hath disestemed, and observeth not: as prayer towards the East; The prohibition of fasting on the Lord's day; The custom to pray standing on the same day, and from the Paschal to Pentecost; The custom of tasting the milk and honey after Baptism, and not to be washed seven days after; The prayer for the deceased Saints, to the end they may be raised at a happyer hour, and in their sleep of rest they may find refreshment, with such like matters which the Church of Rome hath pretermitted, (because they served not the Popes turn) but hath invented others, that are more gainful, and better accommodated to the profit and exaltation of the Pope, and all the Roman Clergy.

CHAP. XXVIII. of the multitude of Traditions in the Church of Rome.

THe saying of Cornelius Tacitus is very true, that the worst and most corrupted Republiques are those, which have most laws. For in the same proportion that vices wax strong, the laws also are multiplied: especially when the Laws themselves become vices, and mischieses are applied for remedies.

If this be true in human affairs, much more in Divine, and in the Doctrine of salvation. It is certain that in civil affairs posterity instructed by experience, hath often redressed the occurrences, changing them into better, and hath cured old evils with new laws. But as for the Doctrine of salvation delivered by God himself, this will admit of no alteration without infinite impiety. It is not for Subjects to add to the laws of their Sovereign, nor for Men to presume to be wiser then God.

It will be found that all the Traditions which men have added to the Scripture, are so many infringements of the Law of God, which under the color of adding thereunto, do overturn that which God hath established; and are so many artificial means, through a glorious pomp, to dazzle the eyes of the People, and to amuse them, whilst they are seduced; and lastly to enrich and exalt the Clergy. For the Prelates of the Church of Rome carnestly bent to their profit, have taken sufficient notice, that the Gospel in its simplicity could not serve to build up their Empire.

And although this numberless rhapsody of Traditions should not be woven by a fraudeulent workmanship yet the confounding multitude of new ordinances smothereth the old, and causeth that things necessary cannot be discerned from superfluous, and that Jesus Christ is scarce known among the Saints: and the absurdity of many new inventions by their addition, do call the ancient Doctrines into suspicion, and weaken their certainty. Especially when they make the true knowledge of Divine doctrine, to depend upon the authority of human Tradition, and God to be believed, because men have so ordained it, as it is now practiced in the Church of Rome.

Add to this the inclination of man to worship his own proper inventions, and to till and improve that most industriously, which he himself hath planted. For as the earth nourisheth nettles which her self hath produced, much better then good plants that are strange and brought from far: so the spirit of man is restless in taking care, that the laws be observed which he of himself hath invented, much more then those which Jesus Christ hath brought from heaven; especially when these new Doctrines are gainful to the projectors, and a prop to their dominion. Hence it cometh to pass, that in the Church of Rome, the doctrine of the Gospel (which consisteth of rules few & easy) is a clasped book to the people, and the commandments of God are of little moment; but the Traditions (though toilsome, and almost innumerable) are most religiously observed, and with marvelous obedience.

Amongst all the Religions that ever were in the world, the Romish in multitude of Laws and Traditions beareth the Bell away, the number of them being so great, as scarce an age will suffice to learn them. And it had been very requisite, that when the Council of Trent did establish Commissaries to attend the censure of prohibited books, it should have established other Officers immediately, to collect together the unwritten Traditions, and to put them in order: for seeing that by the authority of this Council, the Romish Traditions were declared, to be of equal authority with the Scripture, it was convenient that these Traditions being digested into a body, should have been annexed to the Scripture, to the end to have the body of Christian Religion entirely together. But they gave their minds to be neglectful in this point, for fear of affrighting the people with many myriads of Traditions, of prodigious length: as also lest the people should compare the vanity of these Traditions, with the sanctity and excellence of the holy Scriptures, which our Adversaries hinder to be read, with all their might and diligence. Moreover, our Adversaries do say, that the Pope and the Church of Rome can add to the Creed, and establish new Articles of faith. Wherupon it followeth, that if Christian Religion may suffer yet more additions to be matters essential, the Fathers did vainly labor to make a perfect body of the Christian Religion, seeing that it is as yet imperfect.

I (being moved with these considerations, which do altogether hinder them) did design with myself, to make a collection of all the Traditions of the Church of Rome, and to lend help to their negligence. But being entered therinto, I perceived the labor to be endless, and was overwhelmed with the multitude. It hath happened to me, as to those that settle themselves in an evening to count the first stars that appear, and whilst they are counting the first, others appear, & then more, so as all their reckoning is interrupted. This labor increasing underhand, dulleth the edge of a man's desire, and so much the rather, seeing there is no man but is soon weary of gathering useless dross together.

If I were disposed to make a perfect Catalogue of the Romish Traditions, it would be necessary for me to decipher, and paint forth the infinite diversity of Masses; the Services and Suffrages of the dead; the Rubriques and Proviso's to supply the defects of the Mass, arising either from some defect in the person of him that celebrateth, or from the place, or from the time, or from something in the matter, or in the intention.

It would be needful for me to insert all the laws touching the administration of the Seven Sacraments, and the disciplines of the Romish Pontificallity, that direct the collation of the seven Orders. The Consecration of the Bishops, the Archiepiscopall garment, the benediction of Abbots, Abbesses, and Nuns; the Dedication of the Churches, the Consecration of the Altars, whether fixed or portative; together with the vessel and moveables of the Church and Churchyards: the reconciliation of the Churches and Churchyards, in case of pollution, by effusion of blood, or by other dishonest act, or by the interrement of an Heretic: the benediction of the Images, Crosses, Corporalls, Relics, Bels, and Standards: the Consecration of the Chrysme, and the Fonts; the Admonitions, Excommunications, and Reconcilements of Penitents on Maundy Thursday: the form of Degradings and Exorcismes, the single and double shaving, the infinite variety of Monks and their Orders, & of the divers privileges and spiritual graces, which the Pope hath granted unto them.

It would like wise be needful for me, to represent the laws of the book of holy Ceremonies, wherein the form of the Popes Obsequies and Funerals, and of the Election and Coronation of a new one is prescribed. The submissions which the Kings owe in the Procession that is made at his Coronation, and at the Feast. The Coronation of the Emperor by the hand of the Pope, with his shameful homages and submissions to his Holiness. The benediction of the Knight of the Church. The benediction of the Rose on our Lord's day Laetare, and of the sword on Christmas night. The Consecration of the Agnus Dei. The Creation of Cardinals. The power of Apostolic Legates. The Order of the Consistory, and of the Conclave, and of the Council when the Pope is resident there in person, or by his Nuntio's. The Papal Mass, and how the Pope receiveth the Communion. The Popes Habits, his Episcopal Miter, his Royal Crown, and a thousand the like things, whereof the very names do terrisie us, and the Laws and Disciplines, for quantity, do surpass the Bible in thickness.

It would have been needful, to add a thousand villanous and ignominious precepts, touching busy and unchaste interrogations which the Confessors make, & the determinations touching the cases of conscience. But modesty hath hath not permitted it, and I was loath to stain my book with such infamous rules, which teach vices under the shadow of examining and reprehending them.

Therefore to put some bounds to this trouble, I have contented myself to bring traditions which concern the Doctrine, that is to say, which in some sort thrust at the Law of God, and the Doctrine of the Gospel, & that concern the Sacraments, and the Orders, and the Ecclesiastical charges, with some superstitions where the abuse is most gross and apparent.

I have drawn all these Traditions from the public practice, from the Councils approved by the Popes, from the text of the Mass it self, and from the Decrees, Decretals, and Extravagants of the Popes. And from some of the more famous Authors, as Lombard and Thomas, two Princes of the School, Bellarmine, Vasquez, Gregory of Valence, Tolet, Immanuel Sa, that are Jesuits, Navarre the Popes Penitentiary: the three later I quote most often, because they maintain their sayings by a multigude of other Doctors: so as under the name of one Author, I allege many.

All such as have hearts disposed to learn, shall here see with admiration, mixed with grief, (as in a small contracted table) the whole massy body of Papism, varied with a hundred thousand colors, and shall be able thereby to profit. For the simple recital is enough for refutation, and to lead forth into view the mystery of iniquity.