A
TREATISE
OF
THE
VNWRITTEN
WORD
OF
GOD
,
commonly
called
TRADITIONS
.
Written
in
Latin
by
the
R.
Father
Iames
Gordon
Huntley
of
Scotland
,
Doctour
of
Diuinity
,
of
the
Society
of
Iesus
.
And
translated
into
English
by
I.
L.
of
the
same
Society
.
The
second
Part
of
the
first
Controuersy
.
Permissu
Superiorum
,
M.
DC
.
XIV
.
THE
FIRST
CHAPTER
.
Of
the
true
state
of
the
Question
.
HAVING
already
in
the
precedent
Treatise
spoken
of
the
written
Word
of
God
,
and
of
all
other
things
therunto
belonging
,
now
it
remayneth
we
speake
a
litle
of
the
vnwritten
word
commonly
called
Traditions
.
But
to
the
end
that
the
state
of
this
controuersy
may
more
easily
be
vnderstood
,
I
will
heere
set
downe
foure
things
diligently
to
be
considered
in
this
matter
we
treate
of
.
The
first
is
,
that
by
the
vnwritten
Word
we
only
vnderstand
that
which
is
not
written
in
the
old
or
new
Testament
,
for
of
the
vnwritten
word
of
God
in
this
sense
is
our
whole
Controuersy
in
this
place
.
Wherefore
that
obiection
of
our
Aduersaries
is
both
friuolous
and
nothing
worth
,
to
wit
,
that
the
word
of
God
which
we
call
the
vnwriten
word
,
may
be
found
extant
eyther
amonge
the
holy
Fathers
,
or
in
the
books
of
the
Councells
,
or
other
Canons
of
the
Church
.
But
this
nothing
belongeth
vnto
this
purpose
:
for
it
is
sufficient
for
vs
that
this
word
of
God
is
not
written
in
any
booke
,
eyther
of
the
old
or
new
Testament
.
2.
The
second
is
that
a
thing
may
be
conteined
in
the
holy
Scripture
2.
wayes
.
The
one
way
is
implicite
,
that
is
to
say
,
in
some
generall
principle
from
whence
this
other
may
be
certaynly
deduced
,
and
in
this
sense
we
acknowledge
that
the
whole
word
of
God
is
conteined
in
holy
writ
,
and
not
only
in
Scripture
,
but
also
in
the
Apostles
Creed
,
yea
euen
in
that
one
article
,
I
belieue
the
Catholike
Church
,
so
that
it
be
diligently
examined
and
well
vnderstood
,
as
S.
Augustine
S.
Augustine
very
well
sayth
,
and
declareth
This
is
my
wellbeloued
Sonne
,
heare
him
)
the
whole
word
of
God
,
so
Christ
proposed
vnto
vs
the
whole
word
of
God
,
when
he
commaunded
vs
to
heare
the
Church
.
3.
And
in
this
sense
do
the
holy
Fathers
oftentymes
say
,
that
all
the
points
of
fayth
are
conteined
in
the
holy
Scriptures
,
to
wit
,
in
that
generall
principle
in
the
which
they
admonish
vs
to
belieue
the
Church
:
but
many
of
the
holy
Fathers
sayings
are
falsifyed
&
corrupted
by
Martinus
Kennitius
.
and
some
Caluinists
,
as
may
be
seene
in
Iudocus
Ruesten
in
his
first
tome
defending
the
Councell
of
Trent
against
Kemnitius
.
4.
Secondly
a
thing
may
be
conteined
in
expresse
words
in
the
holy
Scriptures
,
as
that
Christ
is
borne
,
suffered
,
and
risen
againe
&c.
And
in
this
sense
we
deny
that
the
whole
word
of
God
is
conteined
in
the
Scriptures
.
That
obiection
of
our
Aduersaries
by
this
may
easily
be
answered
,
when
they
say
that
we
affirme
,
that
Traditions
are
the
vnwriten
word
of
God
,
and
yet
we
goe
about
to
proue
them
by
Scriptures
.
For
we
do
not
proue
euery
particuler
Tradition
by
expresse
words
of
Scripture
,
but
we
only
deduce
and
gather
them
out
of
it
,
and
conuince
in
generall
,
that
there
are
Traditions
.
5.
The
third
thing
which
is
to
be
considered
,
is
,
that
our
Aduersaries
being
conuinced
by
truth
,
doe
acknowledge
that
many
things
were
deliuered
vnto
vs
by
the
Apostles
,
besids
those
which
are
written
.
But
,
say
they
,
those
were
only
externall
rites
and
ceremonies
,
seruing
only
for
the
ornament
or
discipline
of
the
Church
,
but
nothing
concerning
doctrine
of
fayth
was
deliuered
by
the
Apostles
,
which
they
haue
not
set
downe
in
writing
.
So
Caluin
and
6.
The
fourth
thing
is
,
that
seing
our
Aduersaries
cannot
deny
that
which
was
obiected
vnto
them
by
Catholikes
,
to
wit
,
that
the
Scripture
in
many
places
maketh
expresse
mention
of
the
word
of
God
preached
,
deliuered
,
and
diuulged
ouer
the
whole
world
(
as
we
haue
already
declared
euen
out
of
the
holy
Scriptures
)
they
are
wont
to
answere
,
that
long
since
in
the
Apostles
tyme
this
word
of
God
was
deliuered
,
preached
,
and
not
written
,
but
the
Apostles
afterwards
set
downe
in
writing
all
the
preached
word
of
God
,
or
at
the
least
as
much
therof
as
was
necessary
vnto
saluation
.
The
which
solution
albeit
it
be
very
weake
and
friuolous
,
seing
that
it
relyeth
vpon
no
sure
ground
,
yet
notwithstanding
that
it
may
more
fully
be
confuted
we
will
declare
hereafter
,
that
many
of
the
chiefest
points
of
faith
were
not
expressely
set
downe
in
writing
by
the
Apostles
.
And
thus
much
of
the
state
of
this
Question
.
CHAP.
II.
Out
of
the
first
and
chiefest
principles
of
faith
,
it
is
clearly
conuinced
,
that
there
are
Traditions
.
THE
first
argument
wherby
we
proue
Traditions
,
is
taken
out
of
some
of
the
chiefest
principles
of
faith
.
For
there
are
three
chiefe
and
most
necessary
points
of
faith
,
yea
the
thiefe
grounds
of
our
whole
faith
which
are
not
to
he
found
expressely
in
Scriptures
.
2.
The
first
,
that
there
must
needes
be
some
Catalogue
or
Canon
of
the
sacred
Bookes
aswell
of
the
old
as
of
the
new
Testament
,
the
which
all
Christians
with
an
assured
faith
should
imbrace
as
a
most
certaine
and
an
vndoubted
truth
,
and
this
is
a
very
necessary
point
of
faith
,
yea
of
it
dependeth
the
authority
of
all
the
bookes
of
holy
Scripture
,
because
by
this
Canon
the
sacred
and
true
books
of
Scriptures
are
discerned
and
made
knowne
from
all
those
which
be
Apochriphall
;
especially
because
aswell
in
times
past
as
in
these
our
daies
there
hath
byn
so
many
,
and
so
great
Controuersyes
about
the
Canonicall
and
Apochriphall
bookes
of
Scripture
;
and
such
a
Canon
was
altogeather
necessary
aswell
in
the
auncient
Church
before
Christ
,
as
in
our
present
Church
after
Christes
tyme
;
the
which
also
our
Aduersaries
themselues
haue
learned
by
experience
.
For
they
haue
also
placed
their
new
Canon
of
the
bookes
of
holy
Scripture
in
their
Confession
made
at
2.
I
know
our
Aduersaries
,
that
they
may
escape
this
argument
,
do
runne
to
the
inward
instinct
of
the
holy
Ghost
,
wherby
say
they
,
we
know
what
booke
is
Canonicall
,
and
what
is
not
.
But
this
answere
is
refuted
&
reiected
before
,
where
we
haue
shewed
that
the
holy
Ghost
doth
not
moue
vs
to
belieue
any
thing
with
the
Catholike
faith
,
which
is
not
the
word
of
God
.
If
3.
The
second
principle
of
faith
is
,
that
we
must
necessarily
,
with
an
assured
and
firme
faith
belieue
,
that
all
those
Bookes
eyther
of
the
old
or
of
the
new
Testament
which
we
now
retaine
,
are
safely
deliuered
vnto
vs
entyre
and
vncorrupted
through
so
many
handes
,
so
many
ages
,
so
many
vexations
and
persecutions
of
the
Christians
,
for
otherwyse
the
whol
credit
and
authority
of
those
bookes
will
decay
and
perish
.
But
this
is
no
where
extant
or
written
,
for
neyther
the
Prophets
or
Apostles
haue
euer
written
,
that
their
bookes
should
neuer
be
falsified
or
corrupted
by
any
,
yea
it
appeareth
sufficiently
4.
The
third
principle
of
fayth
is
the
true
sense
of
the
letter
.
For
the
true
word
of
God
consisteth
rather
in
the
true
sense
or
meaning
of
the
words
then
in
the
words
themselues
as
we
haue
declared
before
.
5.
And
this
is
that
which
S.
Basil
6.
Many
of
our
Aduersaries
who
deale
more
sincerely
with
vs
,
conuinced
by
these
arguments
,
do
acknowledge
,
that
these
grounds
or
principles
of
our
faith
are
only
to
be
had
by
Traditions
,
without
any
written
word
of
God
,
as
Ioannes
Brentius
,
and
Martin
Kemnitius
,
who
adde
also
,
that
those
Traditions
which
doe
not
repugne
to
the
written
word
of
God
are
to
be
admitted
and
receiued
of
all
,
and
those
only
are
to
be
reiected
which
are
opposit
vnto
the
holy
Scriptures
.
7.
But
whatsoeuer
our
Aduersaries
do
answere
,
it
is
altogeather
necessary
that
they
confesse
these
three
principles
of
our
fayth
do
belong
indeed
to
the
very
word
of
God
it selfe
.
They
must
also
needs
confesse
these
are
not
extant
in
playne
and
expresse
tearmes
in
any
booke
either
of
the
old
or
new
Testament
;
out
of
which
necessarily
followeth
that
the
whole
&
intire
word
of
God
is
not
conteyned
expresly
in
the
holy
Scripture
.
CHAP.
III.
Wherein
it
is
proued
out
of
other
particuler
poynts
of
fayth
,
that
there
are
Traditions
.
THE
second
argument
whereby
we
proue
Apostolicall
Traditions
,
is
taken
out
of
other
particuler
poynts
of
fayth
,
the
which
almost
all
our
Aduersaryes
belieue
with
vs
,
albeit
they
be
no where
expressely
conteyned
in
the
Scriptures
.
There
are
many
poyntes
of
fayth
of
this
sort
,
wherof
for
example
sake
we
will
alledge
some
few
.
But
to
the
end
,
we
may
vse
our
accustomed
breuity
,
we
will
rehearse
only
those
which
do
also
manifestly
shew
out
of
this
opinion
of
our
Aduersaries
(
that
nothing
appertayneth
to
the
doctrine
of
fayth
,
which
is
not
expresly
conteyned
in
holy
Scripture
)
there
are
many
greeuous
errours
and
heresies
in
this
our
age
arisen
.
2.
The
first
point
is
,
that
in
God
there
are
three
persons
really
distinct
among
themselues
,
and
one
only
substance
,
for
this
is
no
where
extant
in
holy
Scripture
,
yea
in
it
nothing
is
to
be
found
expresly
writen
eyther
of
the
substance
or
of
the
person
in
that
signifycation
wherein
these
words
are
vsed
,
when
we
speake
of
the
Blessed
Trinity
.
3.
This
indeed
the
Caluinists
to
their
great
losse
and
domage
haue
sufficiently
learned
by
experience
fourty
yeares
agoe
in
Transiluania
.
For
when
one
Iohn
Huniades
whom
they
called
Iohn
the
second
King
of
Hungary
was
then
Gouernour
in
Transiluania
,
a
Coutry
or
Prouince
of
Hungary
,
had
ordained
a
publike
dispuration
betwixt
the
Cal●…inists
and
the
Antitrinitarians
,
that
is
to
say
those
who
oppugned
the
mystery
of
the
Blessed
Trinity
,
and
that
according
to
the
common
doctrine
on
both
syds
,
they
should
dispute
only
out
of
the
holy
Scriptures
,
the
Caluinists
could
neuer
proue
out
of
the
Scriptures
alone
,
that
there
is
eyther
a
substance
or
person
in
God
,
neyther
could
they
by
the
Scriptures
only
declare
what
is
a
person
,
or
what
is
a
substance
.
4.
Wherefore
at
the
last
this
was
the
end
of
the
disputation
,
that
almost
all
those
which
were
present
iudged
,
that
the
Antitrinitarians
got
the
victory
,
and
that
the
Caluinists
were
shamefully
ouercome
:
wherupon
it
came
to
passe
that
the
sayd
Prince
of
Transiluania
,
of
a
Caluinist
became
an
Antitrinitarian
,
yea
one
of
their
cheife
friends
;
in
so
much
that
he
tooke
some
publike
Churches
from
the
Caluinists
,
and
gaue
them
to
the
Antitrinitarians
,
and
he
continued
miserably
in
that
wicked
heresy
euen
till
death
,
which
happened
in
the
yeare
1571.
the
14.
of
March
.
5.
All
which
things
are
aboundantly
declared
by
one
Ioannes
Sommerus
Pirnensis
in
the
funerall
Oration
which
he
made
at
his
death
,
wherein
among
other
things
he
affirmeth
,
that
the
cheife
cause
why
this
Prince
left
the
Caluinists
,
and
became
an
Antitrinitarian
,
was
this
,
because
for
sooth
in
the
Scriptures
he
could
fynd
nothing
of
the
Blessed
Trinity
,
and
for
that
the
Caluinists
were
forced
to
confesse
,
that
the
words
wherby
the
mystery
of
the
Blessed
Trinity
is
explicated
are
not
extant
in
the
holy
Scripture
:
but
because
this
funeral
.
Oration
is
scarse
any
where
to
be
found
&
least
some
should
thinke
that
I
falsely
coyned
these
things
my selfe
,
I
will
heare
set
downe
his
owne
words
.
For
after
he
had
most
blasphemously
spoken
,
as
the
Antitrinitarians
are
wont
to
doe
,
against
the
Blessed
Trinity
,
the
which
he
calleth
heere
and
there
the
Roman
Idolatry
,
these
things
he
addeth
of
his
Prince
.
6.
But
this
our
Prince
(
saith
he
)
such
things
which
were
contrary
to
the
phrase
of
Christ
and
his
Apostles
,
were
in
the
ensuing
ages
by
a
wicked
curiosity
brought
into
the
Church
;
and
that
they
are
not
at
all
to
be
numbred
amongst
those
things
which
add
any
firmity
or
strength
to
the
Author
of
our
saluation
,
especially
seing
that
the
Aduersaries
themselues
acknowledge
,
that
the
words
wherby
these
subtilties
of
this
new
opinion
are
explicated
if
not
rather
(
as
I
may
well
say
)
more
obscured
,
are
not
to
be
found
in
the
writings
of
the
Apostles
.
7.
And
a
little
after
.
Wherfore
little
regarding
eyther
the
multitude
of
wranglers
,
or
the
torments
and
paints
which
others
that
the
sense
or
meaning
of
the
Scripture
might
the
better
be
explicated
by
conferring
those
thinges
togeather
which
were
then
said
or
spoken
of
,
where
he
would
not
only
be
present
himselfe
,
but
also
taking
the
place
or
office
of
the
Iudge
and
vmpyre
in
the
said
disputations
,
he
very
wisely
and
grauely
confuted
the
great
absurdities
of
that
superstition
,
warning
often
the
Aduersaries
,
that
reiecting
the
fancies
or
fond
expositions
of
men
,
they
should
lesse
impudenily
and
more
sincerly
carry
themselues
in
the
explication
of
the
heauenly
doctrine
.
Thus
farre
Sommerus
of
the
great
care
&
diligence
of
the
Prince
of
Transiluania
in
defending
the
heresy
of
the
Antitrinitarians
.
8.
Moreouer
it
is
also
manifest
that
out
of
this
opinion
of
our
Aduersaries
,
to
wit
,
that
we
must
not
belieue
any
thing
Michael
Seruetus
who
in
our
age
was
the
first
of
them
that
by
printed
bookes
presumed
to
oppugne
the
mystery
of
the
Blessed
Trinity
,
doth
plainely
testify
,
writing
in
this
manner
:
For
the
solution
,
saith
he
,
of
all
things
which
may
heere
be
alledged
Thus
farre
Seruetus
.
By
these
it
euidently
appeareth
that
all
these
monstrous
&
strange
opinions
of
latter
Arrians
,
who
are
also
called
Antitrinitarians
do
proceed
from
this
one
principle
of
our
Aduersaries
,
to
wit
,
that
we
must
only
belieue
Scriptures
,
and
by
this
they
are
encreased
.
But
let
vs
now
see
other
matters
.
9.
The
second
point
of
faith
is
,
that
Infants
are
to
be
baptized
.
For
our
Aduersaries
will
neuer
shew
this
in
the
holy
Scriptures
.
For
that
one
place
which
doth
vnlesse
he
be
borne
againe
of
water
and
the
spirit
,
he
cannot
enter
into
the
Kingdome
of
God
,
they
wrest
and
expound
it
in
another
sense
.
For
they
will
element
of
water
,
but
the
holy
Ghost
:
so
Caluin
:
hence
arose
that
wicked
sect
of
the
Anabaptistes
,
who
affirme
now
adayes
that
it
is
an
vnlawfull
and
prophane
thing
,
to
baptize
Infants
,
seing
that
there
is
no
solide
reason
heereof
extant
in
the
Scriptures
.
10.
For
that
wherunto
Caluin
,
and
his
followers
do
fly
for
refuge
,
to
wit
,
that
in
the
old
Law
Infantes
were
circumcised
,
11.
The
third
point
of
faith
is
,
that
the
Blessed
Virgin
Mary
the
mother
of
God
remayned
alwayes
a
Virgin
euen
after
her
childbyrth
.
For
this
is
extant
no
where
in
Scripture
,
and
yet
Heluidius
was
condemned
as
an
Heretike
by
the
whole
auncient
Church
,
because
he
presumed
to
deny
this
.
12.
When
Bellarmine
had
alleadged
this
vnwritten
poynt
of
faith
,
to
proue
that
all
such
pointes
of
faith
were
not
expresly
set
downe
in
holy
writ
,
Franciscus
Innius
to
answere
vnto
this
difficulty
was
forced
to
take
and
approue
the
condemned
heresy
of
Heluidius
.
For
he
denyeth
that
we
ought
to
belieue
as
a
point
of
faith
the
perpetuall
Virginity
of
our
B.
Lady
.
But
the
ancient
Fathers
had
neuer
condemned
Heluidius
as
an
Heretike
vnlesse
he
had
denyed
a
point
of
faith
.
But
in
this
manner
are
our
Aduersaries
forced
to
renew
the
old
heresies
of
tymes
past
,
to
the
end
they
may
defend
this
their
paradoxe
,
that
we
must
only
belieue
Scriptures
.
CHAP.
IIII.
Whether
there
are
any
pointes
of
faith
to
be
alleadged
,
which
are
no where
extant
in
the
Bible
.
THE
fourth
point
that
our
Aduersaries
also
belieue
,
but
without
expresse
Scripture
for
it
,
is
that
Christians
cannot
lawfully
haue
more
wyues
at
once
:
for
the
Councell
of
Trent
hath
very
well
defined
this
to
be
a
point
of
faith
against
the
heresy
of
these
tymes
,
wherof
we
will
speake
more
presently
.
But
yet
our
Aduersaries
can
neuer
proue
this
out
of
Scriptures
only
,
abstracting
from
the
authority
of
the
Church
,
albeit
they
also
agree
with
vs
in
the
beliefe
heerof
.
Yea
the
examples
of
holy
Scripture
do
rather
perswade
the
contrary
.
For
those
most
holy
men
Abraham
,
Iacob
,
Dauid
,
and
many
others
had
more
wyues
at
once
,
yet
neuer
did
God
reprehend
this
in
them
,
albeit
he
often
spake
vnto
them
.
2.
When
Bernardine
Ochine
one
of
Caluins
schollers
did
consider
this
,
he
was
not
afrayd
to
perswade
both
by
word
and
writing
,
that
Polygamy
was
yet
lawfull
,
of
whome
and
of
his
most
wicked
lyfe
Beza
But
Ochinus
grounded
only
this
his
heresy
in
that
principle
of
our
Aduersaries
before
alledged
,
to
wit
,
that
we
must
belieue
nothing
which
is
not
expresly
in
Scriptures
.
And
whereupon
Beza
himself
in
his
booke
which
he
wrote
against
the
same
Ochinus
doth
testify
,
that
Ochinus
vsed
this
argument
:
where
Beza
also
manifestly
acknowledgeth
that
Polygamy
is
not
forbidden
in
holy
Scriptures
by
any
expresse
Law
.
The
other
argument
(
saith
Beza
)
of
Ochinus
,
is
that
Polygamy
is
not
forbidden
by
any
expresse
law
to
the
contrary
:
but
I
answere
,
that
there
are
not
lawes
written
of
all
thinges
.
Thus
Beza
.
3.
But
afterward
indeed
Beza
goeth
about
to
proue
that
Poligamy
is
contrary
to
the
Law
of
Nature
,
but
the
same
difficulty
still
remayneth
.
For
according
to
our
Aduersaries
doctrine
all
thinges
necessary
to
saluation
are
expressed
in
holy
Scriptures
:
but
the
obseruation
of
all
things
belonging
to
the
Law
of
Nature
,
is
altogeather
necessary
to
saluation
,
therefore
the
obseruation
of
these
thinges
is
expressed
in
Scriptures
,
or
els
truly
many
thinges
necessary
to
saluation
must
be
sought
for
out
of
the
Scriptures
.
Moreouer
that
Polygamy
is
vnlawfull
,
is
a
point
of
faith
,
but
this
as
Beza
confesseth
is
not
expressely
contayned
in
Scriptures
,
therfore
all
the
pointes
of
faith
are
not
expressely
contained
in
Scriptures
.
4.
The
first
point
of
faith
is
,
that
the
Sacrament
of
Baptisme
may
only
be
giuen
in
water
.
For
this
point
is
also
very
necessary
for
the
Church
,
least
so
great
and
worthy
a
Sacrament
be
prophaned
,
contrary
to
the
institution
of
Christ
:
and
yet
our
Aduersaries
will
neuer
be
able
to
proue
this
out
of
the
Scriptures
only
,
who
deny
that
the
forsaid
place
of
S.
Iohn
is
to
be
vnderstood
of
true
water
,
as
we
haue
said
before
in
the
second
point
.
For
the
examples
of
holy
Scripture
do
proue
indeed
that
water
is
the
fit
matter
of
Baptisme
,
5.
When
Beza
did
consider
this
well
,
least
that
his
foresayd
principle
that
we
must
belieue
nothing
but
Scripture
might
seeme
to
be
called
in
question
,
he
was
not
ashamed
to
write
that
Baptisme
might
be
giuen
in
any
liquour
,
and
by
this
meanes
it
wil
be
true
and
lawfull
Baptisme
,
though
it
be
giuen
in
milke
,
wyne
,
yea
in
Inke
or
any
other
filthy
liquour
.
Thus
are
our
Aduersaryes
forced
to
admit
these
absurdityes
,
least
they
might
be
forced
to
depart
from
that
their
principle
of
belieuing
only
Scripture
.
6.
Furthermore
to
the
end
that
Beza
might
more
easily
perswade
the
ignorant
common
people
to
admit
this
his
strange
paradoxe
,
addeth
presently
a
very
grieuous
slaunder
against
the
Catholike
Doctors
.
Let
water
be
wanting
,
saith
,
Beza
,
and
yet
the
Baptisme
of
any
cannot
be
deferred
with
edification
,
nor
must
not
be
,
I
truly
would
as
well
and
as
lawfully
baptize
in
any
other
liquour
as
in
water
:
neyther
are
the
most
superstitious
Deuines
of
any
other
opinion
in
these
matters
.
Thus
far
Beza
.
But
these
thinges
which
he
writeth
are
most
false
.
For
there
is
no
Catholike
nor
Scholasticall
Doctor
7.
The
sixt
poynt
of
fayth
,
is
that
bread
and
wyne
is
only
the
necessary
matter
of
the
Blessed
Sacrament
of
the
Eucharist
.
This
poynt
of
faith
is
also
very
necessary
for
the
Church
,
least
so
great
and
so
excellent
a
Sacrament
should
be
prophaned
;
yet
our
Aduersaries
will
neuer
be
able
to
proue
it
effectually
out
of
Scripture
only
.
For
by
this
word
(
Bread
)
any
kind
of
meate
is
oftentymes
signifyed
in
Scripture
;
of
wine
it
is
farre
more
doubtfull
.
For
the
Scripture
maketh
only
mention
of
the
Chalice
,
and
not
of
the
liquor
which
was
in
the
Chalice
;
and
Caluin
himselfe
acknowledgeth
that
of
the
fruite
of
the
vyne
)
were
spoken
before
the
institution
of
this
Sacrament
.
8.
The
which
when
Beza
easily
preceaued
,
heere
also
he
went
about
to
bring
in
another
error
,
least
indeed
he
should
be
forced
to
forsake
his
former
principle
of
belieuing
only
Scriptures
.
For
he
was
not
afraid
to
write
that
he
erred
nothing
from
the
institution
of
Christ
,
who
in
the
consecration
of
the
Eucharist
should
vse
insteed
of
the
bread
appointed
for
that
purpose
,
any
other
vsuall
meate
;
and
insteed
of
the
wyne
any
other
ordinary
kind
of
drinke
,
and
by
this
meanes
one
may
consecrate
the
Eucharist
eyther
in
cheese
,
flesh
,
fish
,
or
egges
,
as
also
in
milke
,
water
,
beare
,
or
vineger
,
or
any
other
liquor
which
hitherto
was
neuer
heard
of
in
Gods
Church
.
And
yet
for
all
this
Beza
is
not
ashamed
to
attribute
this
most
absurd
error
of
his
to
all
the
Scholasticall
Doctors
.
For
of
both
these
errors
he
treateth
in
the
words
before
alledged
,
because
when
he
sayth
the
Scholasticall
Doctors
were
of
no
other
opinion
,
he
speaketh
as
well
concerning
the
matter
of
the
Eucharist
,
as
of
the
matter
of
Baptisme
.
After
this
manner
our
Aduersaries
do
force
so
many
and
so
great
errors
out
of
that
their
principle
of
belieuing
only
Scriptures
,
wherof
more
might
be
alledged
,
which
for
breuities
sake
we
omit
.
9.
But
there
is
one
thing
I
cannot
let
passe
,
because
therby
we
clearly
conuince
that
the
Traditions
of
the
Church
do
not
only
contayne
vnwritten
points
of
fayth
,
but
(
that
which
is
more
)
euen
in
our
Aduersaries
iudgment
they
change
and
abolish
such
things
as
are
expresly
commaunded
in
Scriptures
:
for
euen
in
the
Table
of
the
Law
of
God
,
which
is
sayd
to
be
written
by
Gods
owne
hand
,
in
Ecclesiasticall
Tradition
only
,
without
any
expresse
testimony
of
Scripture
.
The
Anabaptists
I
say
being
also
deceiued
by
that
Common
principle
of
our
Aduersaries
of
blieuing
only
Scriptures
,
they
go
about
to
bring
the
obseruation
of
the
Sabboth
day
into
vse
and
custome
agayne
,
and
for
this
cause
they
are
called
Sabatharians
,
but
not
CHAP.
V.
Wherin
it
is
proued
,
that
there
are
Traditions
by
the
testimonies
of
the
holy
Fathers
.
THE
third
argument
wherby
we
proue
,
that
all
the
poynts
of
our
fayth
are
not
set
downe
in
writing
by
the
Apostles
,
is
the
authority
Iodocus
Coccius
hath
very
diligently
gathered
togeather
in
his
booke
,
intitled
Thesaurus
Catholicus
,
and
before
him
Bellarmine
did
the
same
.
But
least
we
be
longer
then
the
order
of
Epitomes
doth
permit
,
especially
in
a
thing
so
manyfest
,
it
shall
suffice
vs
to
alledg
one
chiefe
Doctor
of
the
Greeke
,
and
another
of
the
Latine
Church
.
2.
Among
the
Grecians
S.
Chrysostome
is
the
most
famous
,
who
doth
not
only
affirme
it
but
also
manifestly
proueth
it
out
of
holy
Scripture
.
For
when
he
expoundeth
those
words
of
the
later
Epistle
Therefore
brethren
stand
and
hold
the
Traditions
which
you
haue
learned
,
whether
it
be
by
word
or
by
our
Epistle
,
he
writeth
thus
:
Hence
it
appeareth
,
sayth
S.
Chrysostome
,
that
he
did
not
deliuer
all
things
vnto
them
by
his
Epistle
but
many
things
also
without
his
letters
,
but
as
well
these
,
as
those
other
,
worthily
deserue
to
be
belieued
;
therfore
we
esteeme
the
Tradition
also
of
the
Church
to
be
worthy
of
credit
.
It
is
a
Tradition
,
seeke
no
further
.
Thus
S.
Chrysostome
.
But
it
is
most
certayne
that
the
Apostle
and
consequently
S.
Chrysostome
also
,
3.
S.
Augustine
whom
Caluin
acknowledgeth
to
be
the
best
and
most
faythfull
witnesse
of
antiquity
,
writeth
in
this
manner
.
Many
things
are
not
to
be
found
in
the
Apostles
writings
,
nor
in
the
ensewing
Councells
,
and
yet
notwithstanding
,
because
they
are
generally
kept
through
out
the
whole
Catholike
Church
,
they
are
iuged
to
haue
byn
deliuered
and
commended
by
none
,
but
by
them
.
Thus
S.
Augustine
.
Neyther
can
it
be
sayd
,
that
S.
Augustine
speaketh
of
ceremonies
and
not
of
poynts
of
fayah
.
For
in
that
place
he
proueth
against
the
Donatists
that
those
which
were
baptized
in
the
accustomed
forme
and
matter
by
heretikes
were
not
to
be
baptized
againe
,
but
none
vnlesse
he
be
an
Anabaptist
,
will
deny
that
this
is
a
point
of
fayth
.
CHAP.
VI.
Wherin
euen
by
the
doctrine
of
our
Aduersaries
it
is
proued
,
that
there
are
Traditions
.
THE
fourth
argument
wherby
we
proue
Traditions
,
is
taken
out
of
the
doctrine
of
our
Aduersaries
.
For
all
those
things
which
our
Aduersaries
do
affirme
to
be
poyntes
of
fayth
against
the
Catholike
doctrine
,
they
teach
and
belieue
them
without
any
expresse
Scripture
.
For
it
cannot
be
found
expressely
in
Scripture
,
that
fayth
only
iustifyeh
,
that
there
are
only
two
Sacraments
of
the
new
law
,
that
none
should
pray
for
the
dead
&c.
for
all
these
things
and
many
others
which
they
teach
against
vs
,
they
gather
only
out
of
Scriptures
,
and
that
by
some
false
and
very
weake
consequence
;
but
it
is
no where
expresly
written
,
that
fayth
only
iustifieth
,
that
there
are
only
two
Sacraments
,
that
we
must
not
pray
to
Saynts
or
for
the
dead
&c.
2.
Moreouer
there
can
no
Catholike
be
found
who
doth
not
receaue
and
assuredly
belieue
the
whole
authenticall
text
of
the
holy
Scripture
,
why
do
they
therfore
condemne
vs
,
when
they
affirme
that
nothing
is
to
be
belieued
besids
the
text
of
Scripture
,
wheras
the
whole
Controuersy
betwixt
them
and
vs
,
is
of
the
vnwritten
points
of
fayth
which
,
we
affirme
,
&
they
deny
?
3.
Our
Aduersaries
being
conuinced
by
this
argument
,
do
now
at
the
last
confesse
,
that
not
only
that
is
to
be
admitted
and
belieued
as
the
pure
word
of
God
4.
But
when
they
answere
thus
,
they
are
forced
to
depart
and
forsake
that
their
first
principle
,
wherby
they
affirmed
that
all
the
poynts
of
fayth
are
expresly
conteyned
in
Scriptures
,
and
that
they
were
set
downe
in
writing
by
the
Apostles
.
5.
Furhermore
not
perceauing
so
much
,
they
ioyne
in
opinion
with
vs
,
so
that
they
must
needes
indeed
confesse
that
the
Traditions
of
the
Church
are
altogeather
necessary
.
For
such
things
as
are
gathered
out
of
Scriptures
do
rather
belong
to
Traditions
then
to
expresse
Scripture
.
For
that
which
only
,
consequently
,
&
by
reasoning
&
discoursing
is
gathered
out
of
Scripture
albeit
it
very
well
and
necessarily
may
be
deduced
from
thence
,
is
not
expressely
in
Scripture
,
but
only
obscurly
,
secretly
,
or
virtually
is
conteined
therin
.
For
no
man
can
truly
say
,
that
the
conclusion
which
is
only
inferred
out
of
the
premisses
is
expresly
conteyned
in
the
same
premisses
,
for
otherwise
our
discourse
and
arguing
were
vayne
and
to
no
purpose
.
But
therfore
do
we
reason
and
discourse
to
the
end
,
that
,
that
which
lyeth
hidden
virtually
in
the
premisses
may
be
expresly
manyfested
in
the
conclusion
.
6.
And
that
we
may
alleadge
an
example
out
of
the
Scriptures
themselues
,
when
God
the
Father
sayd
,
This
is
my
welbeloued
Sonne
,
heare
him
.
Out
of
these
wordes
we
may
very
well
gather
,
and
by
a
necessary
consequence
,
that
the
whole
doctrine
of
Christ
our
Lord
is
to
be
heard
and
receiued
of
all
:
yet
none
will
say
,
that
all
the
doctrine
of
Christ
is
conteyned
expresly
in
those
few
wordes
.
And
truely
the
holy
Scripture
is
so
fertill
&
plentifull
that
many
pointes
of
faith
do
as
yet
lye
hidden
and
vnknowne
therin
,
which
hitherto
hath
neuer
byn
gathered
togeather
by
any
,
but
these
thinges
are
conteyned
virtually
and
not
expressely
in
it
.
7.
Moreouer
after
so
many
debates
and
contentions
,
after
so
many
bookes
set
forth
against
vs
,
after
so
many
slaunders
wherby
our
Aduersaries
charge
vs
,
as
though
we
taught
that
the
Scriptures
are
imperfect
,
they
at
the
last
returne
to
our
opinion
.
For
we
do
not
deny
,
yea
we
willingly
acknowledge
,
that
all
those
things
which
rightly
and
without
errour
are
deduced
or
gathered
out
of
the
expresse
wordes
of
the
holy
Scriptures
,
do
belong
vnto
the
written
word
of
God
,
and
are
contayned
in
holy
writ
obscurely
,
not
expressely
,
virtually
,
and
not
plainly
.
For
in
that
God
doth
reueale
any
thing
in
expresse
wordes
,
consequently
,
and
virtually
he
reuealeth
all
things
which
necessarily
and
without
any
errour
may
be
deduced
from
thence
.
8.
We
graunt
also
that
the
Scripture
consequently
,
mediatly
,
&
virtually
,
as
in
a
generall
principle
conteyneth
all
things
necessary
to
saluation
,
yea
in
that
one
only
article
of
the
Creed
,
I
belieue
the
holy
Catholike
Church
;
in
those
few
words
also
of
Christ
,
he
who
heareth
you
,
heareth
me
,
if
the
collection
be
rightly
framed
,
as
we
haue
also
said
before
in
the
25.
Chapter
.
But
when
these
thinges
are
gathered
togeather
which
are
not
expressely
in
Scripture
,
there
is
scarse
any
of
them
which
is
not
vncertayne
&
doubtful
without
the
authority
and
Traditions
of
the
Church
.
Wherefore
these
collections
do
manifestly
conuince
the
necessity
and
authority
of
Traditions
.
9.
But
that
these
collections
may
be
vncertayne
and
deceytfull
,
both
experience
&
reason
teacheth
vs
:
experience
,
because
almost
all
Heresies
haue
had
their
beginning
not
from
the
Scripture
alone
in
it selfe
,
but
from
these
collections
badly
framed
and
made
.
For
there
is
not
almost
any
one
heresy
which
is
only
grounded
on
the
expresse
wordes
of
Scripture
without
some
other
collection
,
seing
that
almost
all
Heretikes
both
in
tymes
past
as
now
also
go
about
to
proue
and
gather
their
heresies
from
the
Scripture
by
certayne
deceytfull
&
sophisticall
arguments
.
Arius
for
example
,
out
of
those
wordes
of
Christ
,
the
Father
is
greater
then
I
,
did
gather
thou
shalt
not
haue
strange
Gods
before
me
,
do
gather
but
foolishly
that
the
Sonne
is
not
God
,
the
holy
Ghost
is
not
God
.
So
the
Diuell
himself
against
Christ
It
is
written
,
God
hath
giuen
his
Angells
charge
of
thee
,
therfore
cast
thy selfe
downe
headlong
.
Lastly
all
the
arguments
indeed
which
our
Aduersaries
at
this
tyme
alleadge
against
vs
out
of
Scriptures
,
and
all
the
errours
which
they
haue
inuented
,
do
take
their
beginning
and
strength
from
their
new
illations
and
reasons
,
and
not
out
of
the
bare
and
playne
words
of
Scripture
,
as
will
manifestly
appeare
in
euery
one
of
the
Controuersies
.
10.
The
reason
also
is
manifest
why
these
their
collections
and
reasons
are
vncertaine
and
doubtfull
.
For
in
nothing
can
one
more
easily
or
more
often
erre
,
then
in
these
illations
.
The
which
may
proceed
of
many
causes
;
eyther
because
the
illation
it selfe
is
bad
and
Sophisticall
,
or
because
the
place
of
Scripture
from
whence
it
is
gathered
is
falsified
by
some
false
exposition
therof
,
or
because
the
proposition
which
is
assumed
and
adioyned
to
the
wordes
of
Scripture
is
false
and
ambiguous
,
or
because
one
or
more
wordes
in
that
collection
are
vsed
doubtfully
,
that
is
to
say
,
in
one
sense
in
the
premises
,
and
in
another
in
the
conclusion
;
or
lastly
because
there
hapneth
some
errour
to
be
in
the
collection
which
maketh
it
weake
,
Sophisticall
,
and
erroneous
.
11.
Besides
that
,
there
are
so
many
and
so
contrary
illations
of
diuers
men
,
that
the
authority
of
the
Church
is
altogeather
necessary
in
matters
of
faith
,
that
there
may
arise
a
certaine
and
an
vndoubted
faith
of
these
matters
,
of
which
sort
Traditions
are
,
that
is
to
say
,
the
doctrine
of
the
whole
Church
.
12.
But
when
one
belieueth
such
an
illation
with
a
diuine
or
Catholike
faith
,
he
must
needes
know
two
thinges
,
the
one
is
,
that
the
expresse
place
of
Scripture
from
whence
this
conclusion
is
deduced
must
certainly
be
well
vnderstood
by
him
which
disputeth
:
the
other
is
,
that
he
who
maketh
such
a
deduction
and
collection
can
neyther
deceiue
others
not
be
deceyued
himselfe
.
But
none
can
know
eyther
of
these
without
the
Traditions
of
the
Church
,
seeing
that
otherwise
there
is
none
which
may
not
be
deceiued
sometymes
:
All
collections
therefore
which
produce
or
breed
fayth
in
vs
,
do
most
clearly
conuince
and
shew
the
authority
and
necessity
of
Traditions
.
CHAP.
VII
.
Wherein
it
is
proued
,
that
there
are
Traditions
,
by
the
absurdities
which
otherwise
would
follow
.
THE
fift
argument
wherby
we
proue
,
that
many
things
are
to
be
belieued
which
are
not
expressed
in
holy
Scriptures
,
is
taken
out
of
the
absurdities
which
do
ensue
of
the
contrary
doctrine
.
For
hauing
once
admitted
,
that
nothing
is
to
be
belieued
which
is
not
expressed
in
Scripture
,
all
old
heresies
are
renewed
,
and
a
great
vncertaynty
and
confusion
of
all
things
is
brought
into
the
Church
of
God
,
yea
euen
the
way
to
Atheisme
is
layd
open
,
because
hauing
once
reiected
&
despised
the
Tradition
of
the
Church
,
all
the
poynts
of
fayth
from
the
Apostles
tyme
till
now
explicated
and
proued
by
the
auncient
Fathers
against
heretiks
,
all
those
things
also
which
were
decreed
and
determined
by
all
the
generall
Councells
in
times
past
against
the
said
heretiks
,
leese
their
chiefest
strength
and
authority
;
the
which
notwithstanding
our
Aduersaries
do
acknowledge
themselues
to
receiue
and
belieue
.
2.
Neyther
do
we
know
by
an
assured
Catholike
fayth
,
whether
there
were
euer
any
Fathers
or
Councells
but
by
the
Traditions
of
the
Church
But
neyther
do
we
know
any
other
way
but
by
fayth
,
whether
since
the
Apostles
tyme
till
now
there
were
any
Catholikes
or
not
?
because
of
those
things
which
were
done
since
the
tyme
and
death
of
the
Apostles
,
there
is
nothing
extant
in
holy
Scripture
,
seeing
that
all
the
bookes
therof
were
written
before
the
death
of
the
Apostles
.
But
such
things
as
haue
byn
donne
since
till
now
,
cannot
otherwyse
be
knowne
but
by
the
Tradition
of
the
Church
.
3.
Neyther
is
it
sufficient
to
say
,
that
we
know
these
things
by
the
Ecclesiasticall
histories
.
For
that
fayth
which
proceedeth
of
histories
without
the
authority
or
Traditions
of
the
Catholike
Church
,
is
but
an
humaine
fayth
which
oftentymes
deceaueth
others
,
and
may
be
deceiued
it selfe
,
and
therfore
these
kind
of
histories
cannot
produce
a
diuine
fayth
in
vs
:
this
experience
it selfe
doth
clearly
teach
vs
.
For
our
Aduersaries
do
somtymes
doubt
whether
S.
Peter
was
euer
at
Rome
,
or
no
,
because
forsooth
this
is
not
to
be
found
expresly
in
holy
Scriptures
,
wheras
notwithstanding
it
is
most
assuredly
proued
and
testified
in
many
bookes
both
of
the
auncient
Historiographers
and
holy
Fathers
:
Why
may
they
not
as
lawfully
call
other
matters
in
question
which
are
notwithstanding
expressely
set
downe
in
other
auncient
writers
.
Our
Aduersaries
therfore
do
make
all
things
very
doubtfull
and
vncertayne
,
whyles
they
will
only
belieue
and
admit
the
Scripture
:
but
now
let
vs
answere
their
arguments
.
CHAP.
VIII
.
Wherein
the
arguments
of
our
Aduersaries
,
taken
out
of
the
old
Testament
,
are
confuted
.
THE
first
argument
wherby
our
Aduersaries
oppugne
Traditions
,
and
which
they
vse
very
often
,
the
which
also
as
inuincible
they
haue
added
to
the
confession
of
their
Deuteronomy
,
Thou
shalt
not
add
any
thing
to
the
word
which
I
speake
vnto
you
;
nor
shall
you
take
any
thing
from
it
.
And
againe
,
that
which
I
commaund
thee
do
that
only
;
neyther
add
or
diminish
any
thing
from
it
.
By
these
places
of
Scriptures
our
Aduersaries
do
inferre
,
that
nothing
is
to
be
receiued
as
a
poynt
of
fayth
,
which
is
not
expressely
set
downe
in
Scriptures
.
2.
But
this
argument
is
erroneous
and
the
weaknes
thereof
is
very
great
for
many
causes
.
First
because
in
those
words
there
is
no
mention
made
of
the
Scripture
nor
of
the
written
word
of
God
,
but
only
of
the
word
preached
and
deliuered
viua
voce
.
Thou
shalt
not
add
(
sayth
the
Scripture
)
to
the
word
that
I
speake
vnto
you
,
he
doth
not
say
,
that
I
write
vnto
you
.
Againe
,
Do
only
sayth
he
,
that
which
I
commaund
thee
,
he
doth
not
say
,
that
which
I
write
vnto
thee
.
3.
Moreouer
in
these
words
the
holy
Scripture
doth
not
only
speake
of
matters
of
sayth
to
be
belieued
,
but
also
of
ceremonies
and
customes
to
be
done
and
obserued
:
but
our
Aduersaries
themselues
confesse
,
that
these
customes
may
be
added
by
the
authority
of
the
Church
,
yea
they
haue
ordeined
themselues
very
many
,
the
which
they
chang
euen
yet
when
they
4.
That
also
according
to
the
phrase
of
Scripture
is
said
to
be
added
to
the
word
of
God
which
is
contrary
&
opposite
vnit
.
For
Iosue
did
not
transgresse
this
commaundement
of
Deuteronomy
,
when
he
added
his
booke
to
the
bookes
of
Moyses
.
Nor
did
others
transgresse
it
who
added
the
bookes
of
the
Iudges
,
Ruth
,
and
of
the
Kinges
,
which
were
not
written
by
Moyses
,
&
which
are
also
to
be
belieued
as
contayning
pointes
of
faith
.
But
in
these
bookes
there
is
nothing
contrary
to
that
which
Moyses
wrote
.
And
the
Hebrew
text
agreeth
very
well
to
this
answere
,
for
in
both
places
of
Deuteronomy
this
word
(
Ghal
)
is
vsed
,
which
signifieth
oftentines
contrary
,
or
against
,
so
that
the
sense
is
,
do
not
add
any
thing
contrary
to
the
word
which
I
commaund
:
and
againe
,
yee
shall
not
add
any
thing
contrary
to
the
word
which
I
say
vnto
you
.
For
so
is
that
particle
(
Ghal
)
taken
in
the
40.
Psalme
(
or
according
to
the
Hebrewes
41.
in
the
2.
Psalme
also
,
the
second
verse
.
And
in
the
14.
of
Numbers
the
2.
verse
,
&
els
where
very
often
.
Euen
as
also
in
the
new
Testament
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
answereth
to
the
Hebrew
Ghal
,
signifieth
also
contrary
,
or
against
;
when
the
Apostle
writeth
to
the
Corinthians
,
that
in
vs
you
may
learne
one
not
to
be
puffed
vp
against
another
aboue
that
is
written
.
that
is
to
say
,
against
the
Scripture
,
the
which
saith
,
we
must
not
be
puffed
vp
in
pryde
as
S.
Chrysostome
,
and
after
him
Theophilactus
&
others
do
note
vpon
that
place
.
The
which
place
some
bodliy
alledge
against
Traditions
,
wheras
the
Apostle
in
that
place
doth
not
speake
of
the
whole
5.
But
to
omit
all
such
thinges
as
other
Catholike
Doctors
haue
very
well
,
and
learnedly
written
of
the
proper
and
literall
sense
of
these
wordes
,
yea
that
we
may
also
graunt
to
our
Aduersaries
that
this
which
they
alledge
is
the
true
sense
,
they
erre
very
much
in
that
they
thinke
that
these
wordes
of
Moyses
belong
vnto
vs
,
and
that
we
are
no
lesse
now
bound
and
obliged
by
them
,
then
the
Iewes
were
in
tymes
past
.
For
these
wordes
do
no
more
appertaine
vnto
vs
then
those
of
the
Deuteronomy
.
Cursed
be
he
that
abideth
not
in
the
wordes
of
this
Law
,
and
fulfilleth
them
not
in
worke
.
From
which
wordes
S.
by
the
grace
of
Christ
Iesus
.
But
seing
that
in
these
wordes
which
they
do
heere
alledge
Moyses
commaundeth
that
the
Children
of
Israel
should
obserue
&
fulfill
euery
word
which
he
had
commaunded
them
,
for
so
it
is
expresly
set
downe
Deuteronomy
●…2
.
the
last
verse
,
in
the
Hebrew
text
,
and
in
all
the
Bibles
of
our
Aduersaries
,
and
he
presently
addeth
that
nothing
is
to
be
added
or
detracted
from
all
these
,
he
manifestly
commaundeth
the
keeping
of
the
whole
Moysaicall
Law
,
and
of
all
the
Sacraments
,
Sacrifices
,
and
Ceremonies
of
the
old
Testament
.
For
he
doth
not
only
commaund
,
that
nothing
should
be
added
but
also
that
nothing
is
to
be
detracted
of
all
those
thinges
by
him
commaunded
.
Wherefore
if
our
Aduersaries
obiect
against
vs
that
we
adde
any
thing
against
this
precept
,
we
may
more
iustly
obiect
vnto
them
,
that
they
detract
farre
more
then
we
add
,
seing
that
they
neyther
obserue
the
Circumcision
,
nor
the
legall
Sacrifices
,
nor
other
Ceremonies
which
are
so
often
and
so
straitely
commaunded
in
Deuteronomy
.
It
cannot
truly
be
denyed
,
but
that
this
is
to
detract
somewhat
from
those
thinges
which
Moyses
commaunded
;
and
therfore
our
Aduersaries
must
needes
confesse
that
these
are
the
wordes
of
the
old
Law
,
and
consequently
to
appertaine
nothing
vnto
vs
.
Out
of
this
which
hath
byn
said
,
it
followeth
,
that
our
Aduersaries
do
very
indiscretly
&
foolishly
boast
and
bragge
of
those
wordes
of
Moyses
.
For
in
the
exposition
,
thereof
they
erre
farre
from
the
truth
,
and
a
great
deale
more
in
the
application
,
when
they
go
about
to
proue
that
we
are
also
bound
and
obliged
by
them
.
6.
Our
Aduersaries
take
their
second
argument
out
of
these
wordes
of
Salomons
prouerbs
:
Euery
word
of
God
is
fiery
,
it
is
a
shyeld
of
defence
to
those
which
hope
in
it
:
do
not
add
any
thing
to
the
wordes
thereof
,
and
thou
shalt
be
found
and
reprehended
as
a
lyar
.
I
answere
that
this
place
maketh
nothing
against
vs
:
for
in
that
place
there
is
no
mention
made
of
Scripture
only
,
but
of
al
the
word
of
God
.
And
it
is
most
true
that
nothing
should
be
added
to
all
the
whole
word
of
God
,
the
which
is
to
be
belieued
with
a
Catholike
faith
as
the
true
word
of
God
.
For
as
we
haue
said
before
,
our
faith
relyeth
only
of
the
word
of
God
,
but
the
Scripture
only
is
not
all
the
word
of
God
,
because
all
Traditions
also
which
contayne
poynts
of
faith
belong
therunto
,
as
we
haue
sufficiently
They
speake
the
vision
of
their
hartes
,
not
from
the
mouth
of
our
Lord
:
&
againe
,
I
did
not
speake
vnto
them
,
and
they
did
prophesy
.
This
place
also
may
very
well
be
vnderstood
,
of
those
who
add
any
thing
contrary
to
the
word
of
God
.
For
in
the
Hebrew
text
,
there
is
set
downe
that
particle
(
Ghal
)
which
oftentymes
signifieth
contrary
,
or
against
,
as
we
haue
already
declared
in
our
answere
to
the
first
argument
.
CHAP.
IX
.
Wherin
is
examined
that
place
of
S.
Pauls
Epistle
to
the
Galathians
,
the
which
our
Aduersaries
do
obiect
against
Traditions
.
THE
third
argument
our
Aduersaries
take
out
of
the
first
viua
voce
to
the
Galathians
by
S.
Paul
.
And
hence
it
is
that
S.
Augustine
farre
otherwise
viua
voce
deliuered
,
is
a
Tradition
,
and
not
Scripture
.
Moreouer
if
the
Scripture
only
conteyned
expressely
all
the
poynts
of
fayth
,
the
Apostle
would
rather
haue
proposed
the
Scripture
as
the
rule
of
faith
then
his
owne
preaching
,
seing
that
the
Scripture
is
manifestly
well
knowne
to
all
Nations
,
but
his
owne
preaching
to
the
Galathians
only
.
But
our
Aduersaries
vrge
againe
and
say
,
that
all
that
which
the
Apostle
preached
to
the
Galathians
was
written
eyther
before
that
tyme
or
afterward
by
S.
Paul
and
the
other
Apostles
:
they
say
this
,
but
they
proue
it
not
.
For
this
is
no
where
written
in
holy
Scripture
,
and
so
whyles
they
goe
about
to
perswade
vs
,
that
all
points
of
fayth
are
written
,
they
coyne
&
inuent
a
new
point
,
which
is
no where
extant
in
Scripture
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
all
such
things
as
S.
Paul
viua
voce
taught
the
Galathians
,
are
written
.
But
we
following
herein
S.
Augustine
,
do
S.
Paul
preached
to
the
Galathians
,
and
that
none
knoweth
certainly
what
are
those
things
which
he
preached
,
but
by
the
Traditions
and
doctrine
of
the
Church
,
it
followeth
manifestly
that
besids
the
Scripture
we
must
also
belieue
the
Traditions
and
doctrine
of
the
Church
;
seing
that
without
them
we
cannot
certainly
and
without
errour
know
what
were
those
things
which
the
Apostle
taught
the
Galathians
.
2.
Secondly
our
Aduersaries
do
erre
in
that
they
doe
not
rightly
expound
that
particle
in
the
wordes
of
S.
Paul
(
praeter
)
(
besides
)
but
rather
contrary
to
the
Apostles
meaning
.
For
the
Latine
word
praeter
,
as
also
the
Greeke
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
the
Hebrew
(
Ghal
)
haue
two
significations
.
In
the
former
it
signifyeth
all
that
which
is
not
the
selfe
same
thing
whereof
we
doe
speake
:
in
the
later
sense
it
signifieth
that
only
which
is
contrary
to
that
we
speake
of
.
In
which
sense
praeter
signifieth
the
same
that
contra
doth
,
to
wit
(
against
:
)
the
former
sense
is
manifest
inough
,
the
later
is
proued
by
these
places
of
Scripture
,
Act.
18.
v.
13.
where
all
do
translate
these
Greeke
words
,
Henricus
Stephanus
doth
thus
translate
this
phrase
out
of
Greeke
.
Againe
in
the
4.
to
the
Romanes
the
18.
verse
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifieth
against
,
as
the
vulgar
edition
,
and
Beza
hath
in
all
editions
.
Moreouer
in
the
11.
to
the
Romans
the
24.
vers
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifieth
against
,
as
the
vulgar
edition
and
all
the
Bibles
of
Geneua
haue
:
finally
in
the
last
to
the
Romans
the
17.
vers
▪
aswell
the
Greeke
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
as
the
Latin
word
(
praeter
)
in
our
interpretor
signifieth
the
same
thing
that
contra
doth
,
as
manifestly
appeareth
by
the
precedent
wordes
,
for
dissensions
and
scandals
are
contrary
or
against
the
doctrine
of
Christ
,
and
not
only
besides
his
doctrine
.
Sebasti●…n
Castalio
,
and
all
the
French
Bibles
of
Geneua
haue
contrary
or
against
the
doctrine
:
and
albeit
Beza
translateth
it
besids
the
doctrine
,
yet
in
his
last
edition
set
forth
in
the
yeare
159●…
.
he
translateth
it
contrary
to
the
doctrine
and
in
his
Annotations
he
warneth
that
it
is
rather
so
to
be
translated
.
It
is
not
therfore
strange
or
absurd
that
the
Greeke
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
the
Latyne
praeter
should
signify
the
same
that
contra
doth
.
3.
But
now
that
this
word
may
not
only
be
thus
vsed
,
but
that
also
it
must
necessarily
be
so
vnderstood
and
taken
in
this
place
,
we
haue
shewed
by
the
absurdities
which
would
otherwise
follow
▪
The
first
is
that
S.
Paul
would
haue
sayd
Anathema
to
S.
Iohn
Euangelist
,
who
many
yeares
after
the
preaching
of
S.
Paul
to
the
Galathians
,
yea
after
his
death
,
wrote
his
Apocalyps
,
wherein
there
are
many
new
reuelations
which
S.
Paul
had
not
preached
to
the
Galathians
,
because
they
were
not
then
reuealed
by
God
.
4.
The
second
absurdity
,
that
S.
Paul
had
pronounced
an
Anathema
vpon
all
those
who
in
his
tyme
by
a
propheticall
spirit
did
dayly
prophesy
new
things
.
For
in
S.
Paul
could
not
preach
to
the
Galathians
,
which
God
had
not
yet
reuealed
.
5.
The
third
absurdity
,
the
Apostle
for
the
same
reason
had
pronounced
Anathema
against
S.
Luke
who
in
the
Actes
of
the
Apostles
relateth
many
thinges
which
happened
long
after
S.
Paul
left
Galatia
.
6.
The
fourth
absurdity
,
the
Apostle
for
the
same
cause
also
had
condemned
himselfe
with
the
said
Anathema
.
For
he
wrote
many
Epistles
after
he
had
left
Galatia
,
wherein
he
relateth
many
thinges
which
hapned
afterward
vnto
him
eyther
at
Rome
,
or
in
other
places
.
7.
Lastly
it
is
an
absurd
thing
to
think
either
God
after
those
wordes
of
S.
Paul
to
the
Galathians
could
reueale
to
men
nothing
more
by
an
Angell
sent
from
heauen
,
or
that
the
said
Angell
who
by
the
commaundement
of
God
should
reueale
any
new
thing
,
but
not
contrary
to
faith
,
should
incurre
that
▪
Anathema
by
S.
Paul
,
seing
that
this
were
to
wrest
the
Anathema
vpon
God
himselfe
,
who
commaunded
the
Angell
to
do
so
.
This
place
therfore
cannot
be
vnderstood
of
diuers
and
distinct
thinges
from
those
which
S.
Paul
taught
the
Galathians
,
but
only
of
contrary
and
opposite
thinges
vnto
them
.
But
according
to
this
sense
of
the
word
(
praeter
)
all
the
foresayd
Absurdities
doe
cease
.
For
neyther
S.
Iohn
in
his
Apocalyps
,
nor
S.
Luke
in
the
Actes
of
the
Apostles
,
nor
any
other
which
did
prophecy
,
nor
S.
Paul
himself
,
euer
wrote
or
taught
any
thing
contrary
to
that
which
S.
Paul
taught
the
Galathians
.
But
euen
God
himself
cannot
8.
Neyther
is
it
sufficient
for
me
to
say
that
those
thinges
which
were
afterward
reuealed
and
written
,
were
not
necessary
pointes
of
faith
to
saluation
.
For
S.
Paul
did
not
say
,
if
any
shall
Euangelize
vnto
you
any
point
necessary
to
saluation
:
but
absolutely
,
if
any
shall
Euangelize
any
thing
contrary
to
that
which
you
haue
recevued
.
Moreouer
all
these
thinges
which
were
afterward
set
downe
in
holy
Scripture
were
true
pointes
of
faith
,
the
which
euery
Christian
is
necessarily
bound
to
belieue
,
if
not
expressely
,
yet
at
the
least
virtually
and
generally
euery
one
is
bound
to
belieue
with
an
assured
faith
all
those
things
which
are
in
holy
Writ
to
be
most
certaine
and
true
.
9.
Finally
euen
our
Aduersaries
confession
doth
conuince
this
to
be
most
true
▪
for
now
they
acknowledge
that
all
those
thinges
which
by
a
necessary
consequence
are
deduced
out
of
the
Scriptures
do
belong
vnto
the
word
of
God
and
are
points
of
fayth
,
and
therfore
they
may
be
lawfully
10.
And
in
this
sense
the
Fathers
doe
often
say
that
S.
Paul
affirmed
in
this
place
S.
Augustine
speaketh
in
one
place
.
But
in
another
he
clearly
explicateth
himselfe
by
this
word
(
praeter
)
to
vnderstand
(
contra
)
because
we
must
preach
nothing
contrary
to
the
holy
Scripture
.
That
this
is
the
true
sense
and
meaning
of
S.
Augustine
,
it
is
manifest
by
the
words
themselues
,
wherby
also
he
proueth
that
the
word
(
praeter
)
in
those
words
of
the
Apostle
,
doth
signify
diuers
,
but
not
contrary
thinges
.
For
in
this
manner
he
writeth
when
he
warneth
his
schollers
to
take
heed
of
the
opinions
of
the
Manichaeans
&
other
heretikes
,
because
these
are
not
only
distinct
but
also
Let
the
admonition
,
sayth
he
,
of
the
holy
Apostle
neuer
depart
from
your
hart
.
If
any
shall
Euangelize
vnto
you
besids
that
which
you
haue
receiued
,
let
him
be
an
Anathema
.
He
doth
not
say
more
then
you
haue
receaued
,
but
besides
that
which
you
haue
receaued
.
For
if
he
should
say
that
,
he
should
be
preiudiciall
to
himselfe
who
coueteth
to
come
to
the
Thessalonians
,
that
he
might
supply
that
which
was
wanting
to
their
fayth
.
Now
he
which
supplieth
addeth
that
which
is
lacking
,
taketh
not
away
that
which
was
.
But
he
which
ouerpasseth
the
rule
of
fayth
doth
not
goe
on
in
the
way
,
but
departeth
from
the
way
.
That
therfore
which
our
Lord
sayth
,
I
haue
yet
many
things
to
say
vnto
you
,
but
you
cannot
beare
them
now
,
were
to
be
added
to
those
things
which
they
knew
,
and
not
to
be
ouerthrowen
by
those
they
had
already
learned
.
Hitherto
S.
Augustine
.
CHAP.
X.
Wherein
other
obiections
of
our
Aduersaries
against
Traditions
are
resuted
.
THE
fourth
argument
is
deduced
Rochell
.
If
any
man
shall
adde
to
these
things
,
God
shall
adde
vpon
him
the
plagues
written
in
this
booke
.
But
who
doth
not
see
that
S.
Iohn
speaketh
expresly
of
the
booke
of
the
Apocalyps
only
,
and
not
of
the
whole
Scripture
,
for
he
sayth
,
I
testify
to
euery
one
hearing
the
words
of
the
Prophesy
of
this
booke
,
if
any
man
sall
adde
to
these
things
&c.
and
in
the
19.
verse
following
.
If
any
man
shall
diminish
of
the
words
of
the
booke
of
this
prophecy
&c.
he
speaketh
therfore
only
of
the
propheticall
words
of
the
Apocalyps
.
For
it
is
manyfest
otherwise
out
of
Ecclesiasticall
histories
,
that
S.
Iohn
wrote
his
Ghospell
after
the
Apocalyps
,
and
consequently
that
he
added
many
things
S.
Iohn
threatneth
to
those
which
adde
or
detract
any
thing
from
the
Apocalyps
;
seing
that
they
so
often
and
so
bouldly
wrest
the
prophesies
of
the
Apocalyps
to
many
strange
senses
against
the
Pope
and
the
Catholike
Church
.
2.
Our
Aduersaries
alledge
many
other
things
,
but
their
arguments
which
be
of
lesse
moment
are
taken
out
of
those
places
of
Scripture
which
commend
vnto
vs
the
great
excellency
of
holy
Scripture
.
But
all
these
are
very
easily
confuted
by
that
3.
But
euen
this
sufficiency
of
Scripture
which
they
pretend
,
they
proue
very
foolishly
by
those
wordes
of
the
Apostle
,
wherein
he
teacheth
,
that
the
Scripture
S.
Iohn
was
not
yet
written
nor
the
Apocalyps
.
For
these
were
after
S.
Pauls
death
written
by
S.
Iohn
:
hence
it
is
that
the
Apostle
S.
Paul
doth
not
say
the
whole
Scripture
▪
but
euen
Scripture
inspired
by
God
is
profitable
.
For
there
is
not
one
parte
of
Scripture
which
is
not
profitable
vnto
vs
if
it
be
well
vnderstood
.
Yea
for
all
that
notwithstanding
euery
one
part
precisely
in
it selfe
abstracting
from
the
rest
of
the
Scripture
(
as
all
do
very
well
know
)
is
not
sufficient
.
4
▪
Finally
it
is
also
to
be
considered
that
all
those
places
wherin
the
integrity
,
perfection
and
vtility
of
the
Scripture
is
commended
vnto
vs
,
must
needes
be
vnderstood
not
of
the
bare
wordes
only
,
but
CHAP.
XI
.
Wherein
is
declared
how
we
may
know
the
Apostolicall
Traditions
.
AMONG
the
other
arguments
of
our
Aduersaries
this
is
one
that
we
cannot
know
certainly
which
are
the
Traditions
of
the
Apostles
,
seing
that
many
Heretikes
in
times
past
pretented
also
that
their
heresyes
were
agreing
to
Apostolicall
Traditions
.
Moreouer
they
obiect
that
Traditions
may
easily
be
corrupted
and
changed
,
and
for
this
cause
,
Scripture
was
ordayned
that
the
doctrine
deliuered
by
word
of
mouth
might
continue
the
longer
without
any
falsification
▪
or
corruption
.
But
we
answere
to
this
their
reason
:
that
the
auncient
Heretikes
also
by
supposed
and
false
Scriptures
which
they
attributed
falsely
to
the
Apostles
,
did
confirme
and
proue
their
heresies
.
Many
thinges
,
saith
S.
Augustine
,
were
alleadged
by
heretikes
as
though
they
were
the
sayings
of
the
Prophets
and
Apostles
.
But
yet
for
all
that
they
were
not
iudged
to
be
the
most
certaine
and
Canonicall
Scriptures
.
2.
But
the
Traditions
of
the
Apostles
may
so
certainly
and
easily
be
known
from
supposed
and
false
Traditions
,
as
the
Canonical
Scriptures
may
be
knowne
from
the
Apocriphall
,
for
they
are
both
knowne
by
the
same
meanes
and
authority
,
that
is
to
say
,
by
the
authority
,
doctrine
,
and
testimony
of
the
Catholike
Church
,
which
neyther
can
deceiue
any
nor
be
deceyued
her selfe
.
3.
And
albeit
speaking
of
humane
matters
the
Scripture
is
more
certaine
than
Tradition
alone
,
yet
it
hapneth
otherwise
in
matters
concerning
God
,
because
in
these
there
is
the
authority
of
God
,
and
the
continuall
assistance
of
the
holy
Ghost
hath
place
,
which
doth
not
suffer
the
Church
to
erre
,
and
hence
it
is
,
that
the
Tradition
only
of
the
Church
which
is
not
so
much
written
in
paper
as
is
printed
in
the
hartes
of
Christians
,
is
a
most
certayne
,
and
faithfull
keeper
of
all
the
4.
Moreouer
,
if
euen
Christ
himself
had
with
his
owne
hand
written
in
brasse
all
the
pointes
of
our
faith
,
they
should
notwithstanding
not
haue
had
so
great
certainty
,
as
now
Ecclesiasticall
Traditions
haue
,
vnlesse
the
same
keeper
of
the
diuine
doctrine
had
byn
also
present
.
For
that
which
is
imprinted
in
brasse
,
may
be
rased
and
blotted
out
,
and
the
brasse
it selfe
may
be
consumed
by
fyre
.
But
those
thinges
which
are
imprinted
in
the
hartes
of
Christians
by
the
holy
Ghost
,
can
neuer
perish
,
or
be
any
way
changed
.
5.
And
what
we
haue
said
of
knowing
the
Apostolicall
Traditions
,
is
to
be
vnderstood
whether
the
Church
assembled
in
a
generall
Councel
declared
it
so
,
or
it
became
knowne
and
manifest
by
the
continuall
and
generall
custome
of
the
whole
Church
.
Also
,
whether
the
question
be
of
Tradition
belonging
to
faith
,
or
only
belonging
to
rites
and
Ceremon●…es
▪
For
of
the
Tradition
belonging
to
faith
(
that
is
to
say
,
of
not
baptizing
againe
those
which
are
baptized
once
before
by
heretikes
)
are
these
wordes
of
St.
Augustine
.
Albeit
indeed
of
this
thing
,
saith
he
,
there
can
no
example
be
alleadged
out
of
Canonicall
Scriptures
,
yet
notwithstanding
we
hold
the
truth
of
the
same
holy
Scriptures
in
this
matter
,
when
we
do
that
which
generally
the
whole
Catholike
Church
holdeth
,
the
which
euen
the
authority
of
the
Scriptures
themselues
commend
vnto
vs
:
so
as
,
because
the
holy
Scripture
cannot
erre
,
whosoeuer
feareth
to
be
deceaued
by
the
difficultie
or
obscurity
of
this
question
,
let
him
go
to
the
same
Church
for
counsell
,
the
which
the
holy
Scripture
very
clearely
sheweth
and
demonstrateth
vnto
vs
.
Hitherto
S.
Augustine
.
And
disputing
in
another
place
against
the
Donatists
,
concerning
the
baptisme
of
Infants
.
That
,
saith
he
,
which
the
whole
Catholike
Church
holdeth
,
nor
was
ordayned
by
generall
Councells
,
but
yet
alwaies
kept
and
obserued
by
all
,
is
most
truly
to
be
belieued
to
haue
byn
deliuered
vnto
vs
by
Apostolicall
authority
.
6.
But
of
the
Ecclesiasticall
rites
and
S.
Augustine
speaketh
in
this
manner
.
Is
the
Catholike
Church
through
the
whole
world
hold
and
practise
any
thing
,
it
is
a
signe
of
great
madnesse
to
dispute
,
whether
it
is
to
be
done
so
or
noe
.
By
which
wordes
of
S.
Augustine
it
may
easily
be
vnderstood
what
was
the
opinion
and
vniforme
doctrine
of
the
whole
auncient
Church
concerning
this
point
.
For
our
Aduersaries
themselues
do
say
,
that
S.
Augustine
was
a
most
faithfull
witnesse
of
antiquity
,
vnto
whome
I
referre
the
Readers
,
if
they
desire
to
know
certainly
any
more
of
the
sense
of
Antiquity
,
The
end
of
the
second
Part
of
the
first
Controuersy
.
FINIS
.
Notes, typically marginal, from the original text
Notes for div A03880-e110
Notes for div A03880-e350
Notes for div A03880-e590
Notes for div A03880-e1320
Notes for div A03880-e2120
Notes for div A03880-e2430
Notes for div A03880-e2980
Notes for div A03880-e3720
Notes for div A03880-e5240
Notes for div A03880-e5600