Rhemes against Rome: or, The remoouing of the gagg of the new Gospell, and rightly placing it in the mouthes of the Romists, by the Rhemists in their English translation of the Scriptures. Which counter-gagg is heere fitted by the industrious hand of Richard Bernard ...

VIII. Proposition. That traditions, which they call the vnwritten word, are the Rule of Faith:

Confuted by their owne Bible.

I. IT hath beene proued before, that the word deliuered by mouth, both before and vnder the Law, and after, till the new Testament was written, in all substantiall and necessa∣rie points of faith, is now either expresly set downe, or by a ne∣cessarie

conclusion comprehended in the Scriptures.

II. That therefore the Scriptures are the onely Rule of Faith, which before also is fully proued.

III. Their owne Bible in many places, & diuers wayes, doth condemne traditions: 1. In calling them traditions of men, Col. 2. 8. of Fathers, 1. Pet. 1. 18. your traditions; that is, the tra∣ditions of Scribes and Pharises, Mat. 15. 1, 3. commande∣ments and doctrine of men, Mat. 15. 9. Rudiments of the world, Col. 2. 8, 20. not calling them the tradition, doctrines, and commandements of God, or his Word, or the word of his Prophets any where.

2. In declaring to vs, that the worship which is after such tra∣ditions, is a vaine worship, Mat. 15. 9. and but a shew of wisedome in superstition, Col. 2. 23. and that the conuersation also which is after Fathers tradition, is but vaine, 1. Pet. 1. 18. So as we see, traditions may not be either a Rule of worship, or of conuersa∣tion of life.

3. In setting downe the euils which haue come to the Church, and true Religion of God by such traditions. Their Bible telleth vs, that for traditions the Commandements of God were left, transgressed, made frustrate, and his Word de∣feated, Mat. 15. 3. Mar. 7. 8, 9, 13. It was tradition, by which the Scribes and Pharises had diminished the integritie of the Law, taken from it, added to it, and corrupted the meaning thereof, which Christ freed it from, Mat. 5. 18, 20, 22, 23, 28, 29, 34, 35. It was a pretended Apostolicall word, which first greatly troubled the Church of Antioch, and was the cause of gathering the Councell at Ierusalem to confute and condemne the same, Act. 15. 1, 2, 5, 6, 23, 24. The decrees thereof were written; the Epistle sent abroad, vers. 30. 31. and so they had a written Word to strengthen them against that traditionall, corrupt and counterfeit Word.

Lastly, it was a pretended Apostolicall word, which troubled the Thessalonians, 2. Thess. 2. 2. which by his Epistle, and so by the written Word was confuted.

If I should adde out of Storie, to this out of Scripture, what euils haue hereby happened to the Church in and among He∣reticks,

who vsed traditions, to defend their Heresies, in and among the Fathers misse-led and misleading others by false traditions, whereby some of them became Chiliasts; and now in and among the Papists, who, vnder the colour of traditions, fill the world full of their inuentions, superstitions, and Idolatries; I should be ouer-long, and so proue tedious. But let the desirous Reader peruse D. Whitakers De traditionibus.

4. In teaching vs, that the Apostle giueth the Church war∣ning not to be deceiued by word, by Philosophie, by vaine fal∣lacie according to mens traditions, 2. Thess. 2. 1, 2, 3. Col. 2. 8.

Contraried by Antiquitie.

Iustine in Triphonem: If we will be safe in all things, we must flie to the Scriptures: we must beleeue God onely, and rest on∣ly vpon his institutions, and not on mens traditions.

Irenaeus li. 3. ca. 13. saith of the Apostles, that what they prea∣ched by mouth, they left vs in writing, to bee the pillar and ground-worke of our Faith.

Tertul. de praescrip. It were a folly to thinke that the Apostles knew all things, but reuealed the same to few, deliuering some things openly to all, reseruing some other things to be spoken in secret to some. What can more plainely be deliuered contra∣dictorie to Papists, and to taxe them of folly and falshood in this point?

Theoph. Alexand. in 2. Paschali: It is a diuelish spirit to thinke any thing diuine, besides the Authoritie of the holy Scriptures.

Basil. in serm. de fide: It is a manifest defection from the faith, to bring in any thing that is not written. When he vttered this, did he dreame of a traditionall word?

Ierome in Hag. cap. 1. All traditions, pretended to be Apo∣stolike, if they haue not their authoritie from the Scriptures, are cut off by the Sword of God.

Nazianzen in Epimedio Athanasij, calleth this vnwritten word, An inuocation, and opposite to written Pietie.

See further Tertul. Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Ambrose, Basil, Greg. Nissene, Ierome, Augustine, Cyril. of Alexan. S.

Antonie, and Theodoret, cited by Bishop Vsher in his last booke, in the Controuersie of traditions.

Gainesaid by some of themselues.

This is to be seene in the words of Gregory, Gerson, Petrus de Aliaco, Clemangis, Durandus, Picus-Mirandula, Aquinas, Ferus, and other, auouching the whole Scriptures to bee the Rule of faith. Also of Antoninus, Scotus, Gerson, Trithemius, Ʋil∣la-Vincentius, Caictan, Lyra, and other, who maintaine that the the Scriptures be perfect and sufficient euery way: their words are cyted before, and so doe gainesay this traditionall word.

Obiections out of the Scriptures answered.

2. Thes. 2. 15. Stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye haue beene taught, whether by word, or by our Epistle.

Answ. This place, though in shew, at the first sight may seeme to helpe them; yet considering well what they in the Question vnderstand by traditions, it helpes them nothing at all.

1. Traditions here are such, as all the Thessalonians recei∣ued, and which the Apostles had taught to them all: but tra∣ditions which the Papists maintain, are certaine secret traditi∣ons deliuered, not to all, but to some sorts of men, for the bet∣ter guiding of the Church. Therefore these traditions here, are not those, these being common to all, and theirs proper to some onely.

2. This place speakes of Traditions written, which wee maintaine: but they in this question vnderstand traditions; be∣side Scripture, or a word not written in the Scriptures: how then doth this place helpe them?

3 This place doth speake indeed of traditions deliuered by word and by writing, but not of diuers traditions; as one sort spoken, and another sort written: but of a diuers way of deli∣uering the very same traditions: for first, traditions are but once here named, and applied to both Word, and Epistle. Secondly,

the word Whether may bee as wel taken coniunctiuely, as it is in 1. Cor. 15. 11. & 13. 8. Rom. 14. 8. Col. 1. 20. as disiunctiue∣ly: and albeit here it be taken disiunctiuely, yet it proueth not diuersitie of traditions, but the same diuersly deliuered.

5. By this place it is cleare, that traditions were first by word: but will it therefore follow that they were not written? The contrary is to bee shewed from the beginning. 1. Before the Law the Word was not written, but as before is proued, it was afterwards written. 2. Moses and the Prophets deliuered Gods wil, first by word of mouth, but afterwards the same was written. Thirdly, Christ taught by word, which afterwards the Euan∣gilists wrote, Luk, 1. 2, 3. Fourthly, the Apostle Saint Paul taught by word as other did, but Saint Paul telleth vs, that he was set apart to teach the Gospell, Rom. 1. 1. which he calleth the Word of God, 1. Thes. 2. 2, 13. This Word of the Lord Iesus he onely taught euery where, and by him it was spred abroad, Act. 18. 11. & 19. 10. to which he commended the Church, Act. 20. 32. This Word and Gospell spred so farre by him, Rom. 15. 19. hee telleth vs, was written before in the holy Scriptures, Rom. 1. 2. so that he taught not an vnwritten, but a written Word, and a written Gospell, Act. 26. 22. and 28. 23. Rom. 16. 26.

5. The traditions here mentioned, first taught by word, are written traditions, which he calleth in 1. Thes. 4. 2. Comman∣dements; but these Comandements giuen by word of mouth before, after in writing to them, hee here setteth downe vers. 3. 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12. yea, what letteth to vnderstand these tradi∣tions by word to bee those things, which in the 5. verse of this chapter, he saith, He remembreth them of, set downe in vers. 3. 4? If so, then are these traditions written, and not now vnwritten, though at the first taught by word.

6. Though it were granted, that the traditions taught by word, were not all written by the Apostle then, in neither of these Epistles; I demand first, how can they be able hence to proue, that neither he elsewhere, nor any other Apostle wrote them, but that they remaine to this day vnwritten? Secondly, how can they tell what these were, if they be not written?

Thirdly, how are they able to proue, that these traditions not written and taught by the Apostle, are their Popish traditions, which they stand for? Three necessarie questions vnresolued hi∣therto.

7. And lastly, If they thus will reason, that there is yet an vn∣written word to be a rule, because S. Paul taught traditions first by word; then is there much more a written word to be a rule, for that those spoken, were after written: for that which is spoken and written, is with all men more certaine and sure then that which onely is spoken. Now, of one and the same thing to be ruled, there cannot be two rules, as before is proued. There∣fore let vs cleaue to the Word written, as the most certaine and surest rule, because it is both the word spoken and writ∣ten.

2. Thes. 3. 6. And not according to the tradition which they haue receiued of vs.

Answ. Here is mention of a tradition, which the Apostle had taught, and the Thessalonians had receiued; but this is not an vnwritten tradition, but written: for the Apostle in vers. 10. sets it downe, and telles vs plainely what it was, to wit, That if any would not worke, let him not eate. So as this is nothing for their vnwritten traditions.

1. Cor. 11. 2. And I pray you, brethren, &c. that you keepe the precepts as I deliuered them vnto you.

Answ. 1. Wee grant, that the Apostle deliuered and taught by word of mouth, before he wrote: but the question is, whe∣ther the same he taught, be writ, or no? They say, they be not: which this place proueth not, neither can they bring any place either expressely, or by necessarie conclusion. To this purpose, we say they be, and doe proue it by many Scriptures afore set downe, as also in answere to the first place, of which nature is this Scripture: for the Apostle saith here, I deliuered them vnto you: and in vers. 23. hee hath the very same words, and withall setteth downe, what he deliuered to them, in vers. 23, 24 25. So that what he deliuered by word, is now in his writings.

Secondly, this place, according to their translation, is of pre∣cepts, they here auoyde the word traditions: if it be not for tra∣ditions,

why doe they alleage it? And if it be for traditions, why doe they not name the Word here; as elsewhere in other places? But let them bee precepts: what then? If precepts of necessarie and substantial matters of the Gospell, then were the same writ∣ten: for Paul preached them onely out of the Scriptures, Act. 26. 22. and 28. 23. according to the Scriptures, 1. Cor. 1 5 3, 4. For, as is proued, his Gospell was a written Gospell, and what hee preached, the same substantiall points himselfe did afterwards write, as appeareth in the same Epistle, chap. 15. 1, 2, 3, 4, &c. And in Phil. 3. 1. as also Saint Ierome expoundeth the place. Being then written precepts, here is no proofe for their vnwritten tra∣ditions. If they vnderstand them of precepts, in and about mat∣ters of indifferencie, rites, and decences in the Church, &c. the place is nothing to the question in hand; and yet precepts in such matters are also written, 1. Cor. 6. 12. and 8. 9, 13. and 10. 23, 31, 32. and therefore taken which way they please, they are now written, and not vnwritten precepts.

1. Tim. 6. 20. O Timothy, keepe the depositum (that is, say the Rhemists) the whole doctrine of our Christianitie, and Catho∣like truth descending from the Apostles by succession of Bi∣shops euen vnto the end, & is all one with tradition (say they, in their annotation) giuen to the Bishops to keep, and not to Lay∣men. The Gagger alleageth the third verse also, and so, as it seemeth, doth take the word doctrine, as here the word deposi∣tum, that is, as Bellarmine expounds it, the treasure of vnwritten doctrine.

Answ. 1. Here is no mention of tradition, neither doth this place proue, that this depositum is now an vnwritten doctrine.

2. Hee speakes of a depositum committed to Timothy his trust: but whether written, or onely spoken, is not set downe here, and so proueth not the point in question.

3. Of themselues there be that expound this depositum farre otherwise. Caietan expounds it of the flocke committed to him So also Lyra: their Glosse takes it to be his office. So Hu∣go Cardinalis: Aquinas interpreteth it of euery good thing, which any man hath committed to him of God to keepe, and to in∣crease. Thus they agree not among themselues: if they cannot

agree about the sense of the word; is this then a sound proofe of so great a point as is in question? Must a Rule to rule holy Scripture, and the holy Church, be grounded vpon such an vn∣certaine meaning?

4. But let the Rhemists interpretation of the word goe for sound; it is enough to ouerthrow their tenent: for this deposi∣tum they make the whole doctrine of our Christianitie. If this be the Treasure of vnwritten doctrine, as Bellarmine will haue it, what doth the Scripture containe? Saint Paul telleth vs, 1. Tim. 1. 11. that the glorious Gospell was committed to his trust, as this depositum was committed to Timothy his trust; if these two bee one, as they are: for was another thing committed to the trust of Timothy, then was committed to Saint Pauls trust? Then the Gospell is the whole doctrine of our Christianity, except there be doctrines of Christianity which are not Gospell: but the Gospell is written, as before is prooued, and therefore also is this a written depositum, and not an vnwritten doctrine.

5. This place wicked heretickes so expounded; and to de∣fend their hereticall falsities, feigned such a sense of this place, of certaine vnwritten traditions, as the Papists doe; by which they may see whence they be.

2. Tim. 1. 13. Haue thou a forme of sound words, which thou hast heard of me: the same is mentioned, Rom. 6. 17.

Answ. 1. This sheweth, that a forme of words were deliue∣red by mouth; but hence will it not follow, that the same is not now written. Saint Paul instructed by word of mouth; Ergo, may it be concluded, that he wrote not the same? How in rea∣son will this follow? And yet this is the thing to be proued, or else nothing to the purpose.

2. The place sheweth in what things this forme of words is to bee kept, to wit, in faith and in loue; but the forme of the words of our beliefe is in the Scripture, Ioh. 20. 31. Act. 8. 37. and also of our loue, Mat. 22. 37, 39.

3. If by forme of words they will vnderstand the compendi∣um of Christianitie concerning Faith, Obedience, Prayer, and forme of administring the holy Sacraments; all these be also in the Scriptures, as our Creed, the ten Commandements, the Lords

Prayer, as before is shewed. For baptisme, reade Mat. 28. 19. and for the Lords Supper, Mat. 26. 26, 27, 28. 1. Cor. 11. 23, 24 25. Therefore here is no forme of words left vnwritten, as out of this place the Papists pretend.

2. Tim. 2. 2. And the things which thou hast heard, &c.

Answ. 1. This still speakes of Pauls preaching, but proueth not the same not to be written.

2. It hath been before proued, that Paul preached openly the Scriptures, and therfore by the things heard from him, must be meant those which he taught out of the Scriptures.

3. It is probable, that S. Paul himselfe preaching out of the Scriptures, and onely according to the Scriptures, also highly commending Scriptures to Timothy, to be able to make perfect the man of God to euery good worke, 2. Tim. 3. 16, 17. that hee would haue any thing commended by Timothy to other Teach∣ers, but what was to be found in holy Scriptures?

This place therefore helpes not for vnwritten traditions.

Ioh. 20. 30. Many other signes did Iesus, &c. which are not written in this booke.

Answ. 1. The Euangelist saith, they were not written in this booke. But what then? May they not be written in other E∣uangelists?

2. Here he speakes of signes, and Acts of Christ, and not of his doctrine by tradition, which is the matter in question: and so this text is nothing to the purpose.

Ioh. 21. 25. There are many other things which also Iesus did, &c.

Answ. This place also speaketh of that which Iesus did, and not of that which he taught. Here is not one syllable of a tradi∣tionarie word.

Ioh. 16 12. Many things I haue to say to you, but you cannot beare them now.

Ans. 1. This place tels vs not what Christ said, but what hee concealed, to wit, many things which he had to speake, but then spake not: so as this proueth not a traditionall word, nor any word at all, except they will conclude, that what one can say, therefore he doth say it.

2. If Christ had said all things to the Apostles then, yet would it not follow, that the same were not at all written in Scripture: for Iesus Christ taught, what was written in the Scriptures, expounded them, cited them, and by them confuted the Aduersaries. And Saint Luke makes a profession, that his Gospell was A Treatise of all that Iesus began both to doe and speake, vnto the day of his Ascension, Act. 1. 1, 2.

3. Can our Aduersaries tell what things Christ had to say? If they can; first, let them shew to vs what they were: second∣ly, that they were differing from those things taught by him, and written now in the new Testament: thirdly, that they were neuer written by the Apostles. If these they cannot demon∣strate to vs, they gaine nothing hence for their pretended tradi∣tionary word. This place heretickes abused for their traditi∣ons.

1. Cor. 11. 16. Wee haue no such custome, nor the Church of God.

Answ. 1. This speaketh not affirmatiuely of a custome, but negatiuely of no such custome.

2. Though it had spoken of a custome, what is this to a tra∣ditionall word? Is custome, doctrine? Or is it not rather ap∣plied to actions, as in Gen. 31. 35. Ioh. 18. 39?

3. The Scriptures allow not custome to be a Rule, Leu. 18. 2. Ier. 10. 2. 2 King. 17. 40.

1. Cor. 11. 34. The rest will I dispose, when I come.

Answ. Here is no speech of any word of Doctrine, but of or∣der among the Corinthians.

Ioh. 2. 12. and Ioh. 3. 13. Hauing moe things to write vnto you, I would not by paper and inke: For I hope that I shall be with you, and speake mouth to mouth.

Answ. These places shew indeed, that in the two short Epi∣stles Iohn wrote not all those things, which he might haue writ∣ten, because he would speake to them of them. But can our Ad∣uersaries proue; first, that Iohn euer came to vtter the things vn∣written? If he did, what were they? If he did not, then so much of their conceited traditionall word is lost. Secondly, that those moe things left vnwritten, were either things necessarie, or they

were not things already written. Til they can shew these things, this place doth them no good.

Acts 16. 4. They deliuered vnto them the Decrees, which chap. 15. 28. were decreed by the Apostles.

Answ. What of all this? The Decrees were written. The Apostles wrote letters, Acts 15. 23. and the Epistle was sent, vers. 30. and read with comfort, vers. 31. Here is then no tradi∣tionary vnwritten word.

Thus we may see, how their traditionall word vnwritten, is confuted by their owne Bible, and hath no footing at all in ho∣ly Scripture.

Notes

• Irenaeus. l. 5. c. 66. l. c. 13. ••ert. de praescript. Epi∣phan. de Haeres. l. 1. c. 23. 24, 38.
• See question the first before.
• See question the second be∣fore.
• Eadem scrifiere, hoc e••, eadem repetere quae praseus dixe∣ram.
• Tertul. de prae∣script. aduersus Haeret. ca. 25.
• August. 77. tract. in Iohn.
• See Doway Translation.