Reims Against Rome, Propositions · Proposition 8
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 vnderunder the Law, and after, till the new Teſtament was written, in all ſubſtantiall and neceſſarie points of faith, is now either expreſly ſet downe, or by a neceſſarie concluſion comprehended in the Scriptures.
II. That therefore the Scriptures are the onelyonly 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 traditions of Scribes and Phariſes, Mat. 15. 1, 3. commandements 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 vsus, that the worſhip which is after ſuch traditions, 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 conuerſation of life.
3. In ſetting downe the euils which hauehave come to the Church, and true Religion of God by ſuch traditions. Their Bible telleth vsus, that for traditions the Commandements of God were left, tranſgreſſed, made fruſtrate, and his Word defeated, 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 hauehave hereby happened to the Church in and among Hereticks, who vſed traditions, to defend their Hereſies, in andIrenaeus. l. 5. c. 66. l. c. 13. …ert. de praeſcript. Epiphan. de Haereſ. l. 1. c. 23. 24, 38. 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, vnderunder 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 vsus, that the Apoſtle giueth the Church warning not to be deceiued by word, by Philoſophie, by vaine fallacie 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 onelyonly, and reſt only vponupon his inſtitutions, and not on mens traditions.
Irenaeus li. 3. ca. 13. ſaith of the Apoſtles, that what they preached by mouth, they left vsus 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 contradictorie 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 Apoſtolike, if they hauehave 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 See queſtion the firſt before.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, Ʋilla-Vincentius, Caictan, Lyra, and other, who maintaine that the the Scriptures be perfect and ſufficient eueryevery way: their wordsSee queſtion the ſecond before. 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 hauehave 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 receiued, and which the Apoſtles had taught to them all: but traditions which the Papiſts maintain, are certaine ſecret traditions deliuered, not to all, but to ſome ſorts of men, for the better guiding of the Church. Therefore theſe traditions here, are not thoſe, theſe being common to all, and theirs proper to ſome onelyonly.
2. This place ſpeakes of Traditions written, which wee maintaine: but they in this queſtion vnderſtand traditions; beſide 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 deliuering 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 diſiunctiuely: 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 Euangiliſts wrote, Luk, 1. 2, 3. Fourthly, the Apoſtle Saint Paul taught by word as other did, but Saint Paul telleth vsus, 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 onelyonly taught eueryevery 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 vsus, 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. Commandements; 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 traditions 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 hitherto.
7. And laſtly, If they thus will reaſon, that there is yet an vnwritten 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 onelyonly is ſpoken. Now, of one and the ſame thing to be ruled, there cannot be two rules, as before is proued. Therefore let vsus cleaue to the Word written, as the moſt certaine and ſureſt rule, becauſe it is both the word ſpoken and written.
2. Theſ. 3. 6. And not according to the tradition which they hauehave receiued of vsus.
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 vsus 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 vntounto you.
Anſw. 1. Wee grant, that the Apoſtle deliuered and taught by word of mouth, before he wrote: but the queſtion is, whether 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 vntounto 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 precepts, they here auoyde the word traditions: if it be not for traditions, 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 written: for Paul preached them onelyonly 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. AndEadem ſcrifiere, hoc e…, eadem repetere quae praſeus dixeram. in Phil. 3. 1. as alſo Saint Ierome expoundeth the place. Being then written precepts, here is no proofe for their vnwritten traditions. If they vnderſtand them of precepts, in and about matters 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 Catholike truth deſcending from the Apoſtles by ſucceſſion of Biſhops euen vntounto the end, & is all one with tradition (ſay they, in their annotation) giuen to the Biſhops to keep, and not to Laymen. The Gagger alleageth the third verſe alſo, and ſo, as it ſeemeth, doth take the word doctrine, as here the word depoſitum, 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 onelyonly 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 Hugo Cardinalis: Aquinas interpreteth it of eueryevery good thing, which any man hath committed to him of God to keepe, and to increaſe. 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 vponupon ſuch an vncertaine meaning?
4. But let the Rhemiſts interpretation of the word goe for ſound; it is enough to ouerthrow their tenent: for this depoſitum they make the whole doctrine of our Chriſtianitie. If this be the Treaſure of vnwritten doctrine, as Bellarmine will hauehave it, what doth the Scripture containe? Saint Paul telleth vsus, 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 defendTertul. de praeſcript. aduerſus Haeret. ca. 25. 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. HaueHave 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 deliuered 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 reaſon 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 louelove; but the forme of the words of our beliefe is in the Scripture, Ioh. 20. 31. Act. 8. 37. and alſo of our louelove, Mat. 22. 37, 39.
3. If by forme of words they will vnderſtand the compendium 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 onelyonly according to the Scriptures, alſo highly commending Scriptures to Timothy, to be able to make perfect the man of God to eueryevery good worke, 2. Tim. 3. 16, 17. that hee would hauehave any thing commended by Timothy to other Teachers, 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 Euangeliſts?
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 traditionarie word.
Ioh. 16 12. Many things I hauehave to ſay to you, but you cannot beare them now.
Anſ. 1. This place tels vsus 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, vntounto 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 vsus what they were: ſecondly, 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 demonſtrate to vsus, they gaine nothing hence for their pretended traditionaryAuguſt. 77. tract. in Iohn. word. This place heretickes abuſed for their traditions.
1. Cor. 11. 16. Wee hauehave 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 traditionall word? Is cuſtome, doctrine? Or is it not rather applied to actions, as in Gen. 31. 35. Ioh. 18. 39?
3. The Scriptures allow not cuſtome to be a Rule, Leu. 18. 2.See Doway Tranſlation. 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 order among the Corinthians.
Ioh. 2. 12. and Ioh. 3. 13. Hauing moe things to write vntounto 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 Epiſtles Iohn wrote not all thoſe things, which he might hauehave written, becauſe he would ſpeake to them of them. But can our Aduerſaries proue; firſt, that Iohn euer came to vtter the things vnwritten? 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 vntounto 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 traditionary vnwritten word.
Thus we may ſee, how their traditionall word vnwritten, is confuted by their owne Bible, and hath no footing at all in holy Scripture.