Scripturarum Sunt autem Canonicae Scripturae Genesis Eâ—odus Levitâ—cus c. Salomonis libriquinque c. Tobias Judith Hester Esdrae libri duo Machabaeorum libri duo c. And see the like accompt made by Innocent us in Epist ad Exuperium cap. 7. By Gelasius tom 1. Concil decret cum 70. Episcopis By Isidor l. 6. Etymolog cap. 1. By Rabanus l. 2. Instit Clerâ—corum and by Cassiodorus l. 2. divin lectionum sayings had thereof And howsoever certain of our learned Adversaries were not abashed in the Tower disputation publickly and seriously to evade and answer that St. Anstin in his sayings hereof used the word Canonical [l] In the Tower disputation with F. Campian Anno 1581. the first days conference improperly the very contrary thereof is so evident not only in St. Austin and the third Council of Carthage whereat St. Austin was present and [m] In Concil 3. Carthag fine it is said Augustinus Epâ—scopus plebis Hipponae subscripsi subscribed but also in sundry other Fathers that the same is plainly confessed in divers of the same Fathers by [n] Mr. Reynolds in his Conclusions annexed to his conference the second Conclusion pag. 699. post med 700. initio reproveth herein the third Council of Carthage D. Reynolds [o] Zanchius de Sacra Scriptura pag. 32. 33. acknowledgeth the foresaid like Judgement of the Carthage Council Innocentius and Gelasius Zanchius [p] Hospinianus in Hist Sacramentar part 1. pag. 160. paulo ante med rejecteth herein the Judgement of the Carthage Council And ibid. post med pag. 161. ante med he likewise rejecteth Innocentius Gelasius pag. 161. post med he reproveth St. Austin Hospinianus [q] Lubbertus dâ— principiis Christian dogm l. 1. cap. 4. pag. 8. prope finem saâ—th Concedo quosdam ex his libris à Carthaginenâ—ibus admissos sâ—d nego eos propterea esse verbum Dei. Nulla enim Cono lia habent istam authorâ—â—atem Lubbertus [r] Hiperius in Method Theolog. l. 1. pag. 46. fine saith In Concilio Carthagâ—ensi tertio adduntur ad Canonem c. Sapientia Ecclesiasticus libri duo Machabaeorum Tobias Judith c. quos libros omnes eodem ordine numerat Augustinus Innocentius Gelasius And then afterwards more at large reciteth their Judgement Hipertus [s] D. Field of the Church l. 4. c. 23. pag. 246. circa med 247. circa med acknowledgeth the like judgement herein of St. Austin Innocentius and the third Council of Carthage D. Field and [t] See D. Covel against Burges pag. 76. fine 77. most plainly confessing St. Austins like judgement had of the Book of Wisedom and ibid. pag. 87. ante med he further saith of all these Books If Ruffinus be not deceived they were approved as parts of the old Testament by the Apostles D. Covel And whereas our Adversaries do object that [u] Origen in Psalm 1. apud Eusebium Hist l. 6. c. 19. Origen and [x] Epiphanius de pond mensur and also Haer. 8. Epicureorum circa med Epiphanius do in their mentioning the Scriptures of the old Testament seclude these from the Canon and that [y] Hieron praefat in lib. Regum St. Hierom affirmeth them to be Apocryphal it is answered thereto First that the Fathers in those places do not speak of their own opinion but do only report what was the opinion of the Hebrews and what Books they thought Canonical From which now defended opinion of the Hebrews [z] Origen was so far from the Hebrews opinion hereof that he doubted not to defend for sacred against Julius Africanus who doubted thereof the History of Susanna which the Hebrews and Protestans reject hereof see Origen in Epist ad Julium Africanum and hom 1. in Leviticum He doth likewise in Epist ad Julium Africanum affirm that part of Hester to be sacred and Canonical which the Protestants refuse as not being in the Hebrews Canon Origen [a] Epiphanius haer 76. ante med numbreth Sapientia and Ecclesiasticus among the divine Scriptures and in libro de pond niensur paulo post init he referreth Sapientia unto Salomon as Author thereof Epiphanius Hierom [b] As concerning Hierom whereas he in praefat Daniel unto an unwary Reader may seem to seclude certain Chapters of Daniel rejected by Protestants as not being in the Hebrews Canon In so much that Ruffinus mistaking herein as the Protestants do Hieroms meaning doth reprehend and charge Hierom with refusal of these foresaid parts of Daniel accordingly also as doth Mr. Whitaker contra Camp rat 1. pag. 18. circa med allege the foresaid place of Hierom against those Chapters of Daniel St. Hierom. Apol. 2. adv Ruffinum circa finem answereth and explaineth himself saying Non enim quid ipse sentirem c. Truly I did not set down what my self thought but what the Hebrews are accustomed to say against us herein calling there fierther Ruffinus stultum Sycophantem a foolish Sycophant for mistaking and charging him with the Hebrews opinion See yet this point of St. Hierom thus explaining himself confessed by Mr. D. Covel in his answer to Master John Burges c. pag. 87. circa med And see the conference of Hampton Court pag. 60. Also St. Hieromâ—n prolog in Machab. most expresly placeth the Books of Machabees rejected by the Hebrews among the stories of divine Scripture And Hier. in praefat in Judith saith of that Book Apud Haebraeos liber Judith inter Agiographa legitur cujus authoritas ad roboranda illa quae in contentionem veniunt to wil with the Jews minùs idonea judicatur c. Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicena in numero Sanctarum Scripturarum legitur computasse acquievi c. and sundry other [c] St. Austin de Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 36. saith Among which are the Books of Machabees which not the Jews but the Church accounteth for Canonical And St. Isidore l. 6. Etymolog c. 1. saith of the Machabees Though the Hebrews do not receive them into their Canon yet the Church of Christ doth honour them among the divine Books So clearly did the antient Fathers disclaim from the Hebrews Catalogue which our adversaries profess to maintain and follow Fathers were most clearly dissenting many of them to the contrary usually alleging and citing these Books and to prevent all evasion and Cavil not under the naked and only name of Scripture in general but with such further circumstance or Epithets [d] So is the Book of Wisedom alleged by Cyprian l. 4. Ep. 1. de habitu Virginum ante med de exhort Martyrii cap. 12. initio de mortalitate prope finem By Fulgentius ad Trasimundum Regem l. 1. c. 5. l. 2. c. 9. ad Feram Diaconum resp ad quaest 1. prope initium by Cyril l. 2. in Julianum ultra med By Clemens Alexandrinus l. 4. Strom. By
Dâ—onysius de Eccles Hierarch c. 2. By Egesippus apud Eusebium l. 4. c. 22. By Mel to apud Euseb Hist l. 4. c. 26. fine By St. Austin de praedest Sanctorum l. â— c. 14. and see Synod Alexandrin in Epist ad omnes ubique Ecclesias And it is yet further referred to Salomon as Author thereof by Epiphanius haer 76. Ambrose serm 8. in Psalm 118. Hâ—lary in Psalm 127. Tertul. de praescript Melito apud Euseb l. 4. c. 26. So likewise is the Book of Ecclesiasticus alleged by Fulgentius de remiss pec l. 1. c. 12. 29. l. 2. c. 4. and de fide ad Petrum c. 3. and de Incarn Gra. Christi cap. 28. Cyprian de mortalitate post initium and serm de Eleemosyna initio l. 3. Epist 9. Austin de Doctrina Christiana l. 22. c. 8. and de Civit. Dei l. 17. c. 20. Ambros l. 4. de fide cap. 4. serm 30. l. de Nabath Jezraelita cap. 12. fine lib. de Tobia c. 1. Hier. Ep. 33. Maximus Taurinensis hom 1. de Eleemosyna Epiphanius haer 76. ante med Junilius de part divin leg c. 3. 5. 6. and which further proveth they thought it Canonical it it referred to Salomon as Author thereof by Hilary in Matth. can 7. Cyprian l. 3. Epist 9. ad Guirinum c. 35.61.69 Serm. de Eleemof prope initium Basil l. 4. contra Eunomium Ambr. in 1 Cor. c. 7. Chrysost de decollat Joannis Baptistae initio hom 3. imperfect in Matth. Innoc. Ep. ad Exuperium Gregor l. 10. Moral c. 14. Clemens Alex. l. 7. Strom. and Concil 3. Carthag can 47. So also is the Book of To by alleged by Cyprian Serm. 1. de Eleemosyna â—nâ—tâ—o de orat dom prope finem Ambr. l. de Tobâ—a c. 1. l. 6. exam c. 4. l. 10. Ep. 82. Austâ—n Ep. 120. c. 29. Ep. 121. c. 9 de diligendo Deo c. 3. Hâ—lary in Psalm 129. circa med And Irenaeus l. 1. cap. 34. numbreth Toby among the other Prophets of whom the Hereticks called Gnostioi did feign certaâ—n soolish devices The like might be further alleged of the other controverted Books but this place is not capable thereof of divine Scripture wherein the Holy Ghost speaketh or such other like as are peculiar only to those Scriptures that be Canonical Secondly though we should suppose that these Fathers had omitted or denyed all or some of these Books in their Catalogue of the Scriptures accordingly as the Protestants object that the [e] Concil Laodicen can ult Laodicen Council doth in its Catalogue of the Scriptures omit all those Books as indeed the same Council doth also there likewise omit the Apocalyps yet is the objection hereof though supposed for true of no force because it is evident that in the Primitive Church the Canonical Scriptures were not generally received all at once but in so great variety [f] Of the great variety of pretended Scriptures see in Brereley tract 2. cap. 3. sect 7. subd 6. in the margent under the letter b. where he saith Of the very many writings forged under the Apostles names see Euseb hist l. 3. c. 19. l. 6. c. 10. St. Austin contra advers Leg. Prophet l. 1. c. 20. Gelasius in decret cum 70. Episcopis Zozomen hist l. 7. c. 19. post med and see also the Protestant Writer Hamâ—lmannus de traditionibus Apostolicis c. primae partis l. 1. col 251. part 3. l. 3. col 841. lin 15. 22. In which places mention is severally made of sundry writings forged under the names of Paul Peter Barnabas Thomas Matthew Andrew John and divers others and St. Paul 2 Thess 2.2 insinuateth the then forging of Epistles in his name of pretended Scriptures great care and search was requisite whereby to determine which Scriptures were Canonical and which not whereby it came to pass that sundry Books were for the time misdoubted or by some Fathers or Councils omitted or not received which yet afterwards upon greater search and consideration generally acknowledged A thing so evident that our learned Adversasaries themselves do accordingly confess and illustrate the same by many confessed and known [g] In the Tower disp 1581. the first days conference D. 1. The Deans of Pauls and Windsor say Euscbius affirmeth plainly the Epistle of St. James to be a counterfeit or basâ—ard Eorstle Also Mr. Bilson in his Survey of Christs sufferings c. Printed 1604. pag. 664. paulo post initium saith The Scriptures were not fully received in all places no not in Eusebius time He saith the Epistles of James Jude the second of Peter the second and third of John are contradicted as not written by the Apostles the Epistle to the Hebrews was for a while contradicted c. the Churches of Syria did not receive the second Epistle of Peter nor the second and third of John nor the Epistle of Judâ— nor the Apocalys c. The like might be said for the Churches of Arabia will â—ou hence conclude that these parts of Scripture were not Apostolick or that we need not to receive them now because they were formerly doubted of So fully doth Mr. Bâ—lson answer our Adversaries like usual objection had against the Machabâ—es and the other Bâ—nks of the old Testament now in question More confessed examples her of alleged by Protestants Brereley recâ—teth tract 2. cap. 3. sect 7. subd 6. in the margent at the Letter c. saâ—ing In the Tower d. sp Anno 1581. had with Edm. Campian the first days conference D. 1. the Deans of Pauls and Windâ—or do thus report of themselves for proof whereof we allege the testimony of Hierom in Catal. where he thus writeth The Epistle of James is said to be published by some other undâ—r his name and of the 2. of Peter he saith that it is denyed of many to he â—â—s we also alleged Eusebius writing thus thes Books that be gainsaid though they be known to many he these the Epistle attributed to James the Epistle of jude the later of Peter the second and third of John And in the fourth days conference fol. 2. b. M. D. Walker saith Hierom saith concerning that Epistle which is written to the Hebrews many have doubted of it And also concerning the 2. of Peter he saith it was doubtâ—d of by many and so with some were the two last Epistles of John c. examples Mr. Bilson thereupon [h] Mr. Bilson in his saying alleged next heretofore in the margent under g. concluding that this denyal or omission made by certain Fathers of certain Scriptures is no argument against the said Scriptures Whereupon it necessarily followeth as well by Master Bilsons foresaid conclusion as by unavoydable sequel of the other premisses that the Canonical Scriptures are to us at this day discerned and made known not by that which certain Fathers do omit deny or doubt of for so should
for the Scripture hath not all things and therefore the Apostles delivered certain things by writing and certain by Tradition with whom agreeth St. Basil saying [u] Basil de Spir. Sanct. c. 27. Some things we have from Scripture other things from the Apostles Tradition c. both which have like force unto godliness Mr. Doctor Reynolds answering to these foresaid sayings of Basil and Epiphanius saith [x] D. Reynolds in his conclusions annexed to his conference the 1. Conclusion pag. 689. I take not upon me to controle them but let the Church judge if they considered with advice enough c. Whereunto might be added the like further confessed [y] Where Eusebius l. 1. Demonstr Evang. cap. 8. is objected to say That the Apostles published their Doctrin partly by writing partly without writing as it were by a certain unwritten Law Mr. Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura pag. 668. fine saith thereto I answer that this testimony is plain enough but in no force to be received because it is against the Scriptures And whereas Dâ—onysius de Eccles Hierarch c. 1. versus finem saith That the Apostles dâ—d deliver their Doctrin partly by writing partly without writing c. Mr. Whitaker hereafter alleged in this Consideration num 13. aâ— t. de Sacra Scriptura pag. 655. ante med saith I do acknowledge that Dâ—onysius is in many places a great Patron of Traditions testimony from Eusebius and from Dyonysius Areopagita the Apostles Scholar And thus much briefly concerning the Fathers of the Greek Church Now as concerning the like confessed Doctrin in the Fathers of the Latin Church to avoid tediousness St. Austin only as being most [z] Gomarus in speculo verae Ecclesiae c. pag. 96. ante med saith Augustâ—us Patrum omnium communi sententâ—a purissimus habetur Also M. D. Field of the Church l. 3. pag. 170. fine tearmeth Austin the greatest of all the Fathers worthiest Divine the Church of God ever had since the Apostles times approved by our Adversaries shall serve for all who labouring to prove that those who are Baptized by Hereticks should not be re-baptized saith [a] Aug. de Bap. contra Don. l. 5. c. 23. The Apostles commanded nothing hereof but that custom which was opposed herein against Cyprian is to be believed to proceed from their tradition as many things be which the whole Church holdeth and are therefore well believed to be commanded of the Apostles although they be not written Wherein and [b] See the like saying in St. Austin Epist 118. ad Januarium other his like sayings his meaning is so evident and confessed that M. Cartwright speaking thereof saith [c] See Mr. Cartwright in Mr. Whitgifts defence c. pag. 103. ante med To allow St. Austins saying is to bring in Popery again And that [d] See Mr. Cartwrights words alleged ubi supra And see his further assertion hereof in his 2. Reply against Master Whitgift part 1. pag. 84. fine 85. 86. If St. Austins judgement be a good judgement then there be some things commanded of God which are not in the Scriptures and thereupon no sufficient Doctrin conteined in the Scriptures Adde but now hereunto that [e] See Chemnitius examen part 1. pag. 87. 89 90. Chemnitius reproveth for their like testimony of unwritten traditions Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Epiphanius Ambrose Hierom Maximus Theophilus Basil Damascene c. That Mr. Fulk [f] See Mr. Fulk against Purgatory pag. 362. ante med 303. 397. and against Martial pag. 170 178. and against Bristows Motives pag. 35. 36. also confesseth as much of Chrysostom Tertullian Cyprian Augustin Hierom c. That lastly M. Whit. [g] See Mr. Whâ—taker de Sacra Scriptura pag. 678. 681. 683. 685. 690. 695. 696. 670. 668. acknowledgeth the like of Chrysostom Epiphanius Tertullian Cyprian Augustine Innocentius Leo Basil Eusebius Damascen c. Now as concerning Ceremonies Mr. Calfehil to omit others affirmeth that [h] See this saying of Master Calfchil in Mr. Fulks rejoynder to Martials Râ—ply Printed 1580. pag. 131. fine 132. initio the Fathers declined all from the simplicity of the Gospel in Ceremonies In like manner concerning the Machabees Ecclesiasticus Toby and other the Books of the old Testament [i] Unworthily so sâ—cluded by Mr. Whitaker in his answer to Mr. Reynolds refutation pag. 22. 23. for it is a rash assertion so to measure the Scriptures by the â—ongue wherein they are written as to restrain the Spirit of God to one only Language The known vanity of which said asserâ—ion is sufficiently further disproved by example of Daniel a great part whereof viz. from cap. 2. ver 4 u que ad finem cap. 7. though not written in Hebrew is yet by our adversaries themselves acknowledged for Canonical Neither is it approved that God would direct by his holy Spirit no Authors in their writings but such as were known and also further declared by certain testimony to be Prophets For our adversaries cannot yet tell who were Authors of the several Books of Judges the third and fourth of Kings the two of Chron cles and the Books of Ruth and Job even Mr. Whâ—taker himself in disput de Sacra Scriptura pag. 603. post med saith hereof Multoâ—um lâ—brorum authores ignorantur ut â—osuae Ruth Paralâ—ppomenon Hester c. And Mr. Willâ—t in his Synopsis pag. 4. post med saith We receive many Books â—n the old Testament the Aâ—thors whereof are not perfectly known Also Calvâ—n Bâ—za and the publishers of the English Bâ—bles of Anno 1584. 1579. in the Preface or Argument upon the Epâ—stle to the Hâ—brews do all of them profess to rest doubtful of the Author thereof Calvin and Beza there affirming that it is not written by Paul whereof see also Calvin further in cap. 2. Hebr. ver 3. fine unworthily secluded by Mr. Whitaker from the Canon for thaâ— saith he they were written in Greek or some other forein language and not in Hebrew nor had for their known Authors those whom God had declared to be his Prophets that these Books were nevertheless holden for Sacred and Canonical by St. Austin the third Council of Carthage and other Fathers is made evident by their manifest [k] St. Austin de doctrina Christiana l. 2. c. 8. saith Totus Canon Scripturarum his libris continâ—tur Qâ—nque Moylcos c. Job Tobias Hester Judith Machabaeoâ—um lâ—bâ—i duo Esdrae duo c. Illi duo libri unus qui Sapientia alius qui Ecclesiasticus inscribitur de quadam fimilitudine Salomonis esse dicuntur Nam Jesus filius Syracheos conscripsisse constantissimè perhibetur qui tamen quoniam in authoritatem recipi meruerunt inter Propheticos numerandi sunt reliqui sunt c. Also the third Council of Carthage can 47. saith Placuit ut praeter Scripturas Canonicas nihil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum
we upon this ground deny also with the Lutherans the [i] Osiander a prime Lutheran speaking of the last Canon of the Laodicen Council commonly objected by our Adversaries wherein are omitted the Books now in question and the Apocalyps saith in his Epitom c. cent 4. pag. 299. fine Non recitantur libri Machabaeorum rectè quidem In eo autem erratum est quod Epistolam Jacobi Judae posteriores duas Joannis inter Canonica Scripta numerant quae Scripta non longè post Apostolorum tempora non pro Scriptis Canonicis habita sunt c. Rectè autem omissa est Apocalypsis ea enim non est Joannis Apostoli c. And see this point more fully in Brereley tract 1. sect 10. subdivis 3. fine at a. and tract 2. c. 2. sect 10. subdivis 2. initio in the text and margent there at o. p. q. r. s t. u. And see at large in the Protestant Authors themselves the places there cited wherein they reject these Scriptures under colour and pretence that they were denyed or doubted of in the Primitive Church Epistles of James Jude the second of Peter the 2. and 3. of John the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalyps no less than the other Books now in question but by that which many of the Fathers do constantly affirm And seeing the Churches assertion as being in the judgement of our very [k] Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 5. initio saith the Church of Christ hath judgement to discern true writings from counterfeit and the word of God from the writings of men and this judgement she hath of the Holy Ghost And Mr. Jewel in his defence of the Apology pag. 201. and after the other Edition of 1571. pag. 242. circa med saith The Church of God hath the spirit of Wisedom whereby to discern true Scripture from false The Protestant Author of the Scripture and the Church which Bullinger so greatly commendeth in his Preface thereof to the Reader doth cap. 15. fol. 71.72 cap. 16. fol. 74.75 affirm that The Church is indued with the Spirit of God and that the diligence and authority of the Church is to be acknowledged herein which hath partly given forth her testimony of the assured writings and hath partly by her Spiritual judgement refused the writings which are unworthy And afterwards he further saith We could not believe the Gospel were it not that the Church taught us and witnessed that this doctrin was delivered by the Apostles To this end Mr. Hooker in his first Book of Ecclesiastical Policy sect 14. pag. 86. ante med saith apud Brereley tract 1. sect 10. subd 3. Of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what Books we are bound to esteem holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it self to teach whereof he giveth a very sensible demonstration ibid. l. 2. sect 4. pag. 102. fine saying It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it his word for if any one Book of Scripture did give testimony of all yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest would require an other Scripture to give credit unto it Neither could we come to any pause wherein to rest unless besides Scripture there were some thing which might assure us c. Which he acknowledgeth to be the authority of Gods Church l. 3. sect 8. pag. 146. fine l. 2. sect 7. pag. 116. ante med And Brereley tract 2. cap. 3. sect 11. subd 1. at s allegeth further the like judgement of Mr. D. Covel in his defence of Mr. Hookers five Books art 4. c. pag. 31. ante med saying Doubtless it is a tolerable opinion of the Church of Rome if they go no further as some of them do not to affirm that the Scriptures are holy and divine in themselves but so esteemed by us for the authority of the Church And after in the same page It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it is the word of God the first outward motion leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the authority of Gods Church which teacheth us to receive Marks Gospel who was not an Apostle and to refuse the Gospel of Thomas who was an Apostle and to retain Lukes Gospel who saw not Christ and to reject the Gospel of Nicodemus that saw him Adversaries an infallible and sure direction to us in this question of the Canonical Scriptures is as heretofore positively delivered and made plain to us by no less testimony than of St. Isidoâ—e Innocentius Gelasius the Fathers of the Carthage Council and to omit others of St. Austin himself who in our Adversaries confessed judgement was [l] M. D. Covel in his answer to John Burges pag. 3. fine saith Saint Austin a man far beyond all that ever were before him or shall in likelihood follow after him both for humane and divine learning those being excepted that were inspired Also M. D. Field of the Church l. 3. fol. 170. fine saith Austin the greatest of all the Fathers and worthiest Divine the Church of God ever had since the Apostles times And Gomarus in speculo verae Ecclesiae c. pag. 96. ante med saith Augustinus Patrum omnium communi sententia purissimus habetur chief and best of all the Fathers what can be more clear and convincing herein for us and against our Adversaries than that which is as heretofore though but briefly yet plainly thus delivered from the not doubtful but confessed judgement of St. Austin and those other many antient Fathers Mr. D. [m] M. D. Covel in his answer to Mr. John Burges pag. 85. fine saith of the untruths or repugnances supposed to be in these Books now in question We could without violence have afforded them the reconcilement of other Scriptures and undoubtedly have proved them to be most true And pag. 87. fine 88 89 90. â—e maketh special answer to certain such objected repugnances Covel a prime man among our Adversaries not forbearing in this case to undertake special defence and answer against such weak seeming repugnances or contradictions occuring [n] Concerning the like seeming repugnancy of other Scriptures Mr. Jewel in his defence c. pag. 361. fine affirmeth that St. Mark alleged Abiathar for Abimelech and that St. Matthew nameth Hieremias for Zacharias and in St. Matthew 27.9 are words alleged under the name of Hieremy which are not found in Hieremy but in Zachary 11.13 Also in Mark 15.25 our Saviour is said to be crucified in the third hour whereas in John 19.14 Pilate sate in judgement upon him about the sixt hour In like manner Luke 3.35 36. affirmeth Sale to be the son of Caynan and Caynan the son of Arphaxad and so Arphaxad was Grandfather to Sale whereas in Genesis 11.12 it is said that Arphaxad lived 35.
years and begat Sale upon which said last appearing difficulty though Beza in Nov. Test in his several Editions of An. 1556. 1587. to reconcile Luke with Genesis do in the said third Chapter of Luke ver 36. leave out these words Who was the son of Caynan and is therein defended by Mr. Fulk in his defence of the English Translations against Mr. Martin in the Preface sect 18. pag. 41. yet the English translation of An. 1576. dare not follow Beza therein To these few examples sundry other like might be added all which notwithstanding we are bound to acknowledge the said Scriptures for true and sacred and so likewise the other Books now in question though the occurring difficulties were greater than yet is urged likewise in the other confessed Canonical Scriptures as are vulgarily objected against the Books now in question As concerning Images it is affirmed that [o] Mr. Fulk against Heskins Sanders c. pag. 672. initio 47. 675. circa med Paulinus caused images to be Painted on Church Wals that [p] Cent. 4. Magdeburg c. 10. col 1080. lin 50. Lactantius affirmeth many superstitious things concerning the efficacy of Christs image that [q] Centur. 8. c. 10. col 850. St. Bede erred in the worshipping of Images that St. [r] Bale in his pageant of Popes fol. 33. Gregory by his Indulgences [s] Osiander in Epit. cent 6. pag. 288. fine and see Peter Martyr in his Common places part 2. pag. 343. fine Chemnitius in his examen part 4. pag. 32. b. fine established Pilgrimage to Images and defended worshipping of Images that St. Leo [t] See Bale in his pageant of Popes pag. 24. 27. and Mr. Symonds on the Revelations pag. 57. fine saith Leo decreed that reverence should be given to Images c. allowed the worshipping of Images that [u] Functius a Protestant Writer apud Brereley tract 1. sect 8. subdivis 2. at * before in libro 7. commentariorum in praecedent chronologiam at Anno Christi 494. confesseth saying Porro is Xenayas primus in Ecclesia bellum contra imagines excita vit And Nicephorus in hist Eccles l. 16. c. 27. saith Xenayas iste primus O audacem animam os impudens vocem illam evomuit Christi eorum qui illi placuere imagines venerandas non esse And see also hereof Cedrenus in compendio histor Xenayas was specially noted or condemned for being the first that stirred up War against Images And in no less plain if not more full manner are the Fathers likewise charged with affirming the great [x] See this hereafter in this Consideration num 23. ante med at u. x. y. ibid. post med at 80 81 82. vertue of the sign of the Cross with [y] Ibid. and see Mr. Perkins problem pag. 83 their worshipping of it and also with confessed testimonies of undoubted [z] See hereafter in this Consideration num 23. initio at u. post med at 83. miracles shewed by God in it As concerning Reliqus of Saints it is affirmed that the antient Fathers erred [a] See hereafter in this Consideration num 23. prope initium at m. * and after at 35. both in Translation and [b] Chemnit in his exam part 4. pag. 10. a. post med saith hereof Ex Translationibus mox factae fuerunt circumgestationes reliquiarum ut apud Hieronymum apud Augustinum c. Circumgestation or carrying about of Reliques Also in [c] Chemnitius examen part 4. pag. 10. b. ante med Pilgrimage to Reliques that [d] Osiander in Epit. cent 4. pag. 506. ante med and see the other Century Writers of Magdeburg cent 4. col 1250. lin 45. St. Hierom did foolishly contend that the Reliques of Saints were to be worshipped that [e] Mr. Fulk in his answer to a counterfeit Catholick pag. 46. alleged hereafter in this Consideration num 21 at d. Vigilantius was specially condemned for his contrary doctrin and that many great [f] Hereof M. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 10. pag. 866. ante med saith I do not think those miracles vain which are reported to have been done at the Monuments of Saints And Luther in purgatione quorundam Articulorum saith Who can gainsay those things which God to this day worketh miraculously and visibly ad Divorum Sepulchra at the Monuments of the Saints And see Mr. Fox act mon. Printed 1576. pag. 61. b. ante med where he saith The Idol ceased to give any more Oracles saying that for the Body of Babylas the Martyr he could give no more answers And see Mr. Fox in the margent there and Chrysostom contra Gentiles post med And of many other miracles read only St. Austin de civit Dei l. 22. c. 8. and see what is further confessed by Chemnitius in his examen part 4. pag. 10. ante med as reported by the antient Fathers miracles are confessed to have been undoubtedly done at the Reliques of Saints As concerning the consecration of Creatures it is confessed that the Fathers give testimony of Consecration [g] See hereafter in this Consideration num 21. initio at 1 and ibid. post med at 100. And Brereley tract 1. sect 1. at d. further saith In proof that our then Conversion was to every particular point of our now professed Catholick Faith M. D. Humfrey in Jesutismi part 2. rat 5. pag. 5. 627. saith In Ecclesiam vero quid invexerunt Gregorius Augustinus Onus Ceremomoniarum c. intulerunt pallium Archiepiscopale ad sola Mistarum solemnia Purgatorium c. Oblationem salutaris hostiae preces pro demortuis c. Rel quias c. Transubstantiationem c. novas Templorum consecrationes c. Ex quibus omnibus quid aliud quaesitum est quam ut Indulgentiae Monachatus Papatus reliquumque Pontificiae superstitionis chaos exstruatur Haec autem Augustinus magnus Monachus à Gregorio Monacho edoctus importavit Anglis c. And see the like description of Gregories doctrin made by Charion in Chronic. lib. 4. pag. 567. ante med pag. 568. ante med saying Gregorius publicum ritum Invocationis Divorum instituit ossibus ac pulveribus Sanctorum templa dedicari jussit Auxit plurimum salsam persuasionem de Monachatu de operibus sine mandato Dei excogitatis de satisfactionibus de votis de caelibatu opinionem etiam de oblatione corporis sanguinis faciendâ pro mortuis comprobavit c. cum tragicè declamitet se abhorrere ab Vniversalis Episcopi apellatione id se tamen quod titulus profitetur vehementer cupivisse reipsa declaravit cum imperium in alienas sibi Ecclesias sumpserit And John Bale in Act. Romanorum Pontificum Printed at Basile 1558. pag. 44. 45 46 47. saith Gregorius Magnus omnium Patriarcharum Romanorum vita doctrina praestantissimus c. parentum domus in Monasteria vertit c. super Apostolorum mortua cadavera
or universal government Ecclesiastical This is a Conclusion whereunto Mr. Hooker setteth down both the Proposition and Assumption viz. Every visible Church truly and properly so called ought to have a correspondent Ecclesiastical government but there is a Catholike or Universal visible Church on earth to which premises every Child can adde the Conclusion ergo there is and ought to be on eartha Catholike or Universal Ecclesiastical government Thus far Mr. Jacob upon supposall of a Catholike visible Church and Monarchical government 69 That Children have not actual Faith affirmed by [z] Brereley tract 1. sect 6. subd 3. in the margent at r. Mr. Cartwright in M. Whitgift's defence pag. 611. and by Beza in respons ad Acta Colloq Montisbelgar part 2. pag. 124. initio in the propositions and principles disputed in the Uuiversity of Geneva pag. 178. sect 4. and by Jacob Kymedoncius in his Redemption of mankind l. 2. c. 15. pag. 164. fine and by Mr. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 8. pag. 682. initio Yet impugned by Luther in loc commun class 2. pag. 12. fine and generally in his Writings and by David Rungius in his disput in Academia Wittemb printed at Wittemb 1606. pag. 195. sect 144 145 146. c. by Jac. Andraeas see his words in Beza's Respons ad Acta Coll. Montisbel part 2. pag. 124. ante med and see there part 1. in praefat pag. 21. fine 22. circa med and impugned generally by the Lutherans see further of this confessed Controversie Musculus in loc commun pag. 309. post medium and Jacobus Kimedoncius in his Redemption of Mankind l. 2. c. 15. pag. 164. post med 165 166. 70 That the Controversie of the Scriptures as which be sacred which not is not to us determined otherwise than by the Churches tradition affirmed by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity l. 1. sect 14. pag. 86. ante med and lib. 2. sect 4. pag. 102. fine 103. initio l. 3. sect 8. pag. 147. circa medium and by M. Whitaker adversus Stapletonum l. 2. c. 6. pag. 370 prope initium pag. 357. prope initium l. 2. c. 4 pag. 300. ante med p. 298. post med and see Peter Martyr in his Common places part 1. c. 6. sect 8. initio pag. 42. b. and Lubbertus de principiis Christian dogmat l. 1. c. 4. pag. 18. circa med Pu. and Chillingworth also proves through his whole book that we receive the certainty of Scripture upon the Authority of the Church Yet impugned by certain English Protestants in their Christian Letter to Mr. Hooker pag. 9 10. by Ursinus in his Doctrinae Christianae compendium in prolegomen pag. 13. circa med by Calvin Institut l. 1. c. 7. sect 4. post med and generally by divers others who to avoid the Churches Authority do referre the proof and knowledge of the Scriptures to the testimonie of the Spirit 71 That the Church of Rome is part of the house of God a Limb of the visible Church of Christ c. is affirmed by [a] Brereley tract 1. sect 6. subd 1. in the Text and margent at e.f.g.h. 1. k.l.m.n.o. Mr. D. Baro in his four Sermons and two Questions disputed ad clerum c. Serm. 3. pag. 448. fine saying I dare not deny the name of Christians to the Romanists sith the learneder Writers do acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Church of God by Mr. Hooker in his fifth book of Ecclesiastical Polity pag. 188. initio saying The Church of Rome is to be reputed a part of the House of God a limb of the visible Church of Christ and Johannes Regius in his liber Apologeticus c. in Considerat Censurae c. pag. 95. fine saith In Papatu autem cum fuerit Ecclesia vera c. and Mr. Hooker ubisupra pag. 130. ante med saith We gladly acknowledge them to be of the Family of Jesus Christ by Mr. Bunny in his Treatise tending to Pacification sect 18. pag. 109. circa med saying Neither of us may justly account the other to be none of the Church of God and pag. 113. post med saying of Catholikes and Protestants We are no several Church from them nor they from us also by D. Some in his defence against Penry and Refutation of many absurdities c. in Mr. Penries Treatise pag. 164. ante med saying That the Papists are not altogether Aliens from Gods Covenant I have shewed before and ibidem pag. 182. initio saying In the judgement of all learned men and all Reformed Churches there is in Popery a Church a Ministrie a true Christ c. and pag. 176. prope finem saying If you think that all the Popish sort which died in the Popish Church are damned you think absurdly and dissent from the judgement of the learned Protestants Likewise by M.D. Covell in his defence of Mr. Hooker his five bookes of Ecclesiastical Polity pag. 77. ante med saying We affirm them of the Church of Rome to be parts of the Church of Christ and that those that live and die in that Church may notwithstanding be saved Insomuch that he doubteth not ibidem pag. 68. paulo post med to charge the Puritans with Ignorance for their contrary opinion Yet impugned so generally by others as to name any is needless 72 The Patriarchship or Primacy of one over the Church in several Nations and Kingdomes is acknowledged by Melancthon alleged heretofore in the second Consideration num 10. paulo post initium in the margent at 17. by Jacobus Andraeas alleged there in the Margent at * next before 16. by Luther alleged ibidem in the Margent at * next be 18. and by Sir Edwin Sands who more than infinuateth the known want hereof in the Protestants Church to be to them as matter of defect and imputation [m] Brereley tract 2. c. 3. sect 5. subd 3. in the margent at l. saying in his Relation c. fol. S. 2. on the B. side The Papists have the Pope as a common Father Adviser and Conductor to reconcile their jarres to decide their differences to draw their Religion by consent of Councils unto Unity c. whereas on the contrary side Protestants are as severed or rather scattered Troops each drawing adverse way without any means to pacify their quarrells no Patriarch one or more to have a common superintendance or care over their Churches for correspondency or Unity no ordinary way to assemble a general Councill of their part the only hope remaining ever to asswage their Contentions and by [n] Brereley in his Omissions and Aditions of pag. 702. l. 19. Andraeas Friccius de Ecclesia l. 2. c. 10. pag. 570. 73 Unwritten Traditions necessary to be observed are confessed even by such Protestants as are professed Adversaries thereto As namely Mr. D. Field in his Treatise of the Church l. 4. c. 20. pag. 241. fine where having impugned unwritten Traditions in the end yet as inforced confesseth and concludeth
Francofurti tit de libris veteris Novi Test fol. 379. saith further that the said Book was not written by Salomon but by Syrach in the time of the Macchabees and that it is like to the Talmud the Jews Bible out of many Books heaped into one Work perhaps out of the Library of King Prolomaeus And further he saith ibidem tit de Patriarchis Prophet fol 28â— that he doth not believe all to have been done as there is set down And teacheth tit de lib. vet Novi Test The Book of Job to be as it were an argument for a fable or Comedy to set before us an example of Patience And he fol. 380. delivers this general censure of the Prophets Books The Sermons of no Prophet were written whole and perfect but their Disciples and Auditors snatched now one sentence and then another and so put them all into one Book and by this means the Bible was conserved If this were so the Books of the Prophets being not written by themselves but promiscuously and casually by their Disciples will soon be called in question Concerning now the other Books of Scripture although Luther acknowledged many of them for Canonical how far yet hee was chargeable otherwise in mistranslating them we will refer to the credit of Zuinglius his testimony who tom 2. ad Luther l. de Sacrament pag. 412. b. 413. a. saith hereof to Luther Thou dost corrupt Luther the word of God thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter and perverter of the holy Scriptures how much are we ashamed of thee who have hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure and now prove thee to be such a man And see the like testimony of Keckermannus in Brereley tract 1. sect 10. subdivis 4. initio at b. saying in System S. Theolog. l. 1. p. 188. circa medium Lutheri versio Germanic in vet Test praesertim in Job Prophetis naevos suos habet non exiguos Omitting many other particulars we will here observe that whereas it is said 1 Joan. 5.7 There are three which give testimony in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one This being a most evident place in proof of the Trinity is omitted by Luther in his Dutch Bibles In like manner where it is said Rom. 3.28 We accompt a man to be justifyed by faith without the works of the Law Luther to colour his doctrine of only faith translateth here justifyed by faith alone and being admonished of his thus adding here to the text the word alone he persisteth wilful saying tom 5. Germ. fol. 141. 144. Sic volo sic jubeo sit pro ratione voluntas c. Lutherus ita vult ait se esse Doctorem super omnes Doctores in toto Papatu And concludeth lastly Propterea debet vox sola in meo novo Testamento manere etiamsi omnes Papismi ad insaniam reducantur tamen non eam inde tollent paenitet me quod non addiderim illas duas voces omnibus omnium viz. Sine omnibus operibus omnium legum Pu. Mark his boldness to addo even to the text of holy Scripture In like manner Luther doubteth not to argue the Aposties themselves of error in doctrine which is to the great prejudice and danger of their writings for if they did or might erre in Doctrine how then can we be sure that they were the Scribes of the holy Ghost and that their writings be Canonical and voyd of errour To this end Luther saith in Epist ad Galat. Cap. 1. after the English translation fol. 33. b. paulo post med and 34. a. initio tom 5. Wittemberg of An. 1554. fol. 290. b. Be it that the Church Austine and other Doctors also Peter Apollo yea an Angel from Heaven teach otherwise yet is my Doctrine such as setteth forth Gods only Glory c. Peter the chief of the Apostles did live and teach extra verbum Dei besides the word of God And in the same place fol. 290. a. fine he further saith Sive S. Cyprianus Ambrosius Augustinus five S. Petrus Paulus imò Angelus è Coelo aliter doceat tamen hoc certè scio quòd humana non suadeo sed Divina Yet further against St. James his mentioning of extreme Unction he saith de captivit Babylon de extrema Unctione in tom 2. Wittemberg fol. 86. h. ante med Ego autemdico si uspi am deliratum est c. tamen si etiam esses Epistola Jacobi dicerem non licere Apostolum sua authoritate Sacramentum instituere c. Hoc enim ad Christum solum pertinebat I further say that if in any place it be erred Puâ—or be done like a man doting or raving in this place especially it is erred c. or done like one doting or raving but though this were the Epistle of James I would answer that it is not lawful for an Apostle by his authority to institute a Sacrament For this appertained to Christ alone As though that blessed Apostle would publish a Sacrament without warrant from Christ In like manner concerning Moses he saith tom 3. Wittemberg in Psalmum 45 fol. 423. a. vide ibidem fol. 422. and tom 3. Germ. fol. 40.41 in Colloq Mens Germ. fol. 152.153 Habuit Moses labia sed profunda infacunda impedita irata in quibus non est verbum gratiae sed irae mortis peccati colligite omnes sapientias Moysis Gentium Philosophorum invenietis eas coram Deo esse vel dolatriam vel sapientiam hypocriticam vel si est politica sapientiam irae c. Haâ—et enim Moyses labia diffusa fellè ira c. Moses hath his lips unpleasant stopâ—ed and angry c. Do you collect together all the wisdoms of Moyses and of the Heathen Philosophers and you shall find them to be before God either idolatry or hypocritical wisdom or if it be politick yet but the wisdom of wrath c. Moyses hath his lips full of Gall and anger c. away therefore with Moyses c. 18. As concerning [a] Brerely tract 2 cap. 2. sâ—ct 10. subdivis 3. faith Luther reproveth as well such Protestants as say [b] Luther upon the Galathians Englished in cap. 2. fol. 67. u. post med Neither can faith be true faith without charity as also those others who teach [c] Luther ibidem fol. 67. circa med though my faith be never so perfect yet if this faith be without charity I am not justified calling it [d] Luther ibid. fol. 68. b. prope finem fol. 126. b. And see Luther in his Sermons Englished c. pag. 204. circa med impiety to affirm that faith except it be adorned with charity justifyeth not Nay he proceeded so far as he doubted not to say [e] Luther tom 1. prop. 3. Fides nisi sit sine c. Faith unless it be without even the least good works doth not justify nay
then attribute so much to his Epistles that whatsoever was contained in them was sacred lest that in thinking so we should saith he impute immoderate arrogancy to the Apostles His words are tom 2. contra Catabaptistas fol 10. b. circa med Ignorantia vestra est quod putatis cum Paulus haec scriberet Evangelistarum commentarios Apostolorum Epistolas jam in manibus Apostolorum atque authoritate fuisse quasi vero Paulus Epistolis suis jam tum tribuerit ut quicquid in iis contineretur sacrosanctum esset non quod ipse velim non esse sacrosancta quae illius sunt sed quod nolim Apostolis imputari immoderatam arrogantiam In so much that where the Evangelists say This is my Body Zuinglius to supply their supposed defect altereth the text with incredible boldness translating and saying insteed thereof This signifieth my Body Whereof Schlusselburg a learned Protestant in Theologia Calvinistarum l. 2. art 6. fol. 33. b. fine saith Nec potest hoc scelus Zuinglii ullo colore excusari res est manifestissima in graeco textu non habetur significat sed est c. And fol. 44. a. he speaketh to the Zuinglians saying Nec potestis rem inficiari aut occultare quia exemplaria Francisco Regi Galliarum à Zuinglio dedicata sunt in plurimorum hominum manibus excusa Tiguri Anno 1525. in mense Martio in octavo c. And yet more of the Dutch Bible of the Zuinglians he saith there Ego in Saxoniae oppido Mundera An. 60. apud Scholae Rectorem Humbertum vidi exemplar Germanicorum Bibliorum quae Tiguri erant impressa ubi non sine admiratione animi perturbatione verba Filii Dei ad imitationem Zuinglii somniatoris depravata esse deprehend Nam in omnibus illis quatuor locis Math. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. ubi verba institutionis Testamenti Filii recensentur Hoc est Corpus meum hic est sanguis meus inhunc modum textus erat falsatus hoc significat Corpus meum hoc significat sanguinem meū And see further Zuinglius himself tom 2. l. de vera falsa Religione fol. 210. a. ante med where he saith Sic ergo habet Lucas accepto pane gratias egit fregit dedit eis dicens Hoc significat Corpus meum 28. Pu. Be pleased Reader to reflect here that as above we heard Zuinglius deeply taxing Luther saying to him Thou dost corrupt the word of God thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter of the holy Scriptures so here we see how the Lutherans cry shame on Zuinglians for the same crime of falsifying the word of God by turning This is into This signifies my Body c. teaching every one who desires not to betray his own Soul not to trust either of these two or any other Protestant in their Translations seeing there is not a Translation among them which is not condemned by other Protestants as we shall declare after I have noted some very particular corruptions of our English Protestants Zuinglius is condemned by other Protestants for changing This is into this signifies But was he alone guilty of this impiety No. The Communion Book of the Church of England together with the Articles and Book of Ordination were composed Anno 1547. by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishops of Rochester Ely Hereford Worcester Linclon Chichester Dr. Redman Dr. Robinson Dr. Cox the Deans of Pauls of Exeter and of Lincoln who at the Kings charges partly at Windsor partly elsewhere contrived them all which were ratified and confirmed by the Parliament in the year 1548. In this Common Book to say these few things by the way there was Invocation of Saints and Prayer for the dead which are the Doctrines commonly objected by modern Protestants against Catholicks as is yet to be seen many Copies being yet extant And in the Statute of King Edward the sixt it is resolved that those that are abstemious that is cannot drink Wine may receive under one kind only Afterward the then Lord Protector at Calvins instigation as appeareth by his Epistles to the Duke of Summerset put out the Invocation of Saints and Prayer for the dead so variable is the Religion of Protestants But to come to our purpose of proving that not Zuinglius alone was guilty of that foul falsification of the Scripture by translating signifies for is In the first Edition of the said Communion Book the words cited out of Scripture were rendred thus This is my Body c. A year after it was altered thus This signifieth my Body c. A little after is and signifieth were both expunged and a blank Paper put in the place of the Verb thus this my Body c. which without the Verb signifieth nothing or rather may be applyed to any thing as it may please the Painter or changeable Protestant And lastly is was put in again Of this incertainty in Protestant Religion in a matter of greatest moment Nicholas Heath Archbishop of York and Lord Chancellour of England minded the Kingdom 1. Elizabethae in his Speach against the bringing in of the uncertain and unsetled new Religions which Speach saith a man of great learning and credit under whose hand I received it I have read and have seen divers of King Edward the sixt Service Books some with is some with signifieth and some with a blank in the place Now Reader look above and apply to English Protestants that which Lutherans justly object to Zuinglius for his translating signified for is 29. Moreover it is to be observed that the Bible in King Edward the sixt days was translated into English by the Bishops of St. Davids Hereford Ely Norwich and Rochester and therefore it is called the Bishops Bible In it the whole Book of the Canticles which they prophanely why may not I say blasphemously translate the Ballad of Ballads and many other Chapters and verses in the Bible were particularly noted as not fit to be read to the common people or by them But in the latter Bibles all things are equally permitted to all from which liberty what could be expected then that which we find by lamentable experience an endless multiplication of new Heresies without any possible means of remedy as long as men are resolved not to acknowledge an infallible Judge of Controversies but to leave every man to read Scripture which they must interpret according to their own mind or fancy not having any other infallible Rule or Guide to follow I know that a learned Catholick in a familiar discourse with Dr. Collins chief Reader of Divinity in Cambridge told him that Protestants themselves were the true cause of so many Heresies by permitting the promiscuous reading of Scripture to every Body and the Doctor answered plainly That for his part he did not approve such liberty and this is the thing which the Church dislikes but it is a meer calumny to say that she
Castalio in defen trans pag. 170. Castalio that learned Calvinist and most learned in the tongues reprehendeth Beza in a whole Book of this matter and saith that to note all his errours in Translation would require a great volume And Mr. Parkes saith [x] Parks in his Apology for three testimonies of Scripture c As for the Geneva Bibles it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifold errors which are both in the text and in the margent or else utterly prohibited All which confirmeth King James his grave and learned Censure in his [y] In the Conference before his Majesty pag. 46. thinking the Geneva Translation to be worst of all and that [z] Ibid. fol. 47. in the marginal notes annexed to the Geneva Translation some are very partial untrue seditious c. Lastly concerning the English Translations the Puritans say [a] Master Christopher Carlile in his Book that Christ descended not into Hell pag. 116. a. 117 c. Our Translation of the Psalms comprised in our Book of Common Prayer doth in addition subtraction and alteration differ from the truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at the least In so much as [b] Purita Petiti to his Majesty pag. 76. initio they do therefore profess to rest doubtful whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe thereto And Master Carlile saith of the English Translators that they have [c] Carlile pag. 118. depraved the sense obscured the truth and deceived the ignorant that in many places they do detort the Scriptures from their right sense And that they shew themselves to love darkness more than light falshood more than truth And the Mininisters of Lincoln [d] In their Book delivered to King James 16. of Decem. pag. 11. Diocess give their publick testimony tearming the English Translation a Translation that taketh away from the text that addeth to the text and that sometime to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost Not without cause therefore did his Majesty affirm [e] In the confer before his Majesty fol. 46. that he could never yet see a Bible well translated into English Thus far Brereley 34. Pu. Now let Protestants consider duly these points First Salvation cannot be hoped for without true Faith Faith according to them relyes upon Scripture alone Scripture must be delivered to most of them by the Translations Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men in whom nothing is more certain than a most certain possibility to erre and no greater evidence of truth than that it is evident that some of them embrace falshood by reason of their contrary translations What then remaineth but that truth faith salvation and all must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground How many poor souls are lamentably seduced while from Preaching Ministers they admire a multitude of texts of Divine Scripture but are indeed the false translations and corruptions of erring men Let them therefore if they will be assured of true Scriptures fly to the alwaies visible infallible [f] St. Aug. l. 4. de Trinit c. 6. saith Contra rationem nemo sobrius Contra Scripturas nemo Christianus Contra Ecclesiam nemo pacificus senserit Catholick Church against which the gates of Hell can never so far prevail as that she shall be permitted to deceive the Christian world with false Scriptures Translations or Interpretations wherein there is a main and clear difference between us Catholicks who rely upon an infallible and living Guide the Church and Protestants who believe not only every private man but the whole Catholick Church to be fallible and subject to error and if it were but for this cause alone we ought to believe the Catholick Church to be infallible without the belief whereof we can have no absolute certainty what Books be Canonical nor what is the certain interpretation of them and the end of all will be that we cannot believe Christian Faith to be infallible and certainly true in so much as Luther himself by unfortunate experience was at length forced to confess thus much saying [g] In lib. cont Zuingl de ver ta Corporis Christi in Eucha If the world last longer it will be again necessary to receive the decrees of Councels and to have recourse to them by reason of divers interpretations of Scripture which now reign On the contrary side [h] Brereley tract 1. sect 10. subdivis 4. pag. 259. as our learned adversaries do thus agree to disagree in their own translations mutually condemning as before each other so also have they upon a second and more advised consideration afforded honourable testimony of our vulgar Latin translation had from Rome which Master Witaker otherwise in splene and spirit of contradiction tearmeth [i] Whitaker in his answer to Mr. Reynolds Preface pag. 2. fine 26. initio an old rotten translation c. full of faults errors and corruptions of all sorts [k] Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura quaest 5. c. 11. pag. 543. initio then which nothing can be more faulty or desteined and [l] Whitaker in his answer to Mr. Reynolds pag. 223. fine vide pag. 218. fine of all others most corrupt To this purpose Beza saith [m] Beza Annot. in Cap. 1. Lucae ver 1. The old Interpreter seemeth to have interpreted the holy Books with mervyllous sincerity and Religion Vetus Interpres videtur summa Religione sacros Libros interpretatus which Religious observation of the old Interpreter is acknowledged in like sort by D. Humfrey de ratione interpret l. 1. pag. 74. where he saith Proprietati verborum satis videtur addictus vetus Interpres quidem nimis anxiè quod tamen interpretor Religione quadam fecisse non ignorantia Also Beza further saith in praefat novi Testam Anni 1556. Vulgatam editionem maxima ex parte amplector caeteris omnibus antepono the vulgar Edition I do for the most part imbrace and prefer before all others Carolus Molinaeus in nov Testam part 30. signifieth his no less answerable liking thereof saying aegerrimè à vulgari consuetaque lectione recedo quam etiam enixè defendere soleo I can very hardly depart from the vulgar and accustomed reading which also I am accustomed earnestly to defend In so much as he professeth [n] See Molinaeus in Luc. 17. to prefer the vulgar Edition before Erasmus Bucer Bullinger Brentius the Tigurine translation also before John Calvin etiam Joannis Calvini omnibus aliis and all others Whereto might be added the like further answerable commendation thereof given by that famous Protestant Writer Conradus Pelicanus who in praefat in Psalterium Anni 1534. saith Tanta dexteritate eruditione fide Hebraica quoad sensum concordare deprehendimus vulgatam editionem Psalterii ut eruditissimum pariterque piissimum verè Prophetali Spiritu fuisse interpretem Graecum Latinum non dubitem And
Antiparaeus pag. 97. initio saith Tot celebres Antitrinitarii ex Calvinianorum Scholis Ecclesiis prodierunt Writers do therefore affirm them to have been the true and next occasion of these so late new uprising and many daily increasing Arians in [e] Beza in Epist Theolog Ep. 81. pag. 303. paulo post med saith hereof Hinc illud incendium quod tota jam vastata Polonia in Transilvaniam quoque pervasit And Ep. 16. pag. 122. post med be saith hereof Poloniam totam Transilvaniam in hunc miserrimum statum redactam vides Polonia Hungary and Transilvania A thing as yet more probable in that the principal Heads or beginners of these late Arians were as Neuserus confesseth all of them at first Calvinists and so to this present in most other points do these Arian Churches yet continue thinking themselves hereby more reformed than others of whom Mr. Hooker therefore saith in his Ecclesiastical Policy l. 4. pag. 183. fine The Arians in the Reformed Churches of Poland think the very belief of the Trinity to be a part of Antichristian corruption and that the Popes triple Crown is a sensible mark whereby the world might know him to be that mystical Beast spoken of in the Revelation in no respect so much as in his Doctrine of the Trinity 43. And the Protestant Writer Luc. Osiander in Epitom c. centur 16. pag. 269. fine saith of these Reformed Arians Asserunt Deum unum in Essentia trinum in Personis esse commentum Anti-Christi esse triplicem Cerberum esse Deum Baal Moloch c. Symbolum Athanasii vocant fidem doctrinam Satanasii vanissimè insuper jactitant Lutherum vix tectum Babylonicae turris detexisse se verò ex imis fundamentis eam exscindere thinking the vulgar Protestant to be over Popish and as far short of Reformation in respect of the Trinity as do the Puritans think him to be in regard of Bishops and Ceremonies In defence of which their horrible Heresie they do daily Print and publish their many [f] Gratianus Prosper a principal Arian publâ—shed in defence of Arianism a Book of this title Instrumentum doctrinarum Aristo elicum in usum Christianarum Scholarum exemplis Theologicis illustratum per Gratianum Prosperum Losci Anno 86. Wherein are reduced into form of argument all or most of the Scriptures usually alleged in proof of Christs Divinity and by him undertaken there to be answered As also he propoundeth very many other Scriptures and reasons reduced into like form of argument against the Divinity of Christ As also Socinus another Arian published lately his Book thereof against Volanus And the other published writings of Gentilis Servetus Blandrata and many other late Arians are known and many Books taking advantage to follow Calvins example in their like perverting of the Scriptures c. proudly [g] See this in Brereley tract 1. sect 10. subd 2. at i. k. And whereas the Calvinists in Polonia did dispute against the Antitrinitaries there and charged them with arguments taken out of the Fathers the Antitrinitaries answered the Calvinists from themselves saying Hi sunt vetusti panni quosâ—vos ipsi primi lacerastis in aliis fidei articulis c. lacerata jamdudum calceamenta See this in Nullus nemo H. 9. rejecting the produced testimonies of the Fathers and in [h] Symlerus de aeterno Dei Filio l. 1. c. 2. saith of the Arians Hienim nos ad Scripturas provocant quia omnem antiquitatem sibi adversari non ignorant omnes sine exceptione rejiciunt And see Brereley tract 1. sect 10. subdivis 2. at i. k. the like appeal of other Arians to only Scripture expresly pretending the same by like examples of the Calvinists appealing from them with shew of great confidence to only Scripture In their allegations whereof they are as were the old Arians [i] St. Austine apud Brereley tract 1. sect 10. atâ—g contra Maximinum Arâ—aâ—um Episc l. 1. initio induceth the Hereticks saying then to Catholicks as Protestants do now Si quid de Divinis Scripturis protuleris quod commune est cum omnibus necesse est ut audiamus Hae vero voces quae extra Scripturam sunt nullo casu à nobis susc piuntur Cum ipse Dominus moneat nos dicat Sine causa colunt me docentes mandata praecepta hominum And again ibid. versus finem libri the Heretick further saith Oro opto Discipulus esse Divinarum Scripturarum c. Si affirmaveris de Divinis Scripturis si alicubi Scripti lectionem protuleris nos Divinarum Scripturarum optamus inveniri Discipuli See the very many Scriptures alleged only by the Arian Gratianus Prosper in his Book intituled Instrumentum doctrinarum c. very frequent and plentiful as also no less prompt in making answer as Calvin doth and by imitation of his example unto sundry those very texts of greatest importance which were heretofore by the Fathers and are now by us urg'd in proof of Christs Divinity In so much as many and some of them very learned Protestants and of great reputation in their Churches quite contrary to M. D. [k] M. D. Field of the Churcâ— l. 3. c. 29. initio pag. 138. ante med saith The tenth imputation is of Arianism which Heresy we accurse to the pit of Hell with all the vile calumniations of damned slanderers that charge us with it Neither did any of our men incline to it Fields untrue and bold denyal are fully perswaded that Arianism or further infidelity is as it were the Materia prima or very last end or center whereto the poyse or Bias in this behalf of Calvinism is by the proper direction of its genius daily more and more moving and inclining In most other points the Antitrinitarians and Arians continue yet Protestants as appeareth by Gratianus Prosper the Arian in his Book intituled Instrumentum Doctrinarum c. Printed Losci Anno 86. wherein he setteth down their several opinions to be The inequality of Christ with God the Father That Children are not to be Baptized till they be of discretion to answer for themselves which Zuinglius and Oecolampadius think to be but a matter of indifferency as is declared in Brereley tract 2. cap. 3. sect 9. subd 3. at e. f. And that the Roman Church may not in any sense be called the Church of Christ 44. Pu. Mark here who be they who are most opposite to the Roman Church namely they who deny the Blessed Trinity and our Saviours Divinity in respect whereof they tearm themselves the Reformed Church condemning the other Protestants for Popish and superstitious And as to Puritans common Protestants were esteemed Popish so Puritans who believe the Trinity and the Consubstantiality of our Saviour with his Father are also tearmed Popish and now even they who deny the Trinity c. will be judged Popish by other Sects who will pretend to be more Reform'd for example
doth casually and obiter among other things make mention over and besides the foresaid doctrine of prayer for the dead of [s] Hamelmannus de Traditionibus Apostolicis col 707. lin 27. col 736. lin 56. And Mr. Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura pag. 655. ante med saith I do acknowledge that Dionysius is in many places a great Patron of Traditions Apostolick unwritten Traditions of [t] Hamelmannus ubi supra col 707. l. 4. col 737. l. 51. Chrysm [u] Hamelmannus ubi supra col 707. l. 49. col 743. l. 4. And D. Reynolds in his conference pag. 488. post med Consecration of Monks of [x] Mr. Reynolds in his conference with Mr. Hart pag. 488. post med Chancels severed with sanctification from the rest of the Church of [y] Hamelmannus de Traditionibus col 741. post med Altars places sanctified and sundry Ceremoniâ—â— of the peoples [z] Hamelmannus ibid. col 742. circa med mutual salutation upon the Pax pronounced of [a] Scultetus in his Medulla Patrum pag. 484. circa med saith In libro de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia multa scribit de Templis de Altaribus de locis Sacris de choro de consecratione MonachoruÌ„ de Tonsura rasione capitum the tonsure and rasure of Priests heads of perfuming or [b] Hospinianus in hist Sacramentaria lib. 1. pag. 104. post med burning Incense at the Altar and of [c] Humfred Jesuitismi part 2. pag. 519. circa med and Luther tom 2. Wittemberg Anno 1562. de captiv Babyl fol. 84. b. ante med saith At dices Quid ad-Dionysium dices qui sex enumerat Sacramenta c. Respondeo scio hunc solum haberi ex antiquis pro septenario Sacramentorum licet Matrimonio omisso senarium tantum dederit As concerning the number of Sacraments mentioned by the Fathers it is to be noted that the Fathers do speak of them but casually and as occasion is ministred So sometimes they do in some places but mention one Sacrament in other places two in others three in some place Baptism only in an other Order in a third Confirmation In this sort St. Austin contra literas Petil. l. 2. c. 104. affirmeth The Sacrament of Chrism or Confirmation to be in the kind of visible sings and sacred even as Baptism it self And in Epist Joan. tract 6. he mentioneth not only the Sacrament thereof but also the vertue of the Sacrament In an other place namely tom 7. l. 2. contra Epist Parmen c. 13. he mentioneth Baptism and Order And to prove that Orders once received cannot be lost no more than Baptism he saith Sâ— enâ—m utrumque Sacramentum est quod nemo dubitat cur illud non amittitur illud amittitur Neutri Sacramento injuria facienda est And again Vtruâ—que enim Sacramentum est c. In like manner St. Cyprian inserm de ablut pedum initio saith Docetur quae sit Baptismi asiorum Sacramentorum stabilâ—tas mentioning therewith all sundry of them And so plainly that Chemnitius speaking thereof in examen part 2. pag. 7. b. post med confesseth that quinque numerat he there reckoneth up five Sacraments Only answering thereto for his refuge that Cyprian was not Author of that Treatise The vanity of which his answer against that Treatise of Sermons extant under Cyrians name is sufficiently refelled heretofore in this Consideration num 2. at 7. In like manner doth Innocentius the first-mention extreme Vnction in so much as Bale in his Pageant of Popes fol. 26. and Szegedine in speculo Pontificum pag. 33. ante med reprehend Innocentius for that he affirmed Annoyling of the sick to be a Sacrament Six of our Sacraments that the Book of Hermes entituled Pastor affordeth in like manner testimony or ground-work of [d] Abraham Scultetus in medulla Theolog. c. pag. 467. post med Free-will and Monastical solitude of [e] Hamelmannus de trad Apost col 252. fine col 253. initio col 254. lin 38. Abraham Scultetus ubi supra pag. 467. post med Purgatory and prayer for the dead of [f] Hamelmanus ubi supra col 253. l. 54. col 254. lin 49. Hamelmannus ubi supra col 251. lin 48. col 254. lin 30. merit and justification of works of professed chastity in Ministers of fasting [g] Hamelmannus ubi supra col 254. lin 36. from certain meats of [h] Ibidem col 253. lin 46. the Innocent parties remaining unmarried in case of adultery of [i] Chemnitius examen Concil Trid. part 4. pag. 127. prope finem works of Supererogation and of [k] Hamelmannus ubi supra col 254. lin 53. saith Fuit igitur borum Papismi â—nitium impurus ille liber Pastoris vel Hermetis Popery And though in the Primitive Church some question [l] Vide Eusebium hist lib. 3. c. 3. prope finem was made of this Book as whether it were Canonical Scripture or not many Fathers [m] It was thought to be sacred and for such alleged by Origen l. 10. in Epist ad Rom. Tertul. l. de oratione Clemens Alex. l. 6. Strom. Athanasius in libro de Decretis Nicen. Synod Cassianus Collat. 13. c. 12. by Iraeneus l. 4. c. 37. thinking it was yet is it confessed to have been received at the least for [n] Hamelmannus ubi supra col 254. lin 24. saith illum pro Ecclesiastico habuerunt quidem Patres and col 730. lin 25. he saith Hermetis libellus qui dicitur Pastor est olim aliquando in numerum Ecclesiasticorunâ— librorum relatus And see the same yet further confessed by Mr. Hooker l. 3. pag. 34. prope initium In so much as Eusebius hist l. 5. c. 3. Rufinus in Symbolum Hieron in Catal. do commend this book for profitable and so Mr. Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura pag. 93. fine confesseth of Hierom. Ecclesiastical And the authority thereof to have been by so many since specially alleged by [o] Hamelmannus ubi supra col 253. lin 10. saith Liber Pastoris videtur receptus esse ab Irenaeo Clemente And col 255. lin 42. he saith Ostendit Euseblus à quibusdam librum Pastoris receptum esse imprimis ab Irenaeo sic Origines l. 1. de Principiis c. 3. citat quaedam ex libro Pastoris ejusque libri lectionem commendat hom 13. in Ezech. Origen Clement and Irenaeus who lived next to those Apostolick times 14. Fourteenthly this confessed continued current of Testimonies from the Fathers is so certain and evident that sundry of our learned Adversaries doubt not therefore to make general disclaim in the antient Fathers Hence it is that Mr. Whitaker affirmeth [1.] Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 6. pag. 243. fine saith Ex Patrum erroribus vester ille Pontificiae religionis Cento consutus est The Popish Religion to be a patched Coverlet of the Fathers errours sewed together And that also M.