much out of the Scriptures themselues which point since it includeth within it selfe by necessary illation this question of the Scriptures being Iudge it shal be more fully discussed in the Chapter following Now of this poynt as also of the former belieued without the wrytten word warranting them we may say Harum (*) Tertull. de corona â—ilitis disciplâ—narum Traditio tibi praetenditur auctrix Consuetudo confirmatrix Fides obseruatrix 16. The last argument heere vrged for the refelling of our aduersaries Doctrine herein may be taken from the practise of both the auncient moderne heretickes who euer for the warranting of their heresies heresies I meane euen in the iudgment of our aduersaries haue euer fled to the Scriptures and haue most seriously taught therby to auoyde the authority of the Church that the Scriptures alone ought to Iudge defyne al doubtes of Fayth whatsoeuer And therfore to the end that the reader may see what wicked heresies haue bene proseminated and haue sprung from this so false and hereticall a principle I will exemplify this one point somewhat at large in a Chapter following there shewing how many diuelish heresies haue bene countenanced by their Patrones with the misapplyed testimonies and authorities of the holy Scriptures which abuse of the Scriptures well sheweth that the Doctrine hereof neuer proceeded from God (l) Tertull. de fuga in persecut Quid diuinum non bonum quid bonum non diuinum That it cannot be determined to vs by Scripture that there is any Scripture or Gods word at all CAAP. XI FOR the more particuler handling of this poynt I am to demaund of our aduersaries these three things following which are as it were the three steps wherby we ryse to the graduall difficulties of this question heere intreated of First how they can proue out of Scripture the particuler Ghospell of S. Marke or of any Euangelist to be the same without all corruption which the sayd Marke or the other did wryte considering that it is granted euen by our aduersaries that diuers parcels of the Scriptures haue bene fouly corrupted and mangled by the Additions Translations and other such like deprauations of the auncient heretikes Secondly if it be granted them that any one Ghospell or other part of Scripture is the very same vntoucht and vndefiled as the authour therof did first wryte it yet if we should demand of them how the Scripture can assure and determine this poynt to wit that such a Ghospell as for example that of S. Marke is true and Canonicall Scripture and yet that the obtruded Ghospell of S. Thomas is a false prophane wryting since both these Ghospells haue indifferently in the beginning their seuerall prefixed titles the one but of an EuaÌ„gelist yet accepted the other euen of an Apostle but reiected what could they say Thirdly if it were agreed vpoÌ„ which were the particular books which maks vp the CanoÌ„ of Scripture yet if any prophan Atheist should arriue to that height of impiety as to deny flatly that ther were any such diuine wrytinges at all as to be counted Gods sacred word or Scripture how could our Aduersaries conuince him herein by the Scripture it selfe It were idle for them to reply that the Scripture telleth him that the bookes of the Prophets and the Apostles are diuine wrytinges since the Atheist would not belieue the Scripture so saying vntill it were proued to him which cannot be out of the Scripture that this Scripture affirming so much is Scripture that is a diuine supernaturall and sacred wryting no more then at this present we Christians belieue that the Iewes Thalmud is diuine Scripture though it be countenaÌ„ced with the title of Gods vndoubted word 2. This poynt so presseth our Aduersaries that diuers of them such as are of no meane ranke haue bene forced to confesse that it cannot be proued out of Scripture that there is any Scripture at all neyther that this Ghospell is true that forged nor lastly that we now enioy any one or other parcell of Scripture free from all manner of corruption and as the Prophet Euangelist or Apostle guided by the holy Ghost did first pen it Hence it is that Chemnitius (a) ExameÌ„ Concil Trident. intreating of Tradition Brentius (b) In prolegomenis do teach that this one sole vnwrytten Tradition remayneth in the Church of God to wit that there are certaine diuine wrytings or Scriptures But Hooker (c) In his treatise of Ecclesiasticall policy in treating of this poynt passeth on further and iumpeth with vs in the reason thereof for thus he sayth Of thinges necessary the very chiefest is to know what bookes we are bound to esteeme holy which poynt is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And then afterwardes he warranteth his Doctrine with this reason For if any bookes of Scripture did giue testimony vnto all yet still that Scripture which giueth credit vnto the rest would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it neyther could we euer come to any pause wheron to rest our assurance this way so that vnles besides Scripture there were something which might assure vs that we do well we could not thinke we do well no not in being assured that Scripture is a sacred and holy rule of weldoing So farre we see this learned Protestant whose calamity is the more to be deplored in that retayning diuers Catholike grounds he forbare to build a fayth answere able therto was from making the Scripture to be the sole iudge and vmpier of all articles of Fayth since by his Doctrine the Scripture could not determine out of itselfe that there is any Scripture at all which is the Basis or foundation of the rest by our aduersaryes owne assertions 3. Others of our aduersaries who will not acknowledge the truth in this point labour to salue the matter with diuers weake and insufficient answeres And first we find that Caluin (d) l. 1. Instit c. 7. §. 1. 2. sayth That the true and holy Scriptures are discerned from the false and prophane with the same facility that light is discerned from darknes and sweetnes from bitternes Which answere if it were true how came it to passe then that Luther reiecteth the Epistle of S. Iames which Caluin himselfe reuerenceth as Apostolicall both of them being able to discerne the materiall light from darknes the sweet from sower 4. The same Caluin whom our more moderne Sectaries in most points do follow as beasts follow the first of their heard affirmeth also That the maiesty voice of God doth so present it self to vs in the sacred Scriptures as that it secureth vs of the infallible truth therof Against which first I vrge that the Maiesty voyce of God speaking in the Scripture is not distinguished froÌ„ the Scripture it self but is the same eueÌ„ as the CoÌ„mandemeÌ„t of a Prince expressed in his law is the same which his law
2. Cor. 4. the light to shine out of darknes and can cause truth to be confirmed by the maintainers of falshood The insufficiency of the Scripture for the determining of points of fayth discouered by force of Reason CHAP. X. MANY argumēts might be produced from reason for the confirming of this verity but I here content my selfe with some few of the chiefest And first if our aduersaries Position were true concerning the Scriptures being iudge of our fayth then must they vnderstand hereby eyther their whole Canon and body of Scriptures taken ioyntly togeather or els euery particular booke therof as it is considered by it selfe alone Not this later both because it would follow that if any one booke alone were a competent Iudge of all articles of our fayth that then al the other parcels of Scripture were superfluous and needles which were most prophane to imagine As also in that euery particular Ghospell or any such part thereof doth omit many chiefe articles of our Fayth without any mention had of them at all And thus we find that the Annuntiation the Natiuity the Circumcision of our Lord besides many other points are not as much as once touched in S. Iohns Ghospell in like sort neyther doth S. Matthew mention the Circumcision nor S. Marke the Presentation 2. Now our Aduersaries Doctrine herein is no more iustisiable if they will here vnderstand the whole body of all the Canonicall books of Scripture ioyntly considered together to be this Iudge which assertion they for the most part maintaine And the reason therof is this In that diuers Canonicall and vndoubted parcels euen by the Protestants acknowledgment of both the old and the new testament haue bene lost for the space of 1500. yeares and neuer yet found againe And therfore it ineuitably followeth that if all the sacred books of Scripture taken together should be this iudge and that diuers of them for so many Centuries and ages haue bene and still are lost that then during so long a tyme we neuer enioyed a sufficient and competent Iudge and such a one as was proportionable to that fayth left to vs by the Prophets Apostles and Euangelists but in lieu therof we haue had a maimed imperfect and defectiue Iudge Which to affirme were to impugne Gods care and prouidence which he beareth towards his Church 3. Now that diuers parcels of both the Testaments haue perished it is most cleare and our Aduersaries cannot deny it And first touching the new Testament it appeareth out of the Epistle to the Colossians (a) c. vle that Saint Paul wrote an Epistle to them of Laodiced which neyther we nor the auncient Fathers haue proued euer to haue bene extant since the Apostles tyme. In like sort S. Paul may seeme to intimate in his first Epistle to the Corinthians (b) cap. 5. in these words Scripsi vobis in epistola c. that before the writing of the sayd Epistle he had written to thē another Epistle and yet we cannot find that the Church euer had any such Epistle 4. Now it is no lesse cleare that diuers parts of the old Testament haue bene and are as yet lost at least for the sayd former space of tyme. And to omit the testimonies of S. Chrysostome (c) Hom. 9. in Matth. hom 7. in prior ad Corinth affirming so much we read in the books of Kings (d) 3. Reg. 4. that Salomon wrote many Parables and verses which now we haue not for thus there it is sayd Locutus est Salomon tria millia Parabolarum fuerunt carmina eius quinque millia After the same manner we find it also registred of Dauid (f) Paralip vlt. in these words Gesta autem Dauid priora nouissima scripta sunt in libro Samuel Videntis in libro Nathan Prophetae atque in volumine Caiad Videntis All which wrytinges here mentioned are neyther at this present nor haue for many former ages bene extant in Gods Church So cleare thus we see it is by the force of this argument that the Scripture neyther as it is wholy takē together nor seuerally by particular books can be the iudge for the determining of all doubts of fayth 5. Another reason for the incompetency of the Scripture as Iudge may be taken from the nature of a iudge as is else where touched constituted in euery well gouerned Common wealth For it cleare that euery Iudge first ought to be able of his owne authority to take notice of the Contentions and Controuersies rysing in the state Secondly he must haue power by interpreting the law to giue his censure against the party offending Lastly he is to compell and force the delinquents to obedience vnder the paine of feuere punishments None of which points can be effected except there be besides the wrytten law a visible iudge Seing then by application of what is here sayd to our present purpose that the Scripture cannot of it selfe take notice of Controuersies rysing in matters of religion nor euidently declare to the Litigants the true meaning of such passages of it self warranting or condemning the points in question nor finally can constraine the aduerse party to relinquish his errours impugned by the wrytten Word as we find by the dayly experience of Heretikes flying to the Scripture as Iudge Therfore it is most perspicuous that the Scripture cannot be erected as a competent Iudge in the decision of articles of fayth among Christians 6. Neyther is it any satisfiable answere to reply that God himselfe seeth all Contentions in doubts of fayth and in some sort by meanes of the Scripture pronounceth his sentence in condemnation of the heresies impugned This I say is not sufficient and the reason hereof is because God doth not so euidently deliuer his sentence by the mediation of the Scripture as the party conuinced therby will acknowledge it for his sentence And consequently if the question should be whether the Scripture be the word of God or not God could not clearly giue his iudgment only by the helpe of Scripture Therfore it followeth that we must haue a visible iudge and such as his finall decrees being once manifested the party maintaining his errours will acknowledge them as they proceed from the Iudge whether iustly or iniustly to be clearly and euidently condemned by the sayd iudge which we see falleth not out in obtruding the Scripture for it is obserued that the Anabaptist or any other acknowledged heretike wil neuer confesse his heresies to be impugned by the Scripture or himself condēned therby 7. And of the like feeblenes is that other answere of some hereto who courteously do grant that there may be acknowledged indeed an external publike iudge of all doubts in religion meaning the generall voice of gods Church but yet this iudge teach they is limited in it definitions and not absolutely infallible but only so farre forth as it treadeth the tract and path of Gods written word and which declining from
is Secōdly that we cānot be assured whether this representation of the Maiesty voyce or authority of God speaking in the Scriptures be but a meere illusion of the diuell or some vehement apprehension of our owne phansy which may well be doubted of considering that all our aduersaries will auouch no doubt the Maiesty of God in those bookes which they acknowledge for diuine Scripture and yet we see by the example aboue that one of them seemes to find the authority and Maiesty of God in such a booke which himselfe acknowledgeth the which another of his brethren for want of the same Maiesty vtterly reiecteth Againe let our aduersaries yield some sufficient reason if they can to assure vs that there appeareth a greater Maiesty of God in those books of Scripture which they all ioyntly acknowledge for Canonicall then in those others which the Catholikes do receaue and themselues reiect 5. Others among whome is also Caluin (e) Inst 1. c. 7. §. 5. for he is most various and irresolute in saluing this difficulty to answere the former doubt come finally to this point which indeed is the Center of all their answeres to wit that God giueth to the elect and faythfull that inspiration or illumination of spirit as that therby they are made able to discerne which is the true word of God which is forged adulterated consequētly that they are assured that there are certaine diuine wrytings left to his Church And thus they flye to the priuate spirit already refuted To this ten our D. Field (f) l. 4. c. 8. thus sayth After we are enlightened by the spirit we do no longer trust eyther our owne iudgment or the iudgment of other men that the Scriptures are of God but aboue all certainty of humane iudgment we do certainly resolue as if in them we saw the Maiesty and glory of God Thus we see how our aduersaries not resting themselues vpon any firme resolution but replying now this now that and so running in and out are most farre from satisfying the difficulty here propounded with these their Meandrian and wynding euasions 6. Now the weakenes of this last answere is discouered seuerall wayes and first besides all those reasons and arguments aboue vrged in refutation of the priuate spirit in that if they be demanded to proue how they are assured of this supernaturall illumination they endeauour to proue it out of the Scriptures since they cannot say it is beleeued for it selfe seing it then would follow contrary to their owne ground that something is to be belieued which hath not his proofe in Scripture And if againe they be required to proue that there are Scriptures they alledge for proof therof this their illumination which kind of reasoning euery yong Logitian knoweth to be a vitious circulation since both these seuerall pointes to wit the certainty of the Scriptures and the certainty of their illumination may be questioned doubted of alike by them with whome they are to deale Secondly the former answere is insufficient in that this their supernaturall inspiration wherby they discerne the Scriptures is nothing els but an Act of Fayth and as it seemes is so acknowledged to be by D. Field (g) lib. 4. cap. 13. who calleth it Apotentiall hability the light of diuine vnderstanding and the light of grace all which thinges are included in Fayth and therfore our Aduersaries do generally teach that the illumination of this spirit belongeth to all the faythfull Now we know that it is their owne groūd and principle that Fayth ryseth only out of the Scriptures 7. These two thinges then being thus by the Protestantes assertions to wit that this illumination is an act of Fayth and that Fayth proceedeth only from the Scriptures I see not that it can be possibly conceaued how this their illumination of Faith which is later both tempore naturâ then the Scriptures as proceeding by their Doctrine from reading and giuing credit to the said Scriptures should be the meanes and guide to direct them in discerning that there is any Scripture at all or which is the true word of God and which Apocryphall and prophane since they ought to haue this illumination before they begin to censure iudge of the Scriptures And thus far concerning this question whether the Scripture is able to proue that there is Scripture And since it cannot it cōsequently followeth that it cānot be the iudge of our fayth in that besides it is an Article of our Fayth that there is Scripture it is not able to proue that from which by our Aduersaries Doctrine all the rest is deryued That Heresies in all ages haue bene mayntained by the supposed warrant of Scripture CHAP. XII NATVRE the seale of Almighty God impressed in these Elementary bodies is not only indued with a generatiue power therby to eternize or perpetuate herselfe but hath withall this annexed priuiledge to wit that euery indiuiduall body which is produced beareth a great resemblance as we see both in man and other creatures if so the secondary causes be not found defectiue to that body by the which it was begotten And this secret or mystery of producing the like to itselfe is extended euen to arts and sciences hence it proceedeth that in Logike the artificiall refiner of reason true Propositions euer beget true Conclusions and out of false premises result false and erroneous illations Neyther doth this ground rest heere but passeth further it being in like sort iustifiable in all generall Axiomes and principles which are the Basis or foundation of any Doctrine which Principles being true good and expedient then must all that which as necessary effectes are ingendred therby be of the same nature But if they be false wicked and pernicious the rest then which is builded therupon participateth of the same quality So as to take a Synopsis or view in generall of the state or nature of such grounds and principles it shal be sufficient without recurring particularly to them only to rest in the speculation of such propositions other poynts of Doctrine which thence do deseend and are as it were propagated by them 2. Now then it being thus that we are able to glasse the Fathers look in the childes face the premises in the cōclusion and the causes in the effectes I doubt not but whosoeuer will call to mynd some few of those blasphemous and wicked heresies which haue bene ingendred hatched and nourished by this Principle and ground That the Scripture interpreted by the priuate spirit is the true and sole iudge of Controuersies will at length haue iust reason to pronounce that the sayd heresies are the deformed and prodigious brood of so vgly and monstrous a parent since there was neuer yet any heresy but it could support it selfe for the tyme by misconstruction of Scripture And therfore no maruel if euery Sectary did so much couet to make his refuge to Gods sacred word Hoping that in this sort by disclaiming
who should oppugne it Yf calumniously they admit this Doctrine of the Churches Soueraingty in matters of lesser moment with intention to restrayne it only to such and deny it in greater and more weighty Controuersies then are they truly interessed in the words of an auncient Father (i) Tertul. contra Praxeam Affectauit diabolus aliquando veritatem defendendo concutere 6. Now the reason why the Scripture alone though in it selfe it be most reuerend certaine and infallible doth occasion such vncertainty in the decyding of Controuersies is no lesse fully acknowledged by our learned Aduersaries For since it is not the shew but the sense of the word as Doctour Reynolds (k) In his conference with Hart. p. 63. acknowledgeth that must decyde Controuersies and seing the Scripture immediatly of it selfe performeth not the same as not hauing viuam vocem as D. Whitaker (l) De sacra Scripturae p. 221. confesseth wherwith it speaketh but by the help of certaine meanes on our part to be obserued And seing that the meanes are these following to wit the reading of the Scriptures the Conference of places the weighing of Circumstances of the text their skill in tongues their diligence prayer and the like furthermore seing as these are generally acknowledged by our Sectaries (m) So teacheth D. Reynolds in his Crnference p. 83. sequentibus And D. VVhitaker Controu 1. q. 3. c. â—1 q. 5. c. 10. to be the ordinary meanes so are they confessed by others of our most learned aduersaries to be but humane and most subiect to errour and mistaking as appeareth euen by the example of many Protestants who though vsing the former sayd meanes haue yet most fouly erred euen in the iudgment of their owne brethren in the interpreting of Scripture Therfore from hence it necessarily followeth that all priuate interpretation of Scripture proceeding from these meanes is most ambiguous and vncertaine But to conclude this poynt I will heere set downe D. Whitakers (n) VVhitaker vbi supra inference or collection in his owne words drawne froÌ„ the former premises thus then he argueth Looke what the meanes speaking of interpreting the Scripture are such of necessity must the interpretation be but the meanes of interpreting obscure places of Scripture are vncertaine doubtfull and ambiguous therefore it cannot otherwise be but the interpretation must be vncertaine And if vncertaine then may it be false Thus far the former Doctour which shall serue for the closure of this poynt and likewise of the first part of this Treatise THE SECOND PART That Protestants cannot agree which Bookes be Scripture and which are not CHAP. I. IN the former part it being proued that the Scripture is not the Iudge of Controuersies by reason of the diuers arguments there alledged It now followeth heere to be declared that if for the tyme we should grant ex hypothesi that the Scripture as it is absolutely considered in it selfe were this only and true iudge yet our Aduersaries of all sorts of Christians euer being are most exempted from pretending it for iudge and this for three speciall considerations 2. First because they do not agree among theÌ„selues which seuerall books ordinarily contained within the printed volume of the Bible are Scripture and which are not Secondly in that they do not acknowledge any original copy now extant to be true and incorrupted only of such bookes as they all ioyntly receaue for Scripture as also in that they condemne all Translations of confessed Scripture as false and erroneous eyther into Greeke Latin or English Thirdly because the confessed and incorrupted Scripture more clearly maketh for the Catholikes then for our Aduersaries if we insist eyther in the perspicuity of the letter or in the expositions of the Fathers or in the implicite iudgments of our Aduersaries themselues Which three poynts being iustifyed and made good the proofe wherof shall be the subiect of this Part it cannot be conceaued how they should defend with any aduantage to themselues the Scripture to be this Iudge 3. And intending to begin with their dissentions in acknowledging or reiecting certaine bookes of Scripture we are first particularly and attentiuely to obserue that wheras all Controuersies of fayth are to be determined as our Aduersaries hould by the Canonicall Scripture which is the only written word of God And seing they are at endles stryfe one with another which is this Scripture one acknowledging such and such bookes to be this sacred word which another discanoneth as apocryphall and prophane Therfore they in no sort can pretend the Scripture to be the iudge of Controuersies as not being yet resolued amongst themselues which those bookes be that are to be counted within the body and Canon of holy Scripture and consequently not agreed with theÌ„selues which is this iudge For except this last poynt be first acknowledged on al sides it followeth that if a Lutheran against a Caluinist or one Caluinist against another do vrge a place or text of such a booke which the one acknowledgeth to be Scripture the other condemning it the vrging of such a place can be of no force for the iudging of the question controuerted since it wil be replyed that the Canonicall and true Scripture alone is to defyne all doubts of fayth but that booke out of which such places and texts are alledged is no part of Gods wrytten word and therfore is not of authority for proofe of any poynt 4. Now that our Aduersaries cannot agree hitherto what bookes are true Scripture and what are not it will appeare most euidently euen out of their owne wrytinges And first to begin with their disagrements in opinion touching the bookes of the old TestameÌ„t in which poynt I will speake nothing of certaine parts of Daniel of Ester neyther of the bookes of Toby Iudith of the booke of Wisedome Ecclesiasticus and the Machabees since our Aduersaries with a full and ioynt consent haue thrust al these out of the Canon of the Bible though if they be to deale with Catholikes and will needes haue the Scripture only to iudge of all questions they ought to acknowledge al those bookes to be parcell of Scripture which the Catholikes do take for Scripture But I will restraine my selfe only to such the which some of them do reuerence as Canonicall and others reiect as Apocryphall from whence it followeth as I sayd before that they disagreeing among themselues what bookes are parts of the holy Scripture and consequently of their supposed iudge cannot with any shew of reason maintaine that the Scripture ought to determine at least among them al doubts of Religion whatsoeuer 5. First then the booke of Iob though it be acknowledged and receaued by most of the Caluinistes both here in England and other Countries yet Luther (a) In Conuiuialibus ser titul de Patriarchis Prophetis sayth plainly that he doth not belieue all those things which are reported therin Nay he proceedeth so
far as that he is not ashamed to affirme (b) Ibidem titul de libris veter is noui Testam That the argument therof is a meere fiction inuented only for the setting downe of a true and liuely example of patience 6. In like sort or rather a more scoffing manner he sayth (c) Ibidem titul de lib. veteris noui Testam to debase therby the authority of the wryter that the booke intituled Ecclesiastes seemes to him to ryde without spurrs or bootes only with bare stockinges though the sayd booke is generally acknowledged by the Caluinistes With such scurrilous insolency Heresy is euer accustomed to vent it selfe forth against Gods saered word and truth 7. The booke of the Canticles which is the true portraiture or delineatioÌ„ of the church or according to some of our blessed Lady or after others of a perfect soule not contaminated or defyled with the pitch of mortall sin This booke Castalio (d) Castal in translat Latin suorum bibliorum defends to containe only matter of sensuall or wanton loue and for the same he is deeply charged and reprehended euen by Beza (e) Beza praefatione in Iosue himselfe 8. The booke of Baruch is in like manner condemned as Apocryphall by Caluin and Chemnitius (g) In Exam 4. sess CoÌ„cil Trident. though acknowledged for Canonicall by most of our other Aduersaries which to be true appeareth in that we do not find in their wrytinges and the same may be sayd for the acknowledgment (f) l. 3. Instit c. 20. §. 8. of the former bookes condemned by some others of their brethren that it was reiected by them And thus much concerning the parcells of the old Testament Now if we will cast our eyes vpon our Aduersaries behauiour towards the new Testament we shall fynd their disagreements therin no lesse if not greater then they were in their approbation or condemnation of the bookes of the old Testament 9. And first touching the Euangelistes we read that Luther (h) Praefat in nou Testamen lib. de Scripturae Ecclesiae authorit c. 3. in septicipite c. 5. vt Cocleus notat as soone as became a Protestant so instantly doth the forsaking of Gods holy word accompany the forsaking of his holy Church of our foure Ghospells would at one blow cut away three affirming that the Ghospell of S. Iohn is the only fayre and true Ghospell and by infinite degrees to be preferred before the other three adding withall that the generall opinion of the being of the foure Gospells is to be abolished potesting further that himselfe giueth more reuerence and respect to the Epistles of Saint Paul and Peter then to the other three Euangelistes Wherby we may clearly see that he condemneth the exposition of al Antiquity interpreting that the foure Euangelistes were figured in the foure beasts shewed to (i) Apoc. cap. 4. S. Iohn Luther (k) Prolego epist ad Hebr. also reiecteth the Epistle to the Hebrews affirming it neyther to be Saint Pauls nor any of the Apostles since it contayneth sayth he certaine things contrary to the Apostolical Doctrine With Luther in condemning this Epistle do agree Brentius (l) Confess VVittemberg c. de sacra Scriptura Chemnitius (m) Exam 4 sess Concil Trident. and the Magdeburgenses (n) Cent. l. â— c. 4. col 55. Yet Caluin (o) Instit impressa anno 1554. c. 8. § 216. acknowledgeth it to be a true Apostolical Epistle and condemneth the Lutheranes for reiecting of it In like sort it is receaued by the Caluinist Ministers (p) Confess Pissiacens artic 3. for Canonicall in one of their publike Confessions as also by the present Church of England 10. The epistle of S. Iames is denyed to be Canonicall by Luther (q) In prolego huius epist who sayth that it is straminea epistola an epistle of straw and vnworthy altogether an Apostolicall spirit In like sort it is condemned by Brentius Chemnitius and the Magdeburgenses as appeareth out of the places of their writings alledged afore For the disproof of the Epistle to the Hebrews Erasmus for the Catholikes do disclaime from him as any of theirs sayth of this Epistle that it doth not tast of any Apostolicall grauity Yet Caluin and the Church of England acknowledge it as a parcell of Canonicall Scripture 11. Doth not (r) Annotat in hanc epist Luther Brentius Chemnitius and the Centuristes in the places aboue alledged condemne in like manner the Epistle of Iude and the second Epistle of Peter and of the second and third of Iohn rested they not doubtfull And Erasmus (s) Prolego ad haÌ„c epist. sayth plainly that the second and third Epistle of Iohn are not be taken as his Epistles but as written by some other man Neuertheles Caluin receaueth all the sayd Epistles and the Caluinist ministers as appeareth in their foresaid Confession (t) Confession Pissiacens art 3. So doth also the Church of England Of whose acknowledgment of all the former bookes condemned by Luther see the Bible printed anno 1595. and also the last edition 12. To conclude to come to the Apocalips which Dionysius (u) Eccles Hierarch cap 3. doth call arcanam mysticam visionem dilecti discipuli The secret and misticall vision of the beloued disciple of our Lord Luther (x) â—n prolego huius lib. professeth openly that he doth not acknowledge this booke to be eyther Propheticall or Apostolicall Brentius (y) Locis vbi supra and Chemnitus subscribe to Luther therin whose condemnation of this Booke we do lesse maruell at since it is not strange if the Eagle in his high to wring flight therin did so lessen his shape as that he could not be discerned by their fleshly and sensuall eyes notwithstanding Caluin (z) Vbi supra the Magdeburgenses and the Church of England maintaine it to be Apostolicall and wrytten by S. Iohn himselfe Neyther heere can it be replyed that though the Lutherans do dissent from the Caluinistes or Sacramentaries in reiecting or allowing of Scripture yet the Sacramentaries which are the pillars of the true reformed Churches and with whose Doctrine the church of EnglaÌ„d doth principally coÌ„spire do ioyntly with one accord agree of the bookes of Scripture coÌ„sequently that at least among them so agreing the sayd bookes are to iudge and determine doubtes of fayth This refuge auayleth nothing since their assertion therein is most false For who knoweth not to instance only in some few that Musculus (a) Muscul locis communibus c. de Iustificat a Sacramentary reiecteth the Epistle of S. Iames and Beza (b) Beza the history of the adulterous woman recorded in the Ghospell of S. Iohn c. 8. In like sort Bullinger (c) So charged by LaureÌ„tius Valla. a Sacramentary reiecteth that additioÌ„ to our Lords prayer vz. For thine is the kingdome the power the glory c. though all these
parcells be acknowledged and receaued for Scripture by other Sacramentaries 13. And thus much may serue for our Aduersaries open and great contention concerning the approuing or reiecting of seuerall bookes of both the Testaments Frō whence it most necessarily followeth that though it might be dreamed for the tyme as I sayd aboue that the Scripture might be iudge of Controuersies among them which acknowledge with one consent such and such bookes only to be Scripture since all they agree what bookes those be which are to be this iudge Yet our Aduersaries wherwith we now deale cannot possibly maintaine the same for iudge for they disagreing with themselues of the bookes which are Scripture must needs disagree which is this iudge and how farre it reacheth euery one of them either extending it beyond it limites or straitning it within to narrow a compasse Therfore it is no more possible that the Scripture should decyde all Controuersies with the Protestants so long as they continue in their contrary sentēces about the authority of diuers bookes therof then it can be conceaued how a suite depēding betwene two is to be decyded by a certaine limited company of men as there is a limited number of the Canonicall bookes of Scripture or els not to be tryed at all and yet the one of these Litigants should disclaime from diuers of the sayd deputed Iudges as altogether imcompetent and insufficient and the other in like sort frō sundry of the other iudges Can it be conceaued I say how this matter should be ended both the parties still perseuering without change in their seuerall auersions against the seuerall persons of the intended Iudges especially if the iudgment of the matter were not to be vndertaken but with this condition that both the Litigant parties should freely and voluntarily agree aforehand in the number and in the particular persons of those iudges by whome they would haue their question and Controuersy determined And thus it iust fareth with our Protestants as long as they disagree what bookes are the Canonicall Scripture and yet will they haue this Scripture alone to determine and resolue all poynts of fayth and religion 14. To this argument drawne from their vncertainty of acknowledging what bookes are the word of God Our Aduersaries can only reply that though there be some particular bookes as these aboue mentioned of which they are not absolutely resolued whether they are to be accounted as parcells of Gods word or no yet since they all agree in acknowledging the rest of the bookes to be Canonicall all those other bookes so ioyntly acknowledged by them for Scripture ought to be taken for this iudge of Controuersies Which answere of theirs is most weake and relieues them nothing at all and this for seuerall reasons 15. And first seing there are many bookes both of the old Testament and of the new not speaking of those bookes in the old which are ioyntly condemned by thē all and acknowledged by Catholikes which are impugned by some of our Aduersaries and defended by others And that by all probability yea morall certainty some one or other of those bookes so impugned by some of thē is though not so acknowledged Gods sacred word which being so it must needes then follow that the Protestants teaching the Scripture to be the iudge and square of all doubts and Controuersies and attributing this prerogatiue not to any one booke a part since any one booke or other is not able to decyde all doubts which may arise in that it intreateth not of all poynts which may come in question but to the whole body and Canon of the Scripture It must follow I say that this supposed iudge of theirs is maimed and imperfect as wanting some one booke or other which being reiected by some of our Auersaries should concurre to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and full perfection or accomplishment of it selfe And therfore I conclude that if any such one booke of sacred Scripture be exempted frō the number of those which should make vp this Iudge as in all likelyhood some one or other is since there are greater proofes for the authority of them all then for condemnation of any one it demonstratiuely may be inferred that our Aduersaries cannot pretend as long as they thus contend which bookes be Scripture the Scripture to be this their iudge it being taught by our Aduersaries that fides is not obiectum adaequatum to any one booke or parcell of Scripture but to the whole Canon it selfe 16. Secondly if only such bookes which are ioyntly receaued by all our Aduersaries are to make vp this Iudge and no others then would it follow that there are diuers poynts of Fayth which by their owne acknowledgment are necessary to be beleeued and yet cannot be proued at all or at least clearly inough out of such parcells of Scripture as they all acknowledge to be Scripture though most euidently proued out of those parts which are reiected by some of thē As for exāple if the three first Gospels are to be reiected as Luther teacheth we shall fynd that there are diuers poynts touching our Sauiours Incarnation and particularly that he was borne of a Virgin as also his life conuersation heereupon earth which are to be beleeued and are found in some of these three Gospells and yet the Ghospell of S. Iohn only which is acknowledged by Luther maketh no mention of them neyther are they at al touched in any other acknowledged booke of Scripture 17. Thirdly though it were supposed that only those bookes of Scripture which all our Aduersaries doe ioyntly acknowledge for Canonicall were to decyde and iudge all poynts of Fayth yet could not those books performe so much except it were first agreed among them that there were some certaine originall copies or some translations now extant of them which our Aduersaries would acknowledge for true and vncorrupted since otherwise not the true word of God but the word of God as it is corrupted should become the iudge of our Fayth But there are no Originals nor Translations of the Scripiure speaking euen of those bookes which themselues do ioyntly acknowledge that are now extant which they do not charge with sundry corruptions and falsifications as it shall appeare most euidently in these Chapters following So manifest it is that euen those bookes only as are acknowledged by all our Aduersaries cannot become the iudge of Controuersies 18. But before we come to the Translations it followeth that as we haue shewed aboue that our Aduersaries do reiect many bookes of vndoubted and Canonicall Scripture and consequently that they cannot pretend the Scripture as iudge So we will in this place obserue the carriage and comportment of the Protestants towards the Euangelists and the Apostles whom diuers of our Sectaries haue not bene affraid to charge with foule errours in manner and practise or exercise of their faith And first it is cleare that D. Whitaker (d) De Eccles contra Bellarm.
by the works of the law In both which places the very answere is expressed which the Catholikes are accustomed to make to such arguments since in the sayd testimonies it is set down so we Catholikes do teach that the works of the law of Moyses and consequently all others done meerely by nature and freewill without the fayth spirit and grace of Christ can in no sort iustify a man vpon which expresse distinction of works in the Scripture it selfe it followeth that all other places which through a naked resemblance of words may seeme to make more literally for the Protestants in this poynt then these alledged are to be expounded by these former texts since the holy Ghost caÌ„not set downe contrary and repugnant Doctrines 11. For defence of Traditions we vsually alledge that place of the Thessalonians (a) 2. c. 2. Brethren hold the traditions which you haue receaued whether it be by word or by Epistle Wher we see that the Apostles words do immediatly and necessarily without any helpe of strained consequences imply a diuision or partition of his Doctrine which no doubt was Gods word And that part therof was deliuered to the Thessalonians by his Epistle the rest by word of mouth only Which Text containes the very conclusion of the Catholikes Doctrine to wit that the Euangelists and Apostles did not wryte all things touching Christian fayth but deliuered part therof only by preaching or by some other such like instruction Now our Aduersaries to confront this text and the Doctrine deriued thence are acccustomed to obiect the words of S. Paul (b) Galat. 1. Sed licet nos c. But if we or an Angell from heauen euangelize to you besides that we haue euangelized be he anathema In which words they suppose two things and both false before they can square this text to their purpose 12. First that the word Euangelizare doth include only the wrytten word and not verbum traditum the word left by Tradition which is implicitly the matter in question and as the Sophisters call it Petitio principij Secondly that the Latin word praeter being in this text hath reference to euery thing which is not expresly set down in Scripture since indeed it here signifieth as much as contra meaning therby all Doctrine contrary to the Doctrine already deliuered by the Apostles for otherwise S. Iohn should haue had the Anathema pronounced against him for wryting of the Apocalips after this Epistle of S. Paul was wrytten So farre distant is this text from falling directly and plainly vpon the impugning of Traditions since from such false supposalls as granted they draw their Illation against the Catholike Doctrine therof 13. In like sort they alledge that saying of the Apostle to Timothy All Scripture (c) 2. c. 3. inspired of God is profitable to teach to argue to correct to instructe in iustice thaâ— the man of God may be perfect instructed to euery good worke Where we see that this text as well as the former is so farre froÌ„ pressing the Doctrine of Traditions immediatly and without any helpe of a secondary inference as that it doth not so much as once make mention of Traditions at all either in word or sense neyther can any thing be racked against vs from thence vntill it be first proued which neuer shal be that the word vtilis signifyeth sufficient and because a thing is profitable and conduceth to another thing or end it therfore is sufficient alone of it selfe for the obtayning therof 14. Lastly they bring forth certaine places (d) Math. 15. Galat. 1. Coloss 2. which do particularly condemne certayne pernicious and friuolous Traditions of the Iewes and the Traditions which the Catholikes do teach to haue bene deriued from our Sauiour and his Apostles be all one So impertinently do our Aduersaries alledge these and such like places against our Doctrine of Traditions 15. Concerning prayer for the dead what can be more cleare perspicuous for proofe therof then those words alledged out of the Machabees (e) 2. c. 1. a testimony so euident as that I cannot forbeare it though it impugne my former method Sancta ergo salubris est cogitatio c. It is therfore a holy and heathfull cogitation to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sinnes Which place we see doth literally expresly contayne the very conclusion of the Catholike Doctrine therin and which words proceeded vpon the practise of Iudas Machabeus who sent a summe of money vnto Ierusalem to procure sacrifices to be performed for the spirituall reliefe and ease of his dead souldiers I know that our Sectaries do expunge out of the Canon of Scripture this booke as Apocryphall yet they are to remember that it is reckoned among other diuine and vndoubted bookes of Scripture by the third Councell of Carthage (f) Can. 47. by Innocentius (g) Epist ad Exuperium the first and by S. Austin himselfe who thus (h) l 18. de Ciuit. Dei c. 36. sayth Libros Machabeorum c. The bookes of the Machabees are acknowledged by the Christians for Canonicall not by the Iewes 16. Now the chiefest places which our Aduersaries do obiect herein are among others such as being intended of the generall resurrection of the Iust are calumniously wrested by them to the particular tyme of ech vertuous mans death Thus they alledge that sayng of the Psalmist (i) Psalm 126. Cùm dederit dilectis suis somnum ecce haereditas Domini as also that place of the Apocalips (k) 14. Beatiqui in Domino moriuntur c. Blessed are they which dye in the Lord from henceforth now sayth the spirit that they rest from their labours for their workes follow them And as concerning this later place Saint Iohn throughout his whole Chapter speaketh of the later iudgment and therfore except the Protestants do first coÌ„found the particular tymes of mens deaths with the tyme of the general iudgment they can draw nothing from hence in denyall of purgatory adde to this that some of the Fathers as shal be shewed hereafter do interpret this text of martyrs only who neuer suffer any paynes in Purgatorie 17. They also produce to the same end the place in Ecclesiastes (l) â—1 Si occiderit lignum ad Austrum c. If the tree shall fall towardes the Souht or towardes the North it shal be in that place where it did fall The meaning of which passage being deliuered in Metaphors or Allegories doth the more hardly conuince any thing since the sense in regard therof appeares the more doubtfull Notwithstanding the common exposition of this place is that euery man eyther dyes in state of grace vnder which state are also vnderstood those which come to Purgatory and so falleth towards the South wherby is meant Heauen or in the state of mortall sinne and then falleth towards the North to wit into hell And whosoeuer dyeth in eyther of
THE PSEVDO-SCRIPTVRIST OR A TREATISE WHEREIN IS PROVED That the Wrytten Word of God though most Sacred Reuerend and Diuine is not the sole Iudge of Controuersies in Fayth and Religion Agaynst the prime Sectaries of these Tymes who contend to maintayne the Contrary Written by N. S. Priest and Doctour of Diuinity DEVIDED INTO TWO PARTS And dedicated to the Right Honorable and Reuerend Iudges of England and the other graue Sages of the Law An Haeretici diuinis Scripturae testimonijs vtantur Vtuntur planè vehementer quidem Sed tantò magis cauendi sunt Vincent Lyrinens lib. aduers Haer. Do Heretiks cite the diuine testimonies of Scripture They do indeed and that most vehemently But therfore are they so much the more to be taken heed of Permissu Superiorum M. DC XXIII THE CONTENTS OF THE seuerall parts of this Treatise IN the first part besides a briefe refutatioÌ„ of the priuate spirit first prefixed therto it is disputed Categoricè and absolutly that the Scripture is not the Iudge of CoÌ„trouersies And this euicted from the difficulty of the Scripture in regard of its Subiect seueral senses and phraze of the stile as also from Reason testimony of the Fathers Doctrine of Traditions c. In the second Part it is disputed Hypotheticè that supposing for the time that the Scripture as it is simply coÌ„sidered in it self were the iudge of Controuersies yet it is proued that of all the different kynds of Sectaries that euer were the Protestants can with the least reason insist in it as Iudge And this is made euident by three seuerall wayes First because the Protestants cannot agree among themselues what Bookes are true Scripture and consequently do not agree in assigning which bookes doe concurre to the making vp of this Iudge some allotting more bookes to it some fewer and so they make it of greater or lesser extent then euen according to their seuerall opinions it should be Secondly because euen of those Bookes which the Protestants ioyntly imbrace for Canonicall Scripture there is not in their iudgments any one entire true Original either Hebrew or Greeke now to be found neither are there any traslatioÌ„s of them now extant but such as are by the PtotestaÌ„ts assertions false corrupt and impure And so by obtruding the Scripture for Iudge they obtrude at least by their owne Doctrine a false corrupt and impure Iudge Thirdly lastly because euen of those particular bookes only or parts of Canonicall Scripture whose Originalls in them yet extant are true and whose translations in those passages are admitted by the Protestants for true and vncorrupted the texts and testimonies do make against the Protestants and in behalfe of the Catholike Roman Religion if we insist either in the perspicuity of the letter and words or in the iudgment of the auncient Fathers interpreting the said texts or finally in the implicit tacit censure acknowledgment of the Protestants theÌ„selues And thus the Protestants by appealing to Scripture do wound themselues TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE AND REVEREND IVDGES OF England and to the other graue Professours of the Law THERE is no kind of learning right Honourâ—ble and Learned which more conduceth to mans benefit as instructing him in the way towardes heauen then the sacred knowledge of Diuinity There is no part of Diuinity more expedient in these our contentions and misbelieuing Times which threaten shipwrack of our auncient Christian Faith then the study of Controuersies There is no Controuersy more to be insisted vpon then the question concerning the Iudge of these Controuersies since the proofe of it inuolues within it selfe by force of necessary illations the proofe of all other controuersiall points For wheras most of the doubts betwene the Protestants and vs being conuincingly demonstrated for certaine infallible yet such proofes do but force the iudgment of the Reader only in those particulars But it being heere once coÌ„cluded acknowledged on both sides what or who is this Iudge it then ineuitably followeth that all those articles of faith are most true and Orthodoxall which are found to be decreed and defined by the sayd Iudge Besides daily experience telleth vs that the particular discourse of any dogmaticall point in Religion being fortified and confirmed either by vs or our Aduersaries according to the state therof differently maintained with seuerall authorities of Gods word doth finally resolue into this point to wit who is to iudge of the sense and true meaning of the foresaid alledged testimonies In so much as that we may iustly pronounce the question of this Iudge to be both the Center Circumference of all other questions since no lesse the lynes and deductioÌ„s of all controuersies do for their last resolution meet and concurre in this one common poynt then that it selfe being cleared and made euident doth include containe by demonstrable inferences the proofe of al the rest within the capacity and largnes of its owne Orbe The difference betwene vs and our Aduersaries herein is this That we do ioyntly (a) Câ—ncil Trident. sess 4. teach that the whole Church of God by the mouth of the chiefe pastour alone or otherwise seconded with a lawfull generall Councell is ordayned in appealably to define either from Scripture or from the ancient practice of Gods Church what is the vndoubted and Orthodoxall faith of Christians what is Schisme and Heresy But our Aduersaries (b) Luth praefat assertionis suae Melancthlocis de Ecclesia Caluin l. 4. Instit c. 9. Chemnitius in exam CoÌ„cil TrideÌ„t sess 4. do with one consent maintaine that all Controuersies of faith are to be tryed by the touchstone of the holy Scripture so as the Scripture it self is to become the sole iudge since nothing they say is to be receaued as an article of fayth but what hath it expresse warrant from the wrytten Word of God The sentence of the Catholiks in his Controuersy I forbeare to handle in this Treatise since it is already discussed very painfully by diuers Catholike writers and particularly in seuerall (c) Tract 1. sect 4. subd 14. tract 3. sect 7. passages of that most learned worke of the Protestantes Apology of the Roman Church the very store-house of reading or the Armory wherin are layed vp the weapons vsed by vs and taken from our Aduersaries owne sides Therefore I will spend these ensuing leaues in refutation of our Aduersaries Doctrine which consisteth in making the Scripture the sole iudge of Controuersies a subiect not so frequently written off in particuler though otherwise the reprouall therof be potentially and implicitly included in the confirmation of the Catholike contrary Doctrine Now Graue learned Sages the reason emboldning me to dedicate this Treatise otherwise vnworthy your iudiciall view to your selues though of a different religion from me is the consideration of the subiect here discussed which is indeed of that nature as that you may iustly seeme to challenge a particuler interest therin for
to thinke that the customes not crossing your wrytten lawes doe by their being in any sort indignify the same lawes Our Aduersaries (o) Caluin Instit 4. Chemnit in exam Concil Trident. besides almost all others doe so admire the wrytten Word of God as that they reiect and betrample all Apostolicall Traditions whatsoeuer though they in no sort impugne the sacred Scripture boldly pronouncing that all such traditions doe mightily wrong and dishonour the sayd Scripture So forgetfull they are of those wordes of an auncient Father (p) Tertul. vbi supra touching traditions Id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio id ab initio quod ab Apostolis 7. To conclude you would repute it most straÌ„ge to fynd any man that should affirme the present lawes of England to be the only square according to which all suites ought to be decyded and yet the same person withall to auerre that at this tyme we enioy no true Originall or Translations of those lawes all of them being by his censure depraued with many falsifications and alterations since from this it would follow that not the true auncient lawes of the Realme but certaine falsifyed lawes constitutions should adiudge all depending causes Our Aduersaries mayntaining the Scripture for sole Iudge of Controuersies as often we haue sayd do withall maintayne so wonderfully doth innouation and nouelty in Religion darken the very light of reason that at this day there is neyther Originall of the holy Scriptures (q) Se heerof Beza in resp Castal Carolus Molinaeus in sua transl part 12. fol. 110. Castalio in defensio transl p. 117. VVhitaker against Reynolds p. 2â—5 The ministers of Lincolne diocesse in their booke p. 11. or translations of them into the Greeke Latin or our owne vulgar Tongue which are not by their expresse assertions and wrytings fraught with diuers corruptions and deprauations as most largly we will demonstrate in this ensuing discourse Now the matter standing thus as that you are able euen out of the grounds of your owne profession in regard of the great resemblance found betweene it and the question heere disputed particularly to discerne the absurdities and grosse inconueniences attending the Doctrine heere impugned to whome may this discourse more iustly seeme to be presented then to the mature and graue Iudgements of your selues And thus much concerning the peculiar inducements of this my dedication And yet before I remit you to the perusall of this small worke I will make bold a boldnes humbly vndertaken for your owne spirituall good to put you in mynd to haue a reserued eye and intense circumspection ouer our moderne Pseudoscripturists so to call them that is to say Men who fasly abuse the holy Scriptures and who as familiarly and peculiarly interest themselues in the Scriptures as if they had begotten them on their owne brayne as the Poets doe faigne that Iupiter did Pallas And yet when these men vnderstand the Scripture in it true sense as the deuil sometymes hath dâ—â—e seing they giue credit therto not by reason of the Churches authority but of theyr owne priuate conceit which euer stands obnoxious to errour what other thing els do they then belieue a truth falsly But when they interpret Gods wrytten Word in a different construction from the vniuersall and Catholike Church of God I see not how they can auoyd that Dilemma of an ancieÌ„t Father (r) Tertul. l. de praescript Si alium Deum praedicant quomodo eiusdem rebus literis nominibus vtuntur aduersus quem praedicant Si eumdem quomodo aliter So truly and deseruedly are such men included within the sentence of Saint Austin a Father whome of all the Auncients the Protestantes not liking yet least dislyke Omnes (s) Aug epist 221. ad Consentium qui Scripturas in authoritate c. All those speaking of the hereticall Scripturists of his tyme who alledge Scripture for authority make shew to affect the Scripture when indeed they affect their owne errours And thus Graue Iudges in all humility I take my leaue beseeching you euen for your owne soules health that in your seates and tribunalls of Iudicature you doe so iudge as that hereafter your selues be not iudged especially I meane when Gods annoynted Priests or poore distressed Catholikes guilty only of treason if so it must needs be tearmed coÌ„mitted in professing the auncient faith of Christ his Apostles shall become the subiect of your iudgments but euen theÌ„ remeÌ„ber that your selues as being herein deputyes to Gods deputyes are to giue a strict account to that supreme Iudge of all Qui (t) Gen. 18. iudicat omnem terram or with peculiar reference to terrene Iudges to vse the wordes of the Prophet Dauid (u) Psalm 81. Qui inter Dâ—os dijudicat Yours in all Christian loue and charity N. S. THE CHAPTERS OF THE FIRST PART THE Catholikes reuerence towards the Scripture with the state of the questioÌ„ touching the Scripture not being Iudge Chap. 1. That the Priuat Spirit is not infallibly assured of truly interpreting the Scripture Chap. 2. The reasons of the Scriptures difficulty Chap. 3. The difficulty of the Scripture by reason of its subiect Chap. 4. The like difficulty in regard of its seueral spiritual senses Chap. 5. The like difficulty in regard of its phrase or style Chap. 6. The difficulty of the Scriptures acknowledged by the Fathers Chap. 7. The testimonies alledged by our Aduersaries out of the Fathers for the Scriptures sole Iudge are answeared Chap. 8. The same difficulty acknowledged by our Aduersaries Chap. 9. The insufficiency of Scripture for determining doubts in Religion proued by arguments drawne from Reason Chap. 10. That it cannot be determined by Scripture that there is any Scripture or word of God at all Chap. 11. That Heresies in all ages haue bene maintained by the supposed warrant of Scripture Chap. 12. That our Aduersaries do confesse it to be the custome of Heretikes to flie to the Scripture alone and that diuers of them therfore do appeale to the Church as Iudge Chap. 13. THE CHAPTERS OF THE Second Part. THAT the Protestantes cannot agree which bookes are Scripture and which not Chap. 1. That the Protestantes allow not the Originall Hebrew of the old Testament now extant for authenticall and vncorrupted Chap. 2. That the Protestantes allow no Originall Greeke Copy of the new Testament now extant as vncorrupted Chap. 3. That that Protestants reiect the Septuagints translation of the old Testament as erroneous Chap. 4. That the Protestants reiect the vulgar Latin Translation coÌ„monly called S. Hieroms translation Chap. 5. That the Protestants do condemne all the chiefe traÌ„slations made by their owne brethren Chap. 6. That the English Translations are corrupt and therfore not sufficient to determine doubts in Religion Chap. 7 That supposing the Scripture for Iudge of Controuersies yet the letter therof is more cleare and perspicuous for the Catholikes then for the
downe of the weak fortresse of this priuate spirit That which is already deliuered may serue as a preparatiue to the Reader the better to apprehend the force and weight of the ensewing arguments and reasons I will now hasten to the maine subiect and will first begin with the reasons of the Scriptures difficulty The reasons of the Scriptures difficulty CHAP. III. WHY the Catholikes do absolutely deny the Scriptures to haue this inappeachable soueraignty of resoluing all doubts in religion there is no reason amongst others more forcible then that which is drawne from the difficulty of true vnderstanding the sayd writinges for though our Aduersaryes do pretend the easines of them to be such as that any how ignorant soeuer if so he be of the number of the iustifyed may withall readines picke out the true sense for the approbation and fortifying of any point of Fayth whatsoeuer Yet he who looketh into this matter with a cleare-sighted iudgement shall find them to be inuolued with so many ambiguityes as that aforehand he shall haue need to repaire to some (m) Act. 9. Ananias or other to remoue from his eyes the scales of partiality ignorance and other imperfections 2. Therefore let such whose state through want of learning or otherwise is not to intermedle with those sacred writinges remember the punishment inflicted to the (n) 1. Reg. 6 6. Bethsamites for curiously behoulding the Arke which belonged not to them yet we see the consideration of this danger and of far greater is not powerfull inough to controle the ignorant Sectary in his expounding the Scripture who being once placed vpon the high pinacle of his reuealing spirit vndertakes to view al ages and Countryes of the Church and ouerlooking the iudgments of priuate Fathers interpreting Gods written word as low and humble vales extends his sight to the summity and height of generall Councells therein still behoulding with a feuere eye whatsoeuer standeth not right in the line of his owne exposition 3. The chiefe and primitiue reasons of their abstruse hardnes are three to wit The Subiect handled in those writinges The mulâ—iplicity of the senses contained in the wordes And the Methode or manner of the phrase and stile And if but any one of these three do happen though in an inferiour degree of intricatenes in human writings yet we see by experience that it doth so intangle the Reader in such a labyrinth of mistakings as that he will freely acknowledge this ignorance in not apprehending aright in all places the authours mind what shall we theÌ„ thinke when all these three do meet togeather in Gods sacred Booke and that in the highest degree of any writtinges euer extant as it shall appeare in the subsequent Chapters Of the subiect of the Scriptures CHAP. IIII. TO begin with the subiect of the Scriptures we are herein to obserue that it as farpasseth in depth and prosundity the contents of mans wrytinges as God the authour therof ouergoeth him in wisedome and power For wheras the matter of all such humane labours is euer such as that the naturall wit of man is sutable and proportionable thereto both for the deliuering or apprehending thereof and the reason heereof is because the vnderstanding being as it were the summe of our little world euer keepeth it selfe within the Tropicks of naturall reason and consequently is not of force to deliuer or apprehend any thing which may not be confined within the same compasse whereas if we looke into the subiect of these celestiall and diuine writinges we shall find the height of many thinges intreated therein to be such as that they transcend all naturall reason 2. I could heere insist in the Creation of the world of nothing whereof these holy Scriptures assure vs though contrary in outward shew to all Philosophy which teacheth ex nihilo nihil sit I will passe ouer the infinite prophesies recorded therin which euer of their owne nature are hardly to be vnderstood I will in like sort pretermit to speake of the nature of the Angels intreated of in the said booke of Life whose essence being merely spirituall and indued with diuers great priuiledges aboue man can but imperfectly be comprehended with our fleshly vnderstandings finally I will forbeare to speake of the eternall predestination and reprobation of man how and by what meanes they are wrought of the externall working of God within our soules with his grace or otherwise of the Sacraments the Conduits of his grace poynts wherof we are instructed in the holy Scripture and such wherin we may truly glasse the weaknes of mans vnderstanding and the depth of Gods wisedome and power 3. But I will insist a little in those two incomprehensible and astonishing Articles of Christian faith reuealed to vs out of those former diuine Scriptures to wit of the Trinity and of the Incarnation wherin in the first to omit diuers other stupendious difficulties we are taught by â—he said Oracles of God that one and the same Nature to wit the Godhead is in three persons really distinct the same Nature is really and formally identifyed with each of the three persons In lyke sort in the article of the IncarnatioÌ„ where besydes that the Creatour of al things is become a Creature and the father the daughters sonne we receaue from the same fountaine that in one Hypostasis or person to wit in the person of Christ are two perfect natures very far different and that this Hypostasis is altogether really formally identifyed with the diuyne Nature neuertheles is most in wardly vnited with the humane Nature which humane nature doth really and formally differ from the diuine nature And thus much but to skim ouer superficially this poynt of the subiect and matter of the Scriptures which if it were handled according to the fulnes largnes of it selfe would iustly require a Treatise of no small quantity Of the diuers senses of the Scripture intended by the Holy Ghost CHAP. V. IN speaking of the multiplicity of the senses in the Scriptures we are to call to remembrance that Gods sacred written word differeth from all humane writinges besides in many other poynts especially in this that wheras al such haue but one sense or meaning properly intended by the authour this is so fertil therin as that like a shel if it were possible contayning within it seueral kernels of different tastes it carrieth in many places besydes the immediate literal sense three diuers spirituall senses and all warranted by the holy Ghost These three are the Allegoricall Tropologicall and Anagogicall 2. The Allegoricall sense euer beares reference of a spirituall and secret meaning to Christ or his Church So we read that Abraham hauing truly and really two sonnes the one borne of the free-woman the other of the bond-slaue did figure out the two testameÌ„ts of God euen by the exposition of (a) Salat 4. S. Paul 3. The Tropologicall is directed to instruction of manners or conuersation of lyfe
is bounded with some of these ensewing restrictions 2. First their meaning sometymes is that certaine Articles only of our beliefe are most expresly set downe in the Scriptures in this sort (a) Aduersus Hermog pag. 350. Tertullian prouing against Hermogenus that God created all thinges of nothing and not out of any presupposed matter and with particuler reference to those wordes in Genesis God made heauen and earth thus wryteth Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem c. I do adore the fullnes of the Scripture which manifesteth to me the maker of all thinges and the thinges made Let the shoppe of Hermogenus teach that it is written If it be not written let him feare that Vae to such as do add or detract c. Which sentence of Tertullian though deliuered only of one Article of our beliefe our Sectaryes neuertheles do stretch out to al points Controuersyes of faith whatsoeuer Thus most inconsequently arguing affirmatiuely from the Particuler to the Vniuersall Another like place to this they obiect out of (b) Lib. 3. de Trinit Hilarius touching the doctrine of the Trinity 3. Secondly the Fathers sometymes ascrybing great honour and reuerence to the Scriptures the which we Catholikes most willingly admit do teach that the Scripture is an infallible rule not heerby intending that it is the only square of our faith as our Aduersaryes seeme fondly to suggest but that whatsoeuer the Scripture proueth is most infallibly and vndoubtedly proued by the same and consequently that nothing is to be admitted as matter of fayth which doth crosse and impugne the Scripture And thus besides that place of (c) Lib. 1. cap. 1. pag. 37. Irenaeus where he calleth the Scripture in the former sense Cancnem immobilem veritatis as also the like of (d) De fide l. c. 4. Ambrose where he appealeth from the writings of particuler fathers to the Scripture as also of (e) in Cor. 7. hom 13. Chrysostome where he calleth the Scripture Guomonem regulam we find that (f) in Epist ad Galat. cap. 5. S. Hierom man taining with all Catholikes that nothing is to be receaued contrary to the Scripture and that therefore generall Councells are to be examined thereby thus wryteth Spiritus sancti doctrina c. The doctrine of the holy Ghost is that which is deliuered in the holy bookes contra quam against which doctrine if the Councels do ordaine any thing let it be reputed as wicked But what Catholike alloweth any thing against Scripture And how extrauagantly then is this testimony obiected against vs by our Aduer saryes Many such places of other Fathers are vrged against vs and yet they only conuince that nothing is to be accepted as an article of fayth which impugneth the Scripture such is their willfull misapplication of the Fathers wrytings It will be sufficient only to make reference of diuers such passages See then Cyprian contra epistolas Stephani Lactantius Institut diuin lib. 5. cap. 20. Basilius epist. 74. ad Episcopos Occidentales Chrysostome hom 49. in Psalm 95. Epiphan Haer. 63. and 76. Cyril de recta fide ad Regin besides many others 4. Thirdly the Fathers disputing with certaine heretikes who denyed all authority of the Church and Councells in determyning of Controuersies with whom the Nouelistes of our age do altogeather interleague and conspire were forced in their disputes to prouoke those heretikes of the holy Scripture not because the Fathers but those heretikes disclaymed from the Churches authority in this point and therefore the Churches authority being reiected by them the Fathers were driuen to insist only in the written word In this sort Iustinus in Triphone disputing with a Iew who admitted not the Church of Christ appealed willingly to the Scripture only Augustine (g) Contra MaximinuÌ„ lib. 3. c. 14. contending with the Arian Maximinus who admitted not the Councell of Nice professed that he did not expect to haue his doctrine tryed by that CouÌ„cell but only by the Scripture and therefore sayd Nec ego Nicaenum proferam c. I will not produce the Nicen Councell c. Let the matter be tryed by the authority of Scripture Finally S. Basil (h) Epist 88. ad Eustochium disputing with certaine Heretiks touching three Hypostases and one Nature in God and they contemning the authority and custome of Christes vniuersall Church therein was compelled to recall them only to the Scriptures tearming the Scripture in this Controuersy Arbiter and Index but in what doth this testimony much insisted vpon by our Aduersaryes disaduantage vs since we heere see the reason why Basil appealed to the Scripture Againe what â—â—â—ation is this Basil thought that the doctrine of three Hypostase and â—ne Nature in God was expresly proued out of the Scripture Therefore he thought that all other points of our fayth necessarily to be belieued haue their expresse proofe in the Scripture without the Churches authority interposed in the exposition thereof Inconsequently and vnschollerlikely concluded 5. Fourthly the Fathers teaching that the proofe of the Churches authority is euicted from Scripture as is elswhere shewed and they also acknowledging that the Church is to iudge of all Controuersyes of fayth and religion do thereupon and only by reason of this inference sometymes in their writings affirme that the Scripture iudgeth sufficiently of all Controuersyes not meaning that the Scripture immediatly of it selfe is inappealably to determine of all articles and doubts of religion as our Aduersaryes calumniously pretend but that it may be said so to do because the Scripture proueth to vs the infallible authority of that to wit the Church and remitteth vs to the same which hath power definitiuely to end all Controuersies In this sense we find that (i) Lib. cont 2 ep Pelâ—g l. 3 c. 4. Augustine teacheth that euery Controuersy is in some sort sufficiently proued out of Scripture meaning Mediante authoritate Ecclesiae Through the meanes of the authority of the Church which authority for the last resolution of doubtes of fayth is most sufficiently and abundantly proued from the Scripture Other like sentences of this nature concerning the fullnes of Scriptures but euer to be vnderstood by the mediation of the Churches authority are to be found in (k) Tom 3. contra Iulianum Cyrill (l) Epist 5. ad suos discipulos Clemens the first Pope and in some other Fathers 6. A second branch whereunto other obscure testimonyes of the Fathers vsually vrged by our Sectaryes for the patronizing of the Scriptures sole iudge may be addressed (m) De doctrinâ— Christ l. 2 c. 9. is drawne from the perfection which the Fathers seeme to ascribe to the Scripture in regard of which perfection they yield to it a great sufficiency for seuerall respectes and ends though our aduersaryes most fraudulently omitting the scope and drift of such sayings will needs wrest this sufficiency as intended of the Scriptures sufficiency for the immediate and finall determining
of all Controuersyes in fayth whatsoeuer without any restraint or exception Sometymes therefore the Fathers meaning is to shew that the Scripture is sufficient to proue expresly the chiefest Articles of our beliefe and of which euery man is bound to haue an explicite and cleare knowledge such are the articles contained in the Creed and those Sacraments which are more necessary which kind of sufficiency we also admit In this sense Augustine writeth as the contexture of the passages there do shew that what points concerne our fayth are clearely to be found in the Scripture another like saying of the sayd Father and to be thus expounded is found in Tract 49. in Ioannem 7. The Fathers at other tymes do teach that the Scripture is of that perfection that the certainty of the truth of it in regard of it selfe alone though not in respect of vs is sufficiently proued from it selfe without the help of any other probation as being penned by them who were immediatly assisted by the holy Ghost In this sense Athanasius (n) Contra Gentiâ—es in exordio calleth the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scripturas sufficientes Irenâ—us (o) Lib. 2. c. 47. in like sort sayth that Scripturae perfectae sunt The Scriptures are perfect and then immediatly followeth this reason Quippe à verbo Dei spiritu eius dictae Because they are indicted by the word of God and the holy Ghost The Fathers also are in their writinges accustomed to ascribe a great perfection to the Scripture for recording such miracles of Christ by the which he is sufficiently proued to be the sonne of God which is the generall doctrine also of the Catholikes which testimonyes our Sectaryes are not ashamed to alleage in proofe of the Scriptures fulnes for warrant of any article of Religion whatsoeuer Thus we find that (p) In Ioan l 12. c. 68. Cyrill wryting of the miracles of our Lord sayth with reference to the wordes of S. Iohn The number of our Lords miracles were great yet those which are related Sufficiunt ad plenissimam fidem attente legentibus faâ—iendaÌ„ meaning that they were sufficient to proue that Christ was the sonne of God and Sauiour of mankind 9. Lastly the Fathers acknowledg in their writings mostfully that the perfection of Scripture is such as that it is sufficient to disswade man from vice and perswade him to vertue a point which we al willingly grant both in regard of the ten Commaundments expresly set down which euery one is obliged to obserue as also by reason of many most eminent and remarkable examples of vertue and vice recorded in the Scripture and the inestimable rewardes promised to the vertuous the most dreadfull comminations and threats thundred against the wicked Now of this sufficiency Theophilact speaketh in c. 2. ad Tim. 3. where he sayth that the Scripture is of force to make Vt nihil bonorum desit homini Dei That no vertue be wanting in the man of God the same interpretatioÌ„ a place Authoris (q) In Mat. 22. hom 41. imperfecti admitteth And heere now by these short explications it appeareth that none of these former passages of the Fathers whether they concerne the perfection or sufficiency of the written word either in regard of exhortation to vertue or of demonstrating Christ to be the Sonne of God or of prouing the Scriptures certainty from it owne worth and dignity alone or finally of expresly containing the chiefest Articles of our beliefe can in any sort preiudice our Catholike doctrine handled in this discourse and therefore the wrong of our Aduersaryes towardes their followers is the greater in seeking to abuse their ignorance and credulity by such idle and trifling allegations 9. The third and last head of those misapplyed sentences of the Fathers in this question doth concerne the perspicuity of the Scripture which word is not heere to be taken in that sense as if the Fathers taught that the Scripture were in it selfe absolutely so easy perspicuous and cleare as that without the helpe of the Churches authority in the exposition thereof euery illiterate and mechanicall fellow were able to iudge of the true sense thereof and consequently by the only meanes of it to determine end all Controuersies for they fully acknowledged it to be as Ezechiel (r) Ezech. 2. styled it The enrolled volume written within and without as also to be that hidden booke described by the Euangelist (s) Apoc. 5. to be clapsed with seauen seales But their meaning herein is that the Scripture is perspicuous in two constructions 10. First that the histories similitudes other matters of fact recorded in the Scripture as also some principle Articles of our beliefe are there clearly and perspicuously set downe But what is this to conuince that the Scripture is in generall easy for the truth of any abstruse speculatiue and dogmaticall point or article of Fayth whatsoeuer 11. Of this first manner S. Austin (t) lib. de operibus monac c. 9. speaketh when he sayth that the Scripture is most perspicuous and cleare to proue which no man denyeth that Christ ordayned that those who did preach the Ghospell should be maintained by the Ghospell and therupon shewing that this is clearly and euidently set downe in the Scripture he thus wryteth Quid hoc apertiùs quid clariùs That the Fathers do in like sort sometymes restraine this euidency clearnes of the Scripture to some chiefe articles of Christian Religion appeareth as afore I haue shewed that they in like sort attribute a perfection and sufficiency of the written word of God to the same end Thus doth Irenaeus (u) lib. â— cap. 46. wryting against certaine Infidels denying that there was one only God affirme that for the proofe of this verity Vniuersae Scripturae propheticae Apostolicae c. The whole Scriptures both Prophetical Apostolical are euident without any ambiguity Which wordes being spoken only of that particular point hurteth vs nothing at all Yet our Sectaries sleight in deprauing the Fathers wrytinges is such as what words are spoken for the perspicuity of the Scripture for one only article they shame not to stretch them as spoken in proofe of all 12. The second sense or construction of the Fathers wordes touching the perspicuity of the written word is that the Scripture is cleare and euident in that it doth illuminate and enlighten the mynd of the reader vnderstanding the Scripture a verity which we acknowledge as elsewhere is shewed as it is explained by the spirit of God which spirit speaketh in the voyce of his Church And in this sense to omit the like sentences of diuers other Fathers Epiphanius (x) Contra Aetium l. 3. tom 2. wryteth that in the Scripture omnia lucida sunt all things are cleare in conceauing this clearnes as I sayd before only in respect of the mynd which by truly vnderstaÌ„ding the Scripture is enlightned cleared and much freed
from all spirituall darknes and ignorance 13. To the former two senses wherein the Fathers do call the Scripture perspicuous cleare and facill I wil add a third reason which moued them sometymes so to call them This is taken from a certaine abuse of the cōmon sort of people in those tymes who framing to thēselues a greater difficulty in the Scripture then there is altogether forbare the reading of it and in place thereof gaue themselues more then was conuenient to the behoulding of prophane spectacles and sightes Now to bereaue the people of this abuse and negligence and the sooner to inuite them to the reading and hearing of Gods word the Fathers thought good in an Oratory and amplifying manner to suggest to thē an easines of the Scripture This course S. Chrysostome in diuers of his homilies and sermons tooke the sooner therby as is sayd to win the people to the reading of Gods holy word as in Ioan. homil 1. in Thesal 2. homil 3. With the same intentiō doth Athanasius (y) In Epist ad Ephes c. 6. relate to the people the facility of the Scripture And thus farre of the Fathers supposed defence and maintaining of our Sectaries Doctrine in this question of the Scriptures sole Iudge where we see that though the places vrged by our aduersaries out of their wrytings at the first sight seeme to carry a faire and specious glosse or graine yet being after fully weighed and considered they giue no satisfaction for proofe of what they were alleadged to a perfect and true iudgment being like vnto those flowers which best pleasing the eye do commonly least please the smell The like difficulty of the Scriptures confessed by our Aduersaries CAAP. IX ALTHOVGH our Aduersaries do vsually pretend the easines of the Scriptures and therfore do obtrude it as sole Iudge and Vmpier therby to auoyde the graue and pressing authorities of the Councells Fathers and the practise of Gods vniuersall Church vrged in any controuersiall point betwene vs and them yet sometymes diuers of them can be content both in their actions and words so forcible is Truth as that she can extort sufficiēt testimony euen from her owne enemies to acknowledge the Scriptures obscurity as contayning in it selfe a Ianus of construction the sense looking one way the letter another 2. And first concerning their actions crossing this their Assertion if there were such perspicuity in them as the Protestantes do beare their followers in hand why haue our aduersaries themselues laboured so much in explaning the sayd Scriptures Why hath Luther Caluin Beza and others written seuerall books in paraphrazing illustrating of them Or why haue they made so many different translations of them And if the Scriptures be hard and difficult why do they with such obstinate pertinacity maintaine the contrary So illustrious this verity is concerning the Scriptures intricate hardnesse as that our aduersaries owne labours and actions do conuince their owne errour therin 3. Now to come to the second point which is how themselues do wryte therof expresly at vnawares as if they had forgotten what at other tymes they had taught with such feruorous obstinacy Luther (a) In praefat in Psalm himselfe although the Day-star of the Ghospels light confesseth that neyther he nor any other is able to vnderstād the psalmes of Dauid in their true and propersense Yea he speaketh more generally saying (b) Ibidem infra Scio esse impudentissimae temeritatis c. I acknowledge it to be a signe of most shamles temerity and rashnes for any man to professe that he truly vnderstandeth in all places but any one booke of the Scriptures 4. Chemnitius (c) Examē 4. sess Cōcil Tridēt affirmes that the Church is now indued with the guift of interpreting the Scriptures in such sort as in it first tymes it enioyed the guift of doing miracles to wit that neyther the one nor the other was grāted to euery particular man but only to some persons elected theerto by God Brentius (d) In Cofess VVittember who at other tymes freeth the Scriptures from all difficulties is forced to dismaske himselfe and to confesse thus in the end Non est obscurum c. It is manifest that the guift of interpreting the Scriptures is a guift of the holy Ghost and not of humane wisedome that the holy Ghost therein is free and not tyed to any certaine kind of men but bestoweth this guift as best seemeth vnto him The Magdeburgenses (e) Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. col 52. do plainly grant that the Apostles thēselues were of opinion that the holy Scriptures could not be truly vnderstood without the help of the holy Ghost as an interpreter Neyther shall we find this Doctrine strange among our homeborne Sectaries since D. Field (f) l. 4. c. 15. a late appearing Comet in our Protestants sky doth thus say There is no question but that there are many difficulties of the holy Scriptures proceeding partly from the high and excellent nature of thinges therein contayned which are without the compasse of naturall vnderstanding and so are hidden from naturall men c. partly out of the ignorance of tongus and of nature of such thinges by the comparison whereof the matters of diuine knowledge are manifested vnto vs. 5. And now if after the voluntary acknowledgment of so many markable Protestantes in this point any of them would seeke to retyre back and recall all what they haue sayd by teaching that though they grant some passages of Gods word to be hard and difficult yet those places being compared with other like sentences texts receaue from thence a cleare and plaine explication Yet this refuge of theirs is of no strength the reason hereof being because as any one text in Controuersy is doubtfull and capable of diuers constructions so likewise are the other places and testimonies of Scripture as ambiguous in sense and interpretation wherwith the sayd text is to be conferred and by which conference it is to receaue it illustration And thus we see by experience that the doubt of any one place of Scripture is often more increased by that meanes to wit by conference of texts by the which it was first hoped to haue bene extinguished And therfore the former English Doctour (g) l 19 pronounceth of the weaknes of this answere in this sort We confesse that neyther conference of places nor the consideration of the Antecedentia and consequentia nor looking into the originalls are of any force vnles we find the thinges which we conceaue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant to the rule of fayth 6. And thus much concerning the difficulty of the Scriptures acknowledged by the plaine testimonies cōfessions of our aduersaries thēselues though at other times impugning the truth herein which point we are the lesse to maruell at if we remember that it proceedeth through his will and permissions who commaunded (h)
time they had ben accused herin haue laboured to haue quyt themselues as well as our Sectaries do in these tymes from that imputation and would as fully charge all other with the like wants who should interpret the former alledged texts diuersly from their constructions and did no doubt as boldly when they were liuing vaunt of the certainty and infallibility of their spirit as any of our Protestants can do at this present Seing then that our Aduersaries as flying to the Scriptures alone can alledge nothing in their owne behalfe for the patronizing of their Caluinian fayth but that the former recorded Heretiks actually did might as well and as truly apply vnto themselues for the defence of their impieties It may therfore be deâ—â—â—â—red as a most certaine and infallible Position that it is impossible and repugnant no lesse to the prouidence of God then to naturall reason it selfe that truth of fayth and religioÌ„ the which the Protestants professe to mayntaine should be seated vpon those grounds and only those grounds which euery heresy may with the like reason and probability indifferently assume to it selfe 7. Adde hereto as a resultancy out of the whole contents of this Chapter that seeing as we haue shewed it is the proper Scene of the Heretikes euer to flye to the Scripture vnder the wings therof to shrowd their wicked Doctrines that therfore by the Scripture they are not sufficiently condemned and consequeÌ„tly that the Scripture is not the proper iudge of Controuersies since no man that this guilty of any fault doth willingly appeale to that iudge still remayning in his former sentence by whome he was afore clearly and euidently conuicted That our Aduersaries do confesse it to be the custome of Heretikes to flye to the Scripture alone and that therfore diuers of them do appeale to the Church as Iudge CAAP. XIII BVT to end this poynt touching the custome of Heretikes in flyeing only to Scripture I hould two things worthy to be presented to the consideration of the discreet Reader both which shal be proued from the frequent acknowledgmentes of our Aduersaries first that not only experience warranteth as appeareth aboue from so many exemplifyed heretikes but also that our Aduersaries themselues ingeniously acknowledge that it is the custome of heretikes euer the flye to the Scripture for the patronizing of their heresies Secondly that diuers of our learned Aduersaries do absolutly abandoÌ„ this course of making sole refuge to the Scripture as houlding it a course ful of vncertainty and not able to affoard any secure and warrantable determining or ending of Controuersies And touching the first to omit the like censure of old Vincentius (a) Lib. aduers haeres printed Lugduni 1572. Fortassealiquis interroget an Haeretici diuinis Scripturae testimonijs vtantut vtuntur planè vehemeÌ„ter quidem nihil vnquaÌ„ pene de suo proferunt quod non etiaÌ„ Scripturae verbuÌ„ adunbrare conentur sed tanto magis cauâ—ndi pertimiscendi sunt Lyrinensis who liued 13. hundred yeares since giuen against the custome of the heretikes of his tyme and to restraine our selues to our English Aduersaries we find that D. Bancroft (b) In his suruey cap. 27. chargeth Cartwright to seeme to defend his errours by the supposed warrant of only Scripture and within the same proceeding this Doctrine includeth euen Beza (c) Ibidem pag. 219. 2. M. Hooker speaking of the Anabaptistes thus wrytes of them The booke of God they viz. the Anabaptists for the most part so admired that other disputation against their opinions then only by allegation of Scripture they would not heare (d) In his Ecclesiast policy in the preface In like sort the Brownistes (e) In their Apology printed 1604. pag. 103. of Amsterdam being confessed heretikes wryting against D. Bilson professe to flye in their disputes only to Scripture Finally the Authour of the Treatise intituled A briefe answere to certaine obiections against the descension of Christ into hell printed at Oxford by Ioseph Barnes reprehendeth his Aduersary Protestant in these words Where you say you must build your fayth on the word of faith tying vs to Scripture only you giue iust occasion to thinke that you neyther haue the auncient Fathers of Christs Church nor their sonnes succeeding them agreeing with you in this point 3. Now as touching the second poynt it is euident that Beza himselfe is produced by Hooker (f) In his preface to his booke of Ecclesiast policy as weary of the former course begetting nothing but vncertainty to abandon all tryall by Scripture only and to submit himselfe to a lawfull assembly or Councell D. Sutcliffe (g) In his reuiew of his examination of D. Kellisons sur uey printed 1606. pag. 42. as not allowing triall by Scripture only thus wryteth It is false that we will admit no iudge but Scripture for we appeale still to a lawfull generall Councell 4. M. Hooker in his foresayd preface of his former booke speaking of disputation and tryall by Scripture only thus discourseth What successe God may giue to any such conference or disputation we cannot tell but we are sure of this that nature Scripture and experience haue all taught the world to seeke for the ending of Contentions to submit it selfe vnto some iudiciall and definitiue sentence And the same learned Protestant as is else where alledged shewing that the Scripture which one question potentially contayneth within it selfe all other questions cannot iudge which is Scripture thus wryteth (h) lib. 2. Eccles â—olic sect 4. p. 162. It is not the word of God which can assure vs that we do well to thinke it is the word c. This very poynt of acknowledging another Iudge then the only Scripture is taught by D. Bancroft in his sermon preached 8. Feb. anno 1588. The same also is maintained by D. Couel in his modest examination p. 108. and by D. Field in his treatise of the Church in the epistle Dedicatory to the Arcbishop who giuing a reason of this his Doctrine thus wryteth For seeing the Controuersies of religion in our tyme are growne so many in number and in nature so intricate that few haue tyme and leasure strength and vnderstanding to examine them What remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in thinges of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the Societies of men in the world is that blessed company of holy ones that houshould of fayth that spouse of Christ and Church of the liuing God which is the pillar and ground of truth that so they may imbrace her communion follow her directions and rest in her iudgments So Catholike like we see this Doctour speaketh in this one Controuersy wheron all the rest depend and so earnestly he defendeth it with streÌ„gth of reason But to end this point if these acknowledgmeÌ„ts of so many of our learned Aduersaries proceed from their setled iudgments therin then haue we the poynt controuerted granted by them
eight verses alledged out of the psalmes (e) Psal 11. by S. Paul (f) Rom. 3. Sepulchrum patens est guttur eorum Linguis suis dolosè agebant c. and translated by the Protestāts and yet all the sayd verses are not to be found in any Hebrew text now extant as now they lye in S. Paul And thus much passing ouer diuers other places to shew that the present Hebrew is not euen in the opinion of our Aduersaries that same pure fountaine of which they at other tymes so much boast of and consequently not of that absolute truth in it selfe as to become the iudge of Controuersies but that the cristaline streame therof is troubled with some mud of corruption rysing eyther frō the negligence of the Printers in regard of the great likenes and resēblance of many Hebrew letters which might easily occasion a mistaking of one another or partly through the ignorance of the Rabbins who haue added pricks since the Hebrew first wanting pricks might be read seuerall wayes or lastly partly from the malice of the Iewes as being desirous to read the Hebrew in that sēse which might seeme least to fauour Christian religion That the Protestantes allow no Originall of the new Testament now extant as vncorrupted CAAP. III. IN the next place heere cōmeth to be examined the Greeke Original of the new Tement of which eyther all or the chiefest part was first wrytten in Greeke by the Apostles and Euangelistes This hath bene since in diuers places so corrupted euen by the acknowledgment of the Protestantes as that we cannot appeale securely therunto as to account it such as now it is the pure and vncorrupted word of God All such places to note is not needfull therfore some few shall suffice 2. And first we will exemplify that place of the Apostle (a) Rom. 12. for in the Greeke it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is tēpore sernientes where we read Be feruent in the spirit seruing the Lord for so do the Catholikes and Protestantes euen in their later editions translate and yet in all Greeke copies it is Be feruent in spirit seruing the tyme Which first manner of reading that it is the more true appeareth out of Origen Chrysostome Theophilact and other Greeke Fathers who euer read and explicated this place in their wrytings and Commentaries as the Catholikes and Protestantes do at this present 3. Againe the Greeke text readeth in the first to the Corinthians (b) 1. Cor. cap. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Secundus homo Dominus de caelo The first man is of the earth earthly the second man is the Lord from heauen But the Latin tanslation hath Secundus homo de caelo caelestis which translation euen Caluin (c) C. 7. Instit §. 21. acknowledgeth condemneth the other since it is cleare that the first reading proceeded from the corruption of Marcion as Tertullian (d) l. 5. in Marcionē witnesseth 4. I passe ouer the words adioyned in all Greeke copies to the end of our Lords prayer since they are acknowledged by our Aduersaries as part of the true Greeke the words be these For thine is the kingdome the power and glory c. though it is manifest that this sentence was added by the Grecians to the text both because the Crecians in their Liturgies do recyte the sayd words but not as continuing them with the Lords prayer as also in that Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose Ierome and Austin all who vnderstood the Greeke tongue do not make any mention at all of the former sentence which doubtlesly they would not haue omitted if they had found it ioyned with the sayd prayer in any authenticall Greeke copy 5. And thus much concerning our Aduersaries reiecting of the Greeke Originall in such places where it is certaine that it is erroneous Now we will adde a place or two wherein our Aduersaries do disclayme from the Greeke though most pure and vncorrupted In the genealogy of our Sauiour Beza leaueth out one descent in his translation which we find in S. Luke (e) cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui fuit Cainan in all Greeke copies speaking therof after this accustomed Lordly māner Non dubitamus expungere that is we make no scruple to put it out In like sort where S. Matthew giueth a prerogatiue to S. Peter in saying (f) Cap. 10. it being in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first Peter though it be thus in al Greeke copies yet Beza (g) In his Annotations vpon the new Testament set forth anno 1556. affirmeth that the Greeke text is here corrupted by some one who taught that Peter was the chiefe of the Apostles and the corruption sayth he consisteth in adding the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the text Lastly to auoyde prolixity I will end with that vnswerable place of S. Luke (h) c. 22. It being in all Greeke copies without exception 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hic calix nouum testamentum in sanguine meo qui vz. calix pro vobis funditur that is This Cup being the new Testament in my bloud which vz. Cup is shed for you This is the true translation in that the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must of necessity agree in all Greeke cōstruction with the Greeke substantiue signifying the (i) vbi supra Cup and not with the Greeke substantiue the bloud it being of a different case from it Now Beza seing that by the construction of the Greeke it followeth that the Cup was shed for vs meaning therby the thing contained in the Cup but wine was not shed for vs but the bloud of our Sauiour Therfore his bloud was in the Cup when he sayd these words of consecration Beza (i) vbi supra I say foreseing this ineuitable illation pronounceth plainly that the Greeke text is corrupted meaning therby all Greeke Editions that euer were in his tyme and the Greeke word forcing this construction crept out of the margent into the text so making these words meere surreptitious And this now may suffice to shew that the Greeke Originall is neyther so absolutely authenticall in it selfe nor at least so acknowledged by our Aduersaries as that all other translations or doubts rysing in points of fayth may infallibly be tryed therby 7. Now to reflect somewhat vpon our argument drawne from the acknowledged corruptions of the Originalls of both the Testaments How can our Aduersaries with any shew of common vnderstanding pretend the Scriptures to be the only iudge with them when by their owne confessions they haue no true and authenticall Originall of such bookes only as themselues ioyntly acknowledge for Scripture What can our Aduersaries reply hereto Will they answere that such corruptions wherwith the Originalls are stained do happen only in such places as are not controuersiall and therfore the lesse materiall but that al those passages texts
worshipped insteed of God In like sort touching Christes descēding into hel the Bibles printed anno 1562. 1577. do read thus Thou shalt not leaue my soule in hell which translatiōs proue Christs descending into hell contrary to the Doctrine of the present Church of England But the later translation to wit made in the yeare 1579. 1595. and 1600. doe read Thou shalt not leaue my soule in the graue vnderstanding the former text of the graue only and not of hell 10. Now here I say that in regard of this multiplicity and variety of English translations one mainly impugning crossing another we may most strongly conclude that some of these translations must needes be false and which of them is true an ignorant iudgment since it hath no more reason to approue one then another cannot well censure And thus farre touching the three seuerall kindes of discouering the English translations as false and corrupted the Consideration wherof doth affoard an vnanswerable argument that our English translations in regard of their impurity cannot nor ought not to be pretended as iudge for the finall determining of doctrinall poynts in fayth and religion 11. There resteth a second way as I said for the greater manifestation of the falshood and corruption vsed in the translation of our English Bibles and this is taken frō the frequent Confessions of the Protestants themselues in this point whose acknowledgmēts herin are so ful as they take away all meanes of euading And first answerably to this my assertion we fynd that diuers Puritan (a) In a treatise entituled A treatise directed to her excellent Maiesty ministers with one consent speaking only of the translatiō of one part of the Bible to wit the Psalmes pronounce in this sharpe manner Our translation of the psalmes compared in our booke of Common prayer doth in addition substraction and alteration differ from the truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at least But other of our Aduersaries do not rest in censuring only one part of the Bible as falsly and corruptedly translated but absolutely do giue the like censure of the whole Thus we read that the Ministers (b) In the abridgmēt of a booke deliuered to the king by the said ministers p. 11. 11. of the Lincolne Diocesse do speake of the English trāslation in this sort A translation that taketh away from the text that addeth to the text and this sometymes to the chāging or obscuring of the meaning of the holy Ghost They (c) vbi supra further saying of it A translatiō which is absurd and sensles peruerting in many places the meaning of the holy Ghost 12. In like manner M. Burges (d) In his Apology Sect. 6. one of our English Protestants speakes in this sort of our English translatiō How shall I approue vnder my hand a translation which hath many Omissions many additions which sometymes obscureth sometymes peruerteth the sense being sometymes senseles sometymes contrary Another of our English (e) Carliel his booke that Christ descended into hell p. 116. c. Sectaries doth in these words wound their owne translations saying The translators therof haue depraued the sense obscured the truth and deceaued the ignorant in many places they detort the Scriptures from (f) In his answere to M. Reynoldes p. 225. their right sense and finally they show themselues to loue darknes more then light falshood more then truth Thus he This matter touching the corrupt translations of the Bibles in English is so euident that D. Whitaker though willing for the credit of his Church to extenuate lessen the deprauations of their English translations is forced notwithstāding thus to speake of them I haue not sayd otherwise but that some things vz. in the English translations might be amended Againe (g) Parkes in his Apology concerning Christs descending into hell another of thē speaking of the English Bibles with the notes of Geneua thus saith As for those Bibles it is to be wished that either they may be purged frō those manifold errours which are both in the text and margent or else vtterly prohibited 13. To conclude this poynt and to relate the like reprehension and dislike giuen by Broughton the great Protestant Hebritian against the English translations who in his aduertisement to the Bishops thus wryteth The publike translation of the Scriptures in English is such as it peruerteth the text of the old testament in 848. and it causeth millions of millions to reiect the new Testament and to runne into eternall flames Thus Broughton In like sort we find that at the Conferēce at Hampton Court before the King D. Reinoldes with the rest of the ministers following his part and syde there openly auouched That they would not subscribe to the Communiō booke because sayd they it warranted a corrupt false trāslation of the Bible So euident it is that the English translations both in regard of the impurity of themselues being aboue seuerall wayes discouered as also of the like voluntarily acknowledgments of our English Sectaries are full of many soule deprauations and errours and therfore are not competent and sufficient in themselues for the tryall of all doubts and questions arysing betwene the Catholikes and Protestants or betwene one Protestant and another for how can those translations of Scripture which are corrupt absurd senseles differing from the Hebrew and peruerting the meaning of the holy Ghost as we see the English translatiōs are styled and confessed to be be a rule square or iudge to measure or pronounce what is the meaning and sense of the holy Ghost concerning the abstruse mysteries and articles of Christiā Religiō Thus it is brought to passe that our English Sectaries by their translating of the Bible in some places truly but in diuers places most corruptly falsely doe make the Scripture though in it selfe most pure diuine and in contaminate by this their abusing of it to seeme like to the Statua of Nabuchodonasor of which part was gold part siluer and part brasse so cōsisting of more or lesse pretious matter 14. Now here it is to be obserued that what hath heretofore bene deliured of our English translations are chiefly to be vnderstood of such translations whose yeares of Editions are particularly set down or at least which haue bene published before the death of the late Queene Yet that the reader may see that our Aduersaries Doctrine touching the Iudge of Controuersies is nothing furthered but rather much disaduanted by the last translation made set forth lately since the King cam to the crown I haue thought good omitting many other textes of the present Controuersies betweene the Protestants and vs wherin for the most part they iumpe with the former corrupt English translations for the impugning of our Catholike Fayth to set downe the seuerall courses obserued by the translatours therof in some chiefe textes only in the displaying wherof I will somewhat enlarge my selfe 15. First then sometymes though
1. de resurrect and of Ambrose (p) In c. 4. ad Ephes all which Fathers do vnderstand by those wordes of Matthew in corde terrae Hell 22. We also alledge for proofe of the same article that saying of the Apostles Qui ascendit ipse est c. He that ascendeth is the same which descended into the lower parts of the earth where the Latin words inferiores partes terrae do not signify the graue as our Aduersaries do interprete but hel and thus we fynd this place expounded by S. Ierome (q) Omnes hi in hunc locum Ambrose Chrysostome and Theophilact they prouing Christ his descending into hell out of this and the former alledged text 23. For confirmation of Purgatory and Prayer for the dead besides that place of the Machabees which is so plaine as that it needeth no illustration of the Fathers we alledge that place of Matthew (*) c. 12. where it is said that there are some sins which neyther are remitted in this world nor in the world to come Wherby we Catholikes the Fathers afore vs do gather that some sinnes are remitted in the world to come by prayers and suffrages of the Church and this Illation is deduced from this text by S. Austin (r) l. 21. de Ciuit. Dei c. 24. l. 6. in Iulian. cap. 5. S. Ierome (s) lib. 4. dialog c. 39. Bede (t) In c. â— Marci and others 24. Another authority for proofe of Purgatory is vsually alledged out of S. Matthew (u) Math. 5. Luâ— 12. and S. Luke where it is sayd Esto consentiens aduersario tuo c. Be at agreement with thy aduersary betymes whiles thou art in the way with him least perhaps thy aduersary deliuer thee to the iudge and the iudge deliuer thee to the officer and thou be cast into prison verily I say to thee thou shalt not go from thence till thou repay the last farthing Now by the last farthing is here mistically and figuratiuely vnderstood small sinnes which shal be payed for that is shal be punished in the fire of Purgatory and thus is this place expounded by Tertullian (x) l. de anima c. 17. Cyprian (y) lib. 4. epist 2. Origen (z) Hom. 35. in Luc. Ambrose (a) In c. 12. Luc. and Ierome (b) In c. 5. Math. who thus plainly interpreteth the former words Hoc est quod dicit non egredieris de carcere donec minuta peccata persoluas that is This he saith Thou shalt not get out of prison till thou hast discharged euen thy little sinnes 25. Touching Prayer to Saintes And first that Saintes do intercede and pray for vs we proue out of Ieremy (*) cap. 15. where it is sayd Dixit Dominus ad me si steterint Moyses Samuelcoram me non est anima mea ad populum istum that is If Moyses and Samuel stood afore me my mind is not to this people Meaning that if Moyses and Samuel should theÌ„ pray to God for the people of the Iewes yet God would not heare theÌ„ out of which place we gather that Moyses and Samuel theÌ„ being dead were accustomed at other tymes to pray to God for theÌ„ since otherwise this speach of God had bene indirect and to no purpose Now wheras our Aduersaries to auoyd this argument do say that the meaning of this place it not that if Moyses and Samuel in their owne persons but if any other godly men such as Moyses Samuel were should pray to God he would not heare them Yet notwithstanding we find this place expounded literally personally and truly and so consequently against our Aduersaries their answere of Moyses and Samuel by Chrysostome (c) Hom. 1. in epist 1. ad Thes sal Ierome (d) In huÌ„e locum Gregory (e) l 9. moral c. 12. 26. To the same end we produce out of the Machabees (f) 2. Mac. cap. vlt. how Iudas did see in a vision Onias the Priest and Ieremy the Prophet both which were then dead praying for the Iewes Now seing that this booke of the Machabees is accounted true and vndoubted Scripture by S. Austin (g) l. 18. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 36. Cypryan (h) l 1. ep 3. ad Cornelium Ambrose (i) l. 2. de Iacob c. 10. 11. 12. Gregroy (k) Inorat de Mach. Nazianzen and others it therfore followeth that these Fathers acknowledging the Machabees for Scripture and neuer making any other construction of this vision then literall such as the words import do also acknowledge that this place doth infallibly proue that the Saintes do pray for vs. 27 Now more particularly that Saintes are to be prayed vnto we proue by the words in Iob (l) Iob. c. 5. where it is sayd Voca si quis est qui tibi respondeat ad aliquem Sanctorum conuertere That is Call if any there be which may answere thee and turne thy selfe to any of the Saints Where by the name of the Saintes are vnderstood the Angells according to the exposition of S. Austin (m) In annot in Iob. But if Angells do pray for vs then do Saintes the like since there is one and the same reason of both 28. Now to make an end of this Chapter I will finally rest in bringing a place or two out of the Scripture to proue that the Eucharist is a true and proper though vnbloudly Sacrifice contrary to our Aduersaries wicked Doctrine herein And first we are accustomed to alledge in proofe hereof the priesthood of Melchisedech of whome it is thus said Melchisedech (n) Genes 14. rex Salem protuliâ— c. that is Melchisedech being King of Salem did offer bread and wyne for he was a priest of the high God Now not only Dauid (o) Psalm 109. but also S. Paul (p) Hebr. 7. do so referre this place to Christ as that S. Paul doth plainly say that Christ was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech not according to the order of AaroÌ„ Now if Christ be a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech then the reason hereof is in that Christ is to institute an vnbloudy sacrifice vnder the forme of bread and wyne and so we Catholikes do hould that this he did when he first instituted the blessed Eucharist And answerably hereto the Fathers do interprete those words of the Psalmist (q) l. 4. stormat Thou art a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech and the like words of S. Paul to wit that Christ is therfore properly and truly called a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech because he instituted at his last supper a Sacrifice vnder the formes of bread and wyne Thus are those former places expounded by Clemens (r) lib. 5. demonstr EuaÌ„g c. 3. Alexandrinus Eusebius (s) l. â— ep 3. ad Caecil Caesariensis Cyprian (t) Haeres â—9 Epiphanius (u) lib. 5. de Sacram. c.
wheras they do alledge to proue that there is now no sacrifice in the Church the words of our Sauiour (a) Ioan. 29. CoÌ„summatum est It is consummated or finished As if our Sauiour testifyed hereby that whatsoeuer was requisite for our health and saluation was accomplished and consummated by his only sacrifice vpon the Crosse wheras his meaning only was that all his afflictions and punishments which he suffred in flesh were consummated and ended by his death vpon the Crosse thus do Austin Cyril Theophilact Chrysostome teach in their expositions of this place 29. This now among many other like passages of Scripture obiected by our Aduersaries may serue to discouer the Fathers iudgments in the explicating of al such texts and how far distant at least in those learned Doctours censures they are from coÌ„tradicting any one point of our Catholike Fayth consequently how preiudiciall it were to the Protestants in the Fathers iudgments to make the holy Scripture the sole and last resort and Tribunall of Controuersies And here we are to aduertise the Reader that he is not to expect that the Fathers should preuent in their bookes Commentaries by way of explication the obiections and arguments drawne from all such places of Scripture as are vrged by our Aduersaries both because they could not foresee the Heresies of our tymes as also if they had yet could they not be induced to belieue that any one of learning professing Christian Fayth and Religion would so pertinaciously and impertinently rack and force Gods sacred word for the vphoulding of their Heresies as the Sectaries of our age haue done 30. Neither is the Reader to looke that our Catholike Expositions of euery text which our Aduersaries doe vrge against vs should be warranted with the authorities of many Fathers though most of them haue bene so fortified in that some such passages of Scripture there are of which few Fathers did vndertake to make any peculiar Comment or exposition at all Only it suffiseth that we can haue our expositioÌ„s of euery such senteÌ„ce of Scripture strengthned with the authorities of some few of theÌ„ And that the Protestants are not able to alledge so much as one Father interpreting in the Protestants construction against our Catholike Doctrine any one of the former alledged places of Scripture or any one other text which our Aduersaries alledge though heere it be not set downe And now hauing thus dislodged our Aduersaries of their best couerts and places of Retyre for patronage of their strange and exorbitant Positions and Doctrine as also hauing in the precedent Chapter fortified and strengthned with the Fathers explications the sense and meaning of such texs as we produce against theÌ„ I will herein proceed no further referring one point to their owne considerations and iudgments to wit whether themselues receaue greater hurt and domage by the Fathers erecting their impregnable Forts of Gods word from whence they make their issues sallyes out in pursuite and profligation of these mens Heresies then by the sayd Fathers raising and battering downe the weake houlds and fortresses of such misapplyed texts of holy Scripture wherin our Sectaries are wont to place theyr greatest strength and confidence since by the first theyr Heresies receaue most deadly and incurable wounds by the second the Catholike Faith is secured freed from al dangerous assaults and encounters 31. But to end this point to wit that the Fathes interpreted the Scripture in generall in one the same sense with vs Catholikes the euidency of it is such as that therefore the Fathers are charged by our Aduersaries through their supposed misconstruction of Scripture as maintainers of Popish Religion The consideration of which assertion of theirs being for seueral respects not to be neglected and as particularly conducing to our preseÌ„t purpose induceth me a litle to insist in setting downe the seuerall reproualls and criminations of the Protestantes bouldly deliuered against the Fathers for their defending of our Catholike Articles and Doctrine Which point being made manifest it then ineuitably followeth that eueÌ„ in our Aduersaries iudgments the Fathers did deliuer the sayd constructions of Scripture which we Catholikâ— do seing the Fathers maintained no Doctrines but such as were in their owne opinions warranted with the authority of Gods sacred wrytten word or at least not any way impugned by the same 32. And first we find D. Whitaker (a) Contra Duraeum l. 6. p. 423. scornefully traducing the Fathers in a generall to write thus the Popish Religion to vse his own words is a patched Couerlet of the Fathers errours sowed together 33. D. Whitguift (b) In his defence of the answer to the admonition pag. 472. 473. the once pretended Archbishop of Canterbury in like manner thus chargeth the Fathers How greatly were almost all the Bishops and learned wryters of the Greeke Church and Latin also for the most part spotted with Doctrines of freewill of merits of Inuocation of Saintes and such like meaning such like points of our Religion 34. Peter (c) De votis p. 476. Martyr speaking of the supposed Popish Errours thus insimulates the Fathers within the said errours saying As long as we insist in Councels and Fathers so long we shal be conuersant in the said errours Malancthon (d) Iu 1. Cor. c. 3. in like sort inueighing against the Fathers thus auerreth Presently from the beginning of the Church the anncient Fathers obscured the Doctrine concerning the iustice of faith increased Ceremonies and deuised peculiar worships 35. M. Iewel (e) l. de vita Iewelli printed at London pag. 212. most Hypocritically appealing to the Fathers at Paules Crosse as challenging them for Protestants is sharply reprehended for such his idle vaunting by D. Humfrey himselfe in these words He gaue the Papists too large a scope was iniurious to himselfe and after a maÌ„ner spoiled himselfe and his Church 36. Beza thus (f) In his preface vpoÌ„ the new Testâ—ment dedicated do the Prince of Condy anno 2587. confidently wryteth vpon the said poynt Euen in the best tymes meaning the tymes of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church the ambition ignorance and lewdnes of the Bishops was such that the very blynd may easily perceaue that Sathan was president in their assemblies or Councels 37. But I will conclude this point with the testimony of Luther who as he was the first in our age that broached a religion vnknowne to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church So he shewed himselfe most insolent in controlling them for their maintaining of our Catholike Religion he thus speaking of them (g) Luther Tom. 2. VVittenberg anno 1551. deseruo arbitrio pag. 434. The Fathers for so many ages haue bene plainly blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures they haue erred all their life tyme and vnles they were ameÌ„ded before their deathes they were neuer Saintes nor pertayning to the Church 38. Now from all these assertions of our Sectaries it is
sect 57. Melancthon in cap. 4. epist. ad Roman Iacobus Andraeas in Epitom colloq Montisbelgar pag. 58. Luc. Osiander in Enchirid. controuers c. p. 272. 6. The Doctrine of Freewill in like sort is maintayned by Osiander Cent. 16. p. 814. by Siccanus Hemingius as Willet doth witnesse in his Sinopsis printed 1600. p. 808. By Perkins in his reuelat p. 326. 7. The Doctrine of merit of workes to wit that in regard of Christ his Passion and promise and as proceeding from faith all which poynts the Catholiks do acknowledge as necessary they are meritorious is warranted by the testimonies of Melancthon (p) loc com de bonis operib of the Confessions q in the Harmony of Hooker (r) l. 5. Ecclesiast polic sect 72. pag. 208. and of the disputation holden at Ratisbone (s) p. 509. 8. The forbearance of certaine meates at set tymes and this not for a politick respect but in regard of spirituall ends is iustified by Hooker (t) In his Ecclesiast polic l. 5. sect 72. p. 204. who not only condemneth Aerius and Montanus for teaching the contrary but doth also answere the place vrged out of S. Paul by our Aduersaries in disproofe of our Catholike fastings The sayd Doctrine is also approued by a booke wrytten by a Protestant authour intituled Querimonia (u) p. 31. 94. Ecclesiae printed in London anno 1592. 9. The Doctrine of Euangelicall Counsels is maintained by Luther (x) assertionib art 30. by Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall policy lib. 3. sect 8. pag. 140. and by D. Couel in his defence of Hooker art 8. p. 49. 50. c. 10. Lastly that the true Church is euer to be Visible is proued from the testimonies of Melancthon who alledging sundry texts out of Scripture in proofe therof thus (y) loc com de Eccles p. 354. concludeth Hi similes loci non de Idea Platonica sed de Ecclesiae visibili loquuntur D. Field (z) l. 1. of the Church p. 19. 21. doth affirme the same and therupon reprehendeth Bellarmine for prouing needlesly the Visibility of the Church as if the same were denyed by the Protestants D. Humfrey in like sort iustifieth the Churches Visibility and intreating at large and prouing this poynt in the end directeth his wordes to the Catholikes in this manner Cur (a) In Iesuitismo part 2. rat 3. p. 240. ergo anxiè curiosè probant quod à nobis nunquam est negatum that is why do our Aduersaries so painfully proue that to wit the Churches Visibility which we neuer denied Thus teacheth the said Doctour 11. The same Doctrine of the Churches Visibility is in like sort maintained by Henoch Clappam (b) In his soueraigne remedy against schisme p. 18. who thus saith Not only all Auncients did hould the Churches Visibility but also al learned men of our age 12. These now ten articles among many other such like Catholike poynts acknowledged by our Aduersaries as the Reader may fully see in that most elaborate learned conuincing and vnanswerable booke stiled The Protestants Apology of the Roman Church may be sufficient to proue that the Scripture maketh most cleare and euidēt for the iustifying of our Catholike Fayth in the former poynts at least in the iudgments of these as I may tearme them Agrippian and halfe Christians I meane in the iudgments of the aforealledged Protestants teaching and acknowledging these Catholike Positions And the reason hereof is in that those who maintaine and defend the sayd former articles do neuertheles as I touched before confidently teach auouch that that only and nothing els is to be beleeued in matters of faith which is manifestly and expresly warranted or necessarily deduced out of the written word Now this being thus I see not how our former Protestants can auoyde and diuert the danger of this their present Doctrine which broacheth that the written word alone is solely definitiuely to determine all Ecclesiastical doubts Controuersies of Religion The Conclusion CHAP. XII IT is recorded of a certaine Heathen Poet who endeauouring to discounsell his Prince and Mecaenas from waging of warre to the which he had bene ouermuch inclined composed a Tragedy representing therin all those aggreuances and terrours commonly attending vpon warrs as sacking of townes depopulation of countries slaughter of souldiers murthering of the innocent and other such lamentable effects But insteed of his Catastrophe or last Act therof he caused the Chorus without any speach at all to bring forth in a vessell certaine dead bones of his Princes predecessours with a paper therin bearing this or the like inscription 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Behould heere mighty Prince the bonesof such thy auncestours which were slaine and dyed in the warres Which deadliuely spectacle being set in the sight of his Lord spake no doubt more feelingly and persuadingly as forcing or inuading his Vnderstanding by the irresistable assault of the Eye then the deliuerance of words or any other external representation could import 2. The like in the closure of this treatise I thinke good to obserue for hauing laboured to withdraw our Sectaries from erecting the Scripture as sole Iudge of Cōtrouersies in the patronizing wherof they warr fight against Gods sacred word against the practise of the church in her first purity against the vniforme iudgment of the auncient Fathers and finally against Reason it self And hauing refuted this their Doctrine first by discouering the difficulty of the Scriptures in regard wherof euery priuate spirit though of such as are predestinated and elected cannot assure himself indubiously of their true sense meaning Secōdly by laying down the incōpetency insufficiency of the Scriptures in this poynt proceeding both from the Protestants disagrements which is Scripture from the corruptions of all Originalls and Translations therof now extant at least by the iudgment of our new Ghospellers and lastly by shewing that supposing the Scripture to be this iudge yet it maketh in behalfe of vs Catholiks and not for our Aduersaries if we insist either in the perspicuity of the letter therof or in the iudgment of the Fathers and Protestants passed theron The proofe of which passages necessarily forcing that the Scripture cannot be this determining Iudge Which being accomplished it now remaineth by allusion to the former Poet that in place of an exact ceremonious Conclusion I only present to the view of the Protestants the yet extant and as it were the vn-entombed sentences Iudgments of their own ancestours I meane of Luther Caluin Zuinglius and their followers wherin with great bitternes of speach they do anathematize and damne one another for their different opinions rysing out of their supposed reuealing spirit out of their priuate interpreting the Scriptures as ech one doth truly charge another though they all indifferently maintained with the like feruour this Doctrine promising infallibly to thēselues in particular the certainty of this spirit and iustifying
in like sort the Scripture for Iudge 3. These censures I say I will present to the eye of their iudgments as so many vnburyed parcels of their forefathers dead memories still remaining to witnes to their children that their said Predecessours in this Doctrine did perish in the iustifying of this their quarrel not only by the hands of their professed Aduersaries the Catholiks but also by the bloudy wounds which their credit and estimation reciprocally receaued from their seuere sentencing of one another as often as any of them attempted to practise in their particular works and labours touching the making the Scripture sole Iudge of Controuersies which afore they all had ioyntly taught by speculation And heere it is to be obserued that their interchangable condeÌ„nations are in seueral maÌ„ners sorts 1. The Lutheranes with the Sacramentaries I meane with the Swinglians and Caluinists 2. The Sacramentaries with the Lutheranes 3. The Lutheranes among themselues 4. The Sacramentaries among themselues vnder whome are compreheÌ„ded the Protestants and Puritanes here in England All which parties notwithstaÌ„ding equally maintained the Scripture for Iudge and the infallibility of the priuate spirit and therfore vpon this ground and principle if so it were true their own spirits ech one challenging the like priuiledge therin should haue necessarily conspired and agreed togeather in their Doctrine expositions of the sayd Scriptures since the spirit of God is one not many (b) Epist ad Ioannem HeruagiuÌ„ Typographum Argentinum And first I will begin with the iudgments of the Lutherans passed vpon the Sacramentaries 4. Luther (a) Thes 2. cont Louaniens himselfe saith We seriously iudge the Zuinglians and Sacramentaries to be Heretikes and Aliens from the Church of God And in another place he saith The Sacramentaries began their opinion of the Sacrament with lyes and with lyes they defend it As also in third (c) Tom. â— in def verbor caenae Domini f. 389. place he thus wryteth against them We will reproue and condemne them to wit the Sacramentaries for Idolaters corrupters of Gods word blasphemers and deceauers and of them as of the enemies of the Ghospell we will sustaine persecution and spoile of our goods and whatsoeuer they shall do vnto vs as long as God will permit 5. Neither are Luthers Posthum or his after-broode I meane the Lutherans whome by the testimony of Doct. Whitaker (d) In his answere to F. CampiaÌ„ the eight reason the English ProtestaÌ„ts imbrace as their deare brethren in Christ more mild in censuring the SacrameÌ„taries then their Father was for Luke (e) Enchirid cont Caluinian c. 7. Osiander a Lutheran speaking of certaine wicked assertions of them touching Christ saith thus But heere geÌ„tle Reader behind aboue those blasphemous things which in the discourse afore we haue heard against the Sonne of God out of the opinion of our Aduersaries the Caluinistes there openeth it selfe a gulfe or hell of CaluiniaÌ„ Doctrine in which if thou diligently waigh the matter God is said to be the author of sinne c. and hence of necessity must arise in the harts of men manifest blasphemies against God The said authour (e) Ibid. in Conclus p. 267. in the same booke saith also thus Let any godly or friendly Reader whatsoeuer thinke what deadly poison doth powre it selfe into men vnder the Caluinian Doctrine by which al Christianisme almost is ouerthrowne 6. Brentius (f) In recognit prophetar saith All the Zuinglians workes are full of deprauations cunninges deceipts and slaunders Westphalus (g) Apolog cont Caluin p. 430. c. 19. reporteth That all the Caluinian workes are stuffed with tauntes curses and lyes And he further affirmeth that he is able to shew certaine pages of Caluins workes of which euery one containeth aboue 30. notable lyes and taunts Conradus Schlusselb (h) In praefat theo Caluinist protesteth that the Caluinistes do nourish Arian and Turkish impieties in their hearts which doth not seldome at fit tymes openly disclose it selfe 7. Stankarus (i) Contra Caluin k. 4. thus wryteth to Caluin What deuill ô Caluin hath seduced thee to speake with Arius against the sonne of God c And after the said Lutheran concludeth Beware ô Christian Readers and especially all you Ministers beware of the bookes of Caluin and principally in the articles of the Trinity Incarnation Mediatour the Sacrament of baptisme c. Hunnius (k) In â—his epist dedicatory of the CoÌ„fut of Caluins deprauations chargeth Caluin That he wresteth the Scripture horribly from the true sense to the ouerthrow of himselfe and others And thus passing ouer the censures which the bookes Caluinus Iudaizans Caluino-papismus affoard against him as also omitting many other Lutherans writings against Caluin and his sect and leauing out of the former Lutheranes for breuity sake infinite other most notorious passages directed to the same purpose this already set down shall suffice concerning their condemnation of him the Sacramentaries 9. Now let vs see on the contrary side how the Sacramentaries do beare themselues towards Luther and the Lutherans contenting our selues with the same few places only of their censures which may serue for a tast of the rest 10. And first Zuinglius (l) Tom. 2. in respons ad Luther confess fol. 458. 459. calleth Luther Marcion further saith that he is guilty of high blasphemy against the nature essence of God in that he taught that Christ dyed according to his diuinity He further thus speaketh of Luther touching the same poynt This can be by no reason explained or excused for Luther clearly and manifestly confesseth that he wil not acknowledge Christ to be his Sauiour if only his humanity had suffered Zuinglius (m) In respons ad Luther l. de Sacram. fol. 401. also wryting in another place against Luthers Doctrine thus sayth Thou Luther shalt be forced either to deny the whole Scriptures of the new Testament or to acknowledge Marcions heresy 11. Caluin (n) Instit l. 4. c. 17. §. 16. speaking of Luthers heresies sayth By the Lutherans Marcion is raised out of hell and in another place (o) Admonit 3. ad VVestphalum Caluin sayth The Lutheranes are forgers and lyars 12. Ioannes Campanus (p) In Colloq lat Luther Tom. 2. c. de Aduersar a Sacramentary saith as certaine as God is God so certaine it is that Luther was a diuelish lyar 13. Lastly for greater contraction of this point Oecolampadius affirmeth that the Lutherans bring forth only a colour or shadow as Heretikes commonly are accustomed to do of the word of God They bring not the word of God and yet will seeme to (q) Dialog cont Me. lancthoneÌ„ build vpon the word of God See with what ful intemperate termes they do enterchaÌ„ge one another Now as we haue seene the Lutherans condemning the Sacramentaries for their interpretation of Scripture and these them againe So neither of