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.
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
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
thence runneth headlong into certaine deuiations by-wayes of most foulâ— errours 8. This answere salueth not the doubt for once graÌ„ting a true Iudge it followeth that this Iudge though depending of God is to haue authority in compounding of Controuersies absolutely infallible And the reason hereof is this for if his authority were not infallible then might it be inferred an absurditity little sorting to the sweet prouidence of God that the whole Church by force of such a delegated authority to it by God himselfe might be led into a generall errour since euen moral Philosophy and the light of reason assure vs that granting a Magistrate who may erre to haue publike authority in his censures and decrees then are the subiectes or inferiour persons who are interressed in the sayd definitions bound to imbrace those errours Which if they were not obliged to doe then should it follow that the Magistrates state were no better in defining then the subiects since they were not bound to stand to the ceÌ„sure of their Iudge but only when they did know his sentence to be euidently most true and consequently it might be likewise inferred that the Magistrate hath no power at all in defining and yet all Philosophy instructeth vs that euen in a point doubtfull where it is not euident the opinion of the Iudge to be clearly false the persons acknowledging obedience to the Iudge are in regard of the former reasoÌ„s obliged to follow his doubtfull definition though perhaps erroneous 9. To the former reason may be adioyned this following as is also afore touched That euen the light of reason teacheth vs that euery Iudge in any Court of CoÌ„trouersies ought to be such as all conteÌ„ding parties without exception may for the appeasing of their debates haue easy accesse vnto him Which accesse is found to be in the Church but not in the Scripture from which it vnauoydably followeth that the Scripture cannot be this iudge whereunto ech maÌ„ is to repaire but that the church may be and is the sayd Iudge That euery man at his pleasure may come to the Church for resolutioÌ„ of doubts we see it is euident by the practise of all ages 10. But on the contrary part euery man that maintaineth different points of fayth hath not this freedome of comming to the Scripture for decision of his doubts for first there are diuers Christians who cannot as much as read the Scripture much lesse vnderstand it how can such men then expect to haue their Controuersies touching religion to be deâ—ermined by the wrytten word alone And as touching those others who can read yet is their cause little bettred therby seing many by their reading of the Scripture do strangely detort the true sense therof Yea we may obserue that diuers Nouellistes of different religions who are dayly coÌ„uersant in the Scriptures endeauour euen from the self same passages of it by their false constructions to fortify their repugnant Doctrines And thus though the voyce of the holy Ghost in the wrytten word and the leter there read be but one yet through ech mans selfelike expositions it seemeth to speake as euery man would haue it by this meanes making the Scripture to be like vnto the tongue of S. Peter other the Apostles which being but one was notwithstanding heard in euery mans seuerall language 11. Another argument for the conuincing of this supposed Iudge may be drawne from the Doctrine of Traditions which haue euer bene maintayned by the auncient Fathers and the primitiue Church Which Doctrine if it be true then may we most consequently deduce from thence that the Scripture is not to iudge all questions of Fayth since the Doctrine of vnwrytten Traditions teacheth vs that all the articles and points of Christian Religion haue not their expresse proofe out of the Scriptures but that some of them are belieued only by force of Tradition and of the continued and vn-interrupted practise of Gods Church To enter into any exact proofe of this point of Traditions is improper to this place and would require a reasonable large Treatise alone and therfore I remit the Reader to such Catholike wryters (g) Hofiâ—e in 4. l. aduers Prolegomena Brentij Peresius initio operis sui do Traditionib Roffensis Canisius Bellarmin besides many others as haue most learnedly handled this subiect Only I wil here set downe and consequently proue the sayd Doctrine à posteriori certayne pointes of Christian Fayth which haue no cleare and conuincing proofes out of Scriptures and yet are belieued no lesse by the ProtestaÌ„ts themselues then by vs Catholikes 12. And first against the Anabaptistes both the Catholikes Lutheranes and Caluinistes do belieue that the baptisme of Infantes is lawfull and that they are not to be rebaptized after they come to ripenes of age which point as D. Field acknowledgeth terming it a TraditioÌ„ caÌ„ neuer be sufficiently and clearly proued by the Scriptures alone without the testimony of the practise of the church and force of Tradition as appeareth by the testimonies of the auncient Fathers for we find that Origen thus speaketh hereof in c. 6. epist ad Rom. Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem accepit etiam paruulis baptismum dare In like sort Austin l. 10. de Genesi ad literam c. 23. Consuetudo matris Ecclesiae in baptizandis paruulis nequaquam spernenda nec omnino credenda est nisi Apostolica esset Traditio 13. D. Bancroft teacheth that Confirmation is an Apostolicall Tradition as appeareth in his conference before the King All we do belieue that our blessed Lady dyed a Virgin do account Heluidius an Heretike for houlding the contrary and yet no text of Scripture doth coÌ„firme it to vs but rather through misconstruction may seeme to insinuate the contrary in regard of those words Non cognouit virum donec peperit filium suum 14. D. Whitguift (h) In his defense pag. 539. acknowledgeth that now during the tyme of the new Testament we are to celebrate Easter vpon Sunday contrary to the custome of the Iewes a point of such moment euen in the primitiue Church that the maintainers of the coÌ„trary were then reputed for Heretikes and styled (i) Epiph. haeres 50. Aug. haeres 29. Tertul. de praescript Quartadecimani And yet for this change of obseruing Easterday we haue no warrant from the holy Scriptures but may say with Tertullian (k) De corona militis quod non prohibetur vltrò permissum est D. Couel in his booke of examination teacheth the word Archbishop to be a Tradition M. Hooker in his Eccles polic sect 7. p. 118. in generall defendeth the Doctrine of Traditions and answereth diuers testimonies out of the Fathers alledged by Carthwright and others 15. Againe both Catholikes and Protestantes doe belieue that there are certaine diuine wrytinges which are the true and vndoubted word of God and first penned by the holy Prophets Apostles and Euangelistes Yet we cannot conuincingly and demonstratiuely proue so
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
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
sense of the holy Ghost in the Scripture is concealed from the Protestant by the Protestant like as the Sunne is hid from the earth by the earth 21. But to proceed a litle further touching this last translation first how can our translations therof assure any man of the truth of their translation since they acknowledge no Originall or any translation of the Bible out of which they did make their translation for pure vncorrupt Secondly admit for the tyme that this translation is perfect according to the true Originalls yet seing it differeth in diuers controuersiall textes and passages from all former English translations it therfore from hence followeth that till now we here in England neuer enioyed the true and vncorrupted Scripture in English and consequently that till these dayes the Scripture in English could not be iustly vrged to determine and iudge Controuersies in fayth But a true and perfect iudge is ready not at one tyme only but at all tymes seasons to performe the function of true Iudicature That supposing the Scripture as Iudge yet the Letter therof is more cleare and perspicuous for the Catholikes then for the Protestantes CHAP. VIII NOW after we haue proued the incompetency of the Scriptures for resoluing all doubts of fayth and this from the disagrements of our Aduersaries eyther in approuing or discanoning such or such parcells of the Bible as also from the confessed corruptions and falsifications as well of the Originalls as translations euen of those books which are ioyntly acknowledged by them for Gods vndoubted word for as they do grant that others corrupted the fountaines so it is most euident that among others themselues haue impoysoned the streames It wil much cōduce to our designed proiect if we cōtinue our dreame for the tyme with our Aduersaries that the Scripture is solely and finally to decyde all Controuersies since supposing this principle as true we shall notwithstanding be able to proue that the passages of Scripture euen of such parts as are confessed by our Aduersaries to be authenticall and vncorrupted which the Catholikes do alledge in defence of their faith are more cleare and perspicuous for the proofe of their Doctrine then any counter textes are which our Aduersaries do produce out of the sayd Scripture to impugne the same in regard of which difference a Catholike may commiserate a Protestant in the phrase of Tertullian to Marcion Misereor tui Christus enim Iesu in Euangelio tuo meus est The reason hereof is double first because the Catholikes do ordinarily insist in the literall and immediate sense of the wordes which sense is euer more naturall and obuious then any figuratiue acception of them can be wheras our Aduersaries in answer therto as also in alledging other textes are forced to interprete the sayd places eyther figuratiuely or at least not in that vsual immediate sense which the words do import Which māner of literally expounding the Scripture is warranted by the authority of all learned diuines who do ioyntly teach that we neuer ought to depart frō the proper sēse of words except we be driuē therto either by some other manifest place of Scripture or by some vndoubled article of our fayth impugning the literal sēse thereof or lastly by the vsuall explication of the whole Church 2. The second reason of the greater perspicuity in our proofes then in those of our Aduersaries is this in that most of the textes of Scripture for I do not say all which we alledge do fall directly and as it were in a straight lyne vpon the question controuerted so as after the sense and meaning of the wordes is once acknowledged they irrefragably and directly proue that for which they were vrged wheras our Aduersaries testimonies do not for the most part touch immediatly and as I may tearme it primariously the poynt in question but only by way of a secondary collection or illatiō which illations being often inconsequent and at the most but probable and not necessary it followeth that though we should grant to them their owne expositions of such textes yet do they but proue the thing questioned by a second hād I meane only by probable and coniecturall inferences And this oftentymes after their illation is granted doth not light vpon the hart of the question it selfe but only vpon the flanck or skirtes of the same I meane vpon the manner or some other circumstance therof which being not defined may be holden seuerall wayes as probable by the Catholikes But now for iustifying what I haue here set downe let vs looke into some chiefe texts vrged by vs and our Aduersaries concerning some principall Cōtrouersies for to go through all were ouer laboursome where I doubt not but we shall fynd in ech of them at least one or the two former disparities betwene vs and our Aduersaries in alledging the same 3. And first touching Peters Primacy the Catholikes do alledge in proofe therof those words of Christ to him out of S. Matthew (a) cap. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this rock will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it And I will giue to thee the keyes of heauen c. Which wordes being taken literally and plainly as the Catholikes doe expound them do directly proue this Controuersy seing they fall perpendicularly vpon the conclusion of the question it selfe for to say that Peter is the rock of the Church is al one in sense as to say the head of the Church And therfore our Aduersaries to auoyde this pressing authority are forced to answere that by the word Rock is vnderstood figuratiuely Christ according to Caluin (b) lib. 4. Instit c. 6. §. 6. or euery one of the faithfull with Erasmus (c) Erasm in hunc locum or the confession of our Fayth with Luther (d) lib. do Potestate Papae So distracted they are among themselues in answearing therto 4. But let vs view what places our Aduersaries do alledge to countermand Peters supreme authority First because our Sauiour sayd to Peter as it is recorded in the sayd Chapter of S. Matthew Go after me Satan thou art a scandall vnto me c. As also in that S. Paul (e) Galat. cap. 2. sayth of himselfe that he resisted Peter in the face Neyther which places we see do directly touch Peters authority but only by way of weake inferences and such as are not as much as probable seing that Peter was not then the head of the Church when those words were sayd to him by Christ and concerning this other we grant that the inferiour may and ought to withstand his superiour for the truths sake so that he doth it with due respect and regard 5. To conuince that Paradox that the Pope is Antichrist the Catholikes doe vrge the continuance of Antichrists reigne set down in the Scripture diuersly both by yeares (f) Apoe 12. monethes (g) Ibidem c. 11. 13. and dayes