or marrow not in the leauâ—s of the words but in the sappeâ—pâ—th or roote os reason And a little after otherwise Matt. 4. v. 6. euen the Diuell himselfe speaketh Scriptures and all heresies according to Ezechiel make vnto themselues pillowes which they may lay vnder the elbow oâ— euery age Ezec. 13. v. 18. 2. By that which hath byn sayd answere may be made to our Aduersaries when they obiect against vs that we affirme the Scripture to be imperfect obscure like a nose of wax which a man may writh which way he will and lastly the origen and spring in a manner of all heresies for we affirme this of the naked and dead letter alone destitute of the true sense or rather of the letter to which the Heretikes adde their owne peruerse sense and meaning neyther haue our Aduersaries any cause to wonder at this seeing S. Paul himselfe saith of the bare letter alone that it killeth and bringeth eternall death 1. Cor. â— v. 6. 7. 9. and damnation But neuer any Catholike did euer attribute any such thing to the liuing letter which hath conioyned with it the true and natiue sense and which alone is truly and properly the word of God CHAP. IIII. How we are to seeke out the true sense and meaning of the holy Scripture THERE is great contentioÌ„ beweene vs and our Aduersaries about the meanes how to finde out the true and naturall interpretation of the letter a thing so necessary to eternall saluation They teach diuers thinges concerning this matter but deliuer nothing that is certayne One assigneth more rules to this purpose another fewer but when they haue sayd all they confesse at last that there was neuer any which hath not at sometyme erred in seeking out the true interpretation of holy Scripture For they gyue not their assent either to the ancient Fathers or to their owne Maisters in all thinges they teach or write nay they cannot assigne any one whom they acknowledge not to haue erred sometyme nor dare affirme to be free from error seeing as they say Euery man is a lyar and so at last all Rom. 3. v. 4. thinges are left by them doubtfull and vncertayne 2. But the Catholikes do proceed after another manner who teach that the certayne vndoubted sense of the Letter is not to be taken from the iudgment of any particuler man but from the vniforme consâ—nt of the ancient Fathers and especially from the iudgment and interpretation of the Catholike Church to whome it appertayneth to iudge of the sense and meaning of the holy Scriptures as the holy and Oecumenicall Councell of TreÌ„t teacheth very well for there is no doubt Concil Trident. sess 4. but that it is more safe to follow such an interpreter as cannot erre then such a one as erreth somtymes or at leastwise may erre but the Church cannot erre in her iudgment seeing that Christ and the â—oly Ghost remayne with her to teach Matt. 28. c vlt. Ioan. 14 v. 16. â—oan 16. v. 13. â—er all truth wherof more herafter when we shall come to treat of the Church 3. It shall suffice to obserue and â—ote here that according to the doctrine of our Aduersaries nothing either solide or certayne is contayned in the holy Scriâ—ture for wheras all dependeth of the â—rue sense of the Letter and with them â—here is no certayne or sure meanes by which to finde out this sense it followeth â—hat they call all into doubt which is in â—he Scripture wherby who seeth not how much they iniure them But contrariâ—yse according to the Catholike doctrine all thinges are euident and cerâ—ayne which are contayned in the holy Scriptures appertayning eyther to faith or good manners the Catholikes hauing euer a certayne and faithful Interpreter to wit the Catholike Church And surely whosoeuer reiecteth the sense which the Church giueth and in place therof substituteth another altogeather repugnant to it doth all one with him who reiecting the holy Scripture should in place therof bring in a new Scripture of his owne forging the sense of the Scripture being no lesse a part of the word of God then the letter which in these few wordes Tertullian confirmeth out of the tradition of the auncient Church The sense adulterated or falsified is no lesse repugnant Tertul. de prâ—sc c. 17. to the truth then the letter or stile corrupted 4. And to conclude it may be inferred that saluation is to be found in the Roman Church only and none at all out Marc. vlt. vers 16. â—om 3. v. 1â— Heb. â—â— v. 9. of it which I proue thus Both the Scripture testifyeth all meÌ„ confesse that diuine fayth is necessary to saluation but such as forsake the RomaÌ„ Church cannot haue diuine faith which wholy relieth vpon the word of God only but meerly humane seing their fayth is founded not in the word of God interpreted by the Church which cannot errâ— but in the word and interpretation of Luther Caluin or some other priuate man who as they themselues graunt may erre and be deceiued such an humane fayth then so doubtfull and vncertayne and only warranted by mans authority cannot iustify or bring a man to eternall saluation CHAP. V. How we may know which is the true letter of the holy Scripture ALL such as forsake the Roman Church and make little account of her authority are not only doubtfull vncertayne which is the true sense of the Scripture but they can haue no assurance at all eyther of the whole or of any part of the letter therof For whilst they goe about to call in question and make doubtfull certayne bookes only of the old Testament before they are aware they take away all authority from all other bookes both of the old and new Testament For whereas there is but one certaine and vndoubted Canon of these bookes to wit that which is receaued and approued by the iudgment of the Catholike Church which cannot erre our Aduersaries reiecting this Canon make all the books doubtfull conteined therin for no certayne testimony can be had of these bookes but eyther by this Canon only or by the auncieÌ„t tradition of the Church but they neyther admit this Canon nor wil stand to this vnwritten TraditioÌ„ or acknowledge it for the true word of God 2. Now as for the Canons lately set out by themselues no man can safely belieue them seeing they neyther agree one with another nor with the auncient Canons of the Church nor are any where found in the writteÌ„ word of God which as they teach is only to be belieued neyther can they bring any thing eyther concerning the Canon of the Hebrewes or any other auncient Canon which they haue not taken from the writings of the auncient Fathers whose authority without the expresse written word of God they will haue to be in no wise sufficient to engender fayth so as euen by the iudgment of our Aduersaries none of all these
can establish Fayth concerning this matter 3. Iohn Caluin indeed sayth that it Lib. 1. Inst c. 7. sect 2. in fine is as easy for a faithfull man to discerne Canonicall Scripture from that which is not Canonicall as to one that seeth it is easy to discerne light from darknes and white from black But in so saying See Beâ—l lib. 1. de ver Deic 17. 18 19. he contradicteth both reason and experience for it is euident that in old tyme there was no small controuersy amongst the faythfull yea and amongst learned and godly men concerning many bookes of the old and new Testament yea and also euen now amoÌ„gst such as our Aduersaries esteeme faithfull men which Caluin Calu. pros in Ep. lac Epist ad Heb. ante â— Petri. himself in many places confesseth 4. Moreouer Caluins owne followers well perceauing this fly vnto their owne peculiar spirit by which they say they are chiefly perswaded and moued and not by the only consent of the Church But these speake nothing to the purpose for Rupell Confess art 4. in faith two thinges concurre one is the cause or origen of fayth to wit God himselfe and the holy Ghost whereof there is no controuersy betweene vs and them for we all acknowledge the holy Ghost to be the principall cause of the assent we giue by fayth that is to say that it is the holy Ghost who chiefly perswadeth vs to belieue The other is the obiect of fayth or that which is to be belieued whereof we now dispute for the holy Ghost doth not induce vs to belieue the false vncertaine deuises of men but the puâ—e and sincere word of God only we aske therfore of our Aduersaries by what expresse word of God he reuealeth vnto them that there are so many Canonicall bookes and neyther fewer nor more for we read not this any where in the Scripture and they admit only the written Word of God how can the holy Ghost Calu l. 1. Instit c. 9. sect 1. then perswade theÌ„ to belieue that which is not the word of God For we are not now to expect new reuelations from God as do the Anabaptists and Libertines whom for this cause our Aduersaries condemne It is necessary therefore that if they will haue vs belieue that they are perswaded by the holy Ghost to belieue such books only to be authenticall as they do say are such that they first shew this to be a truth expressely contayned in holy Scripture which they will neuer be able to do Wherfore there is no certainty with them eyther of the sense of the holy InnoceÌ„t 1. ep 3. c. vlt. CoÌ„ il 3. Carthag caÌ„ 47. S. Aug. Epist 335. Câ—cil Trident. sess 4. Scripture or of the Letter nor euer wil be vntill they returne vnto the Church agayne But we Catholikes are certaine of both for we haue a most faythfull Canon receaued in the Church more theÌ„ a thousand and two hundred yeares agoe confirmed by a generall and Oecumenicall Councell 5. And this to haue beene the faith and doctrine of the auncient Church for the discerning of true and authenticall Lib. 4. Inst c. 1â— sect vlt. Scriptures that short but pithy sentence of S. Augustine whome Caluin acknowledgeth to haue byn the best and most faithfull witnes of antiquiy sufficiently testifyeth saying I for my part would not belieue the Ghospell vnlesse I were moued by the authority Aug. coÌ„ Epist Manich. c. 5. of the Church of which place I will say more herafter in the Controuersy of the Church And else where he saith VVe receaue the old and new TestameÌ„t in that nuÌ„ber of bookes which the authority of the holy Catholike Aug. serm 10 de temp Church deliuereth So S. Augustine 6. I know our Aduersaries obiect many thinges against many bookes contayned in our Ecclesiasticall Canon but their chiefe arguments do not only derogate authority from those bookes but also from many others which they receaue as Canonicall For they obiect that some Fathers did sometymes doubt of those bookes which they will not admit but they are not ignorant that some Fathers of old haue doubted of the Epistles of S. Iames and S. Iude of the second Epistle of S. Peter of the 2. and 3. of S. Iohn of the Epistle to the Hebrewes and of the Apocalyps of which bookes they dare Rupell Confess art 3. not now doubt especially Caluins followers as is manyfest by their confession of faith 7. They say further that in those bookes which they reiect there are many thinges obscure difficult and full of contradiction but what booke of Scripture in a manner is there in the which there do not occurre sometymes thinges 2. Pet. 3. v. 16. obscure and hard to be vnderstod did not S. Peter acknowledge as much But as for true contradictions there are none at al how soeuer there may be some things which at the first sight may seeme to imply contradiction yet indeed all thinges agree very well togeather such a contradiction is oftentymes found in those bookes which euen our Aduersaries receaue Aug. dâ— Doâ—t Christia l. 2. c. 41. de ser Dom. in mont l. 1. c. 3. yea euen in the Ghospells themselues which for all that are not to be reiected but humbly soberly and piously to be interpreted as S. Augustine many tymes admonisheth 8. To conclude all the arguments that our Aduersaries make against these bookes are fully answered by Catholike writers which haue set out Commentaries Bell. Greâ—s Contro 1 l. 1. c. 7. sequ 〈◊〉 in sâ—â— Coronol vpon those bookes to wit Cornelius I ansenius vpon Ecclesiasticus Ioannes Laurinus vpon the booke of VVisedome Ioannes Maldonatus and Chrisâ—ophâ—r à Castâ—o vpon Baruch and Nicolas Serarius vpon the rest of the bookes of the old Testament which our Aduersaries call Apocripall to omit the most Reuerend and famous Cardinall Bellarmine and his Champion Iacobus Gretserus as also Iames Gordon Lesmoreus For it is sufficient only to haue cited them seeing that I write only an abridgment of Controuersies not any long commentaries vpon the Scripture And therfore conteÌ„t my selâ—e to haue shewed in this place that our Aduersaries must either receaue the Canon of Scriptures approued be the Councell of Trent or be vtterly destitute of any certayne and assured Canon CHAP. VI. Of the Hebrew Text. OVR Aduersaries when they are vrged with Catholike argumeÌ„ts taken from the Scriptures are wont to fly to the Hebrew Text of the old Testament and to the Greeke text of the new perswading themselues by this meanes to attayne to the true and propter sense of the letter wherfore somthing is to be sayd in this place of the Hebrew Greeke text both which appertayne to the Letter of the holy Scripture 2. We grant indeed that when the Latin translation is either ambiguous or lesse playne the Hebrew text is well and profitably looked into as also that
them as if Christ should teach that we cold deserue life euerlasting by keeping the law And a litle after he concludeth saying This answere of Christ is according to the old law to wit that no man can be accounted iust before God but he who shall satify the law which is impossible And Calu. in 16. Luc. v. 28. Lâ—b 3. Instit c. 17. sect 7. vpon the later place he writeth thus It is impossible sayth he to fulfill what the law commaundeth yea it is a principall axiome with Caluin a coÌ„moÌ„ aÌ„swere to all such places A legal promise sayth he aÌ„nexed to a coÌ„dition impossible proueth nothing thus with sâ—ch impossibilities they dally with vs with the holy Scripture it selfe so far forth as they Calu. Beza in c. 2. ad Rom. dare affirme that the Apostle in one Chapter auoâ—cheth vnto vs seauen times thinges imâ—ossible For wheras the Apostle in the 2. cap. of the Ep. to the Rom. and 6. v. affirmeth Bez. in c. 2. ad Râ— v. 6. annot 6. edit an 1550. 1564. 1565. first that God will render to euery one according to his workes they interprete the place thus that God will indeed giue to meÌ„ according to their good works if there were any such but that no man can do any good worke before God Is there any man saith Beza that shal be able to bring these workes which the Apostle saith shal be rewarded with eternall life And wheras in the seaueÌ„th v. the Apostle saith that God doth render life euerlasting to such as seeke the same by the patience of good works their answere is that he insinuateth a thing impossible and that no man can do any good worke before God no not the iuslest man which is not worthy of eternall damnatioÌ„ Calu. l. 3. Instit c. 19. sect 4. VVhosoeuer saith Caluin haue made the greatest progresse before all others in the way of the Lord if they cast their eyes vpon the Lord God what worke soeuer they attempt or go about they see it to be accursed And surely I for my part could easily belieue that such is the progresse of our aduersarirs in the way of our Lord. See the rest of the Aposiles places in the latin edition 2. The tenth last shift is the wresting of diuers wordes to a wrong sense and to inuâ—nt sundrie different vnderstandings of the wordes to build vpon it many interpretations neuer heard of before and for a finall Conclusion to say the place is obscure and therefore proueth nothing For Luc. 22. v. 19. example hereof those most euident words of Christ This is my body with is giuen for you may suffice for some of theÌ„ wrest the pronowne hoc others the word est others the word corpus others the pronowne meum others the relatiue quod others the preposition pro others the pronowne vobis and others the Verbe datur and ech word they wrest diuers waies so as one more then Anno 1577. thirty yeares ago hath gathered out of their writings two hundred expositions of these few wordes of Christ of which Clâ—uâ—ius de Xainctes numbreth particulerly 84. And that they are both many and different yea repugnant wherwith they labour to make obscure these wordes of our Sauiour no man can doubt See another example in the latin edition And it is worthy of noting that in all these shifts they serue themselues of other places of Scripture to proue what they say whereby it may appeare how easy a thing it is to corrupt the Scripture by other places of Scripture but that the prouideÌ„t and dayly care of the holy Catholike 1. ad Tim. v. 15. Matt. 28. Church opposeth it self against such corruptions worthily therefore called the Pillar and Firmament of truth against which the gates of hell shall neuer preuaile FINIS OF TRADITIONS The second Part of the first Controuersy CHAP. I. Of the true state of the Question HAVING already in the precedent Treatise spoken of the written Word of God and of all other things thereunto belonging now it remaineth we speake a litle of the vnwritteÌ„ word coÌ„moÌ„ly called TraditioÌ„s But to the end that the state of this controuersy may more easily be vnderstood I will heere set downe foure things diligently to be considered in this matter we treate of The first is that by the vnwritten Word we only vnderstand that which is not written in the old oâ— new Testament for of the vnwritten word of God in this sense is our whole Controuersy in this place Wherefore that obiection of our Aduersaries is both friuolous and nothing worth to wit that the word of God which we cal the vnwritten word may be found extant eyther among the holy Fathers or in the books of the Councells or other Canons of the Church But this nothing belongeth vnto this purpose for it is sufficient for vs that this word of God is not written in any book eyther of the old or new Testament 2. The second is that a thing may be coÌ„teined in the holy Scripture 2. wayes The one way is implicite that is to say in some generall principle from whence this other may be certaynly deduced and in this sense we acknowledge that the whole word of God is conteined in holy Writ and not only in Scripture but also in the Apostles S. Aug. in 140. quaest vpon Exodus Tom. 4. Matt. 22. v. 40. Câ—eed yea euen in that one article I belieue the Catholike Church so that it be diligently examined and well vnderstood as S. Augustine very well noteth For so sayth Christ the whole Law and Prophets doe depend vpon two precepts of charity as in the same place S. Augustine noteth For seing that the holy Scripture teacheth that we are bound to beleeue the Church in all things that it can neither deceiue vsnor be deceiued as we will euidently proue in the next Controuersy in the 7. Chapter it consequently also teacheth the whole and entire word of God seing that all that which is not expressâ—d in the holy Scripture is conteyned expressy in the doctrine of the Church the which the Scripture commendeth vnto vs as infallible as S. augustine very well sayth and declareth S. Aug. Tom. 7. contra Crescon Gram. c. â—3 de vnit Eâ—cles c. 22. in fine-Matt 17 v. 5. Matt. 81. v. 17. Luc. 10. 16. in many places For euen as God the Father comprehended in these few words This is my wellbeloued Sonne heare him the whole word of God so Christ proposed vnto vs the whole word of God when he commaunded vs to heare the Church 3. And in this sense do the holy Fathers often tymes say that all the points of fayth are conteined in the holy Scriptures to wit in that generall principle in the which they admonish vs to bâ—lieue the Church but many of the holy Fathers sayings are falsifyed corrupted by Martin KeÌ„ nitius and some Caluinists as may be seene in
Iudocus Ruesten in his first tome defending the Councell of Trent against Kemnitius 4. Secondly a thing may be conteined in expresse words in the holy Scriptures as that Christ is borne suffered and risen againe c. And in this sense we deny that the whole word of God is conteined in the Scripâ—uâ—e That obiection of our Aduersaries by this may easily be answered when they say that we affirme that Traditions are the vâ—written word of God yet we goe about to proue theÌ„ by Scriptures For we do not proue euery particuler Tradition by expresse words of Scripture but we only deduce and gather them out of it and conuince in generall that there are Traditions 5. The third thing which is to be considered is that our Aduersaries being conuinced by truth doe acknowledge that many things were deliuered vnto vs by the Caluin coÌ„t 4. sess Con. Trident. in â—ntid Beza denotis Eccles tom 3. Tract Theoâ— p. 137. edit Anni 1582. Apostles besids those which are written But say they those were only externall rites and ceremonies seruing only for the ornament or discipline of the Church but nothing concerning doctrine of fayth was deliuered by the Apostles which they haue not set downe in writing So Caluin and some others which follow his opinion Wherfore it remayneth for vs to proue that not â—â—ly external ceremonies but also those which belong vnto the doctrine of fayth were deliuered vnto vs by the Apostles that they were neuer expressely â—et downe in writing 6. The fourth thing is that seing our Aduersaries cannot deny that which was obiected vnto them by Catholikes to wit that the Scripture in many places maketh expresse mentioÌ„ of the word of God preached deliuered and diuulged ouer the whole world as we haue already declared euen out of the holy Scriptures they are wont to answere that long since in the Apostles tyme this Word of God was deliuered preached and not written but the Apostles after wards set downe in writing all the preached word of God or at the least as much therof as was necessary vnto saluation The which solutioÌ„ albeit it be very weak and friuolous seing that it relieth vpoÌ„ no sure ground yet notwithstanding tâ—at it may more fully be confuted we will declare hereafter that many of the chiefest points of faith were not expressely set downe in writing by the Apostles And thus much of the state of this Question CHAP. II. Out of the first and chiefest principles of faith it is clearly conuinced that there are Traditions THE first argument wherby we proue Traditions is taken out of some of the chiefest principles of faith For there are three chiefe and most necessary points of faith yea the câ—ieâ—e grounds of our whole faith which are not to be found expressely in Scripture 2. The first that there must needes be some Catalogue or Canon of the sacred Bookes aswell of the old as of the new Testament the which all Christians with an assured faith should imbrace as a most certaine and an vndoubted truth and this is a very necâ—ssary point of faith yea of it dependeth the authority of all the bookes of holy Scripture because by this Canon the sacred and true books of Scripture are discerned and made knowne from all those which be Apocriphall especially because aswell in times past as in these our daies there hath bin so many and so great Controuersyes about the Canonicall and Apocriphall bookes of Scripture and such a Canon was altogeather necessary aswell in the auncient Church before Christ as in our present Church after Christes tyme the which also our Aduersaries themselues haue learned by experience For they haue also placed their new Canon of the books of holy Scripture in their Consession made at Confess Ruâ—ellana Act. 3. â—ochell and in the later end of some of their Bibles and yet neyther in the time of the old Testament nor in the tyme of the new Law was this CanoÌ„ euer written downe in the Bibles themselues 2. I know our Aduersaries that they may escape this argument do runne to the inward instinct of the holy Ghost wherby say they we know what book is Canonicall and what is not But this answere is refuted reiected before where we haue shewed that the holy Ghost doth not moue vs to belieue any thing with the Catholike faith which is not the word of God If Suprac 5. therfore the holy Ghost moue vs to belieue that some bookes are Canonicall and some are not it is necessary that this be the word of God We aske therefore of them whether this is the written word of God or the vnwritteÌ„ if it be the written word in what Booke or Chapter is it to befouÌ„d if it be no where to be found our Aduersaries must needs coÌ„â—esse that by the instinct of the holy Ghost they also belieue the vnwritten word of God or Traditions 3. The second principle of faith is that we must necessarily with an assured and firme faith belieue that all those Bookes eyther of the old or of the new Testament which we now retaine are safely deliuered vnto vs entyre aâ—d vncorrupted through so many handes so many ages so many vexations and persecutions of the Christians for otherwyse the whole credit and authority of those bookes will decay and perish But this is no where extant or written for neyther the Prophets or Apostles haue euâ—r written that their bookes should neuer be falsified or corrupted by any yea it appeareth sufficiently Supra c. 9. 10. 12. 13 by that which hath byn already said that they were falsified and corrupted in many bookes by the Iewes and Hâ—retâ—kes Let our Aduersaries therfore tell vs where it is written that this holy Scripture which we haue now is not corrupted or falsifyed 4. The third principle of fâ—yth is the true sense of the letter For the true word of God consisteth rather in the true sense or meaning of the words then in the words Supra cap. 3. themselues as we haue declared before But the true sense of the words that is to say in what sense or meaning the words are to be vnderstood eyther properly or figuratiuely cannot be had from the holy Scripture alone but also from the doctrine and Traditions of the Church as we haue sayd before in the fourth Chapter wherby it also followeth that the writteÌ„ word of God conteyneth in it the least part of the word of God to wit the bare letter only but the word of God preached and deliuered keepeth and professeth vnto vs the cheif part of the word of God that is to say the true natiue sense of the same S. Basil l. de Spir. sanct c. 27. Brent contra Petr. â— Soto in suis prologom Kemnit cont 4. sess Conc. Trid. cùm agiâ— de 2. gen Tradiâ— 5. And this is that which S. Basil sayth that those who reiect the vnwritten points of fayth as indiscreet persons do
wrong and damnify the chiefe parts of the Ghospel yea they euen as it were coÌ„tract or bring the whole preaching of the Ghospell to the bare name thereof 6. Many of our Aduersaries who deale more sincerely with vs conuinced by these arguments do acknowledge that these grounds or principles of our faith are only to be had by Traditions without any written word of God as Ioannes Brentius and Martin Kemnitius who adde also that those Traditions which doe not repugne to the written word of God are to be admitted and receiued and that those only are to be reiected which are opposit vnto the holy Scriptures 7. But whatsoeuer our Aduersaries do answere it is altogeather necessary that they confesse these three principles of our fayth do belong indeed to the very word of God it selfe They must also needs confesse these are not extant in plaine and expresse tearmes in any booke either of the old or new Testament out of which necessarily followeth that the whole intire word of God is not conteyned expresly in the holy Scripture CHAP. III. Wherein it is proued out of other particuler poynts of fayth that there are Traditions THE second argument whereby we proue Apostolicall Traditions is taken out of other particuler poynts of fayth the which almost all our Aduersaries belieue with vs albeit they be no where expressely conteyned in the Scriptures There are many poyntes oâ— sayth of this sort wherof for example sake we will alledge some few But to the end we may vse our accustomed breuity we will rehearse only those which do also manifestly shew out of this opinion of our Aduersaries that nothing appertayneth to the doctrine of fayth which is not expresly conteyned in holy Scripture there are many greeuous errours and heresies in this our age arisen 2. The first point is that in God there are three Persons really distinct among themselues and one only substance for this is now here extant in holy Scripture yea in it nothing is to be found expresly written eyther of the substance or of the person in that signification wherein these words are vsed when we speake of the Blessed Trinity 3. This indeed the Caluinists to their great losse and domage haue sufficiently learned by experience fourty yeares agoe in Transiluania For when one Iohn Huniades whom they called Iohn the secoÌ„d King of HuÌ„gâ—ry was then Gouernour in TraÌ„â—luania a CouÌ„try or Prouince of Hungary had ordained a publike disputatioÌ„ betwixt the Calâ—inists and the Anti-trinitarians that is to say those who oppugned the mystery of the Blessed Trinity and that according to the coÌ„mon doctrine on both syds they should dispute only out of the holy Scriptures the Caluinists could neuer proue out of the Scriptures alone that there is eyther a substance or person in God neyther could they by the Scriptures only declare what is a person or what is a substance 4. Wherefore at the last this was the end of the disputatioÌ„ that almost all those which were present iudged that the Antitrinitarians got the victory and that the Caluinists were shamefully ouercome wherupon it came to passe that the sayd Prince of Transiluania of a Caluinist became an Anti-trinitarian yea one of their chief friends in so much that he tooke some publike Churches from the Caluinists and gaue them to the Anti-trinitarians and he continued miserably in that wicked heresy euen till death which happened in the yeare 1571. the 14. of March 5. All which things are aboundaÌ„tly declared by one Ioannes Sommerus Pirnensis in the funerall Oration which he made at his death where in among other things he affirmeth that the chiefe cause why this Prince left the Caluinists and became an AntitrinitariaÌ„ was this because forsooth in the Scriptures he could fynd nothing of the Blessed Trinity and for that the Caluinists were forced to confesse that the words wherby the mystery of the Blessed Trinity is explicated are not extaÌ„t in the holy Scripture but because this funerall Oration is scarce any where to be found least some should thinke that I falsely coyned these things my selfe I will heare set downe his owne words For after he had most blaspemously spoken as the Anti-trinitarians are wont to doe against the Blessed Trinity the which he calleth heere and there the Roman Idolatry these things he addeth of his Prince 6. This funeral Orat of Ioan Sommer was printedat Claudiopolian Domini 1571. But this our Prince sayth he being instructed by God easily vnderstood what was the truth and with earnest desire imbraced it and with no lesse pleasure of mind defended it for being accustomed euen from his childhood to read the holy Scriptures he made them very familiar vnto him presently he found that such things which were contrary to the phrase of Christ and his Apostles were in the ensuing ages by a wicked curiosity brought into the Church and that they are not at all to be numbred amongst those things which adde any firmity or strength to the Author of our saluation especially seing that the Aduersaries themselues acknowledge that the words wherby these subtilties of this new opinion are explicated if not rather as I may well say more obscured are not to be found in the writings of the Apostles 7. And a little after Wherfore little regarding eyther the multitude of wranglers He meaneth Seruetus who was buâ—ned at Geneua an 1553 as Beza writeth in vita Caluini or the torments and paines which others had endured who first endeauoured to breake this yce he manifestly condemned the falsity of the Trinity freely professing his owne opinion therein And after a few words For what hath he not done what assemblies and disputations hath he not ordayned caused to be had about this matter both in Hungary and in Transiluania that the sense or meaning of the Scripture might the better be explicated by conferring those thinges togeather which were then said or spoken of where he would not only be present himselfe but also taking the place or office of the Iudge and vmpyre in the said disputations he very wisely and grauely confuted the great absurdities of that superstition warning often the Aduersaries that reiecting the fancies or fond expositions of men they should lesse impudently and more sincerly carry themselues in the explication of the heauenly doctrine Thus farre Sâ—â—â—merus of the great care diligence of the Prince of Transiluania in defending the heresy of the Anti trinitarians 8. Moreouer it is also manifest that out of this opinion of our Aduersaries to Seruetus l. 1. de erroribus Trinitat fol. 32. pag. 1. Edit an 1531. wit that we must not belieue any thing which is not expressed in Scriptures this wicked heresy of the Anti trinitariaÌ„s in these our dayes had her beginning For that Michael Seruetus who in our age was the first of them that by printed bookes presumed to oppugne the mystery of the Blessed Trinity doth plainely testify writing in
be very hard for them to discerne that which is true from that which is false Wherfore we will endeauour in euery particuler Controuersy to set downe the true state of the question Afterward we will lay open the foundation of the Catholike doctrine And lastly we will plainly and briefly answere the chiefe obiections of our Aduersaries whether they be drawne out of the Scriptures or taken from the Fathers 3. And because our Aduersaries euermore boast and brag of the written Word of God pretending out of it only to proue their doctrine impugne ours our chiefe care shal be to shew that the Catholike and Roman faith is both euidently and strongly to be confirmed out of the wrirten Word of God and the doctrine of our Aduersaries to haue no foundation at all in the holy Scriptures but is manifestly opposite repugnant therunto yet so as we will set downe the vniforme conseÌ„t of the auncient Church to be agreeing with vs in euery Controuersy leauing the more ample search of antiquity vnto others to whome we will referre the Reader setting downe their particuler names so loath we are that this booke of ours should grow too great and for the same reason we haue thought good to omit many arguments which might be drawne out of the holy Scriptures for confirmation of the Catholike faith contenting our selues to set downe only the more solide and euident proofes because we are resolued to be as briefe as may be CHAP. II. Of the Word of God in generall THE word of God if we speake of it in generall may be considered two wayes either for that One Eternall and Infinite Word which contayneth perfectly in it selfe whatsoeur is in the mind of Almighty God which is the same with the Sonne of God and Word of the Father of whome S. Iohn speaketh in his Ghospell saying In the beginning was the VVord and of this Word we are to say nothing heere but the Word of God may be other wise coÌ„sidered and taken for that Word which was not alwayes nor contayneth all thinges which are in the mind of God but a small part only of them to wit such thinges as God would haue vs know and belieue and of the Word of God in this sense we speake now For this Word is the proper and complete obiect of our faith 2. Moreouer this Word hath two conditions or properties the one is that the same be reuealed vnto vs for there are innumerable verities in the mind of God the which bâ—cause they are not reuealed to vs do not appâ—rtayne to this Word The other is that it be immediatly reuealed by God for such thinges as God manifesteth Rom. 2. v. 19. â—0 Heb. 11. v. 1. vnto vs by naturall reason appertayne not to this Word of God called therfore by the Deuines the reuealed Word of God 3. Of this Word of God so vnderstood there is no Controuersy betwene vs and our Aduersaries but only in wordes for wherâ—s our Aduersaries say that Catholikes affirme that we must with diuine fayth belieue the words of men or which is worse rather belieue the words of men then the Word of God it is a meere slaunder for there is no Catholike so ignorant but he knoweth that the Theologicall vertue Faith relieth altogeather vpon the pure sincere and certayne Word of God alone according to that of S. Paul VVhen you had receiued of vs the 1. Thes 2. v. 13. word of the hearing of God you receaued it not as the word of men but as the VVord of God as indeed it is Neyther can any man doubt but that the reuealed word of God is partly the written Word contayned in the Canonicall bookes of the old and new Testament partly vnwritten and deliuered by tradition and preaching of which vnwritten â— Thes c. 2. v. 14. 1. ad Cor. 15. v. 1. ad Gal. 1. v. â— 1. Pet. 1. v. vlâ— word the Scripture maketh mention in many places but we will first treat of the written Word CHAP. III. Of the written Word of God THE witten Word of God consisteth of two parts of the Letter which euery man may read in the books themselues and in the true seÌ„se of the Letter which is as it were the very soule and life thereof without which the Letter alone rather killeth theÌ„ quickneth or giueth life as we see euidently by experience in the Iewes Arians all other heretikes as well new as old for the Iewes hold theÌ„selues stiffely to the Letter of the old TestameÌ„t the Arians as also in a manner all other heretikes receiue eyther altogeather or for the greatest part the Letter of the new but because they will not acknowledge the true sense of the Letter Iewes they are Heretikes they are Catholikes they are not And surely the Letter alone without the true sense cannot truly and properly be called the Word of God no more then a body without a soule can truly and properly be called a man wherefore they which spoile the Letter of the true sense may be compared to them who beâ—eaue a man of his soule and life 2. But whosoeuer do substitute another contrary sense and meaning in place of the true do no otherwise then they who not only kill a man but by Art Magicke bring into the body of the man killed some other diabolicall spirit by which the dead body is so moued and stirred as it seemeth to many to be aliue all this is so manifest a truth as our Aduersaâ—ies themselues are not able to deny it 3. This to haue byn the doctrine of the auncient Church sufficiently appeareth Aug. ser â—8 de temp by the words of S. Augustine The vnhappy Iewes sayth he more vnhappy Heretikes whilst they attend only to the sound of the Letter as a body without a soule so they remayne dead and voyd of the spirit which quickneth And els where All Heretickes which receiue Aug Epist 22â— the Scriptures and their authority will seem to follow them wheras indeed they follow rather their owne errors and are therefore Heretikes not because they contemne them but because they do not vnderstand them And before him S. Hilary that honour of the French Nation RemeÌ„ber Hil. l. ad Constant Imperat. saith he that there is not one of the heretikes which doth not say that he preacheth now according to the Scriptures euen those thinges in which he blasphemeth albeit he lieth in so saying And a little after All of them speake Scriptures without the true sense meaning they preteÌ„d sayth without fayth indeed for the Scriptures consist not so much in the reading as in the vnderflaÌ„ding neither are they vnderstood of such as go into preuarication but continue and abide in charity Moreouer S. Hierome Let vs not thinke sayth Hieron in c. 1. ad Gal. he the Ghospell to be in the words of the Scripture but in the sense not in the out side but in the inside
faith is the ground of the Church we speake of the generall faith of the whole Church 19. There are other arguments of our Aduersaries but we may easily answere Canus l. 2. de â—ocis Theol. c. 8. Bellar. l 3. deverbo Dei c. vlt. therunto by that whiâ—h hath byn already said the which Melâ—hior Canus and Bellarmine do prosecute and handle more at large vnto whom we referre the Reader For they are borrowed of the Anabaptists Libertines wherby the authority of the holy Scriptures themselues is no lesse diminished and infringed then that of the Church CHAP. VII That the Church doth not only giue a bare testimony but also authority to the Scripture THIS matter is heere briefly to be examined that it may more clearly be vnderstood how necessary the Churches approbation is to the establishing of the authority of the holy Scriptures But to the end that it may more clearely appeare wherof we dispute in this place it is to be considered that seing that our Aduersaries cannot deny but that the Church aâ—â—oardeth some testimony to the holy Scriptures they affime that this testimony of the Church is only a bare testimony and not a testimony of authority 2. For there are two kindes of testimonyes The one is called a testimony of authority because vpon it the truth of the things testified dependeth Yt is called also a necessary testimony because without it the thing in question is not sufficiently testified The other is called a bare testimony and not necessary that is to say when such a testimony is not so necessary because the matter is otherwise Ioan. 1. v. 7. sufficiently testified Such a testimony was that which S. Sohn Baptist gâ—ue of Christ For Christ had sufficient testimonies besides 3. Of the former testimony of authority Christ saith But I do not receyue my Ioan. 5. v. 34. 36. Ibid. testimony from men to wit the testimony of authority necessary For of the bare testimony he had spoken a little before You sent vnto Iohn and he hath giuen testimony to truth But this was a bare testimony wherfore Christ a little after said I haue a greater testimony then Iohn for the workes which the Father hath giuen me to profit them the very works which I do giue testimony of me that the Father hath sent me And the Father that sent me himselfe hath giuen testimony of me All which saith Christ of the testimony of authority Our Aduersaries therefore say that the Church giueth only a bare testimony to the Scriptures as S. Iohn gaue to Christ but she giueth not a necessary testimony or that of authority 4. But that the testimony of the Church is altogether necessary as that Matt. 3. v. vlt. Matt. 17. v. 5. wherof the authority of the Scriptures dependeth is very manifest by that which is said in the former Chapter And by that also which we alleadged in the first disputation where we shew that there is now no firme testimony wherby we may know certainly which booke is canonicall and which not besides the testimoniy of the Catholike Church For now neyther are the miracles wrought which God did in tymes past neyther doth God speake immediatly by himselfe as he spake in the baptisme and transfiguration of Christ VVherefore there remayneth only the third ordinary manner wherby God speaketh by the mouth of the Church The Church therfore doth not giue a bare testimony only to the holy Scriptures but the testimony of authority to wit that wherof the authority of the Scriptures dependeth as concerning vs and our knowledge 5. Moreouer if the doctrine of S. Paul stood in need of the Churches approbation as we haue already proued out of Supr c. 3. §. 13. huius Controu the Scriptures much more S. Lukes Ghospell who was oÌ„ly S. Pauls choller stood in need therof as Tertullian witnesseth especially because S. Luke receyued not those things which he wrot by reuelation from God Tertu l. 4. contra Marâ—â— 2. Luc. â— v. 2. as S. Paul did but by tradition from others as he hymselfe writeth And the same also may be said of S. Marke whose Ghospell as S. Hierome writeth the Apostle S. Peter approued and by his authority he commaunded it should be read in the Church 6. But neyther is it true that some say that the authority of approuing the Canonicall bookes was only resident in the Apostles and the primitiue Church but the ensuing Church hath it not For the Apostles did not approue all the Canonicall bookes of the new Testament For if they had donne so there had remained no doubt of many of them for many ages after the death of the Apostles euen among Catholike good men as we Supra ca. 5. Contr. 1. haue noted before But many yeares after the Apostles tyme by the generall Councells and Decrees of the Church some bookes were approued wherof there was before some doubt 7. Yea more then six hundred yeares after Christ there were many Catholikes who did not receyue the authority of the Toletan Concil c. 16. Apocalyps as appeareth out of the fourth Toletane Councell 8. And that which is more before the Councell of Trent ther were many Catholikes who thought that it was lawfull for them to doubt of all the bookes of the new Testament the which in tymes past S. Hierome seemed to iudge as doubtfull as are the Epistles of S. Iames the second of S. Peter the second and third of S. Iohn the Epistles of S. Iude the Epistles to the Hebrewes and the Apocalyps And if it had not byn for the Councell of TreÌ„t or some other new Decree of the Church none would as yet condemne them as Heretikes who called those bookes in question 9. By that which hath byn sayd it appeareth manifestly that the Canonicall Scriptures receiue their strength and authority not from the approbation of the primitiue Church but rather from the approbation of the Church succeeding yea euen of this present Church to wit of the Councell of Trent 10 Lastly albeit the present Church should not haue the authority of approuing Scriptures as these men say yet notwithstanding for three other reasons the authority testimony of this present Church is necessary First because we know not certainly what bookes the primitiue Church hath eyther written or not writen approued or reiected but by the testimony of the present Church Secondly neyther do we know whether those bookes came vncorrupted vnto vs or no but by the same testimony Thirdly because we cannot otherwise know which is the true sense of those bookes CHAP. VIII The Argumentes of our Aduersaryes are confuted THE first argument of our Aduersaries is The Church is grounded vpon the word of God and by the word also of God â—t is ingendred nourished and gouerned and it is subiect to the word of God as to the words of her spouse I answere our Aduersaries do in a manner coÌ„found the writen word of God
publican 18. Fiftly the Church hath power and authority to punish VVhat will you 1. Cor. 4. v. vlt. 2. Cor. vlt. v. 2. 2. Cor. vlt. v 10. sayth the Apostle that I come vnto you with a rodde or in charity and with the spirit of mildnesse And in another place If I come againe I will not spare And againe that being present I may not deale hardly according to the power which our Lord hath giuen me vnto edification and not vnto destruction 19. Sixtly the Church absolueth byndeth and retayneth sinnes excommunicateth Matth. 18. v. 19. Ioan. 20. v. 23. as the holy Scriptures doe expresly testify and our Aduersaries doe also confesse all which actes belong vnto Iudges but the Scripture doth none of them 20. The second argument The holy Scripture expresly affirmeth that the Church doth sometymes iudge I indeed absent in body but present in spirit haue 1. Cor. 5. v. 34. 5. already iudged as present him that hath so done in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ you being gathered togeather and my spirit with the vertue of our Lord Iesus Christ to deliuer such an one to Sathan And a little after Do not you iudge of them that are within where the Apostle â— Cor. 5. v. 12. plainly saith that the Pastours of the Church iudge those which are in the Church 21. The third argument is taken from the common practice of the Church aswell in the old as in the new Num. 11. â— 16. 17. 25. Deut. 17. â— 8. â—eq 2. Par. 19. v. â—0 11. Testament For in the old Testament the chiefe iudgement of all causes was ordeined by God himselfe first in the booke of Numbers and afterward it was confirmed in Deuteronomy in which Iudgment the priestes did sit as Iudges and the chiefe Iudge who did giue his sentence for in all thinges which were doubtfull by the expresse commaundement of God the common people were sent to this Iudgment of the Church and not only to the holy Scriptures or to the priuate spirit of any 22. Moreouer till the comming of Christ this manner of iudging continued in the old Law For of it Christ himselfe sayd Vpon the chaire of Moyses haue sitten the sâ—ribes and the Pharisies All thinges therfore whatsoeuer they shall say to you obserue yâ—e and doe yee this Councell or Iudgment in the yeares following by corâ—upting the Greeke word the Iewes called Sanhedrin Matt. 2. v. 2. 3. as it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say an assembly or Councell 13. In like manner in the new Testament when there arose that controuersy about the obseruation of the legaâ—l ceremonies or customes the Apostles did not Act. 15. v. 28. send their disciples to the holy Scriptures only or to the priuate spirit of any but they assembled themselues togeather and defined what was to be belieued It seemed good say they to the holy Ghost and vs. For Act. 15. v. vlt. Act. 16. v. 4. the holy â—host is as it were the soule of the Church And this Decree of the Apostles S. Paul and S. Barnabas did diuulge and promulgate euery where as appeareth by the same Chapter and the next following where these determinations of the Apostles are called Decrees or according Act. 21. v. 25. to the Greek Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to sâ—y things already iudged wherupon Act. 21. vers 25. the Apostles doe say that iudging and decreeing they had written this 24. In the same manner in the next ages the Arians the MacedoniaÌ„s the Nestorians Eutichians and other old Heretikes were iudged condemned by the Catholike Church in the generall Councells holden at Nice Constantinople Calcedon and others 25. Lastly our Aduersaries in their Consistories and Assemblies doe vsurpe vnto themselues the authority of iudges neither doe they referre the iudgment to the Scriptures alone or to the priuate spirit of any 26. Yea Caluin conuinced by these reasons confesseth that the writinges of euery priuate person must be submitted to the iudgmeÌ„t of the Church Where he also concludeth thus Neither therefore sayth he do we condemne or diminish the authority of the Church neyther do we giue liberty â—o euery froward Calu. in Antid contra Conâ—il Trid. sess 1. in fine fellow to do what he list I would to God they would shew vs such a Church as the holy Scripture doth paint or describe vnto vs we would easily agree about the honour thereof Thus he But we will shew in the ensuing Chapters such a Church as the Scripture describeth I wish also we may agree concerning the honour and authority thereof 27. There are two principall argumentâ— of our Aduersaries the first is that the holy Ghost is not tyed vnto men but â—udgeth freely in whatsoeuer it pleaseth him therefore he is not tyed vnto the Church But the same argument would proue that there is no certainty in the holy Scriptures For they who wrote the Scriptures were men vnto whome according to our Aduersaries opinion the holy Ghost was not tyed I answere therfore that the holy Ghost is not absolutly bound or tyed vnto men but he is tyed to his owne promise as also to the words and promises of Christ For neither the holy Ghost nor Christ himselfe can deceiue vs in not performing their promises because as the Apostle Tit. 1. v. 2. sayth God cannot lie But God hath promised that he wil be with his Church not only one or two dayes or one yeare but euen till the end of the world He promised that he would giue the holy Ghost to remayne Math. vit v. vlt. and stay with vs not for one or two yeares only but euerlastingly It is needfull therfore that he performe and stand to his promises 28. The second argument If those things which we haue said of the Church as Iudge were true it would also follow that the Church is Iudge of the holy Scripture and consequently of the word of God in generall I answere that the word of God in generall cannot be called in question or doubted of by any which professeth Christ For the diuine faith cannot be without some word of God but where there is noe controuersy there is no neede of any Iudge But if of any one part of the word of God whether it be written or not written there arise any controuersy as for example of the true sense of the written word without doubt we must recurre vnto the iudgement of the Church for it belongeth vnto her to iudge of the truesense of the holy Scripture and of the exposition thereof which is the chiefer Ioan. 14. v. 16. part of the written word as also of any doubtfull letter of the holy Scripture for seeing that in times past there haue beene many controuersyes of diuers books of holy Scripture and of the particuler Chapters and parts thereof as also of the true sense of the letter and other