Protestants Chap. 8. That the Texts of Scripture are expounded by the Fathers in the same sense in the which they are alledged by Catholikes for proofe of their fayth Chap. 9. That the Textes of Scripture obiected by the Protestantes in disprouall of our Religion are otherwise expounded by the Fathers then in that sense wherin our Aduersaries do vrge them and that such their expositions do agree with ours Chap. 10. That the Scripture is cleare for proofe of our Catholike Fayth euer in the impliciâ—e and tacite iudgments of our Aduersaries themselues Chap 11. The Conclusion Chap. 12. THE FIRST PART OF THE PSEVDOSCRIPTVRIST The Catholikes Reuerence towardes the Scriptures with the state of the Question touching the Scriptures not being Iudge CHAP. I. BEFORE we enter into any particuler redargution and reproual of the Protestants doctrine touching the subiect of this Treatise I must put them in mind with what slanderous calumniations for detraction is euer accustomed to tread vpon the heeles of truth and integrity they wrong vs Catholikes for our supposed contempt of the holy Scriptures their chief reason thereof besides others being because we deny to them that facility and easines as that they ought to determine all doubts of religion before the true sense of them among so many that are forced and adulterate be deliuered by the Pastours of Gods Church And heerupon they teach that we in effect reiect the Scriptures and do aduance mens doctrines and iudgements aboue them So deep are their pens steeped in gaul against vs and so deseruedly may they be ranged with those mentioned by the (a) Isa c. 32. Prophet Fraudulenti vasa pessima sunt vsque ad perdendos mites in sermone mendacij But how easy is it to dissipate and dissolue this cloud of suggesting malice For we teach not that the Church is to iudge whether that which the Scripture sayth be true or false since the Scripture is Scripture and most true whether the Church should so iudge of it or not but our doctrine is that it being first acknowledged for an infallible principle that the wordes of the Scripture are most true the Church doth only teach amongst many interpretations which is the true sense and meaning of the sayd wordes And in this sort it followeth not that the Church is aboue Gods Word for it is only a vigilant Depositary and Guardian thereof but aboue the iudgement of particuler men interpreting his Word which men do commonly make their priuate and reuealing spirit to become as it were their Mercuryes-rod therewith to chase away all construction of Scripture not sorting to their phantasyes Neither doth the Scripture receaue any strength and force which afore it wanted from this sentence and iudgment of the Church but only our vnderstanding is strengthned confirmed thereby which sentence of the Church is not meerely the Word of man which is lyable to errour and vncertainty but in some sort it may be tearmed the Word of God as being deliuered by the assistance of the Holy Ghost in regard of those infallible promises made in the Scriptures to the Church that she (b) Luc. 21. should not erre Act. 15. 2. But to proceed further in acknowledging our due respect to the Scriptures we graunt most freely that they are the spirituall conduits whereby are deriued to vs the highest misteryes of our fayth that the blessed penners of them were so directed by the holy Ghost as that they neither did nor could erre in any one letter that they transcend in worth and dignity all humane writings as farre as an infallibility of truth surpasseth a possibility of errour Lastly that the sense of them is a most powerfull and working phisicke against the poysonous receitps of all hereticall distillations if so it be deliuered by the appointment of our spirituall Phisitian So venerable and reuerent respect we see the Catholiks do beare to the sacred Scripture as to one chiefe meanes ordained by God for our eternall health and wellfare yet withall they teach that true fayth is to be found not in leaues of the wordes but in the roole of the sense thus making the true and indubious interpretation of Gods word to be a rule to the Protestants imaginary rule since it is to ouerule controule the priuate spirit of euery particuler Sectary 3. But now in the next place to enter more particulerly into the state of this point touching the Scriptures supposed Iudge of fayth we are to conceaue that wheras our Sectaryes do generally maintaine that the written Word of God is the sole and infallible Iudge as also the only rule and square of the articles of Christian Religion thereby reiecting not only any other Iudge but also all other points touching fayth which haue not their expresse proofe or necessary inference in the sayd holy Scriptures The Catholikes on the other side running one and the same line of fayth with all antiquity teach as followeth 4. First that the holy Scripture is not the Iudge of all Controuersyes of fayth Secondly they teach that it is norma infallibilis an infallible rule or square of fayth that is that nothing contrary to the Scripture is to be admitted but they say not that it is the only rule of square and therefore they affirme that besids the Scripture there are Apostolical traditioÌ„s and other definitions of the Church Thus we grant that the written word is regula partialis but not regula totalis of fayth and Religion and therefore we admitte some thinges praeter Scripturam but nothing contra Scripturam that is we approue some thinges not expresly sound in the Scripture but not any thing contrary or repugnant to the Scripture 5. Thirdly they hould that graunting the Scripture to be the rule or square of most articles of religion yet it followeth not that it is the Iudge of the sayd articles since Regula and Iudex are in nature things different for euen in ciuill matters the law is the rule and sqare according to which suites and contentions are determined and yet the law is not the Iuge of them but the Magistrate himselfe expounding the law though sometymes the Law is called improperly and Metaphorically the Iudge 6. Fourthly and lastly they deny not but that the Scripture may in a restained sense be tearmed the Iudge of all Controuersies in faith because it (c) Matth. 16. 18. 23. IoaÌ„ vlt. Luc. 22. Act. 15. appointeth and setteth downe who is that Iudge to wit the Church as also they grant that in the lyke reserued construction the Scripture may be said to deliuer all thinges sufficiently which belong to faith and religion And this not only because it deliuereth euidently al those articles of faith which are simply and absolutely necessary for all men to know as the Articles of our Creed the Decalogue and those Sacraments which are more necessary but also in that all other poyntes whatsoeuer concerning either the true exposition of the written word
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
of Scripture which do precisely touch any poynt of Chrystian religiō are most free from all such escapes This answere faileth seuerall wayes 8. First because we are bound by the Protestantes owne principles to beleeue nothing with is not expressed in the Scriptures But we read not in any place or text of them that God will euer preserue his wrytten word free from all corruptions in essentiall poynts of Christian fayth and yet suffer it to be generally depraued in matters of lesser moment Neyther can it be replyed that God sweet prouidence and care ouer his Church requireth that the Scripture be free from all such mayne corruptions This I say cannot satisfy vs Catholikes who do teach that Gods pouidence and care towards his Church doth not chiefly consist in preseruing his wrytten word since fayth for which end the Scripture was first wrytten may be preserued in the Church only by externall preaching and force of tradition and answerably hereunto we read that the church of God in the time of Nature for the space of 2000. yeares enioyed no Scripture or writtē word at al in like sort Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. wryteth that there were some Christian countries which belieued and liued well only by helpe of Traditions without any wrytten word 9. Secondly it is false that the sayd corruptions doe chance only in such places of indifferency as concerne not doubts of fayth since the contrary is manifest to omit diuers others which might be alledged by the two former produced examples out of S. Matthew (k) cap. 10. and S. Luke (l) cap. 22. where we see that the corruptions wherwith our Aduersaries do charge these two texts do fall iust vpō the touch and point of two chiefest Cōtrouersies of this time to wit the Supremacy of Peter and the Reall Presence 10. Thirdly if by our Aduersaries acknowledgment all the Originalls now extant are corrupted in places not pertaining to matters of fayth how can we be infallibly assured that they are not in like sort corrupted in texts of Controuersies of this tyme or of such doubts as hereafter may ryse Since a certainty of an errour in one place doth imply a possibility of errour in any other place And yet this infallibility we ought to haue for otherwise we build our fayth vpon such passages of Scripture which we doe but thinke only to be the true and vncorrupted word of God and consequently it is not fayth that is builded only vpon a bare morall persuasion of the Scriptures integrity And if this be not so let our Aduersaries shew some priuiledge warrāt which the Scritpture hath to be freed from the corruptions of one kind more then of another If they say that the Analogy of fayth expressed therin doth demonstrate that it is not corrupted in any such fundamentall places this is ridiculous for seing that fayth by our Aduersaries grounds riseth only out of the Scripture and in that respect is quiddā posterius tempore naturâ as the Philosophers say that is later both in tyme and nature then the Scriptures as afore is shewed therefore it followeth that the Analogy of fayth cannot be the square or rule to measure the integrity incorruptiō of the Scriptures therby but it selfe is measured by the Scriptures euen by their owne principles 11. And thus much to discouer the weakenes of their first answere made to our Argument drawne from theyr acknowledged corruptions of the Originalls of both the Testaments Or will they frame a second answere to the sayd argument saying that though the Originalls be corrupted yet there are certaine translations allowed by them which are most pure and agreable to the first Originalls before they were corrupted by these al doubts and Controuersies of fayth and religion are to be determined This shift is more feeble then the former first because it was impossible how the corrupted Originalls should be corrected in their translations there not being in the Protestants iudgments in the vniuersall world any one true copy by the which their translations might be amended since all translations now remaining were lōg after any true Originall was to be found the vulgar Latin and the 70. only excepted Secondly this answere satisfyeth not in that there is no one translation made in Greeke Latin or our vulgar tongue but our Aduersaries do tax it with errours and corruptions Which poynt shall most euidently and particularly be made manifest in the Chapters following 12. Thus we see how forcible and vnanswerable is our reason drawne from their confessed corruptions of their Originalls for the conuincing of this their imaginary iudge of Controuersies One thing only heere is to be remembred that where in the former Chapters not only the Protestants but also the Catholikes do hould th◠present Originalls of both the Testaments for corrupted that this assertion though proceeding alike from them both doth mightily preiudice the Protestants but the Catholikes nothing at all Not vs in that we acknowledge the vulgar Latin translation which is altogether reiected by our aduersaries to be most sincere and agreable to the true Originalls afore their corruption And hereby we maintaine that we haue and enioy the true Scriptures But the Protestants are disaduantaged by their former assertion because they refuse not only all Originalls now to be had as impure and contaminated but also all translations and consequently hauinge in their iudgments no true Scripture at all they cannot prostitute the Scripture for their Iudge of Controuersies That the Protestantes reiect the Septuagint Translations as erroneous CHAP. IV. NOw followeth heere to set downe the dislike which our Aduersaries do beare to all the Translations of the holy Scripture And first we are to begin with the famous translation of the Septuagint who being Hebrewes borne translated the old Testament out of Hebrew into Greeke This translation was so generally applauded by the auncient Fathers (a) Irenaeus Euseb Clemēs Alexandrinus Epiphan Chrysost Tertull. Aug. and the rest as that they did ioyntly pronounce the said 70. to be guided particularly by the Holy Ghost in that their translation And yet our Aduersaries do reiect it in many places as false and erroneous and euen there where they cannot pretend the least suspitiō of any corruptiō And intending to shew some few places therof disalowed by them for to particularize all were ouer laboursome I will restraine my selfe only to such texts as do belong to some particular Controuersy of this time wich course I will also hould for the most part in the other translations heere following That therby it may the more clearly appeare how insufficient all translatiōs are for the decyding of Controuersies when their presumed corruptions are found to rest principally in the texts vrged for the confirming or disproofe of the questions cōtrouerted at this present 2. And first concerning that text which toucheth our Sauiours descending into Hell the Septuagint doe trāslate Thou (b) Psal 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
THE PSEVDO-SCRIPTVRIST OR A TREATISE WHEREIN IS PROVED That the Wrytten Word of God though most Sacred Reuerend and Diuine is not the sole Iudge of Controuersies in Fayth and Religion Agaynst the prime Sectaries of these Tymes who contend to maintayne the Contrary Written by N. S. Priest and Doctour of Diuinity DEVIDED INTO TWO PARTS And dedicated to the Right Honorable and Reuerend Iudges of England and the other graue Sages of the Law An Haeretici diuinis Scripturae testimonijs vtantur Vtuntur planè vehementer quidem Sed tantò magis cauendi sunt Vincent Lyrinens lib. aduers Haer. Do Heretiks cite the diuine testimonies of Scripture They do indeed and that most vehemently But therfore are they so much the more to be taken heed of Permissu Superiorum M. DC XXIII THE CONTENTS OF THE seuerall parts of this Treatise IN the first part besides a briefe refutatioÌ„ of the priuate spirit first prefixed therto it is disputed Categoricè and absolutly that the Scripture is not the Iudge of CoÌ„trouersies And this euicted from the difficulty of the Scripture in regard of its Subiect seueral senses and phraze of the stile as also from Reason testimony of the Fathers Doctrine of Traditions c. In the second Part it is disputed Hypotheticè that supposing for the time that the Scripture as it is simply coÌ„sidered in it self were the iudge of Controuersies yet it is proued that of all the different kynds of Sectaries that euer were the Protestants can with the least reason insist in it as Iudge And this is made euident by three seuerall wayes First because the Protestants cannot agree among themselues what Bookes are true Scripture and consequently do not agree in assigning which bookes doe concurre to the making vp of this Iudge some allotting more bookes to it some fewer and so they make it of greater or lesser extent then euen according to their seuerall opinions it should be Secondly because euen of those Bookes which the Protestants ioyntly imbrace for Canonicall Scripture there is not in their iudgments any one entire true Original either Hebrew or Greeke now to be found neither are there any traslatioÌ„s of them now extant but such as are by the PtotestaÌ„ts assertions false corrupt and impure And so by obtruding the Scripture for Iudge they obtrude at least by their owne Doctrine a false corrupt and impure Iudge Thirdly lastly because euen of those particular bookes only or parts of Canonicall Scripture whose Originalls in them yet extant are true and whose translations in those passages are admitted by the Protestants for true and vncorrupted the texts and testimonies do make against the Protestants and in behalfe of the Catholike Roman Religion if we insist either in the perspicuity of the letter and words or in the iudgment of the auncient Fathers interpreting the said texts or finally in the implicit tacit censure acknowledgment of the Protestants theÌ„selues And thus the Protestants by appealing to Scripture do wound themselues TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE AND REVEREND IVDGES OF England and to the other graue Professours of the Law THERE is no kind of learning right Honourâ—ble and Learned which more conduceth to mans benefit as instructing him in the way towardes heauen then the sacred knowledge of Diuinity There is no part of Diuinity more expedient in these our contentions and misbelieuing Times which threaten shipwrack of our auncient Christian Faith then the study of Controuersies There is no Controuersy more to be insisted vpon then the question concerning the Iudge of these Controuersies since the proofe of it inuolues within it selfe by force of necessary illations the proofe of all other controuersiall points For wheras most of the doubts betwene the Protestants and vs being conuincingly demonstrated for certaine infallible yet such proofes do but force the iudgment of the Reader only in those particulars But it being heere once coÌ„cluded acknowledged on both sides what or who is this Iudge it then ineuitably followeth that all those articles of faith are most true and Orthodoxall which are found to be decreed and defined by the sayd Iudge Besides daily experience telleth vs that the particular discourse of any dogmaticall point in Religion being fortified and confirmed either by vs or our Aduersaries according to the state therof differently maintained with seuerall authorities of Gods word doth finally resolue into this point to wit who is to iudge of the sense and true meaning of the foresaid alledged testimonies In so much as that we may iustly pronounce the question of this Iudge to be both the Center Circumference of all other questions since no lesse the lynes and deductioÌ„s of all controuersies do for their last resolution meet and concurre in this one common poynt then that it selfe being cleared and made euident doth include containe by demonstrable inferences the proofe of al the rest within the capacity and largnes of its owne Orbe The difference betwene vs and our Aduersaries herein is this That we do ioyntly (a) Câ—ncil Trident. sess 4. teach that the whole Church of God by the mouth of the chiefe pastour alone or otherwise seconded with a lawfull generall Councell is ordayned in appealably to define either from Scripture or from the ancient practice of Gods Church what is the vndoubted and Orthodoxall faith of Christians what is Schisme and Heresy But our Aduersaries (b) Luth praefat assertionis suae Melancthlocis de Ecclesia Caluin l. 4. Instit c. 9. Chemnitius in exam CoÌ„cil TrideÌ„t sess 4. do with one consent maintaine that all Controuersies of faith are to be tryed by the touchstone of the holy Scripture so as the Scripture it self is to become the sole iudge since nothing they say is to be receaued as an article of fayth but what hath it expresse warrant from the wrytten Word of God The sentence of the Catholiks in his Controuersy I forbeare to handle in this Treatise since it is already discussed very painfully by diuers Catholike writers and particularly in seuerall (c) Tract 1. sect 4. subd 14. tract 3. sect 7. passages of that most learned worke of the Protestantes Apology of the Roman Church the very store-house of reading or the Armory wherin are layed vp the weapons vsed by vs and taken from our Aduersaries owne sides Therefore I will spend these ensuing leaues in refutation of our Aduersaries Doctrine which consisteth in making the Scripture the sole iudge of Controuersies a subiect not so frequently written off in particuler though otherwise the reprouall therof be potentially and implicitly included in the confirmation of the Catholike contrary Doctrine Now Graue learned Sages the reason emboldning me to dedicate this Treatise otherwise vnworthy your iudiciall view to your selues though of a different religion from me is the consideration of the subiect here discussed which is indeed of that nature as that you may iustly seeme to challenge a particuler interest therin for
is bounded with some of these ensewing restrictions 2. First their meaning sometymes is that certaine Articles only of our beliefe are most expresly set downe in the Scriptures in this sort (a) Aduersus Hermog pag. 350. Tertullian prouing against Hermogenus that God created all thinges of nothing and not out of any presupposed matter and with particuler reference to those wordes in Genesis God made heauen and earth thus wryteth Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem c. I do adore the fullnes of the Scripture which manifesteth to me the maker of all thinges and the thinges made Let the shoppe of Hermogenus teach that it is written If it be not written let him feare that Vae to such as do add or detract c. Which sentence of Tertullian though deliuered only of one Article of our beliefe our Sectaryes neuertheles do stretch out to al points Controuersyes of faith whatsoeuer Thus most inconsequently arguing affirmatiuely from the Particuler to the Vniuersall Another like place to this they obiect out of (b) Lib. 3. de Trinit Hilarius touching the doctrine of the Trinity 3. Secondly the Fathers sometymes ascrybing great honour and reuerence to the Scriptures the which we Catholikes most willingly admit do teach that the Scripture is an infallible rule not heerby intending that it is the only square of our faith as our Aduersaryes seeme fondly to suggest but that whatsoeuer the Scripture proueth is most infallibly and vndoubtedly proued by the same and consequently that nothing is to be admitted as matter of fayth which doth crosse and impugne the Scripture And thus besides that place of (c) Lib. 1. cap. 1. pag. 37. Irenaeus where he calleth the Scripture in the former sense Cancnem immobilem veritatis as also the like of (d) De fide l. c. 4. Ambrose where he appealeth from the writings of particuler fathers to the Scripture as also of (e) in Cor. 7. hom 13. Chrysostome where he calleth the Scripture Guomonem regulam we find that (f) in Epist ad Galat. cap. 5. S. Hierom man taining with all Catholikes that nothing is to be receaued contrary to the Scripture and that therefore generall Councells are to be examined thereby thus wryteth Spiritus sancti doctrina c. The doctrine of the holy Ghost is that which is deliuered in the holy bookes contra quam against which doctrine if the Councels do ordaine any thing let it be reputed as wicked But what Catholike alloweth any thing against Scripture And how extrauagantly then is this testimony obiected against vs by our Aduer saryes Many such places of other Fathers are vrged against vs and yet they only conuince that nothing is to be accepted as an article of fayth which impugneth the Scripture such is their willfull misapplication of the Fathers wrytings It will be sufficient only to make reference of diuers such passages See then Cyprian contra epistolas Stephani Lactantius Institut diuin lib. 5. cap. 20. Basilius epist. 74. ad Episcopos Occidentales Chrysostome hom 49. in Psalm 95. Epiphan Haer. 63. and 76. Cyril de recta fide ad Regin besides many others 4. Thirdly the Fathers disputing with certaine heretikes who denyed all authority of the Church and Councells in determyning of Controuersies with whom the Nouelistes of our age do altogeather interleague and conspire were forced in their disputes to prouoke those heretikes of the holy Scripture not because the Fathers but those heretikes disclaymed from the Churches authority in this point and therefore the Churches authority being reiected by them the Fathers were driuen to insist only in the written word In this sort Iustinus in Triphone disputing with a Iew who admitted not the Church of Christ appealed willingly to the Scripture only Augustine (g) Contra MaximinuÌ„ lib. 3. c. 14. contending with the Arian Maximinus who admitted not the Councell of Nice professed that he did not expect to haue his doctrine tryed by that CouÌ„cell but only by the Scripture and therefore sayd Nec ego Nicaenum proferam c. I will not produce the Nicen Councell c. Let the matter be tryed by the authority of Scripture Finally S. Basil (h) Epist 88. ad Eustochium disputing with certaine Heretiks touching three Hypostases and one Nature in God and they contemning the authority and custome of Christes vniuersall Church therein was compelled to recall them only to the Scriptures tearming the Scripture in this Controuersy Arbiter and Index but in what doth this testimony much insisted vpon by our Aduersaryes disaduantage vs since we heere see the reason why Basil appealed to the Scripture Againe what â—â—â—ation is this Basil thought that the doctrine of three Hypostase and â—ne Nature in God was expresly proued out of the Scripture Therefore he thought that all other points of our fayth necessarily to be belieued haue their expresse proofe in the Scripture without the Churches authority interposed in the exposition thereof Inconsequently and vnschollerlikely concluded 5. Fourthly the Fathers teaching that the proofe of the Churches authority is euicted from Scripture as is elswhere shewed and they also acknowledging that the Church is to iudge of all Controuersyes of fayth and religion do thereupon and only by reason of this inference sometymes in their writings affirme that the Scripture iudgeth sufficiently of all Controuersyes not meaning that the Scripture immediatly of it selfe is inappealably to determine of all articles and doubts of religion as our Aduersaryes calumniously pretend but that it may be said so to do because the Scripture proueth to vs the infallible authority of that to wit the Church and remitteth vs to the same which hath power definitiuely to end all Controuersies In this sense we find that (i) Lib. cont 2 ep Pelâ—g l. 3 c. 4. Augustine teacheth that euery Controuersy is in some sort sufficiently proued out of Scripture meaning Mediante authoritate Ecclesiae Through the meanes of the authority of the Church which authority for the last resolution of doubtes of fayth is most sufficiently and abundantly proued from the Scripture Other like sentences of this nature concerning the fullnes of Scriptures but euer to be vnderstood by the mediation of the Churches authority are to be found in (k) Tom 3. contra Iulianum Cyrill (l) Epist 5. ad suos discipulos Clemens the first Pope and in some other Fathers 6. A second branch whereunto other obscure testimonyes of the Fathers vsually vrged by our Sectaryes for the patronizing of the Scriptures sole iudge may be addressed (m) De doctrinâ— Christ l. 2 c. 9. is drawne from the perfection which the Fathers seeme to ascribe to the Scripture in regard of which perfection they yield to it a great sufficiency for seuerall respectes and ends though our aduersaryes most fraudulently omitting the scope and drift of such sayings will needs wrest this sufficiency as intended of the Scriptures sufficiency for the immediate and finall determining
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
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
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
epist 59. q. 4. doth expound with vs Catholikes to wit that our Lord spake only of our readines and preparation of mynd for the renouncing of all which he requireth at our hands when iust occasion is giuen therof which exposition no doubt is true because a little before in the sayd Chapter our Sauiour did reckon our wyues and our owne bodyes among those thinges which we are to renounce 16. To iustify the Inuisibility of the Church they rack and tenter those words of our Sauiour Venit (u) â—ohn 4. horae nunc est c. The houre commeth and now is when the true worshipper shall worship the Father in spirit and truth Where they labour to proue the words in spiritu in spirit to imply the Inuisibility of the Church because such cannot be certainly knowne and seene who serue God only in spirit wheras Cyril (x) In hunc locum Chrysostome (y) Ibid. and Euthymius (z) Ibid. doe oppose the wordes In spirit to the ceremonies of the Iewes as they were corporall externall the words in Truth to the same ceremonies as they were figures of thinges to come 17. They in like sort do obiect to iustify the sayd Heresy the wordes of the Apostle who sayth Non (a) Hebr. 12. accessistis ad tractabilem moÌ„tem c. You are not come vnto the mouÌ„t that may be touched c. but vnto the mount Sion and vnto the Citty of the liuing God the celestiall Ierusalem c. Where by the wordes Mount Sion and the Citty of God they teach that the militant Church is vnderstood which because it is spirituall is opposed in this text to the mount Sinai which is visible But S. Chrysostome (e) â—n hunc locum Theophilact (f) ibidem and others do expound with the Catholikes that by spirituall Sion and the Citty of God in this place is not vnderstood the Church militant but triumphant which doth consist of the blessed spirits and therfore it followeth immediatly (g) c 9. after But you are come to the company of many thousand Angells and to the spirits of the iust Which words cannot haue a direct reference to the militant Church 18. To proue in like manner that the Church of God may vtterly faile and decay they vsually obiect that prophesy of Daniel Deficiet hostia sacrificium the sacrifice shall cease wheras those wordes are not vnderstood of the time of Antichrist but of the ouerthrow of Ierusalem and of the ceasing of the Iewish sacrifices and thus is this prophesy expounded by Chrysostome (h) in cap. 24. Math. Ierome (i) ibidem Austin (k) Epist 80. ad Hesichium Eusebius (l) l. 8. Euang demonst c. 2. Clemens (m) lib. 1. stromat Alexandrinns and Tertullian (n) l. contra Iudaeos cap. 5. 19. They also obiect to the same purpose those words of Christ Cùm (o) Luc. 28 venerit c. When the sonne of man shall come dost thou thinke he shal find fayth vpon the earth Which is not vnderstood that at Christ his coÌ„ming the Church of God shal be extinct but only that markable and eximious fayth which is so much commended shal be found but in few at those later dayes And thus doth S. Ierome (p) Dialog contra Lucifer S. Austin (q) de Vnitat Eccles cap. 1â— expound this text To the short they among other textes do bring forth the words of the Apostle (r) 2. Thessal 2. Nisi venerit discessio primùm c. Except there come a departing first that man of sinne be disclosed c. Out of which wordes they labour to proue that there must be a general departure from the true fayth at the comming of Antichrist And the contrary to this sense and meaning diuers of the Fathers to wit Chrysostome (s) In hunc locum Theodoret (t) Ibidem Theophilact (u) Ibidem and Austin (x) l 20. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 19. do by the word discessio or departure in this place vnderstand Antichrist himselfe by the figure Metonymia as being the cause that diuers shall depart from the fayth Others of them to wit Ambrose (y) In huÌ„c loum Sedulius (z) Ibidem do vnderstand therby a departure from the Roman Empire neyther of which expositions do fauour our Aduersaries at all 20. To obscure the Doctrine of Traditions they peruert the sense and meaning of the Apostle (a) Galat. 1 who sayth Sed licetnos vel Angelus decaelo euaÌ„gelizat vobis praeterquaÌ„ quod euangelizauimus c. But though we or a Angell from heauen preach vnto you contrary to that which hath bene preached let him be accursed Where they deduce that al Traditions are herby condemned But notwithstanding the Fathers doe expound this place only of such Doctrines as are contrary and opposite to the Doctrine there already preached And therfore S. Ambrose (b) In huÌ„c locum doth expound this place by these wordes si contra in like sort S. Austin (c) l. 17. coÌ„tra Eaustum c. 3. si contra S. Ierome (d) In huÌ„c locum si aliter meaning therby if not agreable but repugnant to the former Doctrine In like sort they produce certaine places (e) Math. 1â— Col. 2 aboue touched where our Sauiour and his Apostles do disproue and reprehend Traditions in generall Which words being spoken only of certaine friuolous and wicked traditions of the Iewes do nothing at all impugne the Traditions of the Catholike Church thus we find those texts expounded by Ireneus (f) l. 4. cap. 25. Epiphanius (g) In haeres Ptolomeâ— S. Ierome (h) In c. 8. Isa in c. 3. ad TituÌ„ 21. Wheras we hould the vnlawfulnes of mariage in some persons and of meates at some tymes our Aduersaries to impugne our Doctrine herein do vsually alledge that place of the Apostle where he sayth (i) 1. Timoth c. 4. In nouissimis diebus discedent quidam à fide c. prohibentes nubere abstinere à cibis In the later dayes certaine shall depart from the fayth c forbidding to marry and commanding to abstaine from meates Wheras the Apostle in this place speaketh of such who absolutly forbeare mariage and meates as things altogether vnlawful which cannot in any sort be applyed to the Catholikes And these were the Tatians Marcionites and the Manichees Thus is this text expounded by Austin (k) l. 30. coÌ„tra Faustum Ierome (l) l. 1. in Iouinian Ambrose (m) In huÌ„c locum and Chrysostome (n) In huÌ„c locum 22. Concerning our Sauiour they teach seuerall errours first that he increased in wisedome and knowledge (o) cap. 2. as other men do and that he was not filled with grace and knowledge from his mothers wombe To proue this their Heresy they bring those words of S.
sect 57. Melancthon in cap. 4. epist. ad Roman Iacobus Andraeas in Epitom colloq Montisbelgar pag. 58. Luc. Osiander in Enchirid. controuers c. p. 272. 6. The Doctrine of Freewill in like sort is maintayned by Osiander Cent. 16. p. 814. by Siccanus Hemingius as Willet doth witnesse in his Sinopsis printed 1600. p. 808. By Perkins in his reuelat p. 326. 7. The Doctrine of merit of workes to wit that in regard of Christ his Passion and promise and as proceeding from faith all which poynts the Catholiks do acknowledge as necessary they are meritorious is warranted by the testimonies of Melancthon (p) loc com de bonis operib of the Confessions q in the Harmony of Hooker (r) l. 5. Ecclesiast polic sect 72. pag. 208. and of the disputation holden at Ratisbone (s) p. 509. 8. The forbearance of certaine meates at set tymes and this not for a politick respect but in regard of spirituall ends is iustified by Hooker (t) In his Ecclesiast polic l. 5. sect 72. p. 204. who not only condemneth Aerius and Montanus for teaching the contrary but doth also answere the place vrged out of S. Paul by our Aduersaries in disproofe of our Catholike fastings The sayd Doctrine is also approued by a booke wrytten by a Protestant authour intituled Querimonia (u) p. 31. 94. Ecclesiae printed in London anno 1592. 9. The Doctrine of Euangelicall Counsels is maintained by Luther (x) assertionib art 30. by Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall policy lib. 3. sect 8. pag. 140. and by D. Couel in his defence of Hooker art 8. p. 49. 50. c. 10. Lastly that the true Church is euer to be Visible is proued from the testimonies of Melancthon who alledging sundry texts out of Scripture in proofe therof thus (y) loc com de Eccles p. 354. concludeth Hi similes loci non de Idea Platonica sed de Ecclesiae visibili loquuntur D. Field (z) l. 1. of the Church p. 19. 21. doth affirme the same and therupon reprehendeth Bellarmine for prouing needlesly the Visibility of the Church as if the same were denyed by the Protestants D. Humfrey in like sort iustifieth the Churches Visibility and intreating at large and prouing this poynt in the end directeth his wordes to the Catholikes in this manner Cur (a) In Iesuitismo part 2. rat 3. p. 240. ergo anxiè curiosè probant quod à nobis nunquam est negatum that is why do our Aduersaries so painfully proue that to wit the Churches Visibility which we neuer denied Thus teacheth the said Doctour 11. The same Doctrine of the Churches Visibility is in like sort maintained by Henoch Clappam (b) In his soueraigne remedy against schisme p. 18. who thus saith Not only all Auncients did hould the Churches Visibility but also al learned men of our age 12. These now ten articles among many other such like Catholike poynts acknowledged by our Aduersaries as the Reader may fully see in that most elaborate learned conuincing and vnanswerable booke stiled The Protestants Apology of the Roman Church may be sufficient to proue that the Scripture maketh most cleare and euidēt for the iustifying of our Catholike Fayth in the former poynts at least in the iudgments of these as I may tearme them Agrippian and halfe Christians I meane in the iudgments of the aforealledged Protestants teaching and acknowledging these Catholike Positions And the reason hereof is in that those who maintaine and defend the sayd former articles do neuertheles as I touched before confidently teach auouch that that only and nothing els is to be beleeued in matters of faith which is manifestly and expresly warranted or necessarily deduced out of the written word Now this being thus I see not how our former Protestants can auoyde and diuert the danger of this their present Doctrine which broacheth that the written word alone is solely definitiuely to determine all Ecclesiastical doubts Controuersies of Religion The Conclusion CHAP. XII IT is recorded of a certaine Heathen Poet who endeauouring to discounsell his Prince and Mecaenas from waging of warre to the which he had bene ouermuch inclined composed a Tragedy representing therin all those aggreuances and terrours commonly attending vpon warrs as sacking of townes depopulation of countries slaughter of souldiers murthering of the innocent and other such lamentable effects But insteed of his Catastrophe or last Act therof he caused the Chorus without any speach at all to bring forth in a vessell certaine dead bones of his Princes predecessours with a paper therin bearing this or the like inscription 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Behould heere mighty Prince the bonesof such thy auncestours which were slaine and dyed in the warres Which deadliuely spectacle being set in the sight of his Lord spake no doubt more feelingly and persuadingly as forcing or inuading his Vnderstanding by the irresistable assault of the Eye then the deliuerance of words or any other external representation could import 2. The like in the closure of this treatise I thinke good to obserue for hauing laboured to withdraw our Sectaries from erecting the Scripture as sole Iudge of Cōtrouersies in the patronizing wherof they warr fight against Gods sacred word against the practise of the church in her first purity against the vniforme iudgment of the auncient Fathers and finally against Reason it self And hauing refuted this their Doctrine first by discouering the difficulty of the Scriptures in regard wherof euery priuate spirit though of such as are predestinated and elected cannot assure himself indubiously of their true sense meaning Secōdly by laying down the incōpetency insufficiency of the Scriptures in this poynt proceeding both from the Protestants disagrements which is Scripture from the corruptions of all Originalls and Translations therof now extant at least by the iudgment of our new Ghospellers and lastly by shewing that supposing the Scripture to be this iudge yet it maketh in behalfe of vs Catholiks and not for our Aduersaries if we insist either in the perspicuity of the letter therof or in the iudgment of the Fathers and Protestants passed theron The proofe of which passages necessarily forcing that the Scripture cannot be this determining Iudge Which being accomplished it now remaineth by allusion to the former Poet that in place of an exact ceremonious Conclusion I only present to the view of the Protestants the yet extant and as it were the vn-entombed sentences Iudgments of their own ancestours I meane of Luther Caluin Zuinglius and their followers wherin with great bitternes of speach they do anathematize and damne one another for their different opinions rysing out of their supposed reuealing spirit out of their priuate interpreting the Scriptures as ech one doth truly charge another though they all indifferently maintained with the like feruour this Doctrine promising infallibly to thēselues in particular the certainty of this spirit and iustifying
Marcionites and Arians that razed out such places of holy writ as were against them Neyther is Bucer (b) dialog contra Melancthon See Lindan dub 84. 96. 98. dumbe in censuring Luthers sayd translation as erroneous Besides both which censures of him you find to touch only one particular that he inserteth words of his owne into the text it selfe as though they were written by the holy Ghost as for example translating that text A man is iustified by fayth without the workes of the law he inserteth in coÌ„trary both to the Greeke and Latin the words only to explicate as himselfe sayth more plainly the Apostles meaning against the Iustification of works done in the tyme of grace 3. The same taske of translation was vndertaken and performed by Caluin but with what dexterity he carryed himselfe therin it appeareth to say nothing of Illyricus coÌ„demning therof by the testimony of Carolus (c) Tract Testamnoui part 11. fol. 110. Molineus a yonger brother of his owne house who wryteth of Caluins translations in this sort He made the text of the ghospell to leape vp and downe at his pleasure and he vsed violence to the same and added of his owne to the very sacred letter for drawing it to his owne purpose 4. Oecolampadius so truly intituled per Antiphrasin as infecting Gods house and church with the darknes of heresy by the helpe of his brethren of Basil would needes busy himselfe with the like labour Yet was their translation so distastfull to Beza (d) In respons ad defens Castalion vide etiam praefat Testam noui anno 155â— as that he chargeth them al with great sacriledge impiety in corrupting of the sacred word it selfe 5. Neither will Beza passe ouer as vncontrolled the translation of Castalio tearming his proceeding with Gods word to be bold pestilent sacrilegious and Ethenicall speaking else where (e) Annot in act 10. of Castalio in this poynt he sayth It commeth to passe that whiles euery man will rather freely follow his owne iudgement then be a religious interpreter of the holy ghost he doth rather peruert many things then translate them Beza himselfe translated the new Testament but with what applause his work was entertained you shall heare for besides Castalio his reciprocall testimony of condemning the same Illyricus much impugneth it and Molineus (f) In tâ—aÌ„slat noui Testament part 64. 65. 66. plainly chargeth Beza Quòd de facto textum mutat that actually he changeth the very text of Gods word it self for the patronizing of his Doctrine 6. Good God would any thinke if their owne writinges were not as yet extant to charge them therwith that such men as these being indeed the Antesignani the most choice and eminent Doctours and as it were so many Oracles or Sunnes of their new Ghospell should no sooner deuide themselues by open Apostasy from the vnity of the Catholike Church but that they begin to inueigh one against another in great acerbity and bitternes of speach concerning their different translations Plainly discouering by their mutuall reproualls and recriminations herein that though they all conspire to make head against the Catholike Fayth yet do they presently therupon broach forth different Doctrines amoÌ„g themselues and ech one glad to fortify their opinions by impugning all other translations which are not made sutable to their new stamped Doctrine 7. Wherfore a company of men falling from the body of the Catholike Church may be well resembled to some mighty fall of earth from the body of a huge mountaine and this mountaine euen by Esay himselfe figureth out Christs Church which great clod is no sooner disparted from the rest but it crimbleth it selfe into innumerable small parcells But herein we are to admire Gods prouideÌ„ce who is able to vse the actioÌ„s of the Churches enemies as handmaids to the Churches preseruation no otherwise then the betraying of (g) Gen. â— 45. 50. Ioseph by his brethren to the safety of the Israelites For seing the diuision of heresy is not mathematicall and infinite but determinate limitable therfore euery heresy though at it first appearance it drawes mens eyes vpon it like blazing starres which seeme high but are low shine no longer then their matter endures yet at the length consumes wasts away by subdiuiding it selfe and striuing to make it own part good against al others so as it falleth out that the Catastrophe and CoÌ„clusion of all such proceeding is this that it may be truly pronounced The war of Heretikes to be the peace of the Church and their diuisions her vnion 8. But to returne for I had almost lost my selfe in our Aduersaries former disagrements touching their translations where we are to obserue that though some of their translations came nearer to the vulgar Latin translation then others yet ech of them as is sayd mainly dissents one from another like two faces which bearing some resemblance to a third face haue notwithstaÌ„ding no likenes betwene themselues That the English Translations are corrupted therfore not sufficient to determine doubts in Religion CHAP. VII THE Hebrew and Greeke Originalls of the holy Scriptures as also the Greeke and Latin traÌ„slations of the same being examined and found defectiue by our Aduersaries assertions we are to descend to our English translations and to shew that they are fraughted with many corruptions and that our Aduersaries cannot iustify the sayd translations to be true and exact only according to the Originalls out of which they are made and consequently that the sayd translatioÌ„s cannot with any shew of iudgment or reason be exposed for the infallible iudge of Controuersies That these translations are most corrupt and erroneous may be proued two wayes first from the translations themselues SecoÌ„dly from the Confession of our English Protestants 2. And concerning the translations themselues three thinges are found in them which may assure all men of their impurity first the adding of diuers wordes vnto the text which words are not to be found neyther in the Hebrew nor in the Greeke Originalls and the wordes added are of such nature as they make only for the better mayntaining of the Protestants religion 3. I could instance this in many textes of their traÌ„slations but one or two shal be sufficient at this tyme as for example in the first Chapter of the Acts our English translations speaking of the election of Matthias the Apostle read thus He was by a common consent counted with the eleuen Apostles to proue out of this place that all Ecclesiasticall functions ought or at least may be made by a popular election which diuers reformed Churches of the Caluinists doe hold at this day Here these former words to wit with a common consent are plainly added by our Aduersaries since the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heere vsed signifie only He was reckoned numbred or accounted neyther is there any other Greeke wordes in the text which they can or do pretend to
persecuting the Church of Christ In this sort this place is expounded by Tertullian (f) l. coÌ„tra Iudaeos l. 3. contra MarcioneÌ„ and Ierome (g) Epist 17. ad MarcellaÌ„ But others of them to wit S. Austin h and S. Bede (i) In cap. 17. Apoc. doe vnderstand by the Whoore in the Apocalips sitting vpon the seauen hils the generall all and vniuersall Citty of the diuell which in the Scripture is often called Babylon by the seauen hils is vnderstood the number of the proud and chiefly of the earthly kings So thus we find that according to either of the constructions deliuered by the auncieÌ„t Fathers this former obiected text doth nothing at all touch Antichrist 4. In like manner our Aduersaries do vrge those words in the second to the (k) cap 2. Thessalonians Ita vt in templo Dei sedeat c. So as he is to sit in the temple of God Where the Apostle speaking of Antichrist the Protestantes wil needs haue him to meane that Antichrist shall sit in the Church of vs Christians forsooth because the Pope sits therin as head therof whereas the Fathers do interprete the former wordes of the temple of the Iewes which once was the temple of God and where according to the iudgments both of the Fathers and vs Catholiks Antichrist is to sit thus is this place expounded by Chrysostome (l) In hunc locum Ambrose (m) In c. 21. Luc. Hilary (n) Can 25. in Math. Cyril (o) Catech. 15. Hierosolym Hippolitus (p) Orat. de mundi consuÌ„mat Ireneus (q) lib. 5. and others 5. Against the Reall Presence they vrge the words of our Sauiour recorded by S. Iohn as is afore touched vz. The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit which quickneth Now that this place is vnderstood only of the carnall apprehension of the Iewes of eating grosly and carnally Christs body appeareth out of Chrysostome (r) In hunc loâ—um Theophilact (s) ibidem Cyprian (t) In ser de coena Domini and Origen (u) l. 3. in epist. ad Rom. To the same end they produce those words Non y bibam ex hoc sanguine vitis c I will not drinke henceforth of the fruit of this wyne vntill that day as I shall drinke it new with you in my Fathers kingdome Drawing from these words which do tearme the cup wyne as if our Sauiour had spoken of the Cup consecrated that there was no reall change of bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christ wheras we find that S. Luke (y) cap. 22. doth x Math. 26. make mention of two cups the one at supper wherof the former words were spoken the other after supper which our Sauiour consecrated and to which the former words had no reference And thus we find this place explicated answerably to S. Lukes relation by Ierome (z) in c. 26. Math. Bede (a) In c. 22. Luc. Theophilact (b) In cap. 22. Luc. 6. In denyall of auricular Confession and of Priests their authority for remitting of sinnes therby they produce the wordes of Christ recorded by S. Iohn (c) cap. 20. vz. Sicut misit me pater c. Euen as my Father sent me so I doe send you But Christ say they when he remitted and forgaue sin exacted not any particular enumeration of them as appeareth out of S. Luke (d) cap. 7. S. Matthew (e) cap. 9. Therfore we are not bound to any secret confession of our sinnes To which argument we answere that the former place of S. Iohn is not so to be vnderstood that the Apostles their successours were precisely bound to do all things after the same manner as they were done by Christ since by that rule then the Apostles ought not to baptize in (f) Act. 2. remission of sinnes because Christ without Baptisme did remit the sinnes of Mary Magdalen neither to giue the holy Ghost by imposition of handes since Christ gaue it by breathing (g) Ioan. 20. vpon the Apostles Therfore the former text alledged according to the expositioÌ„ of S. Chrysostome (h) In hunc locum doth import that our Sauiour said that he did send the Apostles as himselfe was sent because he gaue to theÌ„ the power of remitting or retaining of sinnes as himselfe had receaued of his Father or according to the interpretation of S. Gregory (i) Hom. 2â— in Euang because he did send the Apostles to suffer persecution and death as himself was sent to vndergoe Lastly because according to (k) In huÌ„c locum Cyril he did seÌ„d them to performe the sayd office which himselfe was seÌ„t to accomplish to wit to reclayme men from sinne to propagate the Church to preach the Ghospell And thus we see that though the Fathers do sometymes differ in literall exposition of certaine texts yet they all agree in this in which point we heere chiefly insist that they do not affoard any such sense wherin the Protestantes doe vrge them against the Catholike fayth 7. To take away auricular Confession they alledge those words of Ezechiel (l) c. 33. Quotiescunque ingemuerit peccator c. As often as a sinner shall grieue and lament I will not remeÌ„ber his iniquities Out of which words they labour to proue that God only exacteth this repentance griefe of a sinner for the remission of his sinnes and not any auricular confession of them or absolution of the Priest To which we answere that neither of them is excluded by the sayd words since no man can grieue and lament for his sinnes in any auaileable manner but that he must desire al those meanes as confession therof and absolution which God hath instituted in his Church And in this sort we fynd that S. (m) Epist 91. ad TheodoruÌ„ Leo doth obiect this very place against himselfe in this poynt and then thus answereth it Which exposition of his must needs be true since the former text if it should exclude confession and absolution by the same reason it should also exclude Baptisme yea fayth charity as necessary for the remission of our sinnes since a man may grieue for his sinnes only by reason of the temporall losse comming therby 8. Wheras against Freewill they vsually obiect that text of Isay (n) c. 22. vz. Omnia opera nostra c. O Lord thou hast wrought all our workes in vs yet we find that Ierome (o) In comment eiusdem loci doth p In huÌ„c locum vnderstand those words of Gods chastisements of that people and Cyril (p) In huÌ„c locum of Gods miracles and benefits shewed to theÌ„ So as neither of theÌ„ nor any other do vnderstand them in our Aduersaries sense 9. For proofe of Iustification by fayth only they vrge that saying of the (q) Rom. c. 3. Apostle Arbitramur hominem iustificari c.
wheras they do alledge to proue that there is now no sacrifice in the Church the words of our Sauiour (a) Ioan. 29. CoÌ„summatum est It is consummated or finished As if our Sauiour testifyed hereby that whatsoeuer was requisite for our health and saluation was accomplished and consummated by his only sacrifice vpon the Crosse wheras his meaning only was that all his afflictions and punishments which he suffred in flesh were consummated and ended by his death vpon the Crosse thus do Austin Cyril Theophilact Chrysostome teach in their expositions of this place 29. This now among many other like passages of Scripture obiected by our Aduersaries may serue to discouer the Fathers iudgments in the explicating of al such texts and how far distant at least in those learned Doctours censures they are from coÌ„tradicting any one point of our Catholike Fayth consequently how preiudiciall it were to the Protestants in the Fathers iudgments to make the holy Scripture the sole and last resort and Tribunall of Controuersies And here we are to aduertise the Reader that he is not to expect that the Fathers should preuent in their bookes Commentaries by way of explication the obiections and arguments drawne from all such places of Scripture as are vrged by our Aduersaries both because they could not foresee the Heresies of our tymes as also if they had yet could they not be induced to belieue that any one of learning professing Christian Fayth and Religion would so pertinaciously and impertinently rack and force Gods sacred word for the vphoulding of their Heresies as the Sectaries of our age haue done 30. Neither is the Reader to looke that our Catholike Expositions of euery text which our Aduersaries doe vrge against vs should be warranted with the authorities of many Fathers though most of them haue bene so fortified in that some such passages of Scripture there are of which few Fathers did vndertake to make any peculiar Comment or exposition at all Only it suffiseth that we can haue our expositioÌ„s of euery such senteÌ„ce of Scripture strengthned with the authorities of some few of theÌ„ And that the Protestants are not able to alledge so much as one Father interpreting in the Protestants construction against our Catholike Doctrine any one of the former alledged places of Scripture or any one other text which our Aduersaries alledge though heere it be not set downe And now hauing thus dislodged our Aduersaries of their best couerts and places of Retyre for patronage of their strange and exorbitant Positions and Doctrine as also hauing in the precedent Chapter fortified and strengthned with the Fathers explications the sense and meaning of such texs as we produce against theÌ„ I will herein proceed no further referring one point to their owne considerations and iudgments to wit whether themselues receaue greater hurt and domage by the Fathers erecting their impregnable Forts of Gods word from whence they make their issues sallyes out in pursuite and profligation of these mens Heresies then by the sayd Fathers raising and battering downe the weake houlds and fortresses of such misapplyed texts of holy Scripture wherin our Sectaries are wont to place theyr greatest strength and confidence since by the first theyr Heresies receaue most deadly and incurable wounds by the second the Catholike Faith is secured freed from al dangerous assaults and encounters 31. But to end this point to wit that the Fathes interpreted the Scripture in generall in one the same sense with vs Catholikes the euidency of it is such as that therefore the Fathers are charged by our Aduersaries through their supposed misconstruction of Scripture as maintainers of Popish Religion The consideration of which assertion of theirs being for seueral respects not to be neglected and as particularly conducing to our preseÌ„t purpose induceth me a litle to insist in setting downe the seuerall reproualls and criminations of the Protestantes bouldly deliuered against the Fathers for their defending of our Catholike Articles and Doctrine Which point being made manifest it then ineuitably followeth that eueÌ„ in our Aduersaries iudgments the Fathers did deliuer the sayd constructions of Scripture which we Catholikâ— do seing the Fathers maintained no Doctrines but such as were in their owne opinions warranted with the authority of Gods sacred wrytten word or at least not any way impugned by the same 32. And first we find D. Whitaker (a) Contra Duraeum l. 6. p. 423. scornefully traducing the Fathers in a generall to write thus the Popish Religion to vse his own words is a patched Couerlet of the Fathers errours sowed together 33. D. Whitguift (b) In his defence of the answer to the admonition pag. 472. 473. the once pretended Archbishop of Canterbury in like manner thus chargeth the Fathers How greatly were almost all the Bishops and learned wryters of the Greeke Church and Latin also for the most part spotted with Doctrines of freewill of merits of Inuocation of Saintes and such like meaning such like points of our Religion 34. Peter (c) De votis p. 476. Martyr speaking of the supposed Popish Errours thus insimulates the Fathers within the said errours saying As long as we insist in Councels and Fathers so long we shal be conuersant in the said errours Malancthon (d) Iu 1. Cor. c. 3. in like sort inueighing against the Fathers thus auerreth Presently from the beginning of the Church the anncient Fathers obscured the Doctrine concerning the iustice of faith increased Ceremonies and deuised peculiar worships 35. M. Iewel (e) l. de vita Iewelli printed at London pag. 212. most Hypocritically appealing to the Fathers at Paules Crosse as challenging them for Protestants is sharply reprehended for such his idle vaunting by D. Humfrey himselfe in these words He gaue the Papists too large a scope was iniurious to himselfe and after a maÌ„ner spoiled himselfe and his Church 36. Beza thus (f) In his preface vpoÌ„ the new Testâ—ment dedicated do the Prince of Condy anno 2587. confidently wryteth vpon the said poynt Euen in the best tymes meaning the tymes of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church the ambition ignorance and lewdnes of the Bishops was such that the very blynd may easily perceaue that Sathan was president in their assemblies or Councels 37. But I will conclude this point with the testimony of Luther who as he was the first in our age that broached a religion vnknowne to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church So he shewed himselfe most insolent in controlling them for their maintaining of our Catholike Religion he thus speaking of them (g) Luther Tom. 2. VVittenberg anno 1551. deseruo arbitrio pag. 434. The Fathers for so many ages haue bene plainly blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures they haue erred all their life tyme and vnles they were ameÌ„ded before their deathes they were neuer Saintes nor pertayning to the Church 38. Now from all these assertions of our Sectaries it is
these two sects do absolutely approue such as are euen of their owne faction 14. And first we find that Conradus (*) In Catalog nostri temporis l. 1. the foresayd Lutheran placeth six sorts of his owne Lutherans in the Catalogue of Heretikes So through the disallowing of one anothers Doctrine did first rise the distinction of Molles Rigidi Lutherani so as it is manifest euen out of their owne bookes and inuectiues that they hould one another for Heretikes 15. Now touching the Sacramentaries among themselues Doth not Caluin (r) lib. de coena Domini l. 4. Instit. c. 15. §. 1. condemne Zuinglius for teaching that the Sacraments are bare externall signes And is not Caluin reciprocally condemned by Zuinglius (s) Zuinglius epist ad quandaÌ„ Germaniae ciuitatem fol. 196. in Commentar de vera falsa relig c. de Sacra againe because he attributed more to the Sacraments then externall signes 16. Castalio (t) In l. ad Caluin de praedest a Sacramentary charging Caluin for teaching God to be the authour of sinne maketh a distinction of the true God and of Caluins God and giueth a different description of them both and among other thinges he there thus concludeth By this meanes not the diuell but the God of Caluin is the Father of lyes but that God which the holy Scripture teacheth is altogether contrary to this God of Caluin c. And then after The true God came to destroy the workes of the Caluinian God and these two Gods as they are by nature contrary one to another so they beget and bring forth children of contrary disposition to wit that God of Caluin children without mercy proud c. Thus Castilio And thus much of our forraine new Ghospellers for some tast of the bitter sentences deliuered against one another in which poynt I acknowledge not to haue set downe the hundred part of theyr mutuall accusations 17. Now if we looke here at home it is easy to shew that the Protestantes and Puritanes do as litle fauour one another for their seuerall Doctrines rysing from making the Scripture sole iudge of Religion as the fore named Sectaries haue done Hence it is that the Puritanes will not acknowledge the Protestantes to be true and sincere professours of the Ghospell as appeareth by their diuers admonitions exhibited to the Parliamentes euery leaâ—e almost therin inueighing against them as against the Ghospells enemies So we see that in one of their bookes (u) A Christian and modest offer c. pag. 11. they say That if themselues be in errour and the Prelats on the contrary haue the truth they protest to all the world that the Pope and the Church of Rome and in them God and Christ Iesus himselfe haue great wrong and indignity offred vnto them in that they are reiected c. 18. Touching the Protestantes recrimination of the Puritanes we find that the Protestantes (x) Powel in his ConsideratioÌ„s do censure them to be notorius and manifest Schismatikes and members cut of from the Church of God They are sayd by another Protestant (y) The Suruey of the preteÌ„ded discipline 1. 5. c. 24. c. 35. To haue peruerted the true meaning of certaine places both of Scriptures and Fathers to serue theyr owne turnes And agayne the said Authour saith of them The word of God is troubled with such choppers and changers of it c. And to conclude he further affimeth to leaue out infinite other places That the later braules pittifull distractions and coÌ„fusions among the Puritanes proceed of such intollerable presumption as is vsed by peruerting and false interpretation of holy Scripture Which seuere and bitter condemnations of one another cannot be vnderstood to be spoken of things indifferent and touching ceremonies only as they are wont to salue the matter when they be charged therwith by Catholikes 19. These loe are the yet liuing-remembrances of our Sectaries Progenitours ouerthrow occasioned through their waging of warre in the defence of so erroneous a Doctrine which alone are of force if all other former proofes and arguments were defectiue to conuince our Nouellists of their foule errour therin But since all these alledged authours were Protestants and for the greater part acknowledged for men of Piety and as professing the Ghospell by the present Church of England since they all disclaymed from the Churches authority in defining of Controuersies all ventilated alike the facility of the holy Scripture acknowledged it as sole iudge and warranted their different Doctrines from Scripture alone finally all actually impatronized themselues of the interpreting spirit since I say they all proceeded thus far and were warranted therin with as much reason as any ProtestaÌ„t maintaining the same Doctrine at this present can iustly apply to himselfe yet seing not one of those would affoard any approbation of an others mans reuealing spirit in the exposition of Scripture but openly traduced ech others spirit as erroneous and hereticall and vpon their contrary expositions of Scripture they did beget contrary Doctrines What then remaineth but that euery sober and discret Christian do reiect this Paradox to wit that the Scripture is the sole and only iudge of Controuersies since it hath ingendred in the propugners thereof such a Babylon of confused and tumultuous accusations that with al resignatioÌ„ of iudgment he humbly acknowledge that Christ his Vicar assisted with competency of meanes from the whole Church is appoynted by Christ himselfe to be heere vpon Earth the sole supreme and inappealable Iudge in all matters of fayth and religion often recalling to his memory that it is (z) Math. 18. wrytten Dic Ecclesiae si Ecclesiam noÌ„ audierit sit tibi veluti Ethnicus Publicanus FINIS