is Secōdly that we cānot be assured whether this representation of the Maiesty voyce or authority of God speaking in the Scriptures be but a meere illusion of the diuell or some vehement apprehension of our owne phansy which may well be doubted of considering that all our aduersaries will auouch no doubt the Maiesty of God in those bookes which they acknowledge for diuine Scripture and yet we see by the example aboue that one of them seemes to find the authority and Maiesty of God in such a booke which himselfe acknowledgeth the which another of his brethren for want of the same Maiesty vtterly reiecteth Againe let our aduersaries yield some sufficient reason if they can to assure vs that there appeareth a greater Maiesty of God in those books of Scripture which they all ioyntly acknowledge for Canonicall then in those others which the Catholikes do receaue and themselues reiect 5. Others among whome is also Caluin (e) Inst 1. c. 7. §. 5. for he is most various and irresolute in saluing this difficulty to answere the former doubt come finally to this point which indeed is the Center of all their answeres to wit that God giueth to the elect and faythfull that inspiration or illumination of spirit as that therby they are made able to discerne which is the true word of God which is forged adulterated consequētly that they are assured that there are certaine diuine wrytings left to his Church And thus they flye to the priuate spirit already refuted To this ten our D. Field (f) l. 4. c. 8. thus sayth After we are enlightened by the spirit we do no longer trust eyther our owne iudgment or the iudgment of other men that the Scriptures are of God but aboue all certainty of humane iudgment we do certainly resolue as if in them we saw the Maiesty and glory of God Thus we see how our aduersaries not resting themselues vpon any firme resolution but replying now this now that and so running in and out are most farre from satisfying the difficulty here propounded with these their Meandrian and wynding euasions 6. Now the weakenes of this last answere is discouered seuerall wayes and first besides all those reasons and arguments aboue vrged in refutation of the priuate spirit in that if they be demanded to proue how they are assured of this supernaturall illumination they endeauour to proue it out of the Scriptures since they cannot say it is beleeued for it selfe seing it then would follow contrary to their owne ground that something is to be belieued which hath not his proofe in Scripture And if againe they be required to proue that there are Scriptures they alledge for proof therof this their illumination which kind of reasoning euery yong Logitian knoweth to be a vitious circulation since both these seuerall pointes to wit the certainty of the Scriptures and the certainty of their illumination may be questioned doubted of alike by them with whome they are to deale Secondly the former answere is insufficient in that this their supernaturall inspiration wherby they discerne the Scriptures is nothing els but an Act of Fayth and as it seemes is so acknowledged to be by D. Field (g) lib. 4. cap. 13. who calleth it Apotentiall hability the light of diuine vnderstanding and the light of grace all which thinges are included in Fayth and therfore our Aduersaries do generally teach that the illumination of this spirit belongeth to all the faythfull Now we know that it is their owne groūd and principle that Fayth ryseth only out of the Scriptures 7. These two thinges then being thus by the Protestantes assertions to wit that this illumination is an act of Fayth and that Fayth proceedeth only from the Scriptures I see not that it can be possibly conceaued how this their illumination of Faith which is later both tempore naturâ then the Scriptures as proceeding by their Doctrine from reading and giuing credit to the said Scriptures should be the meanes and guide to direct them in discerning that there is any Scripture at all or which is the true word of God and which Apocryphall and prophane since they ought to haue this illumination before they begin to censure iudge of the Scriptures And thus far concerning this question whether the Scripture is able to proue that there is Scripture And since it cannot it cōsequently followeth that it cānot be the iudge of our fayth in that besides it is an Article of our Fayth that there is Scripture it is not able to proue that from which by our Aduersaries Doctrine all the rest is deryued That Heresies in all ages haue bene mayntained by the supposed warrant of Scripture CHAP. XII NATVRE the seale of Almighty God impressed in these Elementary bodies is not only indued with a generatiue power therby to eternize or perpetuate herselfe but hath withall this annexed priuiledge to wit that euery indiuiduall body which is produced beareth a great resemblance as we see both in man and other creatures if so the secondary causes be not found defectiue to that body by the which it was begotten And this secret or mystery of producing the like to itselfe is extended euen to arts and sciences hence it proceedeth that in Logike the artificiall refiner of reason true Propositions euer beget true Conclusions and out of false premises result false and erroneous illations Neyther doth this ground rest heere but passeth further it being in like sort iustifiable in all generall Axiomes and principles which are the Basis or foundation of any Doctrine which Principles being true good and expedient then must all that which as necessary effectes are ingendred therby be of the same nature But if they be false wicked and pernicious the rest then which is builded therupon participateth of the same quality So as to take a Synopsis or view in generall of the state or nature of such grounds and principles it shal be sufficient without recurring particularly to them only to rest in the speculation of such propositions other poynts of Doctrine which thence do deseend and are as it were propagated by them 2. Now then it being thus that we are able to glasse the Fathers look in the childes face the premises in the cōclusion and the causes in the effectes I doubt not but whosoeuer will call to mynd some few of those blasphemous and wicked heresies which haue bene ingendred hatched and nourished by this Principle and ground That the Scripture interpreted by the priuate spirit is the true and sole iudge of Controuersies will at length haue iust reason to pronounce that the sayd heresies are the deformed and prodigious brood of so vgly and monstrous a parent since there was neuer yet any heresy but it could support it selfe for the tyme by misconstruction of Scripture And therfore no maruel if euery Sectary did so much couet to make his refuge to Gods sacred word Hoping that in this sort by disclaiming
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
from all other proofes whatsoeuer he was able so to varnish ouer his heresies with some misapplyed and forced texts therof as that to a credulous and mistaking eye the grayne of them should appeare most faire specious and regardable 3. But let vs particularize this point in some few examples who knoweth not that the Arians (a) Teste Epiphan haeres 69. who laboured to ouerthrow in effect the whole frame and Systema of Christian ReligioÌ„ by teaching that Christ was not God did with this their blasphemy inuade and ouerrunne whole countries through the supposed warrant of many texts of the holy Scriptures themselues still peruerting the sense therof He that doubteth of this let him consider the texs heere (b) Pater maior me est Ioan. 14. 18. Descendi de caelo non vt faciam voluntateÌ„ meam sed eius qui misit me Ioan. 6. vt agnoscant te solum veâ—uÌ„ DeuÌ„ quem misisti IesuÌ„ Christum Ioan. 17. Nobis autem vnus est Deus Pater 1. Cor. 18. vide etiam 1. Cor. c. 15. 1. Tim. 2. Act. 2. noted in the margent which they among many other like places alledged So shal he grant that these heretikes pressed Scripture against him who is the authour of Scripture In like sort Eutiches (c) Apud Leonem epist Flauiani epist Leonâ— 97. who taught that our Sauiour had but a phantasticall and imputatiue body through the conuersion of his diuinity into his flesh was not altogether depriued of all proofes through his misconstruction of Gods (d) VerbuÌ„ caro factuÌ„ est Ioan 1. As after the same phrase we read Aqua vinum facta est Ioan. 2. wherin we find the water to be made wine by a true conuersion of the one into the other word Nestorius (e) Euâ—grius l. 1. c. 2. Theodoret. l. 4. haeret fabularum prope finem the former heretikes diametricall enemy in Doctrine so easy it is for this priuate spirit by misconstruction to extract both fire and water from one and the same word of God so deuided Iesus from Christ as that he affirmed Iesus to be only pure man and him who was borne of the blessed Virgin and suffred death but Christ to be the Son of God This man neyther wanted diuers passages (f) In similitudinem hominum factus habitu inuentus vt homo Phi. 2. Est sine matre sine genealogia Heb. 7. where Christ is thus described Deus meus vt quid dereâ—quisti me Math. 27. And else where it is â—ayd Pater clarifica me hac hora. Ioan. 12. Both which sayings might be taught to be disagreable to the forme of God of holy Scripture interpreted by his owne spirit for the enamiling of this his execrable blasphemy 4. Wicliffe (g) Thomas VValdens l. 2. Doctrin Fidei c. 81. and Husse (h) as appeareth out of the Councell of Constance sessione 15. to the great preiudice of secular Princes taught that temporal Magistrats committing any mortall sinne did ipso facto cease to be Magistrates and being in that state might be deposed by their subiectes Which false and wicked Doctrine they were not affraid to confirme with certaine vsurped testimonies of Gods word The (i) Ipsi regnauerunt non ex me principes extiterunt non cognoui argentum aurum suum fecerunt sibi idola vt interimereÌ„t Osee 8. RegnuÌ„ à gente in gentem transfertur propter iniustitias Eccles 18. Waldenses Luthers Prodromi and precursors the Anabaptistes (k) They are charged here with euen by Caluin lib. 4. Institut 2. 20. would not brooke that christian Magistrates should make any lawes eyther to punish the wicked or to appeale to any court of iustice for redressing of wrongs affirming that such proceeding did take away all Christian liberty and these fellowes made in like sort the holy Scriptures (l) Si quis voluerit teâ—um iudicio contendere tunicam tuam tollere da ei pallium Math. 5. Delictum est in vobis quod iudicia habebitis inter nos cur non magis fraudem patimini quare non magis iniuriam accipitis 1. Cor. 6. Dictum est antiquis oculum pro oculo dentem pro dente ego autem dico vobis non resistere malo Math. 5. Omnes qui acceperint gladium gladio peribunt Math. 26. Si quis te percufferit in vnâ—m maxillam praebe ei alteram Math. 5. their sanctuary So daÌ„gerously they erred herein through a vitious affectatioÌ„ of ouermuch patience and innocency These loe such like are the adulterate ofspring of which I spake afore ingendred and brought forth by that former principle of the Scriptures sole Iudge sucking from the same ground tanquam ex traduce all that falshood and impiery which is found in them In which poynt we see how sollicitous and carefull the chiefe Patrones thereof were as it were to legitimate them with so many detorsions and misapplyed testimonies of Gods sacred writ Thus haue the Scriptures through the want of the true sense occasioned heresies as the Sunne through absence of it heat may be sayd to be the cause of cold which heresies according to Tertullian (m) Tertul de Pudicitia dum sunt habent posse dum possunt habent esse 6. And heere now I would demaund of our Aduersaries who acknowledge at least in wordes all the former opinions for damnable heresies what prerogatiue and priuiledge themselues may take whiles they make their sole recourse to the Scriptures as the supreme Iudge in defence of their late appearing fayth which the former Hereâ—â—kes may not with the like freedome and with as iust sheâ— of reason challenge to themselues Wil they obiect to the former heretiks want of Scripture for proofe of their Doctrine We haue seene how luxuriant and ryotous as it were they shewed to be in alledging the same for the better dogmatizing of their errours in so much that for iustifying of some of their heresies if we respect not the sense but the number they were able â—uen to vye text for text against the orthodoxall Doctrine Will they say they were ignorant in the primitiue tongues and vsed not conference of Scripture the two acknowledged meanes conducing to the true vnderstanding therof Concerning the first diuers of them had some of the tongues euen from their cradle and as for the other they were so studious and painfull therin as that they spent a great part of their life in diligent searching comparing and applying of seuerall passages of the Scripture 6. To conclude will they reply that notwithstanding all this they wanted true humility and prayer which they say with the former conditions are as it were the Media wherin the Species of the high mysteries of fayth are multiplyed before they can enter into the eye of our vnderstanding and consequently enioyed not this reuealing spirit wherof themselues are assured they would if in their life
time they had ben accused herin haue laboured to haue quyt themselues as well as our Sectaries do in these tymes from that imputation and would as fully charge all other with the like wants who should interpret the former alledged texts diuersly from their constructions and did no doubt as boldly when they were liuing vaunt of the certainty and infallibility of their spirit as any of our Protestants can do at this present Seing then that our Aduersaries as flying to the Scriptures alone can alledge nothing in their owne behalfe for the patronizing of their Caluinian fayth but that the former recorded Heretiks actually did might as well and as truly apply vnto themselues for the defence of their impieties It may therfore be deâ—â—â—â—red as a most certaine and infallible Position that it is impossible and repugnant no lesse to the prouidence of God then to naturall reason it selfe that truth of fayth and religioÌ„ the which the Protestants professe to mayntaine should be seated vpon those grounds and only those grounds which euery heresy may with the like reason and probability indifferently assume to it selfe 7. Adde hereto as a resultancy out of the whole contents of this Chapter that seeing as we haue shewed it is the proper Scene of the Heretikes euer to flye to the Scripture vnder the wings therof to shrowd their wicked Doctrines that therfore by the Scripture they are not sufficiently condemned and consequeÌ„tly that the Scripture is not the proper iudge of Controuersies since no man that this guilty of any fault doth willingly appeale to that iudge still remayning in his former sentence by whome he was afore clearly and euidently conuicted That our Aduersaries do confesse it to be the custome of Heretikes to flye to the Scripture alone and that therfore diuers of them do appeale to the Church as Iudge CAAP. XIII BVT to end this poynt touching the custome of Heretikes in flyeing only to Scripture I hould two things worthy to be presented to the consideration of the discreet Reader both which shal be proued from the frequent acknowledgmentes of our Aduersaries first that not only experience warranteth as appeareth aboue from so many exemplifyed heretikes but also that our Aduersaries themselues ingeniously acknowledge that it is the custome of heretikes euer the flye to the Scripture for the patronizing of their heresies Secondly that diuers of our learned Aduersaries do absolutly abandoÌ„ this course of making sole refuge to the Scripture as houlding it a course ful of vncertainty and not able to affoard any secure and warrantable determining or ending of Controuersies And touching the first to omit the like censure of old Vincentius (a) Lib. aduers haeres printed Lugduni 1572. Fortassealiquis interroget an Haeretici diuinis Scripturae testimonijs vtantut vtuntur planè vehemeÌ„ter quidem nihil vnquaÌ„ pene de suo proferunt quod non etiaÌ„ Scripturae verbuÌ„ adunbrare conentur sed tanto magis cauâ—ndi pertimiscendi sunt Lyrinensis who liued 13. hundred yeares since giuen against the custome of the heretikes of his tyme and to restraine our selues to our English Aduersaries we find that D. Bancroft (b) In his suruey cap. 27. chargeth Cartwright to seeme to defend his errours by the supposed warrant of only Scripture and within the same proceeding this Doctrine includeth euen Beza (c) Ibidem pag. 219. 2. M. Hooker speaking of the Anabaptistes thus wrytes of them The booke of God they viz. the Anabaptists for the most part so admired that other disputation against their opinions then only by allegation of Scripture they would not heare (d) In his Ecclesiast policy in the preface In like sort the Brownistes (e) In their Apology printed 1604. pag. 103. of Amsterdam being confessed heretikes wryting against D. Bilson professe to flye in their disputes only to Scripture Finally the Authour of the Treatise intituled A briefe answere to certaine obiections against the descension of Christ into hell printed at Oxford by Ioseph Barnes reprehendeth his Aduersary Protestant in these words Where you say you must build your fayth on the word of faith tying vs to Scripture only you giue iust occasion to thinke that you neyther haue the auncient Fathers of Christs Church nor their sonnes succeeding them agreeing with you in this point 3. Now as touching the second poynt it is euident that Beza himselfe is produced by Hooker (f) In his preface to his booke of Ecclesiast policy as weary of the former course begetting nothing but vncertainty to abandon all tryall by Scripture only and to submit himselfe to a lawfull assembly or Councell D. Sutcliffe (g) In his reuiew of his examination of D. Kellisons sur uey printed 1606. pag. 42. as not allowing triall by Scripture only thus wryteth It is false that we will admit no iudge but Scripture for we appeale still to a lawfull generall Councell 4. M. Hooker in his foresayd preface of his former booke speaking of disputation and tryall by Scripture only thus discourseth What successe God may giue to any such conference or disputation we cannot tell but we are sure of this that nature Scripture and experience haue all taught the world to seeke for the ending of Contentions to submit it selfe vnto some iudiciall and definitiue sentence And the same learned Protestant as is else where alledged shewing that the Scripture which one question potentially contayneth within it selfe all other questions cannot iudge which is Scripture thus wryteth (h) lib. 2. Eccles â—olic sect 4. p. 162. It is not the word of God which can assure vs that we do well to thinke it is the word c. This very poynt of acknowledging another Iudge then the only Scripture is taught by D. Bancroft in his sermon preached 8. Feb. anno 1588. The same also is maintained by D. Couel in his modest examination p. 108. and by D. Field in his treatise of the Church in the epistle Dedicatory to the Arcbishop who giuing a reason of this his Doctrine thus wryteth For seeing the Controuersies of religion in our tyme are growne so many in number and in nature so intricate that few haue tyme and leasure strength and vnderstanding to examine them What remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in thinges of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the Societies of men in the world is that blessed company of holy ones that houshould of fayth that spouse of Christ and Church of the liuing God which is the pillar and ground of truth that so they may imbrace her communion follow her directions and rest in her iudgments So Catholike like we see this Doctour speaketh in this one Controuersy wheron all the rest depend and so earnestly he defendeth it with streÌ„gth of reason But to end this point if these acknowledgmeÌ„ts of so many of our learned Aduersaries proceed from their setled iudgments therin then haue we the poynt controuerted granted by them
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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
in like sort the Scripture for Iudge 3. These censures I say I will present to the eye of their iudgments as so many vnburyed parcels of their forefathers dead memories still remaining to witnes to their children that their said Predecessours in this Doctrine did perish in the iustifying of this their quarrel not only by the hands of their professed Aduersaries the Catholiks but also by the bloudy wounds which their credit and estimation reciprocally receaued from their seuere sentencing of one another as often as any of them attempted to practise in their particular works and labours touching the making the Scripture sole Iudge of Controuersies which afore they all had ioyntly taught by speculation And heere it is to be obserued that their interchangable condeÌ„nations are in seueral maÌ„ners sorts 1. The Lutheranes with the Sacramentaries I meane with the Swinglians and Caluinists 2. The Sacramentaries with the Lutheranes 3. The Lutheranes among themselues 4. The Sacramentaries among themselues vnder whome are compreheÌ„ded the Protestants and Puritanes here in England All which parties notwithstaÌ„ding equally maintained the Scripture for Iudge and the infallibility of the priuate spirit and therfore vpon this ground and principle if so it were true their own spirits ech one challenging the like priuiledge therin should haue necessarily conspired and agreed togeather in their Doctrine expositions of the sayd Scriptures since the spirit of God is one not many (b) Epist ad Ioannem HeruagiuÌ„ Typographum Argentinum And first I will begin with the iudgments of the Lutherans passed vpon the Sacramentaries 4. Luther (a) Thes 2. cont Louaniens himselfe saith We seriously iudge the Zuinglians and Sacramentaries to be Heretikes and Aliens from the Church of God And in another place he saith The Sacramentaries began their opinion of the Sacrament with lyes and with lyes they defend it As also in third (c) Tom. â— in def verbor caenae Domini f. 389. place he thus wryteth against them We will reproue and condemne them to wit the Sacramentaries for Idolaters corrupters of Gods word blasphemers and deceauers and of them as of the enemies of the Ghospell we will sustaine persecution and spoile of our goods and whatsoeuer they shall do vnto vs as long as God will permit 5. Neither are Luthers Posthum or his after-broode I meane the Lutherans whome by the testimony of Doct. Whitaker (d) In his answere to F. CampiaÌ„ the eight reason the English ProtestaÌ„ts imbrace as their deare brethren in Christ more mild in censuring the SacrameÌ„taries then their Father was for Luke (e) Enchirid cont Caluinian c. 7. Osiander a Lutheran speaking of certaine wicked assertions of them touching Christ saith thus But heere geÌ„tle Reader behind aboue those blasphemous things which in the discourse afore we haue heard against the Sonne of God out of the opinion of our Aduersaries the Caluinistes there openeth it selfe a gulfe or hell of CaluiniaÌ„ Doctrine in which if thou diligently waigh the matter God is said to be the author of sinne c. and hence of necessity must arise in the harts of men manifest blasphemies against God The said authour (e) Ibid. in Conclus p. 267. in the same booke saith also thus Let any godly or friendly Reader whatsoeuer thinke what deadly poison doth powre it selfe into men vnder the Caluinian Doctrine by which al Christianisme almost is ouerthrowne 6. Brentius (f) In recognit prophetar saith All the Zuinglians workes are full of deprauations cunninges deceipts and slaunders Westphalus (g) Apolog cont Caluin p. 430. c. 19. reporteth That all the Caluinian workes are stuffed with tauntes curses and lyes And he further affirmeth that he is able to shew certaine pages of Caluins workes of which euery one containeth aboue 30. notable lyes and taunts Conradus Schlusselb (h) In praefat theo Caluinist protesteth that the Caluinistes do nourish Arian and Turkish impieties in their hearts which doth not seldome at fit tymes openly disclose it selfe 7. Stankarus (i) Contra Caluin k. 4. thus wryteth to Caluin What deuill ô Caluin hath seduced thee to speake with Arius against the sonne of God c And after the said Lutheran concludeth Beware ô Christian Readers and especially all you Ministers beware of the bookes of Caluin and principally in the articles of the Trinity Incarnation Mediatour the Sacrament of baptisme c. Hunnius (k) In â—his epist dedicatory of the CoÌ„fut of Caluins deprauations chargeth Caluin That he wresteth the Scripture horribly from the true sense to the ouerthrow of himselfe and others And thus passing ouer the censures which the bookes Caluinus Iudaizans Caluino-papismus affoard against him as also omitting many other Lutherans writings against Caluin and his sect and leauing out of the former Lutheranes for breuity sake infinite other most notorious passages directed to the same purpose this already set down shall suffice concerning their condemnation of him the Sacramentaries 9. Now let vs see on the contrary side how the Sacramentaries do beare themselues towards Luther and the Lutherans contenting our selues with the same few places only of their censures which may serue for a tast of the rest 10. And first Zuinglius (l) Tom. 2. in respons ad Luther confess fol. 458. 459. calleth Luther Marcion further saith that he is guilty of high blasphemy against the nature essence of God in that he taught that Christ dyed according to his diuinity He further thus speaketh of Luther touching the same poynt This can be by no reason explained or excused for Luther clearly and manifestly confesseth that he wil not acknowledge Christ to be his Sauiour if only his humanity had suffered Zuinglius (m) In respons ad Luther l. de Sacram. fol. 401. also wryting in another place against Luthers Doctrine thus sayth Thou Luther shalt be forced either to deny the whole Scriptures of the new Testament or to acknowledge Marcions heresy 11. Caluin (n) Instit l. 4. c. 17. §. 16. speaking of Luthers heresies sayth By the Lutherans Marcion is raised out of hell and in another place (o) Admonit 3. ad VVestphalum Caluin sayth The Lutheranes are forgers and lyars 12. Ioannes Campanus (p) In Colloq lat Luther Tom. 2. c. de Aduersar a Sacramentary saith as certaine as God is God so certaine it is that Luther was a diuelish lyar 13. Lastly for greater contraction of this point Oecolampadius affirmeth that the Lutherans bring forth only a colour or shadow as Heretikes commonly are accustomed to do of the word of God They bring not the word of God and yet will seeme to (q) Dialog cont Me. lancthoneÌ„ build vpon the word of God See with what ful intemperate termes they do enterchaÌ„ge one another Now as we haue seene the Lutherans condemning the Sacramentaries for their interpretation of Scripture and these them againe So neither of