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
to thinke that the customes not crossing your wrytten lawes doe by their being in any sort indignify the same lawes Our Aduersaries (o) Caluin Instit 4. Chemnit in exam Concil Trident. besides almost all others doe so admire the wrytten Word of God as that they reiect and betrample all Apostolicall Traditions whatsoeuer though they in no sort impugne the sacred Scripture boldly pronouncing that all such traditions doe mightily wrong and dishonour the sayd Scripture So forgetfull they are of those wordes of an auncient Father (p) Tertul. vbi supra touching traditions Id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio id ab initio quod ab Apostolis 7. To conclude you would repute it most straÌ„ge to fynd any man that should affirme the present lawes of England to be the only square according to which all suites ought to be decyded and yet the same person withall to auerre that at this tyme we enioy no true Originall or Translations of those lawes all of them being by his censure depraued with many falsifications and alterations since from this it would follow that not the true auncient lawes of the Realme but certaine falsifyed lawes constitutions should adiudge all depending causes Our Aduersaries mayntaining the Scripture for sole Iudge of Controuersies as often we haue sayd do withall maintayne so wonderfully doth innouation and nouelty in Religion darken the very light of reason that at this day there is neyther Originall of the holy Scriptures (q) Se heerof Beza in resp Castal Carolus Molinaeus in sua transl part 12. fol. 110. Castalio in defensio transl p. 117. VVhitaker against Reynolds p. 2â—5 The ministers of Lincolne diocesse in their booke p. 11. or translations of them into the Greeke Latin or our owne vulgar Tongue which are not by their expresse assertions and wrytings fraught with diuers corruptions and deprauations as most largly we will demonstrate in this ensuing discourse Now the matter standing thus as that you are able euen out of the grounds of your owne profession in regard of the great resemblance found betweene it and the question heere disputed particularly to discerne the absurdities and grosse inconueniences attending the Doctrine heere impugned to whome may this discourse more iustly seeme to be presented then to the mature and graue Iudgements of your selues And thus much concerning the peculiar inducements of this my dedication And yet before I remit you to the perusall of this small worke I will make bold a boldnes humbly vndertaken for your owne spirituall good to put you in mynd to haue a reserued eye and intense circumspection ouer our moderne Pseudoscripturists so to call them that is to say Men who fasly abuse the holy Scriptures and who as familiarly and peculiarly interest themselues in the Scriptures as if they had begotten them on their owne brayne as the Poets doe faigne that Iupiter did Pallas And yet when these men vnderstand the Scripture in it true sense as the deuil sometymes hath dâ—â—e seing they giue credit therto not by reason of the Churches authority but of theyr owne priuate conceit which euer stands obnoxious to errour what other thing els do they then belieue a truth falsly But when they interpret Gods wrytten Word in a different construction from the vniuersall and Catholike Church of God I see not how they can auoyd that Dilemma of an ancieÌ„t Father (r) Tertul. l. de praescript Si alium Deum praedicant quomodo eiusdem rebus literis nominibus vtuntur aduersus quem praedicant Si eumdem quomodo aliter So truly and deseruedly are such men included within the sentence of Saint Austin a Father whome of all the Auncients the Protestantes not liking yet least dislyke Omnes (s) Aug epist 221. ad Consentium qui Scripturas in authoritate c. All those speaking of the hereticall Scripturists of his tyme who alledge Scripture for authority make shew to affect the Scripture when indeed they affect their owne errours And thus Graue Iudges in all humility I take my leaue beseeching you euen for your owne soules health that in your seates and tribunalls of Iudicature you doe so iudge as that hereafter your selues be not iudged especially I meane when Gods annoynted Priests or poore distressed Catholikes guilty only of treason if so it must needs be tearmed coÌ„mitted in professing the auncient faith of Christ his Apostles shall become the subiect of your iudgments but euen theÌ„ remeÌ„ber that your selues as being herein deputyes to Gods deputyes are to giue a strict account to that supreme Iudge of all Qui (t) Gen. 18. iudicat omnem terram or with peculiar reference to terrene Iudges to vse the wordes of the Prophet Dauid (u) Psalm 81. Qui inter Dâ—os dijudicat Yours in all Christian loue and charity N. S. THE CHAPTERS OF THE FIRST PART THE Catholikes reuerence towards the Scripture with the state of the questioÌ„ touching the Scripture not being Iudge Chap. 1. That the Priuat Spirit is not infallibly assured of truly interpreting the Scripture Chap. 2. The reasons of the Scriptures difficulty Chap. 3. The difficulty of the Scripture by reason of its subiect Chap. 4. The like difficulty in regard of its seueral spiritual senses Chap. 5. The like difficulty in regard of its phrase or style Chap. 6. The difficulty of the Scriptures acknowledged by the Fathers Chap. 7. The testimonies alledged by our Aduersaries out of the Fathers for the Scriptures sole Iudge are answeared Chap. 8. The same difficulty acknowledged by our Aduersaries Chap. 9. The insufficiency of Scripture for determining doubts in Religion proued by arguments drawne from Reason Chap. 10. That it cannot be determined by Scripture that there is any Scripture or word of God at all Chap. 11. That Heresies in all ages haue bene maintained by the supposed warrant of Scripture Chap. 12. That our Aduersaries do confesse it to be the custome of Heretikes to flie to the Scripture alone and that diuers of them therfore do appeale to the Church as Iudge Chap. 13. THE CHAPTERS OF THE Second Part. THAT the Protestantes cannot agree which bookes are Scripture and which not Chap. 1. That the Protestantes allow not the Originall Hebrew of the old Testament now extant for authenticall and vncorrupted Chap. 2. That the Protestantes allow no Originall Greeke Copy of the new Testament now extant as vncorrupted Chap. 3. That that Protestants reiect the Septuagints translation of the old Testament as erroneous Chap. 4. That the Protestants reiect the vulgar Latin Translation coÌ„monly called S. Hieroms translation Chap. 5. That the Protestants do condemne all the chiefe traÌ„slations made by their owne brethren Chap. 6. That the English Translations are corrupt and therfore not sufficient to determine doubts in Religion Chap. 7 That supposing the Scripture for Iudge of Controuersies yet the letter therof is more cleare and perspicuous for the Catholikes then for the
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
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
or faith and religion in general are warranted by the infallible authority of the Church which infallible authority is proued commended to vs by the holy Scripture And thus on the one syde the Scripture warranting the Churches authority and on the other the Church setting downe and approuing the true sense of the Scripture it may hereupon be iustly sayd that both these I meane the Church and the Scripture do interchangeably receaue their proofe out of the proofe they giue Therfore all impertinencyes layd aside the touch of the question heere between our Aduersaryes and vs resteth in this Whether all thinges which necessarily belong to religion are so fully and abundantly deliuered in the Scripture as that they are either expresly contained therein or els without the Churches authority interposed they may particulerly be necessarily deduced from the Scripture and so in regard heerof whether the Scripture is to become the only Iudge of such artiâ—les or no. In which question we hould as is sayd the negatiue parte but our Aduersaryes the affirmatiue So faire different in opinion are our Sectaryes from the iudgment of Vincentius Lyrinensis touching the interposition of the Churches authority in the exposition of Scripture who thus writeth (d) In suo Commonitorio heerof Multum necesse est c. It is very needfull in regard of so many errours proceeding from the misinterpretation of Scripture that the line of Propheticall and Apostolicall exposition should be directed according to the rule of the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense 7. Now that the Scripture is not the Iudge of Controuersyes in the sense aboue set downe shal be proued two wayes First Categoricè and absolutly that so it is not nor cannot be which shall appeare in the first part of this Treatise Secondly Hypthetice and of a supposall that though the Scripture as considered in it selfe were this Iudge yet cannot our Protestant Aduersaryes iustly vrge it or pretend it for the same which shal be the subiect demonstrated and made good in the second part heereof 8. Yet before I enter into any particuler dispute therof I intend to discouer and lay open the weaknes of one mayne retraite or sanctuary whereunto our Aduersaryes are accustomed to fly in their maintayning the Scripture for Iudge for when they are pressed with the abstruse difficultyes found in the Scripture in regard of the seueral obtruded interpretations of it and doubtfulnes of the true meaning of the Holy Ghost therein their common refuge then they make to the priuate spirit which spirit D. Whitaker (e) Controu 1. q. 5. cap. 3. â—1 Controu 1. q. 2. cap. 3. thus speciously entitles An inward perswasion of truth from the Holy Ghost in the secret closets of the belieuers hart This spirit say they infallibly instructeth them in the true vnderstanding of the Scripture so as by the assistance heerof they are enabled to picke out among so many false constructions the true and vndoubted construction and according to the same to determine and iudge the point or Controuersy for which such passages of Scripture are produced by them and thus the end of all is that the priuate spirit interpreting the Scripture is to be the sole and supreme Iudge of al Controuersies of fayth Now this their chiefe hold or strength being indeed their last most despayring euasion therby to decline the authority of the Church I will ruinate and ouerthrow in the next Chapter following which Chapter may serue as certaine Prolegomena to the ensuing Treatise The force of this their refuge I will proue to be most vncertaine yea false and erroneous and this first from Scripture and secondly from force and weight of naturall reason That the priuate spirit is not infallibly assured of truly interpreting the Scripture proued out of the Scripture and from naturall reason CHAP. II. IF we will take a view of what is sayd in Gods Word concerning this point we shal find it most plentifull in absolutly denying this power of iudging or interpreting to belong to the priuate spirit And first what can be more pregnantly sayd to conuince this phantasy then those wordes of the (f) 1. Cor. 1. Apostle To one is giuen by the spirit the word of wisedome to another the word of knowledge according to the same spirit c. to another Prophesy and to another interpretation of tongues Where we see that the Apostle plainly and as it were of purpose refelleth this doctrine since he teacheth that the guift of interpreting the Scripture is not giuen to all the faythfull contrary to the practise and experience of our English Puritanes who how ignorant soeuer they be presuming that they are of the number of the faythfull and elect do most confidently vaunt of the guift of expounding the Scriptures 2. And that we may better heere obserue how the two chiefe Apostles do second one the other in this question I will alledge S. Peters owne words as perspicuous and cleare for our purpose as may be who (g) 2. Pet 1. Omnis prophetiâ— Scripturae propriâ— interpretatione non fit sayth No prophesy of the Scripture is made by any priuate interpretation In both which places and texts by the word Prophesy is meant as our Aduersaries do acknowledge the true vnderstanding and interpreting of the holy Scriptures 3. Another place we will produce out of S. Iohn (h) â— Ioan 4. who saith thus Dearly beloued belieue not euery spirit but try the spirites if they be of God By which wordes we are taught that the spirit of others are to be examined if they proceed from God or not This admonition cannot be vnderstood of the spirit of the whole Church since then it should follow that there should be none left to try the said spirit of the Church euery particuler man being included therin If then it is to be vnderstood of priuate meÌ„ as of necessity it must it followeth that a priuate spirit cannot be this Iudge since it selfe is to vndergoe by the former text the iudgement and examination of some other If it be replyed that the Scripture is to examine this spirit this auayleth nothing especially if the poynt wherin the priuat spirit doth exercise it selfe be of the sense and meaning of the Scripture Therfore it remaineth that the spirit be tryed by the coÌ„formity which it beareth to those whom it is certaine to haue the true spirit indeed and this is the whole Church of God it selfe being the pillar (i) Tim. c. 3. and foundation of truth A poynt so cleare that Luther (k) Lib. de potestate Papae conuinced by euidency of the truth is forced to say De nullo priuato homine certisumus c. We are not certaine of any priuat person whether he hath the reuelation of the father or no meaning hereby the reuelation of the sense of the Scripture but that the Church hath it we ought not to doubt What answeres now will our Aduersaries bring to the
of all Controuersyes in fayth whatsoeuer without any restraint or exception Sometymes therefore the Fathers meaning is to shew that the Scripture is sufficient to proue expresly the chiefest Articles of our beliefe and of which euery man is bound to haue an explicite and cleare knowledge such are the articles contained in the Creed and those Sacraments which are more necessary which kind of sufficiency we also admit In this sense Augustine writeth as the contexture of the passages there do shew that what points concerne our fayth are clearely to be found in the Scripture another like saying of the sayd Father and to be thus expounded is found in Tract 49. in Ioannem 7. The Fathers at other tymes do teach that the Scripture is of that perfection that the certainty of the truth of it in regard of it selfe alone though not in respect of vs is sufficiently proued from it selfe without the help of any other probation as being penned by them who were immediatly assisted by the holy Ghost In this sense Athanasius (n) Contra Gentiâ—es in exordio calleth the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scripturas sufficientes Irenâ—us (o) Lib. 2. c. 47. in like sort sayth that Scripturae perfectae sunt The Scriptures are perfect and then immediatly followeth this reason Quippe à verbo Dei spiritu eius dictae Because they are indicted by the word of God and the holy Ghost The Fathers also are in their writinges accustomed to ascribe a great perfection to the Scripture for recording such miracles of Christ by the which he is sufficiently proued to be the sonne of God which is the generall doctrine also of the Catholikes which testimonyes our Sectaryes are not ashamed to alleage in proofe of the Scriptures fulnes for warrant of any article of Religion whatsoeuer Thus we find that (p) In Ioan l 12. c. 68. Cyrill wryting of the miracles of our Lord sayth with reference to the wordes of S. Iohn The number of our Lords miracles were great yet those which are related Sufficiunt ad plenissimam fidem attente legentibus faâ—iendaÌ„ meaning that they were sufficient to proue that Christ was the sonne of God and Sauiour of mankind 9. Lastly the Fathers acknowledg in their writings mostfully that the perfection of Scripture is such as that it is sufficient to disswade man from vice and perswade him to vertue a point which we al willingly grant both in regard of the ten Commaundments expresly set down which euery one is obliged to obserue as also by reason of many most eminent and remarkable examples of vertue and vice recorded in the Scripture and the inestimable rewardes promised to the vertuous the most dreadfull comminations and threats thundred against the wicked Now of this sufficiency Theophilact speaketh in c. 2. ad Tim. 3. where he sayth that the Scripture is of force to make Vt nihil bonorum desit homini Dei That no vertue be wanting in the man of God the same interpretatioÌ„ a place Authoris (q) In Mat. 22. hom 41. imperfecti admitteth And heere now by these short explications it appeareth that none of these former passages of the Fathers whether they concerne the perfection or sufficiency of the written word either in regard of exhortation to vertue or of demonstrating Christ to be the Sonne of God or of prouing the Scriptures certainty from it owne worth and dignity alone or finally of expresly containing the chiefest Articles of our beliefe can in any sort preiudice our Catholike doctrine handled in this discourse and therefore the wrong of our Aduersaryes towardes their followers is the greater in seeking to abuse their ignorance and credulity by such idle and trifling allegations 9. The third and last head of those misapplyed sentences of the Fathers in this question doth concerne the perspicuity of the Scripture which word is not heere to be taken in that sense as if the Fathers taught that the Scripture were in it selfe absolutely so easy perspicuous and cleare as that without the helpe of the Churches authority in the exposition thereof euery illiterate and mechanicall fellow were able to iudge of the true sense thereof and consequently by the only meanes of it to determine end all Controuersies for they fully acknowledged it to be as Ezechiel (r) Ezech. 2. styled it The enrolled volume written within and without as also to be that hidden booke described by the Euangelist (s) Apoc. 5. to be clapsed with seauen seales But their meaning herein is that the Scripture is perspicuous in two constructions 10. First that the histories similitudes other matters of fact recorded in the Scripture as also some principle Articles of our beliefe are there clearly and perspicuously set downe But what is this to conuince that the Scripture is in generall easy for the truth of any abstruse speculatiue and dogmaticall point or article of Fayth whatsoeuer 11. Of this first manner S. Austin (t) lib. de operibus monac c. 9. speaketh when he sayth that the Scripture is most perspicuous and cleare to proue which no man denyeth that Christ ordayned that those who did preach the Ghospell should be maintained by the Ghospell and therupon shewing that this is clearly and euidently set downe in the Scripture he thus wryteth Quid hoc apertiùs quid clariùs That the Fathers do in like sort sometymes restraine this euidency clearnes of the Scripture to some chiefe articles of Christian Religion appeareth as afore I haue shewed that they in like sort attribute a perfection and sufficiency of the written word of God to the same end Thus doth Irenaeus (u) lib. â— cap. 46. wryting against certaine Infidels denying that there was one only God affirme that for the proofe of this verity Vniuersae Scripturae propheticae Apostolicae c. The whole Scriptures both Prophetical Apostolical are euident without any ambiguity Which wordes being spoken only of that particular point hurteth vs nothing at all Yet our Sectaries sleight in deprauing the Fathers wrytinges is such as what words are spoken for the perspicuity of the Scripture for one only article they shame not to stretch them as spoken in proofe of all 12. The second sense or construction of the Fathers wordes touching the perspicuity of the written word is that the Scripture is cleare and euident in that it doth illuminate and enlighten the mynd of the reader vnderstanding the Scripture a verity which we acknowledge as elsewhere is shewed as it is explained by the spirit of God which spirit speaketh in the voyce of his Church And in this sense to omit the like sentences of diuers other Fathers Epiphanius (x) Contra Aetium l. 3. tom 2. wryteth that in the Scripture omnia lucida sunt all things are cleare in conceauing this clearnes as I sayd before only in respect of the mynd which by truly vnderstaÌ„ding the Scripture is enlightned cleared and much freed
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
signify any such kind of election 4. In like sort in their Bible printed anno 1577. in the ninth of the Actes we read thus Paul confounded the Iewes prouing by conferring one Scripture with another that this is very Christ to which text our Aduersaries did adde this sētence vz. by conferring one Scripture with another since no one word hereof is in the Greeke which might be thus translated through any mistaking or supposed ignorance But this was done to make the ignorant reader belieue that S. Luke sayd that conference of Scriptures is the only meane to vnderstand them reiecting therby all commentaries and expositions of Fathers and Councels 5. The second poynt which manifesteth the corruptions of our English Bibles is taken from the conferring together of seuerall textes of Scripture translated in them in which seuerall textes one and the same Greeke word for here I speake chiefly of the new Testament is diuersly translated My meaning here is this that in textes concerning poynts of fayth betweene vs and the Protestants the Greeke word is translated by them in a forced or secondary sense preiudicing our Catholike fayth the which same word being found in other textes which touch not any Controuersiall poynt they are content to translate in it true immediate and ordinary signification since they see that in such places they cannot disaduantage vs at all by any false translation 6. Two examples insteed of many scores which I could produce shall illustrate my meaning herein The first shal be touching the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is very notorious for wheras it signifieth to be made worthy indeed they translate it only to be counted worthy in such texts wherin is included the worth merit of good workes meaning therby that we are not made worthy indeed but only so reputed by God Thus for example they translate in the Ghospell of S. Luke c. 21. Watch therfore at all tymes praying that you may be counted worthy to stand before the sonne of God the same translation to wit to be accounted worthy they giue of the former Greeke verbe in the sayd Ghospell of S. Luke c. 20. and in the second to the Thessalonians c. 1. in diuers other places in al which the merits of workes are signified Now in other passages of Scripture which do not concerne merit of workes and wherin the foresayd Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vsed in the Originall they can be content to translate it with vs Catholikes in it true and proper signification to wit to be worthy indeed and not only to be counted worthy for example to omit other places they thus truly translate in the tenth to the Hebrewes O how much sorer punishment shall he be worthy of which treadeth vnder foote the sonne of God 7. Another example of this second kind of discouering the falshood of the English translations shal be specifyed touching Traditions For the better apprehending of which sleight the reader is to cōceaue that in the new Testament there is mention made of two sorts of Traditions the one being Iudaicall prophane and dissenting from the word of God The other godly and such as the Apostles themselues did leaue to the Church both which sorts of Traditions are expressed by the Apostles and Euangelistes in one and the same Greeke word vz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which comming of the Greeke Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latin Trado signifyeth as properly Traditio as domus in Latin signifieth a house Nowhere I say our Aduersaries falshood intranslation doth lye in that in their Translations they suppresse the word Tradition in all such textes where mention is made of godly and Apostolicall Traditions vsing insteed thereof the wordes Ordinances or instructions And accordingly thereto we find that thus they translate the first to the Corinthians c. 11. I pray you brethren that you be mindfull of me and as I haue deliuered vnto you you keepe my ordinances being notwithstanding in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You keepe my traditions Againe in like sort thus they translate in the second to the Thessalonians Therfore brethren stand and hold fast the instructions in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditions which you haue learned eyther by word or by our Epistle To be short the same translation of the sayd Greeke word they vse in the foresaid epistle to the Thessalonians c. 3. where it is spoken of Traditions in a good sense 8. But now on the contrary side which poynt conuinceth our Aduersaries of an vnanswerable corruption and iniustifiable fraude in their Translatiōs in those textes where traditions are mētioned in a bad wicked sense they euer translate the foresaid Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it true and naturall signification to wit Traditio Tradition As for instance sake in Math. c. 15. Why doe you transgresse the Commaudements of God by your traditions in which very Chapter mention is made three seueral times of Iewish wicked traditions in all which textes they can be courteously content to translate the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being found in them all with vs Catholikes Traditions and not Ordinances or Instructions And though the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may in a secondary and strained signification be extended sometimes to signify Ordinances or Instructions yet the sleight subtilty of our Aduersaries herein is this because they would haue the ignorant reader to find the word Tradition in Scripture euer in a bad sense and neuer in a good sense therby the more to alicnate and withdraw his mynd from the Doctrine of Traditions maintained by the Catholikes 9. A third Consideration of displaying the false translations of our English Bibles may be taken from the multiplicity of their translations made heretofore in seuerall yeares and yet one of them crossing another in many controuersiall poynts of fayth betweene the Protestantes and vs. Now from this contrariety in translation and especially in pointes of Controuersies is necessarily euicted a falshood of their translations for supposing one translation for true it vnauoydably followeth that all other translations which are made absolutely contrary to that one must needes be false and erroneous This contrariety they vse in infinite textes of Scripture but I will instance it for great breuity only in two Well then their Bibles printed anno 1562. do thus read in 2. Cor. c. 6. How agreeth the temple of God with Images Againe in 1. Cor. c. 10. Be not worshippers of Images as some of them are In like sort 1. Iohn c. 5. the same Bible thus readeth Babes keepe your selues from Images Al which translations being supposed as true prohibit and forbid all religious vse and reuerence to Images whatsoeuer But now in all their later translatiōs made since that tyme in the former three places and texts insteed of the word Images they translate and read Idols restraining the former prohibition to those Images only which are made Idols and