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
and that the one had no greater illumination then the other it therefore necessarily followeth that we ought to giue no greater credit to the one then to the other so since we cannot belieue both we ought according to all force of reason to belieue neither 10. Fifthly this spirit wherof they make such ventitation as that we ought not to entertaine any other sense of Gods word then what the influence of the said spirit may seeme to exhale either is absolutely infallible or els at some times and in some thinges fallible and subiect to errour if the later then it proceedeth from the Diuell since the spirit of God neuer erreth if the first then how can there be any contention or Controuersy amongst the faythfull enioying this spirit And yet diuers both haue beene and are amongst the Caluinists Lutherans It may be they will reply heereto that this spirit is euer infallible when it speaketh according to the sense of the holy Scripture A goodly priuiledg for so the spirit of the Diuell is infallible as long as it followeth Gods sacred word furthermore who must iudge when it speaketh according to the sense of the holy Scripture And thus is the difficulty made as intricate as before 11. Sixâ—ly and lastly the falshood of the Protestants doctrine heerein is euicted from the Protestants doctrine in another point thus is heresy become the sword which woundeth heresy to wit that Generall Councells may erre for if such Synods being aduantaged with many priuiledges aboue any one priuate man may want the assistance of the holy Ghost in interpreting the Scripture or defining what is heresy how can we probably assure our selues that this or that particuler Protestant infallibly enioyeth the guift of expounding truly Gods sacred written word And because this inference is much preiudiciall to our Aduersaries therfore I will dissect euery particular veyne and sinew of all such circumstances which may afford aduantage to the one part aboue the other 12. Thus then if an Oecumenical and generall CouÌ„cell indicted and confirmed by lawfull authority representing the maiesty of Gods Church as being the supreme (y) So doth Augustin tearme a Generall Councell epist 162. Tribunal therof assured by (z) Wher two or three are gathered togeather in my name Matt. 18. promise of Christ his assisting presence warranted with the first exaÌ„ple of that kind by the blessed (a) Act. 15. Apostles highly reuerenced and magnified by the (b) Aug. vbi supra lib. de Baptis c. 18 Anast ep ad Epictetum Basil epist 78. Amb. epist 32. Leo ep 53. Hier. lib. cont Luciferianos ancient fathers acknowledged and receaued by our learnedest (c) The Lutherans receaue the first six Councells and most of the Protestants the first foure aduersaries consisting of seuerall hundreds of most venerable Prelates conspicuous for vertue readines in the Scriptures varieties of tongues and infinitenes of reading gathered from the most remote and opposite regions of Christendome and therfore the lesse probable vpon their such sudden meeting ioyntly to imbrace any one poynt of innouation battering daily vpon their knees at the eares of Almighty God with most humble and feruerous prayer seconded with most austere fastinges and other corporall chastisements and all this to the end that it would vouchsase his diuine goodnes so to guide and sterne this reuerend assembly with his holy spirit as what expositions they giue of the Scripture or what otherwise they determine for vndoubted faith may be agreable to his sacred word and truth Now notwithstanding this if such a celebrious concourse and confluence I say of Pastours being the Mart or Rende-uous of vertue and learning shall so faile therein as that they may and haue sundry tymes most fouly erred as our supercilious (d) Caluin lib. 4. Instit 9. §. 8. Luth. lib. de Concil Kemnitius in exam Concil Trident. Sectaryes auouch in their Constructions of Scripture and resolutions of fayth though all such their decrees be otherwise warranted with a iudiciall conference of Scripture the generall practise of Gods Church and the conspiring testimonyes of all antiquity If this I say may happen the best meanes thus producing the worst effects what shall we then conceaue of an obscure Syr Iohn a man ingendred in the â—lyme of pryde and ignorance who acknowledgeth no other Apostolical Sea then his owne Parish Church and who in some points euer subdeuideth himselfe from the rest of his (e) As appeareth by their bookes written against one another of which point See Coâ—eius Hospintanâ—s brethren so as he is truely condemned of heresy euen by the lying mouth of heresy A man for the most part depraued in manners but competent for learning not hauing any warrant from God for his proceeding nor president from his holy Church Yea one to whome God Hatly (f) No prophesy of Scriptur is of any priuate interpretation 2. Pet. c. 1. denyeth this presumed certainty of expounding Gods word and further of whose spirit we are commaunded (g) Dearly beloued belieue not euery spirit but try the spirits to doubt and which is more of whose seducing (h) These thinges I haue written vnto you concerning those which deceaue you Ioan. 1. c. 2. we are most cautelously premonished 13. Now if this man being in his Pulpit vpon the Lords day in the presence of his ignorant and psalming auditory a fit Pathmos for his ensewing reuelations and there opening the Bible for thus falshood is forced to beg countenance from truth vndertaking to expound some text or other for the establishing of his late appearing fayth though contrary to the iudgement of all auncient Councells affirming himselfe to be secured by speciall Euthysiames and illuminations from God for the better iudging the point controuerted rysing from his owne explication of Scripture which being don what assurance may we haue of the truth of this his all-iudging spirit And is there not great reason to expect more errours then sentences to drop from this mans mouth And what madnes then is it to allow to such an one and but one that infallibility of spirit in expounding Gods sacred Write and answerable determining the articles of fayth which himselfe denyeth to a generall Councell Yet such is the forward blindnes of our enchanted Nouellistes heerin who for example preferre in this case vnder the pretext of the reuealing spirit before the mature and graue resolutions of all antiquity and Councells the ignorant rash and sensuall positions and interpretations of an incestuous reuolted (i) Luther Monke or stigmaticall (k) Caluin fugitiue intimating heereby that many vertuous and learned men gathered togeather for the disquisitioÌ„ of truth must necessarily erre one sole obscure lateborne illiterate irreligious Scripturist cannot erre O insensaâ—i (i) Galat. cap. â— Galatae quis vos fascinaâ—it c 14. But at this present I will stay my pen proceeding no further in the demolishing and battering
is bounded with some of these ensewing restrictions 2. First their meaning sometymes is that certaine Articles only of our beliefe are most expresly set downe in the Scriptures in this sort (a) Aduersus Hermog pag. 350. Tertullian prouing against Hermogenus that God created all thinges of nothing and not out of any presupposed matter and with particuler reference to those wordes in Genesis God made heauen and earth thus wryteth Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem c. I do adore the fullnes of the Scripture which manifesteth to me the maker of all thinges and the thinges made Let the shoppe of Hermogenus teach that it is written If it be not written let him feare that Vae to such as do add or detract c. Which sentence of Tertullian though deliuered only of one Article of our beliefe our Sectaryes neuertheles do stretch out to al points Controuersyes of faith whatsoeuer Thus most inconsequently arguing affirmatiuely from the Particuler to the Vniuersall Another like place to this they obiect out of (b) Lib. 3. de Trinit Hilarius touching the doctrine of the Trinity 3. Secondly the Fathers sometymes ascrybing great honour and reuerence to the Scriptures the which we Catholikes most willingly admit do teach that the Scripture is an infallible rule not heerby intending that it is the only square of our faith as our Aduersaryes seeme fondly to suggest but that whatsoeuer the Scripture proueth is most infallibly and vndoubtedly proued by the same and consequently that nothing is to be admitted as matter of fayth which doth crosse and impugne the Scripture And thus besides that place of (c) Lib. 1. cap. 1. pag. 37. Irenaeus where he calleth the Scripture in the former sense Cancnem immobilem veritatis as also the like of (d) De fide l. c. 4. Ambrose where he appealeth from the writings of particuler fathers to the Scripture as also of (e) in Cor. 7. hom 13. Chrysostome where he calleth the Scripture Guomonem regulam we find that (f) in Epist ad Galat. cap. 5. S. Hierom man taining with all Catholikes that nothing is to be receaued contrary to the Scripture and that therefore generall Councells are to be examined thereby thus wryteth Spiritus sancti doctrina c. The doctrine of the holy Ghost is that which is deliuered in the holy bookes contra quam against which doctrine if the Councels do ordaine any thing let it be reputed as wicked But what Catholike alloweth any thing against Scripture And how extrauagantly then is this testimony obiected against vs by our Aduer saryes Many such places of other Fathers are vrged against vs and yet they only conuince that nothing is to be accepted as an article of fayth which impugneth the Scripture such is their willfull misapplication of the Fathers wrytings It will be sufficient only to make reference of diuers such passages See then Cyprian contra epistolas Stephani Lactantius Institut diuin lib. 5. cap. 20. Basilius epist. 74. ad Episcopos Occidentales Chrysostome hom 49. in Psalm 95. Epiphan Haer. 63. and 76. Cyril de recta fide ad Regin besides many others 4. Thirdly the Fathers disputing with certaine heretikes who denyed all authority of the Church and Councells in determyning of Controuersies with whom the Nouelistes of our age do altogeather interleague and conspire were forced in their disputes to prouoke those heretikes of the holy Scripture not because the Fathers but those heretikes disclaymed from the Churches authority in this point and therefore the Churches authority being reiected by them the Fathers were driuen to insist only in the written word In this sort Iustinus in Triphone disputing with a Iew who admitted not the Church of Christ appealed willingly to the Scripture only Augustine (g) Contra MaximinuÌ„ lib. 3. c. 14. contending with the Arian Maximinus who admitted not the Councell of Nice professed that he did not expect to haue his doctrine tryed by that CouÌ„cell but only by the Scripture and therefore sayd Nec ego Nicaenum proferam c. I will not produce the Nicen Councell c. Let the matter be tryed by the authority of Scripture Finally S. Basil (h) Epist 88. ad Eustochium disputing with certaine Heretiks touching three Hypostases and one Nature in God and they contemning the authority and custome of Christes vniuersall Church therein was compelled to recall them only to the Scriptures tearming the Scripture in this Controuersy Arbiter and Index but in what doth this testimony much insisted vpon by our Aduersaryes disaduantage vs since we heere see the reason why Basil appealed to the Scripture Againe what â—â—â—ation is this Basil thought that the doctrine of three Hypostase and â—ne Nature in God was expresly proued out of the Scripture Therefore he thought that all other points of our fayth necessarily to be belieued haue their expresse proofe in the Scripture without the Churches authority interposed in the exposition thereof Inconsequently and vnschollerlikely concluded 5. Fourthly the Fathers teaching that the proofe of the Churches authority is euicted from Scripture as is elswhere shewed and they also acknowledging that the Church is to iudge of all Controuersyes of fayth and religion do thereupon and only by reason of this inference sometymes in their writings affirme that the Scripture iudgeth sufficiently of all Controuersyes not meaning that the Scripture immediatly of it selfe is inappealably to determine of all articles and doubts of religion as our Aduersaryes calumniously pretend but that it may be said so to do because the Scripture proueth to vs the infallible authority of that to wit the Church and remitteth vs to the same which hath power definitiuely to end all Controuersies In this sense we find that (i) Lib. cont 2 ep Pelâ—g l. 3 c. 4. Augustine teacheth that euery Controuersy is in some sort sufficiently proued out of Scripture meaning Mediante authoritate Ecclesiae Through the meanes of the authority of the Church which authority for the last resolution of doubtes of fayth is most sufficiently and abundantly proued from the Scripture Other like sentences of this nature concerning the fullnes of Scriptures but euer to be vnderstood by the mediation of the Churches authority are to be found in (k) Tom 3. contra Iulianum Cyrill (l) Epist 5. ad suos discipulos Clemens the first Pope and in some other Fathers 6. A second branch whereunto other obscure testimonyes of the Fathers vsually vrged by our Sectaryes for the patronizing of the Scriptures sole iudge may be addressed (m) De doctrinâ— Christ l. 2 c. 9. is drawne from the perfection which the Fathers seeme to ascribe to the Scripture in regard of which perfection they yield to it a great sufficiency for seuerall respectes and ends though our aduersaryes most fraudulently omitting the scope and drift of such sayings will needs wrest this sufficiency as intended of the Scriptures sufficiency for the immediate and finall determining
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
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
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
since you are worthily placed in the ranke of those who to speake in the Psalmists (d) Psal 8. phrase In vij institiae ambulant in medio semitarum iudicij And since a true apprehension of temporall Lawes maketh way for the better vnderstanding of Gods eternall and immutable law those being but as branches deryued out of this and as it were certaine adumbrations of the same according to those words Vnus (e) Iac. 2. est Leg slator index And since the question discussed in this treatise consisteth in the vnchangeable law of God which principally consisteth in this sacred writ and disputeth who is to iudge therof to determine difficulties according to the square of the same Therefore who can better iudge of this point speaking of the Laity then you who are Iudges Or who can with a more cleare impartial eye discerne the may ne absurdities attending on our Aduersaries Doctrine then you if you will but vouchsafe to glasse the same or like by supposall only in the speculation of your owne lawes 1. You for example acknowledge and therefore for your particuler worthines are deputed to the honour and dignity of Iudicature that in regard of the ambiguity of your owne law there must be an externall Iudge or Interpreter distinct from the law it selfe for the manifesting of it true sense Our Aduersaries (f) Luth. Caluin Chemnit c. vt supra dicitur do constitute the Scripture not only as the law according to which all controuersiall poynts of fayth are to be decyded but withall as Iudge so confounding the law and the Iudge 2. You not only graunt that there ought to be a iudge or interpreter of the law but also you mayntaine that this prerogatiue of iudging doth not belong to euery priuate man but only to certaine selected and publike persons appointed to the same end Yea you no doubt are assured that if liberty were giuen to ech man to interprete the nationall lawes of England that suites and contentions would neuer be determined by the sayd lawes euery one interpreting them in fauour of this owne cause Our Aduersaries teach that euery priuate Man (g) VVhitak Controu 1. q. 5. c. 3. q. â— c. 11. Caluin Instit Brent in Prolog which they stile the reuealing spirit and with whome we may well expostulate in the wordes vsed to Moyses (h) Exod. 2. Quis constituit te Iudicem enioyeth the priuiledge of hauing the vndoubted sense of the Scripture infallibly reuealed vnto him and so is to become his owne expositour from whence it followeth as being warranted by all experience and reason that different spirits by this their Assertion differently interpreting the Scriptures can neuer come to any finall attonement or reconciliation 3. You deliuer that in a well ordained CoÌ„mon-wealth the Iudg ought to be such as euery Man may haue free accesse vnto him as also to haue power not only to interpret the law but also to haue a coactiue authority to force the delinquent to subscribe and obey vnder paine of seuere chastisement and which is more you would hold it ridiculous to constitute that as iudge or law to the which all delinquents stil continuing delinquents would chiefly couet to repayre as to their best refuge fort and sanctuary Our Aduersaries constitute the Scripture for Iudge to which many cannot haue resort since many cannot read It cannot impose any obedience to the erroneous party since it is the proper scene of all Heretikes to maintaine their errours after their appeale to the Scripture more pertinaciously then euer afore finally it is that wherin as herafter shal be proued in this treatise all Heretikes (i) This is confessed euen by Tertul. de praescript Hierom epist ad Pauliuum Vincent Lyrinens aduers haer haue accustomed to repose their chiefest confideÌ„ce refuge according to that of Tertullian (*) vbi supra Obtendunt Haeretâ—ci c. Heretikes do pretend Scripture and by their boldnâ—s in the conflicts of their disputes they weary the strong in fayth the weak they ouercome and the wauering they dismisse with scruples 4. You I know cannot be persuaded that the lawes of this Realme are able to proue themselues from theÌ„selues alone to be the lawes of the Realme without any further warraÌ„t or attestation of history or other authority Our Aduersaries auouch coÌ„trary to the Fathers (k) Aug. Tom. 6. contra ep Fund Vincent Lyrinens aduersus haer Aug. tom 7. contra Croscon that the Scripture wherin is contained the law of God can proue it self out of it selfe alone to be true vndoubted word of God among so many other obtruded and counterfeyted wrytinges without the explication of the Church of God 5. You hold it most dissonant to reason to iustify that when you vnfold and deliuer the meaning and sense of the law you in so doing are aboue the law but you doe willingly acknowledge that the law is law whether your sentence be giuen of it or no only by your learned Demurres you pronounce your iudgement not that therby that which afore was not law should by your sentence giuen become the law but only that others not learned in the law should by such your Reports take notice and distinguish the true meaning of the Law from all obtruded and mistaken senses therof Our Aduersaries (l) Luther l. de Concilijs Illyricus l. de norma prax CoÌ„cil TrideÌ„t Chemnit in exam Concil Trident. do idly charge vs in great estuation and heat of speach that we do aduance the vniuersall Pastour of Gods Church or a lawful general CouÌ„cel aboue the Scripture because to them both we ascribe a definitiue authority for setting downe which is Scripture and which is the true and vndoubted sense of it And heereupon they auerre that the Pope or a generall Councell by assuming this prerogatiue presumes to make that Scripture by such their declaration which afore was not Scripture and to disauthorize that for not Scripture which afore was Scripture and lastly to impose that sense of Scripture for the meaning of the holy Ghost which before such their imposition was not his meaning wheras indeed all that the supreme Bishop or general Councel performes both which reuerently submit themselues to the Scripture is to declare Canonicall Scripture from Apocryphal and forged wrytinges and among many adulterate and false senses of confessed Scripture to manifest which is the genuine and true sense of it all which prerogatiues that the Church and her Head do enioy is euident both from the words of our Sauiour (m) Math. 18. and from his great Apostle S. Paul (n) 1. Timoth 3. 6. You voluntarily confesse that besides your lawes left in wryting our Realme enioyes as all other good States and Commonwealths do certaine vnwrytten and customary lawes as I may tearme them which receaue their force from an vndiscontinued practise and long hand of tyme. And you cannot be induced
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
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
from all spirituall darknes and ignorance 13. To the former two senses wherein the Fathers do call the Scripture perspicuous cleare and facill I wil add a third reason which moued them sometymes so to call them This is taken from a certaine abuse of the cōmon sort of people in those tymes who framing to thēselues a greater difficulty in the Scripture then there is altogether forbare the reading of it and in place thereof gaue themselues more then was conuenient to the behoulding of prophane spectacles and sightes Now to bereaue the people of this abuse and negligence and the sooner to inuite them to the reading and hearing of Gods word the Fathers thought good in an Oratory and amplifying manner to suggest to thē an easines of the Scripture This course S. Chrysostome in diuers of his homilies and sermons tooke the sooner therby as is sayd to win the people to the reading of Gods holy word as in Ioan. homil 1. in Thesal 2. homil 3. With the same intentiō doth Athanasius (y) In Epist ad Ephes c. 6. relate to the people the facility of the Scripture And thus farre of the Fathers supposed defence and maintaining of our Sectaries Doctrine in this question of the Scriptures sole Iudge where we see that though the places vrged by our aduersaries out of their wrytings at the first sight seeme to carry a faire and specious glosse or graine yet being after fully weighed and considered they giue no satisfaction for proofe of what they were alleadged to a perfect and true iudgment being like vnto those flowers which best pleasing the eye do commonly least please the smell The like difficulty of the Scriptures confessed by our Aduersaries CAAP. IX ALTHOVGH our Aduersaries do vsually pretend the easines of the Scriptures and therfore do obtrude it as sole Iudge and Vmpier therby to auoyde the graue and pressing authorities of the Councells Fathers and the practise of Gods vniuersall Church vrged in any controuersiall point betwene vs and them yet sometymes diuers of them can be content both in their actions and words so forcible is Truth as that she can extort sufficiēt testimony euen from her owne enemies to acknowledge the Scriptures obscurity as contayning in it selfe a Ianus of construction the sense looking one way the letter another 2. And first concerning their actions crossing this their Assertion if there were such perspicuity in them as the Protestantes do beare their followers in hand why haue our aduersaries themselues laboured so much in explaning the sayd Scriptures Why hath Luther Caluin Beza and others written seuerall books in paraphrazing illustrating of them Or why haue they made so many different translations of them And if the Scriptures be hard and difficult why do they with such obstinate pertinacity maintaine the contrary So illustrious this verity is concerning the Scriptures intricate hardnesse as that our aduersaries owne labours and actions do conuince their owne errour therin 3. Now to come to the second point which is how themselues do wryte therof expresly at vnawares as if they had forgotten what at other tymes they had taught with such feruorous obstinacy Luther (a) In praefat in Psalm himselfe although the Day-star of the Ghospels light confesseth that neyther he nor any other is able to vnderstād the psalmes of Dauid in their true and propersense Yea he speaketh more generally saying (b) Ibidem infra Scio esse impudentissimae temeritatis c. I acknowledge it to be a signe of most shamles temerity and rashnes for any man to professe that he truly vnderstandeth in all places but any one booke of the Scriptures 4. Chemnitius (c) Examē 4. sess Cōcil Tridēt affirmes that the Church is now indued with the guift of interpreting the Scriptures in such sort as in it first tymes it enioyed the guift of doing miracles to wit that neyther the one nor the other was grāted to euery particular man but only to some persons elected theerto by God Brentius (d) In Cofess VVittember who at other tymes freeth the Scriptures from all difficulties is forced to dismaske himselfe and to confesse thus in the end Non est obscurum c. It is manifest that the guift of interpreting the Scriptures is a guift of the holy Ghost and not of humane wisedome that the holy Ghost therein is free and not tyed to any certaine kind of men but bestoweth this guift as best seemeth vnto him The Magdeburgenses (e) Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. col 52. do plainly grant that the Apostles thēselues were of opinion that the holy Scriptures could not be truly vnderstood without the help of the holy Ghost as an interpreter Neyther shall we find this Doctrine strange among our homeborne Sectaries since D. Field (f) l. 4. c. 15. a late appearing Comet in our Protestants sky doth thus say There is no question but that there are many difficulties of the holy Scriptures proceeding partly from the high and excellent nature of thinges therein contayned which are without the compasse of naturall vnderstanding and so are hidden from naturall men c. partly out of the ignorance of tongus and of nature of such thinges by the comparison whereof the matters of diuine knowledge are manifested vnto vs. 5. And now if after the voluntary acknowledgment of so many markable Protestantes in this point any of them would seeke to retyre back and recall all what they haue sayd by teaching that though they grant some passages of Gods word to be hard and difficult yet those places being compared with other like sentences texts receaue from thence a cleare and plaine explication Yet this refuge of theirs is of no strength the reason hereof being because as any one text in Controuersy is doubtfull and capable of diuers constructions so likewise are the other places and testimonies of Scripture as ambiguous in sense and interpretation wherwith the sayd text is to be conferred and by which conference it is to receaue it illustration And thus we see by experience that the doubt of any one place of Scripture is often more increased by that meanes to wit by conference of texts by the which it was first hoped to haue bene extinguished And therfore the former English Doctour (g) l 19 pronounceth of the weaknes of this answere in this sort We confesse that neyther conference of places nor the consideration of the Antecedentia and consequentia nor looking into the originalls are of any force vnles we find the thinges which we conceaue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant to the rule of fayth 6. And thus much concerning the difficulty of the Scriptures acknowledged by the plaine testimonies cōfessions of our aduersaries thēselues though at other times impugning the truth herein which point we are the lesse to maruell at if we remember that it proceedeth through his will and permissions who commaunded (h)
2. Cor. 4. the light to shine out of darknes and can cause truth to be confirmed by the maintainers of falshood The insufficiency of the Scripture for the determining of points of fayth discouered by force of Reason CHAP. X. MANY argumēts might be produced from reason for the confirming of this verity but I here content my selfe with some few of the chiefest And first if our aduersaries Position were true concerning the Scriptures being iudge of our fayth then must they vnderstand hereby eyther their whole Canon and body of Scriptures taken ioyntly togeather or els euery particular booke therof as it is considered by it selfe alone Not this later both because it would follow that if any one booke alone were a competent Iudge of all articles of our fayth that then al the other parcels of Scripture were superfluous and needles which were most prophane to imagine As also in that euery particular Ghospell or any such part thereof doth omit many chiefe articles of our Fayth without any mention had of them at all And thus we find that the Annuntiation the Natiuity the Circumcision of our Lord besides many other points are not as much as once touched in S. Iohns Ghospell in like sort neyther doth S. Matthew mention the Circumcision nor S. Marke the Presentation 2. Now our Aduersaries Doctrine herein is no more iustisiable if they will here vnderstand the whole body of all the Canonicall books of Scripture ioyntly considered together to be this Iudge which assertion they for the most part maintaine And the reason therof is this In that diuers Canonicall and vndoubted parcels euen by the Protestants acknowledgment of both the old and the new testament haue bene lost for the space of 1500. yeares and neuer yet found againe And therfore it ineuitably followeth that if all the sacred books of Scripture taken together should be this iudge and that diuers of them for so many Centuries and ages haue bene and still are lost that then during so long a tyme we neuer enioyed a sufficient and competent Iudge and such a one as was proportionable to that fayth left to vs by the Prophets Apostles and Euangelists but in lieu therof we haue had a maimed imperfect and defectiue Iudge Which to affirme were to impugne Gods care and prouidence which he beareth towards his Church 3. Now that diuers parcels of both the Testaments haue perished it is most cleare and our Aduersaries cannot deny it And first touching the new Testament it appeareth out of the Epistle to the Colossians (a) c. vle that Saint Paul wrote an Epistle to them of Laodiced which neyther we nor the auncient Fathers haue proued euer to haue bene extant since the Apostles tyme. In like sort S. Paul may seeme to intimate in his first Epistle to the Corinthians (b) cap. 5. in these words Scripsi vobis in epistola c. that before the writing of the sayd Epistle he had written to thē another Epistle and yet we cannot find that the Church euer had any such Epistle 4. Now it is no lesse cleare that diuers parts of the old Testament haue bene and are as yet lost at least for the sayd former space of tyme. And to omit the testimonies of S. Chrysostome (c) Hom. 9. in Matth. hom 7. in prior ad Corinth affirming so much we read in the books of Kings (d) 3. Reg. 4. that Salomon wrote many Parables and verses which now we haue not for thus there it is sayd Locutus est Salomon tria millia Parabolarum fuerunt carmina eius quinque millia After the same manner we find it also registred of Dauid (f) Paralip vlt. in these words Gesta autem Dauid priora nouissima scripta sunt in libro Samuel Videntis in libro Nathan Prophetae atque in volumine Caiad Videntis All which wrytinges here mentioned are neyther at this present nor haue for many former ages bene extant in Gods Church So cleare thus we see it is by the force of this argument that the Scripture neyther as it is wholy takē together nor seuerally by particular books can be the iudge for the determining of all doubts of fayth 5. Another reason for the incompetency of the Scripture as Iudge may be taken from the nature of a iudge as is else where touched constituted in euery well gouerned Common wealth For it cleare that euery Iudge first ought to be able of his owne authority to take notice of the Contentions and Controuersies rysing in the state Secondly he must haue power by interpreting the law to giue his censure against the party offending Lastly he is to compell and force the delinquents to obedience vnder the paine of feuere punishments None of which points can be effected except there be besides the wrytten law a visible iudge Seing then by application of what is here sayd to our present purpose that the Scripture cannot of it selfe take notice of Controuersies rysing in matters of religion nor euidently declare to the Litigants the true meaning of such passages of it self warranting or condemning the points in question nor finally can constraine the aduerse party to relinquish his errours impugned by the wrytten Word as we find by the dayly experience of Heretikes flying to the Scripture as Iudge Therfore it is most perspicuous that the Scripture cannot be erected as a competent Iudge in the decision of articles of fayth among Christians 6. Neyther is it any satisfiable answere to reply that God himselfe seeth all Contentions in doubts of fayth and in some sort by meanes of the Scripture pronounceth his sentence in condemnation of the heresies impugned This I say is not sufficient and the reason hereof is because God doth not so euidently deliuer his sentence by the mediation of the Scripture as the party conuinced therby will acknowledge it for his sentence And consequently if the question should be whether the Scripture be the word of God or not God could not clearly giue his iudgment only by the helpe of Scripture Therfore it followeth that we must haue a visible iudge and such as his finall decrees being once manifested the party maintaining his errours will acknowledge them as they proceed from the Iudge whether iustly or iniustly to be clearly and euidently condemned by the sayd iudge which we see falleth not out in obtruding the Scripture for it is obserued that the Anabaptist or any other acknowledged heretike wil neuer confesse his heresies to be impugned by the Scripture or himself condēned therby 7. And of the like feeblenes is that other answere of some hereto who courteously do grant that there may be acknowledged indeed an external publike iudge of all doubts in religion meaning the generall voice of gods Church but yet this iudge teach they is limited in it definitions and not absolutely infallible but only so farre forth as it treadeth the tract and path of Gods written word and which declining from
thence runneth headlong into certaine deuiations by-wayes of most foulâ— errours 8. This answere salueth not the doubt for once graÌ„ting a true Iudge it followeth that this Iudge though depending of God is to haue authority in compounding of Controuersies absolutely infallible And the reason hereof is this for if his authority were not infallible then might it be inferred an absurditity little sorting to the sweet prouidence of God that the whole Church by force of such a delegated authority to it by God himselfe might be led into a generall errour since euen moral Philosophy and the light of reason assure vs that granting a Magistrate who may erre to haue publike authority in his censures and decrees then are the subiectes or inferiour persons who are interressed in the sayd definitions bound to imbrace those errours Which if they were not obliged to doe then should it follow that the Magistrates state were no better in defining then the subiects since they were not bound to stand to the ceÌ„sure of their Iudge but only when they did know his sentence to be euidently most true and consequently it might be likewise inferred that the Magistrate hath no power at all in defining and yet all Philosophy instructeth vs that euen in a point doubtfull where it is not euident the opinion of the Iudge to be clearly false the persons acknowledging obedience to the Iudge are in regard of the former reasoÌ„s obliged to follow his doubtfull definition though perhaps erroneous 9. To the former reason may be adioyned this following as is also afore touched That euen the light of reason teacheth vs that euery Iudge in any Court of CoÌ„trouersies ought to be such as all conteÌ„ding parties without exception may for the appeasing of their debates haue easy accesse vnto him Which accesse is found to be in the Church but not in the Scripture from which it vnauoydably followeth that the Scripture cannot be this iudge whereunto ech maÌ„ is to repaire but that the church may be and is the sayd Iudge That euery man at his pleasure may come to the Church for resolutioÌ„ of doubts we see it is euident by the practise of all ages 10. But on the contrary part euery man that maintaineth different points of fayth hath not this freedome of comming to the Scripture for decision of his doubts for first there are diuers Christians who cannot as much as read the Scripture much lesse vnderstand it how can such men then expect to haue their Controuersies touching religion to be deâ—ermined by the wrytten word alone And as touching those others who can read yet is their cause little bettred therby seing many by their reading of the Scripture do strangely detort the true sense therof Yea we may obserue that diuers Nouellistes of different religions who are dayly coÌ„uersant in the Scriptures endeauour euen from the self same passages of it by their false constructions to fortify their repugnant Doctrines And thus though the voyce of the holy Ghost in the wrytten word and the leter there read be but one yet through ech mans selfelike expositions it seemeth to speake as euery man would haue it by this meanes making the Scripture to be like vnto the tongue of S. Peter other the Apostles which being but one was notwithstanding heard in euery mans seuerall language 11. Another argument for the conuincing of this supposed Iudge may be drawne from the Doctrine of Traditions which haue euer bene maintayned by the auncient Fathers and the primitiue Church Which Doctrine if it be true then may we most consequently deduce from thence that the Scripture is not to iudge all questions of Fayth since the Doctrine of vnwrytten Traditions teacheth vs that all the articles and points of Christian Religion haue not their expresse proofe out of the Scriptures but that some of them are belieued only by force of Tradition and of the continued and vn-interrupted practise of Gods Church To enter into any exact proofe of this point of Traditions is improper to this place and would require a reasonable large Treatise alone and therfore I remit the Reader to such Catholike wryters (g) Hofiâ—e in 4. l. aduers Prolegomena Brentij Peresius initio operis sui do Traditionib Roffensis Canisius Bellarmin besides many others as haue most learnedly handled this subiect Only I wil here set downe and consequently proue the sayd Doctrine à posteriori certayne pointes of Christian Fayth which haue no cleare and conuincing proofes out of Scriptures and yet are belieued no lesse by the ProtestaÌ„ts themselues then by vs Catholikes 12. And first against the Anabaptistes both the Catholikes Lutheranes and Caluinistes do belieue that the baptisme of Infantes is lawfull and that they are not to be rebaptized after they come to ripenes of age which point as D. Field acknowledgeth terming it a TraditioÌ„ caÌ„ neuer be sufficiently and clearly proued by the Scriptures alone without the testimony of the practise of the church and force of Tradition as appeareth by the testimonies of the auncient Fathers for we find that Origen thus speaketh hereof in c. 6. epist ad Rom. Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem accepit etiam paruulis baptismum dare In like sort Austin l. 10. de Genesi ad literam c. 23. Consuetudo matris Ecclesiae in baptizandis paruulis nequaquam spernenda nec omnino credenda est nisi Apostolica esset Traditio 13. D. Bancroft teacheth that Confirmation is an Apostolicall Tradition as appeareth in his conference before the King All we do belieue that our blessed Lady dyed a Virgin do account Heluidius an Heretike for houlding the contrary and yet no text of Scripture doth coÌ„firme it to vs but rather through misconstruction may seeme to insinuate the contrary in regard of those words Non cognouit virum donec peperit filium suum 14. D. Whitguift (h) In his defense pag. 539. acknowledgeth that now during the tyme of the new Testament we are to celebrate Easter vpon Sunday contrary to the custome of the Iewes a point of such moment euen in the primitiue Church that the maintainers of the coÌ„trary were then reputed for Heretikes and styled (i) Epiph. haeres 50. Aug. haeres 29. Tertul. de praescript Quartadecimani And yet for this change of obseruing Easterday we haue no warrant from the holy Scriptures but may say with Tertullian (k) De corona militis quod non prohibetur vltrò permissum est D. Couel in his booke of examination teacheth the word Archbishop to be a Tradition M. Hooker in his Eccles polic sect 7. p. 118. in generall defendeth the Doctrine of Traditions and answereth diuers testimonies out of the Fathers alledged by Carthwright and others 15. Againe both Catholikes and Protestantes doe belieue that there are certaine diuine wrytinges which are the true and vndoubted word of God and first penned by the holy Prophets Apostles and Euangelistes Yet we cannot conuincingly and demonstratiuely proue so
who should oppugne it Yf calumniously they admit this Doctrine of the Churches Soueraingty in matters of lesser moment with intention to restrayne it only to such and deny it in greater and more weighty Controuersies then are they truly interessed in the words of an auncient Father (i) Tertul. contra Praxeam Affectauit diabolus aliquando veritatem defendendo concutere 6. Now the reason why the Scripture alone though in it selfe it be most reuerend certaine and infallible doth occasion such vncertainty in the decyding of Controuersies is no lesse fully acknowledged by our learned Aduersaries For since it is not the shew but the sense of the word as Doctour Reynolds (k) In his conference with Hart. p. 63. acknowledgeth that must decyde Controuersies and seing the Scripture immediatly of it selfe performeth not the same as not hauing viuam vocem as D. Whitaker (l) De sacra Scripturae p. 221. confesseth wherwith it speaketh but by the help of certaine meanes on our part to be obserued And seing that the meanes are these following to wit the reading of the Scriptures the Conference of places the weighing of Circumstances of the text their skill in tongues their diligence prayer and the like furthermore seing as these are generally acknowledged by our Sectaries (m) So teacheth D. Reynolds in his Crnference p. 83. sequentibus And D. VVhitaker Controu 1. q. 3. c. â—1 q. 5. c. 10. to be the ordinary meanes so are they confessed by others of our most learned aduersaries to be but humane and most subiect to errour and mistaking as appeareth euen by the example of many Protestants who though vsing the former sayd meanes haue yet most fouly erred euen in the iudgment of their owne brethren in the interpreting of Scripture Therfore from hence it necessarily followeth that all priuate interpretation of Scripture proceeding from these meanes is most ambiguous and vncertaine But to conclude this poynt I will heere set downe D. Whitakers (n) VVhitaker vbi supra inference or collection in his owne words drawne froÌ„ the former premises thus then he argueth Looke what the meanes speaking of interpreting the Scripture are such of necessity must the interpretation be but the meanes of interpreting obscure places of Scripture are vncertaine doubtfull and ambiguous therefore it cannot otherwise be but the interpretation must be vncertaine And if vncertaine then may it be false Thus far the former Doctour which shall serue for the closure of this poynt and likewise of the first part of this Treatise THE SECOND PART That Protestants cannot agree which Bookes be Scripture and which are not CHAP. I. IN the former part it being proued that the Scripture is not the Iudge of Controuersies by reason of the diuers arguments there alledged It now followeth heere to be declared that if for the tyme we should grant ex hypothesi that the Scripture as it is absolutely considered in it selfe were this only and true iudge yet our Aduersaries of all sorts of Christians euer being are most exempted from pretending it for iudge and this for three speciall considerations 2. First because they do not agree among theÌ„selues which seuerall books ordinarily contained within the printed volume of the Bible are Scripture and which are not Secondly in that they do not acknowledge any original copy now extant to be true and incorrupted only of such bookes as they all ioyntly receaue for Scripture as also in that they condemne all Translations of confessed Scripture as false and erroneous eyther into Greeke Latin or English Thirdly because the confessed and incorrupted Scripture more clearly maketh for the Catholikes then for our Aduersaries if we insist eyther in the perspicuity of the letter or in the expositions of the Fathers or in the implicite iudgments of our Aduersaries themselues Which three poynts being iustifyed and made good the proofe wherof shall be the subiect of this Part it cannot be conceaued how they should defend with any aduantage to themselues the Scripture to be this Iudge 3. And intending to begin with their dissentions in acknowledging or reiecting certaine bookes of Scripture we are first particularly and attentiuely to obserue that wheras all Controuersies of fayth are to be determined as our Aduersaries hould by the Canonicall Scripture which is the only written word of God And seing they are at endles stryfe one with another which is this Scripture one acknowledging such and such bookes to be this sacred word which another discanoneth as apocryphall and prophane Therfore they in no sort can pretend the Scripture to be the iudge of Controuersies as not being yet resolued amongst themselues which those bookes be that are to be counted within the body and Canon of holy Scripture and consequently not agreed with theÌ„selues which is this iudge For except this last poynt be first acknowledged on al sides it followeth that if a Lutheran against a Caluinist or one Caluinist against another do vrge a place or text of such a booke which the one acknowledgeth to be Scripture the other condemning it the vrging of such a place can be of no force for the iudging of the question controuerted since it wil be replyed that the Canonicall and true Scripture alone is to defyne all doubts of fayth but that booke out of which such places and texts are alledged is no part of Gods wrytten word and therfore is not of authority for proofe of any poynt 4. Now that our Aduersaries cannot agree hitherto what bookes are true Scripture and what are not it will appeare most euidently euen out of their owne wrytinges And first to begin with their disagrements in opinion touching the bookes of the old TestameÌ„t in which poynt I will speake nothing of certaine parts of Daniel of Ester neyther of the bookes of Toby Iudith of the booke of Wisedome Ecclesiasticus and the Machabees since our Aduersaries with a full and ioynt consent haue thrust al these out of the Canon of the Bible though if they be to deale with Catholikes and will needes haue the Scripture only to iudge of all questions they ought to acknowledge al those bookes to be parcell of Scripture which the Catholikes do take for Scripture But I will restraine my selfe only to such the which some of them do reuerence as Canonicall and others reiect as Apocryphall from whence it followeth as I sayd before that they disagreeing among themselues what bookes are parts of the holy Scripture and consequently of their supposed iudge cannot with any shew of reason maintaine that the Scripture ought to determine at least among them al doubts of Religion whatsoeuer 5. First then the booke of Iob though it be acknowledged and receaued by most of the Caluinistes both here in England and other Countries yet Luther (a) In Conuiuialibus ser titul de Patriarchis Prophetis sayth plainly that he doth not belieue all those things which are reported therin Nay he proceedeth so
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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
sense of the holy Ghost in the Scripture is concealed from the Protestant by the Protestant like as the Sunne is hid from the earth by the earth 21. But to proceed a litle further touching this last translation first how can our translations therof assure any man of the truth of their translation since they acknowledge no Originall or any translation of the Bible out of which they did make their translation for pure vncorrupt Secondly admit for the tyme that this translation is perfect according to the true Originalls yet seing it differeth in diuers controuersiall textes and passages from all former English translations it therfore from hence followeth that till now we here in England neuer enioyed the true and vncorrupted Scripture in English and consequently that till these dayes the Scripture in English could not be iustly vrged to determine and iudge Controuersies in fayth But a true and perfect iudge is ready not at one tyme only but at all tymes seasons to performe the function of true Iudicature That supposing the Scripture as Iudge yet the Letter therof is more cleare and perspicuous for the Catholikes then for the Protestantes CHAP. VIII NOW after we haue proued the incompetency of the Scriptures for resoluing all doubts of fayth and this from the disagrements of our Aduersaries eyther in approuing or discanoning such or such parcells of the Bible as also from the confessed corruptions and falsifications as well of the Originalls as translations euen of those books which are ioyntly acknowledged by them for Gods vndoubted word for as they do grant that others corrupted the fountaines so it is most euident that among others themselues haue impoysoned the streames It wil much cōduce to our designed proiect if we cōtinue our dreame for the tyme with our Aduersaries that the Scripture is solely and finally to decyde all Controuersies since supposing this principle as true we shall notwithstanding be able to proue that the passages of Scripture euen of such parts as are confessed by our Aduersaries to be authenticall and vncorrupted which the Catholikes do alledge in defence of their faith are more cleare and perspicuous for the proofe of their Doctrine then any counter textes are which our Aduersaries do produce out of the sayd Scripture to impugne the same in regard of which difference a Catholike may commiserate a Protestant in the phrase of Tertullian to Marcion Misereor tui Christus enim Iesu in Euangelio tuo meus est The reason hereof is double first because the Catholikes do ordinarily insist in the literall and immediate sense of the wordes which sense is euer more naturall and obuious then any figuratiue acception of them can be wheras our Aduersaries in answer therto as also in alledging other textes are forced to interprete the sayd places eyther figuratiuely or at least not in that vsual immediate sense which the words do import Which māner of literally expounding the Scripture is warranted by the authority of all learned diuines who do ioyntly teach that we neuer ought to depart frō the proper sēse of words except we be driuē therto either by some other manifest place of Scripture or by some vndoubled article of our fayth impugning the literal sēse thereof or lastly by the vsuall explication of the whole Church 2. The second reason of the greater perspicuity in our proofes then in those of our Aduersaries is this in that most of the textes of Scripture for I do not say all which we alledge do fall directly and as it were in a straight lyne vpon the question controuerted so as after the sense and meaning of the wordes is once acknowledged they irrefragably and directly proue that for which they were vrged wheras our Aduersaries testimonies do not for the most part touch immediatly and as I may tearme it primariously the poynt in question but only by way of a secondary collection or illatiō which illations being often inconsequent and at the most but probable and not necessary it followeth that though we should grant to them their owne expositions of such textes yet do they but proue the thing questioned by a second hād I meane only by probable and coniecturall inferences And this oftentymes after their illation is granted doth not light vpon the hart of the question it selfe but only vpon the flanck or skirtes of the same I meane vpon the manner or some other circumstance therof which being not defined may be holden seuerall wayes as probable by the Catholikes But now for iustifying what I haue here set downe let vs looke into some chiefe texts vrged by vs and our Aduersaries concerning some principall Cōtrouersies for to go through all were ouer laboursome where I doubt not but we shall fynd in ech of them at least one or the two former disparities betwene vs and our Aduersaries in alledging the same 3. And first touching Peters Primacy the Catholikes do alledge in proofe therof those words of Christ to him out of S. Matthew (a) cap. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this rock will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it And I will giue to thee the keyes of heauen c. Which wordes being taken literally and plainly as the Catholikes doe expound them do directly proue this Controuersy seing they fall perpendicularly vpon the conclusion of the question it selfe for to say that Peter is the rock of the Church is al one in sense as to say the head of the Church And therfore our Aduersaries to auoyde this pressing authority are forced to answere that by the word Rock is vnderstood figuratiuely Christ according to Caluin (b) lib. 4. Instit c. 6. §. 6. or euery one of the faithfull with Erasmus (c) Erasm in hunc locum or the confession of our Fayth with Luther (d) lib. do Potestate Papae So distracted they are among themselues in answearing therto 4. But let vs view what places our Aduersaries do alledge to countermand Peters supreme authority First because our Sauiour sayd to Peter as it is recorded in the sayd Chapter of S. Matthew Go after me Satan thou art a scandall vnto me c. As also in that S. Paul (e) Galat. cap. 2. sayth of himselfe that he resisted Peter in the face Neyther which places we see do directly touch Peters authority but only by way of weake inferences and such as are not as much as probable seing that Peter was not then the head of the Church when those words were sayd to him by Christ and concerning this other we grant that the inferiour may and ought to withstand his superiour for the truths sake so that he doth it with due respect and regard 5. To conuince that Paradox that the Pope is Antichrist the Catholikes doe vrge the continuance of Antichrists reigne set down in the Scripture diuersly both by yeares (f) Apoe 12. monethes (g) Ibidem c. 11. 13. and dayes
sect 57. Melancthon in cap. 4. epist. ad Roman Iacobus Andraeas in Epitom colloq Montisbelgar pag. 58. Luc. Osiander in Enchirid. controuers c. p. 272. 6. The Doctrine of Freewill in like sort is maintayned by Osiander Cent. 16. p. 814. by Siccanus Hemingius as Willet doth witnesse in his Sinopsis printed 1600. p. 808. By Perkins in his reuelat p. 326. 7. The Doctrine of merit of workes to wit that in regard of Christ his Passion and promise and as proceeding from faith all which poynts the Catholiks do acknowledge as necessary they are meritorious is warranted by the testimonies of Melancthon (p) loc com de bonis operib of the Confessions q in the Harmony of Hooker (r) l. 5. Ecclesiast polic sect 72. pag. 208. and of the disputation holden at Ratisbone (s) p. 509. 8. The forbearance of certaine meates at set tymes and this not for a politick respect but in regard of spirituall ends is iustified by Hooker (t) In his Ecclesiast polic l. 5. sect 72. p. 204. who not only condemneth Aerius and Montanus for teaching the contrary but doth also answere the place vrged out of S. Paul by our Aduersaries in disproofe of our Catholike fastings The sayd Doctrine is also approued by a booke wrytten by a Protestant authour intituled Querimonia (u) p. 31. 94. Ecclesiae printed in London anno 1592. 9. The Doctrine of Euangelicall Counsels is maintained by Luther (x) assertionib art 30. by Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall policy lib. 3. sect 8. pag. 140. and by D. Couel in his defence of Hooker art 8. p. 49. 50. c. 10. Lastly that the true Church is euer to be Visible is proued from the testimonies of Melancthon who alledging sundry texts out of Scripture in proofe therof thus (y) loc com de Eccles p. 354. concludeth Hi similes loci non de Idea Platonica sed de Ecclesiae visibili loquuntur D. Field (z) l. 1. of the Church p. 19. 21. doth affirme the same and therupon reprehendeth Bellarmine for prouing needlesly the Visibility of the Church as if the same were denyed by the Protestants D. Humfrey in like sort iustifieth the Churches Visibility and intreating at large and prouing this poynt in the end directeth his wordes to the Catholikes in this manner Cur (a) In Iesuitismo part 2. rat 3. p. 240. ergo anxiè curiosè probant quod à nobis nunquam est negatum that is why do our Aduersaries so painfully proue that to wit the Churches Visibility which we neuer denied Thus teacheth the said Doctour 11. The same Doctrine of the Churches Visibility is in like sort maintained by Henoch Clappam (b) In his soueraigne remedy against schisme p. 18. who thus saith Not only all Auncients did hould the Churches Visibility but also al learned men of our age 12. These now ten articles among many other such like Catholike poynts acknowledged by our Aduersaries as the Reader may fully see in that most elaborate learned conuincing and vnanswerable booke stiled The Protestants Apology of the Roman Church may be sufficient to proue that the Scripture maketh most cleare and euidēt for the iustifying of our Catholike Fayth in the former poynts at least in the iudgments of these as I may tearme them Agrippian and halfe Christians I meane in the iudgments of the aforealledged Protestants teaching and acknowledging these Catholike Positions And the reason hereof is in that those who maintaine and defend the sayd former articles do neuertheles as I touched before confidently teach auouch that that only and nothing els is to be beleeued in matters of faith which is manifestly and expresly warranted or necessarily deduced out of the written word Now this being thus I see not how our former Protestants can auoyde and diuert the danger of this their present Doctrine which broacheth that the written word alone is solely definitiuely to determine all Ecclesiastical doubts Controuersies of Religion The Conclusion CHAP. XII IT is recorded of a certaine Heathen Poet who endeauouring to discounsell his Prince and Mecaenas from waging of warre to the which he had bene ouermuch inclined composed a Tragedy representing therin all those aggreuances and terrours commonly attending vpon warrs as sacking of townes depopulation of countries slaughter of souldiers murthering of the innocent and other such lamentable effects But insteed of his Catastrophe or last Act therof he caused the Chorus without any speach at all to bring forth in a vessell certaine dead bones of his Princes predecessours with a paper therin bearing this or the like inscription 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Behould heere mighty Prince the bonesof such thy auncestours which were slaine and dyed in the warres Which deadliuely spectacle being set in the sight of his Lord spake no doubt more feelingly and persuadingly as forcing or inuading his Vnderstanding by the irresistable assault of the Eye then the deliuerance of words or any other external representation could import 2. The like in the closure of this treatise I thinke good to obserue for hauing laboured to withdraw our Sectaries from erecting the Scripture as sole Iudge of Cōtrouersies in the patronizing wherof they warr fight against Gods sacred word against the practise of the church in her first purity against the vniforme iudgment of the auncient Fathers and finally against Reason it self And hauing refuted this their Doctrine first by discouering the difficulty of the Scriptures in regard wherof euery priuate spirit though of such as are predestinated and elected cannot assure himself indubiously of their true sense meaning Secōdly by laying down the incōpetency insufficiency of the Scriptures in this poynt proceeding both from the Protestants disagrements which is Scripture from the corruptions of all Originalls and Translations therof now extant at least by the iudgment of our new Ghospellers and lastly by shewing that supposing the Scripture to be this iudge yet it maketh in behalfe of vs Catholiks and not for our Aduersaries if we insist either in the perspicuity of the letter therof or in the iudgment of the Fathers and Protestants passed theron The proofe of which passages necessarily forcing that the Scripture cannot be this determining Iudge Which being accomplished it now remaineth by allusion to the former Poet that in place of an exact ceremonious Conclusion I only present to the view of the Protestants the yet extant and as it were the vn-entombed sentences Iudgments of their own ancestours I meane of Luther Caluin Zuinglius and their followers wherin with great bitternes of speach they do anathematize and damne one another for their different opinions rysing out of their supposed reuealing spirit out of their priuate interpreting the Scriptures as ech one doth truly charge another though they all indifferently maintained with the like feruour this Doctrine promising infallibly to thēselues in particular the certainty of this spirit and iustifying
these two sects do absolutely approue such as are euen of their owne faction 14. And first we find that Conradus (*) In Catalog nostri temporis l. 1. the foresayd Lutheran placeth six sorts of his owne Lutherans in the Catalogue of Heretikes So through the disallowing of one anothers Doctrine did first rise the distinction of Molles Rigidi Lutherani so as it is manifest euen out of their owne bookes and inuectiues that they hould one another for Heretikes 15. Now touching the Sacramentaries among themselues Doth not Caluin (r) lib. de coena Domini l. 4. Instit. c. 15. §. 1. condemne Zuinglius for teaching that the Sacraments are bare externall signes And is not Caluin reciprocally condemned by Zuinglius (s) Zuinglius epist ad quandaÌ„ Germaniae ciuitatem fol. 196. in Commentar de vera falsa relig c. de Sacra againe because he attributed more to the Sacraments then externall signes 16. Castalio (t) In l. ad Caluin de praedest a Sacramentary charging Caluin for teaching God to be the authour of sinne maketh a distinction of the true God and of Caluins God and giueth a different description of them both and among other thinges he there thus concludeth By this meanes not the diuell but the God of Caluin is the Father of lyes but that God which the holy Scripture teacheth is altogether contrary to this God of Caluin c. And then after The true God came to destroy the workes of the Caluinian God and these two Gods as they are by nature contrary one to another so they beget and bring forth children of contrary disposition to wit that God of Caluin children without mercy proud c. Thus Castilio And thus much of our forraine new Ghospellers for some tast of the bitter sentences deliuered against one another in which poynt I acknowledge not to haue set downe the hundred part of theyr mutuall accusations 17. Now if we looke here at home it is easy to shew that the Protestantes and Puritanes do as litle fauour one another for their seuerall Doctrines rysing from making the Scripture sole iudge of Religion as the fore named Sectaries haue done Hence it is that the Puritanes will not acknowledge the Protestantes to be true and sincere professours of the Ghospell as appeareth by their diuers admonitions exhibited to the Parliamentes euery leaâ—e almost therin inueighing against them as against the Ghospells enemies So we see that in one of their bookes (u) A Christian and modest offer c. pag. 11. they say That if themselues be in errour and the Prelats on the contrary haue the truth they protest to all the world that the Pope and the Church of Rome and in them God and Christ Iesus himselfe haue great wrong and indignity offred vnto them in that they are reiected c. 18. Touching the Protestantes recrimination of the Puritanes we find that the Protestantes (x) Powel in his ConsideratioÌ„s do censure them to be notorius and manifest Schismatikes and members cut of from the Church of God They are sayd by another Protestant (y) The Suruey of the preteÌ„ded discipline 1. 5. c. 24. c. 35. To haue peruerted the true meaning of certaine places both of Scriptures and Fathers to serue theyr owne turnes And agayne the said Authour saith of them The word of God is troubled with such choppers and changers of it c. And to conclude he further affimeth to leaue out infinite other places That the later braules pittifull distractions and coÌ„fusions among the Puritanes proceed of such intollerable presumption as is vsed by peruerting and false interpretation of holy Scripture Which seuere and bitter condemnations of one another cannot be vnderstood to be spoken of things indifferent and touching ceremonies only as they are wont to salue the matter when they be charged therwith by Catholikes 19. These loe are the yet liuing-remembrances of our Sectaries Progenitours ouerthrow occasioned through their waging of warre in the defence of so erroneous a Doctrine which alone are of force if all other former proofes and arguments were defectiue to conuince our Nouellists of their foule errour therin But since all these alledged authours were Protestants and for the greater part acknowledged for men of Piety and as professing the Ghospell by the present Church of England since they all disclaymed from the Churches authority in defining of Controuersies all ventilated alike the facility of the holy Scripture acknowledged it as sole iudge and warranted their different Doctrines from Scripture alone finally all actually impatronized themselues of the interpreting spirit since I say they all proceeded thus far and were warranted therin with as much reason as any ProtestaÌ„t maintaining the same Doctrine at this present can iustly apply to himselfe yet seing not one of those would affoard any approbation of an others mans reuealing spirit in the exposition of Scripture but openly traduced ech others spirit as erroneous and hereticall and vpon their contrary expositions of Scripture they did beget contrary Doctrines What then remaineth but that euery sober and discret Christian do reiect this Paradox to wit that the Scripture is the sole and only iudge of Controuersies since it hath ingendred in the propugners thereof such a Babylon of confused and tumultuous accusations that with al resignatioÌ„ of iudgment he humbly acknowledge that Christ his Vicar assisted with competency of meanes from the whole Church is appoynted by Christ himselfe to be heere vpon Earth the sole supreme and inappealable Iudge in all matters of fayth and religion often recalling to his memory that it is (z) Math. 18. wrytten Dic Ecclesiae si Ecclesiam noÌ„ audierit sit tibi veluti Ethnicus Publicanus FINIS
former texts of Scripture Will they seeke to auoyde all these by putting vs in mynd that it is written (l) Luc. c. 11. Pater vester dabit spiritum bonum petentibus se and therfore euery priuate man that will aske this spirit of God may haue it Let them remember that besydes these words are not vnderstood of the spirit of interpreting but of the spirit of faith hope and charity it is also written (m) Iacob 4. Petitis non accipitis eò quòd malè petatis And therfore many may implore of God the guift of this spirit and yet not obtaine it since they perhaps demande it not with that due disposition of mind in such sort as God exacteth at their handes 4. This then being so who in all likelyhood is further of from fruitfully effectually praying for the same to the gayning wherof humility resignation of iudgment euen by our Aduersaries (n) Luth. praesat assertioâ—is 〈◊〉 à Leone Pontif damnâ—tor acknowledment is among other thinges necessarily required then this alcensuring spirit which is euer drunke with a self lyking and which is arriued to that height of pryde and elation of mind as it houldeth it more reasonable that all authorityes should passe vnder the fyle polishing of his own approbation It cannot assure vs with (o) In prolegom contra Peâ—â—uÌ„Ã â—oto Brentius that it belongeth to euery priuate man to iudge of the doctrine of Religion and to discerne the truth from falshood It is in like sort of force to coyne and stampe this position with (p) Lib. 4. Instit c. ◠§. 8. 12. Caluin and (q) Exam. 4. sess Concil Trident. Kemnitius as a receaued Axiome to wit that the definitions and sentences euen of generall Councells are to be poysed by the ballance of each mans priuate iudgment though with such a one especially if he be ignorant and vnlearned guilded apparances of reason do for the most part preponderate and waigh downe reason it selfe such is the Tarquinian and insupportable pryde of this spirit since by such transcendent speaches actions it warranteth that the sheep is to guide or direct their Pastour the subiect to determine the sentence of his Prince and the delinquent most insolently and petulantly to iudge his owne Iudges 5. But to passe from the testimony of Gods word written by the Apostles and Euangelistes vnto the inward testimony written by himselfe in the booke of each mans vnderstanding we shall easely find that euen Naturall reason is able to conuince of falshood our Aduersaryes former assertion 6. And first what greater ouersight can be then to acknowledge that for Iudge of Controuersyes for thus our Aduersaryes do when they giue an infallibility of interpreting to the priuate spirit which is not of power ability to determine any Controuersie And this insufficiency we find to be in such priuate spirits for we see by experience that in the explication of these foure wordes only This (r) Matth. 26. Marc. 14. c. is my body as also for the texts (Å¿) Matth. 12. Act. â— Rom. 10. Ephes 4. c. vrged for Christs descending into hell wherein the Lutherans and Caluinists do so differ as that their meere contrary irreconciliable Constructions do not only manifest the vntruth and errour of the one of them but also the doctrine for which the sayd textes are vrged is after their long disputations and different sentences pronounced as much doubted of if not more then it was in the beginning And yet both the Lutherans and Caluinists do challeng alike to theÌ„selues the guist of this expounding spirit withal the necessary conditions attending the same as Prayer Humility Skill in the tongues Conferences of seuerall passages of Scripture the one stil obiecting to the other the clearnes perspicuity of Gods word in their own behalf 7. Secondly it necessarily conduceth to the being and perfect nature of a Iudge as we find in the practise of all Controuersyes whatsoeuer to haue power and authority thereby to force euen vpon coertion and constraint if need require both the different partyes to subscribe to his sentence once pronounced since otherwise his iudgment and definition would proue both bootles and in auailable But we cannot find that a priuate mans spirit can iustly assume to it selfe any such coactiue power since it cannot threaten any Ecclesiasticall and spirituall censure to one for not admitting his iudgment determination and exposition of Scripture 8. Thirdly seeing that the doubts of Religion do rise amongst men who are visible and knowne one to another how can it be imagined that the Iudge who is to take vp and compound al these differences should be such a one as can neither be seene nor heard by any of the contending partyes For the spirit which is in this man suppose it did infallibly interprete aright yet can it not be seene heard or acknowledged for such by another man in that he cannot be vndoubtedly assured that the same spirit is warranted from God since false teachers do ordinarily maske themselues vnder the borrowed veile of Gods Ministers and false (t) â— Cor. cap. 11. Apostles after they once haue ascended the Thabor of the reuealing spirit vainely talking of Elias Moyses tranfiguring themselues into the Apostles of Christ All who notwithstanding do equally vaunt of this spirit and yet neuertheles doe cast in the mould thereof most vncertaine and oftentimes repugnant doctrines seeing then the rule or iudge of Fayth Religion ought to be both knowne and certaine for if it be not knowne it can be no Iudge at least to vs and if it be vncertaine it can be no Iudge at all therefore it is euidently euicted that the reauealing spirit as being most vnknowne and vncertaine can in no case be erected as Iudge amongst vs Christians 9. Fourthly our Aduersaryes do teach that this spirit is giueÌ„ not generally to all but particularly to some to wit to the Elect the faythfull as Caluin (u) Instit 1. c. 7. § 5. affirmeth from which doctrine it followeth First that God hath left no certaine and generall rule or guide in his Church wherby all men may arriue to the true knowledge of him but only some few and particuler men Secondly since we cannot infallibly know who is of the Elect faithfull therefore we cannot be vndoubtedly assured as is aboue touched to whome this spirit is giuen as D. Whitaker (x) Contro 2. quest 5. confesseth and consequently it auayleth no man but him who only enioyeth it seeing euery one of our Aduersaryes do in like manner obtrude themselues into the number of the Elect. And therefore seeing that Luther and Caluin did indifferently challenge to themselues the like illumination of this spirit and yet taught contrary doctrines concerning Canonicall Scripture and the Reall presence And seeing it is cortaine that both were not inspired with the holy Ghost for he teacheth not contradictions
wheras they do alledge to proue that there is now no sacrifice in the Church the words of our Sauiour (a) Ioan. 29. CoÌ„summatum est It is consummated or finished As if our Sauiour testifyed hereby that whatsoeuer was requisite for our health and saluation was accomplished and consummated by his only sacrifice vpon the Crosse wheras his meaning only was that all his afflictions and punishments which he suffred in flesh were consummated and ended by his death vpon the Crosse thus do Austin Cyril Theophilact Chrysostome teach in their expositions of this place 29. This now among many other like passages of Scripture obiected by our Aduersaries may serue to discouer the Fathers iudgments in the explicating of al such texts and how far distant at least in those learned Doctours censures they are from coÌ„tradicting any one point of our Catholike Fayth consequently how preiudiciall it were to the Protestants in the Fathers iudgments to make the holy Scripture the sole and last resort and Tribunall of Controuersies And here we are to aduertise the Reader that he is not to expect that the Fathers should preuent in their bookes Commentaries by way of explication the obiections and arguments drawne from all such places of Scripture as are vrged by our Aduersaries both because they could not foresee the Heresies of our tymes as also if they had yet could they not be induced to belieue that any one of learning professing Christian Fayth and Religion would so pertinaciously and impertinently rack and force Gods sacred word for the vphoulding of their Heresies as the Sectaries of our age haue done 30. Neither is the Reader to looke that our Catholike Expositions of euery text which our Aduersaries doe vrge against vs should be warranted with the authorities of many Fathers though most of them haue bene so fortified in that some such passages of Scripture there are of which few Fathers did vndertake to make any peculiar Comment or exposition at all Only it suffiseth that we can haue our expositioÌ„s of euery such senteÌ„ce of Scripture strengthned with the authorities of some few of theÌ„ And that the Protestants are not able to alledge so much as one Father interpreting in the Protestants construction against our Catholike Doctrine any one of the former alledged places of Scripture or any one other text which our Aduersaries alledge though heere it be not set downe And now hauing thus dislodged our Aduersaries of their best couerts and places of Retyre for patronage of their strange and exorbitant Positions and Doctrine as also hauing in the precedent Chapter fortified and strengthned with the Fathers explications the sense and meaning of such texs as we produce against theÌ„ I will herein proceed no further referring one point to their owne considerations and iudgments to wit whether themselues receaue greater hurt and domage by the Fathers erecting their impregnable Forts of Gods word from whence they make their issues sallyes out in pursuite and profligation of these mens Heresies then by the sayd Fathers raising and battering downe the weake houlds and fortresses of such misapplyed texts of holy Scripture wherin our Sectaries are wont to place theyr greatest strength and confidence since by the first theyr Heresies receaue most deadly and incurable wounds by the second the Catholike Faith is secured freed from al dangerous assaults and encounters 31. But to end this point to wit that the Fathes interpreted the Scripture in generall in one the same sense with vs Catholikes the euidency of it is such as that therefore the Fathers are charged by our Aduersaries through their supposed misconstruction of Scripture as maintainers of Popish Religion The consideration of which assertion of theirs being for seueral respects not to be neglected and as particularly conducing to our preseÌ„t purpose induceth me a litle to insist in setting downe the seuerall reproualls and criminations of the Protestantes bouldly deliuered against the Fathers for their defending of our Catholike Articles and Doctrine Which point being made manifest it then ineuitably followeth that eueÌ„ in our Aduersaries iudgments the Fathers did deliuer the sayd constructions of Scripture which we Catholikâ— do seing the Fathers maintained no Doctrines but such as were in their owne opinions warranted with the authority of Gods sacred wrytten word or at least not any way impugned by the same 32. And first we find D. Whitaker (a) Contra Duraeum l. 6. p. 423. scornefully traducing the Fathers in a generall to write thus the Popish Religion to vse his own words is a patched Couerlet of the Fathers errours sowed together 33. D. Whitguift (b) In his defence of the answer to the admonition pag. 472. 473. the once pretended Archbishop of Canterbury in like manner thus chargeth the Fathers How greatly were almost all the Bishops and learned wryters of the Greeke Church and Latin also for the most part spotted with Doctrines of freewill of merits of Inuocation of Saintes and such like meaning such like points of our Religion 34. Peter (c) De votis p. 476. Martyr speaking of the supposed Popish Errours thus insimulates the Fathers within the said errours saying As long as we insist in Councels and Fathers so long we shal be conuersant in the said errours Malancthon (d) Iu 1. Cor. c. 3. in like sort inueighing against the Fathers thus auerreth Presently from the beginning of the Church the anncient Fathers obscured the Doctrine concerning the iustice of faith increased Ceremonies and deuised peculiar worships 35. M. Iewel (e) l. de vita Iewelli printed at London pag. 212. most Hypocritically appealing to the Fathers at Paules Crosse as challenging them for Protestants is sharply reprehended for such his idle vaunting by D. Humfrey himselfe in these words He gaue the Papists too large a scope was iniurious to himselfe and after a maÌ„ner spoiled himselfe and his Church 36. Beza thus (f) In his preface vpoÌ„ the new Testâ—ment dedicated do the Prince of Condy anno 2587. confidently wryteth vpon the said poynt Euen in the best tymes meaning the tymes of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church the ambition ignorance and lewdnes of the Bishops was such that the very blynd may easily perceaue that Sathan was president in their assemblies or Councels 37. But I will conclude this point with the testimony of Luther who as he was the first in our age that broached a religion vnknowne to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church So he shewed himselfe most insolent in controlling them for their maintaining of our Catholike Religion he thus speaking of them (g) Luther Tom. 2. VVittenberg anno 1551. deseruo arbitrio pag. 434. The Fathers for so many ages haue bene plainly blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures they haue erred all their life tyme and vnles they were ameÌ„ded before their deathes they were neuer Saintes nor pertayning to the Church 38. Now from all these assertions of our Sectaries it is
necessarily gathered that their disclaiming from the auncient Fathers as patrones of our religion doth implicitly inuolue in it selfe as aboue I haue touched that euen in our aduersaries acknowledgmeÌ„ts the Fathers interpreted the Scriptures in one and the same sense with vs Catholikes for if they had made one and the same construction of the Scripture with the ProtestaÌ„ts they had then taught the same Doctrine which the Protestants now teach and consequently it appeareth how dangerous it is to our Aduersaries to appeale to the Scripture alone as Iudge of all Controuersies if for the true construction and sense therof they would rest in the iudgments of the anncient Fathers That the Scripture doth make for the Catholikes euen by the tacite acknowledgment of our Aduersaries rising from their maintayning of our Catholike articles CHAP. XI IN this last place we are to vndertake to shew that euen by our Aduersaries Confessions the holy Scripture is most cleare for iustifying our Catholike Faith which point might be proued at large by producing their owne words and expositions of many of the chiefe passages of Scripture wherby we are able to demonstrate out of their owne books and writings that they are interpreted by them in the same sense and meaning wherein we Catholikes do vsually expound them But this course I will purposely forbeare partly to auoyde the distastfull iteration of the former texts so often already repeated but chiefly in regard of the tedious prolixity which would necessarily attend the deliuering in their owne wordes of our Aduersaries expositions of all such places and in supply therof I will take a more briefe and yet no lesse conuincing method That is I will set downe ten of our mayne Controuersies for example of al the rest acknowledged taught and iustified by our Aduersaries and such who for wit and learning may seeme to equall any others of their owne side Which thing being once performed it then ineuitably followeth euen from their owne Principles that they acknowledge the Scriptureto make for the Catholikes in the sayd Doctrines confessed by theÌ„ since their owne generall and constant axiome (*) Luther iâ— CoÌ„ment c. 1. ad Galat Caluin l. 4. Instit c. 8. §. 8. Chemnit in Exam. Conc. Trident sess 4. in libro quem inseripsit Theologiae Iesuit praecip capit Brentius in suis Prologeminis c. de Traditionibus HaÌ„melmanus in suo volumine coÌ„tra Traditiones alij permulti is that they are not to beleeue any thing as matter of fayth but what hath it warrant in Gods written word And to proceed yet more particularly seing that for iustifying of such Catholike articles no passages of Scripture can be alledged more forcibly and pressingly by our Aduersaries own censure then the texts alledged in the former Chapters it therfore may be concluded that those very particular texts euen by the acknowledgment of the Protestants do receaue that sense and construction which the Fathers and we Catholikes haue deliuered of them for proofe and warranting of our fayth Agayne wheras our Aduersaries which maintaine any such Catholike Positions will no doubt confidently auouch that they teach nothing which may be contradicted by the Scripture It in like sort followeth that all such texts of Scripture meÌ„tioned aboue and others of like nature which are vrged by other protestaÌ„ts to impugne the said Catholike points are at least in these mens iudgments to be taken in a construction far different from ouerthrowing the sayd articles So as the conclusion of all is this that in these mens censures we implicity do shew that such authorities of Scripture vrged by vs do confirme our Catholike Fayth and obiected by them do preiudice it nothing at all But to beginne 1. And first concerning the Primacy of one in the Church of God we fynd that Caluin (a) Alledged by VVhitg p. 137. thus sayth The twelue Apostles had one among them to gouerne the rest D. Whitguift (b) vbi suprap 375. sayth Among the Apostles themselues there was one chiefe c. In like sort Musculus (c) Alledged by VVhitguift vbi supra p. 66. sayth Peter is found in many places to haue bene chiefe among the rest Melancthon (d) In his booke intituled Centur epist theolog epist 74. thus writeth as certaine Bishops are President ouer many Churches so the Bishop of Rome is President ouer all Bishops and this Canonical policy no wyse man I hope will or ought to disalow To maintaine this sayd Doctrine Iacobus Andraeas is alledged by Hospinianus (e) Historia sacramentaria part 2. fol. 589. 2. That the Pope is not Antichrist appeareth froÌ„ the testimonies of diuers Protestants which teach that Antichrist is not yet come So doth Zanchius (f) In epist Pauli ad Philippens teach the like doth Franciscus (g) In his booke intituled Antichristus siue progno stiâ—â— mundi Lambertus affirme And Done in one of his sermons (h) Of the sâ—â—ond coÌ„ming of Christ confesseth That some Protestantes do make a doubt whether Antichrist be yet reuealed or no. And heere we are to obserue that some other Protestants who do teach him to be come do make the Turk to be him thus doth MelaÌ„cthon so vrged by Haruey in his Theological discourse pag. 102. Bucer and Fox teach vz. Act. Mon. of anno 1577. pag. 539. 3. Touching the Reall Presence who knoweth not that Luther and the Lutheranes defend it And therfore it is needles to set down the particular names of any of them since the maintainers of this Doctrine which are not Catholikes are tearmed Lutherans especially because they chiefly dissent from the Caluinistes in this poynt 4. That Priests do truly remit sinnes by Absolution and not only pronounce them to be remitted appeareth from the testimony of the English Communion booke where the Priest sayth And by his authority committed to me I absolue thee from all thy sinnes Which booke is therfore reprehended by the booke called the Suruey (i) p. 145. of the booke of common prayer As also the same is proued by Lobechius (k) Disput Theologic pag. 301. who sayth That God remits sinne immediatly by himselfe but mediatly by his ministers And that the Caluinistes do therfore erre in withdrawing this efficacy from the absolution giuen by the minister of the word Thus farre Lobechius And answerably hereto we find that Melancthon (l) In Apolog confess Aug. art 13. did teach that Absolution is properly a Sacrament The like did Spandeburge (m) In margarit Theologic pag. 116. Andraeas (n) In concilat locorum seript pugnant loc 191. Althamerus and Sarcerius (o) Loc. com hom 1. de potest Eccles fol. 305. affirme 5. That the Sacraments of the new Testament conferre grace ex opere operato appeareth from the iudgment of D. Bilson in his true difference part 4. pag. 539 D. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 8. p. 662. M. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall policy lib. 5.