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 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
downe of the weak fortresse of this priuate spirit That which is already deliuered may serue as a preparatiue to the Reader the better to apprehend the force and weight of the ensewing arguments and reasons I will now hasten to the maine subiect and will first begin with the reasons of the Scriptures difficulty The reasons of the Scriptures difficulty CHAP. III. WHY the Catholikes do absolutely deny the Scriptures to haue this inappeachable soueraignty of resoluing all doubts in religion there is no reason amongst others more forcible then that which is drawne from the difficulty of true vnderstanding the sayd writinges for though our Aduersaryes do pretend the easines of them to be such as that any how ignorant soeuer if so he be of the number of the iustifyed may withall readines picke out the true sense for the approbation and fortifying of any point of Fayth whatsoeuer Yet he who looketh into this matter with a cleare-sighted iudgement shall find them to be inuolued with so many ambiguityes as that aforehand he shall haue need to repaire to some (m) Act. 9. Ananias or other to remoue from his eyes the scales of partiality ignorance and other imperfections 2. Therefore let such whose state through want of learning or otherwise is not to intermedle with those sacred writinges remember the punishment inflicted to the (n) 1. Reg. 6 6. Bethsamites for curiously behoulding the Arke which belonged not to them yet we see the consideration of this danger and of far greater is not powerfull inough to controle the ignorant Sectary in his expounding the Scripture who being once placed vpon the high pinacle of his reuealing spirit vndertakes to view al ages and Countryes of the Church and ouerlooking the iudgments of priuate Fathers interpreting Gods written word as low and humble vales extends his sight to the summity and height of generall Councells therein still behoulding with a feuere eye whatsoeuer standeth not right in the line of his owne exposition 3. The chiefe and primitiue reasons of their abstruse hardnes are three to wit The Subiect handled in those writinges The mulâ—iplicity of the senses contained in the wordes And the Methode or manner of the phrase and stile And if but any one of these three do happen though in an inferiour degree of intricatenes in human writings yet we see by experience that it doth so intangle the Reader in such a labyrinth of mistakings as that he will freely acknowledge this ignorance in not apprehending aright in all places the authours mind what shall we theÌ„ thinke when all these three do meet togeather in Gods sacred Booke and that in the highest degree of any writtinges euer extant as it shall appeare in the subsequent Chapters Of the subiect of the Scriptures CHAP. IIII. TO begin with the subiect of the Scriptures we are herein to obserue that it as farpasseth in depth and prosundity the contents of mans wrytinges as God the authour therof ouergoeth him in wisedome and power For wheras the matter of all such humane labours is euer such as that the naturall wit of man is sutable and proportionable thereto both for the deliuering or apprehending thereof and the reason heereof is because the vnderstanding being as it were the summe of our little world euer keepeth it selfe within the Tropicks of naturall reason and consequently is not of force to deliuer or apprehend any thing which may not be confined within the same compasse whereas if we looke into the subiect of these celestiall and diuine writinges we shall find the height of many thinges intreated therein to be such as that they transcend all naturall reason 2. I could heere insist in the Creation of the world of nothing whereof these holy Scriptures assure vs though contrary in outward shew to all Philosophy which teacheth ex nihilo nihil sit I will passe ouer the infinite prophesies recorded therin which euer of their owne nature are hardly to be vnderstood I will in like sort pretermit to speake of the nature of the Angels intreated of in the said booke of Life whose essence being merely spirituall and indued with diuers great priuiledges aboue man can but imperfectly be comprehended with our fleshly vnderstandings finally I will forbeare to speake of the eternall predestination and reprobation of man how and by what meanes they are wrought of the externall working of God within our soules with his grace or otherwise of the Sacraments the Conduits of his grace poynts wherof we are instructed in the holy Scripture and such wherin we may truly glasse the weaknes of mans vnderstanding and the depth of Gods wisedome and power 3. But I will insist a little in those two incomprehensible and astonishing Articles of Christian faith reuealed to vs out of those former diuine Scriptures to wit of the Trinity and of the Incarnation wherin in the first to omit diuers other stupendious difficulties we are taught by â—he said Oracles of God that one and the same Nature to wit the Godhead is in three persons really distinct the same Nature is really and formally identifyed with each of the three persons In lyke sort in the article of the IncarnatioÌ„ where besydes that the Creatour of al things is become a Creature and the father the daughters sonne we receaue from the same fountaine that in one Hypostasis or person to wit in the person of Christ are two perfect natures very far different and that this Hypostasis is altogether really formally identifyed with the diuyne Nature neuertheles is most in wardly vnited with the humane Nature which humane nature doth really and formally differ from the diuine nature And thus much but to skim ouer superficially this poynt of the subiect and matter of the Scriptures which if it were handled according to the fulnes largnes of it selfe would iustly require a Treatise of no small quantity Of the diuers senses of the Scripture intended by the Holy Ghost CHAP. V. IN speaking of the multiplicity of the senses in the Scriptures we are to call to remembrance that Gods sacred written word differeth from all humane writinges besides in many other poynts especially in this that wheras al such haue but one sense or meaning properly intended by the authour this is so fertil therin as that like a shel if it were possible contayning within it seueral kernels of different tastes it carrieth in many places besydes the immediate literal sense three diuers spirituall senses and all warranted by the holy Ghost These three are the Allegoricall Tropologicall and Anagogicall 2. The Allegoricall sense euer beares reference of a spirituall and secret meaning to Christ or his Church So we read that Abraham hauing truly and really two sonnes the one borne of the free-woman the other of the bond-slaue did figure out the two testameÌ„ts of God euen by the exposition of (a) Salat 4. S. Paul 3. The Tropologicall is directed to instruction of manners or conuersation of lyfe
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
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
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
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
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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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.
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
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
therof in a phrase or speach altogeather different from that tongue wherein he readeth them and peculiar to another strange language whereof he hath no knowledge at all 3. To passe on further the Scripture in diuers passages is deliuered in very ambiguous imperfect broken sentences which are such as must greatly increase the doubtfulnes of the meaning of the Holy Ghost And to exemplify but one amongst many where the (o) Ioan. 8. Iewes demanded of our Sauiour Tu quis es And he answered Principium qui loquor vobis Which answere of his is so obscure as that it hardly standeth with good construction especially in all Greek copyes wherin we find the greek word signifying principium viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be of the accusatiue case and therefore no maruaile if the Fathers as we find in their commentaryes did much labour in the exposition of these very wordes 4. Lastly to conuince demonstratiuely the difficulty of the holy Scriptures concerning the Letter the Holy Ghost who is truth it selfe and cannot leaue written contrary and repugnant thinges hath neuerthelesse thought good for our greater humility in acknowledging the abysmall obstrusenes of those writinges to pen the same in such manner as that there appeare diuers sentences which at the first sight and reading seeme meere contradictory in so much that if the one be true it followeth in the iudgment of the illiterate Scripturist who resteth only in the naked word that the other is false Infinite examples might be alledged but these few following shall suffice 5. Dominus (p) â— Reg. cap. 1â— precaepit Semei vt malediceret Dauid Our Lord commanded Semei that he would accurse Dauid In like sort it is said (q) Rom. 1. God deliuered them vp to a reprobate sense to do those thinges which are not conuenient both which actions no man will deny but to haue beene sinnes And yet weread elswhere Nemâ—â—i (r) Ecclâ—s 1â— mandauit impiè agere God hath commanded no man to do wickedly 6. In lâ—ke sort in one place we read Et ne nos inducas intentationem And lead vs not into temptation which prayer seemes to be superfluous if God did not sometymes tempt men and yet to confront as it were this text (Å¿) Cap. 1. S. Iames sayth Let no man say when he is tempted I am tempted of God for God tempteth no man Do we not read after the same manner that the (t) Luc. c. 1. Euangelist giueth most honourable commendation of Zacharias and Elizabeth in these wordes Both were iust before God and walked in all the Commendements and iustifications of our Lord without blame And yet we find it registred in (u) Cap. 7. Ecclesiasticus Non est homo iustus in terra qui faciat bonum non peccet There is not a iust man vpon earth which doth good and sinneth not as also in another (x) Iac. 3. place In multis offendimus omnes We all offend in many thinges Which later sentences seeme plainely to recall that iustice and piety which in the former words were attributed to those two vertuous persons 7. Lastly it is sayd in (y) Cap. 20 Exodus Ego Deus Zelotes c. I am a iealous God risiting the sinnes of the parents vpon their sons vnto the third and fourth generation and yet (z) Cap. 18. Ezechiel affirmeth Filius non portabit iniquitatem Patris sed anima quae peccauerit ipsa morietur The sonne shall not beare the iniquity of his Father but that soule alone which hath sinned shall dye Now what greater diametrical contrariety can lye in sentences then seemes to be in all these former if nakedly we consider the bare wordes for the vnlearned can proceed no further though in themselues they are reconciliable and so declared to be by the Commentaryes of the learned since otherwise Scripture were to be alleadged against Scripture and this were to make truth to lye â—ut to end this point of the Scriptures obscurity we do heerin see in what a sea of diffâ—cultyes that man is tossed who attempteth to vnderstand the Scriptures by the sole help of his owne iudgment whether he looketh into the subiect or matter whereof they intreate or into the variety of senses appearing therin or finally into the style or phrase wherein they are written 8. Now let our verse and lyne-cunning Scripturist or other Sectary who so striketh his aduersary with the scabard of the Scriptures as one Doctour speaketh as that he neuer woundeth him with the blade let such a one I say skillfull chiefly in yelling out a Geneua Psalme venditate the Scriptures facility affirming that they are more illustrious for proofe of any controuersiall point then the Sunne beames Let him insult ouer the Caâ—holikes in mantaining that Paul and Peter with the rest as they commonly speake for it were ouermuch to style them Saints are out of his owne knowledge and reading so cleare in such and such places against the Papists as that they need no explication or comment whatsoeuer and that he laments the blindnesse of such who willfully do charge Gods word with supposed obscurityes Let him go on in this sort since the graue and learned may iustly smyle to see how comically such a naturalized Heretike doth lay open to the world his pryde ignorance and foolery especially when they read of such men as Origen and Tertullian were to haue laine drowned perhaps to the eternall ship wracke and perdition of their soules in the vast Ocean of the Scriptures profundity 9. Thus we see the bare letter of the Scripture being only stood vpon doth often seeme to maintaine an errour which is mainly impugned by the true sense once drawns from the sayd Scripture like as the Phisitians obserue that the grosse substance of some drugs or Minerals being taken doth occasion some diseases which are after cured by the spirits extracted from the former drugs CHAP. VII The difficulty of the Scriptures acknowledged by the Fathers IT is a strange thing to obserue the inconsiderate pryde of our Aduersaryes in iustifying the Scriptures perspicuity when as the auncient Fathers to whom our Men are infinitely inferiour in all good parts of literature are not ashamed to acknowledg their wonderfull depth and obscurity which sentence of theirs is manifest two seuerall wayes First by their owne Commentaries written vpon the Scriptures Secondly by their expresse and plaine wordes directly confessing so much And concerning the first what greater proofe can be therof then to see so many and such as they were to spend the greatest part of their lyues in illustrating explaining diuers parcells of the said Scriptures and in digging through the most stony and hardest passages thereof with their written Scholies wherin they haue most elaborately dissected as it were and anatomized text after text to the great ease and perspicuity of the reader whose most commendable and painfull labours in that kynd had bene no doubt but needles
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
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
is Secōdly that we cānot be assured whether this representation of the Maiesty voyce or authority of God speaking in the Scriptures be but a meere illusion of the diuell or some vehement apprehension of our owne phansy which may well be doubted of considering that all our aduersaries will auouch no doubt the Maiesty of God in those bookes which they acknowledge for diuine Scripture and yet we see by the example aboue that one of them seemes to find the authority and Maiesty of God in such a booke which himselfe acknowledgeth the which another of his brethren for want of the same Maiesty vtterly reiecteth Againe let our aduersaries yield some sufficient reason if they can to assure vs that there appeareth a greater Maiesty of God in those books of Scripture which they all ioyntly acknowledge for Canonicall then in those others which the Catholikes do receaue and themselues reiect 5. Others among whome is also Caluin (e) Inst 1. c. 7. §. 5. for he is most various and irresolute in saluing this difficulty to answere the former doubt come finally to this point which indeed is the Center of all their answeres to wit that God giueth to the elect and faythfull that inspiration or illumination of spirit as that therby they are made able to discerne which is the true word of God which is forged adulterated consequētly that they are assured that there are certaine diuine wrytings left to his Church And thus they flye to the priuate spirit already refuted To this ten our D. Field (f) l. 4. c. 8. thus sayth After we are enlightened by the spirit we do no longer trust eyther our owne iudgment or the iudgment of other men that the Scriptures are of God but aboue all certainty of humane iudgment we do certainly resolue as if in them we saw the Maiesty and glory of God Thus we see how our aduersaries not resting themselues vpon any firme resolution but replying now this now that and so running in and out are most farre from satisfying the difficulty here propounded with these their Meandrian and wynding euasions 6. Now the weakenes of this last answere is discouered seuerall wayes and first besides all those reasons and arguments aboue vrged in refutation of the priuate spirit in that if they be demanded to proue how they are assured of this supernaturall illumination they endeauour to proue it out of the Scriptures since they cannot say it is beleeued for it selfe seing it then would follow contrary to their owne ground that something is to be belieued which hath not his proofe in Scripture And if againe they be required to proue that there are Scriptures they alledge for proof therof this their illumination which kind of reasoning euery yong Logitian knoweth to be a vitious circulation since both these seuerall pointes to wit the certainty of the Scriptures and the certainty of their illumination may be questioned doubted of alike by them with whome they are to deale Secondly the former answere is insufficient in that this their supernaturall inspiration wherby they discerne the Scriptures is nothing els but an Act of Fayth and as it seemes is so acknowledged to be by D. Field (g) lib. 4. cap. 13. who calleth it Apotentiall hability the light of diuine vnderstanding and the light of grace all which thinges are included in Fayth and therfore our Aduersaries do generally teach that the illumination of this spirit belongeth to all the faythfull Now we know that it is their owne groūd and principle that Fayth ryseth only out of the Scriptures 7. These two thinges then being thus by the Protestantes assertions to wit that this illumination is an act of Fayth and that Fayth proceedeth only from the Scriptures I see not that it can be possibly conceaued how this their illumination of Faith which is later both tempore naturâ then the Scriptures as proceeding by their Doctrine from reading and giuing credit to the said Scriptures should be the meanes and guide to direct them in discerning that there is any Scripture at all or which is the true word of God and which Apocryphall and prophane since they ought to haue this illumination before they begin to censure iudge of the Scriptures And thus far concerning this question whether the Scripture is able to proue that there is Scripture And since it cannot it cōsequently followeth that it cānot be the iudge of our fayth in that besides it is an Article of our Fayth that there is Scripture it is not able to proue that from which by our Aduersaries Doctrine all the rest is deryued That Heresies in all ages haue bene mayntained by the supposed warrant of Scripture CHAP. XII NATVRE the seale of Almighty God impressed in these Elementary bodies is not only indued with a generatiue power therby to eternize or perpetuate herselfe but hath withall this annexed priuiledge to wit that euery indiuiduall body which is produced beareth a great resemblance as we see both in man and other creatures if so the secondary causes be not found defectiue to that body by the which it was begotten And this secret or mystery of producing the like to itselfe is extended euen to arts and sciences hence it proceedeth that in Logike the artificiall refiner of reason true Propositions euer beget true Conclusions and out of false premises result false and erroneous illations Neyther doth this ground rest heere but passeth further it being in like sort iustifiable in all generall Axiomes and principles which are the Basis or foundation of any Doctrine which Principles being true good and expedient then must all that which as necessary effectes are ingendred therby be of the same nature But if they be false wicked and pernicious the rest then which is builded therupon participateth of the same quality So as to take a Synopsis or view in generall of the state or nature of such grounds and principles it shal be sufficient without recurring particularly to them only to rest in the speculation of such propositions other poynts of Doctrine which thence do deseend and are as it were propagated by them 2. Now then it being thus that we are able to glasse the Fathers look in the childes face the premises in the cōclusion and the causes in the effectes I doubt not but whosoeuer will call to mynd some few of those blasphemous and wicked heresies which haue bene ingendred hatched and nourished by this Principle and ground That the Scripture interpreted by the priuate spirit is the true and sole iudge of Controuersies will at length haue iust reason to pronounce that the sayd heresies are the deformed and prodigious brood of so vgly and monstrous a parent since there was neuer yet any heresy but it could support it selfe for the tyme by misconstruction of Scripture And therfore no maruel if euery Sectary did so much couet to make his refuge to Gods sacred word Hoping that in this sort by disclaiming
from all other proofes whatsoeuer he was able so to varnish ouer his heresies with some misapplyed and forced texts therof as that to a credulous and mistaking eye the grayne of them should appeare most faire specious and regardable 3. But let vs particularize this point in some few examples who knoweth not that the Arians (a) Teste Epiphan haeres 69. who laboured to ouerthrow in effect the whole frame and Systema of Christian ReligioÌ„ by teaching that Christ was not God did with this their blasphemy inuade and ouerrunne whole countries through the supposed warrant of many texts of the holy Scriptures themselues still peruerting the sense therof He that doubteth of this let him consider the texs heere (b) Pater maior me est Ioan. 14. 18. Descendi de caelo non vt faciam voluntateÌ„ meam sed eius qui misit me Ioan. 6. vt agnoscant te solum veâ—uÌ„ DeuÌ„ quem misisti IesuÌ„ Christum Ioan. 17. Nobis autem vnus est Deus Pater 1. Cor. 18. vide etiam 1. Cor. c. 15. 1. Tim. 2. Act. 2. noted in the margent which they among many other like places alledged So shal he grant that these heretikes pressed Scripture against him who is the authour of Scripture In like sort Eutiches (c) Apud Leonem epist Flauiani epist Leonâ— 97. who taught that our Sauiour had but a phantasticall and imputatiue body through the conuersion of his diuinity into his flesh was not altogether depriued of all proofes through his misconstruction of Gods (d) VerbuÌ„ caro factuÌ„ est Ioan 1. As after the same phrase we read Aqua vinum facta est Ioan. 2. wherin we find the water to be made wine by a true conuersion of the one into the other word Nestorius (e) Euâ—grius l. 1. c. 2. Theodoret. l. 4. haeret fabularum prope finem the former heretikes diametricall enemy in Doctrine so easy it is for this priuate spirit by misconstruction to extract both fire and water from one and the same word of God so deuided Iesus from Christ as that he affirmed Iesus to be only pure man and him who was borne of the blessed Virgin and suffred death but Christ to be the Son of God This man neyther wanted diuers passages (f) In similitudinem hominum factus habitu inuentus vt homo Phi. 2. Est sine matre sine genealogia Heb. 7. where Christ is thus described Deus meus vt quid dereâ—quisti me Math. 27. And else where it is â—ayd Pater clarifica me hac hora. Ioan. 12. Both which sayings might be taught to be disagreable to the forme of God of holy Scripture interpreted by his owne spirit for the enamiling of this his execrable blasphemy 4. Wicliffe (g) Thomas VValdens l. 2. Doctrin Fidei c. 81. and Husse (h) as appeareth out of the Councell of Constance sessione 15. to the great preiudice of secular Princes taught that temporal Magistrats committing any mortall sinne did ipso facto cease to be Magistrates and being in that state might be deposed by their subiectes Which false and wicked Doctrine they were not affraid to confirme with certaine vsurped testimonies of Gods word The (i) Ipsi regnauerunt non ex me principes extiterunt non cognoui argentum aurum suum fecerunt sibi idola vt interimereÌ„t Osee 8. RegnuÌ„ à gente in gentem transfertur propter iniustitias Eccles 18. Waldenses Luthers Prodromi and precursors the Anabaptistes (k) They are charged here with euen by Caluin lib. 4. Institut 2. 20. would not brooke that christian Magistrates should make any lawes eyther to punish the wicked or to appeale to any court of iustice for redressing of wrongs affirming that such proceeding did take away all Christian liberty and these fellowes made in like sort the holy Scriptures (l) Si quis voluerit teâ—um iudicio contendere tunicam tuam tollere da ei pallium Math. 5. Delictum est in vobis quod iudicia habebitis inter nos cur non magis fraudem patimini quare non magis iniuriam accipitis 1. Cor. 6. Dictum est antiquis oculum pro oculo dentem pro dente ego autem dico vobis non resistere malo Math. 5. Omnes qui acceperint gladium gladio peribunt Math. 26. Si quis te percufferit in vnâ—m maxillam praebe ei alteram Math. 5. their sanctuary So daÌ„gerously they erred herein through a vitious affectatioÌ„ of ouermuch patience and innocency These loe such like are the adulterate ofspring of which I spake afore ingendred and brought forth by that former principle of the Scriptures sole Iudge sucking from the same ground tanquam ex traduce all that falshood and impiery which is found in them In which poynt we see how sollicitous and carefull the chiefe Patrones thereof were as it were to legitimate them with so many detorsions and misapplyed testimonies of Gods sacred writ Thus haue the Scriptures through the want of the true sense occasioned heresies as the Sunne through absence of it heat may be sayd to be the cause of cold which heresies according to Tertullian (m) Tertul de Pudicitia dum sunt habent posse dum possunt habent esse 6. And heere now I would demaund of our Aduersaries who acknowledge at least in wordes all the former opinions for damnable heresies what prerogatiue and priuiledge themselues may take whiles they make their sole recourse to the Scriptures as the supreme Iudge in defence of their late appearing fayth which the former Hereâ—â—kes may not with the like freedome and with as iust sheâ— of reason challenge to themselues Wil they obiect to the former heretiks want of Scripture for proofe of their Doctrine We haue seene how luxuriant and ryotous as it were they shewed to be in alledging the same for the better dogmatizing of their errours in so much that for iustifying of some of their heresies if we respect not the sense but the number they were able â—uen to vye text for text against the orthodoxall Doctrine Will they say they were ignorant in the primitiue tongues and vsed not conference of Scripture the two acknowledged meanes conducing to the true vnderstanding therof Concerning the first diuers of them had some of the tongues euen from their cradle and as for the other they were so studious and painfull therin as that they spent a great part of their life in diligent searching comparing and applying of seuerall passages of the Scripture 6. To conclude will they reply that notwithstanding all this they wanted true humility and prayer which they say with the former conditions are as it were the Media wherin the Species of the high mysteries of fayth are multiplyed before they can enter into the eye of our vnderstanding and consequently enioyed not this reuealing spirit wherof themselues are assured they would if in their life
parcells be acknowledged and receaued for Scripture by other Sacramentaries 13. And thus much may serue for our Aduersaries open and great contention concerning the approuing or reiecting of seuerall bookes of both the Testaments Frō whence it most necessarily followeth that though it might be dreamed for the tyme as I sayd aboue that the Scripture might be iudge of Controuersies among them which acknowledge with one consent such and such bookes only to be Scripture since all they agree what bookes those be which are to be this iudge Yet our Aduersaries wherwith we now deale cannot possibly maintaine the same for iudge for they disagreing with themselues of the bookes which are Scripture must needs disagree which is this iudge and how farre it reacheth euery one of them either extending it beyond it limites or straitning it within to narrow a compasse Therfore it is no more possible that the Scripture should decyde all Controuersies with the Protestants so long as they continue in their contrary sentēces about the authority of diuers bookes therof then it can be conceaued how a suite depēding betwene two is to be decyded by a certaine limited company of men as there is a limited number of the Canonicall bookes of Scripture or els not to be tryed at all and yet the one of these Litigants should disclaime from diuers of the sayd deputed Iudges as altogether imcompetent and insufficient and the other in like sort frō sundry of the other iudges Can it be conceaued I say how this matter should be ended both the parties still perseuering without change in their seuerall auersions against the seuerall persons of the intended Iudges especially if the iudgment of the matter were not to be vndertaken but with this condition that both the Litigant parties should freely and voluntarily agree aforehand in the number and in the particular persons of those iudges by whome they would haue their question and Controuersy determined And thus it iust fareth with our Protestants as long as they disagree what bookes are the Canonicall Scripture and yet will they haue this Scripture alone to determine and resolue all poynts of fayth and religion 14. To this argument drawne from their vncertainty of acknowledging what bookes are the word of God Our Aduersaries can only reply that though there be some particular bookes as these aboue mentioned of which they are not absolutely resolued whether they are to be accounted as parcells of Gods word or no yet since they all agree in acknowledging the rest of the bookes to be Canonicall all those other bookes so ioyntly acknowledged by them for Scripture ought to be taken for this iudge of Controuersies Which answere of theirs is most weake and relieues them nothing at all and this for seuerall reasons 15. And first seing there are many bookes both of the old Testament and of the new not speaking of those bookes in the old which are ioyntly condemned by thē all and acknowledged by Catholikes which are impugned by some of our Aduersaries and defended by others And that by all probability yea morall certainty some one or other of those bookes so impugned by some of thē is though not so acknowledged Gods sacred word which being so it must needes then follow that the Protestants teaching the Scripture to be the iudge and square of all doubts and Controuersies and attributing this prerogatiue not to any one booke a part since any one booke or other is not able to decyde all doubts which may arise in that it intreateth not of all poynts which may come in question but to the whole body and Canon of the Scripture It must follow I say that this supposed iudge of theirs is maimed and imperfect as wanting some one booke or other which being reiected by some of our Auersaries should concurre to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and full perfection or accomplishment of it selfe And therfore I conclude that if any such one booke of sacred Scripture be exempted frō the number of those which should make vp this Iudge as in all likelyhood some one or other is since there are greater proofes for the authority of them all then for condemnation of any one it demonstratiuely may be inferred that our Aduersaries cannot pretend as long as they thus contend which bookes be Scripture the Scripture to be this their iudge it being taught by our Aduersaries that fides is not obiectum adaequatum to any one booke or parcell of Scripture but to the whole Canon it selfe 16. Secondly if only such bookes which are ioyntly receaued by all our Aduersaries are to make vp this Iudge and no others then would it follow that there are diuers poynts of Fayth which by their owne acknowledgment are necessary to be beleeued and yet cannot be proued at all or at least clearly inough out of such parcells of Scripture as they all acknowledge to be Scripture though most euidently proued out of those parts which are reiected by some of thē As for exāple if the three first Gospels are to be reiected as Luther teacheth we shall fynd that there are diuers poynts touching our Sauiours Incarnation and particularly that he was borne of a Virgin as also his life conuersation heereupon earth which are to be beleeued and are found in some of these three Gospells and yet the Ghospell of S. Iohn only which is acknowledged by Luther maketh no mention of them neyther are they at al touched in any other acknowledged booke of Scripture 17. Thirdly though it were supposed that only those bookes of Scripture which all our Aduersaries doe ioyntly acknowledge for Canonicall were to decyde and iudge all poynts of Fayth yet could not those books performe so much except it were first agreed among them that there were some certaine originall copies or some translations now extant of them which our Aduersaries would acknowledge for true and vncorrupted since otherwise not the true word of God but the word of God as it is corrupted should become the iudge of our Fayth But there are no Originals nor Translations of the Scripiure speaking euen of those bookes which themselues do ioyntly acknowledge that are now extant which they do not charge with sundry corruptions and falsifications as it shall appeare most euidently in these Chapters following So manifest it is that euen those bookes only as are acknowledged by all our Aduersaries cannot become the iudge of Controuersies 18. But before we come to the Translations it followeth that as we haue shewed aboue that our Aduersaries do reiect many bookes of vndoubted and Canonicall Scripture and consequently that they cannot pretend the Scripture as iudge So we will in this place obserue the carriage and comportment of the Protestants towards the Euangelists and the Apostles whom diuers of our Sectaries haue not bene affraid to charge with foule errours in manner and practise or exercise of their faith And first it is cleare that D. Whitaker (d) De Eccles contra Bellarm.
eight verses alledged out of the psalmes (e) Psal 11. by S. Paul (f) Rom. 3. Sepulchrum patens est guttur eorum Linguis suis dolosè agebant c. and translated by the Protestāts and yet all the sayd verses are not to be found in any Hebrew text now extant as now they lye in S. Paul And thus much passing ouer diuers other places to shew that the present Hebrew is not euen in the opinion of our Aduersaries that same pure fountaine of which they at other tymes so much boast of and consequently not of that absolute truth in it selfe as to become the iudge of Controuersies but that the cristaline streame therof is troubled with some mud of corruption rysing eyther frō the negligence of the Printers in regard of the great likenes and resēblance of many Hebrew letters which might easily occasion a mistaking of one another or partly through the ignorance of the Rabbins who haue added pricks since the Hebrew first wanting pricks might be read seuerall wayes or lastly partly from the malice of the Iewes as being desirous to read the Hebrew in that sēse which might seeme least to fauour Christian religion That the Protestantes allow no Originall of the new Testament now extant as vncorrupted CAAP. III. IN the next place heere cōmeth to be examined the Greeke Original of the new Tement of which eyther all or the chiefest part was first wrytten in Greeke by the Apostles and Euangelistes This hath bene since in diuers places so corrupted euen by the acknowledgment of the Protestantes as that we cannot appeale securely therunto as to account it such as now it is the pure and vncorrupted word of God All such places to note is not needfull therfore some few shall suffice 2. And first we will exemplify that place of the Apostle (a) Rom. 12. for in the Greeke it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is tēpore sernientes where we read Be feruent in the spirit seruing the Lord for so do the Catholikes and Protestantes euen in their later editions translate and yet in all Greeke copies it is Be feruent in spirit seruing the tyme Which first manner of reading that it is the more true appeareth out of Origen Chrysostome Theophilact and other Greeke Fathers who euer read and explicated this place in their wrytings and Commentaries as the Catholikes and Protestantes do at this present 3. Againe the Greeke text readeth in the first to the Corinthians (b) 1. Cor. cap. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Secundus homo Dominus de caelo The first man is of the earth earthly the second man is the Lord from heauen But the Latin tanslation hath Secundus homo de caelo caelestis which translation euen Caluin (c) C. 7. Instit §. 21. acknowledgeth condemneth the other since it is cleare that the first reading proceeded from the corruption of Marcion as Tertullian (d) l. 5. in Marcionē witnesseth 4. I passe ouer the words adioyned in all Greeke copies to the end of our Lords prayer since they are acknowledged by our Aduersaries as part of the true Greeke the words be these For thine is the kingdome the power and glory c. though it is manifest that this sentence was added by the Grecians to the text both because the Crecians in their Liturgies do recyte the sayd words but not as continuing them with the Lords prayer as also in that Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose Ierome and Austin all who vnderstood the Greeke tongue do not make any mention at all of the former sentence which doubtlesly they would not haue omitted if they had found it ioyned with the sayd prayer in any authenticall Greeke copy 5. And thus much concerning our Aduersaries reiecting of the Greeke Originall in such places where it is certaine that it is erroneous Now we will adde a place or two wherein our Aduersaries do disclayme from the Greeke though most pure and vncorrupted In the genealogy of our Sauiour Beza leaueth out one descent in his translation which we find in S. Luke (e) cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui fuit Cainan in all Greeke copies speaking therof after this accustomed Lordly māner Non dubitamus expungere that is we make no scruple to put it out In like sort where S. Matthew giueth a prerogatiue to S. Peter in saying (f) Cap. 10. it being in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first Peter though it be thus in al Greeke copies yet Beza (g) In his Annotations vpon the new Testament set forth anno 1556. affirmeth that the Greeke text is here corrupted by some one who taught that Peter was the chiefe of the Apostles and the corruption sayth he consisteth in adding the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the text Lastly to auoyde prolixity I will end with that vnswerable place of S. Luke (h) c. 22. It being in all Greeke copies without exception 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hic calix nouum testamentum in sanguine meo qui vz. calix pro vobis funditur that is This Cup being the new Testament in my bloud which vz. Cup is shed for you This is the true translation in that the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must of necessity agree in all Greeke cōstruction with the Greeke substantiue signifying the (i) vbi supra Cup and not with the Greeke substantiue the bloud it being of a different case from it Now Beza seing that by the construction of the Greeke it followeth that the Cup was shed for vs meaning therby the thing contained in the Cup but wine was not shed for vs but the bloud of our Sauiour Therfore his bloud was in the Cup when he sayd these words of consecration Beza (i) vbi supra I say foreseing this ineuitable illation pronounceth plainly that the Greeke text is corrupted meaning therby all Greeke Editions that euer were in his tyme and the Greeke word forcing this construction crept out of the margent into the text so making these words meere surreptitious And this now may suffice to shew that the Greeke Originall is neyther so absolutely authenticall in it selfe nor at least so acknowledged by our Aduersaries as that all other translations or doubts rysing in points of fayth may infallibly be tryed therby 7. Now to reflect somewhat vpon our argument drawne from the acknowledged corruptions of the Originalls of both the Testaments How can our Aduersaries with any shew of common vnderstanding pretend the Scriptures to be the only iudge with them when by their owne confessions they haue no true and authenticall Originall of such bookes only as themselues ioyntly acknowledge for Scripture What can our Aduersaries reply hereto Will they answere that such corruptions wherwith the Originalls are stained do happen only in such places as are not controuersiall and therfore the lesse materiall but that al those passages texts
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aximam in inferno shalt not leaue my soule in hell The ProtestaÌ„ts do read Thou shalt not leaue my soule in the graue they meaning heere by the word Soule Life or Person teaching hereby that Christ was not at all in hell and consequently that he did not deliuer the Patriarches from thence but only in the graue Now that this translation doth differ from the translation of the 70. it is most manifest chiefly by the signification of the two Greeke words vsed by the 70. in this translation to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying anima the soule and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infernus hell a thing so cleare that Beza first translating this text as the Protestants doe now read did after through the apparant falshood therof leaue the sayd translation and insteed therof read with the Septuagint Thou shalt not leaue my soule in hell I will not much dwell vpon in shewing the falshood of the Protestantes translation therin neyther in the other texts following my meaning only being to shew how they taxe the 70. translation for erroneous and consequently that they cannot pretend to examine and defyne by it all doubts arysing in fayth and religion 3. The Septuagint do in like sort translate I haue (c) Psal 118. inclined my heart to keepe thy iustifications or commandements for reward The Greeke words vsed by theÌ„ for the words for reward being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying euen by the acknowledgment of all Grecians propter retributionem for reward Yet because this place so translated by the 70. might seeme to imply merit of workes therfore our Aduersaries in regard of the Hebrewes ambiguity herein do translate thus I haue inclined my hart to fulfill the statutes alwayes euen to the end the Hebrew words signifying indifferently eyther for reward or otherwise to the end 4. The famous place out of Daniel (d) Dan. cap. 4. to the King vz. Redeeme thy sinnes with Almes being so truly literally out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elâ—emosynis redime of the Septuagint translated Yet our Aduersaries controuling them herein do translate thus Breake of thy sinnes by righteousnes for seing the Hebrew doth affoard both significations they for the auoyding the Doctrine of Satisfaction haue made choice of this other construction 5. Againe where the Septuagint do read (e) Psalm 138. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thy friends ô God are become exceeding honorable their princedome is exceedingly streÌ„gthned Yet because this place seemes in their opinion to countenance ouermuch the blessed soules in heauen whose honours our Sectaries can hardly brooke therfore they leauing the 70. translation herein do pick out of the Hebrew another translation reading thus in their bibles How deare are thy Counsells or thoughts to me ô God o how great is the summe of them 6. Now heere it is to be remembred that our Aduersaries in these and many other places which to auoyd tediousnes I omit do not condemne the present Greeke of the old TestameÌ„t as corrupted much differing froÌ„ the Greeke translation therof made by the Septuagint themselues though to the scope and end of our alledging of the translations it is all one but they acknowledge this present Greeke translation to be that translation made by the sayd Septuagint without any change or alteration And yet we see they charge it as false in such places wher the ambiguity of the Hebrew may minister any other reading more sutable to their fayth and Doctrine So far then are our Aduersaries of from granting that all differeÌ„ces of fayth and religioÌ„ ought to be decyded by the Scripture of the old Testament speaking of such poynts only as may receaue their proofes from thence as now we find it translated in Greeke by the Septuagint That the Protestantes reiect the vulgar Latin Translation CHAP. V. THOVGH the vulgar TranslatioÌ„ of the whole Bible hath bene reuerenced aboue all other Translations for the space of more then a thousand yeares since the Church during so many ages vsed it only the great respect had euer therto also appearing from the testimonies of S. Austin (a) l. 18. Ciuit Dei c. 42. epist 10. ad Hieronym S. Gregory (b) lib. 20. moral c. 24. S. Isidore (c) lib. 6. Etymol cap. 5. and diuers other auncient Fathers Notwithstanding our Aduersaries do altogether and ioyntly disclaime from it because they say it fauours to much the Papists And therfore we find it absolutely condemned and wrytten against by Caluin (d) l. aduers CoÌ„cil Trident. Chemnitius (e) Exam. Concil Trident. Titelmanus Heshusius as also generally reiected by our English Protestants in so much as I hould it but lost labour to insist in further proofe hereof 2. Now then the Translation of S. Hierome being by them discarded and no other ancient and authenticall translation now extant which they allow for the defining therby of matters in religion what course will they take herein No doubt they will follow some one translation of their owne men which they with generall coÌ„sent acknowledge to be most true sincere and answerable to the meaning of the holy Ghost Nothing lesse For here begins the Aegiptian (g) Isa 19. to fight against the Aegiptian (f) De sexceÌ„tis errorib PoÌ„tific And here is now figured out the Confusion of Babylon since among so many translations of the holy Scripture being made by our Aduersaries they shall not be able to shew any one which their owne men do not traduce as false erroneous and hereticall Which thing shall euidently appeare in the Chapters following Thus our Aduersaries like lines meeting in a poynt and then instantly breaking of haue no sooner iumped together to condemne all former Translations but that preseÌ„tly they dissent among themselues in appruoing or reiecting their owne Translations That the Protestantes do condemne all the chiefe Translations of their owne brethren as false and erroneous CAAP. VI. TO vndertake the setting downe of all such places as in our Aduersaries seueral translations are charged with corruption by some of their owne brethren were ouer laboursome and not much needfull and therfore in this Ocean and sea of their owne dissentions wherin we find drowned the credit of euery particular translatioÌ„ made by any of them I will saile by a more narrow Cut to wit I wil deliuer only the iudgments of theyr owne brethren passed vpon euery such translatioÌ„ of theirs our English translations only excepted wherupon I wil stay the longer and inlarge my discourse more particularly for some peculiar reasons 2. To begin then with Luther who translated the holy Scripture would all the Protestants thinke you rely vpon that translation you shall therfore heare Zuinglius (a) lib. de Sacram. f. 412. See him also respons ad Confess Tugurinorum his Encomion and prayse both of him and his translation styling him A foule corrupter and horrible falsisier of Gods word one that followed the
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
by the works of the law In both which places the very answere is expressed which the Catholikes are accustomed to make to such arguments since in the sayd testimonies it is set down so we Catholikes do teach that the works of the law of Moyses and consequently all others done meerely by nature and freewill without the fayth spirit and grace of Christ can in no sort iustify a man vpon which expresse distinction of works in the Scripture it selfe it followeth that all other places which through a naked resemblance of words may seeme to make more literally for the Protestants in this poynt then these alledged are to be expounded by these former texts since the holy Ghost caÌ„not set downe contrary and repugnant Doctrines 11. For defence of Traditions we vsually alledge that place of the Thessalonians (a) 2. c. 2. Brethren hold the traditions which you haue receaued whether it be by word or by Epistle Wher we see that the Apostles words do immediatly and necessarily without any helpe of strained consequences imply a diuision or partition of his Doctrine which no doubt was Gods word And that part therof was deliuered to the Thessalonians by his Epistle the rest by word of mouth only Which Text containes the very conclusion of the Catholikes Doctrine to wit that the Euangelists and Apostles did not wryte all things touching Christian fayth but deliuered part therof only by preaching or by some other such like instruction Now our Aduersaries to confront this text and the Doctrine deriued thence are acccustomed to obiect the words of S. Paul (b) Galat. 1. Sed licet nos c. But if we or an Angell from heauen euangelize to you besides that we haue euangelized be he anathema In which words they suppose two things and both false before they can square this text to their purpose 12. First that the word Euangelizare doth include only the wrytten word and not verbum traditum the word left by Tradition which is implicitly the matter in question and as the Sophisters call it Petitio principij Secondly that the Latin word praeter being in this text hath reference to euery thing which is not expresly set down in Scripture since indeed it here signifieth as much as contra meaning therby all Doctrine contrary to the Doctrine already deliuered by the Apostles for otherwise S. Iohn should haue had the Anathema pronounced against him for wryting of the Apocalips after this Epistle of S. Paul was wrytten So farre distant is this text from falling directly and plainly vpon the impugning of Traditions since from such false supposalls as granted they draw their Illation against the Catholike Doctrine therof 13. In like sort they alledge that saying of the Apostle to Timothy All Scripture (c) 2. c. 3. inspired of God is profitable to teach to argue to correct to instructe in iustice thaâ— the man of God may be perfect instructed to euery good worke Where we see that this text as well as the former is so farre froÌ„ pressing the Doctrine of Traditions immediatly and without any helpe of a secondary inference as that it doth not so much as once make mention of Traditions at all either in word or sense neyther can any thing be racked against vs from thence vntill it be first proued which neuer shal be that the word vtilis signifyeth sufficient and because a thing is profitable and conduceth to another thing or end it therfore is sufficient alone of it selfe for the obtayning therof 14. Lastly they bring forth certaine places (d) Math. 15. Galat. 1. Coloss 2. which do particularly condemne certayne pernicious and friuolous Traditions of the Iewes and the Traditions which the Catholikes do teach to haue bene deriued from our Sauiour and his Apostles be all one So impertinently do our Aduersaries alledge these and such like places against our Doctrine of Traditions 15. Concerning prayer for the dead what can be more cleare perspicuous for proofe therof then those words alledged out of the Machabees (e) 2. c. 1. a testimony so euident as that I cannot forbeare it though it impugne my former method Sancta ergo salubris est cogitatio c. It is therfore a holy and heathfull cogitation to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sinnes Which place we see doth literally expresly contayne the very conclusion of the Catholike Doctrine therin and which words proceeded vpon the practise of Iudas Machabeus who sent a summe of money vnto Ierusalem to procure sacrifices to be performed for the spirituall reliefe and ease of his dead souldiers I know that our Sectaries do expunge out of the Canon of Scripture this booke as Apocryphall yet they are to remember that it is reckoned among other diuine and vndoubted bookes of Scripture by the third Councell of Carthage (f) Can. 47. by Innocentius (g) Epist ad Exuperium the first and by S. Austin himselfe who thus (h) l 18. de Ciuit. Dei c. 36. sayth Libros Machabeorum c. The bookes of the Machabees are acknowledged by the Christians for Canonicall not by the Iewes 16. Now the chiefest places which our Aduersaries do obiect herein are among others such as being intended of the generall resurrection of the Iust are calumniously wrested by them to the particular tyme of ech vertuous mans death Thus they alledge that sayng of the Psalmist (i) Psalm 126. Cùm dederit dilectis suis somnum ecce haereditas Domini as also that place of the Apocalips (k) 14. Beatiqui in Domino moriuntur c. Blessed are they which dye in the Lord from henceforth now sayth the spirit that they rest from their labours for their workes follow them And as concerning this later place Saint Iohn throughout his whole Chapter speaketh of the later iudgment and therfore except the Protestants do first coÌ„found the particular tymes of mens deaths with the tyme of the general iudgment they can draw nothing from hence in denyall of purgatory adde to this that some of the Fathers as shal be shewed hereafter do interpret this text of martyrs only who neuer suffer any paynes in Purgatorie 17. They also produce to the same end the place in Ecclesiastes (l) â—1 Si occiderit lignum ad Austrum c. If the tree shall fall towardes the Souht or towardes the North it shal be in that place where it did fall The meaning of which passage being deliuered in Metaphors or Allegories doth the more hardly conuince any thing since the sense in regard therof appeares the more doubtfull Notwithstanding the common exposition of this place is that euery man eyther dyes in state of grace vnder which state are also vnderstood those which come to Purgatory and so falleth towards the South wherby is meant Heauen or in the state of mortall sinne and then falleth towards the North to wit into hell And whosoeuer dyeth in eyther of
these states shal for euer remaine in the same And thus we see how farre of the texts obiected by our Aduersaries are from conuincing plainly literally and without any strained deductions the Doctrine of Purgatory or Prayer for the dead 18. Lastly to omit the like examples of diuers other Controuersies the Catholikes do produce for proofe of Euangelicall Counsells that plaine saying of our Sauiour (m) Math. 19. Sunt Eunuchi c. There are Eunuchs who haue gelded themselues for the kingdome of heauen Which words contayning no precept are so cleare and direct in proofe of those Counsells as that our Aduersaries (n) Peter Martyr l. de caelib votis therby to auoyd the force of them are constrained to say that by the words For the kingdome of heauen is figuratiuely meant for the more speady preaching of the Ghospell So ridiculous far fetcht is this their answere 19. As cleare also are those other wordes of Christ spoken to the yong man for confirmation of the said Doctrine being taken literally plainly vz. Si (o) Math. 19. vis perfectus esse c. If thou wilt be perfect Go and sell all and follow me and thou shalt haue a treasure in heauen Which text as also the former doth immediatly and primatiuely without any secondary deductions touch and proue the Doctrine it selfe of Euangelicall Counsells 20. Now against the sayd Doctrine they vsually obiect diuers passages (p) Math 22. Marc. 12. Luc. 10. of Scripture where we are cōmanded to loue God with all our soule and withal our strength where we fynd that what is collected is by this supposition to wit that the phrases Toto corde tota anima do signify all our endeauour possibly in the highest degree which being false they heerupon infer that there is nothing which is good left vncommanded to be done then they conclude there is no place for Euāgelical Coūsells which are distinguished against precepts Now what toto corde tota anima or totis viribus do signify shall appeare in the Chapter following 21. To the same purpose they detort those words of our Sauiour (g) Luc. 17. Cùm feceritis haec omina c. When you haue done all these thinges which are commanded you say we are vnprofitable seruants we haue done that which we ought to doe Which place as it is manifest in it immediate sense doth not touch the Doctrine of Euangelicall Counsells besydes the very words themselues do expresly shew that it cannot be applyed to our Aduersaries sense and meaning since our Sauiour speaketh precisely of those things which are commanded to be done where the Catholikes doe teach that nothing which is particularly commanded in Gods word is an Euangelicall Counsell 22. Now by these few example set down of the places alledged out of Gods holy word both by the Catholikes and Protestants we may make a coniecture of the rest wherin as I sayd before we see the great disparity betwene the seuerall kinds of those texts Seing that if we grant the literall ordinary facill and most naturall sense of the testimonies vrged by Catholikes we necessarily grant the conclusion it selfe of that Doctrine for which they are vrged since they do touch immediatly without any ambages or borrowed supposalls the primary and radicall poynt or question controuerted betwene vs and the Protestants wheras our Aduersaries testimonies out of the sayd Scriptures though they were granted them in their own sense cōstructiō yet they presently force not the proofes of their assertions and the reason her of is because they fall not directly vpon the question it selfe but only by meanes of their supposed inferences and deductions and then sometimes they but concerne the māner or some other circumstance therof which being only accessory and subsequēt euen among Catholike Deuines is holden indifferent and disputable 23. Thus we see that these men though they be much verbally conuersant with the Scripture yet for any conuincing proofes deduced by them from thence they are most needy therin not much vnlike vnto those who haue the stamping or coyning of siluer and gold who though great store therof come through their handes yet commonly are poore as hauing no true interest in any part of the same That the textes of Scripture are expounded by the Fathers in the same sense in the which they are alledged by Catholikes for proofe of their Doctrine and fayth CHAP. IX IT being made cleare in the precedent chapter that the texts of holy Scripture alledged by the Catholiks for proofe of their faith are more literall perspicuous as also do touch more directly and punctually the doubts for which they are vrged then any cōtrary passages or places therof obiected by our Aduersaries It now remaineth that we shew two things first that the ancient Fathers haue in their wrytings and commētaries euer interpreted the sayd former texts and others of like nature vrged by vs euen in the same sense and meaning which we do for the iustifying of our Catholike Doctrine Secondly that they haue deliuered a different construction from our Aduersaries of those principall texts which they now produce against vs so as according to the Fathers expositions of the sayd places which agree with the Catholikes construction therof they do nothing at all impugne our Religion Both which poynts being once made good do mightily preiudice our Sectaries For what probability I might say possibility can there be conceaued to the contrary but that the Fathers did interprete both the sayd sorts of texts I meane of such as are produced eyther by vs or our Aduersaries according to the intendment of the holy Ghost or at least were much aduantaged aboue the Nouellistes of these dayes for the true construction therof When we consider that they were men of admirable vertue and piety of great and extraordinary learning such as were not interessed our in Cōtrouersies as neither hauing then enemies to crosse their present Doctrine except it were some one or other confessed Heretike nor yet knowing what doubts in fayth might aryse in after ages but especially when we call to mynd the tymes wherin they liued to with euen then when by our Aduersaries confessions the Church of God of which they were the graue and reuerend Pastours and Doctours had in no one poynt departed from the Doctrine deliuered by our Sauiour and his Apostles So litle reason we find hath our Nouellist to make his sole refuge to Gods sacred word were it not therby to auoyde the ordinary and vsuall tryall drawne from all other proofes or testimonies whatsoeuer and finally to make himselfe sole iudge of the sayd word 2. But to begin with some chiefest of those testimonies of Scripture which the Catholikes are accustomed to alledge reseruing the textes obiected by our Aduersaries to the next Chapter where I intend to restraine my selfe only to some few texts of euery maine Controuersy both because to examine al the places of euery
1. Ambrose (x) Hom. 35. in Gen. Chrysostome (y) Epist ad Marcel Ierome (z) Epist. 95. ad Innocent Pap. Austin (a) Dialog cū Tripho and others 29. A second conuincing testimony in proofe of the sacrifice of the Masse is takē out of Malachy in these words Non est mihi voluntas in vobis dicit Dominus Exercituum c. I haue not a mynd or will in you sayth the Lord of hostes and I will not take any guift from your hand for from the rising of the sunne vnto the setting therof my name is great among the Gentles and in euery place is sacrified and offered to my name a cleane oblation because my name is great among the Gentils saith the Lord of hostes Which text containeth a prophesy of the sacrifice which shal be offered to God by the Gentils after their conuersion to Christian religion And because thus far the Protestants do acknowledge they therfore interprete this (b) l. 4. c. 32. place of spirituall sacrifices to wit prayers thankesgiuings and such like which the elect and faythfull offer vp to God But the Catholikes do expound this sayd place of Malachy of a Sacrifice as it is truly and properly taken to wit of the sacrifice of the Eucharist And in this particular sense they find this prophesy expounded by Iustinus (c) l. 3. contra Marc. Martyr who thus plainly saith De nostris gentium c. Of our sacrifices of Gentils that is of the bread and Cup of the Eucharist Malachias did then speake c. By Ireneus (d) l. cont Iudaeos c. c. 16. by Tertullian (e) In Cōment Psal 95. by Cypriā by Chrysostome by Ierome (h) In Cōment Malach finally by S. Austin (i) l. 1. contra aduers leg prophet c. 20. l. 18. de Ciuit. Dei c. 36. al which Fathers do directly in plaine words expoūd this prophesy of Malachy of the sacrifice of the masse 30. I could exemplify in many more textes both of these articles and of others the Fathers like agrement with the Catholiks in expounding such passages of Scripture as we at this day do alledge in warrant of our religion But the seformer examples being of the chiefest cōtrouersies and of the most markable textes obiected by vs may seeme as a scantling wherby to measure the Fathers mynd and inclination in interpreting of all such others And now by this which hath bene already set downe we may gather how much our Aduersaries are en dangered by seking to determine all controuersies betwene vs and them only by the wrytten Word if therein they would stand to the iugdgment of the auncient Fathers whose great distāce of a thousād yeares at least is the reasō belike why they appeare so litle in the eyes of these our Sectaries who we see do not only beleeue the Doctrine answerable to the Catholikes expositions of the former texts but thēselues do expound the sayd texts authorities as we do and from their owne such constructions do deryue and iustify their faith and Doctrine equally maintayned by vs both so as those wordes of Tertullian (p) lib. de pudicitia doe rightly concerne the Fathers and vs Concorporauit nos scriptura diuina literae ipsae glutina nostra sunt So hard indeed so impossible it is to deuyde the thred euenly betwene the Fathers and vs but that we both must ioyntly participate eyther of interpreting the Scripture according to the intended sense of the holy Ghost or else of most fowly deprauing and adulterating the same since if we Catholikes erre therein we see how iustly we may insimulate the Fathers within our sayd errour And yet our Aduersaries see the subtilty of Heresy do peremptory call the sayd poynts of fayth and Doctrine deduced out of the former constructions of Scripture Antichristian and damnable heresies as they are maintayned by vs Catholikes which in the Fathers they allieuate and gentle by tearming them but Naeuos and Naeuia idle and inconsiderate eyther heresies in both or but spots and blemishes in both for it is the Doctrine which denominates the person not the person the Doctrine Yet neyther dare they iustify since the one would discouer their open dangerous breach with the Fathers the other an ouer fauorable extenuation of our religion both an acknowledmēt of their ouer sight in retracting that in the end which hitherto they haue so pertinaciously auerred But to recall my selfe and to hastō to the next Chapter 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 their expositions of them do commonly agree with ours CHAP. X. NOw after we haue shewed that the Fathers do ioyne with vs Catholikes in their expositions of the chiefest and most conuincing textes which we are accustomed to alledge for warrant of our Doctrine it followeth according to our former designe that we in like sort do demonstrate that the Fathers do deliuer farre differēt cōstructions and for the most part the same with vs Catholikes of the principall and mayne passages of Scripture obiected against vs from that sense and meaning wherin our Aduersaries do vrge them so as it is most euident that in the sayd Fathers iudgment which in all reason is to ouerballance the priuate spirit of any Sectary whatsoeuer no one such text doth preiudice our Catholike faith at all 2. And to begin The Protestantes greatest argument against the Supremacy of S. Peter is taken frō S. Pauls cōtradicting of him as we read in the Epistle to the Galathians (a) cap. 2. and as it is aboue touched yet we fynd that the Fathers in the exposition of this place do so prayse the humility of S. Peter therein as that they take occasion therby to intimate his superiority ouer all the other Apostles See S. Cyprian (b) Epist. ad Quintū S. Gregory (c) Hom. 18. in Ezech S. Austin (d) Epist 19. ad Hieronym who thus wryteth of this point Rarius sanctius exemplum Petrus c. Peter hath left a more rare and holy example to his successours then Paul hath done since by that of Peters they are taught not to disdaine to be corrected by their inferiours wheras by the other of Paules the inferiours are emboldned to resist their superiours in a charitable manner for the defence of truth Thus farre S. Austin who we see by the commenting of this place doth strengthen and fortify the Doctrine of Peters Primacy 3. To proue that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist they obiect those words in the Apocalips where it is said that the whore of Babylon shall sit on that Citty which hath seauen hils to wit Rome Now we find that such Fathers as do interprete this place of Rome doe meane therby Rome in the tyme of the heathen Emperours then worshipping Idols
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