or faith and religion in general are warranted by the infallible authority of the Church which infallible authority is proued commended to vs by the holy Scripture And thus on the one syde the Scripture warranting the Churches authority and on the other the Church setting downe and approuing the true sense of the Scripture it may hereupon be iustly sayd that both these I meane the Church and the Scripture do interchangeably receaue their proofe out of the proofe they giue Therfore all impertinencyes layd aside the touch of the question heere between our Aduersaryes and vs resteth in this Whether all thinges which necessarily belong to religion are so fully and abundantly deliuered in the Scripture as that they are either expresly contained therein or els without the Churches authority interposed they may particulerly be necessarily deduced from the Scripture and so in regard heerof whether the Scripture is to become the only Iudge of such artiâ—les or no. In which question we hould as is sayd the negatiue parte but our Aduersaryes the affirmatiue So faire different in opinion are our Sectaryes from the iudgment of Vincentius Lyrinensis touching the interposition of the Churches authority in the exposition of Scripture who thus writeth (d) In suo Commonitorio heerof Multum necesse est c. It is very needfull in regard of so many errours proceeding from the misinterpretation of Scripture that the line of Propheticall and Apostolicall exposition should be directed according to the rule of the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense 7. Now that the Scripture is not the Iudge of Controuersyes in the sense aboue set downe shal be proued two wayes First Categoricè and absolutly that so it is not nor cannot be which shall appeare in the first part of this Treatise Secondly Hypthetice and of a supposall that though the Scripture as considered in it selfe were this Iudge yet cannot our Protestant Aduersaryes iustly vrge it or pretend it for the same which shal be the subiect demonstrated and made good in the second part heereof 8. Yet before I enter into any particuler dispute therof I intend to discouer and lay open the weaknes of one mayne retraite or sanctuary whereunto our Aduersaryes are accustomed to fly in their maintayning the Scripture for Iudge for when they are pressed with the abstruse difficultyes found in the Scripture in regard of the seueral obtruded interpretations of it and doubtfulnes of the true meaning of the Holy Ghost therein their common refuge then they make to the priuate spirit which spirit D. Whitaker (e) Controu 1. q. 5. cap. 3. â—1 Controu 1. q. 2. cap. 3. thus speciously entitles An inward perswasion of truth from the Holy Ghost in the secret closets of the belieuers hart This spirit say they infallibly instructeth them in the true vnderstanding of the Scripture so as by the assistance heerof they are enabled to picke out among so many false constructions the true and vndoubted construction and according to the same to determine and iudge the point or Controuersy for which such passages of Scripture are produced by them and thus the end of all is that the priuate spirit interpreting the Scripture is to be the sole and supreme Iudge of al Controuersies of fayth Now this their chiefe hold or strength being indeed their last most despayring euasion therby to decline the authority of the Church I will ruinate and ouerthrow in the next Chapter following which Chapter may serue as certaine Prolegomena to the ensuing Treatise The force of this their refuge I will proue to be most vncertaine yea false and erroneous and this first from Scripture and secondly from force and weight of naturall reason That the priuate spirit is not infallibly assured of truly interpreting the Scripture proued out of the Scripture and from naturall reason CHAP. II. IF we will take a view of what is sayd in Gods Word concerning this point we shal find it most plentifull in absolutly denying this power of iudging or interpreting to belong to the priuate spirit And first what can be more pregnantly sayd to conuince this phantasy then those wordes of the (f) 1. Cor. 1. Apostle To one is giuen by the spirit the word of wisedome to another the word of knowledge according to the same spirit c. to another Prophesy and to another interpretation of tongues Where we see that the Apostle plainly and as it were of purpose refelleth this doctrine since he teacheth that the guift of interpreting the Scripture is not giuen to all the faythfull contrary to the practise and experience of our English Puritanes who how ignorant soeuer they be presuming that they are of the number of the faythfull and elect do most confidently vaunt of the guift of expounding the Scriptures 2. And that we may better heere obserue how the two chiefe Apostles do second one the other in this question I will alledge S. Peters owne words as perspicuous and cleare for our purpose as may be who (g) 2. Pet 1. Omnis prophetiâ— Scripturae propriâ— interpretatione non fit sayth No prophesy of the Scripture is made by any priuate interpretation In both which places and texts by the word Prophesy is meant as our Aduersaries do acknowledge the true vnderstanding and interpreting of the holy Scriptures 3. Another place we will produce out of S. Iohn (h) â— Ioan 4. who saith thus Dearly beloued belieue not euery spirit but try the spirites if they be of God By which wordes we are taught that the spirit of others are to be examined if they proceed from God or not This admonition cannot be vnderstood of the spirit of the whole Church since then it should follow that there should be none left to try the said spirit of the Church euery particuler man being included therin If then it is to be vnderstood of priuate meÌ„ as of necessity it must it followeth that a priuate spirit cannot be this Iudge since it selfe is to vndergoe by the former text the iudgement and examination of some other If it be replyed that the Scripture is to examine this spirit this auayleth nothing especially if the poynt wherin the priuat spirit doth exercise it selfe be of the sense and meaning of the Scripture Therfore it remaineth that the spirit be tryed by the coÌ„formity which it beareth to those whom it is certaine to haue the true spirit indeed and this is the whole Church of God it selfe being the pillar (i) Tim. c. 3. and foundation of truth A poynt so cleare that Luther (k) Lib. de potestate Papae conuinced by euidency of the truth is forced to say De nullo priuato homine certisumus c. We are not certaine of any priuat person whether he hath the reuelation of the father or no meaning hereby the reuelation of the sense of the Scripture but that the Church hath it we ought not to doubt What answeres now will our Aduersaries bring to the
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
much out of the Scriptures themselues which point since it includeth within it selfe by necessary illation this question of the Scriptures being Iudge it shal be more fully discussed in the Chapter following Now of this poynt as also of the former belieued without the wrytten word warranting them we may say Harum (*) Tertull. de corona â—ilitis disciplâ—narum Traditio tibi praetenditur auctrix Consuetudo confirmatrix Fides obseruatrix 16. The last argument heere vrged for the refelling of our aduersaries Doctrine herein may be taken from the practise of both the auncient moderne heretickes who euer for the warranting of their heresies heresies I meane euen in the iudgment of our aduersaries haue euer fled to the Scriptures and haue most seriously taught therby to auoyde the authority of the Church that the Scriptures alone ought to Iudge defyne al doubtes of Fayth whatsoeuer And therfore to the end that the reader may see what wicked heresies haue bene proseminated and haue sprung from this so false and hereticall a principle I will exemplify this one point somewhat at large in a Chapter following there shewing how many diuelish heresies haue bene countenanced by their Patrones with the misapplyed testimonies and authorities of the holy Scriptures which abuse of the Scriptures well sheweth that the Doctrine hereof neuer proceeded from God (l) Tertull. de fuga in persecut Quid diuinum non bonum quid bonum non diuinum That it cannot be determined to vs by Scripture that there is any Scripture or Gods word at all CAAP. XI FOR the more particuler handling of this poynt I am to demaund of our aduersaries these three things following which are as it were the three steps wherby we ryse to the graduall difficulties of this question heere intreated of First how they can proue out of Scripture the particuler Ghospell of S. Marke or of any Euangelist to be the same without all corruption which the sayd Marke or the other did wryte considering that it is granted euen by our aduersaries that diuers parcels of the Scriptures haue bene fouly corrupted and mangled by the Additions Translations and other such like deprauations of the auncient heretikes Secondly if it be granted them that any one Ghospell or other part of Scripture is the very same vntoucht and vndefiled as the authour therof did first wryte it yet if we should demand of them how the Scripture can assure and determine this poynt to wit that such a Ghospell as for example that of S. Marke is true and Canonicall Scripture and yet that the obtruded Ghospell of S. Thomas is a false prophane wryting since both these Ghospells haue indifferently in the beginning their seuerall prefixed titles the one but of an EuaÌ„gelist yet accepted the other euen of an Apostle but reiected what could they say Thirdly if it were agreed vpoÌ„ which were the particular books which maks vp the CanoÌ„ of Scripture yet if any prophan Atheist should arriue to that height of impiety as to deny flatly that ther were any such diuine wrytinges at all as to be counted Gods sacred word or Scripture how could our Aduersaries conuince him herein by the Scripture it selfe It were idle for them to reply that the Scripture telleth him that the bookes of the Prophets and the Apostles are diuine wrytinges since the Atheist would not belieue the Scripture so saying vntill it were proued to him which cannot be out of the Scripture that this Scripture affirming so much is Scripture that is a diuine supernaturall and sacred wryting no more then at this present we Christians belieue that the Iewes Thalmud is diuine Scripture though it be countenaÌ„ced with the title of Gods vndoubted word 2. This poynt so presseth our Aduersaries that diuers of them such as are of no meane ranke haue bene forced to confesse that it cannot be proued out of Scripture that there is any Scripture at all neyther that this Ghospell is true that forged nor lastly that we now enioy any one or other parcell of Scripture free from all manner of corruption and as the Prophet Euangelist or Apostle guided by the holy Ghost did first pen it Hence it is that Chemnitius (a) ExameÌ„ Concil Trident. intreating of Tradition Brentius (b) In prolegomenis do teach that this one sole vnwrytten Tradition remayneth in the Church of God to wit that there are certaine diuine wrytings or Scriptures But Hooker (c) In his treatise of Ecclesiasticall policy in treating of this poynt passeth on further and iumpeth with vs in the reason thereof for thus he sayth Of thinges necessary the very chiefest is to know what bookes we are bound to esteeme holy which poynt is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And then afterwardes he warranteth his Doctrine with this reason For if any bookes of Scripture did giue testimony vnto all yet still that Scripture which giueth credit vnto the rest would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it neyther could we euer come to any pause wheron to rest our assurance this way so that vnles besides Scripture there were something which might assure vs that we do well we could not thinke we do well no not in being assured that Scripture is a sacred and holy rule of weldoing So farre we see this learned Protestant whose calamity is the more to be deplored in that retayning diuers Catholike grounds he forbare to build a fayth answere able therto was from making the Scripture to be the sole iudge and vmpier of all articles of Fayth since by his Doctrine the Scripture could not determine out of itselfe that there is any Scripture at all which is the Basis or foundation of the rest by our aduersaryes owne assertions 3. Others of our aduersaries who will not acknowledge the truth in this point labour to salue the matter with diuers weake and insufficient answeres And first we find that Caluin (d) l. 1. Instit c. 7. §. 1. 2. sayth That the true and holy Scriptures are discerned from the false and prophane with the same facility that light is discerned from darknes and sweetnes from bitternes Which answere if it were true how came it to passe then that Luther reiecteth the Epistle of S. Iames which Caluin himselfe reuerenceth as Apostolicall both of them being able to discerne the materiall light from darknes the sweet from sower 4. The same Caluin whom our more moderne Sectaries in most points do follow as beasts follow the first of their heard affirmeth also That the maiesty voice of God doth so present it self to vs in the sacred Scriptures as that it secureth vs of the infallible truth therof Against which first I vrge that the Maiesty voyce of God speaking in the Scripture is not distinguished froÌ„ the Scripture it self but is the same eueÌ„ as the CoÌ„mandemeÌ„t of a Prince expressed in his law is the same which his law
far as that he is not ashamed to affirme (b) Ibidem titul de libris veter is noui Testam That the argument therof is a meere fiction inuented only for the setting downe of a true and liuely example of patience 6. In like sort or rather a more scoffing manner he sayth (c) Ibidem titul de lib. veteris noui Testam to debase therby the authority of the wryter that the booke intituled Ecclesiastes seemes to him to ryde without spurrs or bootes only with bare stockinges though the sayd booke is generally acknowledged by the Caluinistes With such scurrilous insolency Heresy is euer accustomed to vent it selfe forth against Gods saered word and truth 7. The booke of the Canticles which is the true portraiture or delineatioÌ„ of the church or according to some of our blessed Lady or after others of a perfect soule not contaminated or defyled with the pitch of mortall sin This booke Castalio (d) Castal in translat Latin suorum bibliorum defends to containe only matter of sensuall or wanton loue and for the same he is deeply charged and reprehended euen by Beza (e) Beza praefatione in Iosue himselfe 8. The booke of Baruch is in like manner condemned as Apocryphall by Caluin and Chemnitius (g) In Exam 4. sess CoÌ„cil Trident. though acknowledged for Canonicall by most of our other Aduersaries which to be true appeareth in that we do not find in their wrytinges and the same may be sayd for the acknowledgment (f) l. 3. Instit c. 20. §. 8. of the former bookes condemned by some others of their brethren that it was reiected by them And thus much concerning the parcells of the old Testament Now if we will cast our eyes vpon our Aduersaries behauiour towards the new Testament we shall fynd their disagreements therin no lesse if not greater then they were in their approbation or condemnation of the bookes of the old Testament 9. And first touching the Euangelistes we read that Luther (h) Praefat in nou Testamen lib. de Scripturae Ecclesiae authorit c. 3. in septicipite c. 5. vt Cocleus notat as soone as became a Protestant so instantly doth the forsaking of Gods holy word accompany the forsaking of his holy Church of our foure Ghospells would at one blow cut away three affirming that the Ghospell of S. Iohn is the only fayre and true Ghospell and by infinite degrees to be preferred before the other three adding withall that the generall opinion of the being of the foure Gospells is to be abolished potesting further that himselfe giueth more reuerence and respect to the Epistles of Saint Paul and Peter then to the other three Euangelistes Wherby we may clearly see that he condemneth the exposition of al Antiquity interpreting that the foure Euangelistes were figured in the foure beasts shewed to (i) Apoc. cap. 4. S. Iohn Luther (k) Prolego epist ad Hebr. also reiecteth the Epistle to the Hebrews affirming it neyther to be Saint Pauls nor any of the Apostles since it contayneth sayth he certaine things contrary to the Apostolical Doctrine With Luther in condemning this Epistle do agree Brentius (l) Confess VVittemberg c. de sacra Scriptura Chemnitius (m) Exam 4 sess Concil Trident. and the Magdeburgenses (n) Cent. l. â— c. 4. col 55. Yet Caluin (o) Instit impressa anno 1554. c. 8. § 216. acknowledgeth it to be a true Apostolical Epistle and condemneth the Lutheranes for reiecting of it In like sort it is receaued by the Caluinist Ministers (p) Confess Pissiacens artic 3. for Canonicall in one of their publike Confessions as also by the present Church of England 10. The epistle of S. Iames is denyed to be Canonicall by Luther (q) In prolego huius epist who sayth that it is straminea epistola an epistle of straw and vnworthy altogether an Apostolicall spirit In like sort it is condemned by Brentius Chemnitius and the Magdeburgenses as appeareth out of the places of their writings alledged afore For the disproof of the Epistle to the Hebrews Erasmus for the Catholikes do disclaime from him as any of theirs sayth of this Epistle that it doth not tast of any Apostolicall grauity Yet Caluin and the Church of England acknowledge it as a parcell of Canonicall Scripture 11. Doth not (r) Annotat in hanc epist Luther Brentius Chemnitius and the Centuristes in the places aboue alledged condemne in like manner the Epistle of Iude and the second Epistle of Peter and of the second and third of Iohn rested they not doubtfull And Erasmus (s) Prolego ad haÌ„c epist. sayth plainly that the second and third Epistle of Iohn are not be taken as his Epistles but as written by some other man Neuertheles Caluin receaueth all the sayd Epistles and the Caluinist ministers as appeareth in their foresaid Confession (t) Confession Pissiacens art 3. So doth also the Church of England Of whose acknowledgment of all the former bookes condemned by Luther see the Bible printed anno 1595. and also the last edition 12. To conclude to come to the Apocalips which Dionysius (u) Eccles Hierarch cap 3. doth call arcanam mysticam visionem dilecti discipuli The secret and misticall vision of the beloued disciple of our Lord Luther (x) â—n prolego huius lib. professeth openly that he doth not acknowledge this booke to be eyther Propheticall or Apostolicall Brentius (y) Locis vbi supra and Chemnitus subscribe to Luther therin whose condemnation of this Booke we do lesse maruell at since it is not strange if the Eagle in his high to wring flight therin did so lessen his shape as that he could not be discerned by their fleshly and sensuall eyes notwithstanding Caluin (z) Vbi supra the Magdeburgenses and the Church of England maintaine it to be Apostolicall and wrytten by S. Iohn himselfe Neyther heere can it be replyed that though the Lutherans do dissent from the Caluinistes or Sacramentaries in reiecting or allowing of Scripture yet the Sacramentaries which are the pillars of the true reformed Churches and with whose Doctrine the church of EnglaÌ„d doth principally coÌ„spire do ioyntly with one accord agree of the bookes of Scripture coÌ„sequently that at least among them so agreing the sayd bookes are to iudge and determine doubtes of fayth This refuge auayleth nothing since their assertion therein is most false For who knoweth not to instance only in some few that Musculus (a) Muscul locis communibus c. de Iustificat a Sacramentary reiecteth the Epistle of S. Iames and Beza (b) Beza the history of the adulterous woman recorded in the Ghospell of S. Iohn c. 8. In like sort Bullinger (c) So charged by LaureÌ„tius Valla. a Sacramentary reiecteth that additioÌ„ to our Lords prayer vz. For thine is the kingdome the power the glory c. though all these
but seldome the authours of the last translation are content as conuinced with the euidency of the truth wherby withall they acknowledge the former contrary translations therin to be hereticall to translate truly and simply with vs Catholikes without any fraudulēt marginal annotations Thus in the Acts c. 1. touching the Election of Matthias they leaue out the words By common consent fraudulently inserted in some of the more auncient English translations In like sort Acts 9. where it is sayd that Paul confounded the Iewes in proofe of the Messias already then come they leaue out these wordes by conferring one Scripture with another added herefore to the text in some of the former translations So againe Rom. 8. touching the certainty or vncertainty of our saluation they translate the Greeke verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am persuaded and not I am assured or I am certaine The like course I meane to translate as we Catholikes doe they are content to take in some other few textes where eyther they can haue no colour of truth to translate otherwise or else where by their true translating they thinke they do not much endanger in an ignorāt eare their new Doctrine therby 16. Secondly when the translatours thinke that by their true trāslating they might greatly preiudice their Caluinian Doctrine they are not ashamed leauing the true Catholike translation to translate according to the former hereticall translations Thus we fynd for instance sake Hebrews c. 13. they adde the word is for the aduantage of Priests mariage though in the sayd translation both the textes going before and comming after wherin one and the sayd verbe is vnderstood are trāslated by them in the Imperatiue mood Againe Cor. 2. c. 5. they falsly trāslate these two wordes Iustitia Dei the righteousnes of God which is in him therby to intimate to the ignorant reader that not inherent righteousnes is in man In like sort Col. c. 1. they translate according to their former brethren the Greeke adiectiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meete and not worthy as euery yong Grecian knoweth the signification to be therby to eneruate the Doctrine of the merit of workes With the like fraud and intention they trāslate Luke 21. and 2. Thessal c. 1. the Greeke verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be accounted worthy which word signifieth to be worthy indeed Finally Genes 4. they translate touching Cain and Abel his desire insteed of it desire thou shalt rule ouer him in place of ouer it therby to take away free will in man 17. Thirdly where they translate falsly that they may the better answere for such their translations being expostulated therof they are sometymes content in another place to translate the sayd words truly though both the seuerall textes so contrarily translated do alike and indifferently concerne the Doctrine to be proued or disproued therby Thus that one instance may serue for many we find that where our Sauiour sayd to the persons which he cured of their corporal infirmities Thy fayth hath made thee whole they in like manner so translate with vs in Luke 8. and Marke 5. Yet Luke 18. where the same Greeke word is to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and vsed vpon the same occasion they translate in fauour of iustification by fayth only Thy fayth hath saued thee and not hath made thee whole This they do as is to be presumed that if they be charged with false translating of some textes that they may reply that such textes are not purposely and determinatly so translated against the truth seing in other textes and places they trāslate the sayd words and vsed vpon the like occasion as we doe So subtile is Heresy for the more cautelous patronizing of her selfe And yet they must needes grant that if they translate one place truly the other seing the intention of the holy Ghost in the Scripture notwithstanding the seuerall significations of words is not capable of contrary and repugnant senses must needes be trāslated by them falsly 18. Fourthly where they translate diuers of the former textes falsly and corruptly yet that they may in some sort not much vnlike to the former manner plaster the matter they are content to set downe the true translation also in the margent Thus 1. Cor. 9. they translate the Apostles words in defence of Priests mariage Haue we not power to lead about a sister a wife And then in the margent in lieu of the word Wife they set downe the word Woman as we read So againe 1. Cor. 11. where they falsly translate the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there taken in a good sense Ordinances they annex in the margent the better to salue their credit being expostulated therof these words or Traditions 19. Fiftly and lastly more contrary to this former course when they are forced euen for very shame to translate truly with vs yet for feare as it should seeme that the reader should giue ouer much credit therto they adde in the margent another hereticall translation agreable to some former corrupt translation and consequently to the vpholding of some one hereticall poynt or other that so by this meanes the reader may take that which best sorteth to his humour Thus agreably hereto to specify this in one or two instances where they translate truly that text in Iohn 1. He gaue them power to be made the sons of God implying herein a liberty of will they thus paraphrase the margent He gaue them right or priuiledge c Which second translation is nothing so forcible for the proofe of free will as the first is After the same manner in Math. 26. touching Christes Consecration of bread and wine they truly translate the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he had blessed Yet for feare that the reader should ascribe ouer much vertue to this significant words of the Euangelist they thus wryte in the margent Many Greeke Copies haue Gauethankes 20. And thus farre now for some tast of our new translatours seuerall sleights and collusions in these few textes the which sleights though for breuity omitted might be instanced in many other passages of Scripture concerning the Controuersies of this tyme from al which we may iustly inferre first that seing this their last translation so much prized and applauded is found most corrupt and deceitfull and indeed for the most part as thēselues confesse in their epistle dedicatory more agreing with some one or other former false English translation in poynts of Controuersies then with the Catholike trāslation that therfore it cannot with any shew of reason be vrged as Iudge for the decyding of doubts in religion Secondly we may from hence also collect that al these different subtile comportments of our Aduersaries in this their new translation tend but to delude their ignorant followers obtruding to them by this meanes a false construction of Gods written word for the true sense therof And so by these deuises and collusions we see the intended
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