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
signify any such kind of election 4. In like sort in their Bible printed anno 1577. in the ninth of the Actes we read thus Paul confounded the Iewes prouing by conferring one Scripture with another that this is very Christ to which text our Aduersaries did adde this sētence vz. by conferring one Scripture with another since no one word hereof is in the Greeke which might be thus translated through any mistaking or supposed ignorance But this was done to make the ignorant reader belieue that S. Luke sayd that conference of Scriptures is the only meane to vnderstand them reiecting therby all commentaries and expositions of Fathers and Councels 5. The second poynt which manifesteth the corruptions of our English Bibles is taken from the conferring together of seuerall textes of Scripture translated in them in which seuerall textes one and the same Greeke word for here I speake chiefly of the new Testament is diuersly translated My meaning here is this that in textes concerning poynts of fayth betweene vs and the Protestants the Greeke word is translated by them in a forced or secondary sense preiudicing our Catholike fayth the which same word being found in other textes which touch not any Controuersiall poynt they are content to translate in it true immediate and ordinary signification since they see that in such places they cannot disaduantage vs at all by any false translation 6. Two examples insteed of many scores which I could produce shall illustrate my meaning herein The first shal be touching the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is very notorious for wheras it signifieth to be made worthy indeed they translate it only to be counted worthy in such texts wherin is included the worth merit of good workes meaning therby that we are not made worthy indeed but only so reputed by God Thus for example they translate in the Ghospell of S. Luke c. 21. Watch therfore at all tymes praying that you may be counted worthy to stand before the sonne of God the same translation to wit to be accounted worthy they giue of the former Greeke verbe in the sayd Ghospell of S. Luke c. 20. and in the second to the Thessalonians c. 1. in diuers other places in al which the merits of workes are signified Now in other passages of Scripture which do not concerne merit of workes and wherin the foresayd Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vsed in the Originall they can be content to translate it with vs Catholikes in it true and proper signification to wit to be worthy indeed and not only to be counted worthy for example to omit other places they thus truly translate in the tenth to the Hebrewes O how much sorer punishment shall he be worthy of which treadeth vnder foote the sonne of God 7. Another example of this second kind of discouering the falshood of the English translations shal be specifyed touching Traditions For the better apprehending of which sleight the reader is to cōceaue that in the new Testament there is mention made of two sorts of Traditions the one being Iudaicall prophane and dissenting from the word of God The other godly and such as the Apostles themselues did leaue to the Church both which sorts of Traditions are expressed by the Apostles and Euangelistes in one and the same Greeke word vz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which comming of the Greeke Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latin Trado signifyeth as properly Traditio as domus in Latin signifieth a house Nowhere I say our Aduersaries falshood intranslation doth lye in that in their Translations they suppresse the word Tradition in all such textes where mention is made of godly and Apostolicall Traditions vsing insteed thereof the wordes Ordinances or instructions And accordingly thereto we find that thus they translate the first to the Corinthians c. 11. I pray you brethren that you be mindfull of me and as I haue deliuered vnto you you keepe my ordinances being notwithstanding in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You keepe my traditions Againe in like sort thus they translate in the second to the Thessalonians Therfore brethren stand and hold fast the instructions in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditions which you haue learned eyther by word or by our Epistle To be short the same translation of the sayd Greeke word they vse in the foresaid epistle to the Thessalonians c. 3. where it is spoken of Traditions in a good sense 8. But now on the contrary side which poynt conuinceth our Aduersaries of an vnanswerable corruption and iniustifiable fraude in their Translatiōs in those textes where traditions are mētioned in a bad wicked sense they euer translate the foresaid Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it true and naturall signification to wit Traditio Tradition As for instance sake in Math. c. 15. Why doe you transgresse the Commaudements of God by your traditions in which very Chapter mention is made three seueral times of Iewish wicked traditions in all which textes they can be courteously content to translate the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being found in them all with vs Catholikes Traditions and not Ordinances or Instructions And though the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may in a secondary and strained signification be extended sometimes to signify Ordinances or Instructions yet the sleight subtilty of our Aduersaries herein is this because they would haue the ignorant reader to find the word Tradition in Scripture euer in a bad sense and neuer in a good sense therby the more to alicnate and withdraw his mynd from the Doctrine of Traditions maintained by the Catholikes 9. A third Consideration of displaying the false translations of our English Bibles may be taken from the multiplicity of their translations made heretofore in seuerall yeares and yet one of them crossing another in many controuersiall poynts of fayth betweene the Protestantes and vs. Now from this contrariety in translation and especially in pointes of Controuersies is necessarily euicted a falshood of their translations for supposing one translation for true it vnauoydably followeth that all other translations which are made absolutely contrary to that one must needes be false and erroneous This contrariety they vse in infinite textes of Scripture but I will instance it for great breuity only in two Well then their Bibles printed anno 1562. do thus read in 2. Cor. c. 6. How agreeth the temple of God with Images Againe in 1. Cor. c. 10. Be not worshippers of Images as some of them are In like sort 1. Iohn c. 5. the same Bible thus readeth Babes keepe your selues from Images Al which translations being supposed as true prohibit and forbid all religious vse and reuerence to Images whatsoeuer But now in all their later translatiōs made since that tyme in the former three places and texts insteed of the word Images they translate and read Idols restraining the former prohibition to those Images only which are made Idols and
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
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
Cōtrouersy according to the exposition of Fathers giuen therof would not be answerable to my designed breuity as also in that by the examples heere set down it wil be easy to make a true coniecture of their interpretation of the rest for since they did not contradict themselues in their owne fayth Doctrine it cannot be imagined that they did contradict themselues in the exposition of such texts as conduced to the maintayning and iustifying of their fayth and Doctrine 3. And first concerning S. Peters Primacy that place of S. Matthew (a) c. 16. vz. Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will build my Church c. is interpreted ioyntly by the Fathers that Christ euen in those words did promise to him that supreme authority ouer his Church which the Catholiks do teach that after he receaued and which the Bishop of Rome at this day inioyeth This text I say is thus expoūded by Origen (b) Hom. 5. in Exod. Athan. ep ad faelicem Basil (c) l. 2. in Eunom Chrysostome (d) Hom. 55. in Math. vide Cyril l. 2. c. 12. in Ioan. Tertullian (e) lib. de Praescript Cyprian (f) Ep ad Quintum Ierome (g) In c. 16. Math. Austin (h) In psal cōtra par tē Donati and others all whose direct words were ouer laboursome to set downe and therfore it shal be sufficient to referre the Reader only to the places where thus they wryte 4. In like sort that place of (i) cap. 11. Iohn feede my sheepe is expounded by the Fathers in the same sense as we doe expound it who in their wrytings doe plainly teach that Christ euē in these words did institute Peter the head ouer his Church giuing him that authority which in the aboue alledged place of Matthew he had only promised Chrysostome sayth vpon this place Alijs omissis Petrum dumtaxat affatur fratrum ei curam committit that is The rest of the Apostles being omitted our Lord doth in this place speake only to Peter to whome he committeth the charge of his brethren Ambrose (k) In cap. vlt. Luc. expounding the same words sayth of Peter Quia solus profitetur ex omnibus omnibus antefertur Because Peter aloue of all the rest did only professe Christ meaning at that tyme when Christ did aske his Apostles who he was therfore he is preferred before them all Gregory (l) 4. epist 32 teaching that the care of the Church was deliuered to Peter sheweth the reasō therof in these words Ipsi quippe dicitur pasceoues meas that is because to Peter it was sayd feed my sheepe See also the cleare and pregnant expositions of the former words in Epiphan (m) In anchorat Leo (n) Serm. de Assump ad Pontif. Theophilact (o) In cap. vls Ioan. c. 5. The Catholikes to proue that Antichrist is to reigne but three yeares and a halfe do vrge diuers places of the Scripture where his continuance is described by yeares (p) Apoc. 12. monthes (q) Ibid. c. 11. 13. (r) Ibidem ◠11. dayes as is aboue touched which places if they be expounded literally do make vp iust three yeares and a halfe and then it followeth that the Pope cannot be Antichrist as hauing reigned by our Aduersaries confessions many hundred of yeares And yet we fynd that the sayd places are expounded literally by the Fathers Austin (s) l. 20. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 23. thus wryteth of this poynt Antichristi aduersus Ecclesiam saeuissimum regnum c. Though the kingdome of Antichrist shal be most seuere and cruell yet shall it cōtinue but for a small tyme and he which halfe sleeping readeth the Scripture herein cannot doubt for the words a tyme two tymes halfe a tyme do signify a yeare two yeares and halfe a yeare consequently three yeares a halfe besides the same appeareth by the number of the dayes and moneths set downe in the Scriptures Thus far S. Austin 6. S. Hierome (t) In c. 7. Daniel thus also wryreth Tempus annum significat c. A tyme doth signify a yeare 2. tymes two yeares halfe a tyme six moneths during which period the Saints of God shal be subject to the tiranny of Antichrist See also the like literall expositions of the former places in Hippolitus (u) Orat. de consūmat mundi Martyr Cyril (x) Catech. 15. Ireneus (y) lib. 5. in fine Theodoret (z) In c. 7. Daniel c. 7. Wheras to the like end we produce certaine places of Scripture (a) Malach 4. Eccles 44. Apoc 11. prouing that Enoch Elias are to returne personally and truly in their owne naturall bodies into the world at the comming of Antichrist and therfore the Pope cannot be Antichrist in that those two are not yet come for the auoyding of which argument the Protestants are forced to expound the sayd places figuratiuely of other men to wit of their owne ministers and Ghospellers yet the Fathers do interprete the sayd textes literally of Enoch and Elias Thus we find that Damascene (b) l. 4. c. 28. Hypolytus (c) De mundi cōsummat Martyr Gregory (d) l. 4. c. 11. 12. and Austin (e) l 9. c. 6. commenting vpon these places do write literally the personall cōming of them in the tyme of Antichrist In like sort doth Hierom and Origen and Chrysostome all writing vpō the 17. Chapter of Matthew as also Lactantius (f) l. 7. c. 17. Theodoret (g) In vlt. c. Malach. and Austin (h) Tract 4. in Ioan. do proue out of the former passages of Scripture the cōming of Elias in his owne true and naturall body 8. As concerning these words of our Sauiour touching his true and reall being in the Sacrament of the Eucharist vz. This is my body Two things are to be obserued in the Fathers first that our Aduersaries cannot produce any one father among so many as haue commēted vpon the said words which doth interprete the said text figuratiuely Secondly that diuers of them haue taught most expresly that the said words are not to be takē figuratiuely but properly and literally Thus we read that Theophilact (i) In hunc loeum Chrysostome (k) In hūc locum both the Cyrils (l) Alexand epist ad Calofirium Hierosolym cateches 4. mystag Ambrose (m) l. 4. de Sacram. cap. 5. Eusebius Emissenus (n) hom 5. de Paschat Epiphanius (o) In Ancorat and others do ioyntly teach that in this point we haue need of fayth therby to declare that which seemes most absurd to our senses But to vnderstand the words figuratiuely to wit that the body of Christ is to be signified by bread is neither absurd in sense neither is there any great difficulty of fayth required therto 9. In likesort for the prouing of the said mystery Article of our beliefe we vsually
epist 59. q. 4. doth expound with vs Catholikes to wit that our Lord spake only of our readines and preparation of mynd for the renouncing of all which he requireth at our hands when iust occasion is giuen therof which exposition no doubt is true because a little before in the sayd Chapter our Sauiour did reckon our wyues and our owne bodyes among those thinges which we are to renounce 16. To iustify the Inuisibility of the Church they rack and tenter those words of our Sauiour Venit (u) â—ohn 4. horae nunc est c. The houre commeth and now is when the true worshipper shall worship the Father in spirit and truth Where they labour to proue the words in spiritu in spirit to imply the Inuisibility of the Church because such cannot be certainly knowne and seene who serue God only in spirit wheras Cyril (x) In hunc locum Chrysostome (y) Ibid. and Euthymius (z) Ibid. doe oppose the wordes In spirit to the ceremonies of the Iewes as they were corporall externall the words in Truth to the same ceremonies as they were figures of thinges to come 17. They in like sort do obiect to iustify the sayd Heresy the wordes of the Apostle who sayth Non (a) Hebr. 12. accessistis ad tractabilem moÌ„tem c. You are not come vnto the mouÌ„t that may be touched c. but vnto the mount Sion and vnto the Citty of the liuing God the celestiall Ierusalem c. Where by the wordes Mount Sion and the Citty of God they teach that the militant Church is vnderstood which because it is spirituall is opposed in this text to the mount Sinai which is visible But S. Chrysostome (e) â—n hunc locum Theophilact (f) ibidem and others do expound with the Catholikes that by spirituall Sion and the Citty of God in this place is not vnderstood the Church militant but triumphant which doth consist of the blessed spirits and therfore it followeth immediatly (g) c 9. after But you are come to the company of many thousand Angells and to the spirits of the iust Which words cannot haue a direct reference to the militant Church 18. To proue in like manner that the Church of God may vtterly faile and decay they vsually obiect that prophesy of Daniel Deficiet hostia sacrificium the sacrifice shall cease wheras those wordes are not vnderstood of the time of Antichrist but of the ouerthrow of Ierusalem and of the ceasing of the Iewish sacrifices and thus is this prophesy expounded by Chrysostome (h) in cap. 24. Math. Ierome (i) ibidem Austin (k) Epist 80. ad Hesichium Eusebius (l) l. 8. Euang demonst c. 2. Clemens (m) lib. 1. stromat Alexandrinns and Tertullian (n) l. contra Iudaeos cap. 5. 19. They also obiect to the same purpose those words of Christ Cùm (o) Luc. 28 venerit c. When the sonne of man shall come dost thou thinke he shal find fayth vpon the earth Which is not vnderstood that at Christ his coÌ„ming the Church of God shal be extinct but only that markable and eximious fayth which is so much commended shal be found but in few at those later dayes And thus doth S. Ierome (p) Dialog contra Lucifer S. Austin (q) de Vnitat Eccles cap. 1â— expound this text To the short they among other textes do bring forth the words of the Apostle (r) 2. Thessal 2. Nisi venerit discessio primùm c. Except there come a departing first that man of sinne be disclosed c. Out of which wordes they labour to proue that there must be a general departure from the true fayth at the comming of Antichrist And the contrary to this sense and meaning diuers of the Fathers to wit Chrysostome (s) In hunc locum Theodoret (t) Ibidem Theophilact (u) Ibidem and Austin (x) l 20. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 19. do by the word discessio or departure in this place vnderstand Antichrist himselfe by the figure Metonymia as being the cause that diuers shall depart from the fayth Others of them to wit Ambrose (y) In huÌ„c loum Sedulius (z) Ibidem do vnderstand therby a departure from the Roman Empire neyther of which expositions do fauour our Aduersaries at all 20. To obscure the Doctrine of Traditions they peruert the sense and meaning of the Apostle (a) Galat. 1 who sayth Sed licetnos vel Angelus decaelo euaÌ„gelizat vobis praeterquaÌ„ quod euangelizauimus c. But though we or a Angell from heauen preach vnto you contrary to that which hath bene preached let him be accursed Where they deduce that al Traditions are herby condemned But notwithstanding the Fathers doe expound this place only of such Doctrines as are contrary and opposite to the Doctrine there already preached And therfore S. Ambrose (b) In huÌ„c locum doth expound this place by these wordes si contra in like sort S. Austin (c) l. 17. coÌ„tra Eaustum c. 3. si contra S. Ierome (d) In huÌ„c locum si aliter meaning therby if not agreable but repugnant to the former Doctrine In like sort they produce certaine places (e) Math. 1â— Col. 2 aboue touched where our Sauiour and his Apostles do disproue and reprehend Traditions in generall Which words being spoken only of certaine friuolous and wicked traditions of the Iewes do nothing at all impugne the Traditions of the Catholike Church thus we find those texts expounded by Ireneus (f) l. 4. cap. 25. Epiphanius (g) In haeres Ptolomeâ— S. Ierome (h) In c. 8. Isa in c. 3. ad TituÌ„ 21. Wheras we hould the vnlawfulnes of mariage in some persons and of meates at some tymes our Aduersaries to impugne our Doctrine herein do vsually alledge that place of the Apostle where he sayth (i) 1. Timoth c. 4. In nouissimis diebus discedent quidam à fide c. prohibentes nubere abstinere à cibis In the later dayes certaine shall depart from the fayth c forbidding to marry and commanding to abstaine from meates Wheras the Apostle in this place speaketh of such who absolutly forbeare mariage and meates as things altogether vnlawful which cannot in any sort be applyed to the Catholikes And these were the Tatians Marcionites and the Manichees Thus is this text expounded by Austin (k) l. 30. coÌ„tra Faustum Ierome (l) l. 1. in Iouinian Ambrose (m) In huÌ„c locum and Chrysostome (n) In huÌ„c locum 22. Concerning our Sauiour they teach seuerall errours first that he increased in wisedome and knowledge (o) cap. 2. as other men do and that he was not filled with grace and knowledge from his mothers wombe To proue this their Heresy they bring those words of S.
to thinke that the customes not crossing your wrytten lawes doe by their being in any sort indignify the same lawes Our Aduersaries (o) Caluin Instit 4. Chemnit in exam Concil Trident. besides almost all others doe so admire the wrytten Word of God as that they reiect and betrample all Apostolicall Traditions whatsoeuer though they in no sort impugne the sacred Scripture boldly pronouncing that all such traditions doe mightily wrong and dishonour the sayd Scripture So forgetfull they are of those wordes of an auncient Father (p) Tertul. vbi supra touching traditions Id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio id ab initio quod ab Apostolis 7. To conclude you would repute it most straÌ„ge to fynd any man that should affirme the present lawes of England to be the only square according to which all suites ought to be decyded and yet the same person withall to auerre that at this tyme we enioy no true Originall or Translations of those lawes all of them being by his censure depraued with many falsifications and alterations since from this it would follow that not the true auncient lawes of the Realme but certaine falsifyed lawes constitutions should adiudge all depending causes Our Aduersaries mayntaining the Scripture for sole Iudge of Controuersies as often we haue sayd do withall maintayne so wonderfully doth innouation and nouelty in Religion darken the very light of reason that at this day there is neyther Originall of the holy Scriptures (q) Se heerof Beza in resp Castal Carolus Molinaeus in sua transl part 12. fol. 110. Castalio in defensio transl p. 117. VVhitaker against Reynolds p. 2â—5 The ministers of Lincolne diocesse in their booke p. 11. or translations of them into the Greeke Latin or our owne vulgar Tongue which are not by their expresse assertions and wrytings fraught with diuers corruptions and deprauations as most largly we will demonstrate in this ensuing discourse Now the matter standing thus as that you are able euen out of the grounds of your owne profession in regard of the great resemblance found betweene it and the question heere disputed particularly to discerne the absurdities and grosse inconueniences attending the Doctrine heere impugned to whome may this discourse more iustly seeme to be presented then to the mature and graue Iudgements of your selues And thus much concerning the peculiar inducements of this my dedication And yet before I remit you to the perusall of this small worke I will make bold a boldnes humbly vndertaken for your owne spirituall good to put you in mynd to haue a reserued eye and intense circumspection ouer our moderne Pseudoscripturists so to call them that is to say Men who fasly abuse the holy Scriptures and who as familiarly and peculiarly interest themselues in the Scriptures as if they had begotten them on their owne brayne as the Poets doe faigne that Iupiter did Pallas And yet when these men vnderstand the Scripture in it true sense as the deuil sometymes hath dâ—â—e seing they giue credit therto not by reason of the Churches authority but of theyr owne priuate conceit which euer stands obnoxious to errour what other thing els do they then belieue a truth falsly But when they interpret Gods wrytten Word in a different construction from the vniuersall and Catholike Church of God I see not how they can auoyd that Dilemma of an ancieÌ„t Father (r) Tertul. l. de praescript Si alium Deum praedicant quomodo eiusdem rebus literis nominibus vtuntur aduersus quem praedicant Si eumdem quomodo aliter So truly and deseruedly are such men included within the sentence of Saint Austin a Father whome of all the Auncients the Protestantes not liking yet least dislyke Omnes (s) Aug epist 221. ad Consentium qui Scripturas in authoritate c. All those speaking of the hereticall Scripturists of his tyme who alledge Scripture for authority make shew to affect the Scripture when indeed they affect their owne errours And thus Graue Iudges in all humility I take my leaue beseeching you euen for your owne soules health that in your seates and tribunalls of Iudicature you doe so iudge as that hereafter your selues be not iudged especially I meane when Gods annoynted Priests or poore distressed Catholikes guilty only of treason if so it must needs be tearmed coÌ„mitted in professing the auncient faith of Christ his Apostles shall become the subiect of your iudgments but euen theÌ„ remeÌ„ber that your selues as being herein deputyes to Gods deputyes are to giue a strict account to that supreme Iudge of all Qui (t) Gen. 18. iudicat omnem terram or with peculiar reference to terrene Iudges to vse the wordes of the Prophet Dauid (u) Psalm 81. Qui inter Dâ—os dijudicat Yours in all Christian loue and charity N. S. THE CHAPTERS OF THE FIRST PART THE Catholikes reuerence towards the Scripture with the state of the questioÌ„ touching the Scripture not being Iudge Chap. 1. That the Priuat Spirit is not infallibly assured of truly interpreting the Scripture Chap. 2. The reasons of the Scriptures difficulty Chap. 3. The difficulty of the Scripture by reason of its subiect Chap. 4. The like difficulty in regard of its seueral spiritual senses Chap. 5. The like difficulty in regard of its phrase or style Chap. 6. The difficulty of the Scriptures acknowledged by the Fathers Chap. 7. The testimonies alledged by our Aduersaries out of the Fathers for the Scriptures sole Iudge are answeared Chap. 8. The same difficulty acknowledged by our Aduersaries Chap. 9. The insufficiency of Scripture for determining doubts in Religion proued by arguments drawne from Reason Chap. 10. That it cannot be determined by Scripture that there is any Scripture or word of God at all Chap. 11. That Heresies in all ages haue bene maintained by the supposed warrant of Scripture Chap. 12. That our Aduersaries do confesse it to be the custome of Heretikes to flie to the Scripture alone and that diuers of them therfore do appeale to the Church as Iudge Chap. 13. THE CHAPTERS OF THE Second Part. THAT the Protestantes cannot agree which bookes are Scripture and which not Chap. 1. That the Protestantes allow not the Originall Hebrew of the old Testament now extant for authenticall and vncorrupted Chap. 2. That the Protestantes allow no Originall Greeke Copy of the new Testament now extant as vncorrupted Chap. 3. That that Protestants reiect the Septuagints translation of the old Testament as erroneous Chap. 4. That the Protestants reiect the vulgar Latin Translation coÌ„monly called S. Hieroms translation Chap. 5. That the Protestants do condemne all the chiefe traÌ„slations made by their owne brethren Chap. 6. That the English Translations are corrupt and therfore not sufficient to determine doubts in Religion Chap. 7 That supposing the Scripture for Iudge of Controuersies yet the letter therof is more cleare and perspicuous for the Catholikes then for the
or faith and religion in general are warranted by the infallible authority of the Church which infallible authority is proued commended to vs by the holy Scripture And thus on the one syde the Scripture warranting the Churches authority and on the other the Church setting downe and approuing the true sense of the Scripture it may hereupon be iustly sayd that both these I meane the Church and the Scripture do interchangeably receaue their proofe out of the proofe they giue Therfore all impertinencyes layd aside the touch of the question heere between our Aduersaryes and vs resteth in this Whether all thinges which necessarily belong to religion are so fully and abundantly deliuered in the Scripture as that they are either expresly contained therein or els without the Churches authority interposed they may particulerly be necessarily deduced from the Scripture and so in regard heerof whether the Scripture is to become the only Iudge of such artiâ—les or no. In which question we hould as is sayd the negatiue parte but our Aduersaryes the affirmatiue So faire different in opinion are our Sectaryes from the iudgment of Vincentius Lyrinensis touching the interposition of the Churches authority in the exposition of Scripture who thus writeth (d) In suo Commonitorio heerof Multum necesse est c. It is very needfull in regard of so many errours proceeding from the misinterpretation of Scripture that the line of Propheticall and Apostolicall exposition should be directed according to the rule of the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense 7. Now that the Scripture is not the Iudge of Controuersyes in the sense aboue set downe shal be proued two wayes First Categoricè and absolutly that so it is not nor cannot be which shall appeare in the first part of this Treatise Secondly Hypthetice and of a supposall that though the Scripture as considered in it selfe were this Iudge yet cannot our Protestant Aduersaryes iustly vrge it or pretend it for the same which shal be the subiect demonstrated and made good in the second part heereof 8. Yet before I enter into any particuler dispute therof I intend to discouer and lay open the weaknes of one mayne retraite or sanctuary whereunto our Aduersaryes are accustomed to fly in their maintayning the Scripture for Iudge for when they are pressed with the abstruse difficultyes found in the Scripture in regard of the seueral obtruded interpretations of it and doubtfulnes of the true meaning of the Holy Ghost therein their common refuge then they make to the priuate spirit which spirit D. Whitaker (e) Controu 1. q. 5. cap. 3. â—1 Controu 1. q. 2. cap. 3. thus speciously entitles An inward perswasion of truth from the Holy Ghost in the secret closets of the belieuers hart This spirit say they infallibly instructeth them in the true vnderstanding of the Scripture so as by the assistance heerof they are enabled to picke out among so many false constructions the true and vndoubted construction and according to the same to determine and iudge the point or Controuersy for which such passages of Scripture are produced by them and thus the end of all is that the priuate spirit interpreting the Scripture is to be the sole and supreme Iudge of al Controuersies of fayth Now this their chiefe hold or strength being indeed their last most despayring euasion therby to decline the authority of the Church I will ruinate and ouerthrow in the next Chapter following which Chapter may serue as certaine Prolegomena to the ensuing Treatise The force of this their refuge I will proue to be most vncertaine yea false and erroneous and this first from Scripture and secondly from force and weight of naturall reason That the priuate spirit is not infallibly assured of truly interpreting the Scripture proued out of the Scripture and from naturall reason CHAP. II. IF we will take a view of what is sayd in Gods Word concerning this point we shal find it most plentifull in absolutly denying this power of iudging or interpreting to belong to the priuate spirit And first what can be more pregnantly sayd to conuince this phantasy then those wordes of the (f) 1. Cor. 1. Apostle To one is giuen by the spirit the word of wisedome to another the word of knowledge according to the same spirit c. to another Prophesy and to another interpretation of tongues Where we see that the Apostle plainly and as it were of purpose refelleth this doctrine since he teacheth that the guift of interpreting the Scripture is not giuen to all the faythfull contrary to the practise and experience of our English Puritanes who how ignorant soeuer they be presuming that they are of the number of the faythfull and elect do most confidently vaunt of the guift of expounding the Scriptures 2. And that we may better heere obserue how the two chiefe Apostles do second one the other in this question I will alledge S. Peters owne words as perspicuous and cleare for our purpose as may be who (g) 2. Pet 1. Omnis prophetiâ— Scripturae propriâ— interpretatione non fit sayth No prophesy of the Scripture is made by any priuate interpretation In both which places and texts by the word Prophesy is meant as our Aduersaries do acknowledge the true vnderstanding and interpreting of the holy Scriptures 3. Another place we will produce out of S. Iohn (h) â— Ioan 4. who saith thus Dearly beloued belieue not euery spirit but try the spirites if they be of God By which wordes we are taught that the spirit of others are to be examined if they proceed from God or not This admonition cannot be vnderstood of the spirit of the whole Church since then it should follow that there should be none left to try the said spirit of the Church euery particuler man being included therin If then it is to be vnderstood of priuate meÌ„ as of necessity it must it followeth that a priuate spirit cannot be this Iudge since it selfe is to vndergoe by the former text the iudgement and examination of some other If it be replyed that the Scripture is to examine this spirit this auayleth nothing especially if the poynt wherin the priuat spirit doth exercise it selfe be of the sense and meaning of the Scripture Therfore it remaineth that the spirit be tryed by the coÌ„formity which it beareth to those whom it is certaine to haue the true spirit indeed and this is the whole Church of God it selfe being the pillar (i) Tim. c. 3. and foundation of truth A poynt so cleare that Luther (k) Lib. de potestate Papae conuinced by euidency of the truth is forced to say De nullo priuato homine certisumus c. We are not certaine of any priuat person whether he hath the reuelation of the father or no meaning hereby the reuelation of the sense of the Scripture but that the Church hath it we ought not to doubt What answeres now will our Aduersaries bring to the
And answerably to this we fynd that text (b) Deut. 25. Thou shalt not mâ—ssâ—â— the mouâ—h of the Oxe that treadeth out the corne to be interpreted S. Paul (c) 1. Cor. 9. of Gods preachers who are to be maintained at the charges of their â—lock 4. The Anagogicall sense implyeth a construction to heauen or eternall felicity and hereupon we fynd that verse of the (d) Psalm 94. prophet I sware in my wrath if they shall not enter into my rest to be interpreted besydes the literall meaning of the Land of promise by the (e) Heb. 4. Apostle of eternall life 5. Now then there being besides the literall sense so many mysticall senses of Scripture heere the difficulty ariseth that seing some texts are to be vnderstood only lâ—terally others both literally mistically how we may know which are the texts that admit only a literall construction and which both a literal and spirituall and if a spirituall interpretation which of the former three is to be asigned to them since euery text is not capable of all the three spirituall senses And which is yet more there are some passages of Scripture where in one and the same sentence one and the same word being twise repeated is in the one place taken literally in the other figuratiuely or mystically as in those words of Christ Let the dead bury the dead Al this must be knowne before we (f) Matt. 8. can dâ—aw any forcible argument from any such texts in regard of which difficulty it may not seeme strange if sundry of the aâ—ncient doctors did erre in their comments vpon the Scriptures some of them affecting so much the literal sense as that they did spoylâ— it of all mysticall construction others through their nyce and wholy spirituallyzed imaginations would so streyne the Scriptures as that for the most part they neglected the letter would extract nothing els but spirituall and as it were certaine Chymicall senses through their own â—ueâ— curious subâ— mation of the said diuyne Scriptures as it is â—uâ—dent out of the expositions of diuers passages of Scripture giuen by (g) Vt tesâ—aâ—ur â—ieâ—â—n praf lib. 18. in Isa vâ— in â— 3â— Ezech. Aug. lib. 20. de â—iuit Dei cap. 7. Tertulian and (h) Hier. ep ad â—â—machium Origen 6. In regard then of the impregnable truth of the Scriptures diâ—nculty both in reâ—pect of the many senses therof as also of the phrase and style as hereafter shall appeare it is a woâ—ld to obserue how idly and impertinently our Aduersaryes do obiect dâ—uers passages of it to proue its owne perspicuity To this end where the Scripture doth ofâ—en inculcate that the Commandements and will of God being once knowne do become a light to the soule for the guâ—ding of her selfe these testimonyes I say our Sectaryes most violently force to proue that the Scripture is in regard of the vnderstanding of it selfe of that light and perspicuity that the true sense and meaning of it is most obuious and facile Thus do they vrge those wordes of the (i) Psal 19. Prophet â—raeceptum Domini lucidum illuminaus oculos The commandment of the Lord is cleare enlightning the eyes As also that other (k) Psalm Text Lucerna pedibus meis verbum tuum Thy word is a lanterne to my feet And finally that of the (l) Cap. â— Prouerbes Mandatum lucerna est lex tuâ— c. Thy Commandment is a lampe and thy Law a light In like sort we find that they strangely racke certaine Texts which only concerne the facility and easines of the Dâ—â—alogâ—e or ten Commandments to conuince the easines of the Scripture in general as that place of (m) Lib. 4 contra Marcionâ— Deutronomy to omit others Mandatum quod ego praecipio tibihodie non supra te est c. The Commandement which I command theâ— this day is not abouâ— thee neither is it farre of interpreted of the easines only of fulfilling the CoÌ„mandments of the Decalogue by Tertullian as also by Ambrose Chrysostome and others vpon the tenth to the Romans 7. To conclude this point where the Apostle 2. Cor. 4. particulerly meaneth that our belief in Christ to wit that he was borne suffered and did ryse from death for mans saluation is so euident and cleare as that if it be hid from any it is only from such as doe perish whose eyes the God of thâ—â— world hath blinded which interpretation is necessarily confirmed by comparing with this text the Chapter afore in the sayd Epistle where the Apostle teacheth that all points touching Christ were seen in the law obscurely in shadowes and figures only yet will our Aduersaryes haue that place to be meant of the euidency of clearnes and vnderstanding the Scripture which passage notwithstanding is to be interpreted in the sense aboue mentioned and whereunto those wordes of Tertullian may seeme to allude Christo moriente nata est haereditas nostra Christo resurgente confirmata est Christo ascendente in Caelos permanet in eternum Of the Phrase and Style of the Scripture CHAP. VI. NOVV to come to the third point to wit the phrase and manner of writing which doth as it were apparell or cloath those hidden and diuine Mysteries We are first in general to consider that the style thereof is farre different from the writinges of any man that euer liued as appeareth by the iudgement of all learned men It is also in that respect vnimitable vnto man which circumstance must of necessity import an vnusuall strangenes of the phrase thereof in mans eares and consequently a great difficulty in perfectly vnderstanding the same Secondly and more particulerly we are to obserue that there are to be found not many humane writings which do flow with greater store of figures and schemes then the holy Scriptures do in so much that it were an infinite labour to set downe all the Metaphores Allegoryes Hyperboles Ironies and other such Tropes which do occure almost in euery other text thereof which kind of speach being vnaccustomed to an ignorant eare cannot but occasion diuers misconstructions 2. But besides these kind of figures common to euery language there are in the sayd heauenly writings diuers (n) Anima mea in manibus meâ—s seÌ„per Psaâ—m 118. And againe Thronus eius sicut dies caeli Psaâ—m 88. with infinite such others phrases peculiar only to the Hebrew toÌ„gue in which language the chiefest part of them was first written and consequently with great difficulty they are to be vnderstood of those which are ignorant of the same tongue If those which are skillfull in the Greeke doe deseruedly attribute a great hardnes therof to the diuersity of dialects to wit of Atticisme Eolisme Ionisme Beotisme and the like all these being Idiomes proper to the Greeke tongue what hardnes then must we imagine that eare will find when it shall read the Scriptures in some one tongue or other and yet much
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
controu 2. quaest 4. pag. 223. thus wryteth It is manifest that euen after Christ his Ascension and the holy Ghosts descending vpon the Apostles not only the common sort but euen the Apostles themselues erred in the vocation of the gentils c. Yea Peter also erred concerning the abrogation of the Ceremoniall law c. and this was a matter of fayth c. he furthermore erred in manners and these were great errours 19. Answerably hereto Brentius (e) In Apolog CoÌ„fess c. de Concilijs p. 900. an eminent Protestant wryteth that S. Peter chiefe of the Apostles and Barnabas after the holy Ghost receaued together with the Church of Hierusalem erred D. Fulke (f) Against the Rhemish Testam in Galat. 2. speaking vpon the said point sayth Peter erred in ignorance against the Gospell Iewill (g) In his defence of the Apology pag. 361. affirmeth that S. Marke did erroneously alledge Abiather for abimelech and S. Mathew with the like ouersight did write Ieremy for Zachary Conradus (h) In Theolog. Calumist l. 2. fol. 40. Schlusselburg a famous Protestant chargeth Caluin to maintaine that the Apostles alledged the Prophetes in other sense then was meant Zuinglius (i) Tom. 2. Elench coÌ„tra Anabap f. 10. most wonderfully abaseth the wrytings of the Apostles and the Euangelists in these words This is your ignorance that you thinke the Commentaries of the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles to haue bene then in authority when Paul did write these thinges as though Paul did attribute then so much to his Epistles that whatsoeuer was contained in them was sacred c. which thing he sayth were to impute immoderate arrogancy to the Apostle 20. D. Bancroft (k) In his suruey of the pretended discipline pag. 373. alledgeth out of Zanchius his Epistles that one of Caluins Schollars sayd If Paul should come to Geneua and preach the same houre that Caluin did I would leaue Paul and heare Caluin Caluin (l) In his CoÌ„mentar in omnes Pauli Epistol p. 510. himselfe chargeth S. Peter with errour to the Schisme as he sayth of the Church to the endangering of Christian liberty and the ouerthrow of the grace of Christ The Century wryters (m) Cent. 2. l. 2. c. 10. â—ol 580. thus reprehend S. Paul Paul doth turne to Iames the Apostle and a Synod of the Presbiters being called together he is persuaded by Iames and the rest that for the offended Iewes he should purify himselfe in the TeÌ„ple wherunto Paul yieldeth which certainly is no small sliding of so great a doctour In which one testimony we see that not only Paul but the rest of the Apostles are charged by the Centurists with errour in fayth And to close this poynt with that incestuous and reuolted monke I meane Luther we read that besides the seuerall bookes of the new Testament as it aboue shewed denyed by him as also besides the reprehending of Peter of whome he thus sayth Peter (n) In epist ad Galat. c. 1. after the English transl fol. 33. 34. Tom. 5. VVittemberg of anno 1554. fol. 290. the chiefe of the Apostles did liue and teach extra verbum Dei besides the word of God he thus inueigheth most scurrilously against Moyses himselfe Moyses (o) Luther tom 3. VVittenberg in psal 45. f. 423. tom 3. german f. 40. 41. in colloq mensalib german f. 152. 153. had his lips vnpleasant stopped angry c. do you collect all the wisedome of Moyses and of the heathen Philosophers and you shall find them to be before God eyther Idolatry or Hypocryticall wisedome or if it be Politicke the wisedome of wrath c. Moyses had his lippes full of gaul and anger c. away therfore with Moyses 21. And thus farre of this poynt from whence we conclude that the Protestants in charging the Euangelistes and the Apostles with errours of fayth in their words and actions do withall labour to take away the infallible authority due to their wrytings and books for grant they erred in the first way how can we be secured they erred not in the second seing their pens had no greater priuiledge from God of not erring then their tongues and other their actions had and consequently they cannot alledge their wrytings as being subiect to errour by necessary inferences drawne from their owne grounds for the finall decyding and determining of all doubts arysing in matters of fayth and religion That the Protestantes allow not the Originall Hebrew of the old Testament now extant for authenticall and vncorrupted CHAP. II. ALTHOVGTH our Aduersaries do giue it out in their wrytings and sermons that the Hebrew Originall which now they haue and as it is at this present poynted with pricks is pure and free from all corruption and therfore that we ought in any text of the old Testament to recurre to the Hebrew as to the touch stone of truth and to a cleare and vntroubled fountaine Yet that this is but a meere glosse and false vaunt of them inuented only to quit themselues from that reading of the text altogether fauouring the Catholike Doctrine wherunto both the Greeke and Latin Fathers and the whole Church of God for so many ages haue bene accustomed it is most euideÌ„t For it is most certaine that in diuers places themselues do forsake the present Hebrew and do read as the Septuagint or as the Latin Interpretour doth read both who differ much from the present Hebrew Some few texts for example I will heere set downe 2. First then that prophesy of Dauid (a) Psal 8. concerning the Apostles the Septuagint S. Paul (b) Rom. 10. and the Protestants themselues do read thus In omnem terram exiuit sonus eorum Their sound went out through all the earth and yet the present Hebrew hath insteed of these words sonus eorum linea or perpendiculum eorum so insutable with the other words as that it is hard to collect any good and perfect sense therof 3. The Psalme 22. affoards a most notorious prophesy of the particular manner of our Sauiours death in these words They haue peirced my handes and feet for so the Septuagint the Catholikes and the Protestantes in their Translations doe read and yet the present Hebrew so much magnified by theÌ„ hath insteed therof these words as a Lyon my handes and my feet frustrating thereby so remarkable a prophesy of our Sauiours particular suffring death 4. The Hebrew sayth in one (c) Reg. 24. place Zedechias his brother meaning thereby the brother of Ioachim and yet the English Bible translated anno 1579. readeth thus Zedechias his fathers brother according to the Greeke and Latin translation therin 5. Likewise in another place (d) Parâ—lip 2. the present Hebrew sayth Achaz King of Israel and yet our Aduersaries reiect this reading and translate Achaz King of Iuda following therein the Septuagingts translation and the Latin interpretour 6. I let passe the
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
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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Marcionites and Arians that razed out such places of holy writ as were against them Neyther is Bucer (b) dialog contra Melancthon See Lindan dub 84. 96. 98. dumbe in censuring Luthers sayd translation as erroneous Besides both which censures of him you find to touch only one particular that he inserteth words of his owne into the text it selfe as though they were written by the holy Ghost as for example translating that text A man is iustified by fayth without the workes of the law he inserteth in coÌ„trary both to the Greeke and Latin the words only to explicate as himselfe sayth more plainly the Apostles meaning against the Iustification of works done in the tyme of grace 3. The same taske of translation was vndertaken and performed by Caluin but with what dexterity he carryed himselfe therin it appeareth to say nothing of Illyricus coÌ„demning therof by the testimony of Carolus (c) Tract Testamnoui part 11. fol. 110. Molineus a yonger brother of his owne house who wryteth of Caluins translations in this sort He made the text of the ghospell to leape vp and downe at his pleasure and he vsed violence to the same and added of his owne to the very sacred letter for drawing it to his owne purpose 4. Oecolampadius so truly intituled per Antiphrasin as infecting Gods house and church with the darknes of heresy by the helpe of his brethren of Basil would needes busy himselfe with the like labour Yet was their translation so distastfull to Beza (d) In respons ad defens Castalion vide etiam praefat Testam noui anno 155â— as that he chargeth them al with great sacriledge impiety in corrupting of the sacred word it selfe 5. Neither will Beza passe ouer as vncontrolled the translation of Castalio tearming his proceeding with Gods word to be bold pestilent sacrilegious and Ethenicall speaking else where (e) Annot in act 10. of Castalio in this poynt he sayth It commeth to passe that whiles euery man will rather freely follow his owne iudgement then be a religious interpreter of the holy ghost he doth rather peruert many things then translate them Beza himselfe translated the new Testament but with what applause his work was entertained you shall heare for besides Castalio his reciprocall testimony of condemning the same Illyricus much impugneth it and Molineus (f) In tâ—aÌ„slat noui Testament part 64. 65. 66. plainly chargeth Beza Quòd de facto textum mutat that actually he changeth the very text of Gods word it self for the patronizing of his Doctrine 6. Good God would any thinke if their owne writinges were not as yet extant to charge them therwith that such men as these being indeed the Antesignani the most choice and eminent Doctours and as it were so many Oracles or Sunnes of their new Ghospell should no sooner deuide themselues by open Apostasy from the vnity of the Catholike Church but that they begin to inueigh one against another in great acerbity and bitternes of speach concerning their different translations Plainly discouering by their mutuall reproualls and recriminations herein that though they all conspire to make head against the Catholike Fayth yet do they presently therupon broach forth different Doctrines amoÌ„g themselues and ech one glad to fortify their opinions by impugning all other translations which are not made sutable to their new stamped Doctrine 7. Wherfore a company of men falling from the body of the Catholike Church may be well resembled to some mighty fall of earth from the body of a huge mountaine and this mountaine euen by Esay himselfe figureth out Christs Church which great clod is no sooner disparted from the rest but it crimbleth it selfe into innumerable small parcells But herein we are to admire Gods prouideÌ„ce who is able to vse the actioÌ„s of the Churches enemies as handmaids to the Churches preseruation no otherwise then the betraying of (g) Gen. â— 45. 50. Ioseph by his brethren to the safety of the Israelites For seing the diuision of heresy is not mathematicall and infinite but determinate limitable therfore euery heresy though at it first appearance it drawes mens eyes vpon it like blazing starres which seeme high but are low shine no longer then their matter endures yet at the length consumes wasts away by subdiuiding it selfe and striuing to make it own part good against al others so as it falleth out that the Catastrophe and CoÌ„clusion of all such proceeding is this that it may be truly pronounced The war of Heretikes to be the peace of the Church and their diuisions her vnion 8. But to returne for I had almost lost my selfe in our Aduersaries former disagrements touching their translations where we are to obserue that though some of their translations came nearer to the vulgar Latin translation then others yet ech of them as is sayd mainly dissents one from another like two faces which bearing some resemblance to a third face haue notwithstaÌ„ding no likenes betwene themselues That the English Translations are corrupted therfore not sufficient to determine doubts in Religion CHAP. VII THE Hebrew and Greeke Originalls of the holy Scriptures as also the Greeke and Latin traÌ„slations of the same being examined and found defectiue by our Aduersaries assertions we are to descend to our English translations and to shew that they are fraughted with many corruptions and that our Aduersaries cannot iustify the sayd translations to be true and exact only according to the Originalls out of which they are made and consequently that the sayd translatioÌ„s cannot with any shew of iudgment or reason be exposed for the infallible iudge of Controuersies That these translations are most corrupt and erroneous may be proued two wayes first from the translations themselues SecoÌ„dly from the Confession of our English Protestants 2. And concerning the translations themselues three thinges are found in them which may assure all men of their impurity first the adding of diuers wordes vnto the text which words are not to be found neyther in the Hebrew nor in the Greeke Originalls and the wordes added are of such nature as they make only for the better mayntaining of the Protestants religion 3. I could instance this in many textes of their traÌ„slations but one or two shal be sufficient at this tyme as for example in the first Chapter of the Acts our English translations speaking of the election of Matthias the Apostle read thus He was by a common consent counted with the eleuen Apostles to proue out of this place that all Ecclesiasticall functions ought or at least may be made by a popular election which diuers reformed Churches of the Caluinists doe hold at this day Here these former words to wit with a common consent are plainly added by our Aduersaries since the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heere vsed signifie only He was reckoned numbred or accounted neyther is there any other Greeke wordes in the text which they can or do pretend to
(h) Ibidem c. 11. all which seuerall descriptions thereof being taken literally as they expound them do precisely make vp three yeares and a halfe and consequently cannot be applyed to the Pope And therfore our Aduersaries in answere to the sayd places are glad to say that in all those textes an vncertaine tyme is figuratiuely to be vnderstood though it be expressed diuersly by one and the same continuance of tyme. To proue that the Pope is Antichrist they commonly vrge that of the Apocalyps (i) cap. 17. where it is sayd that the whore of Babylon doth sit vpon that Citty which hath seauen hils meaning Rome Which wordes do not directly touch Antichrist but only by their supposed inference that by the whore of Babylon is meant Antichrist which they are neuer able to proue since therby is vnderstood Rome in the tyme of the heathen Emperours who then worshiped Idols and was drunke with the bloud of Gods Saintes In confirmation of the Reall Presence we vrge the sentence of our Sauiour recorded by all the Euangelistes to wit This is my body c. Which text being literally taken doth containe expresly the very conclusion maintayned by vs not by circuitions or ambages but directly plainly immediatly So as it cannot be conceaued how our Sauiour could speake more perspicuously in this poynt 6. Now against the Reall presence our Sacramentaries do chiefly obiect that saying of Christ (k) Ioan. 6. It is the spirit which quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing Which wordes do not fall directly vpon the question of Christ his Reall Presence in the Sacrament Neyther is so much as Christ his flesh vnderstood hereby as they would seeme to inferre since then it would follow that his Incarnation and death auayled vs nothing but only the carnall conceite of the Iewes is cheked hereby who thought that Christ would deliuer his body to be eaten fleshly corporally and carnally as other common meates are eaten 7. To the same end they oâ—â—â—ct those words of Christ Do this in remembrance of me which place by no necessary or probable illation can include the true absence of himselfe which is the poynt in question since they haue a refereÌ„ce only to a circumstance of himselfe to wit of his death passion which as being past is absent in remembrance wherof he commandeth vs in the former wordes to receaue his sacred body and bloud in the Sacrament of the Eucharist conformably to that speach of S. Paul (l) 1. Cor. 11. mortem Domini annunciabitis do nec veniat You shall shew the death of our Lord vntill he come the Apostle so interpreting Christs former words 8. To proue that Priests in the Sacrament of Pennance where by putting God in remembrance of our sinnes he soonest forgetteth them and in acknowledging our selues to be sinners we cease to be sinners haue power to remit or retaine sinnes we alledge the playne wordes of our Sauiour to them (m) Math. 18. whatsoeuer you shall loose vpon earth shal be loosed in heauen as also those words recorded by S. Iohn (n) 20. Whose sins you forgine they are forgiuen them and whose sinnes you retaine they are retained Both which places in plaine direct immediate construction containe in themselues the very touch and poynt of this controuersy without any inference or circuition at all since they giue a direct and streight proofe of the conclusion it selfe to wit that Priestes haue power to remit or retaine sinnes For denyall of Priests authority in remitting or retayning of sinnes our Sectaties are accustomed to produce that text of the Psalmist (2) Psalm 50. Tibi soli peccauimus we haue sinned only against thee inferring herby that because we sinne only against God therfore only God can remit sinne which inference if it were true then should it by the same reason take away the vertue of Baptisme for remitting of Originall sin They likewise obiect certaine places of (3) Psalm 18. 37. Scripture which shew that we are not able to number all our sinnes and consequently not able to confesse them to the Priest which illatioÌ„ is most weake since it maketh as must against the Confession of ous sins to God as to the Priest 9. For confirming the Doctrine of Freewil the Catholikes do alledge among other authorities these following In arbitrio (p) Num. 30. viri erit siue faciat siue non faciat that is It is in the choice or will of a man whether he will do or not doe As also Optio (q) Iosue 24. vobis datur eligite hodie quod vobis places Choice is giuen to you chuse that to day which pleaseth you And againe Quoties (r) Math. 23. volui congregare c. How often would I gather togeather thy children as the hen gathereth her chickens and thou wouldst not All which places directly and flatly teach that we haue frewill to do and not to do Now our Aduersaries for denyall of this Doctrine are accustomed to alledge chiefly such places where it is sayd that all things are done according to the will and counsell of God As for example that of Christ as if the eternall Word of the Father came downe to destroy that former wrytten word of God Vnus passer (s) Math. 9. c. Not one sparrow shall fall vpon the ground without your Fathers will And againe Qui (t) Ephes 8. operatur omnia c. Who worketh all thinges according to the Counsell of his will Both which texts besides diuers others of the same nature conclude nothing except first they be able to proue that the Will Counsell and Foreknowledge of God cannot stand with mans freewill The contrary wherof is most cleare as appeareth by the example of Adam who by our Aduersaries (u) Caluin 1. l. Instit c. 15. §. 8. Luther in comment in Gen. acknowledgment had freewill to stand or fall and yet his fall was neyther meerely contrary to Gods will since he permitted the same nor to his foreknowledge and prouidence since he foreseeth all things 10. Concerning Iustification by works the Catholikes Conclusion and Position is found literally and eueÌ„ in those words wherin they vsually expresse this theyr Doctrine since we read in S. (x) c. 2. Iames That ex operibus iustificatur homo c. A man is iustifyed by workes and not by fayth only In like sort where our Aduersaries doe obiect any place against vs the very distinction sometymes such is their scarsity and dearth of pertinent texts which the Catholikes do vse to auoyde their argument is literally expresly set downe in the words of those texts Thus we fynd that they vrge to this end those words of the Apostle Arbitramur (y) Rom. 3. hominem c. we account a man to be iustified by fayth without the workes of the law as also that other vz. Scientes (z) Galat. 2. c. Knowing that man is not iustifyed
alledge those words of the Apostle (p) 1. Cor. c. 11. Qui manducat bibit indignè c. He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh iudgment to himselfe not discerning the body of our Lord Out of which words we gather that some are here reprehended in that they receiue the body of Christ vnworthily but these do not receaue it in spirit and fayth for in so doing they should receaue it with profit and worthily therfore they receaue his body only in body and not in spirit and consequently his body is there really and truly present And in this sort is this text expounded by the fathers vz. Ambrose (q) In c. 11. prioris ad ad Corinth Theodor Ierome (r) In c. 1. Malach. Chrysostome (s) Hom. 24. in prior ad Corinth hom 83 in Matth. Origen (t) Hom. 2. in psal 37. Basil (u) l. 2. de baptisae 3. others which exposition of the fathers being true depriueth our Aduersaries of all sufficient answere to the said text 10. That those three places which the Catholiks do commonly vrge for proofe of Priests authority in remitting sinnes vz. Math. 16. To thee I will giue the keyes of heaueÌ„ and whatsoeuer thou shalt bynd vpon earth shal be bound in heauen c. Math. 18. What things you shall bynd vpon earth shal be bouÌ„d in heauen and what things you shall loose c. Lastly Iohn 20. Whose sins you shall remit are remitted vnto theÌ„ and whose sinnes you shall retaine are retained That these places I say doe proue that Priests haue authority giuen them truly and really to remit sins in the Sacrament of Pennance not only by declaring and pronouncing their sinnes to be remitted as our Sectaries do teach it appeareth out of the fathers expositions of the foresaid places who expounding them literally with the Catbolikes do proue therby the true authority of the Priests therin S. Gregory (x) Hom. 26. in Euang expounding the words Whose sinnes you shall remit thus sayth Principatum superni iudicij c. The Apostles do obtaine a principality of supreme iudgment that in the place of God they may retayne the sinnes of some and loose the sinnes of others S. Chrysostome (y) l. 3. de sacerd the scope of which booke is to proue this point expounding the former texts and comparing the authority of the Priests of the old law ouer the leprous persoÌ„s with the Priests of the new law thus concludeth At nostris Sacerdotibus non corporis lepram c. It is granted to our Priests I say not to try them which are purged but absolutely to purge and cure not the leper of the body but the filth and foulnes of the soule See also S. Austin (z) l. 20. de Ciuit. Dei expouÌ„ding those words of the Apoc. Et vidi sedes sedentes c. Ierome (a) Ep. ad HeliodoruÌ„ de vita solitaria Ambrose (b) l. 1. de poenit c. 2 sequent Gregory (c) Oratione ad ciues timore perculsos Naziazene all which do interpret the former texts literally and ackknowledge from thence the sayd authority in Priests for remitting of sinnes which the Catholikes at this day do teach 11. That place of S. Iohn (d) c. 3. vz. Except a man be borne againe of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God doth proue that the Sacrament of Baptisme doth ex opere operato conferre grace and iustify a man which perspicuous and cleare testimony to peruert our Aduersaries are forced to say that the wordes are not spoken of the Sacrament of Baptisme but only of regeneration caused by the holy Ghost whose property is to wash the soule as the water doth wash the body And yet against this phantasticall exposition we are able to produce the fathers who do literally vnderstand the former words as spoken of the Sacrament of Baptisme which exposition of theirs granted as true doth necessarily force the Catholike Doctrine therin See Cyrill Austin Chrysostome and Origen all interpreting this place as also Ambrose (l) l. 3. de spirit saÌ„ct c. 11. Cyprian (m) l. 3. ad Quirinum Ierome (n) In c. 16. Ezech. and the rest 12. In proofe of Freewill mong other places we alledge those words of God spoken to Cain Nonne (o) Genes 4. si bene egeris recipies c. If thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted and if thou dost not well sinne lyeth at thy doore Sub te erit appetitus eius tu dominaberis illius that is And vnto thee it desire vz. of sinne shal be subiect and thou shalt rule ouer it vz. ouer sinne 13. Now our Aduersaries in answere hereto do say that the words Sub te erit appetitus eius tu dominaberis illius ought to haue reference to Abel meaning hereby that Abel should be subiect to Cain and that as being the elder he should rule ouer Abel Which construction being most forced indirect is generally impugned by the Fathers who in the exposition of the former words do in both places vnderstand sinne and not Abel Thus we find that S. Austin (p) l. 15. de Ciuit. Dei c. 7. saith of this place as interpreting it Quiesce ad te enim conuersio eius tu dominaberis illius numquid fratris absit cuius igitur nisi peccati that this Content thy selfe Cain for it shall turne it selfe to thee and thou shalt rule ouer it ouer what ouer thy brother God forbid ouer what then but ouer sinne S. Ierome in like sort wryteth thus (q) Inquaestion Hebraicis Quia liberi arbitrij es moneâ— vt non tibi peccatum sed tu peccato domineris alluding to the words in Genes Because thou art of freewill I do counsell thee that sinne may not rule ouer thee but thou ouer sin See also Ambrose (r) lib. 2. de Cain c. 7. Gregory (s) lib. 4. moral cap. 22. and Prosper (t) l. 2. de vocat geÌ„â—ium c. 13. expounding those former words of sinne and not of Abel all which fathers do euen deriue the Doctrine of frewil from their foresaid exposition therof 14. For maintenance of Iustification by workes for we allow that saying of the Historiographer Fayth that is seene is better then faith that is heard we do vrge that place of Iames (u) cap. 2. aboue touched Do you see because of workes a man is iustified and not of faythonly which text is so plaine direct for Iustification by workes as that S. Austin (x) lib. de side operibus c. 14. is not afraid to say that the very scope and drift of this Epistle of S. Iames as also that of Peter Iohn and Iude was chiefly to represse the heresy then begun about Iustification by fayth only so great an impugner was this auncient Father of our Aduersaries sole and melancholy fayth for so I
may well tearme it since it will be euer alone and caÌ„not brooke the company of good workes 15. In like manner for proofe of merit of workes among other testimonies is alledged that saying recorded in Matthew (y) c. 20. Voca operarios redde illis mercedem Cal the workmen and pay them their hyre or wages in which place by the word hyre is vnderstood their daily wages as appeareth by the parable it self Now by this daily wages is signified eternall life euen by the common exposition of the Fathers vpoÌ„ this place See also S. Austin (z) lib. de sancta virginit c. 26. S. Ierome (a) l. 2. in Iouinian S. Gregory (b) lib. 4. moral c. 42. all of theÌ„ so interpreting the former words 16. For proofe of Euangelicall Counsels which make a difference betwene a Stoicks dulnes and a Christian and religious contempt is as I said before that place of Saint Matthew alledged (c) Math. 19. There are Eunuches which haue gelded themselues for the kingdome of heauen where the words for the kingdome of heauen do not signify as the ProtestaÌ„ts would haue it for the better and more easy preaching of the gospell meaning that some are to abstaine from mariage only to that end but the former wordes do truly import so much as literally they signify that is that some forbeare mariage and liue in perpetuall chastity for the gayning of the ioyes of heauen and thus is this place expounded by Cyprian (d) lib. de habitu virginum Chrysostome (e) In huÌ„c locum Ierome (f) l. 1. contra Iouin Austin (g) De sancta virginit c. 24. who thus wryteth therof Christo laudante eos qui se castrauerum c. Christ praysing them who haue gelded theÌ„selues not for this world but for the kingdom of heaueÌ„ shall any Christian gainsay the same in affirming that this kind of gelding is profitable only for this life not for the life to come For proofe of the said Doctrine we synd that the Fathers do interprete those words of our Sauiour Si vis (h) Math. ibidem perfectus c. If thou wilt be perfect Go and sell all that that thou hast c. â—nd follow me c. only as a Counsell and not as a Precept as our Aduersaries do teach See vpoÌ„ this text Ambrose (i) l. de viduis vltra med Ierome (k) Contra Vigil Austin (l) Epist 8â— q. 4. Chrysostome (m) â—n huÌ„c locum who do ioyntly teach that our Sauiour exhorted and counselled only to Pouerty in his former words but imposed no commandement and precept therof whose exposition being true it followeth that who voweth perpetual pouerty performeth an Euangelicall Counsell And of such an one is verifyed that saying of one Father Omnia inuenit in Deo qui propter Deum omnia reliquit 17. Concerning the visibility of the Church we vrge those words of the Psalmist (n) Psalm 18. to wit In sole posuit tabernaculum suum He placed his tabernacle in the sunne Which place Saint Austin (o) Tract 2. in epist Ioan. doth thus expoudd In manifesto posuit Ecclesiam suam He placed his Church in an open and conspicuous place In like sort according to the expositions of S. Ierome and S. Austin the Church of Christ is coÌ„pared to a mighty huge mountaine which is euer in sight See their expositions giuen vpon Isa 2. Dan. 2. and Micheas 4. S. Austin (p) l. de vnitat Eccles c. 14. also doth expound those words of S. Matthew vrged by vs of Christs Church vz. A citty placed vpon a mountaine cannot be hid So clearly did those fathers thinke that the sayd text did confirme the visibility of the church 18. For proofe of Traditions we vsually alledge that place of the (q) 1. Cor. 11. Apostle Laudo Laudo vos quòd per omnia c. I prayse you that in all things you are myndfull of me and that as I haue deliuered to you you keepe my precepts Which text the Fathers expounding do coÌ„stantly teach that the Apostle did heer speake of vnwritten precepts and Traditions so doth Damascene (r) l. 4. c. 17. Basil (s) l. de spirit sanct c. 29. Chrysostome (t) In hunc locum Epiphanius (u) Haeres â—1 Theophilact (x) In huÌ„c locum interprete this place 19. In like sort the Fathers do interprete that other place of S. Paul aboue mentioned of vnwritten traditioÌ„s to wit that of the Thessalonians It aque fratres tenete c. Therfore brethren hold the Traditions which you haue receaued eyther by speach or by Epistle So doth Theophilact (y) hoc loco Damascene (z) l. 4. de siâ—e c. 17. Oecumenius (a) In huÌ„c locum Basil (b) De spivit sanct c. 29. expound it And Chrysostome (c) In hunc locum thus briefly wryteth of the former words Hinc patet quod non omnia per epistolas tradiderint c. Hence it appâ—areth that the Apostles did not deliuer all things by their Epistles but many thinges also euen without writing which do deserue and are worthy of as much credit authority as the former things deliuered by writing 20. Touching Lymbus Patrum or the place where the soules of the iust were before Christ his Incarnation and death we are accustomed to alledge that place of the booke of the (d) 1. Reg. cap. 28. Kings where the soule of Samuel appearing to Saul was seene to ryse out of the earth And that it was the true soule of Samuel appeareth by the testimonies of the fathers so expounding that place See S. Austin (e) De cure pro mortuis c. 15. Ambrose (f) In 1. c. Luca. Ierome (g) In 7. Isa Basil (h) Epist 80. ad Eustachium and Iosephus (i) l. 6. antiquit c. 156 21. That Christ after his death and Passion did truly descend into hell that (*) Hebr. c. 2. so he might destroy through death him who had power ouer death we produce that plaine place of S. Matthew where it is sayd (k) c. 12. Sicut fuit Ionas c. Euen as Ionas was three dayes three nights in the belly of the whale so shal the sonne of man be in the heart of the earth Which place that it is not vnderstood of the graue as our Aduersaries do answere but of hell it selfe according to the Catholiks exposition appeareth from the testimonies of Ierome (l) In c. 2. Ionae who thus wryteth Sicut cor est in medio animalis ita infernus in medio terrae esse perhibetur that is Euen as the hart is in the midst of the liuing creature so is hell in the middest of the earth of Irenaeus (m) l. 5 circa finem of Tertullian (n) l. de anima c. 31. of Gregory Nissenus (o) â—n oraâ—
1. de resurrect and of Ambrose (p) In c. 4. ad Ephes all which Fathers do vnderstand by those wordes of Matthew in corde terrae Hell 22. We also alledge for proofe of the same article that saying of the Apostles Qui ascendit ipse est c. He that ascendeth is the same which descended into the lower parts of the earth where the Latin words inferiores partes terrae do not signify the graue as our Aduersaries do interprete but hel and thus we fynd this place expounded by S. Ierome (q) Omnes hi in hunc locum Ambrose Chrysostome and Theophilact they prouing Christ his descending into hell out of this and the former alledged text 23. For confirmation of Purgatory and Prayer for the dead besides that place of the Machabees which is so plaine as that it needeth no illustration of the Fathers we alledge that place of Matthew (*) c. 12. where it is said that there are some sins which neyther are remitted in this world nor in the world to come Wherby we Catholikes the Fathers afore vs do gather that some sinnes are remitted in the world to come by prayers and suffrages of the Church and this Illation is deduced from this text by S. Austin (r) l. 21. de Ciuit. Dei c. 24. l. 6. in Iulian. cap. 5. S. Ierome (s) lib. 4. dialog c. 39. Bede (t) In c. â— Marci and others 24. Another authority for proofe of Purgatory is vsually alledged out of S. Matthew (u) Math. 5. Luâ— 12. and S. Luke where it is sayd Esto consentiens aduersario tuo c. Be at agreement with thy aduersary betymes whiles thou art in the way with him least perhaps thy aduersary deliuer thee to the iudge and the iudge deliuer thee to the officer and thou be cast into prison verily I say to thee thou shalt not go from thence till thou repay the last farthing Now by the last farthing is here mistically and figuratiuely vnderstood small sinnes which shal be payed for that is shal be punished in the fire of Purgatory and thus is this place expounded by Tertullian (x) l. de anima c. 17. Cyprian (y) lib. 4. epist 2. Origen (z) Hom. 35. in Luc. Ambrose (a) In c. 12. Luc. and Ierome (b) In c. 5. Math. who thus plainly interpreteth the former words Hoc est quod dicit non egredieris de carcere donec minuta peccata persoluas that is This he saith Thou shalt not get out of prison till thou hast discharged euen thy little sinnes 25. Touching Prayer to Saintes And first that Saintes do intercede and pray for vs we proue out of Ieremy (*) cap. 15. where it is sayd Dixit Dominus ad me si steterint Moyses Samuelcoram me non est anima mea ad populum istum that is If Moyses and Samuel stood afore me my mind is not to this people Meaning that if Moyses and Samuel should theÌ„ pray to God for the people of the Iewes yet God would not heare theÌ„ out of which place we gather that Moyses and Samuel theÌ„ being dead were accustomed at other tymes to pray to God for theÌ„ since otherwise this speach of God had bene indirect and to no purpose Now wheras our Aduersaries to auoyd this argument do say that the meaning of this place it not that if Moyses and Samuel in their owne persons but if any other godly men such as Moyses Samuel were should pray to God he would not heare them Yet notwithstanding we find this place expounded literally personally and truly and so consequently against our Aduersaries their answere of Moyses and Samuel by Chrysostome (c) Hom. 1. in epist 1. ad Thes sal Ierome (d) In huÌ„e locum Gregory (e) l 9. moral c. 12. 26. To the same end we produce out of the Machabees (f) 2. Mac. cap. vlt. how Iudas did see in a vision Onias the Priest and Ieremy the Prophet both which were then dead praying for the Iewes Now seing that this booke of the Machabees is accounted true and vndoubted Scripture by S. Austin (g) l. 18. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 36. Cypryan (h) l 1. ep 3. ad Cornelium Ambrose (i) l. 2. de Iacob c. 10. 11. 12. Gregroy (k) Inorat de Mach. Nazianzen and others it therfore followeth that these Fathers acknowledging the Machabees for Scripture and neuer making any other construction of this vision then literall such as the words import do also acknowledge that this place doth infallibly proue that the Saintes do pray for vs. 27 Now more particularly that Saintes are to be prayed vnto we proue by the words in Iob (l) Iob. c. 5. where it is sayd Voca si quis est qui tibi respondeat ad aliquem Sanctorum conuertere That is Call if any there be which may answere thee and turne thy selfe to any of the Saints Where by the name of the Saintes are vnderstood the Angells according to the exposition of S. Austin (m) In annot in Iob. But if Angells do pray for vs then do Saintes the like since there is one and the same reason of both 28. Now to make an end of this Chapter I will finally rest in bringing a place or two out of the Scripture to proue that the Eucharist is a true and proper though vnbloudly Sacrifice contrary to our Aduersaries wicked Doctrine herein And first we are accustomed to alledge in proofe hereof the priesthood of Melchisedech of whome it is thus said Melchisedech (n) Genes 14. rex Salem protuliâ— c. that is Melchisedech being King of Salem did offer bread and wyne for he was a priest of the high God Now not only Dauid (o) Psalm 109. but also S. Paul (p) Hebr. 7. do so referre this place to Christ as that S. Paul doth plainly say that Christ was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech not according to the order of AaroÌ„ Now if Christ be a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech then the reason hereof is in that Christ is to institute an vnbloudy sacrifice vnder the forme of bread and wyne and so we Catholikes do hould that this he did when he first instituted the blessed Eucharist And answerably hereto the Fathers do interprete those words of the Psalmist (q) l. 4. stormat Thou art a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech and the like words of S. Paul to wit that Christ is therfore properly and truly called a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech because he instituted at his last supper a Sacrifice vnder the formes of bread and wyne Thus are those former places expounded by Clemens (r) lib. 5. demonstr EuaÌ„g c. 3. Alexandrinus Eusebius (s) l. â— ep 3. ad Caecil Caesariensis Cyprian (t) Haeres â—9 Epiphanius (u) lib. 5. de Sacram. c.
persecuting the Church of Christ In this sort this place is expounded by Tertullian (f) l. coÌ„tra Iudaeos l. 3. contra MarcioneÌ„ and Ierome (g) Epist 17. ad MarcellaÌ„ But others of them to wit S. Austin h and S. Bede (i) In cap. 17. Apoc. doe vnderstand by the Whoore in the Apocalips sitting vpon the seauen hils the generall all and vniuersall Citty of the diuell which in the Scripture is often called Babylon by the seauen hils is vnderstood the number of the proud and chiefly of the earthly kings So thus we find that according to either of the constructions deliuered by the auncieÌ„t Fathers this former obiected text doth nothing at all touch Antichrist 4. In like manner our Aduersaries do vrge those words in the second to the (k) cap 2. Thessalonians Ita vt in templo Dei sedeat c. So as he is to sit in the temple of God Where the Apostle speaking of Antichrist the Protestantes wil needs haue him to meane that Antichrist shall sit in the Church of vs Christians forsooth because the Pope sits therin as head therof whereas the Fathers do interprete the former wordes of the temple of the Iewes which once was the temple of God and where according to the iudgments both of the Fathers and vs Catholiks Antichrist is to sit thus is this place expounded by Chrysostome (l) In hunc locum Ambrose (m) In c. 21. Luc. Hilary (n) Can 25. in Math. Cyril (o) Catech. 15. Hierosolym Hippolitus (p) Orat. de mundi consuÌ„mat Ireneus (q) lib. 5. and others 5. Against the Reall Presence they vrge the words of our Sauiour recorded by S. Iohn as is afore touched vz. The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit which quickneth Now that this place is vnderstood only of the carnall apprehension of the Iewes of eating grosly and carnally Christs body appeareth out of Chrysostome (r) In hunc loâ—um Theophilact (s) ibidem Cyprian (t) In ser de coena Domini and Origen (u) l. 3. in epist. ad Rom. To the same end they produce those words Non y bibam ex hoc sanguine vitis c I will not drinke henceforth of the fruit of this wyne vntill that day as I shall drinke it new with you in my Fathers kingdome Drawing from these words which do tearme the cup wyne as if our Sauiour had spoken of the Cup consecrated that there was no reall change of bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christ wheras we find that S. Luke (y) cap. 22. doth x Math. 26. make mention of two cups the one at supper wherof the former words were spoken the other after supper which our Sauiour consecrated and to which the former words had no reference And thus we find this place explicated answerably to S. Lukes relation by Ierome (z) in c. 26. Math. Bede (a) In c. 22. Luc. Theophilact (b) In cap. 22. Luc. 6. In denyall of auricular Confession and of Priests their authority for remitting of sinnes therby they produce the wordes of Christ recorded by S. Iohn (c) cap. 20. vz. Sicut misit me pater c. Euen as my Father sent me so I doe send you But Christ say they when he remitted and forgaue sin exacted not any particular enumeration of them as appeareth out of S. Luke (d) cap. 7. S. Matthew (e) cap. 9. Therfore we are not bound to any secret confession of our sinnes To which argument we answere that the former place of S. Iohn is not so to be vnderstood that the Apostles their successours were precisely bound to do all things after the same manner as they were done by Christ since by that rule then the Apostles ought not to baptize in (f) Act. 2. remission of sinnes because Christ without Baptisme did remit the sinnes of Mary Magdalen neither to giue the holy Ghost by imposition of handes since Christ gaue it by breathing (g) Ioan. 20. vpon the Apostles Therfore the former text alledged according to the expositioÌ„ of S. Chrysostome (h) In hunc locum doth import that our Sauiour said that he did send the Apostles as himselfe was sent because he gaue to theÌ„ the power of remitting or retaining of sinnes as himselfe had receaued of his Father or according to the interpretation of S. Gregory (i) Hom. 2â— in Euang because he did send the Apostles to suffer persecution and death as himself was sent to vndergoe Lastly because according to (k) In huÌ„c locum Cyril he did seÌ„d them to performe the sayd office which himselfe was seÌ„t to accomplish to wit to reclayme men from sinne to propagate the Church to preach the Ghospell And thus we see that though the Fathers do sometymes differ in literall exposition of certaine texts yet they all agree in this in which point we heere chiefly insist that they do not affoard any such sense wherin the Protestantes doe vrge them against the Catholike fayth 7. To take away auricular Confession they alledge those words of Ezechiel (l) c. 33. Quotiescunque ingemuerit peccator c. As often as a sinner shall grieue and lament I will not remeÌ„ber his iniquities Out of which words they labour to proue that God only exacteth this repentance griefe of a sinner for the remission of his sinnes and not any auricular confession of them or absolution of the Priest To which we answere that neither of them is excluded by the sayd words since no man can grieue and lament for his sinnes in any auaileable manner but that he must desire al those meanes as confession therof and absolution which God hath instituted in his Church And in this sort we fynd that S. (m) Epist 91. ad TheodoruÌ„ Leo doth obiect this very place against himselfe in this poynt and then thus answereth it Which exposition of his must needs be true since the former text if it should exclude confession and absolution by the same reason it should also exclude Baptisme yea fayth charity as necessary for the remission of our sinnes since a man may grieue for his sinnes only by reason of the temporall losse comming therby 8. Wheras against Freewill they vsually obiect that text of Isay (n) c. 22. vz. Omnia opera nostra c. O Lord thou hast wrought all our workes in vs yet we find that Ierome (o) In comment eiusdem loci doth p In huÌ„c locum vnderstand those words of Gods chastisements of that people and Cyril (p) In huÌ„c locum of Gods miracles and benefits shewed to theÌ„ So as neither of theÌ„ nor any other do vnderstand them in our Aduersaries sense 9. For proofe of Iustification by fayth only they vrge that saying of the (q) Rom. c. 3. Apostle Arbitramur hominem iustificari c.
Luke Iesus proficiebat sapientia aeâ—ate gratia Iesus did profit and increase in wisedome and grace But the common exposition of the Fathers is that he profited in wisedome grace only in the opinion of men to whome he dayly discouered his wisedome and grace more and more Thus doth Gregory (p) In Basinum Nazianzene Cyril (q) l. 20. Thesauri c. 7. Damascene (r) l. 3. c. 22. Theophilact and others expound this place In like sort to proue Christes ignorance they produce that place where it is sayd De illo die nemo (s) Mar. 13. scit That day no man knoweth neither the Angells nor the sonne but only the Father Wherby is not ment that Christ did not know when that day should be as our Aduersaries do infer but that he did not know it to tell it to others And thus Ambrose (t) l. 5. de fide cap. 8. Gregory (u) l. 4. Epist 42. Ierome (x) â—n c. 24. Math. Basil (y) l. 4. in EunomiuÌ„ and Austin (z) l. 1. de Gens contra Manich c. 22. expound these words 23. To maintaine that blasphemy that Christ suffered throughout his Passion the paynes of hell they are not ashamed to vrge his feare sweating in the GardeÌ„ most differently from the iudgmeÌ„t of the auncieÌ„t Fathers for S. Hilary (a) Can. 31. in Math. saith that Christ theÌ„ feared in regard of his disciples whom he saw would forsak him Ierome (b) in 26. Math. writeth that he then grieued for the Iewes in sinning so much by crucifying him Ambr. (c) In c. 22. Luc. Chrysost (d) In c. 26. Math. attribute his feare to his naturall affectioÌ„ as fearing the death of his body 24. To the vphoulding of the same impiety they wrest those words of the Apostle VZ Indiebus (e) Hebr. 5. carnis preces c. Who in the dayes of his flesh did offer vp prayers and supplications with strong crying and teares vnto him that was able to saue him from death and was also heard in that which he feared Our Aduersaries meaning hereby that Christ did not pray that he should not dye but that he might not be eternally damned and through this feare he was heard of his Father Wheras the true both reading according to the (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propter reuerentiam eius Greeke and meaning is that Christ was heard of his Father either because himselfe was worthy of all honour and reuerence or in that he did affect his Father withall due honour and reuereÌ„ce And thus do we find this place expounded by Chrysostome and Oecumenius all of them so wryting vpon this text 25. To impugne Purgatory and prayer for the dead they alledge the saying of Dauid CuÌ„ (g) Psalm 126. dederit dilectis suis soÌ„num ecce haereditas Domini When he shall giue sleepe rest to his beloued then behould the inheritance of the Lord. They inferring hereby that al the godly preseÌ„tly vpoÌ„ their death do come to heauen wheras indeed this text is menat of the general resurrectioÌ„ of all this is so expounded by S. Austin (h) In huÌ„c locum In like sort they produce that place of Ecclesiasticus (i) c. 9. QuodcuÌ„que facere potest manus tua instanter operare Whatsoeuer thy haÌ„d can do do it instaÌ„tly because neither any worke nor reasoÌ„ nor knowledg nor wisedome is beneth whither thou hastest they meaning heerby that the dead haue no feeling knowledg nor help of the liuing Which place according to the expositioÌ„ of the Fathers makes nothing against Purgatory for S. Ierome (k) In CoÌ„ment huius loci doth interprete these wordes either of such as beleeue neither heauen nor hell nor any thing els to follow after this life or els of those who liuing wickedly and so dying do descend directly into hell where there is no remedy nor hope of solace S. Gregory (l) l. 4. Dialog c. 39. applyeth this place euen to those which come to Purgatory interpreting that a man after he is dead by himselfe can make no meanes of ease and releefe but if he be holpen with the prayers of the liuing it is because he hath deserued so to be relieued when he was aliue by his good works and life 26. Lastly they alledge that passage of Ecclesiastes (m) c. 11. aboue touched the answere wherof is in the former Chapter but one set downe to wit that those which are in Purgatory belong to the South that is to heauen froÌ„ whence there is no passage to hell nor from hell thither And thus is that text expounded by S. Ierome (n) In CoÌ„ment huius loci 27. Against prayer to Saintes They vrge that which the Apostle saith Vnus (o) 1. Timoth 2. est mediator Dei hominum c. One mediatour betwene God and man which is the man Christ Iesus Which place indeed is vnderstood of a mediatour only in respect of our Redemption but not in regard of Intercession In which sense Cyril (p) l. 12. Thesau c. 10. was not affrayd to cal the Prophets Apostles Mediatours betwen God VS Gregory (q) Orat. ad GregoriuÌ„ Nyss Nazianzene the martyrs To the same end they wrest those words to the Colossians (r) Coloss 2. Nemo vos seducat volens in humilitate religione Angelorum c. Let no man seduce you by humblenes of mynd and worshipping of Angells c. In which place the Apostle doth condemne the heresy of Simon Magus who following the Platonicks did teach that certaine Angells were to be worshipped as inferiour Gods which made the world and through whose mediation only the wrath of the great inuisible God was to be appeased as appeareth besides out of the text it selfe from the expositions of Chrysostome (s) Hom. 7. in epist. ad Coloss Occumenius (t) In hunc locum and Theophilact (u) Ibidem of this place S. Ierome (x) q. 10. ad â—â—gasiam teacheth that in that former place of the Apostle those are repreheÌ„ded who did sacrifice to the Angells They also alledge some places which do seeme to intimate that the Saintes such as be dead do know nothing of the actions of the liuing as for example Tues (y) Isa 63. enim Pater noster Abraham nesciuit nos c. Thou art our father AbrahaÌ„ hath not known vs Israel hath bene ignorant of vs. To which place is answered that Abraham and others of the old Testament did not know what their children successours being aliue did here vpon earth because themselues were not as yet blessed And we grant that the dead naturally do not know what the liuing do And thus S. Austin (z) l. de cura promort c. 13. expoundeth this text 28. Lastly to conclude this poynt of producing the Fathers expositions of Scripture against our Aduersaries