is bounded with some of these ensewing restrictions 2. First their meaning sometymes is that certaine Articles only of our beliefe are most expresly set downe in the Scriptures in this sort (a) Aduersus Hermog pag. 350. Tertullian prouing against Hermogenus that God created all thinges of nothing and not out of any presupposed matter and with particuler reference to those wordes in Genesis God made heauen and earth thus wryteth Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem c. I do adore the fullnes of the Scripture which manifesteth to me the maker of all thinges and the thinges made Let the shoppe of Hermogenus teach that it is written If it be not written let him feare that Vae to such as do add or detract c. Which sentence of Tertullian though deliuered only of one Article of our beliefe our Sectaryes neuertheles do stretch out to al points Controuersyes of faith whatsoeuer Thus most inconsequently arguing affirmatiuely from the Particuler to the Vniuersall Another like place to this they obiect out of (b) Lib. 3. de Trinit Hilarius touching the doctrine of the Trinity 3. Secondly the Fathers sometymes ascrybing great honour and reuerence to the Scriptures the which we Catholikes most willingly admit do teach that the Scripture is an infallible rule not heerby intending that it is the only square of our faith as our Aduersaryes seeme fondly to suggest but that whatsoeuer the Scripture proueth is most infallibly and vndoubtedly proued by the same and consequently that nothing is to be admitted as matter of fayth which doth crosse and impugne the Scripture And thus besides that place of (c) Lib. 1. cap. 1. pag. 37. Irenaeus where he calleth the Scripture in the former sense Cancnem immobilem veritatis as also the like of (d) De fide l. c. 4. Ambrose where he appealeth from the writings of particuler fathers to the Scripture as also of (e) in Cor. 7. hom 13. Chrysostome where he calleth the Scripture Guomonem regulam we find that (f) in Epist ad Galat. cap. 5. S. Hierom man taining with all Catholikes that nothing is to be receaued contrary to the Scripture and that therefore generall Councells are to be examined thereby thus wryteth Spiritus sancti doctrina c. The doctrine of the holy Ghost is that which is deliuered in the holy bookes contra quam against which doctrine if the Councels do ordaine any thing let it be reputed as wicked But what Catholike alloweth any thing against Scripture And how extrauagantly then is this testimony obiected against vs by our Aduer saryes Many such places of other Fathers are vrged against vs and yet they only conuince that nothing is to be accepted as an article of fayth which impugneth the Scripture such is their willfull misapplication of the Fathers wrytings It will be sufficient only to make reference of diuers such passages See then Cyprian contra epistolas Stephani Lactantius Institut diuin lib. 5. cap. 20. Basilius epist. 74. ad Episcopos Occidentales Chrysostome hom 49. in Psalm 95. Epiphan Haer. 63. and 76. Cyril de recta fide ad Regin besides many others 4. Thirdly the Fathers disputing with certaine heretikes who denyed all authority of the Church and Councells in determyning of Controuersies with whom the Nouelistes of our age do altogeather interleague and conspire were forced in their disputes to prouoke those heretikes of the holy Scripture not because the Fathers but those heretikes disclaymed from the Churches authority in this point and therefore the Churches authority being reiected by them the Fathers were driuen to insist only in the written word In this sort Iustinus in Triphone disputing with a Iew who admitted not the Church of Christ appealed willingly to the Scripture only Augustine (g) Contra MaximinuÌ„ lib. 3. c. 14. contending with the Arian Maximinus who admitted not the Councell of Nice professed that he did not expect to haue his doctrine tryed by that CouÌ„cell but only by the Scripture and therefore sayd Nec ego Nicaenum proferam c. I will not produce the Nicen Councell c. Let the matter be tryed by the authority of Scripture Finally S. Basil (h) Epist 88. ad Eustochium disputing with certaine Heretiks touching three Hypostases and one Nature in God and they contemning the authority and custome of Christes vniuersall Church therein was compelled to recall them only to the Scriptures tearming the Scripture in this Controuersy Arbiter and Index but in what doth this testimony much insisted vpon by our Aduersaryes disaduantage vs since we heere see the reason why Basil appealed to the Scripture Againe what â—â—â—ation is this Basil thought that the doctrine of three Hypostase and â—ne Nature in God was expresly proued out of the Scripture Therefore he thought that all other points of our fayth necessarily to be belieued haue their expresse proofe in the Scripture without the Churches authority interposed in the exposition thereof Inconsequently and vnschollerlikely concluded 5. Fourthly the Fathers teaching that the proofe of the Churches authority is euicted from Scripture as is elswhere shewed and they also acknowledging that the Church is to iudge of all Controuersyes of fayth and religion do thereupon and only by reason of this inference sometymes in their writings affirme that the Scripture iudgeth sufficiently of all Controuersyes not meaning that the Scripture immediatly of it selfe is inappealably to determine of all articles and doubts of religion as our Aduersaryes calumniously pretend but that it may be said so to do because the Scripture proueth to vs the infallible authority of that to wit the Church and remitteth vs to the same which hath power definitiuely to end all Controuersies In this sense we find that (i) Lib. cont 2 ep Pelâ—g l. 3 c. 4. Augustine teacheth that euery Controuersy is in some sort sufficiently proued out of Scripture meaning Mediante authoritate Ecclesiae Through the meanes of the authority of the Church which authority for the last resolution of doubtes of fayth is most sufficiently and abundantly proued from the Scripture Other like sentences of this nature concerning the fullnes of Scriptures but euer to be vnderstood by the mediation of the Churches authority are to be found in (k) Tom 3. contra Iulianum Cyrill (l) Epist 5. ad suos discipulos Clemens the first Pope and in some other Fathers 6. A second branch whereunto other obscure testimonyes of the Fathers vsually vrged by our Sectaryes for the patronizing of the Scriptures sole iudge may be addressed (m) De doctrinâ— Christ l. 2 c. 9. is drawne from the perfection which the Fathers seeme to ascribe to the Scripture in regard of which perfection they yield to it a great sufficiency for seuerall respectes and ends though our aduersaryes most fraudulently omitting the scope and drift of such sayings will needs wrest this sufficiency as intended of the Scriptures sufficiency for the immediate and finall determining
from all spirituall darknes and ignorance 13. To the former two senses wherein the Fathers do call the Scripture perspicuous cleare and facill I wil add a third reason which moued them sometymes so to call them This is taken from a certaine abuse of the cōmon sort of people in those tymes who framing to thēselues a greater difficulty in the Scripture then there is altogether forbare the reading of it and in place thereof gaue themselues more then was conuenient to the behoulding of prophane spectacles and sightes Now to bereaue the people of this abuse and negligence and the sooner to inuite them to the reading and hearing of Gods word the Fathers thought good in an Oratory and amplifying manner to suggest to thē an easines of the Scripture This course S. Chrysostome in diuers of his homilies and sermons tooke the sooner therby as is sayd to win the people to the reading of Gods holy word as in Ioan. homil 1. in Thesal 2. homil 3. With the same intentiō doth Athanasius (y) In Epist ad Ephes c. 6. relate to the people the facility of the Scripture And thus farre of the Fathers supposed defence and maintaining of our Sectaries Doctrine in this question of the Scriptures sole Iudge where we see that though the places vrged by our aduersaries out of their wrytings at the first sight seeme to carry a faire and specious glosse or graine yet being after fully weighed and considered they giue no satisfaction for proofe of what they were alleadged to a perfect and true iudgment being like vnto those flowers which best pleasing the eye do commonly least please the smell The like difficulty of the Scriptures confessed by our Aduersaries CAAP. IX ALTHOVGH our Aduersaries do vsually pretend the easines of the Scriptures and therfore do obtrude it as sole Iudge and Vmpier therby to auoyde the graue and pressing authorities of the Councells Fathers and the practise of Gods vniuersall Church vrged in any controuersiall point betwene vs and them yet sometymes diuers of them can be content both in their actions and words so forcible is Truth as that she can extort sufficiēt testimony euen from her owne enemies to acknowledge the Scriptures obscurity as contayning in it selfe a Ianus of construction the sense looking one way the letter another 2. And first concerning their actions crossing this their Assertion if there were such perspicuity in them as the Protestantes do beare their followers in hand why haue our aduersaries themselues laboured so much in explaning the sayd Scriptures Why hath Luther Caluin Beza and others written seuerall books in paraphrazing illustrating of them Or why haue they made so many different translations of them And if the Scriptures be hard and difficult why do they with such obstinate pertinacity maintaine the contrary So illustrious this verity is concerning the Scriptures intricate hardnesse as that our aduersaries owne labours and actions do conuince their owne errour therin 3. Now to come to the second point which is how themselues do wryte therof expresly at vnawares as if they had forgotten what at other tymes they had taught with such feruorous obstinacy Luther (a) In praefat in Psalm himselfe although the Day-star of the Ghospels light confesseth that neyther he nor any other is able to vnderstād the psalmes of Dauid in their true and propersense Yea he speaketh more generally saying (b) Ibidem infra Scio esse impudentissimae temeritatis c. I acknowledge it to be a signe of most shamles temerity and rashnes for any man to professe that he truly vnderstandeth in all places but any one booke of the Scriptures 4. Chemnitius (c) Examē 4. sess Cōcil Tridēt affirmes that the Church is now indued with the guift of interpreting the Scriptures in such sort as in it first tymes it enioyed the guift of doing miracles to wit that neyther the one nor the other was grāted to euery particular man but only to some persons elected theerto by God Brentius (d) In Cofess VVittember who at other tymes freeth the Scriptures from all difficulties is forced to dismaske himselfe and to confesse thus in the end Non est obscurum c. It is manifest that the guift of interpreting the Scriptures is a guift of the holy Ghost and not of humane wisedome that the holy Ghost therein is free and not tyed to any certaine kind of men but bestoweth this guift as best seemeth vnto him The Magdeburgenses (e) Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. col 52. do plainly grant that the Apostles thēselues were of opinion that the holy Scriptures could not be truly vnderstood without the help of the holy Ghost as an interpreter Neyther shall we find this Doctrine strange among our homeborne Sectaries since D. Field (f) l. 4. c. 15. a late appearing Comet in our Protestants sky doth thus say There is no question but that there are many difficulties of the holy Scriptures proceeding partly from the high and excellent nature of thinges therein contayned which are without the compasse of naturall vnderstanding and so are hidden from naturall men c. partly out of the ignorance of tongus and of nature of such thinges by the comparison whereof the matters of diuine knowledge are manifested vnto vs. 5. And now if after the voluntary acknowledgment of so many markable Protestantes in this point any of them would seeke to retyre back and recall all what they haue sayd by teaching that though they grant some passages of Gods word to be hard and difficult yet those places being compared with other like sentences texts receaue from thence a cleare and plaine explication Yet this refuge of theirs is of no strength the reason hereof being because as any one text in Controuersy is doubtfull and capable of diuers constructions so likewise are the other places and testimonies of Scripture as ambiguous in sense and interpretation wherwith the sayd text is to be conferred and by which conference it is to receaue it illustration And thus we see by experience that the doubt of any one place of Scripture is often more increased by that meanes to wit by conference of texts by the which it was first hoped to haue bene extinguished And therfore the former English Doctour (g) l 19 pronounceth of the weaknes of this answere in this sort We confesse that neyther conference of places nor the consideration of the Antecedentia and consequentia nor looking into the originalls are of any force vnles we find the thinges which we conceaue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant to the rule of fayth 6. And thus much concerning the difficulty of the Scriptures acknowledged by the plaine testimonies cōfessions of our aduersaries thēselues though at other times impugning the truth herein which point we are the lesse to maruell at if we remember that it proceedeth through his will and permissions who commaunded (h)
1. Ambrose (x) Hom. 35. in Gen. Chrysostome (y) Epist ad Marcel Ierome (z) Epist. 95. ad Innocent Pap. Austin (a) Dialog cū Tripho and others 29. A second conuincing testimony in proofe of the sacrifice of the Masse is takē out of Malachy in these words Non est mihi voluntas in vobis dicit Dominus Exercituum c. I haue not a mynd or will in you sayth the Lord of hostes and I will not take any guift from your hand for from the rising of the sunne vnto the setting therof my name is great among the Gentles and in euery place is sacrified and offered to my name a cleane oblation because my name is great among the Gentils saith the Lord of hostes Which text containeth a prophesy of the sacrifice which shal be offered to God by the Gentils after their conuersion to Christian religion And because thus far the Protestants do acknowledge they therfore interprete this (b) l. 4. c. 32. place of spirituall sacrifices to wit prayers thankesgiuings and such like which the elect and faythfull offer vp to God But the Catholikes do expound this sayd place of Malachy of a Sacrifice as it is truly and properly taken to wit of the sacrifice of the Eucharist And in this particular sense they find this prophesy expounded by Iustinus (c) l. 3. contra Marc. Martyr who thus plainly saith De nostris gentium c. Of our sacrifices of Gentils that is of the bread and Cup of the Eucharist Malachias did then speake c. By Ireneus (d) l. cont Iudaeos c. c. 16. by Tertullian (e) In Cōment Psal 95. by Cypriā by Chrysostome by Ierome (h) In Cōment Malach finally by S. Austin (i) l. 1. contra aduers leg prophet c. 20. l. 18. de Ciuit. Dei c. 36. al which Fathers do directly in plaine words expoūd this prophesy of Malachy of the sacrifice of the masse 30. I could exemplify in many more textes both of these articles and of others the Fathers like agrement with the Catholiks in expounding such passages of Scripture as we at this day do alledge in warrant of our religion But the seformer examples being of the chiefest cōtrouersies and of the most markable textes obiected by vs may seeme as a scantling wherby to measure the Fathers mynd and inclination in interpreting of all such others And now by this which hath bene already set downe we may gather how much our Aduersaries are en dangered by seking to determine all controuersies betwene vs and them only by the wrytten Word if therein they would stand to the iugdgment of the auncient Fathers whose great distāce of a thousād yeares at least is the reasō belike why they appeare so litle in the eyes of these our Sectaries who we see do not only beleeue the Doctrine answerable to the Catholikes expositions of the former texts but thēselues do expound the sayd texts authorities as we do and from their owne such constructions do deryue and iustify their faith and Doctrine equally maintayned by vs both so as those wordes of Tertullian (p) lib. de pudicitia doe rightly concerne the Fathers and vs Concorporauit nos scriptura diuina literae ipsae glutina nostra sunt So hard indeed so impossible it is to deuyde the thred euenly betwene the Fathers and vs but that we both must ioyntly participate eyther of interpreting the Scripture according to the intended sense of the holy Ghost or else of most fowly deprauing and adulterating the same since if we Catholikes erre therein we see how iustly we may insimulate the Fathers within our sayd errour And yet our Aduersaries see the subtilty of Heresy do peremptory call the sayd poynts of fayth and Doctrine deduced out of the former constructions of Scripture Antichristian and damnable heresies as they are maintayned by vs Catholikes which in the Fathers they allieuate and gentle by tearming them but Naeuos and Naeuia idle and inconsiderate eyther heresies in both or but spots and blemishes in both for it is the Doctrine which denominates the person not the person the Doctrine Yet neyther dare they iustify since the one would discouer their open dangerous breach with the Fathers the other an ouer fauorable extenuation of our religion both an acknowledmēt of their ouer sight in retracting that in the end which hitherto they haue so pertinaciously auerred But to recall my selfe and to hastō to the next Chapter That the textes of Scripture obiected by the Protestantes in disprouall of our Religion are otherwise expounded by the Fathers then in that sense wherin our Aduersaries do vrge them And that their expositions of them do commonly agree with ours CHAP. X. NOw after we haue shewed that the Fathers do ioyne with vs Catholikes in their expositions of the chiefest and most conuincing textes which we are accustomed to alledge for warrant of our Doctrine it followeth according to our former designe that we in like sort do demonstrate that the Fathers do deliuer farre differēt cōstructions and for the most part the same with vs Catholikes of the principall and mayne passages of Scripture obiected against vs from that sense and meaning wherin our Aduersaries do vrge them so as it is most euident that in the sayd Fathers iudgment which in all reason is to ouerballance the priuate spirit of any Sectary whatsoeuer no one such text doth preiudice our Catholike faith at all 2. And to begin The Protestantes greatest argument against the Supremacy of S. Peter is taken frō S. Pauls cōtradicting of him as we read in the Epistle to the Galathians (a) cap. 2. and as it is aboue touched yet we fynd that the Fathers in the exposition of this place do so prayse the humility of S. Peter therein as that they take occasion therby to intimate his superiority ouer all the other Apostles See S. Cyprian (b) Epist. ad Quintū S. Gregory (c) Hom. 18. in Ezech S. Austin (d) Epist 19. ad Hieronym who thus wryteth of this point Rarius sanctius exemplum Petrus c. Peter hath left a more rare and holy example to his successours then Paul hath done since by that of Peters they are taught not to disdaine to be corrected by their inferiours wheras by the other of Paules the inferiours are emboldned to resist their superiours in a charitable manner for the defence of truth Thus farre S. Austin who we see by the commenting of this place doth strengthen and fortify the Doctrine of Peters Primacy 3. To proue that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist they obiect those words in the Apocalips where it is said that the whore of Babylon shall sit on that Citty which hath seauen hils to wit Rome Now we find that such Fathers as do interprete this place of Rome doe meane therby Rome in the tyme of the heathen Emperours then worshipping Idols
since you are worthily placed in the ranke of those who to speake in the Psalmists (d) Psal 8. phrase In vij institiae ambulant in medio semitarum iudicij And since a true apprehension of temporall Lawes maketh way for the better vnderstanding of Gods eternall and immutable law those being but as branches deryued out of this and as it were certaine adumbrations of the same according to those words Vnus (e) Iac. 2. est Leg slator index And since the question discussed in this treatise consisteth in the vnchangeable law of God which principally consisteth in this sacred writ and disputeth who is to iudge therof to determine difficulties according to the square of the same Therefore who can better iudge of this point speaking of the Laity then you who are Iudges Or who can with a more cleare impartial eye discerne the may ne absurdities attending on our Aduersaries Doctrine then you if you will but vouchsafe to glasse the same or like by supposall only in the speculation of your owne lawes 1. You for example acknowledge and therefore for your particuler worthines are deputed to the honour and dignity of Iudicature that in regard of the ambiguity of your owne law there must be an externall Iudge or Interpreter distinct from the law it selfe for the manifesting of it true sense Our Aduersaries (f) Luth. Caluin Chemnit c. vt supra dicitur do constitute the Scripture not only as the law according to which all controuersiall poynts of fayth are to be decyded but withall as Iudge so confounding the law and the Iudge 2. You not only graunt that there ought to be a iudge or interpreter of the law but also you mayntaine that this prerogatiue of iudging doth not belong to euery priuate man but only to certaine selected and publike persons appointed to the same end Yea you no doubt are assured that if liberty were giuen to ech man to interprete the nationall lawes of England that suites and contentions would neuer be determined by the sayd lawes euery one interpreting them in fauour of this owne cause Our Aduersaries teach that euery priuate Man (g) VVhitak Controu 1. q. 5. c. 3. q. â— c. 11. Caluin Instit Brent in Prolog which they stile the reuealing spirit and with whome we may well expostulate in the wordes vsed to Moyses (h) Exod. 2. Quis constituit te Iudicem enioyeth the priuiledge of hauing the vndoubted sense of the Scripture infallibly reuealed vnto him and so is to become his owne expositour from whence it followeth as being warranted by all experience and reason that different spirits by this their Assertion differently interpreting the Scriptures can neuer come to any finall attonement or reconciliation 3. You deliuer that in a well ordained CoÌ„mon-wealth the Iudg ought to be such as euery Man may haue free accesse vnto him as also to haue power not only to interpret the law but also to haue a coactiue authority to force the delinquent to subscribe and obey vnder paine of seuere chastisement and which is more you would hold it ridiculous to constitute that as iudge or law to the which all delinquents stil continuing delinquents would chiefly couet to repayre as to their best refuge fort and sanctuary Our Aduersaries constitute the Scripture for Iudge to which many cannot haue resort since many cannot read It cannot impose any obedience to the erroneous party since it is the proper scene of all Heretikes to maintaine their errours after their appeale to the Scripture more pertinaciously then euer afore finally it is that wherin as herafter shal be proued in this treatise all Heretikes (i) This is confessed euen by Tertul. de praescript Hierom epist ad Pauliuum Vincent Lyrinens aduers haer haue accustomed to repose their chiefest confideÌ„ce refuge according to that of Tertullian (*) vbi supra Obtendunt Haeretâ—ci c. Heretikes do pretend Scripture and by their boldnâ—s in the conflicts of their disputes they weary the strong in fayth the weak they ouercome and the wauering they dismisse with scruples 4. You I know cannot be persuaded that the lawes of this Realme are able to proue themselues from theÌ„selues alone to be the lawes of the Realme without any further warraÌ„t or attestation of history or other authority Our Aduersaries auouch coÌ„trary to the Fathers (k) Aug. Tom. 6. contra ep Fund Vincent Lyrinens aduersus haer Aug. tom 7. contra Croscon that the Scripture wherin is contained the law of God can proue it self out of it selfe alone to be true vndoubted word of God among so many other obtruded and counterfeyted wrytinges without the explication of the Church of God 5. You hold it most dissonant to reason to iustify that when you vnfold and deliuer the meaning and sense of the law you in so doing are aboue the law but you doe willingly acknowledge that the law is law whether your sentence be giuen of it or no only by your learned Demurres you pronounce your iudgement not that therby that which afore was not law should by your sentence giuen become the law but only that others not learned in the law should by such your Reports take notice and distinguish the true meaning of the Law from all obtruded and mistaken senses therof Our Aduersaries (l) Luther l. de Concilijs Illyricus l. de norma prax CoÌ„cil TrideÌ„t Chemnit in exam Concil Trident. do idly charge vs in great estuation and heat of speach that we do aduance the vniuersall Pastour of Gods Church or a lawful general CouÌ„cel aboue the Scripture because to them both we ascribe a definitiue authority for setting downe which is Scripture and which is the true and vndoubted sense of it And heereupon they auerre that the Pope or a generall Councell by assuming this prerogatiue presumes to make that Scripture by such their declaration which afore was not Scripture and to disauthorize that for not Scripture which afore was Scripture and lastly to impose that sense of Scripture for the meaning of the holy Ghost which before such their imposition was not his meaning wheras indeed all that the supreme Bishop or general Councel performes both which reuerently submit themselues to the Scripture is to declare Canonicall Scripture from Apocryphal and forged wrytinges and among many adulterate and false senses of confessed Scripture to manifest which is the genuine and true sense of it all which prerogatiues that the Church and her Head do enioy is euident both from the words of our Sauiour (m) Math. 18. and from his great Apostle S. Paul (n) 1. Timoth 3. 6. You voluntarily confesse that besides your lawes left in wryting our Realme enioyes as all other good States and Commonwealths do certaine vnwrytten and customary lawes as I may tearme them which receaue their force from an vndiscontinued practise and long hand of tyme. And you cannot be induced
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
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.
wheras they do alledge to proue that there is now no sacrifice in the Church the words of our Sauiour (a) Ioan. 29. CoÌ„summatum est It is consummated or finished As if our Sauiour testifyed hereby that whatsoeuer was requisite for our health and saluation was accomplished and consummated by his only sacrifice vpon the Crosse wheras his meaning only was that all his afflictions and punishments which he suffred in flesh were consummated and ended by his death vpon the Crosse thus do Austin Cyril Theophilact Chrysostome teach in their expositions of this place 29. This now among many other like passages of Scripture obiected by our Aduersaries may serue to discouer the Fathers iudgments in the explicating of al such texts and how far distant at least in those learned Doctours censures they are from coÌ„tradicting any one point of our Catholike Fayth consequently how preiudiciall it were to the Protestants in the Fathers iudgments to make the holy Scripture the sole and last resort and Tribunall of Controuersies And here we are to aduertise the Reader that he is not to expect that the Fathers should preuent in their bookes Commentaries by way of explication the obiections and arguments drawne from all such places of Scripture as are vrged by our Aduersaries both because they could not foresee the Heresies of our tymes as also if they had yet could they not be induced to belieue that any one of learning professing Christian Fayth and Religion would so pertinaciously and impertinently rack and force Gods sacred word for the vphoulding of their Heresies as the Sectaries of our age haue done 30. Neither is the Reader to looke that our Catholike Expositions of euery text which our Aduersaries doe vrge against vs should be warranted with the authorities of many Fathers though most of them haue bene so fortified in that some such passages of Scripture there are of which few Fathers did vndertake to make any peculiar Comment or exposition at all Only it suffiseth that we can haue our expositioÌ„s of euery such senteÌ„ce of Scripture strengthned with the authorities of some few of theÌ„ And that the Protestants are not able to alledge so much as one Father interpreting in the Protestants construction against our Catholike Doctrine any one of the former alledged places of Scripture or any one other text which our Aduersaries alledge though heere it be not set downe And now hauing thus dislodged our Aduersaries of their best couerts and places of Retyre for patronage of their strange and exorbitant Positions and Doctrine as also hauing in the precedent Chapter fortified and strengthned with the Fathers explications the sense and meaning of such texs as we produce against theÌ„ I will herein proceed no further referring one point to their owne considerations and iudgments to wit whether themselues receaue greater hurt and domage by the Fathers erecting their impregnable Forts of Gods word from whence they make their issues sallyes out in pursuite and profligation of these mens Heresies then by the sayd Fathers raising and battering downe the weake houlds and fortresses of such misapplyed texts of holy Scripture wherin our Sectaries are wont to place theyr greatest strength and confidence since by the first theyr Heresies receaue most deadly and incurable wounds by the second the Catholike Faith is secured freed from al dangerous assaults and encounters 31. But to end this point to wit that the Fathes interpreted the Scripture in generall in one the same sense with vs Catholikes the euidency of it is such as that therefore the Fathers are charged by our Aduersaries through their supposed misconstruction of Scripture as maintainers of Popish Religion The consideration of which assertion of theirs being for seueral respects not to be neglected and as particularly conducing to our preseÌ„t purpose induceth me a litle to insist in setting downe the seuerall reproualls and criminations of the Protestantes bouldly deliuered against the Fathers for their defending of our Catholike Articles and Doctrine Which point being made manifest it then ineuitably followeth that eueÌ„ in our Aduersaries iudgments the Fathers did deliuer the sayd constructions of Scripture which we Catholikâ— do seing the Fathers maintained no Doctrines but such as were in their owne opinions warranted with the authority of Gods sacred wrytten word or at least not any way impugned by the same 32. And first we find D. Whitaker (a) Contra Duraeum l. 6. p. 423. scornefully traducing the Fathers in a generall to write thus the Popish Religion to vse his own words is a patched Couerlet of the Fathers errours sowed together 33. D. Whitguift (b) In his defence of the answer to the admonition pag. 472. 473. the once pretended Archbishop of Canterbury in like manner thus chargeth the Fathers How greatly were almost all the Bishops and learned wryters of the Greeke Church and Latin also for the most part spotted with Doctrines of freewill of merits of Inuocation of Saintes and such like meaning such like points of our Religion 34. Peter (c) De votis p. 476. Martyr speaking of the supposed Popish Errours thus insimulates the Fathers within the said errours saying As long as we insist in Councels and Fathers so long we shal be conuersant in the said errours Malancthon (d) Iu 1. Cor. c. 3. in like sort inueighing against the Fathers thus auerreth Presently from the beginning of the Church the anncient Fathers obscured the Doctrine concerning the iustice of faith increased Ceremonies and deuised peculiar worships 35. M. Iewel (e) l. de vita Iewelli printed at London pag. 212. most Hypocritically appealing to the Fathers at Paules Crosse as challenging them for Protestants is sharply reprehended for such his idle vaunting by D. Humfrey himselfe in these words He gaue the Papists too large a scope was iniurious to himselfe and after a maÌ„ner spoiled himselfe and his Church 36. Beza thus (f) In his preface vpoÌ„ the new Testâ—ment dedicated do the Prince of Condy anno 2587. confidently wryteth vpon the said poynt Euen in the best tymes meaning the tymes of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church the ambition ignorance and lewdnes of the Bishops was such that the very blynd may easily perceaue that Sathan was president in their assemblies or Councels 37. But I will conclude this point with the testimony of Luther who as he was the first in our age that broached a religion vnknowne to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church So he shewed himselfe most insolent in controlling them for their maintaining of our Catholike Religion he thus speaking of them (g) Luther Tom. 2. VVittenberg anno 1551. deseruo arbitrio pag. 434. The Fathers for so many ages haue bene plainly blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures they haue erred all their life tyme and vnles they were ameÌ„ded before their deathes they were neuer Saintes nor pertayning to the Church 38. Now from all these assertions of our Sectaries it is