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
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
is bounded with some of these ensewing restrictions 2. First their meaning sometymes is that certaine Articles only of our beliefe are most expresly set downe in the Scriptures in this sort (a) Aduersus Hermog pag. 350. Tertullian prouing against Hermogenus that God created all thinges of nothing and not out of any presupposed matter and with particuler reference to those wordes in Genesis God made heauen and earth thus wryteth Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem c. I do adore the fullnes of the Scripture which manifesteth to me the maker of all thinges and the thinges made Let the shoppe of Hermogenus teach that it is written If it be not written let him feare that Vae to such as do add or detract c. Which sentence of Tertullian though deliuered only of one Article of our beliefe our Sectaryes neuertheles do stretch out to al points Controuersyes of faith whatsoeuer Thus most inconsequently arguing affirmatiuely from the Particuler to the Vniuersall Another like place to this they obiect out of (b) Lib. 3. de Trinit Hilarius touching the doctrine of the Trinity 3. Secondly the Fathers sometymes ascrybing great honour and reuerence to the Scriptures the which we Catholikes most willingly admit do teach that the Scripture is an infallible rule not heerby intending that it is the only square of our faith as our Aduersaryes seeme fondly to suggest but that whatsoeuer the Scripture proueth is most infallibly and vndoubtedly proued by the same and consequently that nothing is to be admitted as matter of fayth which doth crosse and impugne the Scripture And thus besides that place of (c) Lib. 1. cap. 1. pag. 37. Irenaeus where he calleth the Scripture in the former sense Cancnem immobilem veritatis as also the like of (d) De fide l. c. 4. Ambrose where he appealeth from the writings of particuler fathers to the Scripture as also of (e) in Cor. 7. hom 13. Chrysostome where he calleth the Scripture Guomonem regulam we find that (f) in Epist ad Galat. cap. 5. S. Hierom man taining with all Catholikes that nothing is to be receaued contrary to the Scripture and that therefore generall Councells are to be examined thereby thus wryteth Spiritus sancti doctrina c. The doctrine of the holy Ghost is that which is deliuered in the holy bookes contra quam against which doctrine if the Councels do ordaine any thing let it be reputed as wicked But what Catholike alloweth any thing against Scripture And how extrauagantly then is this testimony obiected against vs by our Aduer saryes Many such places of other Fathers are vrged against vs and yet they only conuince that nothing is to be accepted as an article of fayth which impugneth the Scripture such is their willfull misapplication of the Fathers wrytings It will be sufficient only to make reference of diuers such passages See then Cyprian contra epistolas Stephani Lactantius Institut diuin lib. 5. cap. 20. Basilius epist. 74. ad Episcopos Occidentales Chrysostome hom 49. in Psalm 95. Epiphan Haer. 63. and 76. Cyril de recta fide ad Regin besides many others 4. Thirdly the Fathers disputing with certaine heretikes who denyed all authority of the Church and Councells in determyning of Controuersies with whom the Nouelistes of our age do altogeather interleague and conspire were forced in their disputes to prouoke those heretikes of the holy Scripture not because the Fathers but those heretikes disclaymed from the Churches authority in this point and therefore the Churches authority being reiected by them the Fathers were driuen to insist only in the written word In this sort Iustinus in Triphone disputing with a Iew who admitted not the Church of Christ appealed willingly to the Scripture only Augustine (g) Contra MaximinuÌ„ lib. 3. c. 14. contending with the Arian Maximinus who admitted not the Councell of Nice professed that he did not expect to haue his doctrine tryed by that CouÌ„cell but only by the Scripture and therefore sayd Nec ego Nicaenum proferam c. I will not produce the Nicen Councell c. Let the matter be tryed by the authority of Scripture Finally S. Basil (h) Epist 88. ad Eustochium disputing with certaine Heretiks touching three Hypostases and one Nature in God and they contemning the authority and custome of Christes vniuersall Church therein was compelled to recall them only to the Scriptures tearming the Scripture in this Controuersy Arbiter and Index but in what doth this testimony much insisted vpon by our Aduersaryes disaduantage vs since we heere see the reason why Basil appealed to the Scripture Againe what â—â—â—ation is this Basil thought that the doctrine of three Hypostase and â—ne Nature in God was expresly proued out of the Scripture Therefore he thought that all other points of our fayth necessarily to be belieued haue their expresse proofe in the Scripture without the Churches authority interposed in the exposition thereof Inconsequently and vnschollerlikely concluded 5. Fourthly the Fathers teaching that the proofe of the Churches authority is euicted from Scripture as is elswhere shewed and they also acknowledging that the Church is to iudge of all Controuersyes of fayth and religion do thereupon and only by reason of this inference sometymes in their writings affirme that the Scripture iudgeth sufficiently of all Controuersyes not meaning that the Scripture immediatly of it selfe is inappealably to determine of all articles and doubts of religion as our Aduersaryes calumniously pretend but that it may be said so to do because the Scripture proueth to vs the infallible authority of that to wit the Church and remitteth vs to the same which hath power definitiuely to end all Controuersies In this sense we find that (i) Lib. cont 2 ep Pelâ—g l. 3 c. 4. Augustine teacheth that euery Controuersy is in some sort sufficiently proued out of Scripture meaning Mediante authoritate Ecclesiae Through the meanes of the authority of the Church which authority for the last resolution of doubtes of fayth is most sufficiently and abundantly proued from the Scripture Other like sentences of this nature concerning the fullnes of Scriptures but euer to be vnderstood by the mediation of the Churches authority are to be found in (k) Tom 3. contra Iulianum Cyrill (l) Epist 5. ad suos discipulos Clemens the first Pope and in some other Fathers 6. A second branch whereunto other obscure testimonyes of the Fathers vsually vrged by our Sectaryes for the patronizing of the Scriptures sole iudge may be addressed (m) De doctrinâ— Christ l. 2 c. 9. is drawne from the perfection which the Fathers seeme to ascribe to the Scripture in regard of which perfection they yield to it a great sufficiency for seuerall respectes and ends though our aduersaryes most fraudulently omitting the scope and drift of such sayings will needs wrest this sufficiency as intended of the Scriptures sufficiency for the immediate and finall determining
of all Controuersyes in fayth whatsoeuer without any restraint or exception Sometymes therefore the Fathers meaning is to shew that the Scripture is sufficient to proue expresly the chiefest Articles of our beliefe and of which euery man is bound to haue an explicite and cleare knowledge such are the articles contained in the Creed and those Sacraments which are more necessary which kind of sufficiency we also admit In this sense Augustine writeth as the contexture of the passages there do shew that what points concerne our fayth are clearely to be found in the Scripture another like saying of the sayd Father and to be thus expounded is found in Tract 49. in Ioannem 7. The Fathers at other tymes do teach that the Scripture is of that perfection that the certainty of the truth of it in regard of it selfe alone though not in respect of vs is sufficiently proued from it selfe without the help of any other probation as being penned by them who were immediatly assisted by the holy Ghost In this sense Athanasius (n) Contra Gentiâ—es in exordio calleth the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scripturas sufficientes Irenâ—us (o) Lib. 2. c. 47. in like sort sayth that Scripturae perfectae sunt The Scriptures are perfect and then immediatly followeth this reason Quippe à verbo Dei spiritu eius dictae Because they are indicted by the word of God and the holy Ghost The Fathers also are in their writinges accustomed to ascribe a great perfection to the Scripture for recording such miracles of Christ by the which he is sufficiently proued to be the sonne of God which is the generall doctrine also of the Catholikes which testimonyes our Sectaryes are not ashamed to alleage in proofe of the Scriptures fulnes for warrant of any article of Religion whatsoeuer Thus we find that (p) In Ioan l 12. c. 68. Cyrill wryting of the miracles of our Lord sayth with reference to the wordes of S. Iohn The number of our Lords miracles were great yet those which are related Sufficiunt ad plenissimam fidem attente legentibus faâ—iendaÌ„ meaning that they were sufficient to proue that Christ was the sonne of God and Sauiour of mankind 9. Lastly the Fathers acknowledg in their writings mostfully that the perfection of Scripture is such as that it is sufficient to disswade man from vice and perswade him to vertue a point which we al willingly grant both in regard of the ten Commaundments expresly set down which euery one is obliged to obserue as also by reason of many most eminent and remarkable examples of vertue and vice recorded in the Scripture and the inestimable rewardes promised to the vertuous the most dreadfull comminations and threats thundred against the wicked Now of this sufficiency Theophilact speaketh in c. 2. ad Tim. 3. where he sayth that the Scripture is of force to make Vt nihil bonorum desit homini Dei That no vertue be wanting in the man of God the same interpretatioÌ„ a place Authoris (q) In Mat. 22. hom 41. imperfecti admitteth And heere now by these short explications it appeareth that none of these former passages of the Fathers whether they concerne the perfection or sufficiency of the written word either in regard of exhortation to vertue or of demonstrating Christ to be the Sonne of God or of prouing the Scriptures certainty from it owne worth and dignity alone or finally of expresly containing the chiefest Articles of our beliefe can in any sort preiudice our Catholike doctrine handled in this discourse and therefore the wrong of our Aduersaryes towardes their followers is the greater in seeking to abuse their ignorance and credulity by such idle and trifling allegations 9. The third and last head of those misapplyed sentences of the Fathers in this question doth concerne the perspicuity of the Scripture which word is not heere to be taken in that sense as if the Fathers taught that the Scripture were in it selfe absolutely so easy perspicuous and cleare as that without the helpe of the Churches authority in the exposition thereof euery illiterate and mechanicall fellow were able to iudge of the true sense thereof and consequently by the only meanes of it to determine end all Controuersies for they fully acknowledged it to be as Ezechiel (r) Ezech. 2. styled it The enrolled volume written within and without as also to be that hidden booke described by the Euangelist (s) Apoc. 5. to be clapsed with seauen seales But their meaning herein is that the Scripture is perspicuous in two constructions 10. First that the histories similitudes other matters of fact recorded in the Scripture as also some principle Articles of our beliefe are there clearly and perspicuously set downe But what is this to conuince that the Scripture is in generall easy for the truth of any abstruse speculatiue and dogmaticall point or article of Fayth whatsoeuer 11. Of this first manner S. Austin (t) lib. de operibus monac c. 9. speaketh when he sayth that the Scripture is most perspicuous and cleare to proue which no man denyeth that Christ ordayned that those who did preach the Ghospell should be maintained by the Ghospell and therupon shewing that this is clearly and euidently set downe in the Scripture he thus wryteth Quid hoc apertiùs quid clariùs That the Fathers do in like sort sometymes restraine this euidency clearnes of the Scripture to some chiefe articles of Christian Religion appeareth as afore I haue shewed that they in like sort attribute a perfection and sufficiency of the written word of God to the same end Thus doth Irenaeus (u) lib. â— cap. 46. wryting against certaine Infidels denying that there was one only God affirme that for the proofe of this verity Vniuersae Scripturae propheticae Apostolicae c. The whole Scriptures both Prophetical Apostolical are euident without any ambiguity Which wordes being spoken only of that particular point hurteth vs nothing at all Yet our Sectaries sleight in deprauing the Fathers wrytinges is such as what words are spoken for the perspicuity of the Scripture for one only article they shame not to stretch them as spoken in proofe of all 12. The second sense or construction of the Fathers wordes touching the perspicuity of the written word is that the Scripture is cleare and euident in that it doth illuminate and enlighten the mynd of the reader vnderstanding the Scripture a verity which we acknowledge as elsewhere is shewed as it is explained by the spirit of God which spirit speaketh in the voyce of his Church And in this sense to omit the like sentences of diuers other Fathers Epiphanius (x) Contra Aetium l. 3. tom 2. wryteth that in the Scripture omnia lucida sunt all things are cleare in conceauing this clearnes as I sayd before only in respect of the mynd which by truly vnderstaÌ„ding the Scripture is enlightned cleared and much freed
THE PSEVDO-SCRIPTVRIST OR A TREATISE WHEREIN IS PROVED That the Wrytten Word of God though most Sacred Reuerend and Diuine is not the sole Iudge of Controuersies in Fayth and Religion Agaynst the prime Sectaries of these Tymes who contend to maintayne the Contrary Written by N. S. Priest and Doctour of Diuinity DEVIDED INTO TWO PARTS And dedicated to the Right Honorable and Reuerend Iudges of England and the other graue Sages of the Law An Haeretici diuinis Scripturae testimonijs vtantur Vtuntur planè vehementer quidem Sed tantò magis cauendi sunt Vincent Lyrinens lib. aduers Haer. Do Heretiks cite the diuine testimonies of Scripture They do indeed and that most vehemently But therfore are they so much the more to be taken heed of Permissu Superiorum M. DC XXIII THE CONTENTS OF THE seuerall parts of this Treatise IN the first part besides a briefe refutatioÌ„ of the priuate spirit first prefixed therto it is disputed Categoricè and absolutly that the Scripture is not the Iudge of CoÌ„trouersies And this euicted from the difficulty of the Scripture in regard of its Subiect seueral senses and phraze of the stile as also from Reason testimony of the Fathers Doctrine of Traditions c. In the second Part it is disputed Hypotheticè that supposing for the time that the Scripture as it is simply coÌ„sidered in it self were the iudge of Controuersies yet it is proued that of all the different kynds of Sectaries that euer were the Protestants can with the least reason insist in it as Iudge And this is made euident by three seuerall wayes First because the Protestants cannot agree among themselues what Bookes are true Scripture and consequently do not agree in assigning which bookes doe concurre to the making vp of this Iudge some allotting more bookes to it some fewer and so they make it of greater or lesser extent then euen according to their seuerall opinions it should be Secondly because euen of those Bookes which the Protestants ioyntly imbrace for Canonicall Scripture there is not in their iudgments any one entire true Original either Hebrew or Greeke now to be found neither are there any traslatioÌ„s of them now extant but such as are by the PtotestaÌ„ts assertions false corrupt and impure And so by obtruding the Scripture for Iudge they obtrude at least by their owne Doctrine a false corrupt and impure Iudge Thirdly lastly because euen of those particular bookes only or parts of Canonicall Scripture whose Originalls in them yet extant are true and whose translations in those passages are admitted by the Protestants for true and vncorrupted the texts and testimonies do make against the Protestants and in behalfe of the Catholike Roman Religion if we insist either in the perspicuity of the letter and words or in the iudgment of the auncient Fathers interpreting the said texts or finally in the implicit tacit censure acknowledgment of the Protestants theÌ„selues And thus the Protestants by appealing to Scripture do wound themselues TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE AND REVEREND IVDGES OF England and to the other graue Professours of the Law THERE is no kind of learning right Honourâ—ble and Learned which more conduceth to mans benefit as instructing him in the way towardes heauen then the sacred knowledge of Diuinity There is no part of Diuinity more expedient in these our contentions and misbelieuing Times which threaten shipwrack of our auncient Christian Faith then the study of Controuersies There is no Controuersy more to be insisted vpon then the question concerning the Iudge of these Controuersies since the proofe of it inuolues within it selfe by force of necessary illations the proofe of all other controuersiall points For wheras most of the doubts betwene the Protestants and vs being conuincingly demonstrated for certaine infallible yet such proofes do but force the iudgment of the Reader only in those particulars But it being heere once coÌ„cluded acknowledged on both sides what or who is this Iudge it then ineuitably followeth that all those articles of faith are most true and Orthodoxall which are found to be decreed and defined by the sayd Iudge Besides daily experience telleth vs that the particular discourse of any dogmaticall point in Religion being fortified and confirmed either by vs or our Aduersaries according to the state therof differently maintained with seuerall authorities of Gods word doth finally resolue into this point to wit who is to iudge of the sense and true meaning of the foresaid alledged testimonies In so much as that we may iustly pronounce the question of this Iudge to be both the Center Circumference of all other questions since no lesse the lynes and deductioÌ„s of all controuersies do for their last resolution meet and concurre in this one common poynt then that it selfe being cleared and made euident doth include containe by demonstrable inferences the proofe of al the rest within the capacity and largnes of its owne Orbe The difference betwene vs and our Aduersaries herein is this That we do ioyntly (a) Câ—ncil Trident. sess 4. teach that the whole Church of God by the mouth of the chiefe pastour alone or otherwise seconded with a lawfull generall Councell is ordayned in appealably to define either from Scripture or from the ancient practice of Gods Church what is the vndoubted and Orthodoxall faith of Christians what is Schisme and Heresy But our Aduersaries (b) Luth praefat assertionis suae Melancthlocis de Ecclesia Caluin l. 4. Instit c. 9. Chemnitius in exam CoÌ„cil TrideÌ„t sess 4. do with one consent maintaine that all Controuersies of faith are to be tryed by the touchstone of the holy Scripture so as the Scripture it self is to become the sole iudge since nothing they say is to be receaued as an article of fayth but what hath it expresse warrant from the wrytten Word of God The sentence of the Catholiks in his Controuersy I forbeare to handle in this Treatise since it is already discussed very painfully by diuers Catholike writers and particularly in seuerall (c) Tract 1. sect 4. subd 14. tract 3. sect 7. passages of that most learned worke of the Protestantes Apology of the Roman Church the very store-house of reading or the Armory wherin are layed vp the weapons vsed by vs and taken from our Aduersaries owne sides Therefore I will spend these ensuing leaues in refutation of our Aduersaries Doctrine which consisteth in making the Scripture the sole iudge of Controuersies a subiect not so frequently written off in particuler though otherwise the reprouall therof be potentially and implicitly included in the confirmation of the Catholike contrary Doctrine Now Graue learned Sages the reason emboldning me to dedicate this Treatise otherwise vnworthy your iudiciall view to your selues though of a different religion from me is the consideration of the subiect here discussed which is indeed of that nature as that you may iustly seeme to challenge a particuler interest therin for
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
Protestants Chap. 8. That the Texts of Scripture are expounded by the Fathers in the same sense in the which they are alledged by Catholikes for proofe of their fayth Chap. 9. That the Textes of Scripture obiected by the Protestantes in disprouall of our Religion are otherwise expounded by the Fathers then in that sense wherin our Aduersaries do vrge them and that such their expositions do agree with ours Chap. 10. That the Scripture is cleare for proofe of our Catholike Fayth euer in the impliciâ—e and tacite iudgments of our Aduersaries themselues Chap 11. The Conclusion Chap. 12. THE FIRST PART OF THE PSEVDOSCRIPTVRIST The Catholikes Reuerence towardes the Scriptures with the state of the Question touching the Scriptures not being Iudge CHAP. I. BEFORE we enter into any particuler redargution and reproual of the Protestants doctrine touching the subiect of this Treatise I must put them in mind with what slanderous calumniations for detraction is euer accustomed to tread vpon the heeles of truth and integrity they wrong vs Catholikes for our supposed contempt of the holy Scriptures their chief reason thereof besides others being because we deny to them that facility and easines as that they ought to determine all doubts of religion before the true sense of them among so many that are forced and adulterate be deliuered by the Pastours of Gods Church And heerupon they teach that we in effect reiect the Scriptures and do aduance mens doctrines and iudgements aboue them So deep are their pens steeped in gaul against vs and so deseruedly may they be ranged with those mentioned by the (a) Isa c. 32. Prophet Fraudulenti vasa pessima sunt vsque ad perdendos mites in sermone mendacij But how easy is it to dissipate and dissolue this cloud of suggesting malice For we teach not that the Church is to iudge whether that which the Scripture sayth be true or false since the Scripture is Scripture and most true whether the Church should so iudge of it or not but our doctrine is that it being first acknowledged for an infallible principle that the wordes of the Scripture are most true the Church doth only teach amongst many interpretations which is the true sense and meaning of the sayd wordes And in this sort it followeth not that the Church is aboue Gods Word for it is only a vigilant Depositary and Guardian thereof but aboue the iudgement of particuler men interpreting his Word which men do commonly make their priuate and reuealing spirit to become as it were their Mercuryes-rod therewith to chase away all construction of Scripture not sorting to their phantasyes Neither doth the Scripture receaue any strength and force which afore it wanted from this sentence and iudgment of the Church but only our vnderstanding is strengthned confirmed thereby which sentence of the Church is not meerely the Word of man which is lyable to errour and vncertainty but in some sort it may be tearmed the Word of God as being deliuered by the assistance of the Holy Ghost in regard of those infallible promises made in the Scriptures to the Church that she (b) Luc. 21. should not erre Act. 15. 2. But to proceed further in acknowledging our due respect to the Scriptures we graunt most freely that they are the spirituall conduits whereby are deriued to vs the highest misteryes of our fayth that the blessed penners of them were so directed by the holy Ghost as that they neither did nor could erre in any one letter that they transcend in worth and dignity all humane writings as farre as an infallibility of truth surpasseth a possibility of errour Lastly that the sense of them is a most powerfull and working phisicke against the poysonous receitps of all hereticall distillations if so it be deliuered by the appointment of our spirituall Phisitian So venerable and reuerent respect we see the Catholiks do beare to the sacred Scripture as to one chiefe meanes ordained by God for our eternall health and wellfare yet withall they teach that true fayth is to be found not in leaues of the wordes but in the roole of the sense thus making the true and indubious interpretation of Gods word to be a rule to the Protestants imaginary rule since it is to ouerule controule the priuate spirit of euery particuler Sectary 3. But now in the next place to enter more particulerly into the state of this point touching the Scriptures supposed Iudge of fayth we are to conceaue that wheras our Sectaryes do generally maintaine that the written Word of God is the sole and infallible Iudge as also the only rule and square of the articles of Christian Religion thereby reiecting not only any other Iudge but also all other points touching fayth which haue not their expresse proofe or necessary inference in the sayd holy Scriptures The Catholikes on the other side running one and the same line of fayth with all antiquity teach as followeth 4. First that the holy Scripture is not the Iudge of all Controuersyes of fayth Secondly they teach that it is norma infallibilis an infallible rule or square of fayth that is that nothing contrary to the Scripture is to be admitted but they say not that it is the only rule of square and therefore they affirme that besids the Scripture there are Apostolical traditioÌ„s and other definitions of the Church Thus we grant that the written word is regula partialis but not regula totalis of fayth and Religion and therefore we admitte some thinges praeter Scripturam but nothing contra Scripturam that is we approue some thinges not expresly sound in the Scripture but not any thing contrary or repugnant to the Scripture 5. Thirdly they hould that graunting the Scripture to be the rule or square of most articles of religion yet it followeth not that it is the Iudge of the sayd articles since Regula and Iudex are in nature things different for euen in ciuill matters the law is the rule and sqare according to which suites and contentions are determined and yet the law is not the Iuge of them but the Magistrate himselfe expounding the law though sometymes the Law is called improperly and Metaphorically the Iudge 6. Fourthly and lastly they deny not but that the Scripture may in a restained sense be tearmed the Iudge of all Controuersies in faith because it (c) Matth. 16. 18. 23. IoaÌ„ vlt. Luc. 22. Act. 15. appointeth and setteth downe who is that Iudge to wit the Church as also they grant that in the lyke reserued construction the Scripture may be said to deliuer all thinges sufficiently which belong to faith and religion And this not only because it deliuereth euidently al those articles of faith which are simply and absolutely necessary for all men to know as the Articles of our Creed the Decalogue and those Sacraments which are more necessary but also in that all other poyntes whatsoeuer concerning either the true exposition of the written word
if the true exposition and sense of the Scriptures were so obuious and facil as our Aduersaries seeme to pretend 2. To come to the second poynt I meane to the direct sayinges of the fathers I will content my selfe for greater expedition with the testimonies of those foure prime Fathers and chiefe pillars of Gods Church in her purity who are able to ouer ballance in authority so many thousands of our new Gospellers teaching the contrary and to whom by a certaine prerogatiue and as they say antonomasticôs that title was giuen S. Gregory (a) Hom. â— in Ezeâ—h then sayth Magnae vtilitatis est ipsa obscuritas eloquiorum Dei c. The obscurity of Gods word is of great profit because it doth exercise the sense that so by labour it may enlarge it selfe and being exercised may comprehend that which the idle are not able to attaine vnto besides it hath a greater benefit then this which is that if the sense of the holy Scripture should be cleare in all places by this meanes it would be smally prized and therfore the sense of the difficult passages thereof being once found doth so much please the Reader with greater sweetnes by how much the search thereof did afflict his mind with more labour Thus farre S. Gregory 3. S. Augustine (b) Lib. 2. doctrin Christian cap. 6. speaking of those who were acustomed to read the Scriptures affirmeth thus of them Sed multis multiplicibus obscuritatibus c. But such men are deceaued with many obscurityes and multiplicityes who do rashly read the Scriptures apprehending one thing for another and not finding those thinges therein which they falsly expected to haue found In so thicke an obscurity and darknes are some thinges there sayd inuolued But all this I doubt not proceeded from diuine prouidence heereby to tame pryde with labour and to withdraw our vnderstanding from all fastidious misprisall which often commeth thorough an ouer easy and facile search of thinges The same learned Father is not ashamed far different from the assuming Insolency of our Sectaryes to acknowledge in another place his ignorance in these wordes In (c) Epist 119. c. 21. ipsis sanctis Scripturis multa nescio plura quà mscio I am ignorant of many more thinges in the holy Scriptures then I know And which is more he (d) Lib. de fide operibus cap. 1â— 16. confesseth particulerly of that place to the Cor. Si (e) 1. Cor. c. 3. quis autem superaedificat super fundamentum c. That the sense thereof was euer most difficult vnto him so pretermitting the true sense thereof in silence like Painters who veile that ouer which they cannot delineate by Art 4. S. Hierome in one of his (f) Epist. ad PaulinuÌ„ Epistles whereof the chiefe subiect is the difficulty of the Scriptures teacheth that we are not able to vnderstand the Scripturs without some speciall instructour and as presuming this ground he passeth on further in exemplifying seuerall difficultyes which are found in each particuler booke of them And in another (g) Epist ad Algasiam q. 8. place speaking of the Epistle to the Romans he sayth thus Epâ—stâ—la ad Romanos ninâ—â—s obscuritaâ—ibus innolâ—â—ae est The epistle to the Romanes is in â—olued with ouer many obscurityes 5. To conclude S. Ambrose (h) Epist 44. ad Constantium blusheth not to say thus of the Scriptures Mare est Scriptura diuina habens in se sensus profundos The holy Scripture is eueâ— an Ocean or Sea hauing within it most deep and profound senses and meanings If then in this learned Fathers iudgment it be a Sea of obstruse profoundityes what remaineth but that whosoeuer would securely passe through this Sea should imbark himselfe in S. Peters ship taking his successour for his Pilot who is stearned by God to stearne vs through whose skill auoyding al shelfs and sandes of priuate and new glosses which often threatneth ship wracke of fayth he at length may arriue to the safe Porte of the most true ancient and â—uer receaued mâ—aning of the holy Ghost 6. And heere now we may obserue the great modesty of these and many other ancient Fathers in this point since ech of them acknowledging his owne insufficiency in vnderstanding exactly the Scriptures could be coÌ„tent to pray with the Prophet Da (i) â—salm 11â— mâ—hi intellectum scrutaâ—or legem tuam giue mâ—aâ— vnderstanding and I will search forth thy lâ—â— as also Reuela (k) â—hidem oculos meos considerabo mirabilia de lege tuâ— Open myne eyes and I will consider the wonders of thy Law If any of them had been demanded whether he did vnderstand all what he read he would not haue beene ashamed to haue answered with the Eunuch Qâ—omodo (l) Act. â— possâ—nt nâ—si alâ—quis ostenderit mihi Briefly he would haue confessed with (m) â— Pet. v. 〈◊〉 S. Peter that not only in the Epistles of S. Paul but in many other passages of Gods sacred write there were quaedam difficilia intellectu quae indocti instabiles deprauant Certaiâ—e thinges hard to be vnderstood which the vnlearned and vnstable do wrest and depraue So cleare it is that notwithstanding the profoundnes of learning in these former tymes deuout humility with a full acknowledgment of a selfe insufficiency was as I may tâ—arme it the Genius of reuerend Antiquity 7. Which point being so who will not admire the petulancy of an ignorant lateborne Sectary who dare withstand and ouerballance in his priuate opinion touching the Scripturs difficulty the euer reuerenced authorityes of whome Of Ambrose Hierome Augustine Gregory and the like those iudginge witnesses of an â—iquity Where is humility Where is the (n) 2. Cor. c. 10. Apostles precept of captiuating our iudgment But it is exiâ—ed and in it room are stept in assuming Pride and blushles ignorance his assertions bewray his ignorance his controle of the Fathers his pride The testimonyes alleadged by our Aduersaryes out of the Fathers for the Scriptures sole Iudge answered CHAP. VIII THOVGH it â—orteth not to my intended breuity to answere at large all such wast testimonyes as our Aduersaryes by most strange detortions of the Fathers writinges are not ashamed to produce notwithstanding I hould it conuenient heere to set downe certaine animaduersions and cautions discouering in generall the Fathers true mindes and driftes in such theiâ— passages diuers of which caâ—tions are implicitly included in the state of the question already set downe in the first Chapter So may the obseruant Reader take notice how rouingly all such authorityes wherin our Aduersaryes touching the Iudge of Controuersyes do chiefly insist do ayme at their designed marke And for the greater perspicuity I will range these their sentences vnder three peculiar heades One sort then of them are those which may seeme to insinuate that the Scripture is the Iudge and rule of Controuersies which sense of the Fathers
thence runneth headlong into certaine deuiations by-wayes of most foulâ— errours 8. This answere salueth not the doubt for once graÌ„ting a true Iudge it followeth that this Iudge though depending of God is to haue authority in compounding of Controuersies absolutely infallible And the reason hereof is this for if his authority were not infallible then might it be inferred an absurditity little sorting to the sweet prouidence of God that the whole Church by force of such a delegated authority to it by God himselfe might be led into a generall errour since euen moral Philosophy and the light of reason assure vs that granting a Magistrate who may erre to haue publike authority in his censures and decrees then are the subiectes or inferiour persons who are interressed in the sayd definitions bound to imbrace those errours Which if they were not obliged to doe then should it follow that the Magistrates state were no better in defining then the subiects since they were not bound to stand to the ceÌ„sure of their Iudge but only when they did know his sentence to be euidently most true and consequently it might be likewise inferred that the Magistrate hath no power at all in defining and yet all Philosophy instructeth vs that euen in a point doubtfull where it is not euident the opinion of the Iudge to be clearly false the persons acknowledging obedience to the Iudge are in regard of the former reasoÌ„s obliged to follow his doubtfull definition though perhaps erroneous 9. To the former reason may be adioyned this following as is also afore touched That euen the light of reason teacheth vs that euery Iudge in any Court of CoÌ„trouersies ought to be such as all conteÌ„ding parties without exception may for the appeasing of their debates haue easy accesse vnto him Which accesse is found to be in the Church but not in the Scripture from which it vnauoydably followeth that the Scripture cannot be this iudge whereunto ech maÌ„ is to repaire but that the church may be and is the sayd Iudge That euery man at his pleasure may come to the Church for resolutioÌ„ of doubts we see it is euident by the practise of all ages 10. But on the contrary part euery man that maintaineth different points of fayth hath not this freedome of comming to the Scripture for decision of his doubts for first there are diuers Christians who cannot as much as read the Scripture much lesse vnderstand it how can such men then expect to haue their Controuersies touching religion to be deâ—ermined by the wrytten word alone And as touching those others who can read yet is their cause little bettred therby seing many by their reading of the Scripture do strangely detort the true sense therof Yea we may obserue that diuers Nouellistes of different religions who are dayly coÌ„uersant in the Scriptures endeauour euen from the self same passages of it by their false constructions to fortify their repugnant Doctrines And thus though the voyce of the holy Ghost in the wrytten word and the leter there read be but one yet through ech mans selfelike expositions it seemeth to speake as euery man would haue it by this meanes making the Scripture to be like vnto the tongue of S. Peter other the Apostles which being but one was notwithstanding heard in euery mans seuerall language 11. Another argument for the conuincing of this supposed Iudge may be drawne from the Doctrine of Traditions which haue euer bene maintayned by the auncient Fathers and the primitiue Church Which Doctrine if it be true then may we most consequently deduce from thence that the Scripture is not to iudge all questions of Fayth since the Doctrine of vnwrytten Traditions teacheth vs that all the articles and points of Christian Religion haue not their expresse proofe out of the Scriptures but that some of them are belieued only by force of Tradition and of the continued and vn-interrupted practise of Gods Church To enter into any exact proofe of this point of Traditions is improper to this place and would require a reasonable large Treatise alone and therfore I remit the Reader to such Catholike wryters (g) Hofiâ—e in 4. l. aduers Prolegomena Brentij Peresius initio operis sui do Traditionib Roffensis Canisius Bellarmin besides many others as haue most learnedly handled this subiect Only I wil here set downe and consequently proue the sayd Doctrine à posteriori certayne pointes of Christian Fayth which haue no cleare and conuincing proofes out of Scriptures and yet are belieued no lesse by the ProtestaÌ„ts themselues then by vs Catholikes 12. And first against the Anabaptistes both the Catholikes Lutheranes and Caluinistes do belieue that the baptisme of Infantes is lawfull and that they are not to be rebaptized after they come to ripenes of age which point as D. Field acknowledgeth terming it a TraditioÌ„ caÌ„ neuer be sufficiently and clearly proued by the Scriptures alone without the testimony of the practise of the church and force of Tradition as appeareth by the testimonies of the auncient Fathers for we find that Origen thus speaketh hereof in c. 6. epist ad Rom. Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem accepit etiam paruulis baptismum dare In like sort Austin l. 10. de Genesi ad literam c. 23. Consuetudo matris Ecclesiae in baptizandis paruulis nequaquam spernenda nec omnino credenda est nisi Apostolica esset Traditio 13. D. Bancroft teacheth that Confirmation is an Apostolicall Tradition as appeareth in his conference before the King All we do belieue that our blessed Lady dyed a Virgin do account Heluidius an Heretike for houlding the contrary and yet no text of Scripture doth coÌ„firme it to vs but rather through misconstruction may seeme to insinuate the contrary in regard of those words Non cognouit virum donec peperit filium suum 14. D. Whitguift (h) In his defense pag. 539. acknowledgeth that now during the tyme of the new Testament we are to celebrate Easter vpon Sunday contrary to the custome of the Iewes a point of such moment euen in the primitiue Church that the maintainers of the coÌ„trary were then reputed for Heretikes and styled (i) Epiph. haeres 50. Aug. haeres 29. Tertul. de praescript Quartadecimani And yet for this change of obseruing Easterday we haue no warrant from the holy Scriptures but may say with Tertullian (k) De corona militis quod non prohibetur vltrò permissum est D. Couel in his booke of examination teacheth the word Archbishop to be a Tradition M. Hooker in his Eccles polic sect 7. p. 118. in generall defendeth the Doctrine of Traditions and answereth diuers testimonies out of the Fathers alledged by Carthwright and others 15. Againe both Catholikes and Protestantes doe belieue that there are certaine diuine wrytinges which are the true and vndoubted word of God and first penned by the holy Prophets Apostles and Euangelistes Yet we cannot conuincingly and demonstratiuely proue so
who should oppugne it Yf calumniously they admit this Doctrine of the Churches Soueraingty in matters of lesser moment with intention to restrayne it only to such and deny it in greater and more weighty Controuersies then are they truly interessed in the words of an auncient Father (i) Tertul. contra Praxeam Affectauit diabolus aliquando veritatem defendendo concutere 6. Now the reason why the Scripture alone though in it selfe it be most reuerend certaine and infallible doth occasion such vncertainty in the decyding of Controuersies is no lesse fully acknowledged by our learned Aduersaries For since it is not the shew but the sense of the word as Doctour Reynolds (k) In his conference with Hart. p. 63. acknowledgeth that must decyde Controuersies and seing the Scripture immediatly of it selfe performeth not the same as not hauing viuam vocem as D. Whitaker (l) De sacra Scripturae p. 221. confesseth wherwith it speaketh but by the help of certaine meanes on our part to be obserued And seing that the meanes are these following to wit the reading of the Scriptures the Conference of places the weighing of Circumstances of the text their skill in tongues their diligence prayer and the like furthermore seing as these are generally acknowledged by our Sectaries (m) So teacheth D. Reynolds in his Crnference p. 83. sequentibus And D. VVhitaker Controu 1. q. 3. c. â—1 q. 5. c. 10. to be the ordinary meanes so are they confessed by others of our most learned aduersaries to be but humane and most subiect to errour and mistaking as appeareth euen by the example of many Protestants who though vsing the former sayd meanes haue yet most fouly erred euen in the iudgment of their owne brethren in the interpreting of Scripture Therfore from hence it necessarily followeth that all priuate interpretation of Scripture proceeding from these meanes is most ambiguous and vncertaine But to conclude this poynt I will heere set downe D. Whitakers (n) VVhitaker vbi supra inference or collection in his owne words drawne froÌ„ the former premises thus then he argueth Looke what the meanes speaking of interpreting the Scripture are such of necessity must the interpretation be but the meanes of interpreting obscure places of Scripture are vncertaine doubtfull and ambiguous therefore it cannot otherwise be but the interpretation must be vncertaine And if vncertaine then may it be false Thus far the former Doctour which shall serue for the closure of this poynt and likewise of the first part of this Treatise THE SECOND PART That Protestants cannot agree which Bookes be Scripture and which are not CHAP. I. IN the former part it being proued that the Scripture is not the Iudge of Controuersies by reason of the diuers arguments there alledged It now followeth heere to be declared that if for the tyme we should grant ex hypothesi that the Scripture as it is absolutely considered in it selfe were this only and true iudge yet our Aduersaries of all sorts of Christians euer being are most exempted from pretending it for iudge and this for three speciall considerations 2. First because they do not agree among theÌ„selues which seuerall books ordinarily contained within the printed volume of the Bible are Scripture and which are not Secondly in that they do not acknowledge any original copy now extant to be true and incorrupted only of such bookes as they all ioyntly receaue for Scripture as also in that they condemne all Translations of confessed Scripture as false and erroneous eyther into Greeke Latin or English Thirdly because the confessed and incorrupted Scripture more clearly maketh for the Catholikes then for our Aduersaries if we insist eyther in the perspicuity of the letter or in the expositions of the Fathers or in the implicite iudgments of our Aduersaries themselues Which three poynts being iustifyed and made good the proofe wherof shall be the subiect of this Part it cannot be conceaued how they should defend with any aduantage to themselues the Scripture to be this Iudge 3. And intending to begin with their dissentions in acknowledging or reiecting certaine bookes of Scripture we are first particularly and attentiuely to obserue that wheras all Controuersies of fayth are to be determined as our Aduersaries hould by the Canonicall Scripture which is the only written word of God And seing they are at endles stryfe one with another which is this Scripture one acknowledging such and such bookes to be this sacred word which another discanoneth as apocryphall and prophane Therfore they in no sort can pretend the Scripture to be the iudge of Controuersies as not being yet resolued amongst themselues which those bookes be that are to be counted within the body and Canon of holy Scripture and consequently not agreed with theÌ„selues which is this iudge For except this last poynt be first acknowledged on al sides it followeth that if a Lutheran against a Caluinist or one Caluinist against another do vrge a place or text of such a booke which the one acknowledgeth to be Scripture the other condemning it the vrging of such a place can be of no force for the iudging of the question controuerted since it wil be replyed that the Canonicall and true Scripture alone is to defyne all doubts of fayth but that booke out of which such places and texts are alledged is no part of Gods wrytten word and therfore is not of authority for proofe of any poynt 4. Now that our Aduersaries cannot agree hitherto what bookes are true Scripture and what are not it will appeare most euidently euen out of their owne wrytinges And first to begin with their disagrements in opinion touching the bookes of the old TestameÌ„t in which poynt I will speake nothing of certaine parts of Daniel of Ester neyther of the bookes of Toby Iudith of the booke of Wisedome Ecclesiasticus and the Machabees since our Aduersaries with a full and ioynt consent haue thrust al these out of the Canon of the Bible though if they be to deale with Catholikes and will needes haue the Scripture only to iudge of all questions they ought to acknowledge al those bookes to be parcell of Scripture which the Catholikes do take for Scripture But I will restraine my selfe only to such the which some of them do reuerence as Canonicall and others reiect as Apocryphall from whence it followeth as I sayd before that they disagreeing among themselues what bookes are parts of the holy Scripture and consequently of their supposed iudge cannot with any shew of reason maintaine that the Scripture ought to determine at least among them al doubts of Religion whatsoeuer 5. First then the booke of Iob though it be acknowledged and receaued by most of the Caluinistes both here in England and other Countries yet Luther (a) In Conuiuialibus ser titul de Patriarchis Prophetis sayth plainly that he doth not belieue all those things which are reported therin Nay he proceedeth so
sense of the holy Ghost in the Scripture is concealed from the Protestant by the Protestant like as the Sunne is hid from the earth by the earth 21. But to proceed a litle further touching this last translation first how can our translations therof assure any man of the truth of their translation since they acknowledge no Originall or any translation of the Bible out of which they did make their translation for pure vncorrupt Secondly admit for the tyme that this translation is perfect according to the true Originalls yet seing it differeth in diuers controuersiall textes and passages from all former English translations it therfore from hence followeth that till now we here in England neuer enioyed the true and vncorrupted Scripture in English and consequently that till these dayes the Scripture in English could not be iustly vrged to determine and iudge Controuersies in fayth But a true and perfect iudge is ready not at one tyme only but at all tymes seasons to performe the function of true Iudicature That supposing the Scripture as Iudge yet the Letter therof is more cleare and perspicuous for the Catholikes then for the Protestantes CHAP. VIII NOW after we haue proued the incompetency of the Scriptures for resoluing all doubts of fayth and this from the disagrements of our Aduersaries eyther in approuing or discanoning such or such parcells of the Bible as also from the confessed corruptions and falsifications as well of the Originalls as translations euen of those books which are ioyntly acknowledged by them for Gods vndoubted word for as they do grant that others corrupted the fountaines so it is most euident that among others themselues haue impoysoned the streames It wil much cōduce to our designed proiect if we cōtinue our dreame for the tyme with our Aduersaries that the Scripture is solely and finally to decyde all Controuersies since supposing this principle as true we shall notwithstanding be able to proue that the passages of Scripture euen of such parts as are confessed by our Aduersaries to be authenticall and vncorrupted which the Catholikes do alledge in defence of their faith are more cleare and perspicuous for the proofe of their Doctrine then any counter textes are which our Aduersaries do produce out of the sayd Scripture to impugne the same in regard of which difference a Catholike may commiserate a Protestant in the phrase of Tertullian to Marcion Misereor tui Christus enim Iesu in Euangelio tuo meus est The reason hereof is double first because the Catholikes do ordinarily insist in the literall and immediate sense of the wordes which sense is euer more naturall and obuious then any figuratiue acception of them can be wheras our Aduersaries in answer therto as also in alledging other textes are forced to interprete the sayd places eyther figuratiuely or at least not in that vsual immediate sense which the words do import Which māner of literally expounding the Scripture is warranted by the authority of all learned diuines who do ioyntly teach that we neuer ought to depart frō the proper sēse of words except we be driuē therto either by some other manifest place of Scripture or by some vndoubled article of our fayth impugning the literal sēse thereof or lastly by the vsuall explication of the whole Church 2. The second reason of the greater perspicuity in our proofes then in those of our Aduersaries is this in that most of the textes of Scripture for I do not say all which we alledge do fall directly and as it were in a straight lyne vpon the question controuerted so as after the sense and meaning of the wordes is once acknowledged they irrefragably and directly proue that for which they were vrged wheras our Aduersaries testimonies do not for the most part touch immediatly and as I may tearme it primariously the poynt in question but only by way of a secondary collection or illatiō which illations being often inconsequent and at the most but probable and not necessary it followeth that though we should grant to them their owne expositions of such textes yet do they but proue the thing questioned by a second hād I meane only by probable and coniecturall inferences And this oftentymes after their illation is granted doth not light vpon the hart of the question it selfe but only vpon the flanck or skirtes of the same I meane vpon the manner or some other circumstance therof which being not defined may be holden seuerall wayes as probable by the Catholikes But now for iustifying what I haue here set downe let vs looke into some chiefe texts vrged by vs and our Aduersaries concerning some principall Cōtrouersies for to go through all were ouer laboursome where I doubt not but we shall fynd in ech of them at least one or the two former disparities betwene vs and our Aduersaries in alledging the same 3. And first touching Peters Primacy the Catholikes do alledge in proofe therof those words of Christ to him out of S. Matthew (a) cap. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this rock will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it And I will giue to thee the keyes of heauen c. Which wordes being taken literally and plainly as the Catholikes doe expound them do directly proue this Controuersy seing they fall perpendicularly vpon the conclusion of the question it selfe for to say that Peter is the rock of the Church is al one in sense as to say the head of the Church And therfore our Aduersaries to auoyde this pressing authority are forced to answere that by the word Rock is vnderstood figuratiuely Christ according to Caluin (b) lib. 4. Instit c. 6. §. 6. or euery one of the faithfull with Erasmus (c) Erasm in hunc locum or the confession of our Fayth with Luther (d) lib. do Potestate Papae So distracted they are among themselues in answearing therto 4. But let vs view what places our Aduersaries do alledge to countermand Peters supreme authority First because our Sauiour sayd to Peter as it is recorded in the sayd Chapter of S. Matthew Go after me Satan thou art a scandall vnto me c. As also in that S. Paul (e) Galat. cap. 2. sayth of himselfe that he resisted Peter in the face Neyther which places we see do directly touch Peters authority but only by way of weake inferences and such as are not as much as probable seing that Peter was not then the head of the Church when those words were sayd to him by Christ and concerning this other we grant that the inferiour may and ought to withstand his superiour for the truths sake so that he doth it with due respect and regard 5. To conuince that Paradox that the Pope is Antichrist the Catholikes doe vrge the continuance of Antichrists reigne set down in the Scripture diuersly both by yeares (f) Apoe 12. monethes (g) Ibidem c. 11. 13. and dayes
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
these two sects do absolutely approue such as are euen of their owne faction 14. And first we find that Conradus (*) In Catalog nostri temporis l. 1. the foresayd Lutheran placeth six sorts of his owne Lutherans in the Catalogue of Heretikes So through the disallowing of one anothers Doctrine did first rise the distinction of Molles Rigidi Lutherani so as it is manifest euen out of their owne bookes and inuectiues that they hould one another for Heretikes 15. Now touching the Sacramentaries among themselues Doth not Caluin (r) lib. de coena Domini l. 4. Instit. c. 15. §. 1. condemne Zuinglius for teaching that the Sacraments are bare externall signes And is not Caluin reciprocally condemned by Zuinglius (s) Zuinglius epist ad quandaÌ„ Germaniae ciuitatem fol. 196. in Commentar de vera falsa relig c. de Sacra againe because he attributed more to the Sacraments then externall signes 16. Castalio (t) In l. ad Caluin de praedest a Sacramentary charging Caluin for teaching God to be the authour of sinne maketh a distinction of the true God and of Caluins God and giueth a different description of them both and among other thinges he there thus concludeth By this meanes not the diuell but the God of Caluin is the Father of lyes but that God which the holy Scripture teacheth is altogether contrary to this God of Caluin c. And then after The true God came to destroy the workes of the Caluinian God and these two Gods as they are by nature contrary one to another so they beget and bring forth children of contrary disposition to wit that God of Caluin children without mercy proud c. Thus Castilio And thus much of our forraine new Ghospellers for some tast of the bitter sentences deliuered against one another in which poynt I acknowledge not to haue set downe the hundred part of theyr mutuall accusations 17. Now if we looke here at home it is easy to shew that the Protestantes and Puritanes do as litle fauour one another for their seuerall Doctrines rysing from making the Scripture sole iudge of Religion as the fore named Sectaries haue done Hence it is that the Puritanes will not acknowledge the Protestantes to be true and sincere professours of the Ghospell as appeareth by their diuers admonitions exhibited to the Parliamentes euery leaâ—e almost therin inueighing against them as against the Ghospells enemies So we see that in one of their bookes (u) A Christian and modest offer c. pag. 11. they say That if themselues be in errour and the Prelats on the contrary haue the truth they protest to all the world that the Pope and the Church of Rome and in them God and Christ Iesus himselfe haue great wrong and indignity offred vnto them in that they are reiected c. 18. Touching the Protestantes recrimination of the Puritanes we find that the Protestantes (x) Powel in his ConsideratioÌ„s do censure them to be notorius and manifest Schismatikes and members cut of from the Church of God They are sayd by another Protestant (y) The Suruey of the preteÌ„ded discipline 1. 5. c. 24. c. 35. To haue peruerted the true meaning of certaine places both of Scriptures and Fathers to serue theyr owne turnes And agayne the said Authour saith of them The word of God is troubled with such choppers and changers of it c. And to conclude he further affimeth to leaue out infinite other places That the later braules pittifull distractions and coÌ„fusions among the Puritanes proceed of such intollerable presumption as is vsed by peruerting and false interpretation of holy Scripture Which seuere and bitter condemnations of one another cannot be vnderstood to be spoken of things indifferent and touching ceremonies only as they are wont to salue the matter when they be charged therwith by Catholikes 19. These loe are the yet liuing-remembrances of our Sectaries Progenitours ouerthrow occasioned through their waging of warre in the defence of so erroneous a Doctrine which alone are of force if all other former proofes and arguments were defectiue to conuince our Nouellists of their foule errour therin But since all these alledged authours were Protestants and for the greater part acknowledged for men of Piety and as professing the Ghospell by the present Church of England since they all disclaymed from the Churches authority in defining of Controuersies all ventilated alike the facility of the holy Scripture acknowledged it as sole iudge and warranted their different Doctrines from Scripture alone finally all actually impatronized themselues of the interpreting spirit since I say they all proceeded thus far and were warranted therin with as much reason as any ProtestaÌ„t maintaining the same Doctrine at this present can iustly apply to himselfe yet seing not one of those would affoard any approbation of an others mans reuealing spirit in the exposition of Scripture but openly traduced ech others spirit as erroneous and hereticall and vpon their contrary expositions of Scripture they did beget contrary Doctrines What then remaineth but that euery sober and discret Christian do reiect this Paradox to wit that the Scripture is the sole and only iudge of Controuersies since it hath ingendred in the propugners thereof such a Babylon of confused and tumultuous accusations that with al resignatioÌ„ of iudgment he humbly acknowledge that Christ his Vicar assisted with competency of meanes from the whole Church is appoynted by Christ himselfe to be heere vpon Earth the sole supreme and inappealable Iudge in all matters of fayth and religion often recalling to his memory that it is (z) Math. 18. wrytten Dic Ecclesiae si Ecclesiam noÌ„ audierit sit tibi veluti Ethnicus Publicanus FINIS