Protestants Chap. 8. That the Texts of Scripture are expounded by the Fathers in the same sense in the which they are alledged by Catholikes for proofe of their fayth Chap. 9. That the Textes of Scripture obiected by the Protestantes in disprouall of our Religion are otherwise expounded by the Fathers then in that sense wherin our Aduersaries do vrge them and that such their expositions do agree with ours Chap. 10. That the Scripture is cleare for proofe of our Catholike Fayth euer in the impliciâ—e and tacite iudgments of our Aduersaries themselues Chap 11. The Conclusion Chap. 12. THE FIRST PART OF THE PSEVDOSCRIPTVRIST The Catholikes Reuerence towardes the Scriptures with the state of the Question touching the Scriptures not being Iudge CHAP. I. BEFORE we enter into any particuler redargution and reproual of the Protestants doctrine touching the subiect of this Treatise I must put them in mind with what slanderous calumniations for detraction is euer accustomed to tread vpon the heeles of truth and integrity they wrong vs Catholikes for our supposed contempt of the holy Scriptures their chief reason thereof besides others being because we deny to them that facility and easines as that they ought to determine all doubts of religion before the true sense of them among so many that are forced and adulterate be deliuered by the Pastours of Gods Church And heerupon they teach that we in effect reiect the Scriptures and do aduance mens doctrines and iudgements aboue them So deep are their pens steeped in gaul against vs and so deseruedly may they be ranged with those mentioned by the (a) Isa c. 32. Prophet Fraudulenti vasa pessima sunt vsque ad perdendos mites in sermone mendacij But how easy is it to dissipate and dissolue this cloud of suggesting malice For we teach not that the Church is to iudge whether that which the Scripture sayth be true or false since the Scripture is Scripture and most true whether the Church should so iudge of it or not but our doctrine is that it being first acknowledged for an infallible principle that the wordes of the Scripture are most true the Church doth only teach amongst many interpretations which is the true sense and meaning of the sayd wordes And in this sort it followeth not that the Church is aboue Gods Word for it is only a vigilant Depositary and Guardian thereof but aboue the iudgement of particuler men interpreting his Word which men do commonly make their priuate and reuealing spirit to become as it were their Mercuryes-rod therewith to chase away all construction of Scripture not sorting to their phantasyes Neither doth the Scripture receaue any strength and force which afore it wanted from this sentence and iudgment of the Church but only our vnderstanding is strengthned confirmed thereby which sentence of the Church is not meerely the Word of man which is lyable to errour and vncertainty but in some sort it may be tearmed the Word of God as being deliuered by the assistance of the Holy Ghost in regard of those infallible promises made in the Scriptures to the Church that she (b) Luc. 21. should not erre Act. 15. 2. But to proceed further in acknowledging our due respect to the Scriptures we graunt most freely that they are the spirituall conduits whereby are deriued to vs the highest misteryes of our fayth that the blessed penners of them were so directed by the holy Ghost as that they neither did nor could erre in any one letter that they transcend in worth and dignity all humane writings as farre as an infallibility of truth surpasseth a possibility of errour Lastly that the sense of them is a most powerfull and working phisicke against the poysonous receitps of all hereticall distillations if so it be deliuered by the appointment of our spirituall Phisitian So venerable and reuerent respect we see the Catholiks do beare to the sacred Scripture as to one chiefe meanes ordained by God for our eternall health and wellfare yet withall they teach that true fayth is to be found not in leaues of the wordes but in the roole of the sense thus making the true and indubious interpretation of Gods word to be a rule to the Protestants imaginary rule since it is to ouerule controule the priuate spirit of euery particuler Sectary 3. But now in the next place to enter more particulerly into the state of this point touching the Scriptures supposed Iudge of fayth we are to conceaue that wheras our Sectaryes do generally maintaine that the written Word of God is the sole and infallible Iudge as also the only rule and square of the articles of Christian Religion thereby reiecting not only any other Iudge but also all other points touching fayth which haue not their expresse proofe or necessary inference in the sayd holy Scriptures The Catholikes on the other side running one and the same line of fayth with all antiquity teach as followeth 4. First that the holy Scripture is not the Iudge of all Controuersyes of fayth Secondly they teach that it is norma infallibilis an infallible rule or square of fayth that is that nothing contrary to the Scripture is to be admitted but they say not that it is the only rule of square and therefore they affirme that besids the Scripture there are Apostolical traditioÌ„s and other definitions of the Church Thus we grant that the written word is regula partialis but not regula totalis of fayth and Religion and therefore we admitte some thinges praeter Scripturam but nothing contra Scripturam that is we approue some thinges not expresly sound in the Scripture but not any thing contrary or repugnant to the Scripture 5. Thirdly they hould that graunting the Scripture to be the rule or square of most articles of religion yet it followeth not that it is the Iudge of the sayd articles since Regula and Iudex are in nature things different for euen in ciuill matters the law is the rule and sqare according to which suites and contentions are determined and yet the law is not the Iuge of them but the Magistrate himselfe expounding the law though sometymes the Law is called improperly and Metaphorically the Iudge 6. Fourthly and lastly they deny not but that the Scripture may in a restained sense be tearmed the Iudge of all Controuersies in faith because it (c) Matth. 16. 18. 23. IoaÌ„ vlt. Luc. 22. Act. 15. appointeth and setteth downe who is that Iudge to wit the Church as also they grant that in the lyke reserued construction the Scripture may be said to deliuer all thinges sufficiently which belong to faith and religion And this not only because it deliuereth euidently al those articles of faith which are simply and absolutely necessary for all men to know as the Articles of our Creed the Decalogue and those Sacraments which are more necessary but also in that all other poyntes whatsoeuer concerning either the true exposition of the written word
or faith and religion in general are warranted by the infallible authority of the Church which infallible authority is proued commended to vs by the holy Scripture And 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
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
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
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
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
2. Cor. 4. the light to shine out of darknes and can cause truth to be confirmed by the maintainers of falshood The insufficiency of the Scripture for the determining of points of fayth discouered by force of Reason CHAP. X. MANY argumēts might be produced from reason for the confirming of this verity but I here content my selfe with some few of the chiefest And first if our aduersaries Position were true concerning the Scriptures being iudge of our fayth then must they vnderstand hereby eyther their whole Canon and body of Scriptures taken ioyntly togeather or els euery particular booke therof as it is considered by it selfe alone Not this later both because it would follow that if any one booke alone were a competent Iudge of all articles of our fayth that then al the other parcels of Scripture were superfluous and needles which were most prophane to imagine As also in that euery particular Ghospell or any such part thereof doth omit many chiefe articles of our Fayth without any mention had of them at all And thus we find that the Annuntiation the Natiuity the Circumcision of our Lord besides many other points are not as much as once touched in S. Iohns Ghospell in like sort neyther doth S. Matthew mention the Circumcision nor S. Marke the Presentation 2. Now our Aduersaries Doctrine herein is no more iustisiable if they will here vnderstand the whole body of all the Canonicall books of Scripture ioyntly considered together to be this Iudge which assertion they for the most part maintaine And the reason therof is this In that diuers Canonicall and vndoubted parcels euen by the Protestants acknowledgment of both the old and the new testament haue bene lost for the space of 1500. yeares and neuer yet found againe And therfore it ineuitably followeth that if all the sacred books of Scripture taken together should be this iudge and that diuers of them for so many Centuries and ages haue bene and still are lost that then during so long a tyme we neuer enioyed a sufficient and competent Iudge and such a one as was proportionable to that fayth left to vs by the Prophets Apostles and Euangelists but in lieu therof we haue had a maimed imperfect and defectiue Iudge Which to affirme were to impugne Gods care and prouidence which he beareth towards his Church 3. Now that diuers parcels of both the Testaments haue perished it is most cleare and our Aduersaries cannot deny it And first touching the new Testament it appeareth out of the Epistle to the Colossians (a) c. vle that Saint Paul wrote an Epistle to them of Laodiced which neyther we nor the auncient Fathers haue proued euer to haue bene extant since the Apostles tyme. In like sort S. Paul may seeme to intimate in his first Epistle to the Corinthians (b) cap. 5. in these words Scripsi vobis in epistola c. that before the writing of the sayd Epistle he had written to thē another Epistle and yet we cannot find that the Church euer had any such Epistle 4. Now it is no lesse cleare that diuers parts of the old Testament haue bene and are as yet lost at least for the sayd former space of tyme. And to omit the testimonies of S. Chrysostome (c) Hom. 9. in Matth. hom 7. in prior ad Corinth affirming so much we read in the books of Kings (d) 3. Reg. 4. that Salomon wrote many Parables and verses which now we haue not for thus there it is sayd Locutus est Salomon tria millia Parabolarum fuerunt carmina eius quinque millia After the same manner we find it also registred of Dauid (f) Paralip vlt. in these words Gesta autem Dauid priora nouissima scripta sunt in libro Samuel Videntis in libro Nathan Prophetae atque in volumine Caiad Videntis All which wrytinges here mentioned are neyther at this present nor haue for many former ages bene extant in Gods Church So cleare thus we see it is by the force of this argument that the Scripture neyther as it is wholy takē together nor seuerally by particular books can be the iudge for the determining of all doubts of fayth 5. Another reason for the incompetency of the Scripture as Iudge may be taken from the nature of a iudge as is else where touched constituted in euery well gouerned Common wealth For it cleare that euery Iudge first ought to be able of his owne authority to take notice of the Contentions and Controuersies rysing in the state Secondly he must haue power by interpreting the law to giue his censure against the party offending Lastly he is to compell and force the delinquents to obedience vnder the paine of feuere punishments None of which points can be effected except there be besides the wrytten law a visible iudge Seing then by application of what is here sayd to our present purpose that the Scripture cannot of it selfe take notice of Controuersies rysing in matters of religion nor euidently declare to the Litigants the true meaning of such passages of it self warranting or condemning the points in question nor finally can constraine the aduerse party to relinquish his errours impugned by the wrytten Word as we find by the dayly experience of Heretikes flying to the Scripture as Iudge Therfore it is most perspicuous that the Scripture cannot be erected as a competent Iudge in the decision of articles of fayth among Christians 6. Neyther is it any satisfiable answere to reply that God himselfe seeth all Contentions in doubts of fayth and in some sort by meanes of the Scripture pronounceth his sentence in condemnation of the heresies impugned This I say is not sufficient and the reason hereof is because God doth not so euidently deliuer his sentence by the mediation of the Scripture as the party conuinced therby will acknowledge it for his sentence And consequently if the question should be whether the Scripture be the word of God or not God could not clearly giue his iudgment only by the helpe of Scripture Therfore it followeth that we must haue a visible iudge and such as his finall decrees being once manifested the party maintaining his errours will acknowledge them as they proceed from the Iudge whether iustly or iniustly to be clearly and euidently condemned by the sayd iudge which we see falleth not out in obtruding the Scripture for it is obserued that the Anabaptist or any other acknowledged heretike wil neuer confesse his heresies to be impugned by the Scripture or himself condēned therby 7. And of the like feeblenes is that other answere of some hereto who courteously do grant that there may be acknowledged indeed an external publike iudge of all doubts in religion meaning the generall voice of gods Church but yet this iudge teach they is limited in it definitions and not absolutely infallible but only so farre forth as it treadeth the tract and path of Gods written word and which declining from
from all other proofes whatsoeuer he was able so to varnish ouer his heresies with some misapplyed and forced texts therof as that to a credulous and mistaking eye the grayne of them should appeare most faire specious and regardable 3. But let vs particularize this point in some few examples who knoweth not that the Arians (a) Teste Epiphan haeres 69. who laboured to ouerthrow in effect the whole frame and Systema of Christian ReligioÌ„ by teaching that Christ was not God did with this their blasphemy inuade and ouerrunne whole countries through the supposed warrant of many texts of the holy Scriptures themselues still peruerting the sense therof He that doubteth of this let him consider the texs heere (b) Pater maior me est Ioan. 14. 18. Descendi de caelo non vt faciam voluntateÌ„ meam sed eius qui misit me Ioan. 6. vt agnoscant te solum veâ—uÌ„ DeuÌ„ quem misisti IesuÌ„ Christum Ioan. 17. Nobis autem vnus est Deus Pater 1. Cor. 18. vide etiam 1. Cor. c. 15. 1. Tim. 2. Act. 2. noted in the margent which they among many other like places alledged So shal he grant that these heretikes pressed Scripture against him who is the authour of Scripture In like sort Eutiches (c) Apud Leonem epist Flauiani epist Leonâ— 97. who taught that our Sauiour had but a phantasticall and imputatiue body through the conuersion of his diuinity into his flesh was not altogether depriued of all proofes through his misconstruction of Gods (d) VerbuÌ„ caro factuÌ„ est Ioan 1. As after the same phrase we read Aqua vinum facta est Ioan. 2. wherin we find the water to be made wine by a true conuersion of the one into the other word Nestorius (e) Euâ—grius l. 1. c. 2. Theodoret. l. 4. haeret fabularum prope finem the former heretikes diametricall enemy in Doctrine so easy it is for this priuate spirit by misconstruction to extract both fire and water from one and the same word of God so deuided Iesus from Christ as that he affirmed Iesus to be only pure man and him who was borne of the blessed Virgin and suffred death but Christ to be the Son of God This man neyther wanted diuers passages (f) In similitudinem hominum factus habitu inuentus vt homo Phi. 2. Est sine matre sine genealogia Heb. 7. where Christ is thus described Deus meus vt quid dereâ—quisti me Math. 27. And else where it is â—ayd Pater clarifica me hac hora. Ioan. 12. Both which sayings might be taught to be disagreable to the forme of God of holy Scripture interpreted by his owne spirit for the enamiling of this his execrable blasphemy 4. Wicliffe (g) Thomas VValdens l. 2. Doctrin Fidei c. 81. and Husse (h) as appeareth out of the Councell of Constance sessione 15. to the great preiudice of secular Princes taught that temporal Magistrats committing any mortall sinne did ipso facto cease to be Magistrates and being in that state might be deposed by their subiectes Which false and wicked Doctrine they were not affraid to confirme with certaine vsurped testimonies of Gods word The (i) Ipsi regnauerunt non ex me principes extiterunt non cognoui argentum aurum suum fecerunt sibi idola vt interimereÌ„t Osee 8. RegnuÌ„ à gente in gentem transfertur propter iniustitias Eccles 18. Waldenses Luthers Prodromi and precursors the Anabaptistes (k) They are charged here with euen by Caluin lib. 4. Institut 2. 20. would not brooke that christian Magistrates should make any lawes eyther to punish the wicked or to appeale to any court of iustice for redressing of wrongs affirming that such proceeding did take away all Christian liberty and these fellowes made in like sort the holy Scriptures (l) Si quis voluerit teâ—um iudicio contendere tunicam tuam tollere da ei pallium Math. 5. Delictum est in vobis quod iudicia habebitis inter nos cur non magis fraudem patimini quare non magis iniuriam accipitis 1. Cor. 6. Dictum est antiquis oculum pro oculo dentem pro dente ego autem dico vobis non resistere malo Math. 5. Omnes qui acceperint gladium gladio peribunt Math. 26. Si quis te percufferit in vnâ—m maxillam praebe ei alteram Math. 5. their sanctuary So daÌ„gerously they erred herein through a vitious affectatioÌ„ of ouermuch patience and innocency These loe such like are the adulterate ofspring of which I spake afore ingendred and brought forth by that former principle of the Scriptures sole Iudge sucking from the same ground tanquam ex traduce all that falshood and impiery which is found in them In which poynt we see how sollicitous and carefull the chiefe Patrones thereof were as it were to legitimate them with so many detorsions and misapplyed testimonies of Gods sacred writ Thus haue the Scriptures through the want of the true sense occasioned heresies as the Sunne through absence of it heat may be sayd to be the cause of cold which heresies according to Tertullian (m) Tertul de Pudicitia dum sunt habent posse dum possunt habent esse 6. And heere now I would demaund of our Aduersaries who acknowledge at least in wordes all the former opinions for damnable heresies what prerogatiue and priuiledge themselues may take whiles they make their sole recourse to the Scriptures as the supreme Iudge in defence of their late appearing fayth which the former Hereâ—â—kes may not with the like freedome and with as iust sheâ— of reason challenge to themselues Wil they obiect to the former heretiks want of Scripture for proofe of their Doctrine We haue seene how luxuriant and ryotous as it were they shewed to be in alledging the same for the better dogmatizing of their errours in so much that for iustifying of some of their heresies if we respect not the sense but the number they were able â—uen to vye text for text against the orthodoxall Doctrine Will they say they were ignorant in the primitiue tongues and vsed not conference of Scripture the two acknowledged meanes conducing to the true vnderstanding therof Concerning the first diuers of them had some of the tongues euen from their cradle and as for the other they were so studious and painfull therin as that they spent a great part of their life in diligent searching comparing and applying of seuerall passages of the Scripture 6. To conclude will they reply that notwithstanding all this they wanted true humility and prayer which they say with the former conditions are as it were the Media wherin the Species of the high mysteries of fayth are multiplyed before they can enter into the eye of our vnderstanding and consequently enioyed not this reuealing spirit wherof themselues are assured they would if in their life
time they had ben accused herin haue laboured to haue quyt themselues as well as our Sectaries do in these tymes from that imputation and would as fully charge all other with the like wants who should interpret the former alledged texts diuersly from their constructions and did no doubt as boldly when they were liuing vaunt of the certainty and infallibility of their spirit as any of our Protestants can do at this present Seing then that our Aduersaries as flying to the Scriptures alone can alledge nothing in their owne behalfe for the patronizing of their Caluinian fayth but that the former recorded Heretiks actually did might as well and as truly apply vnto themselues for the defence of their impieties It may therfore be deâ—â—â—â—red as a most certaine and infallible Position that it is impossible and repugnant no lesse to the prouidence of God then to naturall reason it selfe that truth of fayth and religioÌ„ the which the Protestants professe to mayntaine should be seated vpon those grounds and only those grounds which euery heresy may with the like reason and probability indifferently assume to it selfe 7. Adde hereto as a resultancy out of the whole contents of this Chapter that seeing as we haue shewed it is the proper Scene of the Heretikes euer to flye to the Scripture vnder the wings therof to shrowd their wicked Doctrines that therfore by the Scripture they are not sufficiently condemned and consequeÌ„tly that the Scripture is not the proper iudge of Controuersies since no man that this guilty of any fault doth willingly appeale to that iudge still remayning in his former sentence by whome he was afore clearly and euidently conuicted That our Aduersaries do confesse it to be the custome of Heretikes to flye to the Scripture alone and that therfore diuers of them do appeale to the Church as Iudge CAAP. XIII BVT to end this poynt touching the custome of Heretikes in flyeing only to Scripture I hould two things worthy to be presented to the consideration of the discreet Reader both which shal be proued from the frequent acknowledgmentes of our Aduersaries first that not only experience warranteth as appeareth aboue from so many exemplifyed heretikes but also that our Aduersaries themselues ingeniously acknowledge that it is the custome of heretikes euer the flye to the Scripture for the patronizing of their heresies Secondly that diuers of our learned Aduersaries do absolutly abandoÌ„ this course of making sole refuge to the Scripture as houlding it a course ful of vncertainty and not able to affoard any secure and warrantable determining or ending of Controuersies And touching the first to omit the like censure of old Vincentius (a) Lib. aduers haeres printed Lugduni 1572. Fortassealiquis interroget an Haeretici diuinis Scripturae testimonijs vtantut vtuntur planè vehemeÌ„ter quidem nihil vnquaÌ„ pene de suo proferunt quod non etiaÌ„ Scripturae verbuÌ„ adunbrare conentur sed tanto magis cauâ—ndi pertimiscendi sunt Lyrinensis who liued 13. hundred yeares since giuen against the custome of the heretikes of his tyme and to restraine our selues to our English Aduersaries we find that D. Bancroft (b) In his suruey cap. 27. chargeth Cartwright to seeme to defend his errours by the supposed warrant of only Scripture and within the same proceeding this Doctrine includeth euen Beza (c) Ibidem pag. 219. 2. M. Hooker speaking of the Anabaptistes thus wrytes of them The booke of God they viz. the Anabaptists for the most part so admired that other disputation against their opinions then only by allegation of Scripture they would not heare (d) In his Ecclesiast policy in the preface In like sort the Brownistes (e) In their Apology printed 1604. pag. 103. of Amsterdam being confessed heretikes wryting against D. Bilson professe to flye in their disputes only to Scripture Finally the Authour of the Treatise intituled A briefe answere to certaine obiections against the descension of Christ into hell printed at Oxford by Ioseph Barnes reprehendeth his Aduersary Protestant in these words Where you say you must build your fayth on the word of faith tying vs to Scripture only you giue iust occasion to thinke that you neyther haue the auncient Fathers of Christs Church nor their sonnes succeeding them agreeing with you in this point 3. Now as touching the second poynt it is euident that Beza himselfe is produced by Hooker (f) In his preface to his booke of Ecclesiast policy as weary of the former course begetting nothing but vncertainty to abandon all tryall by Scripture only and to submit himselfe to a lawfull assembly or Councell D. Sutcliffe (g) In his reuiew of his examination of D. Kellisons sur uey printed 1606. pag. 42. as not allowing triall by Scripture only thus wryteth It is false that we will admit no iudge but Scripture for we appeale still to a lawfull generall Councell 4. M. Hooker in his foresayd preface of his former booke speaking of disputation and tryall by Scripture only thus discourseth What successe God may giue to any such conference or disputation we cannot tell but we are sure of this that nature Scripture and experience haue all taught the world to seeke for the ending of Contentions to submit it selfe vnto some iudiciall and definitiue sentence And the same learned Protestant as is else where alledged shewing that the Scripture which one question potentially contayneth within it selfe all other questions cannot iudge which is Scripture thus wryteth (h) lib. 2. Eccles â—olic sect 4. p. 162. It is not the word of God which can assure vs that we do well to thinke it is the word c. This very poynt of acknowledging another Iudge then the only Scripture is taught by D. Bancroft in his sermon preached 8. Feb. anno 1588. The same also is maintained by D. Couel in his modest examination p. 108. and by D. Field in his treatise of the Church in the epistle Dedicatory to the Arcbishop who giuing a reason of this his Doctrine thus wryteth For seeing the Controuersies of religion in our tyme are growne so many in number and in nature so intricate that few haue tyme and leasure strength and vnderstanding to examine them What remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in thinges of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the Societies of men in the world is that blessed company of holy ones that houshould of fayth that spouse of Christ and Church of the liuing God which is the pillar and ground of truth that so they may imbrace her communion follow her directions and rest in her iudgments So Catholike like we see this Doctour speaketh in this one Controuersy wheron all the rest depend and so earnestly he defendeth it with streÌ„gth of reason But to end this point if these acknowledgmeÌ„ts of so many of our learned Aduersaries proceed from their setled iudgments therin then haue we the poynt controuerted granted by them
of Scripture which do precisely touch any poynt of Chrystian religiō are most free from all such escapes This answere faileth seuerall wayes 8. First because we are bound by the Protestantes owne principles to beleeue nothing with is not expressed in the Scriptures But we read not in any place or text of them that God will euer preserue his wrytten word free from all corruptions in essentiall poynts of Christian fayth and yet suffer it to be generally depraued in matters of lesser moment Neyther can it be replyed that God sweet prouidence and care ouer his Church requireth that the Scripture be free from all such mayne corruptions This I say cannot satisfy vs Catholikes who do teach that Gods pouidence and care towards his Church doth not chiefly consist in preseruing his wrytten word since fayth for which end the Scripture was first wrytten may be preserued in the Church only by externall preaching and force of tradition and answerably hereunto we read that the church of God in the time of Nature for the space of 2000. yeares enioyed no Scripture or writtē word at al in like sort Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. wryteth that there were some Christian countries which belieued and liued well only by helpe of Traditions without any wrytten word 9. Secondly it is false that the sayd corruptions doe chance only in such places of indifferency as concerne not doubts of fayth since the contrary is manifest to omit diuers others which might be alledged by the two former produced examples out of S. Matthew (k) cap. 10. and S. Luke (l) cap. 22. where we see that the corruptions wherwith our Aduersaries do charge these two texts do fall iust vpō the touch and point of two chiefest Cōtrouersies of this time to wit the Supremacy of Peter and the Reall Presence 10. Thirdly if by our Aduersaries acknowledgment all the Originalls now extant are corrupted in places not pertaining to matters of fayth how can we be infallibly assured that they are not in like sort corrupted in texts of Controuersies of this tyme or of such doubts as hereafter may ryse Since a certainty of an errour in one place doth imply a possibility of errour in any other place And yet this infallibility we ought to haue for otherwise we build our fayth vpon such passages of Scripture which we doe but thinke only to be the true and vncorrupted word of God and consequently it is not fayth that is builded only vpon a bare morall persuasion of the Scriptures integrity And if this be not so let our Aduersaries shew some priuiledge warrāt which the Scritpture hath to be freed from the corruptions of one kind more then of another If they say that the Analogy of fayth expressed therin doth demonstrate that it is not corrupted in any such fundamentall places this is ridiculous for seing that fayth by our Aduersaries grounds riseth only out of the Scripture and in that respect is quiddā posterius tempore naturâ as the Philosophers say that is later both in tyme and nature then the Scriptures as afore is shewed therefore it followeth that the Analogy of fayth cannot be the square or rule to measure the integrity incorruptiō of the Scriptures therby but it selfe is measured by the Scriptures euen by their owne principles 11. And thus much to discouer the weakenes of their first answere made to our Argument drawne from theyr acknowledged corruptions of the Originalls of both the Testaments Or will they frame a second answere to the sayd argument saying that though the Originalls be corrupted yet there are certaine translations allowed by them which are most pure and agreable to the first Originalls before they were corrupted by these al doubts and Controuersies of fayth and religion are to be determined This shift is more feeble then the former first because it was impossible how the corrupted Originalls should be corrected in their translations there not being in the Protestants iudgments in the vniuersall world any one true copy by the which their translations might be amended since all translations now remaining were lōg after any true Originall was to be found the vulgar Latin and the 70. only excepted Secondly this answere satisfyeth not in that there is no one translation made in Greeke Latin or our vulgar tongue but our Aduersaries do tax it with errours and corruptions Which poynt shall most euidently and particularly be made manifest in the Chapters following 12. Thus we see how forcible and vnanswerable is our reason drawne from their confessed corruptions of their Originalls for the conuincing of this their imaginary iudge of Controuersies One thing only heere is to be remembred that where in the former Chapters not only the Protestants but also the Catholikes do hould th◠present Originalls of both the Testaments for corrupted that this assertion though proceeding alike from them both doth mightily preiudice the Protestants but the Catholikes nothing at all Not vs in that we acknowledge the vulgar Latin translation which is altogether reiected by our aduersaries to be most sincere and agreable to the true Originalls afore their corruption And hereby we maintaine that we haue and enioy the true Scriptures But the Protestants are disaduantaged by their former assertion because they refuse not only all Originalls now to be had as impure and contaminated but also all translations and consequently hauinge in their iudgments no true Scripture at all they cannot prostitute the Scripture for their Iudge of Controuersies That the Protestantes reiect the Septuagint Translations as erroneous CHAP. IV. NOw followeth heere to set downe the dislike which our Aduersaries do beare to all the Translations of the holy Scripture And first we are to begin with the famous translation of the Septuagint who being Hebrewes borne translated the old Testament out of Hebrew into Greeke This translation was so generally applauded by the auncient Fathers (a) Irenaeus Euseb Clemēs Alexandrinus Epiphan Chrysost Tertull. Aug. and the rest as that they did ioyntly pronounce the said 70. to be guided particularly by the Holy Ghost in that their translation And yet our Aduersaries do reiect it in many places as false and erroneous and euen there where they cannot pretend the least suspitiō of any corruptiō And intending to shew some few places therof disalowed by them for to particularize all were ouer laboursome I will restraine my selfe only to such texts as do belong to some particular Controuersy of this time wich course I will also hould for the most part in the other translations heere following That therby it may the more clearly appeare how insufficient all translatiōs are for the decyding of Controuersies when their presumed corruptions are found to rest principally in the texts vrged for the confirming or disproofe of the questions cōtrouerted at this present 2. And first concerning that text which toucheth our Sauiours descending into Hell the Septuagint doe trāslate Thou (b) Psal 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aximam in inferno shalt not leaue my soule in hell The ProtestaÌ„ts do read Thou shalt not leaue my soule in the graue they meaning heere by the word Soule Life or Person teaching hereby that Christ was not at all in hell and consequently that he did not deliuer the Patriarches from thence but only in the graue Now that this translation doth differ from the translation of the 70. it is most manifest chiefly by the signification of the two Greeke words vsed by the 70. in this translation to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying anima the soule and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infernus hell a thing so cleare that Beza first translating this text as the Protestants doe now read did after through the apparant falshood therof leaue the sayd translation and insteed therof read with the Septuagint Thou shalt not leaue my soule in hell I will not much dwell vpon in shewing the falshood of the Protestantes translation therin neyther in the other texts following my meaning only being to shew how they taxe the 70. translation for erroneous and consequently that they cannot pretend to examine and defyne by it all doubts arysing in fayth and religion 3. The Septuagint do in like sort translate I haue (c) Psal 118. inclined my heart to keepe thy iustifications or commandements for reward The Greeke words vsed by theÌ„ for the words for reward being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying euen by the acknowledgment of all Grecians propter retributionem for reward Yet because this place so translated by the 70. might seeme to imply merit of workes therfore our Aduersaries in regard of the Hebrewes ambiguity herein do translate thus I haue inclined my hart to fulfill the statutes alwayes euen to the end the Hebrew words signifying indifferently eyther for reward or otherwise to the end 4. The famous place out of Daniel (d) Dan. cap. 4. to the King vz. Redeeme thy sinnes with Almes being so truly literally out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elâ—emosynis redime of the Septuagint translated Yet our Aduersaries controuling them herein do translate thus Breake of thy sinnes by righteousnes for seing the Hebrew doth affoard both significations they for the auoyding the Doctrine of Satisfaction haue made choice of this other construction 5. Againe where the Septuagint do read (e) Psalm 138. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thy friends ô God are become exceeding honorable their princedome is exceedingly streÌ„gthned Yet because this place seemes in their opinion to countenance ouermuch the blessed soules in heauen whose honours our Sectaries can hardly brooke therfore they leauing the 70. translation herein do pick out of the Hebrew another translation reading thus in their bibles How deare are thy Counsells or thoughts to me ô God o how great is the summe of them 6. Now heere it is to be remembred that our Aduersaries in these and many other places which to auoyd tediousnes I omit do not condemne the present Greeke of the old TestameÌ„t as corrupted much differing froÌ„ the Greeke translation therof made by the Septuagint themselues though to the scope and end of our alledging of the translations it is all one but they acknowledge this present Greeke translation to be that translation made by the sayd Septuagint without any change or alteration And yet we see they charge it as false in such places wher the ambiguity of the Hebrew may minister any other reading more sutable to their fayth and Doctrine So far then are our Aduersaries of from granting that all differeÌ„ces of fayth and religioÌ„ ought to be decyded by the Scripture of the old Testament speaking of such poynts only as may receaue their proofes from thence as now we find it translated in Greeke by the Septuagint That the Protestantes reiect the vulgar Latin Translation CHAP. V. THOVGH the vulgar TranslatioÌ„ of the whole Bible hath bene reuerenced aboue all other Translations for the space of more then a thousand yeares since the Church during so many ages vsed it only the great respect had euer therto also appearing from the testimonies of S. Austin (a) l. 18. Ciuit Dei c. 42. epist 10. ad Hieronym S. Gregory (b) lib. 20. moral c. 24. S. Isidore (c) lib. 6. Etymol cap. 5. and diuers other auncient Fathers Notwithstanding our Aduersaries do altogether and ioyntly disclaime from it because they say it fauours to much the Papists And therfore we find it absolutely condemned and wrytten against by Caluin (d) l. aduers CoÌ„cil Trident. Chemnitius (e) Exam. Concil Trident. Titelmanus Heshusius as also generally reiected by our English Protestants in so much as I hould it but lost labour to insist in further proofe hereof 2. Now then the Translation of S. Hierome being by them discarded and no other ancient and authenticall translation now extant which they allow for the defining therby of matters in religion what course will they take herein No doubt they will follow some one translation of their owne men which they with generall coÌ„sent acknowledge to be most true sincere and answerable to the meaning of the holy Ghost Nothing lesse For here begins the Aegiptian (g) Isa 19. to fight against the Aegiptian (f) De sexceÌ„tis errorib PoÌ„tific And here is now figured out the Confusion of Babylon since among so many translations of the holy Scripture being made by our Aduersaries they shall not be able to shew any one which their owne men do not traduce as false erroneous and hereticall Which thing shall euidently appeare in the Chapters following Thus our Aduersaries like lines meeting in a poynt and then instantly breaking of haue no sooner iumped together to condemne all former Translations but that preseÌ„tly they dissent among themselues in appruoing or reiecting their owne Translations That the Protestantes do condemne all the chiefe Translations of their owne brethren as false and erroneous CAAP. VI. TO vndertake the setting downe of all such places as in our Aduersaries seueral translations are charged with corruption by some of their owne brethren were ouer laboursome and not much needfull and therfore in this Ocean and sea of their owne dissentions wherin we find drowned the credit of euery particular translatioÌ„ made by any of them I will saile by a more narrow Cut to wit I wil deliuer only the iudgments of theyr owne brethren passed vpon euery such translatioÌ„ of theirs our English translations only excepted wherupon I wil stay the longer and inlarge my discourse more particularly for some peculiar reasons 2. To begin then with Luther who translated the holy Scripture would all the Protestants thinke you rely vpon that translation you shall therfore heare Zuinglius (a) lib. de Sacram. f. 412. See him also respons ad Confess Tugurinorum his Encomion and prayse both of him and his translation styling him A foule corrupter and horrible falsisier of Gods word one that followed the
Marcionites and Arians that razed out such places of holy writ as were against them Neyther is Bucer (b) dialog contra Melancthon See Lindan dub 84. 96. 98. dumbe in censuring Luthers sayd translation as erroneous Besides both which censures of him you find to touch only one particular that he inserteth words of his owne into the text it selfe as though they were written by the holy Ghost as for example translating that text A man is iustified by fayth without the workes of the law he inserteth in coÌ„trary both to the Greeke and Latin the words only to explicate as himselfe sayth more plainly the Apostles meaning against the Iustification of works done in the tyme of grace 3. The same taske of translation was vndertaken and performed by Caluin but with what dexterity he carryed himselfe therin it appeareth to say nothing of Illyricus coÌ„demning therof by the testimony of Carolus (c) Tract Testamnoui part 11. fol. 110. Molineus a yonger brother of his owne house who wryteth of Caluins translations in this sort He made the text of the ghospell to leape vp and downe at his pleasure and he vsed violence to the same and added of his owne to the very sacred letter for drawing it to his owne purpose 4. Oecolampadius so truly intituled per Antiphrasin as infecting Gods house and church with the darknes of heresy by the helpe of his brethren of Basil would needes busy himselfe with the like labour Yet was their translation so distastfull to Beza (d) In respons ad defens Castalion vide etiam praefat Testam noui anno 155â— as that he chargeth them al with great sacriledge impiety in corrupting of the sacred word it selfe 5. Neither will Beza passe ouer as vncontrolled the translation of Castalio tearming his proceeding with Gods word to be bold pestilent sacrilegious and Ethenicall speaking else where (e) Annot in act 10. of Castalio in this poynt he sayth It commeth to passe that whiles euery man will rather freely follow his owne iudgement then be a religious interpreter of the holy ghost he doth rather peruert many things then translate them Beza himselfe translated the new Testament but with what applause his work was entertained you shall heare for besides Castalio his reciprocall testimony of condemning the same Illyricus much impugneth it and Molineus (f) In tâ—aÌ„slat noui Testament part 64. 65. 66. plainly chargeth Beza Quòd de facto textum mutat that actually he changeth the very text of Gods word it self for the patronizing of his Doctrine 6. Good God would any thinke if their owne writinges were not as yet extant to charge them therwith that such men as these being indeed the Antesignani the most choice and eminent Doctours and as it were so many Oracles or Sunnes of their new Ghospell should no sooner deuide themselues by open Apostasy from the vnity of the Catholike Church but that they begin to inueigh one against another in great acerbity and bitternes of speach concerning their different translations Plainly discouering by their mutuall reproualls and recriminations herein that though they all conspire to make head against the Catholike Fayth yet do they presently therupon broach forth different Doctrines amoÌ„g themselues and ech one glad to fortify their opinions by impugning all other translations which are not made sutable to their new stamped Doctrine 7. Wherfore a company of men falling from the body of the Catholike Church may be well resembled to some mighty fall of earth from the body of a huge mountaine and this mountaine euen by Esay himselfe figureth out Christs Church which great clod is no sooner disparted from the rest but it crimbleth it selfe into innumerable small parcells But herein we are to admire Gods prouideÌ„ce who is able to vse the actioÌ„s of the Churches enemies as handmaids to the Churches preseruation no otherwise then the betraying of (g) Gen. â— 45. 50. Ioseph by his brethren to the safety of the Israelites For seing the diuision of heresy is not mathematicall and infinite but determinate limitable therfore euery heresy though at it first appearance it drawes mens eyes vpon it like blazing starres which seeme high but are low shine no longer then their matter endures yet at the length consumes wasts away by subdiuiding it selfe and striuing to make it own part good against al others so as it falleth out that the Catastrophe and CoÌ„clusion of all such proceeding is this that it may be truly pronounced The war of Heretikes to be the peace of the Church and their diuisions her vnion 8. But to returne for I had almost lost my selfe in our Aduersaries former disagrements touching their translations where we are to obserue that though some of their translations came nearer to the vulgar Latin translation then others yet ech of them as is sayd mainly dissents one from another like two faces which bearing some resemblance to a third face haue notwithstaÌ„ding no likenes betwene themselues That the English Translations are corrupted therfore not sufficient to determine doubts in Religion CHAP. VII THE Hebrew and Greeke Originalls of the holy Scriptures as also the Greeke and Latin traÌ„slations of the same being examined and found defectiue by our Aduersaries assertions we are to descend to our English translations and to shew that they are fraughted with many corruptions and that our Aduersaries cannot iustify the sayd translations to be true and exact only according to the Originalls out of which they are made and consequently that the sayd translatioÌ„s cannot with any shew of iudgment or reason be exposed for the infallible iudge of Controuersies That these translations are most corrupt and erroneous may be proued two wayes first from the translations themselues SecoÌ„dly from the Confession of our English Protestants 2. And concerning the translations themselues three thinges are found in them which may assure all men of their impurity first the adding of diuers wordes vnto the text which words are not to be found neyther in the Hebrew nor in the Greeke Originalls and the wordes added are of such nature as they make only for the better mayntaining of the Protestants religion 3. I could instance this in many textes of their traÌ„slations but one or two shal be sufficient at this tyme as for example in the first Chapter of the Acts our English translations speaking of the election of Matthias the Apostle read thus He was by a common consent counted with the eleuen Apostles to proue out of this place that all Ecclesiasticall functions ought or at least may be made by a popular election which diuers reformed Churches of the Caluinists doe hold at this day Here these former words to wit with a common consent are plainly added by our Aduersaries since the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heere vsed signifie only He was reckoned numbred or accounted neyther is there any other Greeke wordes in the text which they can or do pretend to
worshipped insteed of God In like sort touching Christes descēding into hel the Bibles printed anno 1562. 1577. do read thus Thou shalt not leaue my soule in hell which translatiōs proue Christs descending into hell contrary to the Doctrine of the present Church of England But the later translation to wit made in the yeare 1579. 1595. and 1600. doe read Thou shalt not leaue my soule in the graue vnderstanding the former text of the graue only and not of hell 10. Now here I say that in regard of this multiplicity and variety of English translations one mainly impugning crossing another we may most strongly conclude that some of these translations must needes be false and which of them is true an ignorant iudgment since it hath no more reason to approue one then another cannot well censure And thus farre touching the three seuerall kindes of discouering the English translations as false and corrupted the Consideration wherof doth affoard an vnanswerable argument that our English translations in regard of their impurity cannot nor ought not to be pretended as iudge for the finall determining of doctrinall poynts in fayth and religion 11. There resteth a second way as I said for the greater manifestation of the falshood and corruption vsed in the translation of our English Bibles and this is taken frō the frequent Confessions of the Protestants themselues in this point whose acknowledgmēts herin are so ful as they take away all meanes of euading And first answerably to this my assertion we fynd that diuers Puritan (a) In a treatise entituled A treatise directed to her excellent Maiesty ministers with one consent speaking only of the translatiō of one part of the Bible to wit the Psalmes pronounce in this sharpe manner Our translation of the psalmes compared in our booke of Common prayer doth in addition substraction and alteration differ from the truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at least But other of our Aduersaries do not rest in censuring only one part of the Bible as falsly and corruptedly translated but absolutely do giue the like censure of the whole Thus we read that the Ministers (b) In the abridgmēt of a booke deliuered to the king by the said ministers p. 11. 11. of the Lincolne Diocesse do speake of the English trāslation in this sort A translation that taketh away from the text that addeth to the text and this sometymes to the chāging or obscuring of the meaning of the holy Ghost They (c) vbi supra further saying of it A translatiō which is absurd and sensles peruerting in many places the meaning of the holy Ghost 12. In like manner M. Burges (d) In his Apology Sect. 6. one of our English Protestants speakes in this sort of our English translatiō How shall I approue vnder my hand a translation which hath many Omissions many additions which sometymes obscureth sometymes peruerteth the sense being sometymes senseles sometymes contrary Another of our English (e) Carliel his booke that Christ descended into hell p. 116. c. Sectaries doth in these words wound their owne translations saying The translators therof haue depraued the sense obscured the truth and deceaued the ignorant in many places they detort the Scriptures from (f) In his answere to M. Reynoldes p. 225. their right sense and finally they show themselues to loue darknes more then light falshood more then truth Thus he This matter touching the corrupt translations of the Bibles in English is so euident that D. Whitaker though willing for the credit of his Church to extenuate lessen the deprauations of their English translations is forced notwithstāding thus to speake of them I haue not sayd otherwise but that some things vz. in the English translations might be amended Againe (g) Parkes in his Apology concerning Christs descending into hell another of thē speaking of the English Bibles with the notes of Geneua thus saith As for those Bibles it is to be wished that either they may be purged frō those manifold errours which are both in the text and margent or else vtterly prohibited 13. To conclude this poynt and to relate the like reprehension and dislike giuen by Broughton the great Protestant Hebritian against the English translations who in his aduertisement to the Bishops thus wryteth The publike translation of the Scriptures in English is such as it peruerteth the text of the old testament in 848. and it causeth millions of millions to reiect the new Testament and to runne into eternall flames Thus Broughton In like sort we find that at the Conferēce at Hampton Court before the King D. Reinoldes with the rest of the ministers following his part and syde there openly auouched That they would not subscribe to the Communiō booke because sayd they it warranted a corrupt false trāslation of the Bible So euident it is that the English translations both in regard of the impurity of themselues being aboue seuerall wayes discouered as also of the like voluntarily acknowledgments of our English Sectaries are full of many soule deprauations and errours and therfore are not competent and sufficient in themselues for the tryall of all doubts and questions arysing betwene the Catholikes and Protestants or betwene one Protestant and another for how can those translations of Scripture which are corrupt absurd senseles differing from the Hebrew and peruerting the meaning of the holy Ghost as we see the English translatiōs are styled and confessed to be be a rule square or iudge to measure or pronounce what is the meaning and sense of the holy Ghost concerning the abstruse mysteries and articles of Christiā Religiō Thus it is brought to passe that our English Sectaries by their translating of the Bible in some places truly but in diuers places most corruptly falsely doe make the Scripture though in it selfe most pure diuine and in contaminate by this their abusing of it to seeme like to the Statua of Nabuchodonasor of which part was gold part siluer and part brasse so cōsisting of more or lesse pretious matter 14. Now here it is to be obserued that what hath heretofore bene deliured of our English translations are chiefly to be vnderstood of such translations whose yeares of Editions are particularly set down or at least which haue bene published before the death of the late Queene Yet that the reader may see that our Aduersaries Doctrine touching the Iudge of Controuersies is nothing furthered but rather much disaduanted by the last translation made set forth lately since the King cam to the crown I haue thought good omitting many other textes of the present Controuersies betweene the Protestants and vs wherin for the most part they iumpe with the former corrupt English translations for the impugning of our Catholike Fayth to set downe the seuerall courses obserued by the translatours therof in some chiefe textes only in the displaying wherof I will somewhat enlarge my selfe 15. First then sometymes though
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
necessarily gathered that their disclaiming from the auncient Fathers as patrones of our religion doth implicitly inuolue in it selfe as aboue I haue touched that euen in our aduersaries acknowledgmeÌ„ts the Fathers interpreted the Scriptures in one and the same sense with vs Catholikes for if they had made one and the same construction of the Scripture with the ProtestaÌ„ts they had then taught the same Doctrine which the Protestants now teach and consequently it appeareth how dangerous it is to our Aduersaries to appeale to the Scripture alone as Iudge of all Controuersies if for the true construction and sense therof they would rest in the iudgments of the anncient Fathers That the Scripture doth make for the Catholikes euen by the tacite acknowledgment of our Aduersaries rising from their maintayning of our Catholike articles CHAP. XI IN this last place we are to vndertake to shew that euen by our Aduersaries Confessions the holy Scripture is most cleare for iustifying our Catholike Faith which point might be proued at large by producing their owne words and expositions of many of the chiefe passages of Scripture wherby we are able to demonstrate out of their owne books and writings that they are interpreted by them in the same sense and meaning wherein we Catholikes do vsually expound them But this course I will purposely forbeare partly to auoyde the distastfull iteration of the former texts so often already repeated but chiefly in regard of the tedious prolixity which would necessarily attend the deliuering in their owne wordes of our Aduersaries expositions of all such places and in supply therof I will take a more briefe and yet no lesse conuincing method That is I will set downe ten of our mayne Controuersies for example of al the rest acknowledged taught and iustified by our Aduersaries and such who for wit and learning may seeme to equall any others of their owne side Which thing being once performed it then ineuitably followeth euen from their owne Principles that they acknowledge the Scriptureto make for the Catholikes in the sayd Doctrines confessed by theÌ„ since their owne generall and constant axiome (*) Luther iâ— CoÌ„ment c. 1. ad Galat Caluin l. 4. Instit c. 8. §. 8. Chemnit in Exam. Conc. Trident sess 4. in libro quem inseripsit Theologiae Iesuit praecip capit Brentius in suis Prologeminis c. de Traditionibus HaÌ„melmanus in suo volumine coÌ„tra Traditiones alij permulti is that they are not to beleeue any thing as matter of fayth but what hath it warrant in Gods written word And to proceed yet more particularly seing that for iustifying of such Catholike articles no passages of Scripture can be alledged more forcibly and pressingly by our Aduersaries own censure then the texts alledged in the former Chapters it therfore may be concluded that those very particular texts euen by the acknowledgment of the Protestants do receaue that sense and construction which the Fathers and we Catholikes haue deliuered of them for proofe and warranting of our fayth Agayne wheras our Aduersaries which maintaine any such Catholike Positions will no doubt confidently auouch that they teach nothing which may be contradicted by the Scripture It in like sort followeth that all such texts of Scripture meÌ„tioned aboue and others of like nature which are vrged by other protestaÌ„ts to impugne the said Catholike points are at least in these mens iudgments to be taken in a construction far different from ouerthrowing the sayd articles So as the conclusion of all is this that in these mens censures we implicity do shew that such authorities of Scripture vrged by vs do confirme our Catholike Fayth and obiected by them do preiudice it nothing at all But to beginne 1. And first concerning the Primacy of one in the Church of God we fynd that Caluin (a) Alledged by VVhitg p. 137. thus sayth The twelue Apostles had one among them to gouerne the rest D. Whitguift (b) vbi suprap 375. sayth Among the Apostles themselues there was one chiefe c. In like sort Musculus (c) Alledged by VVhitguift vbi supra p. 66. sayth Peter is found in many places to haue bene chiefe among the rest Melancthon (d) In his booke intituled Centur epist theolog epist 74. thus writeth as certaine Bishops are President ouer many Churches so the Bishop of Rome is President ouer all Bishops and this Canonical policy no wyse man I hope will or ought to disalow To maintaine this sayd Doctrine Iacobus Andraeas is alledged by Hospinianus (e) Historia sacramentaria part 2. fol. 589. 2. That the Pope is not Antichrist appeareth froÌ„ the testimonies of diuers Protestants which teach that Antichrist is not yet come So doth Zanchius (f) In epist Pauli ad Philippens teach the like doth Franciscus (g) In his booke intituled Antichristus siue progno stiâ—â— mundi Lambertus affirme And Done in one of his sermons (h) Of the sâ—â—ond coÌ„ming of Christ confesseth That some Protestantes do make a doubt whether Antichrist be yet reuealed or no. And heere we are to obserue that some other Protestants who do teach him to be come do make the Turk to be him thus doth MelaÌ„cthon so vrged by Haruey in his Theological discourse pag. 102. Bucer and Fox teach vz. Act. Mon. of anno 1577. pag. 539. 3. Touching the Reall Presence who knoweth not that Luther and the Lutheranes defend it And therfore it is needles to set down the particular names of any of them since the maintainers of this Doctrine which are not Catholikes are tearmed Lutherans especially because they chiefly dissent from the Caluinistes in this poynt 4. That Priests do truly remit sinnes by Absolution and not only pronounce them to be remitted appeareth from the testimony of the English Communion booke where the Priest sayth And by his authority committed to me I absolue thee from all thy sinnes Which booke is therfore reprehended by the booke called the Suruey (i) p. 145. of the booke of common prayer As also the same is proued by Lobechius (k) Disput Theologic pag. 301. who sayth That God remits sinne immediatly by himselfe but mediatly by his ministers And that the Caluinistes do therfore erre in withdrawing this efficacy from the absolution giuen by the minister of the word Thus farre Lobechius And answerably hereto we find that Melancthon (l) In Apolog confess Aug. art 13. did teach that Absolution is properly a Sacrament The like did Spandeburge (m) In margarit Theologic pag. 116. Andraeas (n) In concilat locorum seript pugnant loc 191. Althamerus and Sarcerius (o) Loc. com hom 1. de potest Eccles fol. 305. affirme 5. That the Sacraments of the new Testament conferre grace ex opere operato appeareth from the iudgment of D. Bilson in his true difference part 4. pag. 539 D. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 8. p. 662. M. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall policy lib. 5.
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