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
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
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
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
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
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
parcells be acknowledged and receaued for Scripture by other Sacramentaries 13. And thus much may serue for our Aduersaries open and great contention concerning the approuing or reiecting of seuerall bookes of both the Testaments Frō whence it most necessarily followeth that though it might be dreamed for the tyme as I sayd aboue that the Scripture might be iudge of Controuersies among them which acknowledge with one consent such and such bookes only to be Scripture since all they agree what bookes those be which are to be this iudge Yet our Aduersaries wherwith we now deale cannot possibly maintaine the same for iudge for they disagreing with themselues of the bookes which are Scripture must needs disagree which is this iudge and how farre it reacheth euery one of them either extending it beyond it limites or straitning it within to narrow a compasse Therfore it is no more possible that the Scripture should decyde all Controuersies with the Protestants so long as they continue in their contrary sentēces about the authority of diuers bookes therof then it can be conceaued how a suite depēding betwene two is to be decyded by a certaine limited company of men as there is a limited number of the Canonicall bookes of Scripture or els not to be tryed at all and yet the one of these Litigants should disclaime from diuers of the sayd deputed Iudges as altogether imcompetent and insufficient and the other in like sort frō sundry of the other iudges Can it be conceaued I say how this matter should be ended both the parties still perseuering without change in their seuerall auersions against the seuerall persons of the intended Iudges especially if the iudgment of the matter were not to be vndertaken but with this condition that both the Litigant parties should freely and voluntarily agree aforehand in the number and in the particular persons of those iudges by whome they would haue their question and Controuersy determined And thus it iust fareth with our Protestants as long as they disagree what bookes are the Canonicall Scripture and yet will they haue this Scripture alone to determine and resolue all poynts of fayth and religion 14. To this argument drawne from their vncertainty of acknowledging what bookes are the word of God Our Aduersaries can only reply that though there be some particular bookes as these aboue mentioned of which they are not absolutely resolued whether they are to be accounted as parcells of Gods word or no yet since they all agree in acknowledging the rest of the bookes to be Canonicall all those other bookes so ioyntly acknowledged by them for Scripture ought to be taken for this iudge of Controuersies Which answere of theirs is most weake and relieues them nothing at all and this for seuerall reasons 15. And first seing there are many bookes both of the old Testament and of the new not speaking of those bookes in the old which are ioyntly condemned by thē all and acknowledged by Catholikes which are impugned by some of our Aduersaries and defended by others And that by all probability yea morall certainty some one or other of those bookes so impugned by some of thē is though not so acknowledged Gods sacred word which being so it must needes then follow that the Protestants teaching the Scripture to be the iudge and square of all doubts and Controuersies and attributing this prerogatiue not to any one booke a part since any one booke or other is not able to decyde all doubts which may arise in that it intreateth not of all poynts which may come in question but to the whole body and Canon of the Scripture It must follow I say that this supposed iudge of theirs is maimed and imperfect as wanting some one booke or other which being reiected by some of our Auersaries should concurre to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and full perfection or accomplishment of it selfe And therfore I conclude that if any such one booke of sacred Scripture be exempted frō the number of those which should make vp this Iudge as in all likelyhood some one or other is since there are greater proofes for the authority of them all then for condemnation of any one it demonstratiuely may be inferred that our Aduersaries cannot pretend as long as they thus contend which bookes be Scripture the Scripture to be this their iudge it being taught by our Aduersaries that fides is not obiectum adaequatum to any one booke or parcell of Scripture but to the whole Canon it selfe 16. Secondly if only such bookes which are ioyntly receaued by all our Aduersaries are to make vp this Iudge and no others then would it follow that there are diuers poynts of Fayth which by their owne acknowledgment are necessary to be beleeued and yet cannot be proued at all or at least clearly inough out of such parcells of Scripture as they all acknowledge to be Scripture though most euidently proued out of those parts which are reiected by some of thē As for exāple if the three first Gospels are to be reiected as Luther teacheth we shall fynd that there are diuers poynts touching our Sauiours Incarnation and particularly that he was borne of a Virgin as also his life conuersation heereupon earth which are to be beleeued and are found in some of these three Gospells and yet the Ghospell of S. Iohn only which is acknowledged by Luther maketh no mention of them neyther are they at al touched in any other acknowledged booke of Scripture 17. Thirdly though it were supposed that only those bookes of Scripture which all our Aduersaries doe ioyntly acknowledge for Canonicall were to decyde and iudge all poynts of Fayth yet could not those books performe so much except it were first agreed among them that there were some certaine originall copies or some translations now extant of them which our Aduersaries would acknowledge for true and vncorrupted since otherwise not the true word of God but the word of God as it is corrupted should become the iudge of our Fayth But there are no Originals nor Translations of the Scripiure speaking euen of those bookes which themselues do ioyntly acknowledge that are now extant which they do not charge with sundry corruptions and falsifications as it shall appeare most euidently in these Chapters following So manifest it is that euen those bookes only as are acknowledged by all our Aduersaries cannot become the iudge of Controuersies 18. But before we come to the Translations it followeth that as we haue shewed aboue that our Aduersaries do reiect many bookes of vndoubted and Canonicall Scripture and consequently that they cannot pretend the Scripture as iudge So we will in this place obserue the carriage and comportment of the Protestants towards the Euangelists and the Apostles whom diuers of our Sectaries haue not bene affraid to charge with foule errours in manner and practise or exercise of their faith And first it is cleare that D. Whitaker (d) De Eccles contra Bellarm.
former texts of Scripture Will they seeke to auoyde all these by putting vs in mynd that it is written (l) Luc. c. 11. Pater vester dabit spiritum bonum petentibus se and therfore euery priuate man that will aske this spirit of God may haue it Let them remember that besydes these words are not vnderstood of the spirit of interpreting but of the spirit of faith hope and charity it is also written (m) Iacob 4. Petitis non accipitis eò quòd malè petatis And therfore many may implore of God the guift of this spirit and yet not obtaine it since they perhaps demande it not with that due disposition of mind in such sort as God exacteth at their handes 4. This then being so who in all likelyhood is further of from fruitfully effectually praying for the same to the gayning wherof humility resignation of iudgment euen by our Aduersaries (n) Luth. praesat assertioâ—is 〈◊〉 à Leone Pontif damnâ—tor acknowledment is among other thinges necessarily required then this alcensuring spirit which is euer drunke with a self lyking and which is arriued to that height of pryde and elation of mind as it houldeth it more reasonable that all authorityes should passe vnder the fyle polishing of his own approbation It cannot assure vs with (o) In prolegom contra Peâ—â—uÌ„Ã â—oto Brentius that it belongeth to euery priuate man to iudge of the doctrine of Religion and to discerne the truth from falshood It is in like sort of force to coyne and stampe this position with (p) Lib. 4. Instit c. ◠§. 8. 12. Caluin and (q) Exam. 4. sess Concil Trident. Kemnitius as a receaued Axiome to wit that the definitions and sentences euen of generall Councells are to be poysed by the ballance of each mans priuate iudgment though with such a one especially if he be ignorant and vnlearned guilded apparances of reason do for the most part preponderate and waigh downe reason it selfe such is the Tarquinian and insupportable pryde of this spirit since by such transcendent speaches actions it warranteth that the sheep is to guide or direct their Pastour the subiect to determine the sentence of his Prince and the delinquent most insolently and petulantly to iudge his owne Iudges 5. But to passe from the testimony of Gods word written by the Apostles and Euangelistes vnto the inward testimony written by himselfe in the booke of each mans vnderstanding we shall easely find that euen Naturall reason is able to conuince of falshood our Aduersaryes former assertion 6. And first what greater ouersight can be then to acknowledge that for Iudge of Controuersyes for thus our Aduersaryes do when they giue an infallibility of interpreting to the priuate spirit which is not of power ability to determine any Controuersie And this insufficiency we find to be in such priuate spirits for we see by experience that in the explication of these foure wordes only This (r) Matth. 26. Marc. 14. c. is my body as also for the texts (Å¿) Matth. 12. Act. â— Rom. 10. Ephes 4. c. vrged for Christs descending into hell wherein the Lutherans and Caluinists do so differ as that their meere contrary irreconciliable Constructions do not only manifest the vntruth and errour of the one of them but also the doctrine for which the sayd textes are vrged is after their long disputations and different sentences pronounced as much doubted of if not more then it was in the beginning And yet both the Lutherans and Caluinists do challeng alike to theÌ„selues the guist of this expounding spirit withal the necessary conditions attending the same as Prayer Humility Skill in the tongues Conferences of seuerall passages of Scripture the one stil obiecting to the other the clearnes perspicuity of Gods word in their own behalf 7. Secondly it necessarily conduceth to the being and perfect nature of a Iudge as we find in the practise of all Controuersyes whatsoeuer to haue power and authority thereby to force euen vpon coertion and constraint if need require both the different partyes to subscribe to his sentence once pronounced since otherwise his iudgment and definition would proue both bootles and in auailable But we cannot find that a priuate mans spirit can iustly assume to it selfe any such coactiue power since it cannot threaten any Ecclesiasticall and spirituall censure to one for not admitting his iudgment determination and exposition of Scripture 8. Thirdly seeing that the doubts of Religion do rise amongst men who are visible and knowne one to another how can it be imagined that the Iudge who is to take vp and compound al these differences should be such a one as can neither be seene nor heard by any of the contending partyes For the spirit which is in this man suppose it did infallibly interprete aright yet can it not be seene heard or acknowledged for such by another man in that he cannot be vndoubtedly assured that the same spirit is warranted from God since false teachers do ordinarily maske themselues vnder the borrowed veile of Gods Ministers and false (t) â— Cor. cap. 11. Apostles after they once haue ascended the Thabor of the reuealing spirit vainely talking of Elias Moyses tranfiguring themselues into the Apostles of Christ All who notwithstanding do equally vaunt of this spirit and yet neuertheles doe cast in the mould thereof most vncertaine and oftentimes repugnant doctrines seeing then the rule or iudge of Fayth Religion ought to be both knowne and certaine for if it be not knowne it can be no Iudge at least to vs and if it be vncertaine it can be no Iudge at all therefore it is euidently euicted that the reauealing spirit as being most vnknowne and vncertaine can in no case be erected as Iudge amongst vs Christians 9. Fourthly our Aduersaryes do teach that this spirit is giueÌ„ not generally to all but particularly to some to wit to the Elect the faythfull as Caluin (u) Instit 1. c. 7. § 5. affirmeth from which doctrine it followeth First that God hath left no certaine and generall rule or guide in his Church wherby all men may arriue to the true knowledge of him but only some few and particuler men Secondly since we cannot infallibly know who is of the Elect faithfull therefore we cannot be vndoubtedly assured as is aboue touched to whome this spirit is giuen as D. Whitaker (x) Contro 2. quest 5. confesseth and consequently it auayleth no man but him who only enioyeth it seeing euery one of our Aduersaryes do in like manner obtrude themselues into the number of the Elect. And therefore seeing that Luther and Caluin did indifferently challenge to themselues the like illumination of this spirit and yet taught contrary doctrines concerning Canonicall Scripture and the Reall presence And seeing it is cortaine that both were not inspired with the holy Ghost for he teacheth not contradictions
downe of the weak fortresse of this priuate spirit That which is already deliuered may serue as a preparatiue to the Reader the better to apprehend the force and weight of the ensewing arguments and reasons I will now hasten to the maine subiect and will first begin with the reasons of the Scriptures difficulty The reasons of the Scriptures difficulty CHAP. III. WHY the Catholikes do absolutely deny the Scriptures to haue this inappeachable soueraignty of resoluing all doubts in religion there is no reason amongst others more forcible then that which is drawne from the difficulty of true vnderstanding the sayd writinges for though our Aduersaryes do pretend the easines of them to be such as that any how ignorant soeuer if so he be of the number of the iustifyed may withall readines picke out the true sense for the approbation and fortifying of any point of Fayth whatsoeuer Yet he who looketh into this matter with a cleare-sighted iudgement shall find them to be inuolued with so many ambiguityes as that aforehand he shall haue need to repaire to some (m) Act. 9. Ananias or other to remoue from his eyes the scales of partiality ignorance and other imperfections 2. Therefore let such whose state through want of learning or otherwise is not to intermedle with those sacred writinges remember the punishment inflicted to the (n) 1. Reg. 6 6. Bethsamites for curiously behoulding the Arke which belonged not to them yet we see the consideration of this danger and of far greater is not powerfull inough to controle the ignorant Sectary in his expounding the Scripture who being once placed vpon the high pinacle of his reuealing spirit vndertakes to view al ages and Countryes of the Church and ouerlooking the iudgments of priuate Fathers interpreting Gods written word as low and humble vales extends his sight to the summity and height of generall Councells therein still behoulding with a feuere eye whatsoeuer standeth not right in the line of his owne exposition 3. The chiefe and primitiue reasons of their abstruse hardnes are three to wit The Subiect handled in those writinges The mulâ—iplicity of the senses contained in the wordes And the Methode or manner of the phrase and stile And if but any one of these three do happen though in an inferiour degree of intricatenes in human writings yet we see by experience that it doth so intangle the Reader in such a labyrinth of mistakings as that he will freely acknowledge this ignorance in not apprehending aright in all places the authours mind what shall we theÌ„ thinke when all these three do meet togeather in Gods sacred Booke and that in the highest degree of any writtinges euer extant as it shall appeare in the subsequent Chapters Of the subiect of the Scriptures CHAP. IIII. TO begin with the subiect of the Scriptures we are herein to obserue that it as farpasseth in depth and prosundity the contents of mans wrytinges as God the authour therof ouergoeth him in wisedome and power For wheras the matter of all such humane labours is euer such as that the naturall wit of man is sutable and proportionable thereto both for the deliuering or apprehending thereof and the reason heereof is because the vnderstanding being as it were the summe of our little world euer keepeth it selfe within the Tropicks of naturall reason and consequently is not of force to deliuer or apprehend any thing which may not be confined within the same compasse whereas if we looke into the subiect of these celestiall and diuine writinges we shall find the height of many thinges intreated therein to be such as that they transcend all naturall reason 2. I could heere insist in the Creation of the world of nothing whereof these holy Scriptures assure vs though contrary in outward shew to all Philosophy which teacheth ex nihilo nihil sit I will passe ouer the infinite prophesies recorded therin which euer of their owne nature are hardly to be vnderstood I will in like sort pretermit to speake of the nature of the Angels intreated of in the said booke of Life whose essence being merely spirituall and indued with diuers great priuiledges aboue man can but imperfectly be comprehended with our fleshly vnderstandings finally I will forbeare to speake of the eternall predestination and reprobation of man how and by what meanes they are wrought of the externall working of God within our soules with his grace or otherwise of the Sacraments the Conduits of his grace poynts wherof we are instructed in the holy Scripture and such wherin we may truly glasse the weaknes of mans vnderstanding and the depth of Gods wisedome and power 3. But I will insist a little in those two incomprehensible and astonishing Articles of Christian faith reuealed to vs out of those former diuine Scriptures to wit of the Trinity and of the Incarnation wherin in the first to omit diuers other stupendious difficulties we are taught by â—he said Oracles of God that one and the same Nature to wit the Godhead is in three persons really distinct the same Nature is really and formally identifyed with each of the three persons In lyke sort in the article of the IncarnatioÌ„ where besydes that the Creatour of al things is become a Creature and the father the daughters sonne we receaue from the same fountaine that in one Hypostasis or person to wit in the person of Christ are two perfect natures very far different and that this Hypostasis is altogether really formally identifyed with the diuyne Nature neuertheles is most in wardly vnited with the humane Nature which humane nature doth really and formally differ from the diuine nature And thus much but to skim ouer superficially this poynt of the subiect and matter of the Scriptures which if it were handled according to the fulnes largnes of it selfe would iustly require a Treatise of no small quantity Of the diuers senses of the Scripture intended by the Holy Ghost CHAP. V. IN speaking of the multiplicity of the senses in the Scriptures we are to call to remembrance that Gods sacred written word differeth from all humane writinges besides in many other poynts especially in this that wheras al such haue but one sense or meaning properly intended by the authour this is so fertil therin as that like a shel if it were possible contayning within it seueral kernels of different tastes it carrieth in many places besydes the immediate literal sense three diuers spirituall senses and all warranted by the holy Ghost These three are the Allegoricall Tropologicall and Anagogicall 2. The Allegoricall sense euer beares reference of a spirituall and secret meaning to Christ or his Church So we read that Abraham hauing truly and really two sonnes the one borne of the free-woman the other of the bond-slaue did figure out the two testameÌ„ts of God euen by the exposition of (a) Salat 4. S. Paul 3. The Tropologicall is directed to instruction of manners or conuersation of lyfe
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
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
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
controu 2. quaest 4. pag. 223. thus wryteth It is manifest that euen after Christ his Ascension and the holy Ghosts descending vpon the Apostles not only the common sort but euen the Apostles themselues erred in the vocation of the gentils c. Yea Peter also erred concerning the abrogation of the Ceremoniall law c. and this was a matter of fayth c. he furthermore erred in manners and these were great errours 19. Answerably hereto Brentius (e) In Apolog CoÌ„fess c. de Concilijs p. 900. an eminent Protestant wryteth that S. Peter chiefe of the Apostles and Barnabas after the holy Ghost receaued together with the Church of Hierusalem erred D. Fulke (f) Against the Rhemish Testam in Galat. 2. speaking vpon the said point sayth Peter erred in ignorance against the Gospell Iewill (g) In his defence of the Apology pag. 361. affirmeth that S. Marke did erroneously alledge Abiather for abimelech and S. Mathew with the like ouersight did write Ieremy for Zachary Conradus (h) In Theolog. Calumist l. 2. fol. 40. Schlusselburg a famous Protestant chargeth Caluin to maintaine that the Apostles alledged the Prophetes in other sense then was meant Zuinglius (i) Tom. 2. Elench coÌ„tra Anabap f. 10. most wonderfully abaseth the wrytings of the Apostles and the Euangelists in these words This is your ignorance that you thinke the Commentaries of the Euangelists and the Epistles of the Apostles to haue bene then in authority when Paul did write these thinges as though Paul did attribute then so much to his Epistles that whatsoeuer was contained in them was sacred c. which thing he sayth were to impute immoderate arrogancy to the Apostle 20. D. Bancroft (k) In his suruey of the pretended discipline pag. 373. alledgeth out of Zanchius his Epistles that one of Caluins Schollars sayd If Paul should come to Geneua and preach the same houre that Caluin did I would leaue Paul and heare Caluin Caluin (l) In his CoÌ„mentar in omnes Pauli Epistol p. 510. himselfe chargeth S. Peter with errour to the Schisme as he sayth of the Church to the endangering of Christian liberty and the ouerthrow of the grace of Christ The Century wryters (m) Cent. 2. l. 2. c. 10. â—ol 580. thus reprehend S. Paul Paul doth turne to Iames the Apostle and a Synod of the Presbiters being called together he is persuaded by Iames and the rest that for the offended Iewes he should purify himselfe in the TeÌ„ple wherunto Paul yieldeth which certainly is no small sliding of so great a doctour In which one testimony we see that not only Paul but the rest of the Apostles are charged by the Centurists with errour in fayth And to close this poynt with that incestuous and reuolted monke I meane Luther we read that besides the seuerall bookes of the new Testament as it aboue shewed denyed by him as also besides the reprehending of Peter of whome he thus sayth Peter (n) In epist ad Galat. c. 1. after the English transl fol. 33. 34. Tom. 5. VVittemberg of anno 1554. fol. 290. the chiefe of the Apostles did liue and teach extra verbum Dei besides the word of God he thus inueigheth most scurrilously against Moyses himselfe Moyses (o) Luther tom 3. VVittenberg in psal 45. f. 423. tom 3. german f. 40. 41. in colloq mensalib german f. 152. 153. had his lips vnpleasant stopped angry c. do you collect all the wisedome of Moyses and of the heathen Philosophers and you shall find them to be before God eyther Idolatry or Hypocryticall wisedome or if it be Politicke the wisedome of wrath c. Moyses had his lippes full of gaul and anger c. away therfore with Moyses 21. And thus farre of this poynt from whence we conclude that the Protestants in charging the Euangelistes and the Apostles with errours of fayth in their words and actions do withall labour to take away the infallible authority due to their wrytings and books for grant they erred in the first way how can we be secured they erred not in the second seing their pens had no greater priuiledge from God of not erring then their tongues and other their actions had and consequently they cannot alledge their wrytings as being subiect to errour by necessary inferences drawne from their owne grounds for the finall decyding and determining of all doubts arysing in matters of fayth and religion That the Protestantes allow not the Originall Hebrew of the old Testament now extant for authenticall and vncorrupted CHAP. II. ALTHOVGTH our Aduersaries do giue it out in their wrytings and sermons that the Hebrew Originall which now they haue and as it is at this present poynted with pricks is pure and free from all corruption and therfore that we ought in any text of the old Testament to recurre to the Hebrew as to the touch stone of truth and to a cleare and vntroubled fountaine Yet that this is but a meere glosse and false vaunt of them inuented only to quit themselues from that reading of the text altogether fauouring the Catholike Doctrine wherunto both the Greeke and Latin Fathers and the whole Church of God for so many ages haue bene accustomed it is most euideÌ„t For it is most certaine that in diuers places themselues do forsake the present Hebrew and do read as the Septuagint or as the Latin Interpretour doth read both who differ much from the present Hebrew Some few texts for example I will heere set downe 2. First then that prophesy of Dauid (a) Psal 8. concerning the Apostles the Septuagint S. Paul (b) Rom. 10. and the Protestants themselues do read thus In omnem terram exiuit sonus eorum Their sound went out through all the earth and yet the present Hebrew hath insteed of these words sonus eorum linea or perpendiculum eorum so insutable with the other words as that it is hard to collect any good and perfect sense therof 3. The Psalme 22. affoards a most notorious prophesy of the particular manner of our Sauiours death in these words They haue peirced my handes and feet for so the Septuagint the Catholikes and the Protestantes in their Translations doe read and yet the present Hebrew so much magnified by theÌ„ hath insteed therof these words as a Lyon my handes and my feet frustrating thereby so remarkable a prophesy of our Sauiours particular suffring death 4. The Hebrew sayth in one (c) Reg. 24. place Zedechias his brother meaning thereby the brother of Ioachim and yet the English Bible translated anno 1579. readeth thus Zedechias his fathers brother according to the Greeke and Latin translation therin 5. Likewise in another place (d) Parâ—lip 2. the present Hebrew sayth Achaz King of Israel and yet our Aduersaries reiect this reading and translate Achaz King of Iuda following therein the Septuagingts translation and the Latin interpretour 6. I let passe the
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
but seldome the authours of the last translation are content as conuinced with the euidency of the truth wherby withall they acknowledge the former contrary translations therin to be hereticall to translate truly and simply with vs Catholikes without any fraudulēt marginal annotations Thus in the Acts c. 1. touching the Election of Matthias they leaue out the words By common consent fraudulently inserted in some of the more auncient English translations In like sort Acts 9. where it is sayd that Paul confounded the Iewes in proofe of the Messias already then come they leaue out these wordes by conferring one Scripture with another added herefore to the text in some of the former translations So againe Rom. 8. touching the certainty or vncertainty of our saluation they translate the Greeke verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am persuaded and not I am assured or I am certaine The like course I meane to translate as we Catholikes doe they are content to take in some other few textes where eyther they can haue no colour of truth to translate otherwise or else where by their true translating they thinke they do not much endanger in an ignorāt eare their new Doctrine therby 16. Secondly when the translatours thinke that by their true trāslating they might greatly preiudice their Caluinian Doctrine they are not ashamed leauing the true Catholike translation to translate according to the former hereticall translations Thus we fynd for instance sake Hebrews c. 13. they adde the word is for the aduantage of Priests mariage though in the sayd translation both the textes going before and comming after wherin one and the sayd verbe is vnderstood are trāslated by them in the Imperatiue mood Againe Cor. 2. c. 5. they falsly trāslate these two wordes Iustitia Dei the righteousnes of God which is in him therby to intimate to the ignorant reader that not inherent righteousnes is in man In like sort Col. c. 1. they translate according to their former brethren the Greeke adiectiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meete and not worthy as euery yong Grecian knoweth the signification to be therby to eneruate the Doctrine of the merit of workes With the like fraud and intention they trāslate Luke 21. and 2. Thessal c. 1. the Greeke verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be accounted worthy which word signifieth to be worthy indeed Finally Genes 4. they translate touching Cain and Abel his desire insteed of it desire thou shalt rule ouer him in place of ouer it therby to take away free will in man 17. Thirdly where they translate falsly that they may the better answere for such their translations being expostulated therof they are sometymes content in another place to translate the sayd words truly though both the seuerall textes so contrarily translated do alike and indifferently concerne the Doctrine to be proued or disproued therby Thus that one instance may serue for many we find that where our Sauiour sayd to the persons which he cured of their corporal infirmities Thy fayth hath made thee whole they in like manner so translate with vs in Luke 8. and Marke 5. Yet Luke 18. where the same Greeke word is to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and vsed vpon the same occasion they translate in fauour of iustification by fayth only Thy fayth hath saued thee and not hath made thee whole This they do as is to be presumed that if they be charged with false translating of some textes that they may reply that such textes are not purposely and determinatly so translated against the truth seing in other textes and places they trāslate the sayd words and vsed vpon the like occasion as we doe So subtile is Heresy for the more cautelous patronizing of her selfe And yet they must needes grant that if they translate one place truly the other seing the intention of the holy Ghost in the Scripture notwithstanding the seuerall significations of words is not capable of contrary and repugnant senses must needes be trāslated by them falsly 18. Fourthly where they translate diuers of the former textes falsly and corruptly yet that they may in some sort not much vnlike to the former manner plaster the matter they are content to set downe the true translation also in the margent Thus 1. Cor. 9. they translate the Apostles words in defence of Priests mariage Haue we not power to lead about a sister a wife And then in the margent in lieu of the word Wife they set downe the word Woman as we read So againe 1. Cor. 11. where they falsly translate the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there taken in a good sense Ordinances they annex in the margent the better to salue their credit being expostulated therof these words or Traditions 19. Fiftly and lastly more contrary to this former course when they are forced euen for very shame to translate truly with vs yet for feare as it should seeme that the reader should giue ouer much credit therto they adde in the margent another hereticall translation agreable to some former corrupt translation and consequently to the vpholding of some one hereticall poynt or other that so by this meanes the reader may take that which best sorteth to his humour Thus agreably hereto to specify this in one or two instances where they translate truly that text in Iohn 1. He gaue them power to be made the sons of God implying herein a liberty of will they thus paraphrase the margent He gaue them right or priuiledge c Which second translation is nothing so forcible for the proofe of free will as the first is After the same manner in Math. 26. touching Christes Consecration of bread and wine they truly translate the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he had blessed Yet for feare that the reader should ascribe ouer much vertue to this significant words of the Euangelist they thus wryte in the margent Many Greeke Copies haue Gauethankes 20. And thus farre now for some tast of our new translatours seuerall sleights and collusions in these few textes the which sleights though for breuity omitted might be instanced in many other passages of Scripture concerning the Controuersies of this tyme from al which we may iustly inferre first that seing this their last translation so much prized and applauded is found most corrupt and deceitfull and indeed for the most part as thēselues confesse in their epistle dedicatory more agreing with some one or other former false English translation in poynts of Controuersies then with the Catholike trāslation that therfore it cannot with any shew of reason be vrged as Iudge for the decyding of doubts in religion Secondly we may from hence also collect that al these different subtile comportments of our Aduersaries in this their new translation tend but to delude their ignorant followers obtruding to them by this meanes a false construction of Gods written word for the true sense therof And so by these deuises and collusions we see the intended
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