of all Controuersyes in fayth whatsoeuer without any restraint or exception Sometymes therefore the Fathers meaning is to shew that the Scripture is sufficient to proue expresly the chiefest Articles of our beliefe and of which euery man is bound to haue an explicite and cleare knowledge such are the articles contained in the Creed and those Sacraments which are more necessary which kind of sufficiency we also admit In this sense Augustine writeth as the contexture of the passages there do shew that what points concerne our fayth are clearely to be found in the Scripture another like saying of the sayd Father and to be thus expounded is found in Tract 49. in Ioannem 7. The Fathers at other tymes do teach that the Scripture is of that perfection that the certainty of the truth of it in regard of it selfe alone though not in respect of vs is sufficiently proued from it selfe without the help of any other probation as being penned by them who were immediatly assisted by the holy Ghost In this sense Athanasius (n) Contra Gentiâ—es in exordio calleth the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scripturas sufficientes Irenâ—us (o) Lib. 2. c. 47. in like sort sayth that Scripturae perfectae sunt The Scriptures are perfect and then immediatly followeth this reason Quippe à verbo Dei spiritu eius dictae Because they are indicted by the word of God and the holy Ghost The Fathers also are in their writinges accustomed to ascribe a great perfection to the Scripture for recording such miracles of Christ by the which he is sufficiently proued to be the sonne of God which is the generall doctrine also of the Catholikes which testimonyes our Sectaryes are not ashamed to alleage in proofe of the Scriptures fulnes for warrant of any article of Religion whatsoeuer Thus we find that (p) In Ioan l 12. c. 68. Cyrill wryting of the miracles of our Lord sayth with reference to the wordes of S. Iohn The number of our Lords miracles were great yet those which are related Sufficiunt ad plenissimam fidem attente legentibus faâ—iendaÌ„ meaning that they were sufficient to proue that Christ was the sonne of God and Sauiour of mankind 9. Lastly the Fathers acknowledg in their writings mostfully that the perfection of Scripture is such as that it is sufficient to disswade man from vice and perswade him to vertue a point which we al willingly grant both in regard of the ten Commaundments expresly set down which euery one is obliged to obserue as also by reason of many most eminent and remarkable examples of vertue and vice recorded in the Scripture and the inestimable rewardes promised to the vertuous the most dreadfull comminations and threats thundred against the wicked Now of this sufficiency Theophilact speaketh in c. 2. ad Tim. 3. where he sayth that the Scripture is of force to make Vt nihil bonorum desit homini Dei That no vertue be wanting in the man of God the same interpretatioÌ„ a place Authoris (q) In Mat. 22. hom 41. imperfecti admitteth And heere now by these short explications it appeareth that none of these former passages of the Fathers whether they concerne the perfection or sufficiency of the written word either in regard of exhortation to vertue or of demonstrating Christ to be the Sonne of God or of prouing the Scriptures certainty from it owne worth and dignity alone or finally of expresly containing the chiefest Articles of our beliefe can in any sort preiudice our Catholike doctrine handled in this discourse and therefore the wrong of our Aduersaryes towardes their followers is the greater in seeking to abuse their ignorance and credulity by such idle and trifling allegations 9. The third and last head of those misapplyed sentences of the Fathers in this question doth concerne the perspicuity of the Scripture which word is not heere to be taken in that sense as if the Fathers taught that the Scripture were in it selfe absolutely so easy perspicuous and cleare as that without the helpe of the Churches authority in the exposition thereof euery illiterate and mechanicall fellow were able to iudge of the true sense thereof and consequently by the only meanes of it to determine end all Controuersies for they fully acknowledged it to be as Ezechiel (r) Ezech. 2. styled it The enrolled volume written within and without as also to be that hidden booke described by the Euangelist (s) Apoc. 5. to be clapsed with seauen seales But their meaning herein is that the Scripture is perspicuous in two constructions 10. First that the histories similitudes other matters of fact recorded in the Scripture as also some principle Articles of our beliefe are there clearly and perspicuously set downe But what is this to conuince that the Scripture is in generall easy for the truth of any abstruse speculatiue and dogmaticall point or article of Fayth whatsoeuer 11. Of this first manner S. Austin (t) lib. de operibus monac c. 9. speaketh when he sayth that the Scripture is most perspicuous and cleare to proue which no man denyeth that Christ ordayned that those who did preach the Ghospell should be maintained by the Ghospell and therupon shewing that this is clearly and euidently set downe in the Scripture he thus wryteth Quid hoc apertiùs quid clariùs That the Fathers do in like sort sometymes restraine this euidency clearnes of the Scripture to some chiefe articles of Christian Religion appeareth as afore I haue shewed that they in like sort attribute a perfection and sufficiency of the written word of God to the same end Thus doth Irenaeus (u) lib. â— cap. 46. wryting against certaine Infidels denying that there was one only God affirme that for the proofe of this verity Vniuersae Scripturae propheticae Apostolicae c. The whole Scriptures both Prophetical Apostolical are euident without any ambiguity Which wordes being spoken only of that particular point hurteth vs nothing at all Yet our Sectaries sleight in deprauing the Fathers wrytinges is such as what words are spoken for the perspicuity of the Scripture for one only article they shame not to stretch them as spoken in proofe of all 12. The second sense or construction of the Fathers wordes touching the perspicuity of the written word is that the Scripture is cleare and euident in that it doth illuminate and enlighten the mynd of the reader vnderstanding the Scripture a verity which we acknowledge as elsewhere is shewed as it is explained by the spirit of God which spirit speaketh in the voyce of his Church And in this sense to omit the like sentences of diuers other Fathers Epiphanius (x) Contra Aetium l. 3. tom 2. wryteth that in the Scripture omnia lucida sunt all things are cleare in conceauing this clearnes as I sayd before only in respect of the mynd which by truly vnderstaÌ„ding the Scripture is enlightned cleared and much freed
signify any such kind of election 4. In like sort in their Bible printed anno 1577. in the ninth of the Actes we read thus Paul confounded the Iewes prouing by conferring one Scripture with another that this is very Christ to which text our Aduersaries did adde this sētence vz. by conferring one Scripture with another since no one word hereof is in the Greeke which might be thus translated through any mistaking or supposed ignorance But this was done to make the ignorant reader belieue that S. Luke sayd that conference of Scriptures is the only meane to vnderstand them reiecting therby all commentaries and expositions of Fathers and Councels 5. The second poynt which manifesteth the corruptions of our English Bibles is taken from the conferring together of seuerall textes of Scripture translated in them in which seuerall textes one and the same Greeke word for here I speake chiefly of the new Testament is diuersly translated My meaning here is this that in textes concerning poynts of fayth betweene vs and the Protestants the Greeke word is translated by them in a forced or secondary sense preiudicing our Catholike fayth the which same word being found in other textes which touch not any Controuersiall poynt they are content to translate in it true immediate and ordinary signification since they see that in such places they cannot disaduantage vs at all by any false translation 6. Two examples insteed of many scores which I could produce shall illustrate my meaning herein The first shal be touching the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is very notorious for wheras it signifieth to be made worthy indeed they translate it only to be counted worthy in such texts wherin is included the worth merit of good workes meaning therby that we are not made worthy indeed but only so reputed by God Thus for example they translate in the Ghospell of S. Luke c. 21. Watch therfore at all tymes praying that you may be counted worthy to stand before the sonne of God the same translation to wit to be accounted worthy they giue of the former Greeke verbe in the sayd Ghospell of S. Luke c. 20. and in the second to the Thessalonians c. 1. in diuers other places in al which the merits of workes are signified Now in other passages of Scripture which do not concerne merit of workes and wherin the foresayd Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vsed in the Originall they can be content to translate it with vs Catholikes in it true and proper signification to wit to be worthy indeed and not only to be counted worthy for example to omit other places they thus truly translate in the tenth to the Hebrewes O how much sorer punishment shall he be worthy of which treadeth vnder foote the sonne of God 7. Another example of this second kind of discouering the falshood of the English translations shal be specifyed touching Traditions For the better apprehending of which sleight the reader is to cōceaue that in the new Testament there is mention made of two sorts of Traditions the one being Iudaicall prophane and dissenting from the word of God The other godly and such as the Apostles themselues did leaue to the Church both which sorts of Traditions are expressed by the Apostles and Euangelistes in one and the same Greeke word vz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which comming of the Greeke Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latin Trado signifyeth as properly Traditio as domus in Latin signifieth a house Nowhere I say our Aduersaries falshood intranslation doth lye in that in their Translations they suppresse the word Tradition in all such textes where mention is made of godly and Apostolicall Traditions vsing insteed thereof the wordes Ordinances or instructions And accordingly thereto we find that thus they translate the first to the Corinthians c. 11. I pray you brethren that you be mindfull of me and as I haue deliuered vnto you you keepe my ordinances being notwithstanding in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You keepe my traditions Againe in like sort thus they translate in the second to the Thessalonians Therfore brethren stand and hold fast the instructions in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditions which you haue learned eyther by word or by our Epistle To be short the same translation of the sayd Greeke word they vse in the foresaid epistle to the Thessalonians c. 3. where it is spoken of Traditions in a good sense 8. But now on the contrary side which poynt conuinceth our Aduersaries of an vnanswerable corruption and iniustifiable fraude in their Translatiōs in those textes where traditions are mētioned in a bad wicked sense they euer translate the foresaid Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it true and naturall signification to wit Traditio Tradition As for instance sake in Math. c. 15. Why doe you transgresse the Commaudements of God by your traditions in which very Chapter mention is made three seueral times of Iewish wicked traditions in all which textes they can be courteously content to translate the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being found in them all with vs Catholikes Traditions and not Ordinances or Instructions And though the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may in a secondary and strained signification be extended sometimes to signify Ordinances or Instructions yet the sleight subtilty of our Aduersaries herein is this because they would haue the ignorant reader to find the word Tradition in Scripture euer in a bad sense and neuer in a good sense therby the more to alicnate and withdraw his mynd from the Doctrine of Traditions maintained by the Catholikes 9. A third Consideration of displaying the false translations of our English Bibles may be taken from the multiplicity of their translations made heretofore in seuerall yeares and yet one of them crossing another in many controuersiall poynts of fayth betweene the Protestantes and vs. Now from this contrariety in translation and especially in pointes of Controuersies is necessarily euicted a falshood of their translations for supposing one translation for true it vnauoydably followeth that all other translations which are made absolutely contrary to that one must needes be false and erroneous This contrariety they vse in infinite textes of Scripture but I will instance it for great breuity only in two Well then their Bibles printed anno 1562. do thus read in 2. Cor. c. 6. How agreeth the temple of God with Images Againe in 1. Cor. c. 10. Be not worshippers of Images as some of them are In like sort 1. Iohn c. 5. the same Bible thus readeth Babes keepe your selues from Images Al which translations being supposed as true prohibit and forbid all religious vse and reuerence to Images whatsoeuer But now in all their later translatiōs made since that tyme in the former three places and texts insteed of the word Images they translate and read Idols restraining the former prohibition to those Images only which are made Idols and
and that the one had no greater illumination then the other it therefore necessarily followeth that we ought to giue no greater credit to the one then to the other so since we cannot belieue both we ought according to all force of reason to belieue neither 10. Fifthly this spirit wherof they make such ventitation as that we ought not to entertaine any other sense of Gods word then what the influence of the said spirit may seeme to exhale either is absolutely infallible or els at some times and in some thinges fallible and subiect to errour if the later then it proceedeth from the Diuell since the spirit of God neuer erreth if the first then how can there be any contention or Controuersy amongst the faythfull enioying this spirit And yet diuers both haue beene and are amongst the Caluinists Lutherans It may be they will reply heereto that this spirit is euer infallible when it speaketh according to the sense of the holy Scripture A goodly priuiledg for so the spirit of the Diuell is infallible as long as it followeth Gods sacred word furthermore who must iudge when it speaketh according to the sense of the holy Scripture And thus is the difficulty made as intricate as before 11. Sixâ—ly and lastly the falshood of the Protestants doctrine heerein is euicted from the Protestants doctrine in another point thus is heresy become the sword which woundeth heresy to wit that Generall Councells may erre for if such Synods being aduantaged with many priuiledges aboue any one priuate man may want the assistance of the holy Ghost in interpreting the Scripture or defining what is heresy how can we probably assure our selues that this or that particuler Protestant infallibly enioyeth the guift of expounding truly Gods sacred written word And because this inference is much preiudiciall to our Aduersaries therfore I will dissect euery particular veyne and sinew of all such circumstances which may afford aduantage to the one part aboue the other 12. Thus then if an Oecumenical and generall CouÌ„cell indicted and confirmed by lawfull authority representing the maiesty of Gods Church as being the supreme (y) So doth Augustin tearme a Generall Councell epist 162. Tribunal therof assured by (z) Wher two or three are gathered togeather in my name Matt. 18. promise of Christ his assisting presence warranted with the first exaÌ„ple of that kind by the blessed (a) Act. 15. Apostles highly reuerenced and magnified by the (b) Aug. vbi supra lib. de Baptis c. 18 Anast ep ad Epictetum Basil epist 78. Amb. epist 32. Leo ep 53. Hier. lib. cont Luciferianos ancient fathers acknowledged and receaued by our learnedest (c) The Lutherans receaue the first six Councells and most of the Protestants the first foure aduersaries consisting of seuerall hundreds of most venerable Prelates conspicuous for vertue readines in the Scriptures varieties of tongues and infinitenes of reading gathered from the most remote and opposite regions of Christendome and therfore the lesse probable vpon their such sudden meeting ioyntly to imbrace any one poynt of innouation battering daily vpon their knees at the eares of Almighty God with most humble and feruerous prayer seconded with most austere fastinges and other corporall chastisements and all this to the end that it would vouchsase his diuine goodnes so to guide and sterne this reuerend assembly with his holy spirit as what expositions they giue of the Scripture or what otherwise they determine for vndoubted faith may be agreable to his sacred word and truth Now notwithstanding this if such a celebrious concourse and confluence I say of Pastours being the Mart or Rende-uous of vertue and learning shall so faile therein as that they may and haue sundry tymes most fouly erred as our supercilious (d) Caluin lib. 4. Instit 9. §. 8. Luth. lib. de Concil Kemnitius in exam Concil Trident. Sectaryes auouch in their Constructions of Scripture and resolutions of fayth though all such their decrees be otherwise warranted with a iudiciall conference of Scripture the generall practise of Gods Church and the conspiring testimonyes of all antiquity If this I say may happen the best meanes thus producing the worst effects what shall we then conceaue of an obscure Syr Iohn a man ingendred in the â—lyme of pryde and ignorance who acknowledgeth no other Apostolical Sea then his owne Parish Church and who in some points euer subdeuideth himselfe from the rest of his (e) As appeareth by their bookes written against one another of which point See Coâ—eius Hospintanâ—s brethren so as he is truely condemned of heresy euen by the lying mouth of heresy A man for the most part depraued in manners but competent for learning not hauing any warrant from God for his proceeding nor president from his holy Church Yea one to whome God Hatly (f) No prophesy of Scriptur is of any priuate interpretation 2. Pet. c. 1. denyeth this presumed certainty of expounding Gods word and further of whose spirit we are commaunded (g) Dearly beloued belieue not euery spirit but try the spirits to doubt and which is more of whose seducing (h) These thinges I haue written vnto you concerning those which deceaue you Ioan. 1. c. 2. we are most cautelously premonished 13. Now if this man being in his Pulpit vpon the Lords day in the presence of his ignorant and psalming auditory a fit Pathmos for his ensewing reuelations and there opening the Bible for thus falshood is forced to beg countenance from truth vndertaking to expound some text or other for the establishing of his late appearing fayth though contrary to the iudgement of all auncient Councells affirming himselfe to be secured by speciall Euthysiames and illuminations from God for the better iudging the point controuerted rysing from his owne explication of Scripture which being don what assurance may we haue of the truth of this his all-iudging spirit And is there not great reason to expect more errours then sentences to drop from this mans mouth And what madnes then is it to allow to such an one and but one that infallibility of spirit in expounding Gods sacred Write and answerable determining the articles of fayth which himselfe denyeth to a generall Councell Yet such is the forward blindnes of our enchanted Nouellistes heerin who for example preferre in this case vnder the pretext of the reuealing spirit before the mature and graue resolutions of all antiquity and Councells the ignorant rash and sensuall positions and interpretations of an incestuous reuolted (i) Luther Monke or stigmaticall (k) Caluin fugitiue intimating heereby that many vertuous and learned men gathered togeather for the disquisitioÌ„ of truth must necessarily erre one sole obscure lateborne illiterate irreligious Scripturist cannot erre O insensaâ—i (i) Galat. cap. â— Galatae quis vos fascinaâ—it c 14. But at this present I will stay my pen proceeding no further in the demolishing and battering
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
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
sense of the holy Ghost in the Scripture is concealed from the Protestant by the Protestant like as the Sunne is hid from the earth by the earth 21. But to proceed a litle further touching this last translation first how can our translations therof assure any man of the truth of their translation since they acknowledge no Originall or any translation of the Bible out of which they did make their translation for pure vncorrupt Secondly admit for the tyme that this translation is perfect according to the true Originalls yet seing it differeth in diuers controuersiall textes and passages from all former English translations it therfore from hence followeth that till now we here in England neuer enioyed the true and vncorrupted Scripture in English and consequently that till these dayes the Scripture in English could not be iustly vrged to determine and iudge Controuersies in fayth But a true and perfect iudge is ready not at one tyme only but at all tymes seasons to performe the function of true Iudicature That supposing the Scripture as Iudge yet the Letter therof is more cleare and perspicuous for the Catholikes then for the Protestantes CHAP. VIII NOW after we haue proued the incompetency of the Scriptures for resoluing all doubts of fayth and this from the disagrements of our Aduersaries eyther in approuing or discanoning such or such parcells of the Bible as also from the confessed corruptions and falsifications as well of the Originalls as translations euen of those books which are ioyntly acknowledged by them for Gods vndoubted word for as they do grant that others corrupted the fountaines so it is most euident that among others themselues haue impoysoned the streames It wil much cōduce to our designed proiect if we cōtinue our dreame for the tyme with our Aduersaries that the Scripture is solely and finally to decyde all Controuersies since supposing this principle as true we shall notwithstanding be able to proue that the passages of Scripture euen of such parts as are confessed by our Aduersaries to be authenticall and vncorrupted which the Catholikes do alledge in defence of their faith are more cleare and perspicuous for the proofe of their Doctrine then any counter textes are which our Aduersaries do produce out of the sayd Scripture to impugne the same in regard of which difference a Catholike may commiserate a Protestant in the phrase of Tertullian to Marcion Misereor tui Christus enim Iesu in Euangelio tuo meus est The reason hereof is double first because the Catholikes do ordinarily insist in the literall and immediate sense of the wordes which sense is euer more naturall and obuious then any figuratiue acception of them can be wheras our Aduersaries in answer therto as also in alledging other textes are forced to interprete the sayd places eyther figuratiuely or at least not in that vsual immediate sense which the words do import Which māner of literally expounding the Scripture is warranted by the authority of all learned diuines who do ioyntly teach that we neuer ought to depart frō the proper sēse of words except we be driuē therto either by some other manifest place of Scripture or by some vndoubled article of our fayth impugning the literal sēse thereof or lastly by the vsuall explication of the whole Church 2. The second reason of the greater perspicuity in our proofes then in those of our Aduersaries is this in that most of the textes of Scripture for I do not say all which we alledge do fall directly and as it were in a straight lyne vpon the question controuerted so as after the sense and meaning of the wordes is once acknowledged they irrefragably and directly proue that for which they were vrged wheras our Aduersaries testimonies do not for the most part touch immediatly and as I may tearme it primariously the poynt in question but only by way of a secondary collection or illatiō which illations being often inconsequent and at the most but probable and not necessary it followeth that though we should grant to them their owne expositions of such textes yet do they but proue the thing questioned by a second hād I meane only by probable and coniecturall inferences And this oftentymes after their illation is granted doth not light vpon the hart of the question it selfe but only vpon the flanck or skirtes of the same I meane vpon the manner or some other circumstance therof which being not defined may be holden seuerall wayes as probable by the Catholikes But now for iustifying what I haue here set downe let vs looke into some chiefe texts vrged by vs and our Aduersaries concerning some principall Cōtrouersies for to go through all were ouer laboursome where I doubt not but we shall fynd in ech of them at least one or the two former disparities betwene vs and our Aduersaries in alledging the same 3. And first touching Peters Primacy the Catholikes do alledge in proofe therof those words of Christ to him out of S. Matthew (a) cap. 16. Thou art Peter and vpon this rock will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it And I will giue to thee the keyes of heauen c. Which wordes being taken literally and plainly as the Catholikes doe expound them do directly proue this Controuersy seing they fall perpendicularly vpon the conclusion of the question it selfe for to say that Peter is the rock of the Church is al one in sense as to say the head of the Church And therfore our Aduersaries to auoyde this pressing authority are forced to answere that by the word Rock is vnderstood figuratiuely Christ according to Caluin (b) lib. 4. Instit c. 6. §. 6. or euery one of the faithfull with Erasmus (c) Erasm in hunc locum or the confession of our Fayth with Luther (d) lib. do Potestate Papae So distracted they are among themselues in answearing therto 4. But let vs view what places our Aduersaries do alledge to countermand Peters supreme authority First because our Sauiour sayd to Peter as it is recorded in the sayd Chapter of S. Matthew Go after me Satan thou art a scandall vnto me c. As also in that S. Paul (e) Galat. cap. 2. sayth of himselfe that he resisted Peter in the face Neyther which places we see do directly touch Peters authority but only by way of weake inferences and such as are not as much as probable seing that Peter was not then the head of the Church when those words were sayd to him by Christ and concerning this other we grant that the inferiour may and ought to withstand his superiour for the truths sake so that he doth it with due respect and regard 5. To conuince that Paradox that the Pope is Antichrist the Catholikes doe vrge the continuance of Antichrists reigne set down in the Scripture diuersly both by yeares (f) Apoe 12. monethes (g) Ibidem c. 11. 13. and dayes
Cōtrouersy according to the exposition of Fathers giuen therof would not be answerable to my designed breuity as also in that by the examples heere set down it wil be easy to make a true coniecture of their interpretation of the rest for since they did not contradict themselues in their owne fayth Doctrine it cannot be imagined that they did contradict themselues in the exposition of such texts as conduced to the maintayning and iustifying of their fayth and Doctrine 3. And first concerning S. Peters Primacy that place of S. Matthew (a) c. 16. vz. Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will build my Church c. is interpreted ioyntly by the Fathers that Christ euen in those words did promise to him that supreme authority ouer his Church which the Catholiks do teach that after he receaued and which the Bishop of Rome at this day inioyeth This text I say is thus expoūded by Origen (b) Hom. 5. in Exod. Athan. ep ad faelicem Basil (c) l. 2. in Eunom Chrysostome (d) Hom. 55. in Math. vide Cyril l. 2. c. 12. in Ioan. Tertullian (e) lib. de Praescript Cyprian (f) Ep ad Quintum Ierome (g) In c. 16. Math. Austin (h) In psal cōtra par tē Donati and others all whose direct words were ouer laboursome to set downe and therfore it shal be sufficient to referre the Reader only to the places where thus they wryte 4. In like sort that place of (i) cap. 11. Iohn feede my sheepe is expounded by the Fathers in the same sense as we doe expound it who in their wrytings doe plainly teach that Christ euē in these words did institute Peter the head ouer his Church giuing him that authority which in the aboue alledged place of Matthew he had only promised Chrysostome sayth vpon this place Alijs omissis Petrum dumtaxat affatur fratrum ei curam committit that is The rest of the Apostles being omitted our Lord doth in this place speake only to Peter to whome he committeth the charge of his brethren Ambrose (k) In cap. vlt. Luc. expounding the same words sayth of Peter Quia solus profitetur ex omnibus omnibus antefertur Because Peter aloue of all the rest did only professe Christ meaning at that tyme when Christ did aske his Apostles who he was therfore he is preferred before them all Gregory (l) 4. epist 32 teaching that the care of the Church was deliuered to Peter sheweth the reasō therof in these words Ipsi quippe dicitur pasceoues meas that is because to Peter it was sayd feed my sheepe See also the cleare and pregnant expositions of the former words in Epiphan (m) In anchorat Leo (n) Serm. de Assump ad Pontif. Theophilact (o) In cap. vls Ioan. c. 5. The Catholikes to proue that Antichrist is to reigne but three yeares and a halfe do vrge diuers places of the Scripture where his continuance is described by yeares (p) Apoc. 12. monthes (q) Ibid. c. 11. 13. (r) Ibidem ◠11. dayes as is aboue touched which places if they be expounded literally do make vp iust three yeares and a halfe and then it followeth that the Pope cannot be Antichrist as hauing reigned by our Aduersaries confessions many hundred of yeares And yet we fynd that the sayd places are expounded literally by the Fathers Austin (s) l. 20. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 23. thus wryteth of this poynt Antichristi aduersus Ecclesiam saeuissimum regnum c. Though the kingdome of Antichrist shal be most seuere and cruell yet shall it cōtinue but for a small tyme and he which halfe sleeping readeth the Scripture herein cannot doubt for the words a tyme two tymes halfe a tyme do signify a yeare two yeares and halfe a yeare consequently three yeares a halfe besides the same appeareth by the number of the dayes and moneths set downe in the Scriptures Thus far S. Austin 6. S. Hierome (t) In c. 7. Daniel thus also wryreth Tempus annum significat c. A tyme doth signify a yeare 2. tymes two yeares halfe a tyme six moneths during which period the Saints of God shal be subject to the tiranny of Antichrist See also the like literall expositions of the former places in Hippolitus (u) Orat. de consūmat mundi Martyr Cyril (x) Catech. 15. Ireneus (y) lib. 5. in fine Theodoret (z) In c. 7. Daniel c. 7. Wheras to the like end we produce certaine places of Scripture (a) Malach 4. Eccles 44. Apoc 11. prouing that Enoch Elias are to returne personally and truly in their owne naturall bodies into the world at the comming of Antichrist and therfore the Pope cannot be Antichrist in that those two are not yet come for the auoyding of which argument the Protestants are forced to expound the sayd places figuratiuely of other men to wit of their owne ministers and Ghospellers yet the Fathers do interprete the sayd textes literally of Enoch and Elias Thus we find that Damascene (b) l. 4. c. 28. Hypolytus (c) De mundi cōsummat Martyr Gregory (d) l. 4. c. 11. 12. and Austin (e) l 9. c. 6. commenting vpon these places do write literally the personall cōming of them in the tyme of Antichrist In like sort doth Hierom and Origen and Chrysostome all writing vpō the 17. Chapter of Matthew as also Lactantius (f) l. 7. c. 17. Theodoret (g) In vlt. c. Malach. and Austin (h) Tract 4. in Ioan. do proue out of the former passages of Scripture the cōming of Elias in his owne true and naturall body 8. As concerning these words of our Sauiour touching his true and reall being in the Sacrament of the Eucharist vz. This is my body Two things are to be obserued in the Fathers first that our Aduersaries cannot produce any one father among so many as haue commēted vpon the said words which doth interprete the said text figuratiuely Secondly that diuers of them haue taught most expresly that the said words are not to be takē figuratiuely but properly and literally Thus we read that Theophilact (i) In hunc loeum Chrysostome (k) In hūc locum both the Cyrils (l) Alexand epist ad Calofirium Hierosolym cateches 4. mystag Ambrose (m) l. 4. de Sacram. cap. 5. Eusebius Emissenus (n) hom 5. de Paschat Epiphanius (o) In Ancorat and others do ioyntly teach that in this point we haue need of fayth therby to declare that which seemes most absurd to our senses But to vnderstand the words figuratiuely to wit that the body of Christ is to be signified by bread is neither absurd in sense neither is there any great difficulty of fayth required therto 9. In likesort for the prouing of the said mystery Article of our beliefe we vsually
since you are worthily placed in the ranke of those who to speake in the Psalmists (d) Psal 8. phrase In vij institiae ambulant in medio semitarum iudicij And since a true apprehension of temporall Lawes maketh way for the better vnderstanding of Gods eternall and immutable law those being but as branches deryued out of this and as it were certaine adumbrations of the same according to those words Vnus (e) Iac. 2. est Leg slator index And since the question discussed in this treatise consisteth in the vnchangeable law of God which principally consisteth in this sacred writ and disputeth who is to iudge therof to determine difficulties according to the square of the same Therefore who can better iudge of this point speaking of the Laity then you who are Iudges Or who can with a more cleare impartial eye discerne the may ne absurdities attending on our Aduersaries Doctrine then you if you will but vouchsafe to glasse the same or like by supposall only in the speculation of your owne lawes 1. You for example acknowledge and therefore for your particuler worthines are deputed to the honour and dignity of Iudicature that in regard of the ambiguity of your owne law there must be an externall Iudge or Interpreter distinct from the law it selfe for the manifesting of it true sense Our Aduersaries (f) Luth. Caluin Chemnit c. vt supra dicitur do constitute the Scripture not only as the law according to which all controuersiall poynts of fayth are to be decyded but withall as Iudge so confounding the law and the Iudge 2. You not only graunt that there ought to be a iudge or interpreter of the law but also you mayntaine that this prerogatiue of iudging doth not belong to euery priuate man but only to certaine selected and publike persons appointed to the same end Yea you no doubt are assured that if liberty were giuen to ech man to interprete the nationall lawes of England that suites and contentions would neuer be determined by the sayd lawes euery one interpreting them in fauour of this owne cause Our Aduersaries teach that euery priuate Man (g) VVhitak Controu 1. q. 5. c. 3. q. â— c. 11. Caluin Instit Brent in Prolog which they stile the reuealing spirit and with whome we may well expostulate in the wordes vsed to Moyses (h) Exod. 2. Quis constituit te Iudicem enioyeth the priuiledge of hauing the vndoubted sense of the Scripture infallibly reuealed vnto him and so is to become his owne expositour from whence it followeth as being warranted by all experience and reason that different spirits by this their Assertion differently interpreting the Scriptures can neuer come to any finall attonement or reconciliation 3. You deliuer that in a well ordained CoÌ„mon-wealth the Iudg ought to be such as euery Man may haue free accesse vnto him as also to haue power not only to interpret the law but also to haue a coactiue authority to force the delinquent to subscribe and obey vnder paine of seuere chastisement and which is more you would hold it ridiculous to constitute that as iudge or law to the which all delinquents stil continuing delinquents would chiefly couet to repayre as to their best refuge fort and sanctuary Our Aduersaries constitute the Scripture for Iudge to which many cannot haue resort since many cannot read It cannot impose any obedience to the erroneous party since it is the proper scene of all Heretikes to maintaine their errours after their appeale to the Scripture more pertinaciously then euer afore finally it is that wherin as herafter shal be proued in this treatise all Heretikes (i) This is confessed euen by Tertul. de praescript Hierom epist ad Pauliuum Vincent Lyrinens aduers haer haue accustomed to repose their chiefest confideÌ„ce refuge according to that of Tertullian (*) vbi supra Obtendunt Haeretâ—ci c. Heretikes do pretend Scripture and by their boldnâ—s in the conflicts of their disputes they weary the strong in fayth the weak they ouercome and the wauering they dismisse with scruples 4. You I know cannot be persuaded that the lawes of this Realme are able to proue themselues from theÌ„selues alone to be the lawes of the Realme without any further warraÌ„t or attestation of history or other authority Our Aduersaries auouch coÌ„trary to the Fathers (k) Aug. Tom. 6. contra ep Fund Vincent Lyrinens aduersus haer Aug. tom 7. contra Croscon that the Scripture wherin is contained the law of God can proue it self out of it selfe alone to be true vndoubted word of God among so many other obtruded and counterfeyted wrytinges without the explication of the Church of God 5. You hold it most dissonant to reason to iustify that when you vnfold and deliuer the meaning and sense of the law you in so doing are aboue the law but you doe willingly acknowledge that the law is law whether your sentence be giuen of it or no only by your learned Demurres you pronounce your iudgement not that therby that which afore was not law should by your sentence giuen become the law but only that others not learned in the law should by such your Reports take notice and distinguish the true meaning of the Law from all obtruded and mistaken senses therof Our Aduersaries (l) Luther l. de Concilijs Illyricus l. de norma prax CoÌ„cil TrideÌ„t Chemnit in exam Concil Trident. do idly charge vs in great estuation and heat of speach that we do aduance the vniuersall Pastour of Gods Church or a lawful general CouÌ„cel aboue the Scripture because to them both we ascribe a definitiue authority for setting downe which is Scripture and which is the true and vndoubted sense of it And heereupon they auerre that the Pope or a generall Councell by assuming this prerogatiue presumes to make that Scripture by such their declaration which afore was not Scripture and to disauthorize that for not Scripture which afore was Scripture and lastly to impose that sense of Scripture for the meaning of the holy Ghost which before such their imposition was not his meaning wheras indeed all that the supreme Bishop or general Councel performes both which reuerently submit themselues to the Scripture is to declare Canonicall Scripture from Apocryphal and forged wrytinges and among many adulterate and false senses of confessed Scripture to manifest which is the genuine and true sense of it all which prerogatiues that the Church and her Head do enioy is euident both from the words of our Sauiour (m) Math. 18. and from his great Apostle S. Paul (n) 1. Timoth 3. 6. You voluntarily confesse that besides your lawes left in wryting our Realme enioyes as all other good States and Commonwealths do certaine vnwrytten and customary lawes as I may tearme them which receaue their force from an vndiscontinued practise and long hand of tyme. And you cannot be induced
to thinke that the customes not crossing your wrytten lawes doe by their being in any sort indignify the same lawes Our Aduersaries (o) Caluin Instit 4. Chemnit in exam Concil Trident. besides almost all others doe so admire the wrytten Word of God as that they reiect and betrample all Apostolicall Traditions whatsoeuer though they in no sort impugne the sacred Scripture boldly pronouncing that all such traditions doe mightily wrong and dishonour the sayd Scripture So forgetfull they are of those wordes of an auncient Father (p) Tertul. vbi supra touching traditions Id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio id ab initio quod ab Apostolis 7. To conclude you would repute it most straÌ„ge to fynd any man that should affirme the present lawes of England to be the only square according to which all suites ought to be decyded and yet the same person withall to auerre that at this tyme we enioy no true Originall or Translations of those lawes all of them being by his censure depraued with many falsifications and alterations since from this it would follow that not the true auncient lawes of the Realme but certaine falsifyed lawes constitutions should adiudge all depending causes Our Aduersaries mayntaining the Scripture for sole Iudge of Controuersies as often we haue sayd do withall maintayne so wonderfully doth innouation and nouelty in Religion darken the very light of reason that at this day there is neyther Originall of the holy Scriptures (q) Se heerof Beza in resp Castal Carolus Molinaeus in sua transl part 12. fol. 110. Castalio in defensio transl p. 117. VVhitaker against Reynolds p. 2â—5 The ministers of Lincolne diocesse in their booke p. 11. or translations of them into the Greeke Latin or our owne vulgar Tongue which are not by their expresse assertions and wrytings fraught with diuers corruptions and deprauations as most largly we will demonstrate in this ensuing discourse Now the matter standing thus as that you are able euen out of the grounds of your owne profession in regard of the great resemblance found betweene it and the question heere disputed particularly to discerne the absurdities and grosse inconueniences attending the Doctrine heere impugned to whome may this discourse more iustly seeme to be presented then to the mature and graue Iudgements of your selues And thus much concerning the peculiar inducements of this my dedication And yet before I remit you to the perusall of this small worke I will make bold a boldnes humbly vndertaken for your owne spirituall good to put you in mynd to haue a reserued eye and intense circumspection ouer our moderne Pseudoscripturists so to call them that is to say Men who fasly abuse the holy Scriptures and who as familiarly and peculiarly interest themselues in the Scriptures as if they had begotten them on their owne brayne as the Poets doe faigne that Iupiter did Pallas And yet when these men vnderstand the Scripture in it true sense as the deuil sometymes hath dâ—â—e seing they giue credit therto not by reason of the Churches authority but of theyr owne priuate conceit which euer stands obnoxious to errour what other thing els do they then belieue a truth falsly But when they interpret Gods wrytten Word in a different construction from the vniuersall and Catholike Church of God I see not how they can auoyd that Dilemma of an ancieÌ„t Father (r) Tertul. l. de praescript Si alium Deum praedicant quomodo eiusdem rebus literis nominibus vtuntur aduersus quem praedicant Si eumdem quomodo aliter So truly and deseruedly are such men included within the sentence of Saint Austin a Father whome of all the Auncients the Protestantes not liking yet least dislyke Omnes (s) Aug epist 221. ad Consentium qui Scripturas in authoritate c. All those speaking of the hereticall Scripturists of his tyme who alledge Scripture for authority make shew to affect the Scripture when indeed they affect their owne errours And thus Graue Iudges in all humility I take my leaue beseeching you euen for your owne soules health that in your seates and tribunalls of Iudicature you doe so iudge as that hereafter your selues be not iudged especially I meane when Gods annoynted Priests or poore distressed Catholikes guilty only of treason if so it must needs be tearmed coÌ„mitted in professing the auncient faith of Christ his Apostles shall become the subiect of your iudgments but euen theÌ„ remeÌ„ber that your selues as being herein deputyes to Gods deputyes are to giue a strict account to that supreme Iudge of all Qui (t) Gen. 18. iudicat omnem terram or with peculiar reference to terrene Iudges to vse the wordes of the Prophet Dauid (u) Psalm 81. Qui inter Dâ—os dijudicat Yours in all Christian loue and charity N. S. THE CHAPTERS OF THE FIRST PART THE Catholikes reuerence towards the Scripture with the state of the questioÌ„ touching the Scripture not being Iudge Chap. 1. That the Priuat Spirit is not infallibly assured of truly interpreting the Scripture Chap. 2. The reasons of the Scriptures difficulty Chap. 3. The difficulty of the Scripture by reason of its subiect Chap. 4. The like difficulty in regard of its seueral spiritual senses Chap. 5. The like difficulty in regard of its phrase or style Chap. 6. The difficulty of the Scriptures acknowledged by the Fathers Chap. 7. The testimonies alledged by our Aduersaries out of the Fathers for the Scriptures sole Iudge are answeared Chap. 8. The same difficulty acknowledged by our Aduersaries Chap. 9. The insufficiency of Scripture for determining doubts in Religion proued by arguments drawne from Reason Chap. 10. That it cannot be determined by Scripture that there is any Scripture or word of God at all Chap. 11. That Heresies in all ages haue bene maintained by the supposed warrant of Scripture Chap. 12. That our Aduersaries do confesse it to be the custome of Heretikes to flie to the Scripture alone and that diuers of them therfore do appeale to the Church as Iudge Chap. 13. THE CHAPTERS OF THE Second Part. THAT the Protestantes cannot agree which bookes are Scripture and which not Chap. 1. That the Protestantes allow not the Originall Hebrew of the old Testament now extant for authenticall and vncorrupted Chap. 2. That the Protestantes allow no Originall Greeke Copy of the new Testament now extant as vncorrupted Chap. 3. That that Protestants reiect the Septuagints translation of the old Testament as erroneous Chap. 4. That the Protestants reiect the vulgar Latin Translation coÌ„monly called S. Hieroms translation Chap. 5. That the Protestants do condemne all the chiefe traÌ„slations made by their owne brethren Chap. 6. That the English Translations are corrupt and therfore not sufficient to determine doubts in Religion Chap. 7 That supposing the Scripture for Iudge of Controuersies yet the letter therof is more cleare and perspicuous for the Catholikes then for the
Protestants Chap. 8. That the Texts of Scripture are expounded by the Fathers in the same sense in the which they are alledged by Catholikes for proofe of their fayth Chap. 9. That the Textes of Scripture obiected by the Protestantes in disprouall of our Religion are otherwise expounded by the Fathers then in that sense wherin our Aduersaries do vrge them and that such their expositions do agree with ours Chap. 10. That the Scripture is cleare for proofe of our Catholike Fayth euer in the impliciâ—e and tacite iudgments of our Aduersaries themselues Chap 11. The Conclusion Chap. 12. THE FIRST PART OF THE PSEVDOSCRIPTVRIST The Catholikes Reuerence towardes the Scriptures with the state of the Question touching the Scriptures not being Iudge CHAP. I. BEFORE we enter into any particuler redargution and reproual of the Protestants doctrine touching the subiect of this Treatise I must put them in mind with what slanderous calumniations for detraction is euer accustomed to tread vpon the heeles of truth and integrity they wrong vs Catholikes for our supposed contempt of the holy Scriptures their chief reason thereof besides others being because we deny to them that facility and easines as that they ought to determine all doubts of religion before the true sense of them among so many that are forced and adulterate be deliuered by the Pastours of Gods Church And heerupon they teach that we in effect reiect the Scriptures and do aduance mens doctrines and iudgements aboue them So deep are their pens steeped in gaul against vs and so deseruedly may they be ranged with those mentioned by the (a) Isa c. 32. Prophet Fraudulenti vasa pessima sunt vsque ad perdendos mites in sermone mendacij But how easy is it to dissipate and dissolue this cloud of suggesting malice For we teach not that the Church is to iudge whether that which the Scripture sayth be true or false since the Scripture is Scripture and most true whether the Church should so iudge of it or not but our doctrine is that it being first acknowledged for an infallible principle that the wordes of the Scripture are most true the Church doth only teach amongst many interpretations which is the true sense and meaning of the sayd wordes And in this sort it followeth not that the Church is aboue Gods Word for it is only a vigilant Depositary and Guardian thereof but aboue the iudgement of particuler men interpreting his Word which men do commonly make their priuate and reuealing spirit to become as it were their Mercuryes-rod therewith to chase away all construction of Scripture not sorting to their phantasyes Neither doth the Scripture receaue any strength and force which afore it wanted from this sentence and iudgment of the Church but only our vnderstanding is strengthned confirmed thereby which sentence of the Church is not meerely the Word of man which is lyable to errour and vncertainty but in some sort it may be tearmed the Word of God as being deliuered by the assistance of the Holy Ghost in regard of those infallible promises made in the Scriptures to the Church that she (b) Luc. 21. should not erre Act. 15. 2. But to proceed further in acknowledging our due respect to the Scriptures we graunt most freely that they are the spirituall conduits whereby are deriued to vs the highest misteryes of our fayth that the blessed penners of them were so directed by the holy Ghost as that they neither did nor could erre in any one letter that they transcend in worth and dignity all humane writings as farre as an infallibility of truth surpasseth a possibility of errour Lastly that the sense of them is a most powerfull and working phisicke against the poysonous receitps of all hereticall distillations if so it be deliuered by the appointment of our spirituall Phisitian So venerable and reuerent respect we see the Catholiks do beare to the sacred Scripture as to one chiefe meanes ordained by God for our eternall health and wellfare yet withall they teach that true fayth is to be found not in leaues of the wordes but in the roole of the sense thus making the true and indubious interpretation of Gods word to be a rule to the Protestants imaginary rule since it is to ouerule controule the priuate spirit of euery particuler Sectary 3. But now in the next place to enter more particulerly into the state of this point touching the Scriptures supposed Iudge of fayth we are to conceaue that wheras our Sectaryes do generally maintaine that the written Word of God is the sole and infallible Iudge as also the only rule and square of the articles of Christian Religion thereby reiecting not only any other Iudge but also all other points touching fayth which haue not their expresse proofe or necessary inference in the sayd holy Scriptures The Catholikes on the other side running one and the same line of fayth with all antiquity teach as followeth 4. First that the holy Scripture is not the Iudge of all Controuersyes of fayth Secondly they teach that it is norma infallibilis an infallible rule or square of fayth that is that nothing contrary to the Scripture is to be admitted but they say not that it is the only rule of square and therefore they affirme that besids the Scripture there are Apostolical traditioÌ„s and other definitions of the Church Thus we grant that the written word is regula partialis but not regula totalis of fayth and Religion and therefore we admitte some thinges praeter Scripturam but nothing contra Scripturam that is we approue some thinges not expresly sound in the Scripture but not any thing contrary or repugnant to the Scripture 5. Thirdly they hould that graunting the Scripture to be the rule or square of most articles of religion yet it followeth not that it is the Iudge of the sayd articles since Regula and Iudex are in nature things different for euen in ciuill matters the law is the rule and sqare according to which suites and contentions are determined and yet the law is not the Iuge of them but the Magistrate himselfe expounding the law though sometymes the Law is called improperly and Metaphorically the Iudge 6. Fourthly and lastly they deny not but that the Scripture may in a restained sense be tearmed the Iudge of all Controuersies in faith because it (c) Matth. 16. 18. 23. IoaÌ„ vlt. Luc. 22. Act. 15. appointeth and setteth downe who is that Iudge to wit the Church as also they grant that in the lyke reserued construction the Scripture may be said to deliuer all thinges sufficiently which belong to faith and religion And this not only because it deliuereth euidently al those articles of faith which are simply and absolutely necessary for all men to know as the Articles of our Creed the Decalogue and those Sacraments which are more necessary but also in that all other poyntes whatsoeuer concerning either the true exposition of the written word
And answerably to this we fynd that text (b) Deut. 25. Thou shalt not mâ—ssâ—â— the mouâ—h of the Oxe that treadeth out the corne to be interpreted S. Paul (c) 1. Cor. 9. of Gods preachers who are to be maintained at the charges of their â—lock 4. The Anagogicall sense implyeth a construction to heauen or eternall felicity and hereupon we fynd that verse of the (d) Psalm 94. prophet I sware in my wrath if they shall not enter into my rest to be interpreted besydes the literall meaning of the Land of promise by the (e) Heb. 4. Apostle of eternall life 5. Now then there being besides the literall sense so many mysticall senses of Scripture heere the difficulty ariseth that seing some texts are to be vnderstood only lâ—terally others both literally mistically how we may know which are the texts that admit only a literall construction and which both a literal and spirituall and if a spirituall interpretation which of the former three is to be asigned to them since euery text is not capable of all the three spirituall senses And which is yet more there are some passages of Scripture where in one and the same sentence one and the same word being twise repeated is in the one place taken literally in the other figuratiuely or mystically as in those words of Christ Let the dead bury the dead Al this must be knowne before we (f) Matt. 8. can dâ—aw any forcible argument from any such texts in regard of which difficulty it may not seeme strange if sundry of the aâ—ncient doctors did erre in their comments vpon the Scriptures some of them affecting so much the literal sense as that they did spoylâ— it of all mysticall construction others through their nyce and wholy spirituallyzed imaginations would so streyne the Scriptures as that for the most part they neglected the letter would extract nothing els but spirituall and as it were certaine Chymicall senses through their own â—ueâ— curious subâ— mation of the said diuyne Scriptures as it is â—uâ—dent out of the expositions of diuers passages of Scripture giuen by (g) Vt tesâ—aâ—ur â—ieâ—â—n praf lib. 18. in Isa vâ— in â— 3â— Ezech. Aug. lib. 20. de â—iuit Dei cap. 7. Tertulian and (h) Hier. ep ad â—â—machium Origen 6. In regard then of the impregnable truth of the Scriptures diâ—nculty both in reâ—pect of the many senses therof as also of the phrase and style as hereafter shall appeare it is a woâ—ld to obserue how idly and impertinently our Aduersaryes do obiect dâ—uers passages of it to proue its owne perspicuity To this end where the Scripture doth ofâ—en inculcate that the Commandements and will of God being once knowne do become a light to the soule for the guâ—ding of her selfe these testimonyes I say our Sectaryes most violently force to proue that the Scripture is in regard of the vnderstanding of it selfe of that light and perspicuity that the true sense and meaning of it is most obuious and facile Thus do they vrge those wordes of the (i) Psal 19. Prophet â—raeceptum Domini lucidum illuminaus oculos The commandment of the Lord is cleare enlightning the eyes As also that other (k) Psalm Text Lucerna pedibus meis verbum tuum Thy word is a lanterne to my feet And finally that of the (l) Cap. â— Prouerbes Mandatum lucerna est lex tuâ— c. Thy Commandment is a lampe and thy Law a light In like sort we find that they strangely racke certaine Texts which only concerne the facility and easines of the Dâ—â—alogâ—e or ten Commandments to conuince the easines of the Scripture in general as that place of (m) Lib. 4 contra Marcionâ— Deutronomy to omit others Mandatum quod ego praecipio tibihodie non supra te est c. The Commandement which I command theâ— this day is not abouâ— thee neither is it farre of interpreted of the easines only of fulfilling the CoÌ„mandments of the Decalogue by Tertullian as also by Ambrose Chrysostome and others vpon the tenth to the Romans 7. To conclude this point where the Apostle 2. Cor. 4. particulerly meaneth that our belief in Christ to wit that he was borne suffered and did ryse from death for mans saluation is so euident and cleare as that if it be hid from any it is only from such as doe perish whose eyes the God of thâ—â— world hath blinded which interpretation is necessarily confirmed by comparing with this text the Chapter afore in the sayd Epistle where the Apostle teacheth that all points touching Christ were seen in the law obscurely in shadowes and figures only yet will our Aduersaryes haue that place to be meant of the euidency of clearnes and vnderstanding the Scripture which passage notwithstanding is to be interpreted in the sense aboue mentioned and whereunto those wordes of Tertullian may seeme to allude Christo moriente nata est haereditas nostra Christo resurgente confirmata est Christo ascendente in Caelos permanet in eternum Of the Phrase and Style of the Scripture CHAP. VI. NOVV to come to the third point to wit the phrase and manner of writing which doth as it were apparell or cloath those hidden and diuine Mysteries We are first in general to consider that the style thereof is farre different from the writinges of any man that euer liued as appeareth by the iudgement of all learned men It is also in that respect vnimitable vnto man which circumstance must of necessity import an vnusuall strangenes of the phrase thereof in mans eares and consequently a great difficulty in perfectly vnderstanding the same Secondly and more particulerly we are to obserue that there are to be found not many humane writings which do flow with greater store of figures and schemes then the holy Scriptures do in so much that it were an infinite labour to set downe all the Metaphores Allegoryes Hyperboles Ironies and other such Tropes which do occure almost in euery other text thereof which kind of speach being vnaccustomed to an ignorant eare cannot but occasion diuers misconstructions 2. But besides these kind of figures common to euery language there are in the sayd heauenly writings diuers (n) Anima mea in manibus meâ—s seÌ„per Psaâ—m 118. And againe Thronus eius sicut dies caeli Psaâ—m 88. with infinite such others phrases peculiar only to the Hebrew toÌ„gue in which language the chiefest part of them was first written and consequently with great difficulty they are to be vnderstood of those which are ignorant of the same tongue If those which are skillfull in the Greeke doe deseruedly attribute a great hardnes therof to the diuersity of dialects to wit of Atticisme Eolisme Ionisme Beotisme and the like all these being Idiomes proper to the Greeke tongue what hardnes then must we imagine that eare will find when it shall read the Scriptures in some one tongue or other and yet much
thence runneth headlong into certaine deuiations by-wayes of most foulâ— errours 8. This answere salueth not the doubt for once graÌ„ting a true Iudge it followeth that this Iudge though depending of God is to haue authority in compounding of Controuersies absolutely infallible And the reason hereof is this for if his authority were not infallible then might it be inferred an absurditity little sorting to the sweet prouidence of God that the whole Church by force of such a delegated authority to it by God himselfe might be led into a generall errour since euen moral Philosophy and the light of reason assure vs that granting a Magistrate who may erre to haue publike authority in his censures and decrees then are the subiectes or inferiour persons who are interressed in the sayd definitions bound to imbrace those errours Which if they were not obliged to doe then should it follow that the Magistrates state were no better in defining then the subiects since they were not bound to stand to the ceÌ„sure of their Iudge but only when they did know his sentence to be euidently most true and consequently it might be likewise inferred that the Magistrate hath no power at all in defining and yet all Philosophy instructeth vs that euen in a point doubtfull where it is not euident the opinion of the Iudge to be clearly false the persons acknowledging obedience to the Iudge are in regard of the former reasoÌ„s obliged to follow his doubtfull definition though perhaps erroneous 9. To the former reason may be adioyned this following as is also afore touched That euen the light of reason teacheth vs that euery Iudge in any Court of CoÌ„trouersies ought to be such as all conteÌ„ding parties without exception may for the appeasing of their debates haue easy accesse vnto him Which accesse is found to be in the Church but not in the Scripture from which it vnauoydably followeth that the Scripture cannot be this iudge whereunto ech maÌ„ is to repaire but that the church may be and is the sayd Iudge That euery man at his pleasure may come to the Church for resolutioÌ„ of doubts we see it is euident by the practise of all ages 10. But on the contrary part euery man that maintaineth different points of fayth hath not this freedome of comming to the Scripture for decision of his doubts for first there are diuers Christians who cannot as much as read the Scripture much lesse vnderstand it how can such men then expect to haue their Controuersies touching religion to be deâ—ermined by the wrytten word alone And as touching those others who can read yet is their cause little bettred therby seing many by their reading of the Scripture do strangely detort the true sense therof Yea we may obserue that diuers Nouellistes of different religions who are dayly coÌ„uersant in the Scriptures endeauour euen from the self same passages of it by their false constructions to fortify their repugnant Doctrines And thus though the voyce of the holy Ghost in the wrytten word and the leter there read be but one yet through ech mans selfelike expositions it seemeth to speake as euery man would haue it by this meanes making the Scripture to be like vnto the tongue of S. Peter other the Apostles which being but one was notwithstanding heard in euery mans seuerall language 11. Another argument for the conuincing of this supposed Iudge may be drawne from the Doctrine of Traditions which haue euer bene maintayned by the auncient Fathers and the primitiue Church Which Doctrine if it be true then may we most consequently deduce from thence that the Scripture is not to iudge all questions of Fayth since the Doctrine of vnwrytten Traditions teacheth vs that all the articles and points of Christian Religion haue not their expresse proofe out of the Scriptures but that some of them are belieued only by force of Tradition and of the continued and vn-interrupted practise of Gods Church To enter into any exact proofe of this point of Traditions is improper to this place and would require a reasonable large Treatise alone and therfore I remit the Reader to such Catholike wryters (g) Hofiâ—e in 4. l. aduers Prolegomena Brentij Peresius initio operis sui do Traditionib Roffensis Canisius Bellarmin besides many others as haue most learnedly handled this subiect Only I wil here set downe and consequently proue the sayd Doctrine à posteriori certayne pointes of Christian Fayth which haue no cleare and conuincing proofes out of Scriptures and yet are belieued no lesse by the ProtestaÌ„ts themselues then by vs Catholikes 12. And first against the Anabaptistes both the Catholikes Lutheranes and Caluinistes do belieue that the baptisme of Infantes is lawfull and that they are not to be rebaptized after they come to ripenes of age which point as D. Field acknowledgeth terming it a TraditioÌ„ caÌ„ neuer be sufficiently and clearly proued by the Scriptures alone without the testimony of the practise of the church and force of Tradition as appeareth by the testimonies of the auncient Fathers for we find that Origen thus speaketh hereof in c. 6. epist ad Rom. Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem accepit etiam paruulis baptismum dare In like sort Austin l. 10. de Genesi ad literam c. 23. Consuetudo matris Ecclesiae in baptizandis paruulis nequaquam spernenda nec omnino credenda est nisi Apostolica esset Traditio 13. D. Bancroft teacheth that Confirmation is an Apostolicall Tradition as appeareth in his conference before the King All we do belieue that our blessed Lady dyed a Virgin do account Heluidius an Heretike for houlding the contrary and yet no text of Scripture doth coÌ„firme it to vs but rather through misconstruction may seeme to insinuate the contrary in regard of those words Non cognouit virum donec peperit filium suum 14. D. Whitguift (h) In his defense pag. 539. acknowledgeth that now during the tyme of the new Testament we are to celebrate Easter vpon Sunday contrary to the custome of the Iewes a point of such moment euen in the primitiue Church that the maintainers of the coÌ„trary were then reputed for Heretikes and styled (i) Epiph. haeres 50. Aug. haeres 29. Tertul. de praescript Quartadecimani And yet for this change of obseruing Easterday we haue no warrant from the holy Scriptures but may say with Tertullian (k) De corona militis quod non prohibetur vltrò permissum est D. Couel in his booke of examination teacheth the word Archbishop to be a Tradition M. Hooker in his Eccles polic sect 7. p. 118. in generall defendeth the Doctrine of Traditions and answereth diuers testimonies out of the Fathers alledged by Carthwright and others 15. Againe both Catholikes and Protestantes doe belieue that there are certaine diuine wrytinges which are the true and vndoubted word of God and first penned by the holy Prophets Apostles and Euangelistes Yet we cannot conuincingly and demonstratiuely proue so
who should oppugne it Yf calumniously they admit this Doctrine of the Churches Soueraingty in matters of lesser moment with intention to restrayne it only to such and deny it in greater and more weighty Controuersies then are they truly interessed in the words of an auncient Father (i) Tertul. contra Praxeam Affectauit diabolus aliquando veritatem defendendo concutere 6. Now the reason why the Scripture alone though in it selfe it be most reuerend certaine and infallible doth occasion such vncertainty in the decyding of Controuersies is no lesse fully acknowledged by our learned Aduersaries For since it is not the shew but the sense of the word as Doctour Reynolds (k) In his conference with Hart. p. 63. acknowledgeth that must decyde Controuersies and seing the Scripture immediatly of it selfe performeth not the same as not hauing viuam vocem as D. Whitaker (l) De sacra Scripturae p. 221. confesseth wherwith it speaketh but by the help of certaine meanes on our part to be obserued And seing that the meanes are these following to wit the reading of the Scriptures the Conference of places the weighing of Circumstances of the text their skill in tongues their diligence prayer and the like furthermore seing as these are generally acknowledged by our Sectaries (m) So teacheth D. Reynolds in his Crnference p. 83. sequentibus And D. VVhitaker Controu 1. q. 3. c. â—1 q. 5. c. 10. to be the ordinary meanes so are they confessed by others of our most learned aduersaries to be but humane and most subiect to errour and mistaking as appeareth euen by the example of many Protestants who though vsing the former sayd meanes haue yet most fouly erred euen in the iudgment of their owne brethren in the interpreting of Scripture Therfore from hence it necessarily followeth that all priuate interpretation of Scripture proceeding from these meanes is most ambiguous and vncertaine But to conclude this poynt I will heere set downe D. Whitakers (n) VVhitaker vbi supra inference or collection in his owne words drawne froÌ„ the former premises thus then he argueth Looke what the meanes speaking of interpreting the Scripture are such of necessity must the interpretation be but the meanes of interpreting obscure places of Scripture are vncertaine doubtfull and ambiguous therefore it cannot otherwise be but the interpretation must be vncertaine And if vncertaine then may it be false Thus far the former Doctour which shall serue for the closure of this poynt and likewise of the first part of this Treatise THE SECOND PART That Protestants cannot agree which Bookes be Scripture and which are not CHAP. I. IN the former part it being proued that the Scripture is not the Iudge of Controuersies by reason of the diuers arguments there alledged It now followeth heere to be declared that if for the tyme we should grant ex hypothesi that the Scripture as it is absolutely considered in it selfe were this only and true iudge yet our Aduersaries of all sorts of Christians euer being are most exempted from pretending it for iudge and this for three speciall considerations 2. First because they do not agree among theÌ„selues which seuerall books ordinarily contained within the printed volume of the Bible are Scripture and which are not Secondly in that they do not acknowledge any original copy now extant to be true and incorrupted only of such bookes as they all ioyntly receaue for Scripture as also in that they condemne all Translations of confessed Scripture as false and erroneous eyther into Greeke Latin or English Thirdly because the confessed and incorrupted Scripture more clearly maketh for the Catholikes then for our Aduersaries if we insist eyther in the perspicuity of the letter or in the expositions of the Fathers or in the implicite iudgments of our Aduersaries themselues Which three poynts being iustifyed and made good the proofe wherof shall be the subiect of this Part it cannot be conceaued how they should defend with any aduantage to themselues the Scripture to be this Iudge 3. And intending to begin with their dissentions in acknowledging or reiecting certaine bookes of Scripture we are first particularly and attentiuely to obserue that wheras all Controuersies of fayth are to be determined as our Aduersaries hould by the Canonicall Scripture which is the only written word of God And seing they are at endles stryfe one with another which is this Scripture one acknowledging such and such bookes to be this sacred word which another discanoneth as apocryphall and prophane Therfore they in no sort can pretend the Scripture to be the iudge of Controuersies as not being yet resolued amongst themselues which those bookes be that are to be counted within the body and Canon of holy Scripture and consequently not agreed with theÌ„selues which is this iudge For except this last poynt be first acknowledged on al sides it followeth that if a Lutheran against a Caluinist or one Caluinist against another do vrge a place or text of such a booke which the one acknowledgeth to be Scripture the other condemning it the vrging of such a place can be of no force for the iudging of the question controuerted since it wil be replyed that the Canonicall and true Scripture alone is to defyne all doubts of fayth but that booke out of which such places and texts are alledged is no part of Gods wrytten word and therfore is not of authority for proofe of any poynt 4. Now that our Aduersaries cannot agree hitherto what bookes are true Scripture and what are not it will appeare most euidently euen out of their owne wrytinges And first to begin with their disagrements in opinion touching the bookes of the old TestameÌ„t in which poynt I will speake nothing of certaine parts of Daniel of Ester neyther of the bookes of Toby Iudith of the booke of Wisedome Ecclesiasticus and the Machabees since our Aduersaries with a full and ioynt consent haue thrust al these out of the Canon of the Bible though if they be to deale with Catholikes and will needes haue the Scripture only to iudge of all questions they ought to acknowledge al those bookes to be parcell of Scripture which the Catholikes do take for Scripture But I will restraine my selfe only to such the which some of them do reuerence as Canonicall and others reiect as Apocryphall from whence it followeth as I sayd before that they disagreeing among themselues what bookes are parts of the holy Scripture and consequently of their supposed iudge cannot with any shew of reason maintaine that the Scripture ought to determine at least among them al doubts of Religion whatsoeuer 5. First then the booke of Iob though it be acknowledged and receaued by most of the Caluinistes both here in England and other Countries yet Luther (a) In Conuiuialibus ser titul de Patriarchis Prophetis sayth plainly that he doth not belieue all those things which are reported therin Nay he proceedeth so
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
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
by the works of the law In both which places the very answere is expressed which the Catholikes are accustomed to make to such arguments since in the sayd testimonies it is set down so we Catholikes do teach that the works of the law of Moyses and consequently all others done meerely by nature and freewill without the fayth spirit and grace of Christ can in no sort iustify a man vpon which expresse distinction of works in the Scripture it selfe it followeth that all other places which through a naked resemblance of words may seeme to make more literally for the Protestants in this poynt then these alledged are to be expounded by these former texts since the holy Ghost caÌ„not set downe contrary and repugnant Doctrines 11. For defence of Traditions we vsually alledge that place of the Thessalonians (a) 2. c. 2. Brethren hold the traditions which you haue receaued whether it be by word or by Epistle Wher we see that the Apostles words do immediatly and necessarily without any helpe of strained consequences imply a diuision or partition of his Doctrine which no doubt was Gods word And that part therof was deliuered to the Thessalonians by his Epistle the rest by word of mouth only Which Text containes the very conclusion of the Catholikes Doctrine to wit that the Euangelists and Apostles did not wryte all things touching Christian fayth but deliuered part therof only by preaching or by some other such like instruction Now our Aduersaries to confront this text and the Doctrine deriued thence are acccustomed to obiect the words of S. Paul (b) Galat. 1. Sed licet nos c. But if we or an Angell from heauen euangelize to you besides that we haue euangelized be he anathema In which words they suppose two things and both false before they can square this text to their purpose 12. First that the word Euangelizare doth include only the wrytten word and not verbum traditum the word left by Tradition which is implicitly the matter in question and as the Sophisters call it Petitio principij Secondly that the Latin word praeter being in this text hath reference to euery thing which is not expresly set down in Scripture since indeed it here signifieth as much as contra meaning therby all Doctrine contrary to the Doctrine already deliuered by the Apostles for otherwise S. Iohn should haue had the Anathema pronounced against him for wryting of the Apocalips after this Epistle of S. Paul was wrytten So farre distant is this text from falling directly and plainly vpon the impugning of Traditions since from such false supposalls as granted they draw their Illation against the Catholike Doctrine therof 13. In like sort they alledge that saying of the Apostle to Timothy All Scripture (c) 2. c. 3. inspired of God is profitable to teach to argue to correct to instructe in iustice thaâ— the man of God may be perfect instructed to euery good worke Where we see that this text as well as the former is so farre froÌ„ pressing the Doctrine of Traditions immediatly and without any helpe of a secondary inference as that it doth not so much as once make mention of Traditions at all either in word or sense neyther can any thing be racked against vs from thence vntill it be first proued which neuer shal be that the word vtilis signifyeth sufficient and because a thing is profitable and conduceth to another thing or end it therfore is sufficient alone of it selfe for the obtayning therof 14. Lastly they bring forth certaine places (d) Math. 15. Galat. 1. Coloss 2. which do particularly condemne certayne pernicious and friuolous Traditions of the Iewes and the Traditions which the Catholikes do teach to haue bene deriued from our Sauiour and his Apostles be all one So impertinently do our Aduersaries alledge these and such like places against our Doctrine of Traditions 15. Concerning prayer for the dead what can be more cleare perspicuous for proofe therof then those words alledged out of the Machabees (e) 2. c. 1. a testimony so euident as that I cannot forbeare it though it impugne my former method Sancta ergo salubris est cogitatio c. It is therfore a holy and heathfull cogitation to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sinnes Which place we see doth literally expresly contayne the very conclusion of the Catholike Doctrine therin and which words proceeded vpon the practise of Iudas Machabeus who sent a summe of money vnto Ierusalem to procure sacrifices to be performed for the spirituall reliefe and ease of his dead souldiers I know that our Sectaries do expunge out of the Canon of Scripture this booke as Apocryphall yet they are to remember that it is reckoned among other diuine and vndoubted bookes of Scripture by the third Councell of Carthage (f) Can. 47. by Innocentius (g) Epist ad Exuperium the first and by S. Austin himselfe who thus (h) l 18. de Ciuit. Dei c. 36. sayth Libros Machabeorum c. The bookes of the Machabees are acknowledged by the Christians for Canonicall not by the Iewes 16. Now the chiefest places which our Aduersaries do obiect herein are among others such as being intended of the generall resurrection of the Iust are calumniously wrested by them to the particular tyme of ech vertuous mans death Thus they alledge that sayng of the Psalmist (i) Psalm 126. Cùm dederit dilectis suis somnum ecce haereditas Domini as also that place of the Apocalips (k) 14. Beatiqui in Domino moriuntur c. Blessed are they which dye in the Lord from henceforth now sayth the spirit that they rest from their labours for their workes follow them And as concerning this later place Saint Iohn throughout his whole Chapter speaketh of the later iudgment and therfore except the Protestants do first coÌ„found the particular tymes of mens deaths with the tyme of the general iudgment they can draw nothing from hence in denyall of purgatory adde to this that some of the Fathers as shal be shewed hereafter do interpret this text of martyrs only who neuer suffer any paynes in Purgatorie 17. They also produce to the same end the place in Ecclesiastes (l) â—1 Si occiderit lignum ad Austrum c. If the tree shall fall towardes the Souht or towardes the North it shal be in that place where it did fall The meaning of which passage being deliuered in Metaphors or Allegories doth the more hardly conuince any thing since the sense in regard therof appeares the more doubtfull Notwithstanding the common exposition of this place is that euery man eyther dyes in state of grace vnder which state are also vnderstood those which come to Purgatory and so falleth towards the South wherby is meant Heauen or in the state of mortall sinne and then falleth towards the North to wit into hell And whosoeuer dyeth in eyther of
these states shal for euer remaine in the same And thus we see how farre of the texts obiected by our Aduersaries are from conuincing plainly literally and without any strained deductions the Doctrine of Purgatory or Prayer for the dead 18. Lastly to omit the like examples of diuers other Controuersies the Catholikes do produce for proofe of Euangelicall Counsells that plaine saying of our Sauiour (m) Math. 19. Sunt Eunuchi c. There are Eunuchs who haue gelded themselues for the kingdome of heauen Which words contayning no precept are so cleare and direct in proofe of those Counsells as that our Aduersaries (n) Peter Martyr l. de caelib votis therby to auoyd the force of them are constrained to say that by the words For the kingdome of heauen is figuratiuely meant for the more speady preaching of the Ghospell So ridiculous far fetcht is this their answere 19. As cleare also are those other wordes of Christ spoken to the yong man for confirmation of the said Doctrine being taken literally plainly vz. Si (o) Math. 19. vis perfectus esse c. If thou wilt be perfect Go and sell all and follow me and thou shalt haue a treasure in heauen Which text as also the former doth immediatly and primatiuely without any secondary deductions touch and proue the Doctrine it selfe of Euangelicall Counsells 20. Now against the sayd Doctrine they vsually obiect diuers passages (p) Math 22. Marc. 12. Luc. 10. of Scripture where we are cōmanded to loue God with all our soule and withal our strength where we fynd that what is collected is by this supposition to wit that the phrases Toto corde tota anima do signify all our endeauour possibly in the highest degree which being false they heerupon infer that there is nothing which is good left vncommanded to be done then they conclude there is no place for Euāgelical Coūsells which are distinguished against precepts Now what toto corde tota anima or totis viribus do signify shall appeare in the Chapter following 21. To the same purpose they detort those words of our Sauiour (g) Luc. 17. Cùm feceritis haec omina c. When you haue done all these thinges which are commanded you say we are vnprofitable seruants we haue done that which we ought to doe Which place as it is manifest in it immediate sense doth not touch the Doctrine of Euangelicall Counsells besydes the very words themselues do expresly shew that it cannot be applyed to our Aduersaries sense and meaning since our Sauiour speaketh precisely of those things which are commanded to be done where the Catholikes doe teach that nothing which is particularly commanded in Gods word is an Euangelicall Counsell 22. Now by these few example set down of the places alledged out of Gods holy word both by the Catholikes and Protestants we may make a coniecture of the rest wherin as I sayd before we see the great disparity betwene the seuerall kinds of those texts Seing that if we grant the literall ordinary facill and most naturall sense of the testimonies vrged by Catholikes we necessarily grant the conclusion it selfe of that Doctrine for which they are vrged since they do touch immediatly without any ambages or borrowed supposalls the primary and radicall poynt or question controuerted betwene vs and the Protestants wheras our Aduersaries testimonies out of the sayd Scriptures though they were granted them in their own sense cōstructiō yet they presently force not the proofes of their assertions and the reason her of is because they fall not directly vpon the question it selfe but only by meanes of their supposed inferences and deductions and then sometimes they but concerne the māner or some other circumstance therof which being only accessory and subsequēt euen among Catholike Deuines is holden indifferent and disputable 23. Thus we see that these men though they be much verbally conuersant with the Scripture yet for any conuincing proofes deduced by them from thence they are most needy therin not much vnlike vnto those who haue the stamping or coyning of siluer and gold who though great store therof come through their handes yet commonly are poore as hauing no true interest in any part of the same That the textes of Scripture are expounded by the Fathers in the same sense in the which they are alledged by Catholikes for proofe of their Doctrine and fayth CHAP. IX IT being made cleare in the precedent chapter that the texts of holy Scripture alledged by the Catholiks for proofe of their faith are more literall perspicuous as also do touch more directly and punctually the doubts for which they are vrged then any cōtrary passages or places therof obiected by our Aduersaries It now remaineth that we shew two things first that the ancient Fathers haue in their wrytings and commētaries euer interpreted the sayd former texts and others of like nature vrged by vs euen in the same sense and meaning which we do for the iustifying of our Catholike Doctrine Secondly that they haue deliuered a different construction from our Aduersaries of those principall texts which they now produce against vs so as according to the Fathers expositions of the sayd places which agree with the Catholikes construction therof they do nothing at all impugne our Religion Both which poynts being once made good do mightily preiudice our Sectaries For what probability I might say possibility can there be conceaued to the contrary but that the Fathers did interprete both the sayd sorts of texts I meane of such as are produced eyther by vs or our Aduersaries according to the intendment of the holy Ghost or at least were much aduantaged aboue the Nouellistes of these dayes for the true construction therof When we consider that they were men of admirable vertue and piety of great and extraordinary learning such as were not interessed our in Cōtrouersies as neither hauing then enemies to crosse their present Doctrine except it were some one or other confessed Heretike nor yet knowing what doubts in fayth might aryse in after ages but especially when we call to mynd the tymes wherin they liued to with euen then when by our Aduersaries confessions the Church of God of which they were the graue and reuerend Pastours and Doctours had in no one poynt departed from the Doctrine deliuered by our Sauiour and his Apostles So litle reason we find hath our Nouellist to make his sole refuge to Gods sacred word were it not therby to auoyde the ordinary and vsuall tryall drawne from all other proofes or testimonies whatsoeuer and finally to make himselfe sole iudge of the sayd word 2. But to begin with some chiefest of those testimonies of Scripture which the Catholikes are accustomed to alledge reseruing the textes obiected by our Aduersaries to the next Chapter where I intend to restraine my selfe only to some few texts of euery maine Controuersy both because to examine al the places of euery
persecuting the Church of Christ In this sort this place is expounded by Tertullian (f) l. coÌ„tra Iudaeos l. 3. contra MarcioneÌ„ and Ierome (g) Epist 17. ad MarcellaÌ„ But others of them to wit S. Austin h and S. Bede (i) In cap. 17. Apoc. doe vnderstand by the Whoore in the Apocalips sitting vpon the seauen hils the generall all and vniuersall Citty of the diuell which in the Scripture is often called Babylon by the seauen hils is vnderstood the number of the proud and chiefly of the earthly kings So thus we find that according to either of the constructions deliuered by the auncieÌ„t Fathers this former obiected text doth nothing at all touch Antichrist 4. In like manner our Aduersaries do vrge those words in the second to the (k) cap 2. Thessalonians Ita vt in templo Dei sedeat c. So as he is to sit in the temple of God Where the Apostle speaking of Antichrist the Protestantes wil needs haue him to meane that Antichrist shall sit in the Church of vs Christians forsooth because the Pope sits therin as head therof whereas the Fathers do interprete the former wordes of the temple of the Iewes which once was the temple of God and where according to the iudgments both of the Fathers and vs Catholiks Antichrist is to sit thus is this place expounded by Chrysostome (l) In hunc locum Ambrose (m) In c. 21. Luc. Hilary (n) Can 25. in Math. Cyril (o) Catech. 15. Hierosolym Hippolitus (p) Orat. de mundi consuÌ„mat Ireneus (q) lib. 5. and others 5. Against the Reall Presence they vrge the words of our Sauiour recorded by S. Iohn as is afore touched vz. The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit which quickneth Now that this place is vnderstood only of the carnall apprehension of the Iewes of eating grosly and carnally Christs body appeareth out of Chrysostome (r) In hunc loâ—um Theophilact (s) ibidem Cyprian (t) In ser de coena Domini and Origen (u) l. 3. in epist. ad Rom. To the same end they produce those words Non y bibam ex hoc sanguine vitis c I will not drinke henceforth of the fruit of this wyne vntill that day as I shall drinke it new with you in my Fathers kingdome Drawing from these words which do tearme the cup wyne as if our Sauiour had spoken of the Cup consecrated that there was no reall change of bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christ wheras we find that S. Luke (y) cap. 22. doth x Math. 26. make mention of two cups the one at supper wherof the former words were spoken the other after supper which our Sauiour consecrated and to which the former words had no reference And thus we find this place explicated answerably to S. Lukes relation by Ierome (z) in c. 26. Math. Bede (a) In c. 22. Luc. Theophilact (b) In cap. 22. Luc. 6. In denyall of auricular Confession and of Priests their authority for remitting of sinnes therby they produce the wordes of Christ recorded by S. Iohn (c) cap. 20. vz. Sicut misit me pater c. Euen as my Father sent me so I doe send you But Christ say they when he remitted and forgaue sin exacted not any particular enumeration of them as appeareth out of S. Luke (d) cap. 7. S. Matthew (e) cap. 9. Therfore we are not bound to any secret confession of our sinnes To which argument we answere that the former place of S. Iohn is not so to be vnderstood that the Apostles their successours were precisely bound to do all things after the same manner as they were done by Christ since by that rule then the Apostles ought not to baptize in (f) Act. 2. remission of sinnes because Christ without Baptisme did remit the sinnes of Mary Magdalen neither to giue the holy Ghost by imposition of handes since Christ gaue it by breathing (g) Ioan. 20. vpon the Apostles Therfore the former text alledged according to the expositioÌ„ of S. Chrysostome (h) In hunc locum doth import that our Sauiour said that he did send the Apostles as himselfe was sent because he gaue to theÌ„ the power of remitting or retaining of sinnes as himselfe had receaued of his Father or according to the interpretation of S. Gregory (i) Hom. 2â— in Euang because he did send the Apostles to suffer persecution and death as himself was sent to vndergoe Lastly because according to (k) In huÌ„c locum Cyril he did seÌ„d them to performe the sayd office which himselfe was seÌ„t to accomplish to wit to reclayme men from sinne to propagate the Church to preach the Ghospell And thus we see that though the Fathers do sometymes differ in literall exposition of certaine texts yet they all agree in this in which point we heere chiefly insist that they do not affoard any such sense wherin the Protestantes doe vrge them against the Catholike fayth 7. To take away auricular Confession they alledge those words of Ezechiel (l) c. 33. Quotiescunque ingemuerit peccator c. As often as a sinner shall grieue and lament I will not remeÌ„ber his iniquities Out of which words they labour to proue that God only exacteth this repentance griefe of a sinner for the remission of his sinnes and not any auricular confession of them or absolution of the Priest To which we answere that neither of them is excluded by the sayd words since no man can grieue and lament for his sinnes in any auaileable manner but that he must desire al those meanes as confession therof and absolution which God hath instituted in his Church And in this sort we fynd that S. (m) Epist 91. ad TheodoruÌ„ Leo doth obiect this very place against himselfe in this poynt and then thus answereth it Which exposition of his must needs be true since the former text if it should exclude confession and absolution by the same reason it should also exclude Baptisme yea fayth charity as necessary for the remission of our sinnes since a man may grieue for his sinnes only by reason of the temporall losse comming therby 8. Wheras against Freewill they vsually obiect that text of Isay (n) c. 22. vz. Omnia opera nostra c. O Lord thou hast wrought all our workes in vs yet we find that Ierome (o) In comment eiusdem loci doth p In huÌ„c locum vnderstand those words of Gods chastisements of that people and Cyril (p) In huÌ„c locum of Gods miracles and benefits shewed to theÌ„ So as neither of theÌ„ nor any other do vnderstand them in our Aduersaries sense 9. For proofe of Iustification by fayth only they vrge that saying of the (q) Rom. c. 3. Apostle Arbitramur hominem iustificari c.
We account a man to be iustifyed by fayth without the workes of the law Where besides that the very text it selfe doth expresly speake of the workes of the law which kind of workes no Catholike doth teach to iustify S. Austin (r) l. de gratia liber arbit c. 17. doth euen in the same sense expound this place saying thus Homines non intelligenâ—es c. Men not vnderstanding what the Apostle heere sayth did thinke that he sayd fayth would suffice a man though he liued euilly and had no workes which God forbid that a Vessell of Election should so thinke who in a certaine place after he had sayd In Christ Iesus neyther Circumcision nor prepuce auaileth any whit straight added but Faith which worketh by loue Thus S. Austin In like sort they vrge another saying of the sayd Apostle vz. Si Abraham (s) Rom. 4. ex operibus c. If Abraham be iustifyed by workes he hath glory but not with God As also that other Gratia estis saluati c. By (t) Ephes â— grace you are saued through faith c. and not of works In both which places are vnderstood workes done by the force of nature before our vocation and calling in Christ as appeareth out of S. Austin (u) Supra praefat in psal â—1 and S. Ierome (x) Eâ—ist ad â—thesiphontem expounding the sayd places See also Austin expounding the former and other such like places in l. de praedest Sanct. c. 7. epist. 105. ad Sixtum l. de hono perseuerenâ—iae c. 2. 10. Against the merit of good workes they alledge diuers places which may seeme to intimate that God doth crowne men only in mercy and consequently not by force of their owne workes as where it is sayd Beati misericordes quia c. Blessed are they which be mercifull for they shall obtaine mercy which place both S. Austin (z) Epist 105. l. de correp gratia cap. 13. and S. Gregory (a) In psal 7. paenitential expound thus to wit that blessednes and eternall felicity is attributed to mercy not because there is not a true reward of merit but because the merit it selfe is giuen to man by the mercy of God For a man cannot do any meritorious worke before he be iustified but he is iustified by the grace mercy of God 11. They also vrge that place aboue mentioned of S. Luke Cùm feceritis haec omnia c. When you haue done all these thinges which are commanded you say we are vnprofitable seruants for we haue but done what we ought to haue done which text may seeme to make against the merit of workes and against workes of supererogation yet in the Fathers iudgments it nothing impugneth the same who though they do giue seuerall expositions thereof yet not any one of theÌ„ maketh against the Catholike Doctrine in this point S. Chrysostome (c) Hom. in illud Illatum est cor Oziae sayth that our Sauiour did not meane that we were vnprofitable seruants but that we should so say and thinke of our selues therby to humble our selues least a selfeliking pride might corrupt our good works S. Austin (d) Serm. â— de verbis Domini sayth that we may be called vnprofitable seruants because when we haue kept all Gods commandements we haue done nothing but what we ought to haue done and therfore in rigour and iustice we can expect no reward but only from the liberall promise and bargaine of God with vs. 12. S. Ambrose (e) l. 8. in Lucam expoundeth the former wordes in this sense to wit that we should acknowledge how weake and imperfect we are of our selues to do any good worke and that we are made profitable seruants therto only by the assistance and grace of God Now no one of these expositions as I sayd before doth agree with our Aduersaries exposition of the sayd place or preiudice the Doctrine of merit 13. Against actuall and inherent Iustice they vsually prostitute that saying of Isay (f) cap. 64. Facti sumus immundi omnes nos tanquam pannus menstruatae omnes iustitiae nostrae that is We are all made vncleane and all our iustice is like vnto the cloath of a menstruous woman Out of which words they endeauour to proue all our actions to be bad and sinfull wheras it is certaine that the Prophet did speake these wordes not in the person of himselfe or of the iust but only of the wicked Iewes by reason of whose sinnes both their Citty and the people were to be deliuered into the hands of the King of Babylon And this appeareth out of the word which a little before he had spoken vz. Ecce iratus es peccauimus behould thou art angry because we haue sinned And thus we fynd this place expounded by Cyril (g) In huÌ„c locum The truth of which expositioÌ„ appeareth more clearly out of the words following the former textes vz. Non est qui inuocet nomen tuum There is not any which calleth vpon thy name which saying must haue reference only to the wicked and not to the iust 14. To the sayd end they obiect Dauid saying Non intres (h) c. 142. in iudicium cum seruo tuo c. do not enter into iudgment with thy seruant because no liuing creature shal be iustifyed in thy sight Of which place the Fathers do deliuer seueral expositions but all different from our Aduersaries meaning intention S. Ierome (i) In hunc psalm Hilary (k) Ibidem Arnobius (l) Ibidem do say that the meaning of Dauid was that man cannot besayd to be iustifyed if he be compared with the purity and sublimity of the iustice of God in respect wherof the iustice not only of men but euen of Angells may be accounted to be but Iniustice and impurity Lastly S. Gregory (m) In coÌ„ment huius psalm as also S. Austin (n) l de perfect iustitiae do referre the sayd wordes of Dauid to veniall sinnes without committing of which our life cannot be passed ouer 15. Concerning Euangelicall Counsels of which our Aduersaries are professed enemies they therfore doe alledge those sayings (o) Math. 22. Marc. 12. Luc. 10. where we are commanded to loue God with all our forcâ— strength and will as is aboue rehearsed wheras indeed those words are put downe only for greater efficacy vnderstanding therby that we are to loue God sincerly truly and aboue all other thinges thus doth S. Ierome (p) In coÌ„ment ad c. 22. Math. Chrysostome (q) Chrysostom ibid. and Ambrose (r) ad c. 10. Luc. expound this place They also obiect that saying of Christ where he (s) Luc. 14. teacheth That except a man renounceth all the things he possesseth he cannot be Christ his disciple concluding froÌ„ thence that there are no Euangelicall Counsells which place notwithstanding S. Austin (t) Epist 5.
epist 59. q. 4. doth expound with vs Catholikes to wit that our Lord spake only of our readines and preparation of mynd for the renouncing of all which he requireth at our hands when iust occasion is giuen therof which exposition no doubt is true because a little before in the sayd Chapter our Sauiour did reckon our wyues and our owne bodyes among those thinges which we are to renounce 16. To iustify the Inuisibility of the Church they rack and tenter those words of our Sauiour Venit (u) â—ohn 4. horae nunc est c. The houre commeth and now is when the true worshipper shall worship the Father in spirit and truth Where they labour to proue the words in spiritu in spirit to imply the Inuisibility of the Church because such cannot be certainly knowne and seene who serue God only in spirit wheras Cyril (x) In hunc locum Chrysostome (y) Ibid. and Euthymius (z) Ibid. doe oppose the wordes In spirit to the ceremonies of the Iewes as they were corporall externall the words in Truth to the same ceremonies as they were figures of thinges to come 17. They in like sort do obiect to iustify the sayd Heresy the wordes of the Apostle who sayth Non (a) Hebr. 12. accessistis ad tractabilem moÌ„tem c. You are not come vnto the mouÌ„t that may be touched c. but vnto the mount Sion and vnto the Citty of the liuing God the celestiall Ierusalem c. Where by the wordes Mount Sion and the Citty of God they teach that the militant Church is vnderstood which because it is spirituall is opposed in this text to the mount Sinai which is visible But S. Chrysostome (e) â—n hunc locum Theophilact (f) ibidem and others do expound with the Catholikes that by spirituall Sion and the Citty of God in this place is not vnderstood the Church militant but triumphant which doth consist of the blessed spirits and therfore it followeth immediatly (g) c 9. after But you are come to the company of many thousand Angells and to the spirits of the iust Which words cannot haue a direct reference to the militant Church 18. To proue in like manner that the Church of God may vtterly faile and decay they vsually obiect that prophesy of Daniel Deficiet hostia sacrificium the sacrifice shall cease wheras those wordes are not vnderstood of the time of Antichrist but of the ouerthrow of Ierusalem and of the ceasing of the Iewish sacrifices and thus is this prophesy expounded by Chrysostome (h) in cap. 24. Math. Ierome (i) ibidem Austin (k) Epist 80. ad Hesichium Eusebius (l) l. 8. Euang demonst c. 2. Clemens (m) lib. 1. stromat Alexandrinns and Tertullian (n) l. contra Iudaeos cap. 5. 19. They also obiect to the same purpose those words of Christ Cùm (o) Luc. 28 venerit c. When the sonne of man shall come dost thou thinke he shal find fayth vpon the earth Which is not vnderstood that at Christ his coÌ„ming the Church of God shal be extinct but only that markable and eximious fayth which is so much commended shal be found but in few at those later dayes And thus doth S. Ierome (p) Dialog contra Lucifer S. Austin (q) de Vnitat Eccles cap. 1â— expound this text To the short they among other textes do bring forth the words of the Apostle (r) 2. Thessal 2. Nisi venerit discessio primùm c. Except there come a departing first that man of sinne be disclosed c. Out of which wordes they labour to proue that there must be a general departure from the true fayth at the comming of Antichrist And the contrary to this sense and meaning diuers of the Fathers to wit Chrysostome (s) In hunc locum Theodoret (t) Ibidem Theophilact (u) Ibidem and Austin (x) l 20. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 19. do by the word discessio or departure in this place vnderstand Antichrist himselfe by the figure Metonymia as being the cause that diuers shall depart from the fayth Others of them to wit Ambrose (y) In huÌ„c loum Sedulius (z) Ibidem do vnderstand therby a departure from the Roman Empire neyther of which expositions do fauour our Aduersaries at all 20. To obscure the Doctrine of Traditions they peruert the sense and meaning of the Apostle (a) Galat. 1 who sayth Sed licetnos vel Angelus decaelo euaÌ„gelizat vobis praeterquaÌ„ quod euangelizauimus c. But though we or a Angell from heauen preach vnto you contrary to that which hath bene preached let him be accursed Where they deduce that al Traditions are herby condemned But notwithstanding the Fathers doe expound this place only of such Doctrines as are contrary and opposite to the Doctrine there already preached And therfore S. Ambrose (b) In huÌ„c locum doth expound this place by these wordes si contra in like sort S. Austin (c) l. 17. coÌ„tra Eaustum c. 3. si contra S. Ierome (d) In huÌ„c locum si aliter meaning therby if not agreable but repugnant to the former Doctrine In like sort they produce certaine places (e) Math. 1â— Col. 2 aboue touched where our Sauiour and his Apostles do disproue and reprehend Traditions in generall Which words being spoken only of certaine friuolous and wicked traditions of the Iewes do nothing at all impugne the Traditions of the Catholike Church thus we find those texts expounded by Ireneus (f) l. 4. cap. 25. Epiphanius (g) In haeres Ptolomeâ— S. Ierome (h) In c. 8. Isa in c. 3. ad TituÌ„ 21. Wheras we hould the vnlawfulnes of mariage in some persons and of meates at some tymes our Aduersaries to impugne our Doctrine herein do vsually alledge that place of the Apostle where he sayth (i) 1. Timoth c. 4. In nouissimis diebus discedent quidam à fide c. prohibentes nubere abstinere à cibis In the later dayes certaine shall depart from the fayth c forbidding to marry and commanding to abstaine from meates Wheras the Apostle in this place speaketh of such who absolutly forbeare mariage and meates as things altogether vnlawful which cannot in any sort be applyed to the Catholikes And these were the Tatians Marcionites and the Manichees Thus is this text expounded by Austin (k) l. 30. coÌ„tra Faustum Ierome (l) l. 1. in Iouinian Ambrose (m) In huÌ„c locum and Chrysostome (n) In huÌ„c locum 22. Concerning our Sauiour they teach seuerall errours first that he increased in wisedome and knowledge (o) cap. 2. as other men do and that he was not filled with grace and knowledge from his mothers wombe To proue this their Heresy they bring those words of S.
Luke Iesus proficiebat sapientia aeâ—ate gratia Iesus did profit and increase in wisedome and grace But the common exposition of the Fathers is that he profited in wisedome grace only in the opinion of men to whome he dayly discouered his wisedome and grace more and more Thus doth Gregory (p) In Basinum Nazianzene Cyril (q) l. 20. Thesauri c. 7. Damascene (r) l. 3. c. 22. Theophilact and others expound this place In like sort to proue Christes ignorance they produce that place where it is sayd De illo die nemo (s) Mar. 13. scit That day no man knoweth neither the Angells nor the sonne but only the Father Wherby is not ment that Christ did not know when that day should be as our Aduersaries do infer but that he did not know it to tell it to others And thus Ambrose (t) l. 5. de fide cap. 8. Gregory (u) l. 4. Epist 42. Ierome (x) â—n c. 24. Math. Basil (y) l. 4. in EunomiuÌ„ and Austin (z) l. 1. de Gens contra Manich c. 22. expound these words 23. To maintaine that blasphemy that Christ suffered throughout his Passion the paynes of hell they are not ashamed to vrge his feare sweating in the GardeÌ„ most differently from the iudgmeÌ„t of the auncieÌ„t Fathers for S. Hilary (a) Can. 31. in Math. saith that Christ theÌ„ feared in regard of his disciples whom he saw would forsak him Ierome (b) in 26. Math. writeth that he then grieued for the Iewes in sinning so much by crucifying him Ambr. (c) In c. 22. Luc. Chrysost (d) In c. 26. Math. attribute his feare to his naturall affectioÌ„ as fearing the death of his body 24. To the vphoulding of the same impiety they wrest those words of the Apostle VZ Indiebus (e) Hebr. 5. carnis preces c. Who in the dayes of his flesh did offer vp prayers and supplications with strong crying and teares vnto him that was able to saue him from death and was also heard in that which he feared Our Aduersaries meaning hereby that Christ did not pray that he should not dye but that he might not be eternally damned and through this feare he was heard of his Father Wheras the true both reading according to the (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propter reuerentiam eius Greeke and meaning is that Christ was heard of his Father either because himselfe was worthy of all honour and reuerence or in that he did affect his Father withall due honour and reuereÌ„ce And thus do we find this place expounded by Chrysostome and Oecumenius all of them so wryting vpon this text 25. To impugne Purgatory and prayer for the dead they alledge the saying of Dauid CuÌ„ (g) Psalm 126. dederit dilectis suis soÌ„num ecce haereditas Domini When he shall giue sleepe rest to his beloued then behould the inheritance of the Lord. They inferring hereby that al the godly preseÌ„tly vpoÌ„ their death do come to heauen wheras indeed this text is menat of the general resurrectioÌ„ of all this is so expounded by S. Austin (h) In huÌ„c locum In like sort they produce that place of Ecclesiasticus (i) c. 9. QuodcuÌ„que facere potest manus tua instanter operare Whatsoeuer thy haÌ„d can do do it instaÌ„tly because neither any worke nor reasoÌ„ nor knowledg nor wisedome is beneth whither thou hastest they meaning heerby that the dead haue no feeling knowledg nor help of the liuing Which place according to the expositioÌ„ of the Fathers makes nothing against Purgatory for S. Ierome (k) In CoÌ„ment huius loci doth interprete these wordes either of such as beleeue neither heauen nor hell nor any thing els to follow after this life or els of those who liuing wickedly and so dying do descend directly into hell where there is no remedy nor hope of solace S. Gregory (l) l. 4. Dialog c. 39. applyeth this place euen to those which come to Purgatory interpreting that a man after he is dead by himselfe can make no meanes of ease and releefe but if he be holpen with the prayers of the liuing it is because he hath deserued so to be relieued when he was aliue by his good works and life 26. Lastly they alledge that passage of Ecclesiastes (m) c. 11. aboue touched the answere wherof is in the former Chapter but one set downe to wit that those which are in Purgatory belong to the South that is to heauen froÌ„ whence there is no passage to hell nor from hell thither And thus is that text expounded by S. Ierome (n) In CoÌ„ment huius loci 27. Against prayer to Saintes They vrge that which the Apostle saith Vnus (o) 1. Timoth 2. est mediator Dei hominum c. One mediatour betwene God and man which is the man Christ Iesus Which place indeed is vnderstood of a mediatour only in respect of our Redemption but not in regard of Intercession In which sense Cyril (p) l. 12. Thesau c. 10. was not affrayd to cal the Prophets Apostles Mediatours betwen God VS Gregory (q) Orat. ad GregoriuÌ„ Nyss Nazianzene the martyrs To the same end they wrest those words to the Colossians (r) Coloss 2. Nemo vos seducat volens in humilitate religione Angelorum c. Let no man seduce you by humblenes of mynd and worshipping of Angells c. In which place the Apostle doth condemne the heresy of Simon Magus who following the Platonicks did teach that certaine Angells were to be worshipped as inferiour Gods which made the world and through whose mediation only the wrath of the great inuisible God was to be appeased as appeareth besides out of the text it selfe from the expositions of Chrysostome (s) Hom. 7. in epist. ad Coloss Occumenius (t) In hunc locum and Theophilact (u) Ibidem of this place S. Ierome (x) q. 10. ad â—â—gasiam teacheth that in that former place of the Apostle those are repreheÌ„ded who did sacrifice to the Angells They also alledge some places which do seeme to intimate that the Saintes such as be dead do know nothing of the actions of the liuing as for example Tues (y) Isa 63. enim Pater noster Abraham nesciuit nos c. Thou art our father AbrahaÌ„ hath not known vs Israel hath bene ignorant of vs. To which place is answered that Abraham and others of the old Testament did not know what their children successours being aliue did here vpon earth because themselues were not as yet blessed And we grant that the dead naturally do not know what the liuing do And thus S. Austin (z) l. de cura promort c. 13. expoundeth this text 28. Lastly to conclude this poynt of producing the Fathers expositions of Scripture against our Aduersaries
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
necessarily gathered that their disclaiming from the auncient Fathers as patrones of our religion doth implicitly inuolue in it selfe as aboue I haue touched that euen in our aduersaries acknowledgmeÌ„ts the Fathers interpreted the Scriptures in one and the same sense with vs Catholikes for if they had made one and the same construction of the Scripture with the ProtestaÌ„ts they had then taught the same Doctrine which the Protestants now teach and consequently it appeareth how dangerous it is to our Aduersaries to appeale to the Scripture alone as Iudge of all Controuersies if for the true construction and sense therof they would rest in the iudgments of the anncient Fathers That the Scripture doth make for the Catholikes euen by the tacite acknowledgment of our Aduersaries rising from their maintayning of our Catholike articles CHAP. XI IN this last place we are to vndertake to shew that euen by our Aduersaries Confessions the holy Scripture is most cleare for iustifying our Catholike Faith which point might be proued at large by producing their owne words and expositions of many of the chiefe passages of Scripture wherby we are able to demonstrate out of their owne books and writings that they are interpreted by them in the same sense and meaning wherein we Catholikes do vsually expound them But this course I will purposely forbeare partly to auoyde the distastfull iteration of the former texts so often already repeated but chiefly in regard of the tedious prolixity which would necessarily attend the deliuering in their owne wordes of our Aduersaries expositions of all such places and in supply therof I will take a more briefe and yet no lesse conuincing method That is I will set downe ten of our mayne Controuersies for example of al the rest acknowledged taught and iustified by our Aduersaries and such who for wit and learning may seeme to equall any others of their owne side Which thing being once performed it then ineuitably followeth euen from their owne Principles that they acknowledge the Scriptureto make for the Catholikes in the sayd Doctrines confessed by theÌ„ since their owne generall and constant axiome (*) Luther iâ— CoÌ„ment c. 1. ad Galat Caluin l. 4. Instit c. 8. §. 8. Chemnit in Exam. Conc. Trident sess 4. in libro quem inseripsit Theologiae Iesuit praecip capit Brentius in suis Prologeminis c. de Traditionibus HaÌ„melmanus in suo volumine coÌ„tra Traditiones alij permulti is that they are not to beleeue any thing as matter of fayth but what hath it warrant in Gods written word And to proceed yet more particularly seing that for iustifying of such Catholike articles no passages of Scripture can be alledged more forcibly and pressingly by our Aduersaries own censure then the texts alledged in the former Chapters it therfore may be concluded that those very particular texts euen by the acknowledgment of the Protestants do receaue that sense and construction which the Fathers and we Catholikes haue deliuered of them for proofe and warranting of our fayth Agayne wheras our Aduersaries which maintaine any such Catholike Positions will no doubt confidently auouch that they teach nothing which may be contradicted by the Scripture It in like sort followeth that all such texts of Scripture meÌ„tioned aboue and others of like nature which are vrged by other protestaÌ„ts to impugne the said Catholike points are at least in these mens iudgments to be taken in a construction far different from ouerthrowing the sayd articles So as the conclusion of all is this that in these mens censures we implicity do shew that such authorities of Scripture vrged by vs do confirme our Catholike Fayth and obiected by them do preiudice it nothing at all But to beginne 1. And first concerning the Primacy of one in the Church of God we fynd that Caluin (a) Alledged by VVhitg p. 137. thus sayth The twelue Apostles had one among them to gouerne the rest D. Whitguift (b) vbi suprap 375. sayth Among the Apostles themselues there was one chiefe c. In like sort Musculus (c) Alledged by VVhitguift vbi supra p. 66. sayth Peter is found in many places to haue bene chiefe among the rest Melancthon (d) In his booke intituled Centur epist theolog epist 74. thus writeth as certaine Bishops are President ouer many Churches so the Bishop of Rome is President ouer all Bishops and this Canonical policy no wyse man I hope will or ought to disalow To maintaine this sayd Doctrine Iacobus Andraeas is alledged by Hospinianus (e) Historia sacramentaria part 2. fol. 589. 2. That the Pope is not Antichrist appeareth froÌ„ the testimonies of diuers Protestants which teach that Antichrist is not yet come So doth Zanchius (f) In epist Pauli ad Philippens teach the like doth Franciscus (g) In his booke intituled Antichristus siue progno stiâ—â— mundi Lambertus affirme And Done in one of his sermons (h) Of the sâ—â—ond coÌ„ming of Christ confesseth That some Protestantes do make a doubt whether Antichrist be yet reuealed or no. And heere we are to obserue that some other Protestants who do teach him to be come do make the Turk to be him thus doth MelaÌ„cthon so vrged by Haruey in his Theological discourse pag. 102. Bucer and Fox teach vz. Act. Mon. of anno 1577. pag. 539. 3. Touching the Reall Presence who knoweth not that Luther and the Lutheranes defend it And therfore it is needles to set down the particular names of any of them since the maintainers of this Doctrine which are not Catholikes are tearmed Lutherans especially because they chiefly dissent from the Caluinistes in this poynt 4. That Priests do truly remit sinnes by Absolution and not only pronounce them to be remitted appeareth from the testimony of the English Communion booke where the Priest sayth And by his authority committed to me I absolue thee from all thy sinnes Which booke is therfore reprehended by the booke called the Suruey (i) p. 145. of the booke of common prayer As also the same is proued by Lobechius (k) Disput Theologic pag. 301. who sayth That God remits sinne immediatly by himselfe but mediatly by his ministers And that the Caluinistes do therfore erre in withdrawing this efficacy from the absolution giuen by the minister of the word Thus farre Lobechius And answerably hereto we find that Melancthon (l) In Apolog confess Aug. art 13. did teach that Absolution is properly a Sacrament The like did Spandeburge (m) In margarit Theologic pag. 116. Andraeas (n) In concilat locorum seript pugnant loc 191. Althamerus and Sarcerius (o) Loc. com hom 1. de potest Eccles fol. 305. affirme 5. That the Sacraments of the new Testament conferre grace ex opere operato appeareth from the iudgment of D. Bilson in his true difference part 4. pag. 539 D. Whitaker contra Duraeum l. 8. p. 662. M. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall policy lib. 5.
alledge those words of the Apostle (p) 1. Cor. c. 11. Qui manducat bibit indignè c. He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh iudgment to himselfe not discerning the body of our Lord Out of which words we gather that some are here reprehended in that they receiue the body of Christ vnworthily but these do not receaue it in spirit and fayth for in so doing they should receaue it with profit and worthily therfore they receaue his body only in body and not in spirit and consequently his body is there really and truly present And in this sort is this text expounded by the fathers vz. Ambrose (q) In c. 11. prioris ad ad Corinth Theodor Ierome (r) In c. 1. Malach. Chrysostome (s) Hom. 24. in prior ad Corinth hom 83 in Matth. Origen (t) Hom. 2. in psal 37. Basil (u) l. 2. de baptisae 3. others which exposition of the fathers being true depriueth our Aduersaries of all sufficient answere to the said text 10. That those three places which the Catholiks do commonly vrge for proofe of Priests authority in remitting sinnes vz. Math. 16. To thee I will giue the keyes of heaueÌ„ and whatsoeuer thou shalt bynd vpon earth shal be bound in heauen c. Math. 18. What things you shall bynd vpon earth shal be bouÌ„d in heauen and what things you shall loose c. Lastly Iohn 20. Whose sins you shall remit are remitted vnto theÌ„ and whose sinnes you shall retaine are retained That these places I say doe proue that Priests haue authority giuen them truly and really to remit sins in the Sacrament of Pennance not only by declaring and pronouncing their sinnes to be remitted as our Sectaries do teach it appeareth out of the fathers expositions of the foresaid places who expounding them literally with the Catbolikes do proue therby the true authority of the Priests therin S. Gregory (x) Hom. 26. in Euang expounding the words Whose sinnes you shall remit thus sayth Principatum superni iudicij c. The Apostles do obtaine a principality of supreme iudgment that in the place of God they may retayne the sinnes of some and loose the sinnes of others S. Chrysostome (y) l. 3. de sacerd the scope of which booke is to proue this point expounding the former texts and comparing the authority of the Priests of the old law ouer the leprous persoÌ„s with the Priests of the new law thus concludeth At nostris Sacerdotibus non corporis lepram c. It is granted to our Priests I say not to try them which are purged but absolutely to purge and cure not the leper of the body but the filth and foulnes of the soule See also S. Austin (z) l. 20. de Ciuit. Dei expouÌ„ding those words of the Apoc. Et vidi sedes sedentes c. Ierome (a) Ep. ad HeliodoruÌ„ de vita solitaria Ambrose (b) l. 1. de poenit c. 2 sequent Gregory (c) Oratione ad ciues timore perculsos Naziazene all which do interpret the former texts literally and ackknowledge from thence the sayd authority in Priests for remitting of sinnes which the Catholikes at this day do teach 11. That place of S. Iohn (d) c. 3. vz. Except a man be borne againe of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God doth proue that the Sacrament of Baptisme doth ex opere operato conferre grace and iustify a man which perspicuous and cleare testimony to peruert our Aduersaries are forced to say that the wordes are not spoken of the Sacrament of Baptisme but only of regeneration caused by the holy Ghost whose property is to wash the soule as the water doth wash the body And yet against this phantasticall exposition we are able to produce the fathers who do literally vnderstand the former words as spoken of the Sacrament of Baptisme which exposition of theirs granted as true doth necessarily force the Catholike Doctrine therin See Cyrill Austin Chrysostome and Origen all interpreting this place as also Ambrose (l) l. 3. de spirit saÌ„ct c. 11. Cyprian (m) l. 3. ad Quirinum Ierome (n) In c. 16. Ezech. and the rest 12. In proofe of Freewill mong other places we alledge those words of God spoken to Cain Nonne (o) Genes 4. si bene egeris recipies c. If thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted and if thou dost not well sinne lyeth at thy doore Sub te erit appetitus eius tu dominaberis illius that is And vnto thee it desire vz. of sinne shal be subiect and thou shalt rule ouer it vz. ouer sinne 13. Now our Aduersaries in answere hereto do say that the words Sub te erit appetitus eius tu dominaberis illius ought to haue reference to Abel meaning hereby that Abel should be subiect to Cain and that as being the elder he should rule ouer Abel Which construction being most forced indirect is generally impugned by the Fathers who in the exposition of the former words do in both places vnderstand sinne and not Abel Thus we find that S. Austin (p) l. 15. de Ciuit. Dei c. 7. saith of this place as interpreting it Quiesce ad te enim conuersio eius tu dominaberis illius numquid fratris absit cuius igitur nisi peccati that this Content thy selfe Cain for it shall turne it selfe to thee and thou shalt rule ouer it ouer what ouer thy brother God forbid ouer what then but ouer sinne S. Ierome in like sort wryteth thus (q) Inquaestion Hebraicis Quia liberi arbitrij es moneâ— vt non tibi peccatum sed tu peccato domineris alluding to the words in Genes Because thou art of freewill I do counsell thee that sinne may not rule ouer thee but thou ouer sin See also Ambrose (r) lib. 2. de Cain c. 7. Gregory (s) lib. 4. moral cap. 22. and Prosper (t) l. 2. de vocat geÌ„â—ium c. 13. expounding those former words of sinne and not of Abel all which fathers do euen deriue the Doctrine of frewil from their foresaid exposition therof 14. For maintenance of Iustification by workes for we allow that saying of the Historiographer Fayth that is seene is better then faith that is heard we do vrge that place of Iames (u) cap. 2. aboue touched Do you see because of workes a man is iustified and not of faythonly which text is so plaine direct for Iustification by workes as that S. Austin (x) lib. de side operibus c. 14. is not afraid to say that the very scope and drift of this Epistle of S. Iames as also that of Peter Iohn and Iude was chiefly to represse the heresy then begun about Iustification by fayth only so great an impugner was this auncient Father of our Aduersaries sole and melancholy fayth for so I