A TREATISE OF THE IVDGE OF CONTROVERSIES WRITTEN In Latin by the R. Father Martinus Becanus of the Society of Iesus Professour in Diuinity AND Englished by W. W. Gent. IHS Permissu Superiorum M. DC XIX THE PRINTER TO THE READER GENTLE Reader hauing perused this short Treatise trāslated into English and sent vnto me by a friend I was straight moued with earnest desire to set the same forth in Print hoping that many wold reape great benefit by reading it come to be resolued in the may nest of the Controuersyes that now disturbe the Christiā world yea such a Cōtrouersy as the knowledge therof is the beginning of al Truth contrarywise Errour therein the fountaine of all Contentions For if both sides Protestants as well as Catholikes would admit some visible Iudge liuing on earth endued with full authority to decide their controuersyes about the sense of holy scripture by sentence infallible not obnoxious vnto deceit Contentions might be soone ended and an vniuersall peace throughout Christendome for in matters of Religion established Now the contrary currant perswasion That Scripturs are cleare and perspicuous in all points of Controuersy and their true sense apparent obuious to euery simple man that shall attentiuely peruse the Text hath opened a wide gap for all Heresyes to enter into Christendome rending in peeees the Peace Vnity therof and depriuing the same of all meanes by which Cōtentions may be brought to some finall end For men being once perswaded that they see the Truth in all points of Religion controuerted no lesie cleerly shining in the Holy Scriptures then the Sunne doth at noone day they must needs condemne as erring wanting the light of Gods spirit all others that shal vnderstand the Scriptures otherwise then they do And this so peremptorily as they will contemne the sentence of any Pastour or Pastours that shal sit in iudgment vpon the Cōtrouersy This presumption of light to vnderstād the Scriptures aboue their Elders so much proclaymed in Protestāts pulpits makes our Aduersaryes disagree implacably and without hope of reconcilement not only frō vs but also betweene themselues Yea as a Protestāt of great name well acquainted Hook Eccles folis pag. 119. with the proceedings of their Churches complaines this conceit hath made thousands so headstrong euen in grosse palpable errors that a man whose capacity will scarse serue him to vtter fiue words in sensible manner blusheth not in any doubt concerning matter of Scripture to thinke his own bare Yea as good as the Nay of all the wise graue and learned iudgmēts that are in the whol world which Insolency must be repressed or it will be the bane of Christian Religion Thus he This insolent doctrine is in this Treatise solidely briefly perspicuously confuted and the necessity of a liuing Iudge assisted by Gods special prouidēce infailibly to decide the Controuersyes of Religion is so cleerly demonstrated that I conceaue great hope that many by the perusal therof will cast off the foresayd proud Hereticall perswasion which themselues are forced to confesse to be the bane of Christianity I pray God this my wish may take effect and thou that art a Christian reape as much comfort by the reading thereof as I wish vnto thee OF THE IVDGE OF CONTROVERSIES HEERE We treat of the Iudge of Controuersies in matters concerning Faith Religion about which we Catholikes and our Aduersaries do differ Our Aduersaries for the most part do hould that Scripture alone is the Rule and Iudge of all Controuersies in matters of faith and religion And that out of it alone all controuersies Whatsoeuer may be decided and ended without any other Traditions or authority of the Church This they proue three wayes First because God in the old Testament did send the Iewes to Scripture only as vnto their Iudge for we reade Isa 8. 20 in the Prophet Isaias To the law and testimony The same also doth Christ in the Ioan. 5. 39. new when he sayth Search the Scriptures And the men of Beroea followed this counsell of Christ of whom it is written that they were daily searching the Act. 17. 11. Scriptures if these things were so Secondly because God in the ould Testament hath commanded that nothing should be added to the Scripture Deut. 4. 2. you shall not ad to the word sayth he that I speake to you And againe VVhat I commaund Deut 12. 32. thee that only do to our Lord neither adde any thing nor diminish Likewise Christ him selfe and his Apostles in the new Law do condemne all Traditions will haue vs to be satisfied with Scripture only as in S. Matthew You haue Mat. 15. 6. made frustrate the commandement of God for your Tradition And againe I persecuted the Galat. 1. 13. Church of God sayth S. Paul being more aboundantly an emulatour of the traditions of my sore-fathers And also Beware least any Colloss 2. 8. man seduce you by Philosophy and vaine fallacy according to the tradition of men Thirdly because S. Paul plainly doth confesse that only Scripture by it selfe is sufficient when he saith All 2. Tim. 3. 16. scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach to argue to conuert to instruct in iustice that the man of God may be perfect instructed to euery good worke And the same Apostle accurseth them who thinke that any thing ought to be added to the Scripture If any sayth he Euangelize to you besides that which you haue receiued be he anathema The same also S. Iohn doth witnesse I testify sayth he to euery one hearing the words of the Prophesy of this booke if any man shall ad to these things God shall ad vpon him the plagues written in this booke So far our Aduersaries But Catholikes make a distinction betwixt the Iudge and the Rule They call that the Iudge which giueth sentence betwixt them that contend And that the Rule according to the which sentence is giuen by the Iudge They supposing this distinction teach three things First that the Church is the Iudge of Controuersies Secondly that the Rule which the Church doth follow in giuing of sentence ought not to be the Scripture only but scripture and tradition togeather Thirdly that the Church according to this rule may pronounce sentence two wayes eyther by the Pope who is Head and Pastour of the Church or els by generall Councells approued by him the which do represent the Church By both which meanes the sentence cannot but be infallible For neyther is it possible that the Pope should erre in faith to whom it is sayd in the person of S. Peter I haue praied for thee that thy faith may not saile Neyther the Councells lawfully assembled by reason of the promise of Christ Behould I am with you alwayes euen to the consummation of the world Now to the end I may the better confirme this opinion and conuince the other I purpose to vse six arguments by
the sense thereof is obscure and doubtfull which falleth out often as I haue shewed aboue cannot so plainly pronounce sentence that it may be vnderstood of both parties at variance For if it should clearly pronoūce sentence in any such case the sense of the Scripture should not be obscure but plaine and manifest which is contrary to our supposition Therefore in such a case the Scripture cannot be iudge Perchance you will say that although the sense of the Scripture in one place be obscure yet notwithstanding in some other place it is very playne and therefore the Scripture by that place which is cleare may pronounce sentence of that place which is obscure I answere The heretikes harpe on this string but in vaine For first if it be so wherefore by that meanes do they not end all controuersies betwene them wherefore I say do not the Lutherans and the Caluinists seing they so long contend about some obscure place run presently to another which is plaine or if they do so why make they not an end of all their strife Here they are at a non-plus and know not what to say Furthermore that the words of the Scripture are playne is one thing but that the sense is plaine is another For the plainesse of the words dependeth vpon the knowledg of grammer but the sense vpon the intention and counsell of the holy Ghost And doubtlesse oftentymes it may happen that one may be perfect in the knowledg of his grammer and yet very ignorant of the meaning of the holy Ghost So that it may fall out very well that the words of the Scripture may be plaine yet the sense of the words as they be intēded of the holy Ghost may be obscure To shew this to the eye I will declare it with this example The words of Christ in the scripture be these This is my body This is my bloud Which words if they be taken according to their proper signification are so manifest and plaine that they may be well vnderstood of all men whether they be Christians Iewes Turkes or Ethnicks But about the sense of them intended by the holy Ghost almost infinite controuersies are amongst Christians The like is to be found in those words of S. Iohn Mary Magdalen cōmeth earely to the monument when it was yet darke And in those of S. Mark She came to the monument the sunne being risen Then the which wordes nothing could be spoken more plainly yet because the first do seeme to be contrary to the second it may be doubted and that with great reason what the proper sense of them is and how they may agree one with another Moreouer I say that oftentymes it happeneth that the one party thinketh that place cleare and manifest which the other houldeth to be obscure and intricate Now then what is to be done in such a case or what iudge is to be admitted doubtlesse the scripture cannot be the iudge seing the controuersy is about the sense of it when some thinke it plaine others obscure and of some it is construed in this sense of others in another What counsell shall we take therefore must not then another iudge be sought out For example There is contention betwixt vs and the Caluinists as concerning the true descending of Christ into hell which they deny we mantaine and do for our beleife bring a double testimony The one is out of the Creed He descended into hell the other out of the acts Thou wilt not leaue my soule in hell We say that both of these be cleare and euident The Caluinists deny both and with their obscure interpretation they make both places most obscure For they interpret the first in this sense He descended into hell that is say they he suffered vpon the Crosse most cruell and horrible torments of a damned forlorne man that pressed with anguish he was forced to cry out My God why hast thou forsaken me So Caluin But Cal. lib. 2. inst c. 16. §. 10. 11. catechism◠Hidelberg◠quaest 44. they take the latter in this sense Thou shalt not leaue my Carcase in the graue What is to be done here To what iudge shal we appeale If we aske counsell of the Scripture it will say the same that it sayd before It will not ad so much as any one iote to that set downe Now of that which is sayd before is the controuersy which can neuer be ended by that which is sayd before If then after the Controuersie begun the Scripture say no new thing at all but remaine still in the same ancient tearmes truly by it the contention cannot be decided but of necessity we must eyther go to some other Iudge or one of the parties contending must yield voluntarily or els they are forced still to continue in their endlesse strife and contention The other argument is this There are many testimonies of the Scripture which can by no meanes be interpreted according to the true sense but by the authority and tradition of the Church Therefore if a Controuersy should arise about these testimonies the Scripture only cannot be iudge but we ought to fly to the tradition authority of the Church as for exāple Christ sayth Teach ye all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost The true and lawfull sense is that in baptisme we are to pronounce these wordes I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost And that baptisme without such a verball and expresse pronuntiation of those words is no true baptisme We and our aduersaries agree in this But if one should deny this to be the sense and should say that these words were not needfull In the name of the Father and the Sonne and the holy Ghost but that an inward will and intention of baptizing him in the name of the holy Trinity were sufficient how should he be confuted only out of the words of the Scripture Nothing lesse seing the wordes be these baptizing them in the name of the Father c. where there is not any vocall inuocation of the blessed Trinity insinuated to be of necessity From whence haue we then that it ought to be verily from the practise and tradition of the Church If thou dost reiect this thou shalt not haue helpe against the aduersary who shall deny the pronouncing of these words to be necessary Another example is this Christ sayth Vnlesse a man be borne againe of water and spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God This place according to the true and lawfull sense is vnderstood of the necessity of baptisme with water as the Lutheranes themselues do confesse yet the Caluinists notwithstanding deny it How therefore can they be confuted of the Lutherans Truly not out of the Word alleadged For although water be named there yet it is not so expresly named as though it ought to be vnderstood of true and
a Sacrament Luther indeed doth thus define it A Sacrament is a promise annexed to an externall signe Melancthon thus A Sacrament is a rite which hath the commandment of God to which is adioyned a promise of grace that is to say of free reconciliation or remission of sinnes as he explicateth himselfe Caluin in this manner A Sacrament is an outward signe by the which Calu. l. 4. Instit cap. 14. §. â— our Lord doth seale to our consciences the promise of his good will to vnderprop the weaknes of our fayth But verily none of all these definitions are in the Scripture Nay one of them doth not agree with another For Luther in his definition sayth that the promise is of the essence of a Sacrament Melancthon houldeth that it is annexed to the Sacrament But Caluin insinuateth in his that the promise is not annexed to the Sacrament but rather that the Sacrament is annexed and added to the promise and not that the promise is of the effect of Gods good will towards vs. Therefore according to Melancthon thus the promise were to be expressed if any shall receaue the sacrameÌ„t of Baptisme or of the Eucharist Him I promise the remission of his sinnes But according to Caluin in this maÌ„ner God hath promised to you remission of sins and life euerlasting and this promise he declares and seales by the Sacraments Thirdly whatsoeuer is to be thought of these definitions which our Aduersaryes haue newly inuented how will they shew out of the Scripture that they agree to Baptisme and the Eucharist I for my part see not But let vs try One definition is this A Sacrament is a rite which hath a Commandment of God to which is annexed a promise of remission of sins Let our aduersaryes proue out of scripture that this definition is agreeable to the Eucharist Let them proue I say this out of Scripture that the Eucharist hath a promise of remission of sinns annexed vnto it Or that which is all one That God in the Scripture doth promise vs remission of our sinns if we receaue this Sacrament They can neuer proue it For this Sacrament is not ordayned of God to remit a man his sinnes or to make of a wicked man or a sinner a iust holy man but rather it is instituted to the end that it may nourish confirme and increase that iustice grace and sanctity which was in him before he receaued this Sacrament Nay rather it is so farre off from remitting of sinnes as it is pernicious to a sinner if he come to it knowing himselfe guilty of deadly sinne Hence it is of the Apostle to the Corinthians But let a man proue himselfe and so let him eat of that bread and drinke of that chalice for he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth drinketh iudgment to himselfe And Christ in his last supper would not giue the Eucharist to his Apostles before he had washed their feet to the end that he might giue vs to vnderstand that none vnles they be washed pure and free from all mortall sinne are to be admitted to the holy table of our Lord. And the reason is plaine out of the nature of this Sacrament For what is the Eucharist but a kind of spirituall meate and drinke by the which our soule is refreshed and made strong For my flesh sayth Christ is truly meate and my bloud is truly drinke And therefore as corporall meate and drinke doth not profit the body vnles it be aliue euen so neither the Eucharist doth helpe the soule vnles it be voyd of sin which is the death of the soule The third Controuersy is whether exorcismes and other ceremonyes vsed in the Catholike Church may be admitted in Baptisme That Lutherans admit them the Caluinists reiect theÌ„ Yet neither of them both can confirme their opinion out Scripture Not the Lutherans because the Scripture in no place maketh mention that such ceremonyes ought to be vsed but only we receaue them from the tradition of the Church Of the which thus S. Augustine writeth By the most ancient tradition of the Church sayth he children are exercised Aug l. 2. de nupt concup cap. 29. and breathed vpon that they may be translated to the kingdome of Christ from the power of darknes Not the Caluinists without it be in this manner No ceremonyes are to be vsed in the Church but those of the which there is expresse command in the Scripture But there is no command of the ceremonyes which the Catholikes vse in Baptisme Therfore such Ceremonyes are not to be vsed But the Mâ—ior is both false and contrary to the Caluinists themselues For the Caluinists do vse many ceremonies in Baptisme of the which there is no command in the whole Suripture such are these 1. That the infant must be baptized before al the people and that it should be on a Sunday or some other day when the people is wont to come togeather 2. That they who bring the infant to be baptized should be asked whether they will promise to instruct the child in fayth and manners after he shall grow to perfect age 3. That a name should be imposed vpon the infant who is baptized 4. That the forme of Baptisme should be pronounced in their country language 5. That the Creed our Lords prayer others also should be recyted Which ceremonyes Caluin prescribeth in a litle booke treating of the forme of ministring the Sacraments But where I pray you is commanded in Scripture Baptisme ought to be ministred Certainly in no place Hence therfore followeth that either they must reiect all those their ceremonyes or els graunt that all those which we vse are not therefore to be condemned because they are not expresly commanded in Scripture The fourth Controuersy Whether those who are baptized of heretikes are to be baptized againe S. Crprian in tymes past who was Bishop of Carthage did affirme it with some others But S. Augustine did deny it and followed that doctrine which was more true the which he did defend by no other meanes then by the Apostolicall tradition practise of the Church For so he writes against the Donatists VVhich custome sayth he to wit that baptisme may not be iterated I beleeue to haue proceeded Aug. l. 2. cont Donat c. 7. out of the Apostolicall tradition And againe That custome which was opposed against Cyprian is to be beleeued to haue receiued it beginning from the Apostolicall tradition to the which Cyprian did not yeald because it seemed to him vtterly destitute of any authority from the Scripture There are many other such like controuersies which cannot be decided out of Scripture alone but they must of necessity haue some other Iudge which heer I will briefly poynt to 1. Whether Baptisme may be giuen by one dipping 2. Whether Christians may worship Sunday in place of the Sabboath 3. Whether our Lady remained a Virgin after her Childbirth 4. Whether S. Peter the Apostle was Bishop
naturall water For in another place it is called fier as in S. Luke He shall baptize Lue. 3. v. 1â— you in spirit and fier and yet it is not vnderstood of true fire Therefore how can it appeare that in the former place true water is to be vnderstood or how will the Lutherans proue it against the Caluinists Not by any other meanes then by the practise order and tradition of the Church Another Christ in his last supper did not only institute the blessed Sacrament but also he adioyned the washing of feete and in the institution of the blessed Sacrament he sayd Eate and drinke but in the washing of eete and you ought one to wash the feete of another Here the Aduersaries say that in the first words there is a precept but not in the last And so the faythfull by Gods commaundment are obliged to receaue the blessed Sacrament in both kindes but not so to the washing of feete Now I aske how they are certaine of this or by what pretence do they thinke themselues bound to the receauing of both kyndes and yet free from the washing of feet Certainly they cannot pretend the words of Scripture For they seeme rather to shew the contrary For these words Eate and drinke seeme to signify no more of themselues then if a hous-keeper should say to his guests eate and drinke and be merry And if the hous-keeper should say so it would not be thought that be meant thereby to bynd them by a precept Therefore seing Christ spake in the same manner how is it certaine that he intended by that manner of speaking to oblige all the faythfull to the receauing of both kinds But these wordes You ought to wash the feete of one another seeme to signify a precept no lesse then if the maister should say to the seruant Thou must couer the table How therefore know they that by these words they are not obliged to wash the feete of one another seing the words themselues do shew plainly an obligation Only by the practise and Tradition of the Church For the Church neuer hath vsed this washing as necessary which notwithstanding she would haue done if shee had thought that she had beene obliged to it and that by Christs commaundment I omit many like examples which are easy to be found And out of these I conclude thus The Scripture may be considered two waies 1. According to the bare and outward letter 2. According to the inward sense which is intended of the holy Ghost But neyther of these two waies can it be iudge of Controuersies Not the former way as we haue proued in the first part of this second argument Neither as it is taken in the second way because the sense of the Scripture often tymes is so obscure and doubtfull that there is need of some other iudge who may define this to be the true meaning which is intended of the holy Ghost and not any other contrary And this is sufficient about the second Argument drawne from the Scripture THE III. ARGVMENT Which is drawne out of the Controuersies them selues THIS argument thus I propound There are many Controuersyes about fayth and Religion of the which in the Scripture there is no mention made at all or at least not so much as is sufficient so that the Scripture may giue sentence of them therefore in deciding of them some other iudge is to be sought Such Controuersyes be these The first whether the Bookes of Toby Iudith VVisedome Ecclesiasticus the Machabees be Canonicall land diuine The Lutherans and the Caluinists say no. But the Catholikes say the contrary Now who must be iudge to decide this contention The Scripture cannot be Neither the Lutherans nor the Caluinists which is well to be noted do appeale to the Scripture but to the Canon and tradition of the Iewes They say therefore that those Bookes cannot be found in the Canon of the Iewes which is extant in S. Hierome and therefore they are not to be accouÌ„ted Canonicall and Diuine Hence they confesse that in this case there ought to be some other iudge besides the Scripture And who is that The tradition of the Iewes say they But is not this strang to see our Aduersaries make more reckoning of Iewes then of Christians For although they be desirous to be accounted Christians they are deadly enemyes to the traditions of Christ and his Apostles and yet notwithstanding make great accompt of the Iewes traditions Wherefore say they not rather with S. Augustine Not August l. â—8 de ciuit Dei c. 36. the Iewes but the Church holdeth the Bookes of the Machabees for Canonicall or with Isidorus The Iewes do not receaue the bookes of Toby Iudith and the Machabees but the Church doth number them among the Canonicall Scriptures Ifidor in l. Proâ—m de lib. vet noâ— Test And in the same place The Booke of VVisedome and Ecclesiasticus are knowne to haue the like authority that other Canonicall Bookes haue The second is how many Sacraments there be of the new Law Our aduersaries say but two Baptisme and the Lords supper The Catholiks beleeue seauen But what sayth the Scripture Nothing as concerning any certaine number and therefore it cannot be the Iudge in this Controuersy From whence therefore receaue the Catholikes the number of seauen if not out of Scripture From the tradition and consent of the Church From whence the aduersaryes the nuÌ„ber of 2. Let them looke from whence Truly they haue it not from the Scripture but if they thinke they haue let them performe these three things First let them shew out of Scripture that the name of a Sacrament is attributed to Baptisme and to the Eucharist and not as well to Confirmation Order Pennance Matrimony and Extreme Vnction Secondly out of Scripture let them define a Sacrament Thirdly let them shew that the definition agreeth fitly with Baptisme and the Eucharist and not as well to the rest If they can do this they do something but that they neither wil nor euer can do this I am most certaine For first where will they find in Scripture that the name of a SacrameÌ„t is attributed to Baptisme and the Eucharist Truly in no place But I will find where it is applyed to Matrimony For so writeth the Apostle For this cause shall man leaue his Father and Mother Eph. 5. 31. shall cleaue to his wife and they shall be two in one flesh This is a great Sacrament But I speak in Christ in the Church As though he had sayd That a man shall leaue his parents and cleaue to his wife This is a great Sacrament because it is a signe of the vnioÌ„ of Christ with his Church that is the mariage of Christ and his Church Secondly where will they find Luth. in l. de captiu Bab â— vlt Melan. in ep Conf. August art 13. Mel. in locis ommunâ—â—us tit dâ— numero Sacramentorum in the Scripture the definition of
testimony And if they speake not according to this word they shall not haue the morning light Where it is plainly spoken against them who aske counsell of the Pythones and Deuiners about future euents and are remitted plainly to the law which forbiddeth it VVhen thou art entred the land which our Deut. 1â— â— Lord thy God shall giue then beware thou be not willing to imitate the abhominations of those nations Neither let there be sound in thee any that consulteth with Pythoâ—s or Deuiners and seeketh the truth of the dead partly to the testimony of the Prophets who where placed of God to foretell future things as in the third of Kings we may see And Iosaphat said is their not heer some Prophet Râ—g â— â—ap 22. v. 7. of our Lord that we may aske by him Therefore the sense of the words to the law and testimony is this If you will be certified of future euents yow ought not to aske Counsell of the Pythons as 1 Reg. 28. 7. Saul did because God hath forbidden this to be done by his law vnto the which I remit you but aske Counsell of the Prophets of our Lord whose office is to pronounce of future euents But what is this to the iudge of the Controuersies Verily nothing at aâ—l Vnlesse our aduersaries will argue in this manner As concerning future euents it is not lawfull to aske Counsell of the Pythones therefore only the Scripture is the iudge of Controuersies Truly most foolishly and yet which is to be admired their very cheife Rabbins of all are not ashamed to vse such manner of arguing of whom Christ himselfe hath forewarned vs sayiâ—g Let such followes alone for they are blind themselues and leaders of them that are blind THE III. TESTIMONY YOV haue made frustrate the commaundment Math. 15. â— Colos 2. â— 1. â—et 1. 18. of God for your owne tradition And the other place in S. Paul Beware least any man deceaue you by Philosophy and vaine fallacy according to the tradition of men And that in S. Peter You are redeemed from your vaine conuersation of your Fathers tradition From hence our aduersaries gather that all traditions are condemned of Christ and his Apostles and that Scripture alone is sufficient But it is not so For these cited places are vnderstood of the Iewes traditions which were obserued of the Pharisies but not of the traditions of Christ and his Apostles which our aduersaries oppugne and we defend But that there were diuers traditions of the Iewes appeareth out of the Scripture The first was that their hands were to be washed before taking of meat as in this place Then came to him from Hierusalem Math 15. Scribes and Pharisees saying why do thy disciples transgresse the traditions of the ancients For they wash not their hands when they eate bread The second is that this washing was often to be vsed whylst they were eating as in S. Mark The Pharisees and all the Iewes vnlesse they often wash their hands Mark 7. 3. eate not holding the traditions of the ancients Also at the marriage in Cana in Galilee six water pots were put according to the purification of the Iewes In the which water potts there was water wherewith they washed their hands at dinner The third was that vnlesse they ware washed they could not take meat coming from the market as S. Marck recordeth And from the market vnlesse they Mar. 7. 4. bee washed they eate not and many other things there be that were deliuered vnto them to obserue as the washing of Cupps and Cruses and of brazen vessells and Bedds The fourth is that meate was not to be taken with sinners as is written in S. Matth And the Pharisies seing this sayd Math. 9. 11. to his Disciples why doth your maister eate with Publicanes and sinners And in S. Luke Luk. 5. 30. The Pharisies and Scribes murmured saying to his Disciples why do you eate and drinke with Publicanes and sinners The fifth was that none should be permitted to be touched of sinners as S. Luke recordeth And the Pharisee that Luk. 7. 39. had bid him seing it spake within himselfe saying this man if were a Prophet would know certes who and what manner of woman she is which toucheth him that she is a sinner Where it manifestly appeareth that the Pharisee wondred that Christ should suffer himselfe to be touched of a woman that was a sinner because it was contrary to the custome and tradition of the Pharisees whose speach was this Depart from me thou shalt not came neere me because Isa 65. 5. thou art vncleane The sixt was that vpon the Sabaoth it was not lawfull to cure the sicke as S. Luke sayth The Scribes and Pharisees Luk. 6. 7. watched if he would cure on the Sabâ—th that they might find how to accuse him And likewise S. Iohn writeth that certaine of the Pharisees Iohn 9. 16. sayd This man is not of God that keepeth not the Saboath Where they spake of Christ who on the Saboath restored sight to a man that was blind from his natiuity The seauenth was that those who were hungry might not gather and eate eares of Corne on the Saboath as it is sayd in S. Matth. Iesus went through Math. 12. 1. the Corne on the Saboath and his disciples being hungry began to pluck the eares and eate And the Pharisies seing them said to him Lo thy Disciples do that which is not lawfull for them to do on the Saboath day The eight was that they should fast and pray often as is recorded in S. Math. VVhy do we and the Pharisees fast often Math. 9. 15. but thy Disciples do not fast And in S. Luke VVhy do the Disciples of Iohn fast often and make Luk 5. 35. obseruations but thine do eate and drinke The ninth was that the tythes of all things euen of the very least should be offered to God as we reade in S. Math. that Christ sayd VVo to you Scribes Math. 23. â—â— and Pharisees Hipocrits because you tith mint and anise and cummin and haue left the weightier things of the law iudgment and mercy and fayth these things you ought to haue done and not omitted those Heere to tyth is taken for to giue tythes and this is the true sense You Pharisees giue tythes of all thinges whatsoeuer euen of the very least of all which you do not as by a precept in the law of Moyses but by your one tradition which is not written and in the meane tyme you omit those things which are commaunded in the law these things you should do and not omit the other Where it is to be noted that there was no precept in the law of Moyses about giuing of tythes of the least things of which mention is here made but only of the tythes of wyne wheat and oyle Notwithstanding Deut. 14. 2â— the Pharisees in this had a peculiar custome and
tradition beyond others of the Iewes because they gaue the tythes of all kynde of hearbes which Luk. 11. 42. others did not For the which cause one of the Pharisees did boast saying I Luk. 18. 11. am not as the rest of men c. I fast twice a weeke and I giue tythes of all that I possesse The tenth was that whosoeuer Vide IaÌ„sen in concord Euan. cap. 84. should sweare by the Temple or by the Altar he was not guilty of any fault But he that should sweare by gould of the temple or sacrifices which were made on the Altar was guilty as in S. Matth is written VVo to you blind guides that say whosoeuer shall sweare by the Math. â—â— 16. Temple it is nothing but he that shall sweare by the gould of the temple is bound Ye foolish and blinde for whether is greater the gould or the temple which sanctifieth the gould And whosoeuer shall sweare by the Altar it is nothing but whosoeuer shall sweare by the guift that is vpon it is bound You foolish and blinde for whether is greater the guift or the Altar that sanctifieth the guift The eleuenth was that Children were not bound to honour their parents or to be beneficial vnto them but that it would suffice aboundantly to offer some guift vnto God as we read in S. Mathew VVhy do you transgresse the commandement of God for your tradition For God sayd honour Father and Mother he that shall curse Father or Mother dying let him dy But you say whosoeuer shall say to the Father or Mother the guift whatsoeuer proceedeth from me shall profit thee and shall not honour his Father or his Mother and you haue made frustrate the Commandement of God for your owne tradition These were the cheife traditions of the Pharisees For as much as we can gather out of the Ghospell And although some of them were good in their kynd others ill certaine doubfull or vnprofitable Yet notwithstanding the Pharisees were reprehended in them all for these cheife causes First because they by the obseruation of then sought vaine glory and to be esteemed holy amongst men when they were nothing lesse then holy and godly as S. Matth. speaketh of them Math. 23. 5 But they do all their workes for to be seene of of men And very often yea and almost euery where in the Ghospell they are called Hypocrites and whited Scpulchers Secondly because out of the obseruing of them they gaped after wealth and riches especially out of long praiers which they recited to that end as is sayd of Christ in S. Matth. Math. 23. 14. VVo to yow Scribes and Pharisees Hipocrits because yow deuour widdowes howses praying long prayers And likewise in S. Marke Take heede of the Scribes who denoure widdowes howses vnder the pretence of long prayer Where to eate and deuour widowes howses is nothing els but to spoyle and exhaust them For the Widowes came to the Pharisees euen as vnto holy men for they fayned sanctity and bought their prayers with money Thirdly because they superstitiously did obserue some things which were to little purpose and did neglect those which were of greater moment as we shewed a little before For they gaue tythes of those things which were least of all and did neglect mercy and iudgment in iudging of those causes which were brought vnto them And that of S. Matth. may be taken in this sense They straine a gnat and swallow a Camell Now out of these it appeareth that all the traditions of the Iewes were not reprehended by Christ although the Pharisees were blamed deseruedly because they made all vse of them For one of their traditions was to tythe mint rue and euery hearbe Which doubtlesse was good of it selfe for it is very good to giue tythes to God not only of some things which we haue but of all things wee possesse And this is confirmed by Christ himselfe who sayth these things yow ought to haue done and not to haue ommitted those that is yow ought to haue kept the precept of iustice and mercy and not omit the tradition of tything mint and all kynd of hearbes From whence it directly followeth that the Lutherans and the Caluinists seing they condemne all Traditions do condemne the very iudgment of Christ who approued some of them For in the iudgement of Christ there be some traditions which are not to be omitted But in their opinion all are to be reiected and the Scripture only to be admited These two opinions are contrary one to the other But which of them must we imbrace Christs doubtlesse if we be wise Out of which I infer againe that the Lutherans and the Caluinists can conclud out of this no otherwise then this Some traditions of the Iewes were euill therefore all the traditions of the Christians are euill Which is no consequence at all But this is much better The Iewes had some traditions besides the Scripture which ought not be omitted therefore also the Christians may haue some although there be great difference betwixt them both For the traditions of the Christians which we now defend were receaued from Christ and his Apostles but so were not these of the Iewes THE IIII. TESTIMONY SEARCH the Scriptures Lo say our aduersaries Christ remitteth Ioan. â— â—â— vs to the Scripture euen as to the iudge of Controuersies This truly they would not say if they vnderstood the meanning of Christ for Christ in that Chapter disputeth with the Iewes who denied him to be the Sonne of God and therefore he proued by foure kynd of testimonies that he was First by the testimony of S. Iohn Baptist You haue sayth he sent to Iohn and he gaue testimony to the truth But this was his testimony Behould the Lambe of God behould Iohn 1. 34. who taketh away the sinnes of the world And againe I haue giuen testimony that this is the Sonne of God Secondly by the testimony of those Miracles which he wrought I haue sayth he testimony greater then Iohns For the Ioan. 3. 36. workes which my Father hath giuen me to persit them the very workes themselues which I do giue testimony of me that the Father hath sent me Thirdly by the testimony of God the Father And the Father that sent me himselfe Ioan. 5 â—7 hath giuen testimony of me As also when he spake out of heauen This is my welbeloued Math 3. 17. sonne in whom I am well pleased heare him Fourthly by the testimony of the old testament Search the Scripturs for you thinke in them to haue life euerlasting and the same are they that giue testimony of me and you will not come to me that you may haue life As yf he should say If you will not receaue the three former testimonies which are most forcible otherwise I would not haue made mention of them at least you cannot reiect the testimonies of Scriptures of the which you brag so much And those if you
search diligently giue testimony of me that I am the true Messias promised of God Wherefore then do ye not beleeue Heere hence I conclude that our aduersaries oppugne themselues more then vs. For they contend that Scripture only is the iudge of Controuersies and that Christ remitteth vs to the Scripture alone But the quite contrary is true For Christ in the Controuersy which he had with the Iews to wit whether he were the Sonne of God sent them not only to the Scripture but first to the testimony of S. Iohn Baptist Secondly to the testimony of Miracles which shew him to be God Thirdly to the testimony of God the Father who confirmed the same with a voice from heauen And after al these at least he sends them to the Scriptures We Catholikes do follow Christ in this matter For in these controuersies which we haue with our aduersaries not only we vse the testimony of Scripture but also that of the holy Fathers that of the Church our Mother and likewise that of Miracles which oftentymes are wrought for the confirmation of our fayth But our aduersaries as though they were wiser then Christ will heare nothing but that which is conteyned in the Scripture In the which they resemble not a lâ—tâ—le those Iewes with whom Christ had to do For these reiecting all other testimonies did only admit the scripture the which they neyther then vnderstood nor do yet if we may beleeue S. Paul for their senses are dulled 1. Cor. 3. 1â— sayth he a little after vntill this present day when Moyses is read a veyle is put vpon their hart All this in this case may be not vnsittly applied to these our moderne aduersaries as to faythfull schollars and iust cosen-Germans to those most ignorant blind obstinate Iewes THE V. TESTIMONY DAILY searching the Scriptures if thâ—se Acts. 1â— â—â— thinges were so But heere againe our aduersaries cry out that the men of Beroea did not hastily and rashly beleeue those things with the Apostles tould them but examined all things according to the rule of the Scripture and therefore say they it is also fitting that we should follow their example and acknowledg the Scripture only to be the rule iudge But al this is in vaine which will easily be seene if we consider the matter it selfe whereof they spake For thus it was S. Paul the Apostle as it is expressely shewed in the same Chapter first at Thessalonica and after with them of Beroea did discourse out of the Scriptures declaring and insinuating that it behoued Christ to suffer and to rise againe from the dead and that this is Iesus Christ whom I preach to you But now what did those of Beroea in the selfe same place it followeth they receaued the word with all greedinesse daily searching the Scriptures if these things were so This therefore is the true sense of that place The men of Beroea when they heard S. Paul cite certaine testimonies of the Scripture in the old Testament by the which he affirmed Christs death and resuriection they searched whether the doctrine of S. Paul were agreeable to those testimonies Not truly as though they doubted of the death and resurrection of Christ for it was sufficiently confirmed by the force of many Miracles wrought by 1 Thes 1 5. the Apostle But that they might be more stedfastly confirmed in faith if they should see those things which S. Paul had preached to haue beene tould and signified long before by the Prophets Now what thinke you can our aduersaries conclude by this Nothing doubtlesse to the purpose Vnlesse peraduenture they conclude in this manner The men of Beroea searched the testimonyes of the Scripture cited of S. Paul therefore the Scripture only is the iudge of controuersies which is euen like vnto this the Lutherans search out the testimonies of S. August cited by Bellar. therefore S. Aug. only is the iudge of controuersies Or thus The Clownes search out the testimonies of Luther cited by the ministers therfore Luther only is the iudge of all Controuersies Or thus Kemnitius in the examen of the Councell of Trent searcheth out the traditions alleadged of Catholiks therefore traditions are the only iudge of Controuersies Or Lastly Schollars search out the testimonies of Cicero cited of their maister therefore Cicero only is the author of the Latin tongue Away with such consequences which are not all worth a rush And yet our aduersaries make great accompt of them because they haue no better THE VI. TESTIMONY IT any euangelize to you besids that which you Galat. 19. haue receaued be he anathema Therefore say our aduersaries besids the Ghospell we must not admit any traditions but infer the quite contrary in this manner If any shall Euangelize to you any thing besides that which S. Paul hath Euangelized be he anathema But the Lutherans and the Caluinists do euangelize something besides that which S. Paul euangelized because they oppugne traditions which he hath commaunded when he sayd keepe 2. Thes 2. 14. the traditions therefore the Lutherans and the Caluinists are anathema But now let vs see the drift of the Apostle for thence it will appeare whether traditions are altogether to be condemned or no. Truly the drift of the Apostle is this The Galathians were taught of S. Paul that the ceremonies Gal. 2. 15. of the law of Moyses were abrogated that none could be iustified by those ceremonies but by fayth in Christ but afterward they were brought from this doctrine by certayne false Apostles who taught them that they could not be saued by fayth in Christ vnlesse they were also circumcised and obserued the other ceremonies of Moyses law as is manifest by the course of the whole Epistle but especially in these chapters 1. v. â— c. 3. v. 1. 4 v. 9. â— v. 1. cited in the margent And against these false Apostles doth S. Paul here dispute when he sayth If any euangelize to you besides that which you haue recaued be he anathema As though he had sayd You haue receiued of me that a man is iustified by faith in Christ and not by the obseruation of the law of Moyses If any do teach you otherwise affirming that faith in Christ doth profit nothing vnlesse circumcision and other legall ceremonies be adioyned be he anathema But from hence it doth not follow that the Apostolicall traditions are to be reiected but rather that they are to be retained because they are not contrary to that which S. Paul hath euangelized to the Galathians of iustification but rather they are the same which he hath euangelized to the Thessalonians when he sayd keep the traditions with you haue learned THE VII TESTIMONY ALL Scripture inspired of God is profitable 2. Tim. 3 16. to teach to argue to correct to instruct in iustice that the man of God may be perfect instructed to euery good worke Out of which place our aduersaries argue two