A treatise of the iudge of controuersies. Written in Latin, by the R. Father Martinus Becanus of the Society of Iesus, Professour in Diuinity. And Englished by W.W. Gent

The Scripture cannot be the Iudge of these, and the like Controuersies.

IT is certaine that in these and such like Controuersies which are about the sense of the Scripture, some certaine iudge is needfull, who may decide the same, and plainly pronounce that this is true, and not the other. But now I will proue with two arguments that the Scripture it selfe cannot be this iudge.

The first is drawne out of that which I sayd before in this manner: The Iudge so ought to pronounce sen∣tence that both parties at variance may well vnderstand it, otherwise he should pronounce it to no purpose; But the Scripture when the sense thereof is ob∣scure, 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 pro∣noūce sentence in any such case, the sense of the Scripture should not be obscure, but plaine and manifest, which is con∣trary

to our supposition. Therefore in such a case the Scripture cannot be iudge.

Perchance you will say, that al∣though 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 ob∣scure.

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 Lu∣therans 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 depen∣deth vpon the knowledg of grammer.

but the sense vpon the intention and counsell of the holy Ghost. And doub∣tlesse 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 in∣tēded 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 be∣cause

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 a∣gree 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 can∣not 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 o∣thers in another. What counsell shall we take therefore? must not then ano∣ther 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 in∣terpret the first in this sense: He descended into hell, that is (say they) he suffered vpon the Crosse most cruell and hor∣rible 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 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 contro∣uersy, 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 interpre∣ted 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 pro∣nounce 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 pronuntia∣tion 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 suffi∣cient;

how should he be confuted? only out of the words of the Scripture? No∣thing lesse, seing the wordes be these baptizing them in the name of the Father &c. where there is not any vo∣call 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 tradi∣tion of the Church? If thou dost reiect this, thou shalt not haue helpe against the aduersary, who shall deny the pro∣nouncing of these words to be ne∣cessary.

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 al∣though water be named there, yet it is not so expresly named, as though it ought to be vnderstood of true and na∣turall

water. For in another place it is called fier as in S. Luke: He shall bap∣tize 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 a∣gainst the Caluinists? Not by any o∣ther meanes, then by the practise, order, and tradition of the Church.

Another. Christ in his last supper did not only institute the blessed Sa∣crament, but also he adioyned the wa∣shing 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 com∣maundment 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 them∣selues 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 signi∣fy a precept no lesse, then if the mai∣ster 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 a∣nother, 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 com∣maundment.

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. Accor∣ding to the inward sense which is in∣tended 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 con∣trary. And this is sufficient about the second Argument drawne from the Scripture.

Notes

• Cal. lib. 2. inst. c. 16. §. 10. 11. &. catechism•• Hidelberg•• quaest. 44.
• Lue. 3. v. 1••.