This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at eebotcp-info@umich.edu for further information or permissions.
MANY argumēts might be produced from rea∣son, for the confirming of this verity, but I here content my selfe with some few of the chiefest. And first, if our aduersaries Position were true, concerning the Scriptures being
iudge of our fayth, then must they vnderstand hereby ey∣ther their whole Canon and body of Scriptures taken ioyntly togeather, or els euery particular booke therof, as it is considered by it selfe alone. Not this later, both be∣cause it would follow, that if any one booke alone were a competent Iudge of all articles of our fayth, that then al the other parcels of Scripture were superfluous and need∣les, which were most prophane to imagine; As also in that, euery particular Ghospell, or any such part thereof, doth omit many chiefe articles of our Fayth, without any mention had of them at all; And thus we find that the Annuntiation, the Natiuity, the Circumcision of our Lord (besides many other points) are not as much as once tou∣ched in S. Iohns Ghospell; in like sort neyther doth S. Mat∣thew mention the Circumcision, nor S. Marke the Presenta∣tion.
2. Now, our Aduersaries Doctrine herein is no more iustisiable, if they will here vnderstand the whole body of all the Canonicall books of Scripture, ioyntly consi∣dered together, to be this Iudge (which assertion they for the most part maintaine;) And the reason therof is this; In that diuers Canonicall and vndoubted parcels (euen by the Protestants acknowledgment) of both the old and the new testament, haue bene lost for the space of 1500. yea∣res, and neuer yet found againe: And therfore it ineuita∣bly followeth, that if all the sacred books of Scripture ta∣ken together should be this iudge, and that diuers of them for so many Centuries and ages haue bene, and still are lost; that then during so long a tyme, we neuer enioyed a sufficient and competent Iudge, and such a one, as was proportionable to that fayth left to vs by the Prophets, Apostles and Euangelists; but in lieu therof we haue had a maimed, imperfect, and defectiue Iudge. Which to affir∣me, were to impugne Gods care and prouidence, which he beareth towards his Church.
3. Now, that diuers parcels of both the Testaments haue perished, it is most cleare, and our Aduersaries can∣not deny it. And first touching the new Testament, it
appeareth out of the Epistle to the Colossians, (a) 1.1 that Saint Paul wrote an Epistle to them of Laodiced, which neyther we nor the auncient Fathers haue proued euer to haue bene extant since the Apostles tyme. In like sort S. Paul may seeme to intimate in his first Epistle to the Corinthians (b) 1.2 in these words; Scripsi vobis in epistola &c. that before the writing of the sayd Epistle, he had written to thē another E∣pistle; and yet we cannot find, that the Church euer had any such Epistle.
4. Now, it is no lesse cleare, that diuers parts of the old Testament haue bene, and are as yet lost, at least for the sayd former space of tyme. And to omit the testimo∣nies of S. Chrysostome (c) 1.3 affirming so much, we read in the books of Kings, (d) 1.4 that Salomon wrote many Parables and verses, which now we haue not; for thus there it is sayd: Locutus est Salomon tria millia Parabolarum, & fuerunt carmina eius quinque millia: After the same manner we find it also registred of Dauid (f) 1.5 in these words: Gesta autem Dauid priora & nouissima scripta sunt in libro Samuel Videntis, & in libro Nathan Prophetae, at{que} in volumine Caiad Videntis. All which wrytinges here mentioned are neyther at this pre∣sent, nor haue for many former ages bene extant in Gods Church: So cleare thus we see it is, by the force of this argument, that the Scripture neyther as it is wholy takē together, nor seuerally by particular books, can be the iudge for the determining of all doubts of fayth.
5. Another reason for the incompetency of the Scripture as Iudge, may be taken from the nature of a iudge (as is else where touched) constituted in euery well gouerned Common wealth. For it cleare, that euery Iudge first ought to be able of his owne authority to take notice of the Contentions and Controuersies rysing in the state. Secondly, he must haue power by interpreting the law to giue his censure against the party offending. Lastly, he is to compell and force the delinquents to obe∣dience vnder the paine of feuere punishments. None of which points can be effected, except there be (besides the wrytten law) a visible iudge. Seing then (by applica∣tion
of what is here sayd to our present purpose) that the Scripture cannot of it selfe take notice of Controuersies rysing in matters of religion, nor euidently declare to the Litigants the true meaning of such passages, of it self war∣ranting or condemning the points in question; nor final∣ly can constraine the aduerse party to relinquish his er∣rours impugned by the wrytten Word, (as we find by the dayly experience of Heretikes flying to the Scripture as Iudge;) Therfore it is most perspicuous, that the Scrip∣ture cannot be erected as a competent Iudge in the deci∣sion of articles of fayth among Christians.
6. Neyther is it any satisfiable answere to reply, that God himselfe seeth all Contentions in doubts of fayth, and in some sort by meanes of the Scripture pronounceth his sentence in condemnation of the heresies impugned. This (I say) is not sufficient, and the reason hereof is, be∣cause God doth not so euidently deliuer his sentence by the mediation of the Scripture, as the party conuinced therby will acknowledge it for his sentence; And conse∣quently if the question should be, whether the Scripture be the word of God or not, God could not clearly giue his iudgment only by the helpe of Scripture. Therfore it followeth, that we must haue a visible iudge, and such as his finall decrees being once manifested, the party main∣taining his errours, will acknowledge them (as they proceed from the Iudge, whether iustly or iniustly) to be clearly and euidently condemned by the sayd iudge, which we see falleth not out in obtruding the Scripture; for it is obserued, that the Anabaptist or any other ack∣nowledged heretike, wil neuer confesse his heresies to be impugned by the Scripture, or himself condēned therby.
7. And of the like feeblenes is that other answere of some hereto, who (courteously) do grant, that there may be acknowledged indeed an external publike iudge of all doubts in religion, meaning the generall voice of gods Church; but yet this iudge (teach they) is limited in it de∣finitions, and not absolutely infallible, but only so farre forth, as it treadeth the tract and path of Gods written
word, and which declining from thence, runneth head∣long into certaine deuiations, & by-wayes of most foul•• errours.
8. This answere salueth not the doubt: for once grāting 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 Phi∣losophy 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 inferi∣our 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 Magistra∣tes state were no better in defining, then the subiects, since they were not bound to stand to the cēsure of their Iudge, but only when they did know his sentence to be eui∣dently most true; and consequently it might be likewise inferred, that the Magistrate hath no power at all in defi∣ning; 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 reasōs) obliged to follow his doubtfull definition, though per∣haps erroneous.
9. To the former reason may be adioyned this fol∣lowing (as is also afore touched;) That euen the light of reason teacheth vs, that euery Iudge in any Court of Cō∣trouersies ought to be such, as all contēding parties with∣out 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 vn∣auoydably followeth, that the Scripture cannot be this iudge, whereunto ech mā 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 resolutiō of doubts, we see it is euident by the practise of all ages.
10. But on the contrary part, euery man that main∣taineth 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 tou∣ching religion to be de••ermined by the wrytten word a∣lone? And as touching those others who can read, yet is their cause little bettred therby, seing many by their rea∣ding of the Scripture, do strangely detort the true sense therof. Yea we may obserue, that diuers Nouellistes of different religions, who are dayly cōuersant in the Scrip∣tures, endeauour euen from the self same passages of it, by their false constructions, to fortify their repugnant Do∣ctrines. 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 ma∣king the Scripture to be like vnto the tongue of S. Peter & other the Apostles, which being but one, was notwith∣standing 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 Do∣ctrine if it be true, then may we most consequently de∣duce 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-inter∣rupted 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) 1.6 as haue most learnedly handled this, subiect. Only I wil here set downe (and consequently proue the sayd Do∣ctrine 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 Protestāts themselues, then by vs Catholikes.
12. And first against the Anabaptistes, both the Ca∣tholikes, 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 Traditiō) cā 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 spea∣keth hereof in c. 6. epist. ad Rom. Ecclesia ab Apostolis tra∣ditionem accepit, etiam paruulis baptismum dare. In like sort Au∣stin l. 10. de Genesi ad literam, c. 23. Consuetudo matris Ec∣clesiae in baptizandis paruulis nequaquam spernenda, & nec omnino credenda est, nisi Apostolica esset Traditio.
13. D. Bancroft teacheth, that Confirmation is an Apo∣stolicall 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 houl∣ding the contrary; and yet no text of Scripture doth cō∣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) 1.7 acknowledgeth, that now, du∣ring 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 cōtrary were then reputed for Heretikes, and styled (i) 1.8 Quartadecimani. And yet for this change of obseruing Easterday we haue no warrant from the holy Scriptures, but may say with Tertullian: (k) 1.9 quod non prohibetur, vltrò permissum est. D. Couel in his booke of ex∣amination
teacheth the word Archbishop to be a Tradition. M. Hooker in his Eccles. polic. sect. 7. p. 118. in generall defen∣deth the Doctrine of Traditions, and answereth diuers te∣stimonies 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 pen∣ned by the holy Prophets, Apostles, and Euangelistes: Yet we cannot conuincingly and demonstratiuely proue so much out of the Scriptures themselues; which point since it includeth within it selfe by necessary illation this question of the Scriptures being Iudge, it shalbe more fully discussed in the Chapter following. Now of this poynt, as also of the former, belieued without the wryt∣ten word warranting them, we may say: Harum (*) 1.10 dis∣cipl••narum Traditio tibi praetenditur auctrix, Consuetudo confirma∣trix, & Fides obseruatrix.
16. The last argument heere vrged for the refelling of our aduersaries Doctrine herein, may be taken from the practise of both the auncient & moderne heretickes, who euer for the warranting of their heresies (heresies I meane euen in the iudgment of our aduersaries) haue euer fled to the Scriptures, and haue most seriously taught, (therby to auoyde the authority of the Church) that the Scriptures a∣lone ought to Iudge & defyne al doubtes of Fayth what∣soeuer. And therfore to the end, that the reader may see, what wicked heresies haue bene proseminated, and haue sprung from this so false and hereticall a princi∣ple, I will exemplify this one point somewhat at large in a Chapter following, there shewing how many diuelish heresies haue bene countenanced by their Patrones, with the misapplyed testimonies and authorities of the holy Scriptures; which abuse of the Scriptures well sheweth, that the Doctrine hereof neuer proceeded from God; (l) 1.11 Quid diuinum non bonum? quid bonum non diuinum?
c. vle.
cap. 5.
Hom. 9. in Matth. & hom. 7. in prior. ad Corinth.
3. Reg. 4.
Paralip. vlt.
Hofi••e in 4. l. ad∣uers. Pro∣legomena Brentij. Peresius initio ope∣ris sui do Traditio∣nib. Rof∣fensis, Ca∣nisius, Bel∣larmin, be∣sides many others.
In his defense. pag. 539.
Epiph. haeres. 50. Aug. hae∣res. 29. Tertul. de praescript.
De co∣rona mili∣tis.
Tertull. de corona ••ilitis.
Tertull. de fuga in persecut.