The pseudo-scripturist. Or A treatise wherein is proued, that the wrytten Word of God (though most sacred, reuerend, and diuine) is not the sole iudge of controuersies, in fayth and religion. Agaynst the prime sectaries of these tymes, who contend to maintayne the contrary. Written by N.S. Priest, and Doctour of Diuinity. Deuided into two parts. And dedicated to the right honorable, and reuerned iudges of England, and the other graue sages of the law.

That it cannot be determined to vs by Scripture, that there is any Scripture, or Gods word at all. CAAP. XI.

FOR the more particuler handling of this poynt, I am to demaund of our aduersaries these three things following, which are (as it were) the three steps, wherby we ryse to the graduall difficulties of this question heere intreated of. First, how they can proue out of Scripture the particuler Ghospell of S. Marke, or of any Euangelist, to be the same, without all corruption, which the sayd Marke, or the other did wryte? considering that it is gran∣ted, euen by our aduersaries, that diuers parcels of the Scriptures haue bene fouly corrupted and mangled by the Additions, Translations, and other such like depraua∣tions of the auncient heretikes. Secondly, if it be gran∣ted them, that any one Ghospell, or other part of Scrip∣ture, is the very same vntoucht and vndefiled, as the au∣thour therof did first wryte it; yet if we should demand of them, how the Scripture can assure and determine this poynt, to wit, that such a Ghospell (as for example that of S. Marke) is true and Canonicall Scripture, and yet that the obtruded Ghospell of S. Thomas is a false & prophane wryting, since both these Ghospells haue indifferently in the beginning their seuerall prefixed titles, the one but of an Euāgelist, & yet accepted, the other euen of an Apost∣le, but reiected; what could they say? Thirdly if it were a∣greed vpō, which were the particular books, which maks vp the Canō of Scripture, yet if any prophan Atheist should arriue to that height of impiety, as to deny flatly, that ther were any such diuine wrytinges at all, as to be counted Gods sacred word or Scripture; how could our Aduersa∣ries

conuince him herein by the Scripture it selfe? It were idle for them to reply, that the Scripture telleth him, that the bookes of the Prophets and the Apostles are diuine wrytinges, since the Atheist would not belieue the Scrip∣ture so saying, vntill it were proued to him (which can∣not be out of the Scripture) that this Scripture (affirming so much) is Scripture, that is, a diuine, supernaturall and sacred wryting; no more then at this present, we Chri∣stians belieue that the Iewes Thalmud is diuine Scripture, though it be countenāced with the title of Gods vndoub∣ted word.

2. This poynt so presseth our Aduersaries, that di∣uers of them (& such as are of no meane ranke) haue bene forced to confesse, that it cannot be proued out of Scrip∣ture, that there is any Scripture at all; neyther that this Ghospell is true, that forged; nor lastly that we now en∣ioy any one, or other parcell of Scripture, free from all manner of corruption, and as the Prophet, Euangelist, or Apostle, guided by the holy Ghost, did first pen it. Hence it is that Chemnitius (a) & Brentius (b) do teach, that this one sole vnwrytten Tradition remayneth in the Church of God: to wit, that there are certaine diuine wrytings or Scriptures. But Hooker (c) in treating of this poynt, passeth on further, and iumpeth with vs in the reason thereof, for thus he sayth: Of thinges necessary, the ve∣ry chiefest is, to know what bookes we are bound to esteeme holy, which poynt is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach. And then afterwardes he warranteth his Doctrine with this reason: For if any bookes of Scripture did giue testimony vnto all, yet still that Scripture, which giueth credit vnto the rest, would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it: neyther could we euer come to any pause, wheron to rest our assurance this way; so that vnles besides Scripture, there were something, which might assure vs that we do well, we could not thinke we do well, no not in being assured, that Scripture is a sacred and holy rule of weldoing. So farre we see this learned Protestant (whose calamity is the more to be deplored, in that retayning diuers Catho∣like grounds, he forbare to build a fayth answere able

therto) was from making the Scripture to be the sole iudge and vmpier of all articles of Fayth, since by his Doctrine the Scripture could not determine out of itselfe, that there is any Scripture at all, which is the Basis, or foundation of the rest, by our aduersaryes owne assertions.

3. Others of our aduersaries, who will not ack∣nowledge the truth in this point, labour to salue the mat∣ter with diuers weake and insufficient answeres. And first we find that Caluin (d) sayth: That the true and holy Scriptures are discerned from the false and prophane, with the same facility that light is discerned from darknes, and sweetnes from bit∣ternes. Which answere if it were true, how came it to passe then, that Luther reiecteth the Epistle of S. Iames, which Caluin himselfe reuerenceth as Apostolicall, both of them being able to discerne the materiall light from darknes & the sweet from sower?

4. The same Caluin, whom our more moderne Sectaries in most points do follow, as beasts follow the first of their heard, affirmeth also: That the maiesty & voice of God doth so present it self to vs in the sacred Scriptures, as that it secureth vs of the infallible truth therof. Against which, first I vrge, that the Maiesty & voyce of God speaking in the Scripture is not distinguished frō the Scripture it self, but is the same; euē as the Cōmandemēt of a Prince expressed in his law, is the same which his law is. Secōdly, that we cānot be assured, whether this representation of the Maiesty, voyce, or au∣thority of God speaking in the Scriptures, be but a meere illusion of the diuell, or some vehement apprehension of our owne phansy; which may well be doubted of, con∣sidering that all our aduersaries will auouch (no doubt) the Maiesty of God in those bookes, which they acknow∣ledge for diuine Scripture; and yet we see by the example aboue, that one of them seemes to find the authority and Maiesty of God in such a booke, which himselfe ack∣nowledgeth, the which another of his brethren for want of the same Maiesty vtterly reiecteth. Againe, let our ad∣uersaries yield some sufficient reason (if they can) to assure vs, that there appeareth a greater Maiesty of God in those

books of Scripture, which they all ioyntly acknowledge for Canonicall, then in those others, which the Catho∣likes do receaue, and themselues reiect.

5. Others (among whome is also Caluin (e) for he is most various and irresolute in saluing this difficulty) to answere the former doubt, come finally to this point (which indeed is the Center of all their answeres) to wit, that God giueth to the elect and faythfull that inspiration or illumination of spirit, as that therby, they are made able to discerne, which is the true word of God, & which is forged, & adulterated; & consequētly that they are as∣sured, that there are certaine diuine wrytings left to his Church: And thus they flye to the priuate spirit already refuted. To this ten our D. Field (f) thus sayth: After we are enlightened by the spirit, we do no longer trust eyther our owne iudgment, or the iudgment of other men, that the Scriptures are of God, but aboue all certainty of humane iudgment we do cer∣tainly resolue, as if in them we saw the Maiesty and glory of God. Thus we see, how our aduersaries not resting themselues vpon any firme resolution, but replying now this, now that, and so running in and out, are most farre from sa∣tisfying the difficulty here propounded, with these their Meandrian, and wynding euasions.

6. Now, the weakenes of this last answere is dis∣couered seuerall wayes, and first (besides all those reasons and arguments aboue vrged in refutation of the priuate spirit) in that, if they be demanded to proue, how they are assured of this supernaturall illumination, they en∣deauour to proue it out of the Scriptures; since they can∣not say, it is beleeued for it selfe, seing it then would fol∣low (contrary to their owne ground) that something is to be belieued, which hath not his proofe in Scripture. And if againe they be required to proue, that there are Scriptures, they alledge for proof therof this their illumi∣nation: which kind of reasoning euery yong Logitian knoweth to be a vitious circulation; since both these se∣uerall pointes (to wit the certainty of the Scriptures, and the certainty of their illumination) may be questioned

doubted of alike by them, with whome they are to deale. Secondly, the former answere is insufficient, in that this their supernaturall inspiration (wherby they dis∣cerne the Scriptures) is nothing els but an Act of Fayth, and as it seemes, is so acknowledged to be by D. Field (g), who calleth it: Apotentiall hability, the light of diuine vnder∣standing, and the light of grace; all which thinges are inclu∣ded in Fayth: and therfore our Aduersaries do generally teach, that the illumination of this spirit belongeth to all the faythfull. Now we know that it is their owne groūd and principle, that Fayth ryseth only out of the Scrip∣tures.

7. These two thinges then being thus, by the Pro∣testantes assertions (to wit, that this illumination is an act of Fayth, and that Fayth proceedeth only from the Scriptures) I see not, that it can be possibly conceaued, how this their illumination of Faith, which is later, both tempore & naturâ, then the Scriptures, as proceeding (by their Doctrine) from reading and giuing credit to the said Scriptures, should be the meanes and guide to direct them in discerning, that there is any Scripture at all, or which is the true word of God, and which Apocryphall, and prophane; since they ought to haue this illumination, be∣fore they begin to censure & iudge of the Scriptures. And thus far concerning this question, whether the Scripture is able to proue, that there is Scripture. And since it can∣not, it cōsequently followeth, that it cānot be the iudge of our fayth, in that (besides it is an Article of our Fayth, that there is Scripture) it is not able to proue that from which (by our Aduersaries Doctrine) all the rest is dery∣ued.

Notes

• (a)

  Examē Concil. Trident. intreating of Tradi∣tion.
• (b)

  In pro∣legomenis.
• (c)

  In his treatise of Ecclesiasti∣call policy.
• (d)

  l. 1. In∣stit. c. 7. §. 1. & 2.
• (e)

  Inst. 1. c. 7. §. 5.
• (f)

  l. 4. c. 8.
• (g)

  lib. 4. cap. 13.