The Sovereign Judge of Controversies in Matters of Religion, Chapter 3 – Chapter 4
CHAP. 3.
Wherein the objections against the foresaid demand are set downe, and that which is framed against the person of those which require it is refuted.
Since then wee are brought to this poynt, that instead of pleading the cause throughly, there is a question made whether wee ought to come so farre, they stand much vppon the quality of the accuser, they conteste against the sufficiencie of the Iudge, to whom hee appeales. Wee are constrayned first of all to examine the equity or injustice of this manner of proceeding.
And first as touching the quality of the accusers, they terme them new start-vps, they aske them what calling they hauehave thereunto, by what authority they hauehave made so bold an attempt as to protest they desire the reformation of the Church.
The thing then objected to them is noveltie and rashnesse. But both of these objections are but a recrimination, the which cannot be verified, but that first their accusation be convinced of vntruth, and therefore ought not, neither can it be receiued, before that point of their accusation be cleared.
They vndertake to proue that the doctrine of our Lord and of the Apostles hath beene altered and changed in that Church which termeth it selfe Catholique: they vrge that every other doctrine is to be rejected, no other admitted but that alone. They protest then, not that they will bring in, but that their meaning is to banish novelties, for which cause Noveltie, cannot bee obiected vntounto them, so long as it cannot be proved that they are innovatours: which is the chiefe point of the controversie: the question beeing not here of the Nouelty of the persons but of that of faith and doctrine, according to which we ought to iudge of the persons, and not of it according to the persons. Tertull. Prisc…s ad haeret: cap. 3. ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas?As learnedly Tertullian.
Seing then that the summe of their accusations consist, in this that they accuse the Church, falsely called Catholique, to hauehave innovated, so long as it doth not appeare, whether their accusation be true or no, novelty cannot be obiected to them. As for the rashnesse of the accusation, no more can it be obiected vntounto them, vntill that the accusation bee retorted by a direct and just defence: for even as in an estate and commonwealth, every man is admitted to accuse in case of high treason, and none is reiected, but vponupon a manifest falsity of his accusation, neither is he accounted to accuse rashly, who accuseth truly: so in the Church, whosoeuer accuseth of high treason against God, is to bee heard without objecting vntounto him rashnesse, vntil it be prooued that his accusation is false: In an armie, in a besieged towne, whē there is questiō of treasō, no advise whatsoever is neglected, but they rather duly weigh & consider, not so much from whom it proceedeth, as the importance of it, the accusers are not punished, if their accusation be not found false; but if it be true they are applauded, rewarded, advanced, and often promoted in the offices, and places of the accused. In the Church of God, in matter of conscience wee ought not to stoppe any mans mouth, but to convince, or satisfie the heart and conscience; such was the practise of the Apostolicall Church. The Fathers hauehave so carried themselues towards Heretiques, yea S Austustine himselfe, speaking of the Manicheans, Aug. concr. epist Man. cap. 4. Basil. de Sp. S. c. 17.is of this opinion. And if any of the Ancients hauehave vsed perscription in any such case, it hath beene in matters that were not properly of the essence of faith: or if the doctrine was quaestioned, then hauehave they to do with them,Tertul. praescr. cap… 7. who grounded not themselues especially vponupon the Scripture, but wrested according as they listed, some certaine peeces of it, forcing them to their purpose, and as it were by torture, making them to confesse what they never knew. And therefore the same Fathers called thē Sucifugas Scripturarum, men who shunne the light of the Scripture:Tertul. de res. car. c. 47. yea in those times prescription became them well. It was impossible that then there should bee such a declining and falling from the trueth. The mystery of iniquity, which had already begunne to be conceiued in the times of the Apostles, was yet in the cradle. Our condition at this day is otherwise, who are come vntounto the last times, who reckon a thousand and soe many hundred yeares since the flourishing and happy times of the Apostles. During which so long space of time this mystery should in probability be well growne. Wee see the most flourishing Churches, in times past planted by the Apostles, now brought into desolation, and we cannot now call to witnesse the memory of men.
CHAP. 4.
Wherein are proposed the allegations against the sufficiencie of the Iudge, to whom those who desire a reformatiō do appeale.
BVT for all this they call in doubt the sufficiencie of the Iudge, before whom the accusers commence their suite, to wit, God speaking in the Scriptures, or by the Scriptures.
1 They doubt whether hee can be Iudge considered after that manner, because, say they every Iudge ought to speake,Eight reasons wherefore God cannot be Iudge. now God speaking in the Scripture, is as though hee did not speake at all, the Scripture having neede it selfe to bee propounded, and applyed by some other.
2 And besides, the words of a Iudge ought to be cleare, & intelligible, & this writtē word is obscure as much as may be.
3 Thirdly, the Scripture is ambiguous and subject to divers interpretations, whereas the decrees of a Iudge ought to be certaine and positiue.
4 Fourthly, the Scripture is defectiue, and imperfect, and therefore cannot be extended, nor applied to the decision of our controversies.
5 Fiftly, the resolution of a Iudge ought to make them agree, who referre themselues to him, whereas it is seene what discord there is, even amongst those who would end these variances by the Scriptures.
6 Sixtly, the Heretiques themselues make vse of the Scriptures, whereas the sentence of the Iudge, cannot advantage the party condemned by him.
7 Seaventhly, if God speaking in, or by, the Scripture were the Iudge, to what end then serue the Councels?
8 Finally, if we had no other determination then that of the Scriptures, we must needes alwaies liue in vncertainty: for the weaknesse and deceitfulnesse of mans vnderstanding considered, who amongst so great a multitude, & in such a discord of those, who take vponupon thē to hauehave the gift of the holy Ghost, could know and discerne who hath it? Who amidst such a nūber of those who think they hauehave it, & are deceiued in their opinion can assure himselfe that hee hath it? what then, do they refuse to be Iudged? by no meanes in apperance, but they would hauehave the Church to be judge; the truth is that when that comes to the vpshot, wee find that this Church is themselues; who would bee both iudges and parties, as shall be more plainely showne hereafter.