Popery Anatomized, Section 22
SECTION XXII. Concerning the Authority of the Fathers.
M. Gilbert Brown.
FUrther, I ſay, ſince the difference chiefly in Religion betwixt us and them, is about the underſtanding of the Word of God, *Not we, M. Gilbert, but one of the chief pillers of your own Church, Cajetan a Cardinal (which was ſent in Germany againſt Luther) the Popes Legat, who ſaith in plain words, That the author of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, doth gather inſufficient arguments, to prove Chriſt to be the Son of God: that the 2. and 3. Epiſtle of John is not Canonical Scripture: that the Epistle of Jude is Apocrypha: that the laſt chapter of Mark is not of ſound authority: that the hiſtory of the adulterous woman in S. John, is not authentical: and of S. James Epiſtle, that the ſalutation of it is profane.albeit they deny a great part of the ſame to us; what is the cauſe that they will not abide the tryal of the ancient Fathers of the firſt ſix hundred years, ſeeing that they were of his Religion, as he affirms? If he be as good as his word, the matter will be ſoon ended. And if our Religion be not ſound conſonant to theirs in all things (wherein they differ from us) we ſhal reform the ſame.
Maſter John Welſch his Reply.
You ſaid a little before, M. Gilbert, that the chief difference wherein we differ from you, is in denying, abhorring, or deteſting, &c. Now you ſay, that the difference chiefly of Religion betwixt us, is about the underſtanding of the Word of God. How well theſe two agree, let the Reader judge. It is no wonder ſuppoſe you diſſent from your brethren (as I have proved in ſundry points before) ſeeing ye diſſent from your ſelf. It is true indeed, that many of our controverſies are about the right ſenſe and underſtanding of the Scripture: but yet if Petrus a Soto, Lindanus, Pereſius, Caniſius, all great and learned Papiſts, ſpeak truth, the moſt part of the weightieſt and chiefeſt points of your Religion which are in controverſie between us, are but unwritten traditions, which have not their beginning nor author in the Scripture, and cannot be defended by the ſame. And whereas ye would have us to refer the controverſies about the ſenſe and right meaning of the Scriptures to be decided by the writings of the Fathers of the firſt ſix hundred years: we receive their monuments and writings gladly: but yet ſo, that we put a difference between them, and the writings of the holy Ghoſt in the Scripture. For as I have proved ſufficiently before, as I hope, that only the Scriptures of God have this prerogative, to be the ſupreme Judge of all controverſies in Religion, and no other; and the beſt way to learn the ſenſe of the Scripture, is by the Scripture it ſelf: for ſeeing all the Scripture is inſpired of God, therefore it ought to be exponed by God in the ſame. For he who made the Law, can beſt interpret the Law. And the Levits practiſed this in the Old Teſtament, who exponed the Scripture by the Scripture, Nehem. 8.8 and the Apoſtles in the New Teſtament, who taught nothing but that which the Prophets ſaid ſhould come to paſs, Acts 26.28. And if a Father, yea a Saint, yea if an Angel would preach beſide that which the Apoſtles preached, let him be accurſed. So then, nothing can be a warrant to us of the truth of the ſenſe of the Scripture, but the Scripture it ſelf. And as for the Fathers expoſitions, as they may not be Judge (as hath been ſaid) becauſe they may err, and have erred, as hath been proved, and your ſelves will not deny: and they diſſent oftentimes one from another in the expoſition of the ſame. So let their expoſitions be taken in ſo far as they agree with the Scripture. For would ye have us aſcribe that unto them, which they themſelves have refuſed, and have aſcribed unto the Scriptures only?
Hear therefore what Optatus the Biſhop of the Church of Milevitan, a learned man, who lived about the year of God 369. ſaith, writing againſt the Donatiſts, who claimed to themſelves only the title of the Church of Chriſt, as ye do. They called for a Judge, he brings the Teſtament of Chriſt for a Judge: and ſpeaking to them of a point of Religion that was controverted, whither one ſhould be twiſe baptized or not? He ſaith, You, ſaith he, affirm it is lawful, we affirm it is not lawful; between your ſay it is lawful, and our ſay it is not lawful, the peoples ſouls do doubt and waver. Let none believe you nor us, we are all contentious men; Judges must be ſought for: If Christians they cannot be given on both ſides; for truth is hindred by affection. A Judge without muſt be ſought for. If a Pagan, he cannot know the Christian myſtery. If a Jew, he is an enemy to Chriſtianity. No Judge therefore of this matter can be found in earth. A Judge from heaven must be ſought for. But why knock we at heaven, when here we have his Testament in the Goſpel? Optatus lib. 5. contra Parmenianum. And he renders a reaſon of this in that ſame Book: Chriſt, ſaith he, hath dealt with us as an earthly father is wont to do with his children, who fearing left his children ſhould fall out after his deceaſe, doth ſet down his will in writing under witneſs: and if there ariſe debate among the brethren, they go to the Teſtament. He whoſe word muſt end our controverſie, is Chriſt. Let his will be ſought in his Teſtament, ſaith he. Auguſtin in Pſal. 21. expoſ. 2. urgeth the ſame reaſon of Optatus againſt the Donatiſts: We are brethren, ſaith he to them, why do we ſtrive? Our father died not unteſtate: he made a Teſtament, and ſo died. Men do ſtrive about the goods of the dead while their Teſtament be brought forth. When that is brought forth, they yeeld to have it opened and read: The Judge doth hearken, the Counſellers be ſilent, the Cryer biddeth peace: All the people is attentive that the words of the dead man may be read and heard. He lyeth void of life and feeling and his words prevail. Chriſt ſitteth in heaven, and is his Teſtament gain-ſaid? Open it, let us read. We are brethren, why do we ſtrive? Let our minds be pacified: Our Father hath not left us without a Teſtament. He that made the Teſtament is living for ever, he doth hear our words. He doth know his own word: let us read, why do we ſtrive? Ireneus ſaith, lib. 4. contra haereſ. cap. 63. That the lawful expoſition of the Scripture which hath no peril with it, is according to the Scripture themſelves. What can be more plain, M. Gilbert? And I ask you further. Would you have vsus to aſcribe more to the interpretation of the Fathers, then the learned of your Church do? As Cajetan a Cardinal, in Praefat. in Comment. in lib. Moſis, and Doctor Andradius: the firſt ſaith, That God hath not tyed the expoſition of the Scripture unto the expoſition or ſenſe of the Fathers: (If God hath not bound it, as he ſaith, why then ſhould we bind it?) Wherefore there he deſires the Reader, Not to miſlike it, if ſometimes in the expounding of them, he fall into a ſenſe agreeable to the text, though it go against the ſtream of the Fathers. If he ſpeak truth, then that ſenſe that is agreeable to the text, ſuppoſe it be againſt the ſtream of their expoſitions, is to be received and preferred before them. And Andradius that learned man, ſaith, That the Fathers ſpake not Oracles, when they exponed the Scriptures, but might therein be deceived, Defenſ. fid. Trident. lib. 2. And he ſaith more, That the overſights of the tranſlation which they followed, must needs cauſe them ſometimes to miſs the meaning of the holy Ghoſt. And yet you would have the ſenſe of the Scriptures to be decided by them, who ſometimes have miſſed the meaning of the holy Ghoſt. And he concluds in the end, That the holy Ghoſt is the only and faithful interpreter of the Scriptures. Thus the faireſt flowers of your garden, and chiefeſt pillers of your Faith have written: So that if they ſpeak true (whom I know not if ye will preſume to contradict) the expoſition of the Scripture is not tyed unto the expoſition of the Fathers: and it is lawful to go with the text, againſt the ſtream of their expoſitions.
And whereas you ſay, if I will be as good as my word, the matter will ſoon be ended: I am glad of it, if you think as you ſpeak. My word was, M. Gilbert, as your ſelf hath written it, that there be very few points of controverſie between us, wherein I will not get ſome teſtimonies of ſundry Fathers of the firſt ſix hundred years, proving with us againſt them (meaning your Church.) And I deſired any man to ſet me down any weighty point of controverſie, one or mo, and he ſhould have the proof of it. Theſe were my words. Now ye ſay, if I will be as good as my word, the matter will ſoon be ended. Whither I have been as good as my word in this or not let the Reader judge. And I appeal your conſcience, M. Gilbert, before the Lord in the great day, whither it be true or not. For not only in that example of Juſtification, which ye caſt in, but almoſt in all the heads which are debated among us, I have brought in ſundry teſtimonies of ſundry Fathers with us againſt you. Yea, I have been better then my word in that: For I have brought in teſtimonies of ſundry that lived after the ſix hundred years: and not of theſe only, but alſo teſtimonies of ſundry of your own Doctors, Jeſuits, Cardinals, Biſhops, Canons, Councils and Popes, proving with us in ſome points againſt your ſelves. I look therefore, M. Gilbert, that ye ſhal be as good as your word, and that the matter ſhal end here between you and me. For both you have ſaid, that the matter would ſoon end, if I were as good as my word; and alſo ye have promiſed and ſubſcribed with your hand, to reform your Religion in all things wherein it is not conform to their teſtimonies. The which if you do, then muſt you renounce the ſupremacy of your Pope, the ſacrifice of your Maſs, your Tranſubſtantiation, your Juſtification by works, your Merits of works, your perfect fulfilling of the Law of God, your erroneous opinions that the Church cannot err, that the Scripture ſhould not be Judge, with ſundry others. For in all theſe I have brought the teſtimonies of ſundry Fathers: and in ſome of them the teſtimonies of your own Doctors, Councils, Canons and Popes, with us againſt you. Either therefore take ſhame and falſhood for ever more upon you, or elſe keep your word and your writ which ye have ſubſcribed here, and reform theſe points of your Religion. As for that calumny wherewith ye charge us to have taken away a great part from the Scripture. I know you mean the Apocrypha, which bears not the mark and ſtamp of Gods Spirit, as being neither written by Prophets, nor yet the moſt part of them in the prophetical language the Hebrew tongue, wherein all the Old Teſtament was written, except ſome things of Daniel and Ezra, which were written in the Chaldaick language, which was known then to the Jews; nor yet received as Canonical by the Church of the Jews, which your(a)Bellar. lib. 1. cap. 10. Church will not deny. Nor yet acknowledged Canonical by the teſtimonies of ſundry(b)Melito lib. 4. cap. 26. Euſeb. Origen. lib. 6. cap. 25. Euſeb. Athan. in ſynop. Hilar. in prolog. explan. Pſalm. Cyrill. in 4. catechiſ. Ruffinus in expoſ. ſymboli. Hieron. in prologo galeato. Fathers,(c)Synod. Laodicen. Canon. 59. confirmed by the Council Trullan. Councils, and of your(d)Greg. Mag. in comment. in Jobum, lib. 19. cap. 16. Hugo. Cardinalis in prolog. Joſuae. Cajetan Cardinal. in fine comment. Heſter. Arias Montanus, who was preſent at the Council of Trent, in aeditione quadam Hebraicorum Bibliorum interlinearium interpretationum. ſelves, alſo Papiſts of great name: ſome rejecting all, ſome more, ſome fewer: containing alſo many things repugnant to the truth of God ſet down in the Canonical Scripture. Laſt of all, wanting that majeſty of Gods Spirit, which ſo evidently ſhines in the Canonical Scripture. And therefore moſt juſtly ſay we, that ye underly the curſe of God pronounced in his Scripture, Rev. 22.18. for the adding unto the holy truth of God. And look to it, M. Gilbert, what you will ſay to your Cardinal Cajetan, who hath denyed ſundry Books and parts of the Canonical Scripture in the New Teſtament.
Maſter John Welſch.
Now, if the firſt thing I offer me to prove be ſound of verity; that is, that our Religion is that ſelf-ſame, and no other, then that that Jeſus Chriſt preached, and his Apoſtles, and theirs is not ſo: but deviſed by the man of ſin, and that Antichriſt, that whore of Babylon, then the plea is won. But if I prove the ſecond alſo, then I hope they will never open their mouth to ſpeak evil of the truth of God, as though it were but a new Religion.
M. Gilbert Brown.
When M. John proves the thing that he is not able to prove, we ſhal do the thing that we are not able to perform: but it is a wonder of him to put in ſo many (ifs) and doth nothing to the matter. For it is a true ſaying in Philoſophy, that a conditional Propoſition proves nothing. It appears he hath been in haſte, that he might not have leaſure to(a)I proved all that was required at my hands. prove any head for example of his promiſe. For we underſtand that M. John is a man who may err, as many man hath done before by his judgement: and therefore he muſt have no(b)I deſire no credit without warrant, as your Popes and your Church do of her diſciples. credence of us, except he bring his warrant, and ye ſhal be(c)M. Gilbert is once beguiled, for this is performed. ſure that he is never able to perform his ſayings.
Maſter John Welſch his Reply.
This my Reply, I hope, ſatisfies for anſwer to this ſection.