The Ancient Doctrine of the Church of England, Part 1 · Response to body of book · Chapter 1 (1 of 3)
CHAP. I. The Summe of his Anſwer to my firſt Chapter.
IN this his firſt Chapter, hee endevoureth principally to prove, that the Articles of the Roman Creed, publiſhed by Pope Pius the fourth, were anciently received, though newly defined by the Councell of Trent: for proofe, he inſtanceth in the firſt Councell of Nice, and compareth that Councell and their Creed with this of Trent: hee proceeds by way of recrimination to queſtion the 39. Articles of our Church; he accuſeth us for corrupting and miſinterpreting the Scriptures, for declining Traditions, Fathers, and Councels: hee excuſeth their Index Expurgatorius, and accuſeth us for falſifying the Fathers: and laſtly, he concludeth with the doctrine of implicite faith: and this is the ſubſtance and contents of his anſwer to my firſt Chapter. All which, and whatſoever elſe is materially contained therein, and the reſt of his ſections following, I will take into ſeverall parts diſtinctly, and returne him a moderate anſwer.
The Reply to Mr. Lloyd. FIrſt, touching your Trent Creed, you complaine that according to the common faſhion of our Miniſters, by way of deriſion, I divide it into twelve points, as it were into twelve Articles, which (ſay you) he and they might with as much reaſon divide it into foure and twentie.
Here you begin to quarrell at your firſt entrance, but I hope you will gladly forgive us this wrong; for if wee accuſe your Trent Fathers, for coyning twelve Articles in ſtead of foure and twentie, they and you are more beholding to us, for laying the leſſer number to your charge: and yet if you pleaſe to review them, you ſhall finde they fall moſt naturally within the number of twelve.
But you would know what difference there is betwixt the Councell of Nice, and the Councell of Trent, and their two Creeds.
Let mee tell you, if ever the proverb held true (Compariſons are odious) it holds betwixt the two Councels, and their two Creeds: the Councell of Trent is not worthy to be named the day wherein the Councell of Nice is mentioned. That famous Councell of Nice was the firſt, and beſt generall Aſſembly, after the Apoſtles time, that was ſummoned in the Chriſtian world: it had in it 318. Biſhops, Totius orbis terrarum lumina, (ſaith Victorinus) amongſt whom were the foure Patriarchs of the Eaſterne and Weſterne Churches. It was called by the firſt and beſt Chriſtian Emperour,Quaſi ſervator & medicus animarum. Euſeb. in vita Conſlant. orat. 3. c. 10. Conſtantine the Great, who was Vocaliſsimus Dei praeco, and (as it were) the Preſerver and Phyſitian of our ſoules, (ſaith Euſebius.) This Emperour exhorted the Fathers and Biſhops of that Councell,Omni igitur ſeditios â contentione depulsâ, literarum divinitùs inſpiratarum teſtimoniis res in quaeſtionem adduct as diſſolvamus. Theod. Hiſt. Eccl. l. 1. c. 7. p. 208. to lay aſide ſeditious contention, and reſolve all doubts and queſtions by the teſtimonies of divine Scriptures: and accordingly they framed their Creed out of the doctrine of the Apoſtles, and all who were not of the Arrian faction did aſſent and agree to it (ſaith Theodoret.)
Now take a view of your Trent Councell, and compare them together. Your Councell of Trent, like Demetrius Aſſembly, was ſummoned by Pope Paul the third, without a lawfull calling; the three Patriarchs of Conſtantinople, of Antioch, of Alexandria, refuſed to be preſent; the Legates of the Kingdome of Denmark, of Suetia, and the Dukedome of Pruſia, were all abſent, and returned their anſwer, that the aGravamina oppoſita, Concil. Trid. Cauſa. 1. pag. 21.Pope had no right to call a Councell. Our QueenebEpit. rerum in orbe geſt. ſub Ferd. 1. ann. 1561. apud Scard. tom. 3. p. 2171. E Belgio in Inſulam trajicere prohibuit. ibid. Elizabeth of bleſſed memory, diſavowed the Councell, in ſo much that when the Pope ſent Hieronymus Martinengus, as Legate into England, to ſummon our Biſhops, ſhee would not ſuffer him to land, or ſet his foot on her Dominions. The French King ſignifieth by his Legate James Amiot, that hee for his part, neither held it for a generall, not yet for a lawfull Councell; but for a private Conventicle: and accordingly hee wrote, Conventui Tridentino. The Emperour,Innoc Gentil. ſeſſ. 12. and Hiſt. of Trent, l. 4. p. 319. Illyric. in Proteſt. contr. Concil. Trid. Charles the fifth, declared by his Embaſſadour, Hurtado Mendoza, in the name of the whole Empire, that the Biſhops wholly hanging at the Popes becke, had no authoritie to make lawes, in cauſes of reformation of religion and manners. Andreas Dudithius, Dudith. in Ep. ad Maximil. 2. de Calice, & Sacerdotum conjugio.the Biſhop of five Churches, told the Emperours Maximilian and Ferdinand, that the Trent Fathers were like a paire of countrey Bag-pipes; which unleſſe they were ſtill blowne into, could make no muſick. The Holy Ghoſt had nothing to doe with that Councell, and therefore they could create no new Articles of faith. Your hiſtorie of Trent tels us,The hiſtorie of Trent. the Spirit was ſent in a Carriers cloak-bag from Rome to Trent; but when there fell ſtore of raine, the Holy Ghoſt could not come before the flouds were abated, and ſo it fell out, that the Spirit was not carried upon the waters (as wee read in Geneſis) but beſides them. Looke upon your Biſhops, they were but fortie and two at the firſt meeting, and two of them titular; the reſt, for the moſt part (ſaith Dudithius) were but hirelings, Andr. Dudith. ut ſuprà.young men, and beardleſſe, hired and procured by the Pope, to ſpeake as hee would have them. To ſay nothing of thoſe Emperours (who called the firſt and beſt Councels) and were preſent in perſon, when as the Popes ſend but their Legates:Euſeb. in vitâ Conſtant. orat. 3. c. 16. Ego intereram Concilio (ſaith Conſtantine) I was preſent at the Councell amongſt you, as one of you. Touching his Imperiall ſeat in the Councell,Ibid. c. 10. his throne was very great and paſſed all the reſt (ſaith Euſebius:) whereas there is no greater diſtance in the time,Advertendum, quod locus ubi ſedet Imperator, … tenet … Pontifex. Liber. Ceremon. l. 2. c. 2. than there is now difference in the places; for the Emperour is allowed but to ſit at the Popes foot-ſtoole; and it is (ſpecially) to bee noted (ſaith your booke of ceremonies) that the place whereupon the Emperour ſitteth, may bee no higher than the place where the Pope ſetteth his feet. Your Councell of Trent hath made many decrees for reformation of manners, but did they ever reforme this abuſe, and reſtore the ancient cuſtome?
You then that are ſo confident in equalling thoſe two Councels, doe you thinke there is no difference betwixt a conventicle and a generall Councell? betwixt a Councell lawfully called, and one ſummoned by uſurpation? betwixt a late Councell, held in a corner of the world, in the worſt age, and an ancient Councell, in a moſt famous citie, held in the moſt flouriſhing age? betwixt a Councell that layes her ſole foundation in the Scriptures, and one that builds her firſt Article of faith upon Traditions?Bulla Pii 4. Art. 1. betwixt a Councell approved by the whole Chriſtian world, and one that is diſclaimed by moſt Chriſtian Kings and Biſhops, and the major part of Chriſtendome?
But you would further know a difference betwixt their two Creeds.
Let me tell you in briefe. When a Romaniſt, like your ſelfe, would needs know of a Proteſtant, the difference betwixt his religion and ours,Subeſſe Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus & pronunciamus omninò eſſe de neceſsitate ſalutis. Bonifac. 8. in Extr. de Major. & Obed. cap. Unam ſanctam. becauſe both beleeved the Catholike Church in the Creed; the Proteſtant made anſwer, that wee beleeve the Catholike faith contained in the Creed, but doe not beleeve the thirteenth Article which the Pope put to it: when the Romaniſt was deſirous to ſee that Article, the Extravagant of Pope Boniface was brought, wherein it was declared to be altogether of neceſsitie of ſalvation, for everie humane creature to be ſubject to the Biſhop of Rome. This thirteenth Article in your Trent Creed (beſides the newneſſe of the reſt) makes a great difference (Mr. Lloyd) betwixt the two Creeds; and the rather, becauſe it is flat contrarie to the decree of the Nicene Councell, beſides many other differences, as ſhall appeare hereafter.
But (ſay you) they agree in this, that as the Arrians of thoſe times cryed out againſt that Creed, as being new, and having words not found in Scripture; for example, Conſubſtantiation: ſo our Proteſtants cry out againſt the Trent profeſsion of faith, for the ſame reaſons of noveltie, and words not found in Scripture; as for example, Tranſubſtantiation.
It is true, the Arrians at the time of the Councell cryed out againſt the Nicene Creed, for defining the word Conſubſtantiall, or Coeſſentiall, as being new: but it is as true they complained without a cauſe; for long before that time the word was uſed by Origen, Doctos quoſdam ex veteribus & illuſtres Epiſcopos Homouſii dictione uſos eſſe cognovimus, Socrat. l. 1. c. 8.and other ancient Fathers, as appeares by Socrates: Wee know (ſaith he) that of the old writers, certaine learned men, and famous Biſhops have uſed the word foreign: and accordingly it was reſolved by S. Auſtin, that the name was not invented, but confirmed and eſtabliſhed in the Councell of Nice.
The word therefore Conſubſtantiall was not new,Auguſt. contr. Maxim. l. 3. c. 14. which they complained of, but the word Tranſubſtantiation is ſo new, that it was altogether unknowne till the Councell of Lateran, Concil. Lateranenſe, Anno 1215. Bellarm.1200. yeeres after Chriſt; & therefore your compariſon holds not in the firſt place. But ad nit the Councell had firſt deviſed the word,Quomodo dicis in Scripturis divinis foreign, non inveniri? quaſi aliud ſit foreign, quàm quod dicit, Ego de Deo patre exivi, &, Ego & Pater unum ſumus. Ambroſ. de fide contra Arrian. Tom. 2. c. 5. p. 223. in initio. Auguſt. Ep. 174. foreign. Athanaſ. Ep. quod decret. Synod. Nic. Congruis verbis ſunt expoſita. Nihil refert hanc vocem non eſſe in Scripturâ, ſi vox id ſignificat quod Scriptura docet. Vaſq. in 1. Thom. Tom. 2. Diſp. 110. c. 1. ſect. 4. yet it is agreed on all hands, that the meaning of the word is contained in Scripture. S. Ambroſe writing againſt the Arrians, puts to them this very queſtion: How doe you ſay the word Conſubſtantiall is not in divine Scriptures, as if Conſubſtantiall were any thing elſe, but I went out from the Father, and, the Father and I are one: the word therefore was a pregnant word, agreeable to the ſacred word of God. And albeit (ſaith S. Auſtin) the word perhaps be not found there, yet the thing it ſelfe is found: and what more frivolous quarrell is it, than to contend about the word, when there is certaintie of the thing it ſelfe? In like manner Athanaſius anſwered the Arrians in thoſe dayes, as I muſt anſwer you: Touching the word foreign, albeit it be not found in Scriptures, yet it hath the ſame meaning that the Scriptures intend, and imports the ſame with them whoſe eares are entirely affected towards religion.
We cry not out againſt you ſimply, becauſe your word Tranſubſtantiation is not found in the Scriptures, but becauſe the true ſenſe and meaning of the word is not contained in them; for the words Unbegotten, Increate, the word Sacrament, the word Trinitie, and the like, are not found in Scripture; yet wee teach them, wee beleeve them, becauſe their true ſenſe and meaning may bee deduced from the Scripture: and we profeſſe with your Jeſuite Vaſques, Nihil refert, &c. It mattereth not whether the word be in Scripture or no, ſo as that which it ſignifieth be in the Scripture.
To come neerer to you: doe you but prove that the words, This is my body, imply Tranſubſtantiation, and let me be branded for an Arrian, if I refuſe to ſubſcribe to it: but that the world may know we condemne you juſtly, both for the newneſſe of the word, and your doctrine alſo; hearken to the learned Doctors of your owne Church.
Your Schoole-man Scotus tels us, that before the Councell of Lateran, Bellarm. l. 3. de Eucbar. c. 23.Tranſubſtantiation was not beleeved as a point of faith. It is true, your fellow Jeſuites are aſhamed of this confeſſion, and thereupon Bellarmine anſwers:Ibid. This opinion of his is no way to bee allowed: Suarez in 3. Tom. in Euch. diſp. 70. ſect. 2.and Suarez, not content with ſuch a ſober reckoning, proclaimes that for his lowd ſpeaking hee ought to be corrected: and as touching the words of conſecration, from whence you would inferre both the name & nature of Tranſubſtantiation, Mont. in Luk. 22.your Arias Montanus ſaith, This is my body, that is, my body is ſacramentally contained in the Sacrament of bread: and (hee addes withall) the ſecret and moſt myſticall manner hereof, God will once vouchſafe more clerely to unfold to his Chriſtian Church. The doctrine therefore of your carnall and corporall preſence is not ſo cleerely derived from the Scriptures: nay on the contrarie hee proteſteth, that the body of our Saviour is but ſacramentally contained in the Sacrament (as the Proteſtants hold) and therefore not bodyily.
It is more than evident, that the word Conſubſtantiation (uſed by the Fathers) was derived from the Scriptures, but you have not that infallible aſſurance for your word Tranſubſtantiation, witnes your Cardinall Cajetan, Cajet. in Thom. part. 3. q. 75. art. 1.he aſſures us that there appeareth nothing out of the Goſpel, that may inforce us to underſtand Chriſts words properly: yea nothing in the text hindereth, but that theſe words [This is my body] may as well be taken in a metaphoricall ſenſe, as thoſe words of the Apoſtle, The Rocke was Chriſt: that the words of either propoſition may well bee true, though the things there ſpoken be not underſtood in a proper ſenſe, but in a metaphoricall ſenſe onelyonly. Nay more, your Jeſuite Suare, Suarez Tom. 3. diſp. 46.confeſſeth, that this Cardinall (in his Commentary upon this Article) doth affirme, that thoſe words of Chriſt [This is my body] doe not of themſelves ſufficiently prove Tranſubſtantiation, without the authoritie of the Church: and therefore by the command of Pope Pius the fifth, that part of his Commentary is ſponged out of the Romiſh Edition. Thus one while you correct your Authors, another while you purge them for delivering the truth in our behalfe.
Look upon your Cardinall Bellarmine; although he will not allow that ſenſe which the Lutherans give,Bell. de Euch. l. 2. c. 19. yet hee granteth that thoſe words [This is my body] may imply either ſuch a reall change of the bread, as the Catholiques hold; or ſuch a figurative change, as the Calviniſts hold. And although hee would ſeeme to prove that the words of Scripture are ſo plaine, that they may compell a refractorie man to beleeve them, yet having well weighed the reaſons and allegations of other Schoole-men,Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. at laſt concludes: It may juſtly be doubted, whether the text be cleere enough to inforce it, ſeeing men ſharp and learned (ſuch as Scotus was) have thought the contrary. How therefore your Church ſhould ground a point of faith upon a doubtfull opinion, or on ſuch words as by the teſtimonies of your beſt learned Divines may receive a double conſtruction, I leave it to be judged.
But farther in proofe of Pope Pius Creed, I could urge Sr. Humfrey (ſay you) with the 39. Articles appointed by the authoritie of the Church of England, to be uniformely taught by all Miniſters, which they are to ſweare unto; which Articles, though they be indeed new coyned, as the foundation of a new Church, yet Sr. Humfrey being his mothers Champion, will not (I ſuppoſe) yeeld her, or her doctrine to bee new. Thus you.
It is true as you ſay, there are 39. Articles appointed by our Church, to bee uniformely taught by all Miniſters: and it is as true that they are publiſhed and received with unitie and conſent (which your men acknowledge for a proper marke of the true Church.) And withall, let me adde this one thing for your obſervation (and indeed it is a thing remarkable) whereas all your Trent Articles have beene queſtioned, and confuted by Chemnitius, Chamierus, Gentilletus, and other Proteſtant writers, yet there was never any Papiſt could goe farther, than to tell us, as you doe, I could urge you with the novelty of the 39. Articles. I ſay, never as yet did any Romaniſt attempt, much leſſe was able to confute and overthrow our Articles, which ſtand like a houſe built upon a rocke, immoveable, and cannot be ſhaken.
Let me tell you further, your compariſons betwixt our Articles and yours doe not hold; for all your Articles are fundamentall points to your Trent beleevers, and the deniall of any of them makes them heretiques, and damned perſons, as your Popes Bull expreſſely declareth.Bulla Pii quarti. On the other ſide, ſome of our Articles concerne the diſcipline of the Church, and are not eſſentiall to ſalvation; others concerne the ancient and latter hereſies, wherein we teach the negative, and thoſe are not properly Articles of faith which we beleeve, but points of doctrine which wee condemne, and beleeve not. And that you may know our Articles are not new, nor newly coyned by our men; if you will put on your ſpectacles, you ſhall finde that moſt of our prime Articles are taught and received by your owne Church, as well as ours; and therefore I hope you will confeſſe they are not coyned, and built upon the foundation of a new Church.
Briefly touching our 39. Articles. The firſt ſort are in the Affirmative, both ours and yours; and all thoſe are uniformely received by both Churches. The ſecond ſort are ours onelyonly, which we affirme, and you deny: and thoſe are very few in number, and are evidently deduced from the Scripture. The third ſort are yours, which we deny, and you affirme; and for that cauſe you terme our religion negative; and thoſe remaine for you to make good. Joyne therefore thoſe negative Articles, which are wholly yours, to thoſe poſitive Articles which you hold with us, and you ſhall eaſily diſcerne (if the denomination followeth the greater part) thoſe Articles may moſt properly bee termed Articles of your faith; for I dare confidently avow that of the 39. Articles, there are above 35. yours, that is, either ſuch which you hold with us, which are at leaſt twentie, or ſuch wherein the affirmative is yours, and not ours, which are at leaſt fifteene: take therefore your owne libertie, either confute ours, or make good your owne, & herbam porrigemus, and I will give you the bucklers.
You proceed, and upon a falſe ſuppoſall, that our Church hath created new Articles, you proclaime in the name of your owne Church theſe words: We teach that for Articles of faith, the Church can make none, as ſhe cannot write a Canonicall booke of Scripture. Thus you.
When Diogenes ſaw a ſuppoſed Baſtard caſting ſtones in a preſſe of much people, he gave the boy this caveat: Take heed leſt thou hit thy father. This is like to bee your caſe; for by this Tenet you will wound the Church your Mother, and amongſt others you will ſurely hit your holy Father the Pope.
It appeares firſt, that you endevoured to ſhew, that your Church hath created no new Articles of faith, but for want of ſolid proofes you begin to faint, and thinke it the ſafeſt way to turne Proteſtant in this point, and ſay, the Church can create none: but I wonder how you dare pronounce in the name of the Church (we teach) whereas in truth your Church teacheth it not. This is therefore but a cunning device of yours, to dazle the eyes of the ignorant with your falſe glaſſes, and to make them beleeve it is the generall Tenet of your Church; and then you thinke they will conclude according to your Aſſertion: Ergo, The Church hath created none; when as your ſaying makes more ſtrongly againſt you, if either your Articles prove new, or the Pope and his Agents profeſſe the contrarie.
Mr. Heigham, who firſt anſwered my Book,Mr. Heigham in his anſwer called Via verè tuta, pag. 199. & 200. was a member of your Church, and he cries aluod, that the Church hath power to decree, and promulgate new articles of faith: But your third Replyer, Tom Tell-troth, in his Whetſtone of Reproofe, thought it the wiſeſt way to decline the queſtion; for hee knew well when you were both at odds, and taught flat contrarie doctrine each to other, the Whetſtone of neceſſitie would belong to one of his fellow writers. But to let paſſe ſuch differences amongſt your ſelves; bee it ſpoken to your comfort, Friar Walden, about two hundred yeares agoe, affirmed the ſame that you doe,Waldens doct. Fidei. Tom. 1. l. 2. Art. 2. c. 22. p. 203. viz. that the Church could not create a new article of faith: How can any ſuch article (ſaith he) framed after many yeares, be catholique and univerſall, when as it was unknowne to our fore-fathers for foureteen hundred yeares before? It was not beleeved, becauſe not heard of, when the Apoſtle tels us, faith commeth by hearing. Such an article therefore, although it be of faith, yet it cannot be catholique: and this hee proves directly from Fathers and Councels. And whereas you affirme, that your Church can no more make an article of faith, than ſhee can make a Canonicall Booke of Scripture;Canus loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 7. p. 38. Canus, your Biſhop of Canaries, will joyne with you, That the Church of the faithfull now living cannot write a Canonicall Booke of Scripture: and hee gives the reaſon for it; There are not now any new revelations to be expected, ither from the Pope, or from a Councell, or from the univerſall Church: and from hence it will follow of conſequence by your owne Logick; Therefore the Church can create no new article of faith.
Thus farre I have waded in your behalfe, that you may the better juſtifie your owne Aſſertion; for you wil find your Church is like a houſe divided againſt it ſelfe (and therefore cannot ſtand long). I ſay that Quere which was made in Waldens dayes, was reſolved above two hundred yeares before by your profound Schoole-man Thomas Aquinas, in your Churches behalfe, that the Pope had power Condere articulos fidei, to create new articles of faith; to remove therefore theſe fig-leaves with which you would cover the naked truth: This learned Doctour well underſtood that there were many new articles of religion crept into the Church in his dayes; he knew well, that (albeit he were the prime Schoole man of his time) yet with all his ſophiſtrie hee could not make them comply with the ancient Catholique faith: and thereupon he thought it the ſureſt way, to give the Pope an abſolute and independant power over faith and religion, and accordingly reſolved,Ad ſolam authoritatem ſummi Pontificis pertinet nova Editio Symboli, ſicut & alia omnia quae pertinent ad totam Eccleſiam. Thom. 2.2. q. 1. Art. 10. It belongs onelyonly to the authoritie of the Soveraigne Pope, to make a new Edition of the Creed, and all things elſe that concerne the univerſall Church: Then he concludes the queſtion, and gives this reaſon for it; The publiſhing of a new Creed belongs to his power who hath authoritie finally to determine matters of faith: and this (ſaith he) belongs unto the Pope. Upon which paſſages Andradius, a chiefe pillar of your Trent Councell, confeſſeth, that the Biſhops of Rome, Romanos Pontifices, multa definiendo quae anteà latitabant, Symbolum Fidei augere conſueviſſe. Andrad. Def. Concil. Trid. lib. 2.in defining many things which had beene formerly hidden, have been accuſtomed to increaſe their Creed. Now what thinke you of your Aquinas poſition, and your Andradius confeſſion? I hope you perceive that your learned Schoole-men are of another opinion: And that you may know that your Church doth not approve your pretended Tenet for Catholique doctrine; hearken and conſider, what your holy Father the Pope declareth, touching this queſtion, and then conſider in what caſe you ſtand. Pope Leo the tenth ſent out his Bull againſt Luther, and amongſt other articles,Certum eſt in manu Eccleſiae aut Papae prorſus non eſſe ſtatuere articulos fidei. Tom. 4. Conc. Par. 2. in Bulla Leon. 10. in fine Lateran. Conc. noviſſimi. p. 135. he chargeth him in particular with this, that Luther ſhould ſay, It is certaine that it is no way in the power of the Church or Pope to ordaine articles of faith. This you ſee is Luthers Tenet, and this is yours. Now what exception (think you) might the Pope take at this your Aſſertion? Behold, for this and the like Tenets, he thundereth Anathema againſt him; hee declareth this with the reſt of his Articles to be a peſtiferous, pernicious, ſcandalous, and ſeducing errour to well-minded men; he proteſteth, it was contrarie to all charitie, contrarie to the reverence of the holy Church, and myſteries of faith, and in concluſion condemnes all his Articles as hereticall, Inhibentes in virtute ſanctae obedientiae, ac ſub majoris excommunicationis latae ſententiae. Ibid. p. 136.forbids them to be received by vertue of holy obedience, and under paine of the graund Excommunication.
You have heard the ſentence of your Lord Paramount, and by it you may know your owne doome. If you hold with Luther, you are in danger of Excommunication, and ſtand as a condemned heretique by his Holineſſe with the Lutherans: If you forſake your hold, you have loſt your faith: And thus you have a wolfe by the eares, you ſtand in danger whether you hold him, or let him goe. I wonder that you, having taken ſo long a time to anſwer ſo poore a Work, and having many Aſſiſtants for the compoſing of it, they and you could be all ignorant of the Popes infallible Bull. Your Cardinall Bellarmine, Quaſi Eccleſia poſterioris temporis aut deſerit eſſe Eccleſia, aut facultatem non habeat explicandi, & declarandi, conſtituendi etiam & jubendi quae ad fidem & mores Chriſtianos pertinent. Bell. in Barcl.who in theſe latter times hath laboured more than any other, to uphold your new Articles of faith; yet in obedience to the Pope, and ſaving all advantages to his cauſe, when (in the queſtion of depoſing Kings) he failed of antiquitie and proofe out of Scriptures and Fathers, at laſt returnes this peremptorie anſwer; As if the Church of theſe latter times had ceaſed to be a Church, or had not power to explaine and declare, yea to ordaine and command thoſe things, which appertaine to faith and Chriſtian manners: and that you may know that you and your Co-adjutors ſtand ſingle in opinion againſt the Pope and his Cardinals, your Jeſuite Salmeron will ſhew you,Doctrina fidei admittit additionem in eſſentialibus. Salm. Tom. 13. Diſp 6. Par. 3. §. Eſt ergo. Idem Diſp. 8. that it ſtands with great reaſon to make additions in eſſentiall points of faith: and hee gives this anſwer for it: Becauſe nature is not capable of all truths at one time: and from this and the like reaſons he concludes, therefore there may be new traditions concerning faith and manners, though they were never created, or declared by the Apoſtles.
Thus you ſee the unitie amongſt your ſelves: and howſoever theſe poſitions may ſeeme ſtrange to you and others of your opinions, yet your Schoolmen and Lawyers have played the Popes Midwives: yea, Pope Leo the tenth hath put to his helping hand, to deliver your Pope Pius the fourth of that iſſue, I meane, thoſe new borne Articles, of which your Church hath ſo long time before travailed. Briefly let mee tell you, your Articles are detected by your owne men to be grandement ſuſpicious of new coynage; and if for no other cauſe, yet for this alone, they give a juſt occaſion and jealouſie, when ſuch poore ſhifts and evaſions are deviſed by your Pope and his adherent, to make them good: for it is a true ſaying of a renowned Biſhop, and it is the faith of all reformed Catholiques:B. Morton, Grand Impoſt. cap. 2. ſect. 2. He can onelyonly make an article of faith who can create a ſoule, and after make a Goſpel to ſave that ſoule, and then give unto that ſoule the gift of faith to beleeve that Goſpel.
I proceed to your doctrine: That is onelyonly to bee called a new faith (ſay you) which is cleane of another kind, that is differing or diſagreeing from that was taught before. Thus you.
I will not take advantage of your firſt Aſſertion, that your faith is grounded upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apoſtles (which you can never prove;) but wil joyne iſſue with you upon your laſt Aſſumpſit, That is only to be called a new faith, which is cleane of another kind, and is different & diſagreeing from what was taught before: but ſuch are many of the Articles of Pope Pius the fourth, extracted from the Councell of Trent, as ſhall appeare by proofes at large in their proper places. In the meane time let me tell you, your Church teacheth not onelyonly Novê, but Nova, not onelyonly Praeter, but Contra, even beſides, and contrarie to that which ſhe firſt received from the ancient Church: ſo that howſoever you ſeeke to darken truth by faire and ſpecious pretences, yet in truth your Trent Additions are forraine to the faith, as neither principles nor concluſions of it. And that you may know and acknowledge with us, that your Trent faith is differing and diſagreeing from what was taught before; I pray call to mind your owne confeſſions touching theſe particular Articles of your Roman Church.
Your doctrine touching Lay-peoples communicating under one kind (namely in bread onelyonly) is an Article of the Roman faith, and now generally taught and practiſed in the Roman Church: but this practice, by your owne confeſſion, is different and diſagreeing from what was taught before: for you ſay, pag. 253. touching the Authors which you bring for proofe, That it was the common practice of the Church, for the Laytie to communicate in both kinds. I allow of their authoritie.
Your Prayer and Service in an unknown tongue, as it is now uſed in the Roman Church, by your owne confeſſion is different and diſagreeing from what was taught before; for, ſay you pag. 270. It is true, that Prayer and Service in the vulgar tongue was uſed in the firſt and beſt ages, according to the precept of the Apoſtles, and practice of the Fathers. In the beginning it was ſo.
Your doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, which at this day is generally received, de ſubſtantia fidei, for an Article of Faith, yet by your owne confeſſion is different and diſagreeing from what was taught before; for, ſay you pag. 167. Tranſubſtantiation might well be ſaid not to have beene, de ſubſtantia fidei, in the Primitive Church, (as Yribarne ſpeaketh) becauſe it had not beene ſo plainly delivered nor determined in any Councell, till Gregorie the ſeventh his time: and this was above a thouſand yeares after Chriſt.
Your private or ſolitarie Maſſe, wherein the Prieſts doe daily communicate without the people, is by your own confeſſion different and diſagreeing from what was taught before and practiſed; for, ſay you pag. 191. They ſay (ſpeaking of divers Authors) it was the practice of the Primitive Church to communicate everie day with the Prieſt. I grant it.
Theſe points of controverſie, which are ſo eagerly purſued by your men againſt the members of our Church, the ſtrength and force of truth hath extorted from you, and therefore I may truly conclude Exore tuo, from your owne confeſſion, that your Trent faith is new, becauſe it is different and diſagreeing from what was taught before.
You that have taken an oath to maintaine the Papacie, and are ſo ready to teach others, you (I ſay) have either violated your oath, or at leaſtwiſe have forgot your old leſſon, Oportet eſſe memorem, &c. for verily it behoves him that ſpeakes lyes and contradictions to have a good memorie. But it ſeemes you did conceive the Reader might eaſily paſſe by many ſuch contradictions, being in ſeverall paſſages, and farre diſtant pages. For otherwiſe it would ſeeme ſtrange, that you, which ſo bitterly inveigh againſt our reformed religion, ſhould confeſſe the antiquitie of our Articles, and the noveltie of your owne, with flat contradictions to your owne Aſſertions. I will ſay to you therefore, as ſometimes St. Hierome ſpake in his Epiſtle to Pamachius and Oceanus; Hieronym. ad Pamach. & Oceanum, Tom. 2.Thou who art a maintainer of new doctrine, whatſoever thou he, I pray thee ſpare the Romane eares, ſpare the faith that is commanded by the Apoſtles mouth, why goeſt thou about now after foure hundred yeares (I may ſay foureteen hundred yeares) to teach us that faith which we before never knew? why bringeſt thou forth that thing that Peter and Paul never uttered? Evermore untill this day the Chriſtiam world hath beene without this doctrine.
To purſue the reſt of your Allegations: The Church of England (ſay you) admitteth of divers Books of the New Teſtament for Canonicall, whereof there was doubt of three or foure hundred yeares to gether in the Church of God, as the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes, the ſecond Epiſtle of St. Peter, the Epiſtle of St. Jude, the Apocalyps of St. John, and ſome others, which were after admitted for Canonicall;… I would know of him whether upon the admittance of them, there were any change of faith in the Church, or whether ever thoſe books have received any change in themſelves. Thus you.
It ſeemes you begin to feare that your Trent faith would be diſcovered to be different and diſagreeing from what was taught before, and thereupon you would ſeemingly illuſtrate the antiquitie of your new Articles by the authoritie of the ancient Books of Canonicall Scripture. But, I pray, where doe you find that the Books of the New Teſtament, as namely, the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes, the Epiſtle of St. Peter, and St. Jude, and the Apocalyps, were not received (for three or foure hundred yeares) for Canonicall? It is true there was ſome doubt who were the right Authors of thoſe Books, but their divine authoritie was ever generally approved by all Chriſtian Churches, and allowed for Canonicall. The Epiſtle to the Hebrewes was therefore doubted of by ſome, becauſe the difference & diverſity of the ſtile made them think it not to be St. Pauls; and by others, becauſe the Author of it ſeemed to them to favour the error of the Novatian heretikes, in denying the reconciliation of ſuch as fall after Baptiſme: The ſecond Epiſtle of St. Peter (which you ſpeake of) ſome doubted of, becauſe of the diverſitie of the ſtyle: The Epiſtle of St. Jude was doubted, becauſe the Author of it hath borrowed both the matter and manner of writing from St. Peter, and therfore he was thought ſome ſcholar of theirs, but no Apoſtle. Others ſaid he brought in a profane Author, concerning the ſtrife of the Arch-angell and the Devill about the body of Moſes, which cannot be found in Canonicall Scripture. Laſtly, the Revelation of St. John was likewiſe doubted of; firſt, becauſe of the noveltie of the title of John the Divine: ſecondly, becauſe of the difficultie and obſcuritie of his Prophecies. Theſe and the like reaſons were motives to ſome in the Church, to queſtion the Authors of thoſe Books: but it was never generally impeached. For further proofe of this Aſſertion, let antiquitie be heard, and it will appeare, that all thoſe Bookes were cited for doctrine of faith, by the writers of the firſt ages, and conſequently were approved from, and after the dayes of the Apoſtles.Hieronym. ad Dardan…, de terra repromiſsionis, Ep. 129. p. 1105. Looke upon St. Hierome, he proclaimes it to the Church, Illud noſtris dicendum eſt. Be it known to our men, that the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes is not only received by all the Churches of the Eaſt, that now preſently are, but by all Eccleſiaſticall writers of the Greek Churches, that have beene heretofore; as the Epiſtle of Paul, (though many thinke it rather to be written by Barnabas, or Clemens,) and that it skilleth not who wrote it, ſeeing it was writby an Author approved in the Church of God, and is daily read in the ſame. This ancient Father ſhewes plainly, that howſoever ſome doubt was made of the Author of that Epiſtle, yet it was received both by the Eaſterne & Weſterne Churches. And howſoever ſome of the Ancients did attribute it to St. Luke; others (as namely Tertullian) did attribute it to Barnabas: yet all agreed in this, that it had an Apoſtolike ſpirit; and accordingly Cardinall Bellarmine tels you in your eare,Ineptè dici vetuſtatem de hac Epiſtola dubitâſſe. Bell. de verbo Dei, lib. 1. cap. 17. It is fooliſhly ſpoken, in ſaying Antiquitie did doubt of this Epiſtle, when there is but one Caius a Grecian, and two or three Romaniſts, in reſpect of all the reſt, that ſpeake againſt it: and if we reſpect not the multitude, but the antiquitie of the cauſe, the Roman Clemens is more ancient than Caius; and Clemens Alexandrinus than Tertullian; and Dionyſius Areopagita than both, who cites this Epiſtle of Paul by name.
Touching the ſecond Epiſtle of St. Peter, it was cited by Higinus Biſhop of Rome, within an hundred and fiftie yeares after Chriſt, and that by the name of Peter. The Epiſtle of St. Jude was cited by Dionyſius Areopagita by the name of Jude the Apoſtle, within ſeventie yeares after Chriſt;Dionyſ. de divinis nominibus, cap. 4. Tertuil. de habitu muliebri. Orig. l. 5. in c. 5. ad Romanos. Cypr. in lib. ad Novatianum. by Tertullian within two hundred yeares after Chriſt; by Origen and Cyprian within two hundred and fiftie yeares after Chriſt.
Laſtly, touching the Revelation of St. John, it was received for Canonicall in the firſt and beſt ages: Dionyſius Areopagita cals the Revelation, The ſecret and myſticall viſion of Chriſts beloved Diſciple; Arcanam & myſticam viſionem dile cti diſcipuli. Dionyſ. Eccleſ. Hier. cap. 3. In Dial. cum Tryphone. Iren. lib. 1. cap. ult.and this was ſeventie yeares after Chriſt. Juſtin Martyr doth attribute this Booke to St. John, and doth account it for a divine Revelation; and this was an hundred and ſixtie yeares after Chriſt. Irenaeus ſaith, this Revelation was manifeſted unto St. John, and ſeene of him but a little before his time; and this was an hundred and eightie yeares after Chriſt.Tertull. de praeſcript. l. 4. Tertullian, amongſt other things, accuſeth Cerdon and Marcion of hereſies, for rejecting the Revelation; and this was two hundred yeares after Chriſt. Origen, in his Preface before the Goſpel of St. John, ſayth, that John the ſonne of Zebedee ſaw in the Revelation an Angel flying thorow the middeſt of Heaven, having the eternall Goſpel; and hee flouriſhed two hundred and thirtie yeares after Chriſt.
Thus you ſee the Catholique Chriſtians, and moſt ancient Fathers in the firſt ages received both the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes, the ſecond Epiſtle of St. Peter, the Epiſtle of St. Jude, and the Revelation of St. John, with one conſent, accounting them no better than Hereticks, which either doubted of them, or denyed them: and yet you, to outface the truth, would make the world beleeve, that it was three or foure hundred yeares before they were received into the Church, and made canonicall; and upon this vaine ſuppoſall you would know of me, Whether there were any change of faith in the Church when they were admitted, or whether thoſe Books received any change in themſelves.
To anſwer you in a word, your propoſition is fooliſh, and your queſtion is frivolous; for thoſe Books were alwayes received, even from the firſt times: and no more could that word of God bee changed, than God himſelfe, who is immutable; and yet we ſee your faith is daily altered, for want of that foundation, and thereupon it behoves you to get more, and better proofes, for the confirmation of your new Creed.
From your juſtification of your Trent faith, you begin to looke aſquint thorow your Spectacles at the reformed Churches, and after your wonted manner you crie out, They have no certaine rule of faith wherewith wee may urge them; authoritie of Church they have none: Scripture they have indeed, but ſo mangled, corrupted, perverted by tranſlation, and miſ-interpreted according to their owne fancies, that as they have it it is as good as nothing. Thus you.
Have we no certaine rule of faith? What thinke you of the Scriptures? Doe not we make them the ſole rule of our faith? and is not that rule by your own Cardinals confeſſion,Bell. de verbo Deo. l. 1. c. 2. Regula credendi certiſsima, tutiſsimaque, the moſt certaine and ſafeſt rule of faith? And as touching the authority of the Church, it is an Article of our Religion,Art. 20. That the Church hath power to decree rites, or ceremonies, & authoritie in controverſies of faith; and yet it is not lawfull for the Church to ordaine any thing that is contrarie to Gods word written, neither may it ſo expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another: This Article ſhewes our obedience to the Scriptures, it declares the authoritie of our Church, and it vindicates our Miniſters from perverting and miſinterpreting of the Scriptures, wherewith you charge us in the next place.
It is true (ſay you) Scripture you have indeed, but mangled, corrupted, perverted by tranſlation. Here your charge is generall, and your accuſation capitall; therefore you muſt give me leave, for the better diſcoverie of the truth, to ſend out a Melius inquirendum, that your Tranſlation and ours being compared in particulars, the truth may better appeare.
Firſt then it cannot be denyed, that the Proteſtants in all their Tranſlations have a recourſe ſtill to the Originall of Hebrew and Greek, which was inſpired by the Holy Ghoſt; and theſe they preferre before all Latine and Vulgar Tranſlations whatſoever:Bibl. Complut. in Proefat. on the other ſide, your Tranſlation (as your Interpreters fancie) hangeth betweene the Greek and Hebrew, as Chriſt hung betweene two theeves. Nay more, your men eſteeme the Vulgar Latine before the Originall:Bell. de verbo Dei, lib. 2. c. 11. Not (ſaith Bellarmine) that the rivers of Tranſlations ſhould be preferred before the fountaines of Hebrew and Greeke of the Prophets and Apoſtles, but becauſe the fountaine is muddie in many places, which otherwiſe ſhould runne cleare; for without doubt, as the Latine Church hath beene more conſtant in keeping the faith than the Greeke, ſo likewiſe it hath beene more vigilant in preſerving her bookes from corruption.
Theſe Paradoxes doe open a gap to Atheiſme; for if the originall Scripture be corrupted, what aſſurance, what certaintie can wee have of true faith and religion? (and if wee doubt, wee are condemned already.) Neither can it enter into my thoughts, that profane Writers ſhould bee preſerved in their ſimple pureneſſe from their firſt ages, and that their Tranſlations ſhould remaine in ſubjection to their copies, from whence they are derived, to be examined by them; and yet the Watchman of Iſrael, who neither ſlumbers nor ſleepes, for want of providence, ſhould ſuffer his ſacred Word become a Tributarie to a Tranſlation. But by this the world may ſee the guiltineſſe of a bad cauſe; you will rather charge the word of God it ſelfe with corruption, than faile to make good the corruptions of your owne Church.
Your learned Andradius condemnes them that preferred the Latine before the Hebrew of the Old Teſtament, (as pretending it was corrupted by the Jewes.)Andrad. def. fidei Trident. l. 4. It was very inconſiderately conceived (ſaith he) by ſome, that there was more credit to bee given to the Latine Edition than to the Hebrew, becauſe the Latine ever remained entire & uncorrupt in the Catholique Church, and the Hebrew was falſified & depraved by the perfidiouſneſſe of the Jewes. And your owne Sixtus Senenſis doth witneſſe of the Greeke Text likewiſe,Sixt. Senenſ. Biblioth. l. 7. that it is the ſame which was uſed in the dayes of S. Hierome, and long before him in the Apoſtles times, and is free from hereticall corruptions, as by the continuall writings of the Greeke Fathers (as namely) Dionyſius, Juſtinus, Irenaeus, Melito, Origen, Affricanus, Apolinarius, Athanaſius, Euſebius, Baſil, Chryſoſtome, Theophylact, doth moſt plainly appeare; and yet your Gregory Martin, and the Rhemiſts, are not aſhamed to profeſſe that the Tranſlation which they follow, is not onelyonly better then all other Latine, but even than the Greeke Text it ſelfe, Preface to the Rhem. Teſtam.in thoſe places where they diſagree.
To examine your Tranſlation in generall, and ſo deſcend into the particulars of yours and ours. Firſt, it is decreed by the Councell of Trent, that amongſt divers Tranſlations then in uſe, Concil. Trid. Seſſ. 4. Decretam de editione librorum.the old and vulgar Tranſlation ſhould be declared to be authenticall in all publike Lectures, Diſputations, Sermons, and Expoſitions, and that no man ſhould dare or preſume to reject it upon any pretext whatſoever. What Tranſlation was underſtood by the old vulgar, was not expreſſed in the Councell: It is pretended to be, and is called at this day St. Hieromes Tranſlation, and, which is remarkable, the Tranſlation was decreed but by 42. Biſhops at the firſt beginning of the Councell.
From hence ariſeth the firſt Quere, which of St. Hieromes Tranſlations your Church doth follow (for St. Hierome confeſſeth that the firſt was corrupt, and accordingly he did correct many things in his firſt Tranſlation.) To this Objection your Cardinall makes this faire and free confeſſion;Bell. de verbo Dei, l. 2. c. 9. Although Hierome did perceive ſome things fit to be changed, and afterwards did change them, yet the Church did adjudge the firſt tranſlation for true, and choſe rather to keep that for the vulgar Edition. And then he concludes: Although the greateſt part of the vulgar Tranſlation be Hieromes, yet it is not that pure Edition which he tranſlated out of the Hebrew, but in a manner mixt.
Habemus confitentem reum. Now heare your owne Sixtus Senenſis: Albeit he pretends that the different readings in the Bible be no prejudice to the Faith,Sixt. Senenſ. Bibl. l. 8. p. 664. yet (ſaith he) wee ing enuouſly confeſſe that many errours were corrected by Hierome in the old Tranſlation, and likewiſe there are found in our new Editions ſome falſifications, ſoleciſmes, barbariſmes, and many things ambiguous, not well expreſſed in the Latine; ſome things changed, other things omitted; and the like. Here both confeſſe that Hieromes firſt Tranſlation was erroneous, (and the one ſaith that your Church hath choſen that which is not pure nor agreeable to the Hebrew, the other confeſſeth it hath Barbariſmes and untruths.) To ſpeake ingeniouſly, the Sunne never ſaw any thing more defective and maimed than the vulgar Latine. Your Biſhop Lyndan cryes aloud,Lynd. de opt. genere Interpret. l. 3. c. 1, 2, 4.6. and proteſteth it hath monſtrous corruptions of all ſorts, ſcarce one coppie can be found that hath one booke of Scripture undefiled, many points are tranſlated ſo intricately and darkly, ſome impertinently and abuſively, ſome not ſo fully nor ſo well and truly, ſundry places thruſt out of their plaine and naturall ſenſe: the Tranſlatour poſsibly was no Latiniſt, but a ſmattering Grecian.
I proceed to the examination of more witneſſes. About forty yeares after Pope Paul the third had decreed the vulgar Latin in your Councel of Trent, Sixtus Quintus by his Breve prefixed to his Bible, gives us to underſtand, that certaine Roman Catholikes were of ſuch an humour of tranſlating the Scripture into Latin,Breve Sixti 5. that Sathan, taking occaſion by them (though they thought no ſuch matter) did ſtrive what he could out of uncertaine and great variety of Tranſlation, ſo to mingle all things, that nothing might ſeeme to be left certaine and firme in them: and thereupon hee takes occaſion to publiſh a Latine Tranſlation of his owne peruſall, and withall makes his Declaration of it in this manner: We of our certaine knowledge and fulneſſe of Apoſtolicall power, Sixt. 5. in Bulla praefix. Bibliis, An. 1588.doe ordaine and declare that the Edition of the vulgar Bible of the Old and New Teſtament, which was received by the Councell of Trent as authenticall without any doubt or Controverſie, is to be reputed or taken for this onelyonly Edition; which being as well as was poſsible reformed and printed in our Vatican, our will and pleaſure is, and we doe decree it to be read throughout the whole Chriſtian World in all Churches; with this our determination and ſatisfaction for all men, That firſt it was allowed by a generall and joynt conſent of the whole Catholike Church and Holy Fathers; ſecondly, by a Decree made in the late Councell holden at Trent; and now laſtly by that Apoſtolicall Authority and Power which God hath given us: and therefore is to be received and accompted for a true, lawfull, authenticall and undoubted Copie, to be read, and no other, in all publike and private Diſputations, Lectures, Sermons, or Expoſitions.
This Tranſlation was publiſhed by Sixtus with great care and paines, profeſſing that he printed it in the Vatican at Rome, Noſtra nos ipſi manu correximus, ſiqua prelo vitia obrepſerunt. Idem in Praefat.and corrected the Errours of it with his owne hands: he profeſſeth it was approved by the generall conſent of the whole Catholike Church: he profeſſeth it was received for the beſt and moſt vulgar Latine Edition, excluding all other Tranſlations private or publike whatſoever; and thereupon concludes,Ibid. Let no man attempt to violate this our Decree, our will and declaration herein, or by raſh boldneſſe contradict it: for if any ſhall preſume ſo to doe, let him know that he ſhall incurre the indignation of Almighty God, and his bleſſed Apoſtles Peter and Paul.
From hence will ariſe a ſecond Quere, whether this Tranſlation of Sixtus were that Hieromes Tranſlation formerly confirmed, and ratified by the Trent Councell. If it were his, and confirmed by a Generall Councell, how came it to be corrected by Sixtus? If it were not the ſame, how could Sixtus Bible be allowed by a Decree made in the Councell of Trent, (for ſo are the words of his Bull) whereas the Councell was called Anno 1545. and Sixtus publiſhed his Bible Anno 1592. which was above 40. yeares after the Councell was called? But obſerve the ſequell; The Decree of Sixtus was kept inviolable for a ſhort time, and approved by Urban the 7th, Gregory the 14th, and Innocent the 9th his immediate Succeſſors: But Pope Clement the eight, about ſeaven yeares after the death of Sixtus, called in queſtion that Tranſlation, and publiſhed another of his owne, Ad perpetuam rei memoriam, Clem. in praef. Sixti Bibl.and corrects Sixtus Bible, under this pretence; that his Predeceſſor perceived not a few things to have crept into the Bible through default of the Preſſe, and that it needed a ſecond care, and that certainly he himſelfe had intended to bring the whole worke to the Preſſe againe, had he not beene prevented by death.
Theſe two Editions were publiſhed by two ſeverall Popes, and both commanded to be read and followed in their ſeverall Breves: Pope Sixtus diſclaimes all Bibles whatſoever, both Manuſcripts and printed, of the vulgar Edition, which did not agree with his Edition Ad literam, to a letter. Pope Clement profeſſeth that his Tranſlation, although it be not abſolutely perfect in all points, yet without doubt it is more pure, and better corrected than any other that was publiſhed before it. In concluſion,Ne minima quidem particula mutata. Sixt. in Praef. both agree that the Forme of each muſt be inviolably obſerved without the leaſt particle of the Text added, changed, or detracted.
Now take your choyce of which Tranſlation you pleaſe; if you allow Sixtus, it was corrected in many places by Pope Clement; if Clements, you muſt incurre the curſe of his Predeceſſor Pope Sixtus: if you will receive the vulgar Tranſlation, which you terme St. Hieromes, your Cardinall tels you it is not of his pureſt Edition. Laſtly, if you approve the vulgar Edition, decreed by the Councell of Trent, I ſay neither you, nor all the Papiſts living, can reſolve which is that vulgar Edition.
For a Concluſion, either your vulgar Tranſlation before Clements time was corrupt, or in vaine did Clement command a Correctorium to paſſe upon it, and to be read according to that correction. The worke of Lucas Brugenſis, who was living at that time, hath ſufficiently diſcovered your corruptions in the Bible of Sixtus, which in his time was reputed for that onelyonly Edition confirmed by the Trent Councell, commanded to be read throughout all Churches, and allowed by the conſent of the whole Catholike Church: this Bible (I ſay) which for many ages was reputed the onelyonly authenticall Edition in your Church, is purged and corrected (I ſpeake within compaſſe) in above 3000 ſeverall places. And as it hath beene obſerved by a painfull labourer in that Vineyard,Dr. Iames in his Bellum Papale. your Tranſlations in many places are flat contradictory each to other, (and he that beleeves contradictions, beleeves nothing at all.)
From the charge in generall, I will deſcend into particulars. And firſt, I will give you an Inſtance in the Old Teſtament.
We reade in the 34. of Exodus and the laſt verſe, The Children of Iſrael ſaw the face, that the skinne of Moſes face ſhone: Videbant faciem egredientis Moiſi eſſe Cornutā. Sixt. Bibl. Ibid. v. 29, and 35.your Sixtus Bible in the vulgar Tranſlation twice renders it, They ſaw his face horned; but your Sixtus Senenſis complaines of Hierome, that contrary to the Originall he ſo tranſlated it. Thus one while you leave Hieromes Tranſlation when it ſavours not to your Palate, another while you excuſe your owne by condemning of St. Hierome: (Now whether it were a part of that corrupt Tranſlation which your men uſe, and Hierome himſelfe corrected,Rident ita que nos, & execrantur Judaei quoties Moſen in noflris Tēplis cornutâ facie depictum eſpiciunt, quaſi nos eum Diabolum quendam, ut ipſi ſtuliè interpretantur, eſſe putemus. Sixt. Senenſ. l. 5. Annot. 116. p. 368. foreign. I diſpute not) but (ſaith he) therefore the Jewes doe ſcoffe and hate us Chriſtians, whenſoever they happen to ſee the picture of Moſes painted with hornes, as though, according to their Imagination, we though him to have beene a Devill.
Looke upon the particulars in the new Teſtament. In the third of Matthew for Repentance you tranſlate Penance, and by Penance you underſtand ſatisfaction for ſinnes. So that when the Evangeliſt ſaith, according to the Greeke Originall (Repent) you follow the Latine Tranſlation, which hath an ambiguous conſtruction, and ſay, Paenitentiam agite, which your Rhemiſts tranſlate, Doe Penance. And in the 9th of St. Matthew, Math. 9.13. foreign.where he ſaith, I am not come to call the Righteous, but ſinners to repentance, you tranſlate, I am not come to call the Juſt, but ſinners, and leave out the word Repentance (which is in the Originall.) And laſtly, as if you were guilty of a falſe Tranſlation in both, in the firſt of St. Marke, Mark. 1.15.you tranſlate the words according to the Originall, and in ſtead of Doe Penance, you rightly interpret, Be penitent, and beleeve the Goſpel.
In the 11 of St. Luke you have maymed and falſified the Lords Prayer: you ſay in this manner; Father ſanctified be thy name, thy Kingdome come, our dayly bread give us this day, and forgive us our ſinnes, for becauſe our ſelves alſo doe forgive every one that is in debt to us: And lead us not into temptation. In this abſolute forme of Prayer, you have omitted all theſe words; Our — which art in heaven, thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven, but deliver us from evill. Thus Chriſt taught his Diſciples to pray in one manner, and you in that place teach your Diſciples in another; and this is agreeable to your vulgar Tranſlation, but not to the Originall.
In the 11 to the Romans we reade, according to the Originall;Rom. 11.6. If it be of grace, then it is not now of works, for then grace is no more grace: but if it be of works, then it is now no grace, for then worke is no more worke: your Rhemiſts according to their vulgar Edition render it; And if by grace, not now of works, otherwiſe grace now is not grace: and leave out all the latter part of the verſe, in theſe words, But if it be of workes then it is now no grace, foreign. Graec. Orig.for then worke is no more workes; for what end let the Reader judge.
In the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians we reade according to the Originall, Let a man ſo accompt of us, as of the Miniſters of Chriſt, and Stewards of the Myſteries of God; foreign. 1 Cor. 4.1.your Rhemiſts following the Latine Tranſlation reade, Diſpenſers of the Myſteries of God: and howſoever theſe words might be diſpenſed withall in ſome ſenſe, yet by no meanes as you force it. For when your Proſelites doe queſtion your Prieſts why they take away the Cup from the Lay people, with theſe words ſo tranſlated you anſwer them, We are the Miniſters of Chriſt, and Diſpenſers of the myſteries of God: and ſo by conſequence we may diſpence with the Sacramentall Cup, by the authority of Scripture. Witneſſe your Councell of Trent touching the Churches power of diſpenſing with the Sacrament,Id autem Apeſtolus non obſcurè viſus eſt innuiſſe, &c. Concil. Trid. Seſſ. 21. c. 2. which profeſſeth that the Apoſtle doth plainly intimate unto us a diſpenſation with the Sacrament in thoſe words mentioned.
In the 15. of the Corinthians we tranſlate according to the Originall,1 Cor. 15.51. Behold I ſhew you a myſterie, we ſhall not all ſleepe, but we ſhall all be changed: your Rhemiſts tranſlate it according to the vulgar Latin, Rhem. Teſt. ib.flat contrary to the Originall, and the meaning of the Holy Ghoſt; Behold I tell you a myſterie, we ſhall all indeed riſe againe, but we ſhall not bee changed.
In the ſecond Epiſtle to the Corinthians wee reade according to the Originall, Wherefore henceforth know we no more after the fleſh, yea though we have knowne Chriſt after the fleſh, yet henceforth know wee him no more: Rhem. Teſt. printed at Antwerp An. 1621. in 2 Cor. 5.16.your Rhemiſts, doubting theſe words may trench too farre upon your naturall and carnall preſence, have quite perverted the ſenſe by their laſt Edition in theſe words, Therefore wee from henceforth know no man according to the fleſh, and if we have knowne according to the fleſh, but now know him no more. Here is no mention at all of Chriſt, but the chiefe words (yea) and (Chriſt) which are emphatically delivered by the Apoſtle, are quite left out; and I cannot conceive but it is done wittingly, becauſe you have carefully obſerved the Errata upon the Annotations, but none upon the Text it ſelfe.
In the ſecond of the Epheſians we reade according to the Originall,Epheſ. 2.10. foreign. We are his workmanſhip created in Christ Jeſus unto good workes: your Rhemiſts following the Latine Tranſlation deprave the Text, ſaying;Non ſatis commodè vertit vulg. Interpret. &c. Vega opuſc. de Mer. & Juſtif. q. 6. Wee are created in Christ Jeſus in good works: Which is no fit interpretation (ſaith your owne Vega) becauſe we muſt beware leſt that ſome take occaſion from the Latine, to attribute the cauſe of their creation in Christ, unto his foreſeene good works; than which nothing can be more contrarie to St. Pauls doctrine.
In the fift to the Epheſians according to the Originall we reade,foreign. Eph. 5, 32. This is a great myſterie (ſpeaking of Chriſts marriage to his Church) your Rhemiſts, to prove Matrimony one of their ſeven Sacraments, follow the Latin Tranſlation, and ſay, This is a great Sacrament; Cajet. Coment. in hunclocum.whereas your Cardinall Cajetan tells us, The learned cannot inferre from hence that Mariage is a Sacrament, for St. Paul ſaid not, It is a Sacrament, but a Myſterie.
Laſtly, to maintaine your Image-worſhip, whereas we reade in the Hebrewes according to the Greek, Jacob bleſſed both the Sonnes of Joſeph,foreign. Hebr. 11.21. and worſhipped leaning upon the top of his ſtaffe: your Rhemiſts according to the vulgar Latine reade it, Jacob dying, bleſſed every one of the ſonnes of Joſeph, and adored the top of his rod.
Thus I have given you a taſte of the differences betwixt our Tranſlations, and your vulgar Latin; now let the Reader judge which of thoſe readings are moſt agreeable to the Originall. If we enquire of your Rhemiſts, they tell us that we have no cauſe to complaine of their Tranſlation, unleſſe we complaine of the Greeke alſo. Nay more, they have not onelyonly proclaimed it to the Reader, but they have outfaced the world in their Preface, that their Tranſlation is ſo exact and preciſe, according to the Greeke,Preface to the Rhem. Teſtam. both the phraſe and the word, that delicate Heretikes (for ſo they terme us) therefore reprehend us of rudeneſſe, and that it followeth the Greeke farre more exactly then the Proteſtants Tranſlations.
It is true indeed, that ſometimes you would ſeeme to affect the Greeke, ſometimes the Latine tongue in your Tranſlation; but withall you have cunningly deviſed uncouth words and phraſes, and for this purpoſe onelyonly, that the Scripture may ſeeme hard and obſcure to the common people, that they might eyther take no pleaſure in the reading them, or reape no benefit for want of underſtanding them:Rom. 13.13. Galat. 1.14.24 Galat. 4.17. 1 Pet. 2.5. Phil. 4.10. Epheſ. 6.12. 1 Cor. 10.11. Hebr. 2.17. John 6.54. John 19.14. as for inſtance; Not in chambering and Impudicities. I expugned the faith. They emulate you not well, that you might emulate them. Be alſo your ſelves ſuperedified. Once at length you have reflouriſhed to care for me. Againſt the ſpirituals of wickedneſſe in the celeſtials. But they are written to our correption. That he might repropitiate the ſinnes of the people. All ſhall be docible of God. It was the Paraſceve of Paſche. Theſe and ſuch like are the exact and preciſe Tranſlations which you ſo bragge of, and for which we condemne you.
Now doe you joyne to theſe Engliſh phraſes, your falſifying and corrupting the genuine ſenſe of the Holy Ghoſt by your Latine Tranſlations, and tell me if I may not truly retort your Aſſertion into your owne boſome: Scripture you have indeed, but ſo mang led, corrupted, perverted by Tranſlation, that as (you) have it, it is as good as nothing.
But you have miſinterpreted the Scriptures (ſay you) according to your owne fancies.
Your bolt is ſoone ſhot, and if all your words were Oracles, and that Ipſe dixit were ſufficient, your bare word (for other proofes you have none) would eaſily conclude us; but I will ſhew you ſo plainly, that without Spectacles you may ſee that theſe Aſperſions likewiſe reflect upon your ſelves.
It was a queſtion amongſt your fellow Jeſuits, whether Jacob Clemens the Dominican might by Authority of the Scripture kill Henry the third, B. Barloes defence of the Articles, in his Preface, p. 7.King of France; and one of your Jeſuits reaſoned thus with himſelfe: Ehud killed Eglon, and therefore I may kill Henry; for Eglon was a King, and ſo is Henry; Eglon ſignifies a Calfe, and Henry is a Calviniſt; and therefore aſſuredly I may murther him by Scripture. I hope you will confeſſe that this Jeſuite, although he were of your Society, did interpret the Scripture according to his owne fancie. In like manner, your Patriarke of Venice concludes ſeven Sacraments from the words of Scripture, and I conceive, it is according to his owne fancie: That (ſaith he) which Andrew ſpake, Inn. Gentil. exam. Concil. Trid. l. 4. n. 26. Seſſ.There is a Boy which hath five loaves and two fiſhes, muſt be underſtood of the ranke of St. Peters ſucceſſors; and that which is added, Make the people ſit downe; ſignifieth, that ſalvation muſt be offered them, by teaching them the ſeven Sacraments. And whereas the Prophet David ſaith; Thou haſt put all things under his feet: Antoninus your Archbiſhop of Florence, Anton. in Sum. part. 3. tit. 22. c. 5.about two hundred years ſince, expounded thoſe words in this manner: Thou haſt made all things ſubject to the Pope; the Cattle of the field, that is to ſay, men living in the Earth: the fiſhes of the ſea, that is to ſay, the ſoules in Purgatory: the fowles of the Ayre, that is to ſay, the ſoules of the Bleſſed in heaven: whether this Expoſition be according to the ſenſe which the Catholike Church holdeth, or according to his owne fancy, let the Reader judge.
To come nearer to you:Whitak. & Camp. Rat. 9. Moſes ſaith, God made man after his Image: Pope Adrian inferreth, Therefore Images muſt be ſet up in Churches. St. Peter ſaith, Behold here are two ſwords: Pope Boniface concludes,Extra. de Major. & Obed. Therefore the Pope hath power over the ſpirituall and the temporall. St. Mathew ſaith, Give not that which is holy unto dogges: Mr. Harding expounds it,Juels Def. p. 52. Therefore it is not lawfull for the vulgar people to reade the Scriptures. It was ſayd to St. Peter in a viſion, Ariſe, kill, and eate: your Cardinall Baronius hence infers,In voto Baronii contra venetos. The Pope is Peter, and the Venetians are the meat which muſt be killed and devoured. To let paſſe thoſe farre fetched and extravagant ſenſes of Scriptures, which your learned men wyer-draw for your Romiſh Doctrine. It is the word of God, Goe to my ſervant Job, and he will pray for thee: therefore there is an Invocation of Saints in Scripture. Give us this day our daily bread: Bellar. de Sāct. Beat. l. 1. c. 10.therefore the bread muſt bee given to the Common people, and not the Cup.Roffenſ. adver. Luther. Art. 16. Our Saviour opened the Booke of the Prophet Eſay, and afterwards cloſed it: Lediſ. de divinis Script. Quâvis linguâ non legendâ. cap. 22.therefore Prayer and Service in an unknowne tongue is commanded by the Scripture. Theſe and ſuch like falſe glaſſes you temper for your Spectacles, to deceive your poore ignorant Proſelites with the name of Scripture; and for feare they ſhould make any doubt of the right interpretation of them,Si quis habet interpretationē Eccleſiae Romanae, de loco aliquo Scripturae, etiamſi—tamen habet ipſiſsimū verbum Dei. Hoſius de expreſſo verbo Dei. your Cardinall Hoſius proteſteth to all Romaniſts, If a man have the Interpretation of the Church of Rome of any place of Scripture, he hath the very words of God; though he neither know, nor underſtand, whether, nor how it agreeth with the words of Scripture. This puts me in minde of that excellent paſſage of St. Hilary, who ſpeaking of the errours and Hereſies crept into the Church in the dayes of Conſtantius, makes this generall complaint, which in theſe dayes is truly verified in the Roman Church;Hilard. 3. ad Conſtant. & l. 1. ad Conſt. defunctum. Faith is now come to depend rather on time, than on the Goſpel; your ſtate is dangerous and miſerable: you have as many faiths as wills; and as many doctrines as manners; whilſt faiths are either ſo written as you liſt, or ſo vnderſtood as you will.
I come now to your forbidden Bookes, wherein the myſterie of iniquitie will manifeſtly appeare: and firſt touching the ſacred Bible which is forbidden in the firſt place.
The Bible (ſay you) is not ſo forbidden, but that it is in the Biſhops power to grant leave, if upon Conference with the Pariſh Prieſt or Confeſſor of the partie that deſireth leave, he finde him to be ſuch a one as may not incurre danger of faith, &c. which with any reaſonable man may be counted ſufficient liberty.
It is true that by the fourth Rule of Pope Pius the fourth, the Bible may be licenſed by the Biſhop, but the party muſt have the licenſe in writing: and withall it is decreed,Regula 4. in indice libr. prohibit. p. 16. If any preſume without ſuch licenſe either to reade or have it, unleſſe he come in firſt and give up his Bible to his Ordinary, let him not have the pardon of his ſinnes. It is not lawfull then to reade the Bible without a diſpenſation, but with a licenſe any man may reade it: and this (ſay you) is ſufficient liberty for any reaſonable man. If I ſhould grant you that which you ſay, yet you are never able to make good that licenſe: for Pope Clement the eight about thirty yeares after, upon this diſpenſation ſo granted, gives us to underſtand, That upon the Rule of Pius the fourth, Obſervatio circa 4. Regulam Ibid. p. 22. in fine Concil. Trident.no new power was granted to the Biſhops, or Inquiſitors, or Superiors, to licenſe the buying, reading, or keeping the Bible in the vulgar tongue; ſeeing hitherto by the command and practiſe of the holy Inquiſition, the power of granting ſuch licenſes, to reade or keepe Bibles in the vulgar Language, or any part of Scripture, as well of the New as the Old Teſtament, or any ſums or Hyſtoricall Abridgement of the ſame in any vulgar Language hath beene taken from them: Quod quidem inviolatè ſervandum eſt; and this is inviolably to be obſerved. You ſee then, that howſoever your Pius Pope gave a diſpenſation for the reading of the Scriptures: yet Pope Clement his Succeſſor, declared that licenſe to be void and of none effect; and that which concludes your Aſſertion for an untruth, it was by him decreed, to bee kept without any diſpenſation or violation.Inviolatè ſervandum.
Thus touching the ſacred Bible you have ſeverall Tranſlations, upon ſeverall paines to be received, and both different each from other in many hundred places: you have ranked the ſacred Bible amongſt the Bookes prohibited; and laſtly, you ſeemingly grant a licenſe for the Ignorant to reade the Scripture: and by another decree you abridge that licenſe ſo granted. I proceed from the forbidding of Scriptures, to your purging and falſifying of the ancient Fathers.
As for Fathers (ſay you) it is moſt groſſely falſe which the Knight after the ordinary Miniſteriall tune, ſtands canting, that we blot out and raze them at our pleaſures. What is it then that theſe men would have? What is it they can carpe at? Nothing but that they themſelves are ſtung, in that hereby they are kept either from publiſhing their owne wicked workes, or corrupting the Fathers at their pleaſure; and to wipe away this blemiſh from themſelves, would lay it upon us. Thus you.