CHAPTER II. What is that means whereby the revealed truths of God are con· veyed to our understanding, and which must determine controversies in faith and religion? "OF our estimation, respect, and reverence to Holy Scripture, even protestants themselves do in fact give testimony, while they possess it from us, and take it upon the integrity of our custody. No cause imaginable could avert our will from giving the function of supreme and sole judge to holy writ, if both the thing were not impossible in itself, and if both reason and experience did not convince our understanding, that by this assertion contentions are increased and not ended. We acknowledge Holy Scripture to be a most perfect rule, for as much as writing can be a rule: we only deny that it excludes either Divine tradition, though it be unwritten, or an external judge, to keep, to propose, to interpret it in a true, orthodox, and catholic sense. Every single book, every chapter, yea, every period of Holy Scripture, is infallibly true, and wants no due perfection But must we therefore infer, that all other books of Scripture are to be excluded, lest by addition of them we may seem to derogate from the perfection of the former? When the first books of the Old and New Testament were written, they did not exclude unwritten traditions, nor the authority of the church to decide controversies: and who hath then so altered their nature, and filled them with such jealousies, as that now they cannot agree for fear of mutual disparagement? What greater wrong is it for the written word to be compartner now with the unwritten, than for the unwritten, which was once alone, to be afterward joined with the written? Who ever heard, that to commend the fidelity of a keeper were to disauthorise the thing committed to his custody? Or, that to extol the integrity and knowledge, and to avouch the necessity of a judge in suits of law, were to deny perfection in the law? Are there not in commonwealths, besides the laws, written and unwritten customs, judges appointed to declare both the one and the other, as several occasions may require? 2. "That the Scripture alone cannot be judge in controversies of faith, we gather very clearly from the quality of a writing in general; from the nature of holy writ in particular, which must be believed as true and infallible; from the editions and translations of it; from the difficulty to understand it without hazard of error; from the inconveniences that must follow upon the ascribing of sole judicature to it; and, finally, from the confessions of our adversaries. And, on the other side, all these difficulties ceasing, and all other qualities requisite to a judge concurring in the visible church of Christ our Lord, we must conclude, that she it is to whom, in doubts concerning faith and religion, all Christians ought to have recourse. 3. "The name, notion, nature, and properties of a judge cannot in common reason agree to any mere writing, which, be it otherwise in its kind never so highly qualified with sanctity and infallibility, yet it must ever be, as all writings are, deaf, dumb, and inanimate. By a judge, all wise men understand a person endued with life and reason, able to hear, to examine, to declare his mind to the disagreeing parties, in such sort, as that each one may know whether the sentence be in favour of his cause or against his pretence; and he must be appliable, and able to do all this, as the diversity of controversies, persons, occasions, and circumstances may require. There is a great and plain distinction between a judge and a rule: for as in a kingdom the judge has his rule to follow, which are the received laws and customs; so are they not fit or able to declare or be judges to themselves, but that office must belong to a living judge. The Holy Scripture may be and is a rule, but cannot be a judge, because it being always the same, cannot declare itself any one time, or upon any one occasion, more particularly than upon any other; and let it be read over an hundred times, it will still be the same, and no more fit alone to terminate controversies in faith, than the law would be to end suits, if it were given over to the fancy and gloss of every single man. 6 5. "This difference betwixt a judge and a rule D. Potter perceived, when, more than once having styled the Scripture a judge, by way of correcting that term, he adds, or rather a rule;' because he knew that an inanimate writing could not be a judge. From hence also it was, that though protestants in their beginning affirmed Scripture alone to be the judge of controversies, yet upon a more advised reflection they changed the phrase, and said, that not Scripture, but the Holy Ghost speaking in Scripture, is judge in controversies; a difference without a disparity. The Holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to us than the Scripture in which he speaks; as a man speaking only in Latin can be no better understood than the tongue wherein he speaketh. And therefore to say a judge is necessary for deciding controversies about the meaning of Scripture, is as much as to say he is necessary to decide what the Holy Ghost speaks in Scripture. And it were a conceit, equally foolish and pernicious, if one should seek to take away all judges in the kingdom upon this nicety-that albeit laws cannot be judges, yet the law-maker speaking in the law may perform that office, as it the law-inaker speaking in the law were with more perspicuity understood than the law whereby he speaketh. 5. "But though some writing were granted to have a privilege to declare itself upon supposition that it were maintained in being, and preserved entire from corruptions; yet it is manifest that no writing can conserve itself, nor can complain or denounce the falsifier of it; and therefore it stands in need of some watchful and not-erring eye to guard it, by means of whose assured vigilancy we may undoubtedly receive it sincere and pure. 6. "And suppose it could defend itself from corruption, how could it assure us that itself were canonical, and of infallible verity ? By saying so? Of this very affirmation there will remain the same question still how can it prove itself to be infallibly true? Neither can there ever be an end of the like multiplied demands, till we rest in the external authority of some person or persons bearing witness to the world that such or such a book is Scripture; and yet upon this point, according to protestants, all other controversies in faith depend. 7. "That Scripture cannot assure us that itself is canonical Scripture, is acknowledged by some protestants in express words, and by all of them in deeds. Mr. Hooker, whom D. Potter ranketh* among men of great learning and judgment, saith, 'Of thingst necessary, the very chiefest is to know what books we are to esteem holy; which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture itself to teach.' And this he proveth by the same argument which we lately used, saying thus: 'It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us, that we do well to think it his word. For if any one book of Scripture did give testimony to all, yet still that Scripture which giveth testimony to the rest would require another Scripture to give credit unto it. Neither could we come to any pause whereon to rest, unless besides Scripture there were something which might assure us,' &c. And this he acknowledges to be the church. By the way, if of things necessary the very chiefest cannot possibly be taught by Scripture, as this man of so great learning affirmeth, and demonstratively proveth, how can the protestant clergy of England subscribe to their sixth Article? wherein it is said of the Scripture, 'Whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation:' and concerning their belief and profession of this Article, they are particularly examined when they are ordained priests and bishops. With Hooker, his defendant Covel doth punctually agree. Whitaker likewise ccnfesseth, that the question about canonical Scriptures is defined to us, not by testimony of the private spirit, which,' saith he, being private and secret, is unfit to teach and refel others;' but (as he acknowledgeth) by the ¶ ecclesiastical tradition: an argument,' saith he, whereby may be argued and convinced what books be canonical and what be not.' Luther saith, This** indeed the church hath, that she can discern the word of God from the word of men' as Augustine confesseth; that he believed the gospel, being moved by the authority of the church, which did preach this to be the gospel.' Fulk teacheth, that the churchtt hath judgment to discern true writings from counterfeit, and the word of God from the writing of men; and that this judgment she hath not of herself, but of the Holy Ghost.' And to the end that you may not be ignorant from what church you must receive Scriptures, hear your first patriarch Luther speaking against them, who (as he saith) brought in + Eccles. Polit. book 1. ch. 14. p. 335. Oxf. edit, 1836. Ibid. book 3. ch. 8, p. 459, &c vol. i Ibid. 1. 2. c. 4. p. 300. • P. 131. Ibid. book 2. ch. 4. p 371. vol. i. L. de Cap. Babyl. tom. ii. Wittemb. f. 88. mabaptism, that so they might despite the pope. 'Verily,' saith at, 'these men build upon a weak foundation for by this means they ought to deny the whole Scripture, and the office of preaching: for all these we have from the pope; otherwise we must go make a new Scripture.' 8. "But now in deeds they all make good, that without the church's authority no certainty can be had what scripture is canonical, while they cannot agree in assigning the canon of the Holy Scripture. Of the Epistle of St. James, Luther had these words: "Thet Epistle of James is contentious, swelling, dry, strawy, and unworthy of an apostolical spirit.' Which censure of Luther, Illiricus acknowledgeth and maintaineth. Chemnitius teacheth, that the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third of John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John, are apocryphal, as not having sufficient testimony of their authority, and therefore that nothing in controversy can be proved out of these|| books. The same is taught by divers other Lutherans: and if some other amongst them be of a contrary opinion since Luther's time, I wonder what new infallible ground they can allege, why they leave their master and so many of his prime scholars? I know no better ground, than because they may with as much freedom abandon him, as he was bold to alter that canon of Scripture which he found received in God's church. 9. "What books of Scripture the protestants of England hold for canonical is not easy to affirm. In their sixth Article they say, 'In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testamant, of whose authority was never any doubt in the church.' What mean they by these words-that by the church's consent they are assured what Scriptures be canonical? This were to make the church judge, and not Scriptures alone. Do they only understand the agreement of the church to be a probable inducement? Probability is no sufficient ground for an infallible assent of faith. By this rule (of whose authority was never any doubt in the church) the whole Book of Esther must quit the canon, because some in the church have excluded it from the canon, as ¶Melito Asianus, **Athanasius, and ††Gregory Nazianzen. And Luther (if protestants will be content that he be in the church) saith, ‘The Jews‡‡ place the Book of Esther in the canon; which yet, if I might be judge, doth rather deserve to be put out of the canon.' And of Ecclesiastes he saith, This §§book is not full; there are in it many abrupt things: he wants boots and spurs, that is, he hath no perfect sentence, he rides upon a long reed, like me when I was in the monastery.' And much more is to be read in him; who|||| saith further, that the said book was not written by Solomon, but by Syrach, in the time of the Maccabees, and that it is Ep. con Anab ad duos Paroch. tom. ii. Ger. Witt. In Examin. Conc Irid. par. I. p. 55. ++ In Carm. de Genuinis Scrip. t In Enchirid. p. 65. Ibid. ** In Synops. Lib de serv. arb con. Eras. tom ii. Witt. fol. 471. In lat. serm. conviv. Fran. in 8 impr. anno 1571. In Ger. colloq. Lutheri ab Aurifabro ed Fran. tit. de lib. Vet et Nov Test. f. 379 like to the Talmud (the Jews' Bible), out of many books heaped into one work, perhaps out of the library of King Ptolomeus. And further he saith, that *he does not believe all to have been done that there is set down. And he teacheth the †Book of Job to be as it were an argument for a fable (or comedy), to set before us an example of patience. And he delivers this general censure of the prophets' books-The sermons of no prophet were written whole and perfect; but their disciples and auditors snatched now one sentence and then another, and so put them all into one book, and by this means the Bible was conserved.' If this were so, the books of the pro phets, being not written by themselves, but promiscuously and casually by their disciples, will soon be called in question. Are not these errors of Luther fundamental? and yet, if protestants deny the infallibility of the church, upon what certain ground can they disprove these Lutheran and Luciferian blasphemies? O godly reformer of the Roman church! But to return to our English canon of Scripture. In the New Testament, by the above-mentioned rule (of whose authority was never any doubt in the church), divers books of the New Testament must be discanonized, to wit, all those of which some ancients have doubted, and those which divers Lutherans have of late denied. It is worth the observation, how the beforementioned sixth Article doth specify by name all the books of the Old Testament which they hold for canonical; but those of the New, without naming any one, they shuffle over with this generality -All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account them canonical. The mystery is easy to be unfolded. If they had descended to particulars, they must have contradicted some of their chiefest brethren. As they are commonly received,' &c. I ask, by whom? By the church of Rome? Then by the same reason they must receive divers books of the Old Testament which they reject. By Lutherans? Then with Lutherans they may deny some books of the New Testament. If it be the greater or less number of voices that must cry up or down the canon of Scripture, our Roman canon will prevail: and among protestants the certainty of their faith must be reduced to an uncertain controversy of fact, whether the number of those who reject, or of those others who receive such and such scriptures, be greater their faith must alter according to years and days. When Luther first appeared, he and his disciples were the greater number of that new church; and so this claim (of being commonly received') stood for them, till Zuinglius and Calvin grew to some equal or greater number than that of the Lutherans, and then this rule of commonly received' will canonise their canon against the Lutherans. I would gladly know why, in the former part of their Article, they say both of the Old and New Testament, "In the name of the Holy Scripture, we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the church and in the latter part, speaking again of the New Testament, they give a far different rule, saying, All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we receive, Ib. tit. de Patriarch. et Proph. fol. 282. Tit. de lib. Vet, et Nov. Test, 6 Fol. 380. |