Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

any thing at all; because one may write without intent to signify, or affirm any thing, but only to set down, or, as it were, paint such characters, syllables, and words, as men are wont to set cópies, not caring what the signification of the words import; or as one transcribes a writing, which himself understands not; or when one writes what another dictates; and in other such cases, wherein it is clear, that the writer speaks or signifies nothing in such his writing: and therefore by it we cannot hear or understand his voice. With what certainty then can any man affirm, that by Scripture itself they can see, that the writers did intend to signify any thing at all; that they were apostles, or other canonical authors; that they wrote their own sense, and not what was dictated by some other man; and, finally and especially, that they wrote by the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost.

12." But let us be liberal, and for the present suppose [not grant] that Scripture is like to corporal light, by itself alone able to determine, and move our understanding to assent; yet the similitude proves against themselves: for light is not visible, except to such as have eyes, which are not made by the light, but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause. And therefore to hold the similitude, Scripture can be clear only to those who are endued with the eye of faith; or as D. Potter above-cited saith, to all that have* eyes to discern the shining beams thereof; that is, to the believer, as immediately after he speaketh. Faith then must not origin

Page 141.

ally proceed from Scripture, but it is to be presupposed, before we can see the light thereof; and consequently there must be some other means precedent to Scripture, to beget faith, which can be no other than the church.

13. Others affirm, that they know canonical Scriptures to be such, by the title of the books. But how shall we know such inscriptions or titles to be infallibly true? From this their answer our argument is strengthened, because divers apocryphal writings have appeared under the titles and names of sacred authors, as the gospel of Thomas, mentioned by St. Augustine;* the gospel of Peter, which the Nazarenes did use, as Theodorett witnesseth; with which Seraphion, a catholic bishop, was for some time deceived, as may be read in Eusebius, who also speaketh of the apocalypse of Peter. The like may be said of the gospels of Barnabas, Bartholomew, and other such writings specified by Pope Gelasius. Protestants reject likewise some part of Esther and Daniel, which bear the same titles with the rest of those books, as also both we and they hold for apocryphal the third and fourth books which go under the name of Esdras, and yet both of us receive his first and second book: wherefore titles are not sufficient assurances what books be canonical; which D. Covel¶ acknowledgeth in these words: It is not the word of God which doth, or possibly can assure us, that we do well to think it is the word of God, the first outward motion leading men so to esteem of the Scripture, is the authority of God's

Con. Adimantum, c. 11.

+ Lib. vi. c. 10.

+ L. ii. Heretic. Fab.
́§ Lib. vi. c. 11.

Dist. Can. Sancta Romana. In his Defence, art. 4. p. 31.

church, which teacheth us to receive Mark's Gospel, who was not an apostle, and to refuse the gospel of Thomas, who was an apostle; and to retain Luke's Gospel, who saw not Christ, and to reject the gospel of Nicodemus, who saw him.'

[ocr errors]

14. Another answer, or rather objection, they are wont to bring that the Scripture being a principle, needs no proof among Christians. So D. Potter. But this is either a plain begging of the question, or manifestly untrue, and is directly against their own doctrine and practice. If they mean, that Scripture is one of those principles, which, being the first, and most known in all sciences, cannot be demonstrated by other principles, they suppose that which is in question, whether there be not some principle (for example, the church) whereby we may come to the knowledge of Scripture. If they intend, that Scripture is a principle, but not the first, and most known in Christianity, then Scripture may be proved. For principles, that are not the first, nor known of themselves, may and ought to be proved before we can yield assent either to them, or to other verities depending on them. It is repugnant to their own doctrine and practice, inasmuch as they were wont to affirm, that one part of Scripture may be known to be canonical, and may be interpreted by another. And since every Scripture is a principle sufficient upon which to ground Divine faith, they must grant, that one principle may, and sometimes must, be proved by another. Yea, this their answer, upon due ponderation, falls out to prove what we affirm: for, since all prin- *

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

ciples cannot be proved, we must (that our labour may not be endless) come at length to rest in some principle, which may not require any other proof: such is tradition, which involves an evidence of fact; and, from hand to hand, and age to age, bringing us up to the times and persons of the apostles, and our Saviour himself, cometh to be confirmed by all those miracles and other arguments, whereby they convinced their doctrine to be true. Wherefore the ancient fathers avouch, that we must receive the sacred canon upon the credit of God's church. St. Athanasius* saith, that only four gospels are to be received, because the canons of the holy catholic church have so determined. The third council of Carthage,† having set down the books of Holy Scripture, gives the reason, because, We have received from our fathers, that those are to be read in the church.' St. Augustine, speaking of the Acts of the Apostles, saith, To which book I must give credit, if I give credit to the gospel, because the catholic church doth alike recommend to me both these books.' And in the same place he hath also these words: I would not believe the gospel, unless the authority of the catholic church did move me.' A saying so plain, that Zuinglius is forced to cry out, Here§ I implore your equity to speak freely, whether the saying of Augustine seems not over bold, or else unadvisedly to have fallen from him.'

[ocr errors]

6

15. "But suppose they were assured what books were canonical, this will little avail them,

* In Synops.

Cont. ep. Fundam. c. 5.

+ Can. 47.

§ Tom. i. fol. 135.

unless they be likewise certain in what language they remain uncorrupted, or what translations be true. Calvin✶ acknowledgeth corruption in the Hebrew text; which, if it be taken without points, is so ambiguous, that scarcely any one chapter, yea period, can be securely understood without the help of some translation: if with points, these were, after St. Jerome's time, invented by the perfidious Jews, who either by ignorance might mistake, or upon malice force, the text to favour their impieties. And that the Hebrew text still retains much ambiguity, is apparent by the disagreeing translations of novelists; which also proves the Greek, for the New Testament, not to be void of doubtfulness, as Calvin† confesseth it to be corrupted. And although both the Hebrew and Greek were pure, what doth this help, if only Scripture be the rule of faith, and so very few be able to examine the text in these languages? All then must be reduced to the certainty of translations into other tongues, wherein no private man having any promise or assurance of infallibility, protestants, who rely upon Scripture alone, will find no certain ground for their faith: as accordingly Whitakert affirmeth, Those who understand not the Hebrew and Greek, do err often and unavoidably.'

[ocr errors]

16. "Now concerning the translations of protestants, it will be sufficient to set down what the laborious, exact, and judicious author of the Protestant Apology, &c. dedicated to our late King

*Instit. c. 6. sect. 11.

+ Ibid. c. 7. sect. 12.

Lib. de sancta Scriptura, p. 523.

« ZurückWeiter »