A treatise of the iudge of controuersies. Written in Latin, by the R. Father Martinus Becanus of the Society of Iesus, Professour in Diuinity. And Englished by W.W. Gent

OF THE IVDGE OF CONTROVERSIES.

HEERE We treat of the Iudge of Controuerſies in matters concerning Faith & Religion: about which we Catholikes, and our Aduerſaries do differ. Our Aduerſaries for the moſt part do hould, that Scripture alone is the Rule and Iudge of all Controuerſies in matters of faith and religion: And that out of it alone all controuerſies Whatſoeuer▪ may be decided and ended, without any other Traditions, or authority of the Church. This they proue three wayes.

Firſt becauſe God in the old Teſtament did ſend the Iewes to Scripture only, as vnto their Iudge; for we reade Iſa. 8. 20 in the Prophet Iſaias: To the law and teſtimony. The ſame alſo doth Chriſt in the Ioan. 5. 39. new, when he ſayth, Search the Scriptures. And the men of Beroea followed this counſell of Chriſt, of whom it is written, that they were daily ſearching the Act. 17. 11. Scriptures if theſe things were ſo.

Secondly becauſe God in the ould Teſtament hath commanded that nothing ſhould be added to the Scripture, Deut. 4. 2. you shall not ad to the word (ſayth he) that I ſpeake to you. And againe, VVhat I commaund Deut 12. 32. thee, that only do to our Lord: neither adde any thing nor diminish. Likewiſe Chriſt him ſelfe and his Apoſtles, in the new Law do condemne all Traditions, & will haue vs to be ſatisfied with Scripture only; as in S. Matthew, You haue Mat. 15. 6. made fruſtrate the commandement of God for your Tradition. And againe. I perſecuted the Galat. 1. 13. Church of God (ſayth S. Paul) being more aboundantly an emulatour of the traditions of my ſore-fathers. And alſo: Beware leaſt any Colloſſ. 2. 8. man ſeduce you by Philoſophy, and vaine fallacy according to the tradition of men.

Thirdly, becauſe S. Paul plainly doth confeſſe, that only Scripture by it ſelfe is ſufficient, when he ſaith, All 2. Tim. 3. 16. ſcripture inſpired of God, is profitable to teach, to argue, to conuert, to instruct in iustice: that the man of God may be perfect, inſtructed to euery good worke. And the ſame Apoſtle accurſeth them who thinke that any thing ought to be added to the Scripture. If any (ſayth he) Euangelize to you beſides that which you haue receiued, be he anathema. The ſame alſo S. Iohn doth witneſſe. I teſtify (ſayth he) to euery one hearing the words of the Propheſy of this booke, if any man shall ad to theſe things, God shall ad vpon him the plagues written in this booke. So far our Aduerſaries.

But Catholikes make a diſtinction betwixt the Iudge and the Rule. They call that the Iudge which giueth ſentence betwixt them that contend. And that the Rule according to the which ſentence is giuen by the Iudge. They ſuppoſing this diſtinction teach three things. Firſt that the Church is the Iudge of Controuerſies. Secondly that the Rule which the Church doth follow in giuing of ſentence, ought not to be the Scripture only, but ſcripture and tradition togeather. Thirdly that the Church according to this rule, may pronounce ſentence two wayes: eyther by the Pope▪ who is Head and Paſtour of the Church: or els by generall Councells approued by him, the which do repreſent the Church. By both which meanes the ſentence cannot but be infallible. For neyther is it poſſible that the Pope ſhould erre in faith, to whom it is ſayd in the perſon of S. Peter, I haue praied for thee, that thy faith may not ſaile: Neyther the Councells lawfully aſſembled, by reaſon of the promiſe of Chriſt; Behould I am with you alwayes, euen to the conſummation of the world.

Now to the end I may the better confirme this opinion and conuince the other, I purpoſe to vſe ſix arguments by the which I will manifeſtly proue that the ſcripture only is not ſufficient to be the Iudge of all Controuerſies. The Firſt ſhalbe taken from the office of a Iudge which cànot be giuen to the Scripture. The ſecond from the Scripture it ſelfe, in the which two things are to be conſidered, the bare letter, and the meaning therof. The bare letter doth kill, as the Apoſtle ſayth: the meaning or ſenſe is obſcure and hard to be vnderſtood, and therefore it necdeth ſome other Iudge or interpreter. The third ſhalbe drawne from the controuerſies themſelues which are in queſtion, for there are ſome controuerſies which cannot be decided by ſcripture ſeing there is no mention at all made of them in the ſcripiture. The fourth ſhalbe taken out from the vſe and practiſe of the old teſtament, in the which not the ſcripture but the high Prieſt is acknowledged to be Iudge. The fift out of the like vſe and practiſe of the new teſtament. The ſixt is gathered out of the Analogy or proportion of the Ciuill Iudge, concerning the queſtions and controuerſies which fall out in the ciuill gouerment or Common Wealth. For the written law is not the Iudge of ſuch controuerſies, but the Prince or ſome peculiar Iudge appointed by him or his Counſell.

Moreouer I will examine the teſtimonies of the Scripture, brought in againſt vs in the beginning. By the examining of the which I will infer three things. Firſt that ſome of them do rather make for the Catholikes then for the Proteſtants, and eſpecially that of the which moſt of all they bragge and boaſt, Search the ſcriptures. Secondly that others of them belong nothing to the matter of which we ſpeake. And laſtly that the Proteſtants, who only ſeeke to obtaine the victory out of the ſcripture, are altogether ignorant of the ſenſe or meaning of it. But now I will begin with our owne arguments.

The Scripture alone is not the Iudge of Controuerſies, concerning matters of Fayth and Religion.

I. ARGVMENT, Drawne from the Office of a Iudge.

THE firſt argumēt which is drawn from the office of the Iudge thus I propound. He that is the Iudge betwixt two at variance, ought in ſuch manner to pronounce the ſentence that both of them may plainly perceiue what the ſentence of the Iudge is, ſo that the one may ſee it is for him, and the other that it is againſt him, otherwiſe the aduerſaries will neuer leaue of their contentions, but both will ſtill continue defending their cauſe. But the Scripture cannot do this, therefore the Scripture cannot be the Iudge of al controuerſies. The Maiot is cleare. The Minor I proue; Becauſe the Lutherans and the Caluiniſts for theſe many yeares haue iarred and warred concerning all theſe articles.

1. The Baptiſme of Children. 2. The reall preſence of Chriſt in the Holy Euchariſt. 3. Predeſtination. 4. The perſon of Chriſt. 5. Exorciſmes. 6. The number & Canon of books of the Scripture.

And yet notwithſtanding the ſcripture which they would haue to be Iudge, could not hitherto, nor can decide or put an end to theſe controuerſies. Hitherto it hath neuer beene heard that euer ſentence was ſo pronounced by the ſcripture, that eyther the Lutherās or the Caluiniſts haue confeſſed, that it was pronounced either againſt the one or the other of them. And this is plaine. For as yet they both go forward, moſt bitterly ſtriuing & contending. Which doubtleſſe they would neuer do, if they did perceiue that the ſentence were plainly giuen in their controuerſies; for then either the parties condemned would ceaſe from contending any longer, and ſubmit themſelues to the ſentence, or els they would appeale to ſome other Iudge, pretending themſelues to be vniuſtly condemned. But neither of theſe do neyther.

Now therefore that the force of this argument may more plainly appeare, two things are to be conſidered: The one is, that the Lutherans and Caluiniſts do openly confeſſe, that they acknowledg no other Iudg then ſcripture only. Which they affirme to be plaine, mainfeſt, euident, and ſufficient by it ſelfe to decide all controuerſies whatſoeuer in matters of faith and religion, & that no falſity or errour can be found in it. The other is, that although they haue this Iudge, yet notwithſtanding they obtaine nothing by, it but that their contentions ſtill grow greater, & greater, and they themſelues become more hatefull to each other. Out of which it followes, that eyther the ſcripture hath not hither to pronounced clearly, euidently, and ſufficiently that ſentence, or if it haue, that eyther the Lutherans or the Caluinists are very ſtubborne and obſtinate, who will not yield to ſo manifeſt and ſo euident a ſentence, of which two let them make their choyce.

II. ARGVMENT, Drawne out of the Scripture it ſelfe.

IN the Scripture two things are alwaies to be conſidered, to wit the bare letter, and the ſenſe, euen as in a man, the ſoule and the body. Of theſe two, the holy Apoſtle as ſome interpret doth ſpeake, when he ſaith, the letter killeth but the ſpirit quickneth, as though21 Cor. 3. 6. he had ſaid, if thou follow the true meaning and ſenſe of the Scripture, which is like the quickning ſoule and ſpirit, it will helpe thee to ſaluation. But if thou neglect the true and lawfull ſenſe thereof, and ſticke only to the plaine, bare, and outward letter, and ſtriue to make that the meaning and ſenſe, which the bare letter only ſeemeth to import, without doubt very often thou wilt fall into errour; This interpretation S. Auguſtine doth approue. Oftentymes (ſayth he) O my dearely beloued Aug ſer. 7 de temp. brethren, I haue admonished your Charity, that in the Leſſons which theſe daies are read in the Church, we ought not to attend only to that which we are taught by the bare letter, but that we must ſeeke faithfully (remouing away the veile of the letter) a true quickning ſpirit: for the Apoſtle ſaith, that the letter killeth, but the ſpirit quickneth. For the vnhappy Iewes, and the more vnhappy Heretikes whilſt they regard the meere ſound of the letter, as a body without the ſoule, ſo they remaine dead, without the quickning ſpirit The like he hath in his third booke of Chriſtian doctrine in the 5. Chapter.

This preſuppoſed two things are to be proued. The one is that the ſcripture if we reſpect the bare letter cannot poſſibly be the Iudge of controuerſies. The other is, that albeit we marke alſo the ſenſe and meaning of it, yet neither ſo it can be the Iudge. The former part is certaine, for that which leadeth men into errour and hereſie, cannot be the infallible Iudge of all controuerſies, but the ſcripture if we reſpect the bare letter thereof leadeth men into errour and hereſy, therefore it cannot be the infallible Iudge of controuerſies. The Maior is plaine of it ſelfe, becauſe we ſeeke an infallible Iudge to the end we may not erre: therfore that which leadeth vs into errour is not an infallible Iudge. The Minor is euident out of the Apoſtle: becauſe the ſcripture according to the letter killeth, which is as much to ſay, it leadeth vs into errour.

So it killed the Iewes who vnderſtood all thoſe things which were foretould of Chriſt, according vnto the bare letter, and did not perceiue the inward ſenſe thereof. Of whom the Apoſtle ſpeaketh ſaying, for euen vntill this 2. Cor. 3. 15. day when Moyſes is read, a veile is put vpon their harts: that is, yet the Iewes do not vnderſtand Moyſes whom dayly they read, by reaſon that they do not ſearch into the inward ſenſe and meaning of him, but are ſatisfied with the bare letter. Or els more plainly: They do not acknowledg Chriſt, who is hidden in Moyſes from their ſight vnder the externall ceremonies and ſacrifices euen as vnder a couering veyle. For euen yet they ſticke in the veyle, not conſidering what doth ly hid vnder it.

And this is it that Chriſt reprehendeth in ſaying: Search the ſcriptures, for you thinke in them to haue life euerlaſting: And the Ioan. 5. 39. ſame are they that giue testimony of me, and you will not come to me that you may haue life. As though he had ſayd, If you deſire to know certainly that I am the Meſſias promiſed of God (of whom Moyſes and the Prophets haue written) you muſt not only content your ſelues with reading of the ſcripture, but alſo ſearch diligently into the inward ſenſe & meaning, which lieth hidden vnder the outward letter as vnder a certaine figure and ſhaddow. But this hitherto you haue not practized. For although you be perſwaded that euerlaſting life is to be found in the Scriptures, yet in what particuler manner you are to ſeeke it there, that you may find it, hereof you are altogether ignorant. It is not placed in the outward letter, or in the externall figures and ceremonies, as you imagin but in the ſpirit, ſenſe and ſecret miſteries thereof: There ſeeke me, and you ſhall finde me.

But the letter killeth not only the Iewes, but alſo the heretikes. For many therefore haue died in their owne errours, becauſe they hauing forſaken the true ſenſe of ſcripture, which the holy & Catholike Church doth follow, tooke hold of another ſenſe according to the outward bare letter. The which I will breifly make plaine by ſetting downe ſome few examples.

The Sabellians held that there were not three diuine perſons of the B. Trinity but one only, to the which they gaue three diuers names in regard of three diuers offices or operations. For they called the ſame perſon the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghoſt but in a diuerſe reſpect. The Father for that he was the author of all creatures the Sonne becauſe he tooke our humaine nature of the B. Virgin, the holy Ghoſt for that he ſanctified vs, by his euerlaſting grace. Out of their own opinion therefore is neceſſarily inferred, that God the Father did dye and ſuffer. For if there be but one perſon which is called the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghoſt, and that perſon did dye & ſuffer, it followeth thereupon that God the father did dye and ſuffer; For this Aug. lib. de h • r. cap. 41. opinion they are called by S. Auguſtine, Patropaſſians: but from whence procedeth this ſo great an errour? Truly from the letter that killeth. For according to the outward letter they vnderſtood that place of S. Iohn, I and the Father am one, that Ioan. 10. 30. the Father and the Sonne (and conſequently the holy Ghoſt) were one in perſon, and yet in the ſenſe of the holy Church, although they be but one in nature, yet they are two in perſon.

The Arians ſayd that Chriſt was not God, but inferiour to him. But from whom had they this errour, but becauſe they forſaking the ſenſe of the Church expounded the words of Chriſt Ioan. 14. v. 28. according to the letter. The Father (ſayth he) is greater then I, as if he had meant, to wit the Father is abſolutly and in euery reſpect greater then he. But the ſenſe of Vide Ath • . ora. 2. cont. Arian. Hila. lib. 5. de Trini. Auguſt. lib. 3. cont. Maxi. cap. 24. & 25. & lib. de Trin. c. 7▪ the Church is that Chriſt according to his humaine nature only is leſſe then God the Father, but equall according to his diuine. In the former ſenſe is that to be vnderſtood, The Father is greater then I: in the other this, I & the Father are one, and ſo all do agree very well together.

The Macedonians did deny the holy Ghoſt to be God, but out of what groūd? Out of the killing letter: for expounding that of the Apoſtle according to the law the ſpirit ſearcheth all things, yea euen the profundities 1. Cor. 2. v. 10. of God. Wherhence they inferred▪ He that ſearcheth ſeeketh, he that ſeeketh doubteth, he that doubteth is ignorant, he that is ignorant is not God. See Theophilact. D. Thoman • & others▪ vpon that place. 1. Paral. 28. v. 9. Pſal. 7 10. Iere. 17. 10. Therefore the holy Ghoſt is not God. But the Church interpreteth that place thus. The ſpirit ſearcheth all, that is, doth penetrate orpiere and comprehend all. In the which ſenſe God the Father alſo is ſayd to ſearch all. God doth ſearch the harts of all. God ſearching the harts and reynes. I the Lord ſearching harts.

The Manichees did affirme that the ould Teſtament was contrary to the new, and wherfore? Becauſe they ſquared all according to the outward letter, into the which only if we looke, the one may ſeeme to diſagree with theGen 1. 1. Ioan. 1. 3. Gen 1. 27. Ioan. 8. v. 44. Gen. 2. 2. Ioan. 5. 17. Auguſt. lib. cont. Ad • mant. other. For the old ſayth that God created all things; the new, that the VVord created all. Againe the old ſayth, that God made man according to his image. But the new that man is of the diuell. In like manner the old ſayth that God did reſt the ſeauenth day from all his worke. The new, that God worketh vntill now. But S. Auguſtine ſhe weth out of the ſenſe of the Catholike Church how all theſe places agree well together, the which ſeeme to be contrary according to the letter. For it doth not • e • ugne that God made all, & notwithſtanding that alſo all were made by the Word, as by the arte and example of God. Neither doth it repugne, that man was made according to the image of God in reſpect of his nature, and neuertheleſſe was of the diuell in reſpect of his malice, and that God did ceaſe the ſeauenth day from the worke of creating the world, yet now doth alwayes worke in gouerning, and conſeruing the world.

The Pelagians did deny originall ſinne, affirming that the ſinne of Adam did only hurt himſelfe, but not his poſterity. But from whence do they proue this? Out of the bare letter that killeth, becauſe it is written, that the Ezech. 18. 20. child shall not carry the iniquity of his Father. But the true ſenſe of this place, according to the expoſition of the Catholike Vide Aug. in lib. poſt. collation. cap. 7. Church, is, that the ſonne who is not partaker of the ſinne of his Father, ſhall not carry the iniquity of his Father. But if he be partaker of it he ſhall of neceſſity carry it. But now it is certaine that all Adams poſterity were partakers of his ſinne, according to that of S. Paul, in whom all ſinned. But in what manner Rom. 5. 12▪ all ſinned in Adam, is to be taught in another place: yet here in the meane tyme I ſay that all ſinned in Adam, becauſe God conditioned with him as with the firſt origen, common roore & head of his whole poſterity, that if the commandement which God had giuen him, to wit that he ſhould not taſte of the fruit forbidden, both he and his poſterity ſhould remaine in Paradiſe, but if not, then both he and all his poſterity being guilty & tranſgreſſours of Gods law ſhould be caſt out of paradiſe, which afterwards ſo fell out.

There were alſo ſome ancient Heretikes, who altogether denied the reſurrection of our fleſh, becauſe they found it written, It is the ſpirit that quickneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. Which place Ioan: 6. 63 they vnderſtanding only according to the outward letter, not ſearching any Refert. Tertull. in lib dereſur. car. c. 37. further into the inward ſenſe and meaning thereof, argued in this manner: To what purpoſe ſhould the fleſh riſe at all, ſith it profiteth nothing? And out of the ſelfe ſame place the Caluiniſts conclude againſt another verity. To what purpoſe (ſay they) ſhould Chriſt impart to vs his fleſh in the Euchariſt, if the fleſh profit nothing? But truly they both are deceaued by looking only into the bare letter which killeth: Otherwiſe one might conclude in like manner, if the fleſh doth profit nothingVide Maldonatum in cap. 6. Ioan. at all, to what end did Chriſt take fleſh to redeeme man? To what end was the word made fleſh? To what end did he ſuffer in it vpon the Croſſe? Certainly he did not all this to no purpoſe.

That the Scripture according to the ſenſe and meaning thereof, cannot be Iudge.

BVT this being ſufficient about the former part, where it is manifeſt both by the authority of the Apoſtles and alſo by diuers ſundry examples, that the Scripture if we reſpect only the bare and outward letter thereof, cannot be the infallible Iudge in matters of Controuerſy, becauſe that the bare letter killeth, and bredeth great errours and hereſies: But now let vs proceed to the latter part of this our argument, wherein I wil declare, that if we regard the very ſenſe and meaning of the Scripture, the ſame can be noe competent Iudge of all Controuerſies in matters of fayth and Religion. The which I proue in this manner: The Scriptures according vnto the true ſenſe thereof often tymes is obſcure, and very hard to be vnderſtood, & oftentymes about diſcerning the true ſenſe and meaning of it great Controuerſies do ariſe. But euery Controuerſy doth require ſome iudge to determine the ſame, it is therefore neceſſary that ſome Iudge be appoynted who certainly may determine which is the true ſenſe of the Scripture, which cannot be the Scripture it ſelfe, for of the ſenſe and meaning thereof there is Controuerſy: and therefore it is neceſſary that ſome other be aſſigned beſides the Scripture. In this diſcourſe are certain principles grounded, which are to be explicated and proued in particuler one after another. The firſt is.

That the Scripture often tymes, according vnto the ſenſe, is obſcure & hard to be vnderstood.

THIS S. Peter doth teſtify in his later Canonicall Epiſtle, where ſpeaking of the Epiſtles of S. Paul he1. Pet. 3. 16. Luc. 24. 27. vſeth theſe wordes. In the which (ſayth he) there are ſome things hard to be vnderſtood. Alſo it may be confirmed diuers waies. Firſt by the example of the diſciples going vnto Emaus, who vnderſtanding not the Scriptures, were taught by Chriſt. Secondly by the Eunuch in the 8. Chapter of the Acts 13. verſe, who being asked of S. Philip, whether he vnderſtood the Prophet Iſay which he was then reading, anſwered in this māner, How can I (ſayd he) vnleſſe ſome man shew Act. 8. 31. me. Thirdly by the example of the Apoſtles, who vnderſtood not many Mat. 13. 36. things which Chriſt had taught them. For his Diſciples coming to him ſayd, Mat, 16. 11. expound vs the Parable of the Cockle ſeede. Againe, why do you not vnderſtād that I ſayd not Luc. 18. 34. of bread to you? and they vnderſtood none of theſe things, and this word was hid from them, & they vnderſtood not the things th • t were ſayd. Fourthly by the common conſent of all the interpreters. For if the Scripture were eaſy, what neede were there of ſo many interpreters? ſo many commentaries? ſo many queſtions and controuerſies. Fiftly by many particuler places and bookes of Scripture I proue it hard: For who doth not perceaue Ezechiels propheſy about the viſiō of the foure beaſts to be moſt obſcure? Moreouer it plainly appeareth Daniels propheſy of the 70. weekes, and of the abhomination of deſolation to be moſt hard, ſith that in the ſearching into it and in the explaining of it, it hath hitherto & euen yet doth put many to their wits end, as concerning the which Chriſt himſelfe ſayd, he that readeth let him vnderſtand. Mat. 24. 15. Furthermore euen in the whole Apocalips of S. Iohn many obſcure places and full of ſecret myſteries may be found. And S. Hierom alſo affirmeth in a certaine epiſtle of his to Paulinus, that in it there are as many Sacraments or ſecret myſteries as wordes.

But that in the other bookes of Scripture alſo, many obſcure and difficult places are to be found, is wel known to ſuch as read them: & to omit others let them ſpeake who in tymes paſt, notwithſtanding their daily reading of Scripture with great diligence, cōfeſſed themſelues to haue beene very ignorant in many paſſages thereof, in which to be inſtructed and reſolued they had recourſe to S. Auguſtine, S. Hierome, and other moſt learned Fathers of the Church. Whereof the Epiſtles of the auncient Fathers themſelues do giue ample teſtimony, out of the which I will put downe ſome.

We reade then, that Pope Damaſus asked counſell of S. Hierome about theſe Queſtions.

1. What ſignified this, whoſoeuer shall Gen. 4. 15. Epiſt. 124. 125. inter Epiſt. Hiero. Ibidem. kill Cain, shalbe punished ſeauen fould.

2. If all things which God had made were very good, to what end did he commaund Noë to take into the Arke as well thoſe beaſts which were vncleane, as thoſe which were cleane, ſith that nothing can be good which is vncleane.

3. Wherefore did Abraham receaue Circumciſion for a ſigne or ſeale of his fayth? And wherefore did Iſaac thoughIbid. a iuſt man, and deare to God, deceaued by errour, bleſſe not whom he would, but whom he would not.

4. What was the interpretation of Iſay Epiſt. 142. the Prophets viſion, concerning the Seraphim and Triſagio.

Euagrius asked of the ſame S. Hierom, Epiſt. 126. Whether Melchiſedech who bleſſed Abraham, were of a more diuine nature, and not be taken for a man.

Dardanus alſo inquired as concerning Epiſt. 124. this. What that Land of promiſe was from whence the Iewes returning out of Aegypt are ſayd to haue poſſeſſed, ſeing that it could not be Paleſtine, becauſe that was poſſeſſed of their aunceſtours before, and might ſeeme rather to be reſerued then promiſed.

Vital •• demaunded of the ſame great Epiſt. 132. Doctour; Whether it were true which we find recorded in Scripture, that Salomon and Achaz begat children when they were but eleuen yeares ould. Epiſt. 39.

Cyprian asked what was the true expoſition of that moſt hard Pſalme, which beginneth thus: Domine refugium factus es nobis.

Marcella a noble woman of Rome amōg others propoſed theſe queſtiōs to him.

1. What Ephodbad, & Teraphim ſignified Epiſt. 130. in the Hebrew tongue?

2. What was the ſignification, of Epiſt. 137. Alleluia, Amen Maranatha?

3. What was Diapſalma. Epiſt. 138. Epiſt. 141.

4. Wha • was Panisdoloris? what filij excuſſorum, of the which is made mention in the 126. pſalme.

5. What are thoſe things which neither eye hath ſeene, nor eare hath heard, nor haue aſcended into the hart of man, which God hath prepared for them that loue him. And how againe Epiſt. 148. the Apoſtle doth inſer: But God by the holy Ghoſt hath reueiled vnto vs. And if it were reueiled to the Apoſtle, whether he alſo did repeale it to others.

6. When the Apoſtle ſayth: Then 1. Theſſ. 4. 17▪ we that liue, that are left, withall shalbe taken vp together with them in the clouds to meete Chriſt into the ayre. Whether this is to be vnderſtood of ſome that went to heauen with Chriſt before they dyed, ſeing that Henoch and Elias ſhall die, as it is ſaidIbid. in the Apocalips of S. Iohn, leaſt that any may not be ſayd to dye.

Principia a Virgin of Rome deſired of Epiſt. 140. him the expoſition of that pſalme, Eructauit cor meum verbum bonum. Epiſt. 135.

Sunia and Fretella requeſted by writing whether in that Contention in the which the Latins diſſent from the Grecians concerning Dauids Pſalter, the Iewes agree more with the Grecians thē with the Latins.

Hedibia a noble woman of France Epiſt. 150. ſent to S. Hierom by a Pilgrime to propoſe theſe doubts.

1. How that place of Chriſt ſhould Mat. 26. 29 be vnderſtood, to wit, I will not drinke from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, vntill that Ibid. day when I shall drinke it with you new in the Kingdome of my Father.

2. Wherefore S. Mathew ſayd, that Chriſt roſe in the euening, and S. Marck in the morning.

3. What that ſignified which wasIbidem. written in S. Mathew: the veile of the temple was rent into two peeces from the top euen to the bottome? And that which followeth.

4. How it happened that Chriſt, in S. Iohn, breathed the holy Ghoſt vpon his Apoſtles, and yet we reade in S. Luke that he promiſed to ſend them the holy Ghoſt after his Aſcenſion.

5. How that of the Apoſtle is interpreted, what shall we ſay then? Is their Ibid. iniquity with God? God forbid: and all to the other place, vnleſſe the Lord of Saboath Rom. 9. 14. had leſt vs ſeede, we had beene made like Sodome.

Algaſia alſo another French woman by the ſame Pilgrime propounded theſe other doubts vnto him.

1. Wherefore did S. Iohn ſend his diſciples to Chriſt to aske him: Ar thou Epiſt. 151. he who art about to come, or do we expect another? Sith that he before that tyme, had ſpoken of Chriſt, ſaying: Behold the lambe of God, behold who taketh away the ſinnes of the world. Ibid. Math. 12. 20.

2. What Chriſt did meane by theſe wordes. The reede bruiſed he shall not breake, and ſmoaking flax he shall not extinguish.

3. What alſo is the meaning ofIbid. Math. 16. 24. Ibid. Math. 24. 19. Ibid. our Sauiour ſaying. If any will come after me, let him deny himſelfe.

4. How is to be vnderſtood that he ſayth: Woe to them that are with child, and that giue ſuck in thoſe daies.

5. In what ſenſe that place of S. Luke is to be taken. And it came to paſſe whiles the dayes of his aſſumption were accomplishing, and he fixed his face to go into Hieruſalem. And a little after where he ſpeaketh of the Sacraments. And they receiued him, not becauſe his face was to go to Hieruſalem.

6. Who was the Bayliffe of iniquity Ibid. Rom. 5. 7. whom our Lord praiſed.

7. What the Apoſtle meant when he ſayd. For ſcarce for a iuſt man doth any die: for perhaps for a good man durst ſome man did. Ibid. Rom. 7. 8.

8. What the ſenſe was of that ſpeach of S. Paul. But occaſion being taken, ſinne by the commandement wrought in me all Concupiſcenſe.

But now omitting many and diuers ſuch like queſtions of Scripture, which were brought to S. Hierome to be reſolued out of many parts of the Chriſtian world, I come to S. Auguſtine, to whom no fewer were brought then to the other.

Voluſianus asked his counſell in this, Aug. Epiſt. 2. How the immortall God could be ſhut vp in the wombe of a virgin: And whether in the meane tyme he left of all eare of the world.

Marcellinus asked him, wherefore Epiſt. 4. & 5. God did alter the Sacrifices of Moyſes, which he had once before ordained? ſith that thoſe things which are once ordained well cānot be altered but vniuſtly.

The ſame Marcellinus propounded Epiſt. 7. vnto him this other queſtion alſo. How it came to paſſe, that the Magitians of Pharao could find any water to change into bloud, ſith that before that tyme all the water of Aegypt was changed into bloud by Moyſes.

Bonifacius the Biſhop alſo asked him this queſtion, Wherefore the fayth of parents is profitable for their children in baptiſme, ſeeing that their impiety after their Baptiſme is nothing hurtfull to them? And how the God fathers, in Baptiſme could promiſe that the infants beleeue, ſith they do not then beleeue, and it is vncertaine whether euer they will beleeue or no.

Dardanus. How it may be beleeued Epiſt. 23. that Chriſt is now in heauen, ſeing he ſayd to the thiefe vpon the Croſſe: This day thou ſhalt be with me in Paradiſe: Epiſt. 57. And whether from hence do follow that Chriſt, God and man, is euery where.

Paulinus. What is that which is ſaid Epiſt. 58. & 59. in the 15. Pſalme, Sanctisqui ſunt in terra eius mirific • u • omnes voluntates me as inter illes. To the Saints that are in his land he hath made all my wills meruailous in Pſal. 67. 22. them. In like manner what is the meaning of that in the Pſalme: Veruntamen &c. But yet God wil breake the heads of his enemies: the hairy crowne of them that walke in their ſinnes.

Likewiſe when the Apoſtle ſayth:Epiſt. 4. 11. Ibid. He gaue ſome Apoſtles, and ſome Prophets, and ſome Euangeliſts and ſome Paſtours & Doctours: His Queſtion was how theſe names might be diſtinguiſhed, and alſo what office and function was due to each one: What office for the Apoſtles, what for the Prophets, what for the Euangeliſts, and what for Paſtours and Doctours.

Moreouer he asked him this, that Ibidem. 1. Tim. 2. 1. ſeing the Apoſtle writeth, I deſire therefore, firſt of all, that obſecrations prayers, postulations, thankſgiuings be made for all men, what difference could be made in theſe wordes.

Alſo what that ſignified, that the Ibid. Rom. 11. 28. Apoſtle ſayth of the Iewes: According to the Ghoſpell indeed enemies for you, but according to the election moſt deare for the Fathers. Againe. What that other place of S. Paul Ibid. Colo. 2. 18. meant: Let no man ſeduce you, willing in the humility and religion of Angells, walking in the things which he hath not ſeene, in vaine puffed vp by the ſenſe of his flesh, and not holding the head.

Euodius the Biſhop asked of him, Epiſt. 98. & 99. 1. Pet. 3. 19. what ſpirit it was of whom S. Peter ſpake, in his firſt Canonicall Epiſt. In the which ſpirit comming he preached to them alſo that were in priſon. Epiſt. 120. Pſal. 120.

Honoratus alſo, what that ſpeach of our Lord ſignified, Deus Deus meus, quare me dereliquisti.

Moreouer how that other place of Ibid. Eph. 3. 17. S. Paul was interpreted: Rooted and founded in Charity, that you may be able to comprehend withall the Saints, what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth.

Who were alſo the fiue fooliſh Virgins, and who were the wiſe. Mat. 25. 2.

Againe, what was the outwardIbid. darkneſſe Matth. 22. 13. And how that place of S. Iohn was vnderſtood, the word was made flesh. Ioan. 1. 14.

Simplicianus asked him, what that lib 1. ad Simpli. quaeſt. • Rom. 7. 7. place of the Apoſtle meant, where he ſayth, VVhat shall we ſay then? is the law ſinne? God forbid: and to that, vnhappy man that I am, who shall deliuer me from the body of this death. Ibid. quaeſt. •• Rom. 9. 10 • lib. 2. quaeſt. • . 1. Reg. 10. 10. 1. Reg. 16. 24.

What was the meaning of that in S. Paul: But Rebecca conceiuing of one copulation of Iſaac our Father, and all the reſt forward to that, Vnleſſe the Lord of Saboath had left vs ſeed.

And how it is ſayd in one place that, the ſpirit of our Lord ſeized vpon Saul, ſeing in another place it is written, that a wicked ſpirit vexed him. Ibid. queſt. 2. 1 Reg. 15. 21. Ibid. quaeſt. 3.

And in what ſenſe it is ſayd by God in the booke of Kings, it repenteth me that I haue made Saul King. And againe. Whether that vncleane ſpirit which was in Pythoniſſa could make Samuel who was dead before come to ſee Saul, and ſpeake with him?

Alſo he asked him as concerning Ibid. quaeſt. 5. 3. Reg. 17. 20. that ſpeach of Elias, O my Lord, what euen the VVidow alſo by whom I am after a ſort ſuſteyned haſt thou afflicted, that thou would st kill her ſonne.

Now by theſe queſtions it appeareth manifeſtly that the Scripture in many places is obſcure and hard to be vnderſtood. And that many moſt learned men of whom we haue here made mention confeſſed themſelues not to vnderſtand many things without being inſtructed by more learned then themſelues. Now therefore let vs go forward in explicating what may be the cauſes of ſo great obſcurity.

What are the cauſes why the Scripture is obſcure?

I find two cauſes eſpecially. The one is drawne from the things themſelues which are treated of in the Scripture. The other from the manner of treating of them. The things of the which the Scripture treateth, are of foure kindes. 1. Hiſtories, as in the booke of Geneſis, Exodus, Numeri, Deuteronomi, Ioſue, the bookes of Iudges, of Kings, Paralipomenon, Eſdras, Iudith, Tobias, Hester, the Machabees, & alſo the Ghoſpel, and the Acts of the Apoſtles. Secondly Propheſies, ſuch as for the moſt part are contained in the pſalmes, in the greater and leſſer Prophets, and in the Apocalips of S. Iohn. Thirdly miſteries of our faith, eſpecially about the bleſſed Trinity, the Incarnation of Chriſt, about predeſtination, and reprobation, about the force and efficacy of the holy Sacraments, about the preſence of Chriſt in the Euchariſt, about iuſtifying fayth, about the Reſurection of the dead, & ſuch like other poynts. Fourthly Precepts and morall documents, as concerning vertues and vices. For albeit that neyther in theſe, nor in hiſtories, there is perchance any great obſcurity in regard of the things treated of; yet notwithſtanding there is great obſcurity in the propheſies, and miſteries of fayth. For theſe are aboue mans capacity and vnderſtanding, ſo that we1. Cor. 13. 12. cannot perceiue them but after a darke manner, as the Apoſtle ſayth.

Now the manner of treating of theſe things oftentymes is obſcure, for theſe cauſes. Firſt becauſe there be many improper ſpeaches in the Scripture as figures, allegories and parables, vnder the whichly hidden many truthes, the which are not preſently vnderſtood of the reader.

Alſo the obſcurity thereof is increaſed by ſome word, which is taken ſometymes in the ſame ſentence, one while properly, and another while figuratiuely: as in this place for example. Euery one that drinketh of this water shall Ioan. 4. 13. thirſt againe, but he that shall drinke of the water that I will giue him, shall not thirſt for euer. Where to drinke of water, and to thirſt, in the former part of the ſentence, is taken corporally, and in the latter part ſpiritually. And againe in the very ſame Chapter. Do not you ſay, that yet there are Ibid. v. 35. foure monthes, and harueſt cometh? Behould, I ſay to you, lift vp your eyes, and ſee the countries that they are white already to harueſt. For heare in the firſt place, the word harueſt is taken in it proper ſignification, but in the latter figuratiuely.

And againe in the ſame Apoſtle. Ioan. 9. 39 • For iudgment came I into this word: that they that ſee not may ſee: and they that ſee may become blind: where the former part is taken for corporall ſight, and the latter for ſpirituall.

And in S. Paul: Him who knew no ſinne, 2. Cor. 5. 21. for vs, he hath made ſinne. Where ſinne in one place is taken properly for ſinne, but in the other place figuratiuely for a ſacrifice offered for ſinne: for the ſenſe Vide. Orig 3. com. in. Epiſt. ad Rom. & Augu. lib. 2. de conſen. Euangeliſt. cap. 30. of that place is, that it was Gods will that Chriſt who neuer had ſinned, ſhould be a ſacrifice for the ſinne of mankind.

Secondly, not only figures are found in the words, as I haue already ſhewed, but alſo in the very things themſelues. For one thing oftentymes is a figure & type of another ſignified by it: euen as the Paſchall Lambe was a figure of Chriſt, the red Sea of Baptiſme, Manna of the Euchariſt, Mont Siō of the Church, and ſo of others. From hence doth proceed a triple obſcurity.

Firſt it doth not ſtraight appeare of which thing another thing is a figure, for example ſake: Agar Abraham his mayd to haue beene a figure of the Sinagogue, and Sara Abrahams wife to Galat. 4. 14. haue beene a figure of the Church, vnleſſe the Apoſtle by the inſtinct of the holy Ghoſt had explicated them ſo. Likewiſe how ſhould it haue beene Ierem. 1. 11. knowne, that the waking rod ſignified the ſpeedy execution of Gods diuine ſentence againſt the Iewes & Gentils. And that the burning pot was a figure Ierem. 13. Ierem. 16. 2. of Nabuchodonoſor. And that Ieremy who was forbidden to marry a wife, was a figure of the ſpoyles hanging ouer Iewry. And that by the chalice of the fury of our Lord, the power and fury of Iere. 15. 15. the King of Babilon was ſignified: and by arotten girdle the ruine of the people Iere. 13. v. 1. in Captiuity. And by the Flagon to be filled with wyne, the inhabitants of Hieruſalem to be made drunke with the Iere, 13. 12. wyne of the fury of our Lord. And by the two baskets of the beſt and worſt figgs two kynd of men, of whom ſome were happy who paſt ouer with the King, ſome miſerable and vnhappy who remayned behind in Hieruſalem. Iere. 24. v. 2. Iere. 18. 6. And by the clay in the potters hand, the people of the Iewes in the hand of God. And by the chaynes and fetters of Ieremy Iere. 27. 2. the captiuity of diuers nations. And by the breaking of the earthen pot, the cruſhing of the people and the Citty of Ieruſalem. And by the foure beaſts, four Kingdomes, and Empires. And by the Iere. 19. 10 • Dan. 7. v. 3. Dan. 8. 20. Ramme the king of the Medians & Perſians. And by the Goate the king of the Grecians. Theſe I ſay, and many ſuch would neuer haue beene ſo vnderſtood vnleſſe they had beene declared particulerly by God, and after this declaration alſo without an interpreter they can be ſcarce vnderſtood.

The other obſcurity doth ariſe vpon this, that one thing ſomtymes is a figure of diuers things which are contrary and repugnant one to another. 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉 As Ionas was the figure of Chriſt: For as Ionas was in the belly of the Whale three daies and three nights, ſo ſhall the ſonne of man be in the hart of the earth three dayes and three nights. The ſame Ionas was the figure of the people of Iſrael, who were contrary to Chriſt: For as Ion • did greiue at the Conuerſion Ion. 4. 1 • . Auguſt. Epiſt. 49. quaeſt. 6. • . of the Nimuits, euen ſo the Iewes in the Conuerſion of the Gentills. That which is ſayd of Ionas, may be ſayd alſo of the deluge, of the Rock, and ſuch like. For the Deluge was both the figure ofAug ep. 99. ad Euodium. the Baptiſme of the faythfull, and togeather the type of the puniſhment of the vnfaythfull. And the Rock which1. Pet. 2. 8. is Chriſt, was the ſtone of ſcandall and offence to them that periſh, and to Rom. 9. v. • 2. them that beleeue the Corner-ſtone.

The laſt obſcurity ariſeth vpon this, that ſomtimes one certayne thing which is the figure of another doth repreſent the ſame in one reſpect, and is altogether vnlike vnto it in another. As for example the fornicating woman whom the Prophet Oſeas was commaunded to marry, was a figure of the Sinagogue, which ſhe repreſented in this, to wit, that as ſhe had committed carnall fornication, ſo the Sinagogue had committed ſpirituall, which did conſiſt in the worſhiping of Idolls. But in this it did diſagree, that ſhe after her marriage to Oſeas did neuer returne to her former carnall fornication, as many probably do affirme. But the Sinagogue after ſhe was reconciled to God fell againe into Idolatry.

Thirdly in the Scripture are to be found many apparent contradictions which cannot but breed great difficulty in the mynd of the reader: of many I will relate ſome.

1. Moyſes ſayth, that God created Gen. 1. • . heauen and earth in ſix dayes and reſted the ſeauenth; but in the eighteene of Eccleſ. cap. 18. • . Eccleſiast. it is ſayd, who liueth for euer did create altogeather.

2. Moyſes tells vs, that the children Gen. 15. 3. Acts 7. Galat. 3 17. of Iſrael were in Aegypt foure hundred yeares. But the Apoſtle ſayth, that they were there foure hundred thirty yeares.

3. Iacob the Patriarch ſayth: I haue Gen. 32. 30. ſeene God face to face, and my ſoule was ſaued. But we haue the contrary Exod. 33. 20. for God ſayth, man shall not ſee me and liue.

4. In Exod. 20. v. 5. it is ſayd, I am thy Lord God viſiting the iniquity of the Fathers vpon the children vnto the third and fourth generation of them▪ But the cōtrary is found in Ezechiel: The ſonne shall not carry the iniquity of his Father.

5. Honour thy Father, and thy Exod. 20. 12. Luc. 14. v. 26. Mother that thou maiſt liue long vpon the earth: but contrary to this Chriſt ſayth, who doth not hate his Father, and his Mother, cannot be my Diſciple.

6. Thou ſhalt feare thy Lord God Deut. 6. 3. Math. 5. 34. and ſweare by his name. Which is contrary to that: But I ſay to you, do not ſweare at all.

7. It repenteth me that I haue made1. Reg. 15. 11. Rom. 11. 29. Saul King: contrary to that, without repentance are the gifts and vocation of God.

8. In the Arke there was nothing3. Reg. • . 9. els but two tables of ſtone which Moyſes put in it in Horeb; contrary to that of Hebr. 9. 4. S Paul: In the Arke there was a goulden pot hauing Manna, and the rod of Aaron that had bloſſomed, and the tables of the Teſtament.

9. The impious ſhall not riſe in Pſal. 1. 5. iudgment; contrary to that: we ſhall1. Cor. 15. v. 51. all indeed riſe againe, but we ſhall not all be changed.

10. God hath ſpoken once; contrary Pſal. 6. 12. Hebr. 1. 1. to that: diuerſly and many wayes in tymes paſt God ſpake to the Fathers in the Prophets, laſt of all in theſe daies hath ſpoken to vs in his ſonne.

11. Euery man is a liar: contrary Pſal. 115. • . Apoc. 14. 5. Prou. 6. 6. to that, and in their mouth was found no ly. Go to the emot, o ſluggard and learne wiſdome, the which doth prepare her meat in ſommer, and gather in the harueſt that ſhe may eate, contrary Math. 6. v. 34. to that: Be not carefull therefore for the morrow.

12. Tranſgreſſe not the ancient Pro. 22. 28. Ezec. 20. 18. bounds which thy Fathers haue put; contrary to that, In the precepts of your Fathers walke not, neyther keep you their iudgments.

13. Anſwere not a foole according Pro. 26. 4. Ibid. Sap. 1. 13. to his folly leaſt thou be made like to him; contrary to that, Anſwere a foole according to his folly, leaſt he eſteeme himſelfe to be wiſe.

14. God hath not made death; contrary Eccleſ. 11. 14. to that: Good things, and euill life, and death, pouerty, and honeſty, are of God. Sap. 11. 25.

15. Thou loueſt all things that are, & hateſt nothing of thoſe which thou haſt made; contrary to that, Iacob I loued, Rom. 9. 13. Eccl. 10. 15. 1. Tim. 6. but Eſau I hated.

16. The beginning of all ſinne is prvde: contrary to that, the roote of all euill is couetouſneſſe.

17. Do good to the humble & giue Eccl. 12. 6. Luc. 6. 30. not to the impious: prohibite to giue him bread; contrary to that, giue to euery one that asketh thee.

18. They that eate me ſhall yet Eccl. 24. 28. Ioan. 4. 13. hunger, and they that drinke me ſhall yet thirſt; contrary to that, he who shall drinke of the water which I will giue him, shall not thirſt for euer.

19. As yet fourty dayes, and Niniue Ioan. 3 4. Ioan. 4. 11. ſhalbe ſubuerted, contrary to that, shall not I ſpare Niniue the great Citty?

20. Gratis you haue receiued, Gratis Mat. 10. 8. Luc. 10. 7. giue you: contrary to that, the workman is worthy of his wages.

21. Take nothing in the way, neyther skrip, ſhooes, nor rod; contrary to Math. 10. 10. Marc. 6. 8. that, and he hath commaunded them that they should take nothing in the way, but a rod only.

22. After 6. daies Ieſus tooke Peter, Mat. 17. 1. Luc. 9. 28. Iames, and Iohn; contrary to that: It came to paſſe after theſe words, almoſt eight dayes, and he tooke Peter &c.

23. But if thy brother ſhall offend Mat. 18. 15. againſt thee, go and rebuke him betweene thee and him alone; contrary to1. Tim 5. 20. that: Them that ſinne rebuke before all, that the reſt alſo may haue feare.

24. None is good but one God; Mar. • 0. 19. Luc. 6. 45. contrary to that: The goodman of the good treaſure of his hart bringeth forth good.

25. Go preach the Ghoſpell to euery Mar. 16. 15. Math. 10. 5. creature; contrary to that: Into the way of the Gentiles do not go, and into citties of the Samaritans enter yee not: But, go to the sheepe that are perished of the houſe of Iſraell.

26. You are they that haue remained Luc. 22. 28. Math. 26. 31. with me in my temptations, contrary to that, you shall all ſuffer ſcandall in me.

27. If I giue teſtimony of my ſelfe Ioan. 5. 31. my teſtimony is not true; contrary to Ioan. 8. 14. this; Although I giue testimony of my ſelfe, my teſtimony is true.

28. I do not receaue teſtimony of Ioan. 5. 34. Ioan. 15. 27. man; contrary to this: And you shall giue teſtimony of me.

29. He that eateth my fleſh and Ioan. 6. 55. Ibidem. v. 63. drinketh my bloud hath life euerlaſting; contrary to that, It is the ſpirit that quickneththe, flesh profitteth nothing.

30. All things whatſoeuer I haue Ioan. 15. 15. Ioan. 16. 1 • . heard of my Father, I haue notified vnto you; contrary to this; I haue yet many things to tell you.

31. Mary Magdalen came earely to Ioan. 20. 1. Mar. 16. 2. the monument when it was yet darke; contrary to that: ſhe came to the monument the ſunne being now riſen.

32. Circumciſion indeed profiteth Rom. 2. 25. if thou obſerue the Law; contrary to that: Behould I Paul tell you, that if you be circumciſed, Galat. 5. 2. Christ will profit you nothing.

33. VVe account a man to be iuſtified by Rom. 3. 28. Iames 2. 20. 24. Rom. • . v. 19. Act. 7. v. 51. Rom. 11. v. 34 • 1. Cor. 2. v. 16. 1. Cor. 13. v. 3. faith without works: Contrary to that of S. Iames: Fayth if it haue not workes is dead in it ſelfe. And againe: you ſee that man is iuſtified by workes, and not by fayth alone.

34. For who reſiſteth his will; contrary to that; you alwaies haue reſiſted the holy Ghoſt as alſo your Fathers.

35. VVho hath knowne the mind of our Lord; contrary to that; But we haue the ſenſe of Christ.

36. If I shall diſtribute all my goods to be meate for the poore, and haue not charity, it doth Luc. 11. v. 41. profit me nothing; contrary to that: giue almes and all things are cleane to you.

37. And as in Adam all dy, ſo alſo in Chriſt 1. Cor. 13. v. 32. Ioan. 5. v. 21. Galat. 1. v. 10. 1 Cor. 10. v. 33. all shalbe made aliue; contrary to that: The Sonne quickneth whom he will.

38. Do I ſeeke to pleaſe men? If I yet did pleaſe men, I should not be the ſeruant of Christ; contrary to that, be without offence, euen as I in all things do pleaſe all men.

39. Beare ye one anothers burden; Galat. 6. 2. Ibid. v. 5. contrary to this: Euery one shall beare his owne burden.

40. God inhabiteth light not acceſſible; contrary to that: Come to him, 1. Tim. 6. 16. Pſal. 33. 6. 1. Iohn. 1. 8. 1. Ioan. 3. 9. and you may be illuminated.

41. If we ſhall ſay that we haue no ſinne we ſeduce our ſelues; contrary to that: Euery one that is borne of God, commiteth not ſinne.

Theſe and ſuch like apparent contradictions, which are found in many places of the Scripture, oftentimes do trouble the reader, and cauſe exceſſiue paines and labour euen to the moſt learned of all. The auncient Fathers do giue teſtimony of this, who ſpent much tyme in the according of theſe and ſuch like contradictions, as S. Auguſtine for example wrote certaine bookes of the agreement amongſt the Euangeliſts: and diuers others alſo who tooke great paines in interpreting the Scripture, whoſe labours if we had not beene partaker of, we ſhould haue yet beene ignorant and blind in many matters of great importance. And thus far about the third cauſe of obſcurity in Scripture.

The fourth ariſeth vpon this, that often tymes the words of Scripture make a doubtfull ſenſe, by reaſon of the want of ſome diſtinction. For ſometymes where a diſtinction is needfull there is none at all. Which moſt commonly happeneth in theſe caſes. 1. When it maketh mention of God. 2. When of Chriſt. 3. When it inſinuateth the coming of Chriſt. 4. When it ſpeaketh of the Church. For there belongeth vnto God, eyther Vnity of eſſence, or Trinity of perſons. To Chriſt eyther the humane nature or diuine. Moreouer Chriſts comming is twofould, the one in his nat • uity, the other in the day of Iudgmēt. Alſo the Church is eyther militant vpon earth, or triumphant in heauen▪ Therefore when the Scripture maketh mention eyther of God, or of Chriſt, or of the Church, it is doubtfull and obſcure, in what ſenſe there they are to be taken: as if it ſpeake of God, whether it meane thereby as he is one in eſſence, or as he is three in perſon: if of Chriſt, whether it be vnderſtood as he is God, or as he is man: or when mention is made of his coming, whether it be of his firſt or of his laſt: or when the Church is named whether the militant or triumphant thereby is ſignified it is hard to vnderſtand. But to explaine it the better I will giue an example of euery one.

The Scripture maketh mention of Mar. 6. v. 9. God, in ſaying: Our Father which art in heauen. Now it is doubtfull whether it be ſpoken of God according to the vnity of his eſſence, or according to the diſtinctiō of his perſons, or, as the Deuines do propound it, whether the name of Father be taken there eſſentially as it is common to three perſons, or perſonally as applied to the firſt perſon only? There are authors of both parts: yet it is more likely to be taken in that place eſſentially as it is to be gathered out of theſe words of Chriſt, Ioan. 2. 17. I aſcend to my Father and your Father. Where the word Father is taken both wayes. For the Father of Chriſt according to his eternall generation, is the firſt diuine perſon, as he is diſtinguiſhed from the ſonne, and the holy Ghoſt. But our Father according to our creation, gouerning and adoption, is the whole Trinity, as he is one God. Therefore when he ſayth: I aſcend to my Father, he ſpeaketh only of the firſt perſon, but when he addeth, and your Father, he ſpeaketh of three perſons as they are one in eſſence and nature.

S. Paul maketh mention of Chriſt, VVho is the Image of the inuiſible God, the first Coloſ▪ 1. 15. borne of all creatures, becauſe in him were created all things, and he is the head of the body the Church, firſt borne of the dead. Heere alſo it is doubtfull, whether this be to be vnderſtood of Chriſt in reſpect of his diuinity or humanity. Many thinke that ſome part of the ſenteuce is to be vnderſtood one way, ſome part another; with whom I agree. For Chriſt according to his diuinity is the Image of God the Father, and alſo by him and in him all things are made: but according to his humanity he is the head of the Church and firſt borne of the dead. And in both ſenſes he may be called the firſt borne of euery creature, according to the ſundry expoſitions of the interpreters, as may be ſeene in their comments vpon that ſame place.

There is alſo a certaine ſpeach of the coming of Chriſt. And when againe Heb. 1. • . he bringeth in the firſt begotten into the world he ſayth: And let all the Angells of God adore him. Wherein conſiſts a queſtion, whether this was ſpoken of his firſt coming at his natiuity, or of his laſt coming in the day of iudgment. If were ſpect that word, againe, it ſeemeth rather to be of his later comming. But taking all the circumſtances together, it may appeare to be of his former▪ So the interpreters of this place. Of the Church alſo the Apoſtle writeth: But that Ilieruſalem which is aboue, is free, which is our mother. Gal. 4. • 6. For it is writtē, Reioyce thou barren that beareſt not, breake forth and cry that trauaileſt not, becauſe many are the children of the deſolate, more then of her that hath a husband. Heere therefore is a difficulty to know whether it be meant, of the Church militant or triumphant? Which difficulty is in another place of S. Paul. But you are Heb. 12, 22. come to mount Sion, and the Citty of the liuing God heauenly Hieruſalem, and the Church of the first borne. And in the ſame Apoſtle, Eph. 5. 25. Chriſt loued the Church and deliuered himſelfe for it, that he might ſanctify it, cleanſing it by the lauer of water in the word of life, that he might preſent to himſelfe a glorious Church, not hauing ſpot or wrinkle.

To this kynd of obſcurity, may alſo be reduced, that ſome things which are ſpoken of Chriſt in Scripture, are to be vnderſtood of the head of the Church, which is Chriſt, ſomtymes of both as S. Auguſtine noteth.

For the head of the Church Chriſt is taken in that place of the Apoſtle: lib. 3. de doctrina Chri. c. 31. Math. 28. • 0. Behould I am with yow all dayes, euen to the conſummation of the world. Where Chriſt as the head of the Church, promiſeth to the body and members thereof his perpetuall aſſiſtance, protection, and gouerment.

For of the body and members of the Church is that place of the acts to be vnderſtood. Saul, Saul why dost thou perſecute Act. 9. 4. me? For Saul did not perſecute the perſon of Chriſt (ſeing that he was in heauen where he could not be perſecuted) but his Apoſtles who were the members of his Church. Alſo that of Zachary; After glory he ſent me to the nations. Zach. • . 8. Where Chriſt ſpeaketh in perſon of the Apoſtles. As though he had ſayd, my heauenly Father will ſend me (to wit my Apoſtles) to the conuerſion of the Gentills. But when will he ſend me? after glory (that is) after I haue ſhewed my glory and diuinity in my Reſurrection and Aſcenſion. After the ſame manner alſo S. Auſtine in the expoſition of the 147. Pſalme, doth interpret that place of S. Matth. Then if any man shall ſay Math. 24. 23. vnto you, loe here is Chriſt or there, do not beleeue him. For he thinketh that there by Chriſt is ſignified his Church whoſe words are theſe. There shall riſe falſe Chriſts, and falſe Prophets, and shall ſay, loe here and loe there but they ſhall not ſpeake of the head himſelfe, behould here & behould there (for it is certaine that Chriſt is in heauen) but of the Church. And out of this place he confuteth the Donatiſts who ſayd: Behould here in Affrick is the Church, and in no other place beſides.

And that of the Prophet Iſay of Iſay 61. 10. both. He hath clothed me with the garment of ſaluation, and with the garment of iuſtice: he hath compaſſed me as a bridegroome decked with a Crowne, and as a bride adorned with her Iewels. Where Chriſt is called the bride and the bridegroome, that is, the head and the body: and that of the Pſalme, Pſal. 2. The kings of the earth haue ſtood vp and the Princes haue gathered together againſt our Lord and againſt his Chriſt. Which was fullfilled in the head, and daily is fullfilled in the members.

The firſt cauſe of the obſcurity of ſcripture ariſeth from this, that oftentymes, when we thinke leaſt, paſſage is made from the litterall ſenſe to the myſticall, from carnall things to ſpirituall, from temporall to eternall, from the Kings of Iſraell, to Chriſt the king himſelfe, and contrariwiſe. This eſpecially is performed in the Pſalmes and the Prophets, as is to be ſeene in the 7. Chapter of Iſay, where from the Hiſtory of two kings (of the which one was Raſin King of Syria, and the other Phacee King of Iſrael) paſſage is made preſently to the B. Virgin: Behould (ſayth he) a virgin ſhall conceaue, and ſhall bring forth a ſonne, and his name ſhalbe called Emanuel. And in the 14. Chapter, where the Prophet paſſeth from the king of Babilon vnto Lucifer: and in the 71. Pſalme paſſage is made from Salomon vnto Chriſt; All the kings of earth ſhall adore him: Vide D. Hieron. l. 5. in pſal. cap. 16. and in the ſixt Chapter of S. Iohn, the Euangeliſt paſſeth from barly loaues to the Euchariſtical or Sacramental bread. And ſo often tymes in other places.

The ſixt obſcurity ariſeth from this, that in the Hiſtories of Scripture things are not ſet downe in that order in which they were done. In like manner that the computation of yeares doth not appeare plaine and manifeſt. Laſtly that certaine bookes often tymes are cited, which if they were extant, they would help the reader very much, but ſeeing they are not to be found, they leaue him doubtfull & in ſuſpence, as are theſe which follow.

1. The booke of the warres of ourNumer. 21. v. 14. Ioſue 10. v. 13. 3. Reg. 11. v. 41. 3. Reg. 14. &c. Lord. 2. The booke of the Iuſt. 3. The booke of the words, concerning the daies of Salomon. 4. The booke of the ſpeaches concerning the dayes of the kings of Iuda, and the kings of Iſrael. 5. The booke of Samuel the Prophet1. Paral. 29. v. 29. Ibidem. concerning the acts of Dauid. 6. The booke of Nathan the Prophet concerning the ſame things. 7. The volume of Gad the Prophet.Ibid. 2. Paral. 9. v. 19. Ibid. Ibid. 8. The booke of Nathan the Prophet concerning the acts of Salomon. 9. The booke of Achias the Silonite of the ſame. 10. The viſion of Addo the Prophet2. Paral. 20. v. • 4. againſt Ieroboam the ſonne of Nabat. 11. The hiſtory of the kings of Iſrael written by Iehu the ſonne of Hanan. • . Paral. 26. v. 22. 12. The hiſtory of king Ozias, written by Iſay the ſonne of Amos. 13. The ſermons of Oſe, concerning2. Paral 33. v. 19. 2. Paral. 35. v. 25 Iere. • 6. v. 6. the deedes of Manaſſes. 14. The lamentation of Ieremy in the funerall of king Ioſias. 15. The volume of Ieremy concerning the ruine of the Citty, and the captiuity of the people. 16. The booke of Ieremy concerning Iere. 51. v. 61. 1. Machab. 16. v. 24. 2. Macha. 2. 1. the deſtruction of Babilon. 17. The booke of the tyme of the preiſthood of Iohn Hircanus. 18. Deſcriptions of Ieremy the Prophet. 19. The booke of Henoch. Epiſt. I • d • Apoſtoli.

Beſides theſe cauſes, there are many others the which I will touch in paſſing. For firſt ſomtymes there are many ſentences couched together betweene the which, eyther there is no connexion, or at leaſt the connexion doth not appeare. 2. Hebrew words occur the which of few are vnderſtood. 3 Oftentymes the anſwere which is made ſeemeth not to be ſo fit, & to the purpoſe of the queſtion propounded. 4. Very often words are doubtfull, ſo that it cannot be diſcerned in what ſenſe they are to be taken, as in this place of the firſt to the Corinthians. For other foundation no 1. Cor. • . v 11. man can lay, beſides that which is layd which is Christ Ieſus. And if any man build vpon this foundation gould, ſiluer, precious stones wood, hay ſtubble, the worke of euery one shalbe manifeſt: for the day of our Lord will declare, becauſe it shalbe reuealed in fier: and the worke of euery one of what kind it is, the fier shall try. If any mans worke abide which he built thereupon: he shall receaue reward, if any mans worke he shall ſuffer detryment, but himſelfe shalbe ſaued, yet ſo as by fier.

This place without doubt is moſt hard. 1. Becauſe it is hard to vnderſtand what is meant, by gould, ſiluer, hay, and ſtubble. 2. What is meant by the day of our Lord. 3. What by fier. 4. What it is to burne, and to ſuffer detriment. Laſtly what it is to be ſaued ſo as by fier. Whereupon S. Auguſtine writeth Aug. in l. d •• i • e & oper. c. 15 plainly, that this is one of theſe places of which S. Peter ſpake in his laſt epiſtle, when he ſayd, there are ſome things in the epiſtles of S. Paul hard to be vnderſtood. Petr. • oſt. epiſt 3. 16.

That other place of S. Paul is as hard. VVhat shall they do that are baptized 1. Cor. 15. •• . for the dead, if the dead riſe not againe at all? why alſo are they baptized for them? for it is not eaſy to explicate what to be baptized ſignifieth in this place; and what to be baptized for the dead. As concerning the which, ſix diuers opinions are extant in Bellarmine. Bel. lib. 1. d • Purg. c. 4.

Likewiſe in the ſame Apoſtle this ſentence is found. It is impoſſible for them that were once illuminated, haue taſted alſo of the heauenly guift, and were made partakers of the holy Ghost: haue moreouer taſted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, and are fallen to be renewed againe to pennance, crucifying againe to themſelues the ſonne of God. Which wordes are moſt obſcure, and by the ill vnderſtanding of them, the hereſy of the Nouatians aroſe in S. Cyprians tyme, who ſayd, that neyther penance, nor pardon was to be giuen to them that fell; and therefore they called themſelues Catharos, that is pure and cleane. And this is ſufficient about the cauſes whereby the Scripture according to the true and lawfull ſenſe therof is very hard and obſcure. There remayneth yet another queſtion, which ſhalbe briefly examined.

Wherefore is it Gods will, that the Scripture ſhould be obſcure?

THIS truly is a great queſtion and worthy to be ſought out, wherefore the Scripture being by reaſon of the things themſelues, and the miſteries therein conteined very obſcure, is made yet more obſcure by reaſon of the manner of treating thereof, and this according vnto the will and diſpoſition of God. And wherefore rather by his will and diſpoſition are not thoſe myſteries which ſeeme obſcure by themſelues, ſo clearely propounded, that there may be no difficulty to any in the vnderſtanding of them? Truely there be diuers reaſons of this, of the which I will here ſet downe ſome few.

The firſt reaſon is. Becauſe God as he is willing that an order be kept in al other things, euen ſo alſo in his Church to wit, that there ſhould be ſome who might teach, and ſome who might be taught, which order could not be kept, if the Scripture were ſo plaine that it might eaſily be vnderſtood of all, to the which that place of S. Paul doth belong. He gaue ſome Apoſtles, and ſome Prophets, and Eph 4. 11. other ſome Euangeliſts, and other ſom paſtours and Doctours, to the conſumation of the Saints vnto the worke of the ministery, vnto the edifying of the body of Chriſt, that is of the Church. And alſo that to the Corinthians: Are all Apoſtles? are all, Prophets? are all doctours? do 1. Cor. 12▪ 29. all interprete? as though he had ſayd in no wiſe. For it is the office of ſome to teach and interpret, of others to learne and giue eare, which in the ſame place is declared with a noble example taken from mans body. For euen as in a mans body there be many members, yet not all of them are exerciſed about the ſame office: euen ſo in the Church which is Chriſts body there bee many faythfull, yet all are not partakers of the ſame grace proceeding from God. For to one 1 Cor. 12. 8. & 9. is giuen the worke of wiſdome, to another the working of miracles, to another the diſcerning of ſpirits, to another the interpretation of languages. And as the ſame Apoſtle ſpeaketh in another place. To euery one as God hath Rom. 12. 5. diuided the meaſure of his fayth, where he addeth in the ſame place: I ſay to all that Rom. 12. 3. are among you not to be more wiſe then behoueth to be wiſe. Which is as much to ſay: euen as the eyes haue not the office of hearing, nor the eares of ſeing, nor the armes of walking, nor the feete of eating, becauſe it is not graunted them ſo by nature: euen ſo in the Church, not all ought to vſe the office of teaching, not all of interpreting the ſcripture, not all of working miracles (for that were to be more wiſe then behoueth to be wiſe) but euery one doth that which he ought to do euen as it is giuen him from God, in diuiſion of graces.

But our aduerſaries do erre exceedingly againſt this diuine ordination, who permit the liberty of reading and interpreting of Scripture to all; as to all meere lay men, yea to poore and ſilly women. For ſeing that they be not called of God to the office, they do appeare moſt vnfit to thruſt themſelues into it. For now it is come to that paſſe, that there is not one, whether he be Tapſter, Tayler, or Tinker (Lutheran or Caluiniſt) who doth not thinke himſelfe skillfull inough in vnderſtanding and interpreting the Scripture, only by his owne labour, without the helpe and inſtruction of any other. But let them heare what the Apoſtle ſayth, the eye cannot ſay to the 1. Cor. 1 • . 21. hand, I neede not thy help: or againe, the head to the feete, you are not neceſſary for me.

Let them heare that of the firſt to1. Tim. 2. 11. 1. Cor. 14. v. 34. Timothy. Let the women learne in ſilence withall ſubiection: But to teach I permit not the woman, nor to haue dominion ouer the man, but to be in ſilence. And to the Corinthians. Let women hold their peace in the Church, for it is not permitted them to ſpeake, but to be ſubiect. But if they liſt to learne any thing let them aske their owne husbands at home. But to what end al this? Truly to this, that the order ſet downe of God in his Church ought to be obſerued. Are all Doctours? do all interprete? No, For there are diuiſions of graces: from hence followeth that thoſe ſilly women who pratle much out of the Scriptures, and bluſh not to blab out their owne priuate opinions concerning controuerſies of fayth, do moſt fooliſhly arrogate vnto themſelues that which neither they haue on or belongs vnto them. But in this they imitate their Mother Eua, who could not hold her peace in paradiſe, but her husband being ſilent ſhe begā to diſpute with the ſerpent, and preſently was ouercome by him and deceaued, as her husband alſo by her, and many ſuch Eues are found in this age which do the ſame.

The ſecond reaſon, yf the Scripture were eaſy, it would be vnderſtood not only of the faithfull who are in the Church, but alſo of thoſe who are Infidells & no members of the Church: and ſo by little and little the Maieſty & authority of it would be ouerthrowne. To this purpoſe is that which is ſayd in S. Math. Giue not that which is holy to dogs, Math. 7. 6. neyther caſt yee your pearles before ſwyne leaſt perhaps they tread them which their feete. AsD. Thomas 1. p. q. 1. art. 9. ad 2. & S. Aug. (aut quiſquis aut hoc ille eſt) hom. 7 in Apocalip. It is vnderſtood by S. Auguſtine, and S. Thomas.

If the Scripture were plaine and eaſy, doubtleſſe it would be leſſe eſteemed both of the infidells & Chriſtians then is fitting. Moreouer to many it would be an occaſion of pride and arogancy. For if they • hould perceaue that theſe things which treate of profound myſteries were plaine and apparent, they would brag of themſelues exceſſiuely, & imagin nothing to be ſo hard which they could not by their owne wit and learning conceaue and vnderſtand. But now contrariwiſe they ſee the obſcurity of the Scripture to be ſo great, that by no meanes they are able to ouercome it, and therefore finding themſelues ignorant and wanting the inſtruction of others, they fly ſeriouſly to God, to the end that he may open their eyes and illuminate their vnderſtanding, that his diuine miſteries may be layd open vnto them. As Dauid did who ſayd: Open my eyes and I will conſider Pſal. 118. verſ. 18. 34. the wonders of thy law. And a little after. Giue me vnderſtanding and I will ſearch the law. And againe in the ſame Pſalme. Illumimate thy face vpon thy ſeruant and teach me thy iuſtifications. And very well: for the ſenſe of the Scripture can proceed from none but from the Author of the Scripture: But the author of the Scripture is the holy Ghoſt, and therefore it is called the word of God: the ſenſe therefore of the ſcripture can come from none but from the holy Ghoſt, to which that place of S. Peter doth belong, no prophecy 2. Petr. 1. 20. of Scripture is made by priuate interpretation. The cauſe headdeth: For not by mans will was prophecy brought at any time, but the holy men of God ſpake, inſpired with the holy Ghoſt.

And thus it cometh to paſſe, that proud and arogant men who are wiſe in their owne iudgments, and attribut much to their owne wits, do neuer obtaine the true ſenſe, becauſe God reſiſteth the proud, and giueth grace to the humble. And Math. 11. 25. this is it that Chriſt ſpake of in the Ghoſpell: I confeſſe to the O Father, becauſe thou haſt hid theſe things from the wiſe and the prudent, and haſt reuealed them to little ones. And alſo the Apoſtle, ſaying themſelues wiſe, they become fooliſh.

It followes neceſſarily out of the obſcurity of the Scripture, that many Controuerſies ariſe amongst Chriſtians.

THIS is another principle of thoſe which I ſet downe before. And truly it needeth no other confirmation then daily experience. For it is generally well known that in all ages euen from the Apoſtles tyme vnto this our preſent age, that there hath ſprung out alwaies new controuerſies about the true and lawfull ſenſe of Scripture. But now letting paſſe all thoſe which haue beene ſet abroach in the tyme of Arius, Macedonius, Donatus, and other auncient heretikes; Infinite they are that occur in this preſent tyme, of which I will ſet downe ſome: as for example, there is a controuerſy.

1. In what ſenſe thoſe words of Chriſt are to be vnderſtood: This is my body. The Lutherans vnderſtand it ſo, this bread is my body. The Caluiniſts, this bread ſignifieth my body. The Catholikes agree with neither of them.

2. How that of S. Iohn is to be vnderſtood: Ioan. 3. 5 • Vnleſſe a man be borne againe of the water and the ſpirit, he cannot enter into the kingdome of God. The Catholikes and the Lutherans do vnderſtand thereby the neceſſity of baptiſme with water; and alſo out of it do gather that infants without baptiſme can in no wiſe be ſaued. The Caluiniſts deny all this.

3. What Chriſts meaning was when he ſpake theſe words to the young man of whom mention is made in S. Matthew: If thou will enter into life, keepe the comaundments. Caluin interpreteth it to be ſpoken in ieſt; the Catholikes hould it to haue beene ſayd in earneſt.

4. Whether out of theſe words: Ieſus came the doores being shut, and stood in the Ioan. 20. 26. midſt of them, may be gathered that Chriſt pierced the doores ſhut. The Catholikes affirme it. Others deny it And ſurely, Oecolampadius he thinketh, that whileſt the doores were ſhut, Chriſt crept in at the window: others imagin I know not what chinkes by the which they ſay he entred in.

5. Whether Chriſt ſpake of the Sacrament of the Euchariſt when he ſayd: Vnleſſe you eate the flesh of the ſonne of Ioan. 6. 53. man, and drinke his bloud, you shall not haue life in you. The Catholikes affirme it: the Lutherans deny it.

6. Whether Chriſt bindeth all lay men to receaue the Chalice, when he ſaith: Drinke yea all of this. Caluin Cal. lib. 4. Inſtit. c. 17. §. 47. §. 48. holdeth he doth. There is a decree (ſayth he) from the eternall God, that all drinke. And a little after. They are wordes of him commaunding: Drinke yee all of this Chalice. But the Catholikes teach, that theſe words only belonged to the Apoſtles, as S. Marck declareth, when he ſayth, Mark. 14. 24. and they all dranke of it.

7. Whether ſinne he taken properly Rom. 6. 12. of the Apoſtle: Let not ſinne therefore raigne in your mortall body. The Lutherans and the Caluiniſts hould that it is: and from thence they gather that concupiſcenſe (of the which the Apoſtle there ſpeaketh) is originall ſinne: but the Catholikes teach, that the word ſinne is there improperly taken, to wit for the cauſe of ſinne; becauſe concupiſcenſe though it be not properly a ſinne, yet it doth prouoke to ſinne.

8. Whether out of that place of S. Paul: we account a man to be iuſtified by Rom. 3 28. fayth without the workes of the law; may be gathered that only fayth iuſtifieth. The Lutherans affirme it. The Catholikes deny it.

9. Whether that place of the Apoſtle: But he ſhalbe ſaued, yet ſo as by fier; be vnderſtood of Purgatory fier? The Catholikes do affirme it with S. Aug. vpon the 37. Pſalme, and other more ancient Fathers. The Lutherans and the Caluiniſts deny it.

10. Whether it may be gathered out of S. Paul, that the Apoſtles had wiues, where he ſayth: Haue we not 1. Cor. 9. 5. power to lead about a woman a ſister, as alſo the reſt of the Apoſtles? The Lutherans affirme it out of Luthers Gloſſe which is this, of leading about a woman wi • e. But truly the Catholikes will not admit this gloſſe.

11. Of what fayth Chriſt ſpeaketh when he ſayth: belieue only, and ſhe Luc. 8. 50. ſhalbe ſafe. The Lutherans interpret it to be iuſtifying fayth, whoſe effect is the remiſſion of ſinne. But the Catholikes vnderſtand it of that fayth which Iarus Prince of the Sinagogue did beleeue that his daughter then dead could be raiſed againe by Chriſt.

12. And what the ſenſe of that place is: Do good or euill if you can: Out of Iſay. 41. 23. which Luther proueth that men haue not free will; becauſe they cannot do good and ill as they liſt. The Catholikes laugh at this their argument, becauſe thoſe words are not ſpoken to men, but to the Idols of the Gentills, which although they be worſhiped of the Gentills as Gods, yet they be not Gods, becauſe they can neyther profit their worſhippers, nor hurt their contemners.

13. Whether out of that which is written of S. Iohn Baptiſt: The infant in Luc. 1. 44. my wombe did leape for ioy, may be gathered that all infants when they are baptized haue actuall fayth? The Lutherans ſay yea, the Catholikes no.

14. Whether God commaunded all to be maried, when he ſayd, Increaſe Gen. 1. 28 • and multiply. The Lutherans hould that in thoſe words are implied a precept to marry. But the Catholikes take it as Gen. 9. 1. a bleſſing, giuen to mariage already contracted, as appeareth in the text it ſelfe.

15. Whether this place of S. Paul: 1. Tim. 2. 5. There is one mediatour of God and men, man Christ Ieſus, doth exclude the inuocation and interceſſion of Saints, as the aduerſaries affirme. Or do not as we Catholikes maintaine, and proue, becauſe it doth not exclude the inuocation of Saints vpon earth: otherwiſe the Apoſtle world not haue ſayd, Brethren pray for vs. 1. Theſſ. 3. 25.

16. Who are theſe two witneſſes of whom is made mention in the 11. of the Apocalips: And I will giue to my two wittneſſes, and they shall propheſy a thouſand two hundred ſixty daies, clothed with ſack-clothes. Some of our aduerſaries ſay, that Luther and Caluin are meant thereby. Others the old and the new teſtament: but the Catholikes ſay Henoch, and Helias, or Moyſes, and Helias.

17. What that ſignifieth which is written of Antichriſt in the Apocalips. And he did great ſignes, ſo that he alſo made fier to come downe from heauen. Our adueſaries do vnderſtand by fier deſcending Pow. lib. 1. de. Ant. cap. 26. Bald. in diſpu. de Anti • h. cap. 6. from heauen, the Pope his excommunication, as Powell the Caluiniſt, and Balduinus the Lutheran do hould, and hereby they proue that the Pope is Antichriſt. The Catholikes contemne theſe follies.

The Scripture cannot be the Iudge of theſe, and the like Controuerſies.

IT is certaine that in theſe and ſuch like Controuerſies which are about the ſenſe of the Scripture, ſome certaine iudge is needfull, who may decide the ſame, and plainly pronounce that this is true, and not the other. But now I will proue with two arguments that the Scripture it ſelfe cannot be this iudge.

The firſt is drawne out of that which I ſayd before in this manner: The Iudge ſo ought to pronounce ſentence that both parties at variance may well vnderſtand it, otherwiſe he ſhould pronounce it to no purpoſe; But the Scripture when the ſenſe thereof is obſcure, and doubtfull (which falleth out often as I haue ſhewed aboue) cannot ſo plainly pronounce ſentence, that it may be vnderſtood of both parties at variance. For if it ſhould clearly pronoūce ſentence in any ſuch caſe, the ſenſe of the Scripture ſhould not be obſcure, but plaine and manifeſt, which is contrary to our ſuppoſition. Therefore in ſuch a caſe the Scripture cannot be iudge.

Perchance you will ſay, that although the ſenſe of the Scripture in one place be obſcure, yet notwithſtanding in ſome other place it is very playne, and therefore the Scripture by that place which is cleare, may pronounce ſentence of that place which is obſcure.

I anſwere. The heretikes harpe on this ſtring but in vaine. For firſt, if it be ſo, wherefore by that meanes do they not end all controuerſies betwene them? wherefore I ſay, do not the Lutherans and the Caluiniſts, ſeing they ſo long contend about ſome obſcure place, run preſently to another which is plaine? or if they do ſo, why make they not an end of all their ſtrife? Here they are at a non-plus, and know not what to ſay.

Furthermore that the words of the Scripture are playne, is one thing, but that the ſenſe is plaine is another. For the plaineſſe of the words dependeth vpon the knowledg of grammer. but the ſenſe vpon the intention and counſell of the holy Ghoſt. And doubtleſſe oftentymes it may happen that one may be perfect in the knowledg of his grammer, and yet very ignorant of the meaning of the holy Ghoſt. So that it may fall out very well, that the words of the Scripture may be plaine, yet the ſenſe of the words as they be intēded of the holy Ghoſt may be obſcure. To ſhew this to the eye I will declare it with this example. The words of Chriſt in the ſcripture be theſe: This is my body: This is my bloud. Which words if they be taken according to their proper ſignification, are ſo manifeſt and plaine that they may be well vnderſtood of all men, whether they be Chriſtians, Iewes, Turkes, or Ethnicks. But about the ſenſe of them intended by the holy Ghoſt almoſt infinite controuerſies are amongſt Chriſtians. The like is to be found in thoſe words of S. Iohn. Mary Magdalen cōmeth earely to the monument when it was yet darke. And in thoſe of S. Mark. She came to the monument the ſunne being riſen. Then the which wordes nothing could be ſpoken more plainly, yet becauſe the firſt do ſeeme to be contrary to the ſecond, it may be doubted, and that with great reaſon, what the proper ſenſe of them is, and how they may agree one with another.

Moreouer I ſay that oftentymes it happeneth that the one party thinketh that place cleare and manifeſt which the other houldeth to be obſcure and intricate. Now then what is to be done in ſuch a caſe? or what iudge is to be admitted? doubtleſſe the ſcripture cannot be the iudge, ſeing the controuerſy is about the ſenſe of it, when ſome thinke it plaine, others obſcure, and of ſome it is conſtrued in this ſenſe, of others in another. What counſell ſhall we take therefore? muſt not then another iudge be ſought out. For example. There is contention betwixt vs and the Caluiniſts, as concerning the true deſcending of Chriſt into hell which they deny, we mantaine, and do for our beleife bring a double teſtimony. The one is out of the Creed: He deſcended into hell, the other out of the acts: Thou wilt not leaue my ſoule in hell. We ſay that both of theſe be cleare and euident; The Caluiniſts deny both, and with their obſcure interpretation they make both places moſt obſcure. For they interpret the firſt in this ſenſe: He deſcended into hell, that is (ſay they) he ſuffered vpon the Croſſe moſt cruell and horrible torments of a damned & forlorne man, that preſſed with anguiſh he was forced to cry out, My God, why haſt thou forſaken me? So Caluin. But Cal. lib. 2. inſt. c. 16. §. 10. 11. &. catechiſm • Hidelberg • quaeſt. 44. they take the latter in this ſenſe: Thou shalt not leaue my Carcaſe in the graue. What is to be done here? To what iudge ſhal we appeale? If we aske counſell of the Scripture, it will ſay the ſame that it ſayd before. It will not ad ſo much as any one iote to that ſet downe. Now of that which is ſayd before is the controuerſy, which can neuer be ended by that which is ſayd before. If then after the Controuerſie begun, the Scripture ſay no new thing at all, but remaine ſtill in the ſame ancient tearmes, truly by it the contention cannot be decided, but of neceſſity we muſt eyther go to ſome other Iudge, or one of the parties contending muſt yield voluntarily, or els they are forced ſtill to continue in their endleſſe ſtrife and contention.

The other argument is this. There are many teſtimonies of the Scripture which can by no meanes be interpreted according to the true ſenſe, but by the authority and tradition of the Church: Therefore if a Controuerſy ſhould ariſe about theſe teſtimonies, the Scripture only cannot be iudge, but we ought to fly to the tradition & authority of the Church: as for exāple Chriſt ſayth, Teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghoſt. The true and lawfull ſenſe is, that in baptiſme we are to pronounce theſe wordes. I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost. And that baptiſme without ſuch a verball and expreſſe pronuntiation of thoſe words is no true baptiſme. We and our aduerſaries agree in this. But if one ſhould deny this to be the ſenſe, and ſhould ſay, that theſe words were not needfull: In the name of the Father, and the Sonne, and the holy Ghoſt, but that an inward will and intention of baptizing him, in the name of the holy Trinity were ſufficient; how ſhould he be confuted? only out of the words of the Scripture? Nothing leſſe, ſeing the wordes be theſe baptizing them in the name of the Father &c. where there is not any vocall inuocation of the bleſſed Trinity inſinuated, to be of neceſſity? From whence haue we then that it ought to be verily from the practiſe and tradition of the Church? If thou doſt reiect this, thou ſhalt not haue helpe againſt the aduerſary, who ſhall deny the pronouncing of theſe words to be neceſſary.

Another example is this. Chriſt ſayth, Vnleſſe a man be borne againe of water and ſpirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God. This place according to the true and lawfull ſenſe is vnderſtood of the neceſſity of baptiſme with water, as the Lutheranes themſelues do confeſſe, yet the Caluiniſts notwithſtanding deny it. How therefore can they be confuted of the Lutherans? Truly not out of the Word alleadged. For although water be named there, yet it is not ſo expreſly named, as though it ought to be vnderſtood of true and naturall water. For in another place it is called fier as in S. Luke: He ſhall baptize Lue. 3. v. 1 • . you in ſpirit and fier, and yet it is not vnderſtood of true fire. Therefore how can it appeare that in the former place true water is to be vnderſtood? or how will the Lutherans proue it againſt the Caluiniſts? Not by any other meanes, then by the practiſe, order, and tradition of the Church.

Another. Chriſt in his laſt ſupper did not only inſtitute the bleſſed Sacrament, but alſo he adioyned the waſhing of feete, and in the inſtitution of the bleſſed Sacrament he ſayd, Eate and drinke: but in the waſhing of eete, and you ought one to wash the feete of another. Here the Aduerſaries ſay, that in the firſt words there is a precept, but not in the laſt. And ſo the faythfull by Gods commaundment are obliged to receaue the bleſſed Sacrament in both kindes, but not ſo to the waſhing of feete. Now I aske, how they are certaine of this? or by what pretence do they thinke themſelues bound to the receauing of both kyndes, and yet free from the waſhing of feet? Certainly they cannot pretend the words of Scripture: For they ſeeme rather to ſhew the contrary. For theſe words, Eate and drinke, ſeeme to ſignify no more of themſelues, then if a houſkeeper ſhould ſay to his gueſts, eate and drinke, and be merry. And if the houſkeeper ſhould ſay ſo, it would not be thought that be meant thereby to bynd them by a precept. Therefore ſeing Chriſt ſpake in the ſame manner, how is it certaine that he intended by that manner of ſpeaking to oblige all the faythfull to the receauing of both kinds? But theſe wordes; You ought to waſh the feete of one another, ſeeme to ſignify a precept no leſſe, then if the maiſter ſhould ſay to the ſeruant: Thou muſt couer the table. How therefore know they that by theſe words they are not obliged to waſh the feete of one another, ſeing the words themſelues do ſhew plainly an obligation? Only by the practiſe, and Tradition of the Church. For the Church neuer hath vſed this waſhing as neceſſary, which notwithſtanding ſhe would haue done if ſhee had thought that ſhe had beene obliged to it, and that by Chriſts commaundment.

I omit many like examples which are eaſy to be found. And out of theſe I conclude thus: The Scripture may be conſidered two waies. 1. According to the bare and outward letter. 2. According to the inward ſenſe which is intended of the holy Ghoſt. But neyther of theſe two waies can it be iudge of Controuerſies. Not the former way as we haue proued in the firſt part of this ſecond argument. Neither as it is taken in the ſecond way, becauſe the ſenſe of the Scripture often tymes is ſo obſcure and doubtfull, that there is need of ſome other iudge who may define this to be the true meaning, which is intended of the holy Ghoſt, and not any other contrary. And this is ſufficient about the ſecond Argument drawne from the Scripture.

THE III. ARGVMENT. Which is drawne out of the Controuerſies them ſelues.

THIS argument, thus I propound. There are many Controuerſyes about fayth and Religion, of the which in the Scripture there is no mention made at all, or at leaſt not ſo much as is ſufficient, ſo that the Scripture may giue ſentence of them: therefore in deciding of them, ſome other iudge is to be ſought. Such Controuerſyes be theſe.

The firſt, whether the Bookes of Toby, Iudith, VViſedome, Eccleſiaſticus, & the Machabees be Canonicall land diuine? The Lutherans, and the Caluiniſts ſay no. But the Catholikes ſay the contrary. Now who muſt be iudge to decide this contention? The Scripture cannot be. Neither the Lutherans nor the Caluiniſts (which is well to be noted) do appeale to the Scripture, but to the Canon and tradition of the Iewes. They ſay therefore that thoſe Bookes cannot be found in the Canon of the Iewes, which is extant in S. Hierome, and therefore they are not to be accoū ted Canonicall and Diuine. Hence they confeſſe, that in this caſe there ought to be ſome other iudge beſides the Scripture. And who is that? The tradition of the Iewes ſay they. But is not this ſtrang, to ſee our Aduerſaries make more reckoning of Iewes, then of Chriſtians? For although they be deſirous to be accounted Chriſtians they are deadly enemyes to the traditions of Chriſt, and his Apoſtles, and yet notwithſtanding make great accompt of the Iewes traditions. Wherefore ſay they not rather with S. Auguſtine: Not Auguſt. l. • 8. de ciuit. Dei c. 36. the Iewes, but the Church holdeth the Bookes of the Machabees for Canonicall? or with Iſidorus: The Iewes do not receaue the bookes of Toby, Iudith, and the Machabees, but the Church doth number them among the Canonicall Scriptures? Ifidor. in l. Pro • m. de lib. vet. & no • . Teſt. And in the ſame place: The Booke of VViſedome, and Eccleſiaſticus are knowne to haue the like authority that other Canonicall Bookes haue?

The ſecond is, how many Sacraments there be of the new Law? Our aduerſaries ſay but two, Baptiſme, and the Lords ſupper: The Catholiks beleeue ſeauen. But what ſayth the Scripture? Nothing as concerning any certaine number, and therefore it cannot be the Iudge in this Controuerſy. From whence therefore receaue the Catholikes the number of ſeauen, if not out of Scripture? From the tradition and conſent of the Church. From whence the aduerſaryes the nū ber of 2.? Let them looke from whence. Truly they haue it not from the Scripture: but if they thinke they haue, let them performe theſe three things. Firſt let them ſhew out of Scripture, that the name of a Sacrament is attributed to Baptiſme, and to the Euchariſt, and not as well to Confirmation, Order, Pennance, Matrimony, and Extreme Vnction. Secondly out of Scripture let them define a Sacrament. Thirdly let them ſhew, that the definition agreeth fitly with Baptiſme, and the Euchariſt, and not as well to the reſt. If they can do this they do ſomething: but that they neither wil, nor euer can do this I am moſt certaine.

For firſt where will they find in Scripture, that the name of a Sacramēt is attributed to Baptiſme, and the Euchariſt. Truly in no place. But I will find where it is applyed to Matrimony. For ſo writeth the Apoſtle. For this cauſe shall man leaue his Father and Mother, & Eph. 5. 31. shall cleaue to his wife and they shallbe two in one flesh. This is a great Sacrament: But I ſpeak in Chriſt, & in the Church. As though he had ſayd, That a man ſhall leaue his parents and cleaue to his wife. This is a great Sacrament, becauſe it is a ſigne of the vniō of Chriſt with his Church that is, the mariage of Chriſt, and his Church.

Secondly where will they findLuth. in l. de captiu Bab • . vlt Melan. in ep. Conf. Auguſt. art. 13. Mel. in locis▪ ommun •• us tit. d • numero Sacramentorum. in the Scripture the definition of a Sacrament? Luther indeed doth thus define it: A Sacrament is a promiſe annexed to an externall ſigne.

Melancthon thus: A Sacrament is a rite which hath the commandment of God, to which is adioyned a promiſe of grace, that is to ſay, of free reconciliation, or remiſſion of ſinnes, as he explicateth himſelfe.

Caluin in this manner: A Sacrament is an outward ſigne by the which Calu. l. 4. Inſtit cap. 14. §. • . our Lord doth ſeale to our conſciences the promiſe of his good will to vnderprop the weaknes of our fayth. But verily none of all theſe definitions are in the Scripture. Nay one of them doth not agree with another. For Luther in his definition ſayth, that the promiſe is of the eſſence of a Sacrament. Melancthon houldeth, that it is annexed to the Sacrament. But Caluin inſinuateth in his, that the promiſe is not annexed to the Sacrament, but rather that the Sacrament is annexed and added to the promiſe; and not that the promiſe is of the effect of Gods good will towards vs. Therefore according to Melancthon thus the promiſe were to be expreſſed if any ſhall receaue the ſacramēt of Baptiſme, or of the Euchariſt; Him I promiſe the remiſſion of his ſinnes. But according to Caluin in this māner; God hath promiſed to you remiſſion of ſins and life euerlaſting, and this promiſe he declares and ſeales by the Sacraments.

Thirdly, whatſoeuer is to be thought of theſe definitions, which our Aduerſaryes haue newly inuented, how will they ſhew out of the Scripture, that they agree to Baptiſme, and the Euchariſt? I for my part ſee not. But let vs try. One definition is this▪ A Sacrament is a rite which hath a Commandment of God, to which is annexed a promiſe of remiſſion of ſins. Let our aduerſaryes proue out of ſcripture, that this definition is agreeable to the Euchariſt. Let them proue I ſay this out of Scripture, that the Euchariſt hath a promiſe of remiſſion of ſinns annexed vnto it. Or, that which is all one, That God in the Scripture doth promiſe vs remiſſion of our ſinns if we receaue this Sacrament. They can neuer proue it. For this Sacrament is not ordayned of God to remit a man his ſinnes, or to make of a wicked man, or a ſinner a iuſt & holy man, but rather it is inſtituted to the end, that it may nouriſh, confirme, and increaſe that iuſtice, grace and ſanctity, which was in him before he receaued this Sacrament. Nay rather it is ſo farre off from remitting of ſinnes, as it is pernicious to a ſinner if he come to it, knowing himſelfe guilty of deadly ſinne. Hence it is of the Apoſtle to the Corinthians. But let a man proue himſelfe, and ſo let him eat of that bread, and drinke of that chalice, for he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily, eateth & drinketh iudgment to himſelfe. And Chriſt in his laſt ſupper would not giue the Euchariſt to his Apoſtles before he had waſhed their feet, to the end that he might giue vs to vnderſtand that none vnles they be waſhed pure, and free from all mortall ſinne are to be admitted to the holy table of our Lord. And the reaſon is plaine out of the nature of this Sacrament. For what is the Euchariſt, but a kind of ſpirituall meate, and drinke by the which our ſoule is refreſhed and made ſtrong? For my flesh, ſayth Chriſt, is truly meate, and my bloud is truly drinke. And therefore as corporall meate and drinke doth not profit the body, vnles it be aliue: euen ſo neither the Euchariſt doth helpe the ſoule, vnles it be voyd of ſin, which is the death of the ſoule.

The third Controuerſy is, whether exorciſmes, and other ceremonyes vſed in the Catholike Church may be admitted in Baptiſme? That Lutherans admit them, the Caluiniſts reiect thē. Yet neither of them both can confirme their opinion out Scripture. Not the Lutherans, becauſe the Scripture in no place maketh mention, that ſuch ceremonyes ought to be vſed: but only we receaue them from the tradition of the Church. Of the which thus S. Auguſtine writeth. By the moſt ancient tradition of the Church (ſayth he) children are exerciſed Aug l. 2. de nupt. & concup. cap. 29. and breathed vpon, that they may be tranſlated to the kingdome of Chriſt, from the power of darknes. Not the Caluiniſts, without it be in this manner. No ceremonyes are to be vſed in the Church, but thoſe of the which there is expreſſe command in the Scripture: But there is no command of the ceremonyes, which the Catholikes vſe in Baptiſme: Therfore ſuch Ceremonyes are not to be vſed. But the M • ior is both falſe and contrary to the Caluiniſts themſelues. For the Caluiniſts do vſe many ceremonies in Baptiſme, of the which there is no command in the whole Suripture, ſuch are theſe. 1. That the infant muſt be baptized before al the people, and that it ſhould be on a Sunday, or ſome other day when the people is wont to come togeather. 2. That they who bring the infant to be baptized ſhould be aſked whether they will promiſe to inſtruct the child in fayth and manners, after he ſhall grow to perfect age. 3. That a name ſhould be impoſed vpon the infant, who is baptized 4. That the forme of Baptiſme ſhould be pronounced in their country language. 5. That the Creed, our Lords prayer & others alſo ſhould be recyted. Which ceremonyes Caluin preſcribeth in a litle booke treating of the forme of miniſtring the Sacraments. But where I pray you, is commanded in Scripture Baptiſme ought to be miniſtred? Certainly in no place. Hence therfore followeth, that either they muſt reiect all thoſe their ceremonyes, or els graunt, that all thoſe which we vſe are not therefore to be condemned, becauſe they are not expreſly commanded in Scripture.

The fourth Controuerſy. Whether thoſe who are baptized of heretikes, are to be baptized againe? S. Crprian in tymes paſt who was Biſhop of Carthage did affirme it with ſome others. But S. Augustine did deny it, and followed that doctrine which was more true, the which he did defend by no other meanes then by the Apoſtolicall tradition, & practiſe of the Church. For ſo he writes againſt the Donatiſts. VVhich cuſtome (ſayth he) to wit that baptiſme may not be iterated, I beleeue to haue proceeded Aug. l. 2. cont. Donat. c. 7. out of the Apoſtolicall tradition. And againe. That cuſtome which was oppoſed againſt Cyprian, is to be beleeued to haue receiued it beginning from the Apoſtolicall tradition, to the which Cyprian did not yeald, becauſe it ſeemed to him vtterly deſtitute of any authority from the Scripture.

There are many other ſuch like controuerſies which cannot be decided out of Scripture alone, but they muſt of neceſſity haue ſome other Iudge which heer I will briefly poynt to. 1. Whether Baptiſme may be giuen by one dipping. 2. Whether Chriſtians may worſhip Sunday in place of the Sabboath. 3. Whether our Lady remained a Virgin after her Childbirth. 4. Whether S. Peter the Apoſtle was Biſhop of the Romaine Church. 5. Whether the Creed be Canonicall and Apoſtolicall. 6. Whether in the old Teſtament there was ſome outward remedy for women againſt originall ſinne.

THE IIII. ARGVMENT. Which is taken out of the vſe and practiſe of the old Testament, where not the Scripture, but the Biſhop was acknowleged for the Iudge.

IT is certaine, that in the old Teſtament all legall controuerſies which were of great moment were to be ended and decided by the High Prieſt, as by the ſupreme Iudge vpon earth, and not by the Scripture only. Witneſſe of this is Ioſeph in theſe wordes. The high Prieſt doth offer vp ſacrifice to God before all other Prieſts, he keepeth the lawes, he is iudge of controuerſyes, he punisheth offenders, whoſeuer is diſobedient to him is punished as impious againſt God.

And this is plainly deduced out of that place of Deuteronomy. If thou perceaue Deut. 17. 8. that the iudgment with thee be hard and doubtfull betweene bloud and bloud, cauſe and cauſe, leproſy and not leproſy, and thou ſee that the words of the Iudges within thy gates do vary: ariſe and go vp to the place which thy Lord thy God shall chooſe, and thou shalt come to the Prieſts of the Leuiticall ſtocke, and to the Iudge that shallbe at that tyme, and thou shalt aske of them, who shall shew thee the truth of the iudgment, neither shalt thou decline to the right hand, nor to the left hand: but he that shallbe proud refuſing to obey the Commandment of the Priest which at that tyme miniſtereth to our Lord thy God, and the decree of the Iudge, that man shall dye.

About this paſſage we muſt note, firſt that amongſt the Iewes there were diuers Controuerſyes: in this two eſpecially are recorded. The one concerning b • oud. The other concerning leproſy: but in other places we find foure as in the ſecond of Paral p. in theſe words. VVhereſoeuer there is queſtion of the 2. Paral. 19. v. 10. Law, of the Commandment, of Ceremonyes, of iuſtification. Where Lyranus tells vs, that ſome did ariſe out of the Law of the Decalogue, ſome out of the morall Commandments, which are not in the Law of the Decalogue: ſome out of the Ceremonial Precepts belonging to the worſhip of God. Some laſtly out of thoſe which were iudiciall, and very conuenient for the preſeruing of outward peace and iuſtice.

Againe we muſt note, that in euery Citty there were placed inferiour iudges, who according to their office were bound to decide ſuch Controuerſyes, as is ſet downe in the 16. of Deuteronomy. Deut. 16. 18. Iudges and Maiſters shalt thou appoint in all thy gates which our Lord thy God shal giuē thee in euery of thy Tribs, that they may iudge the people with iust iudgement, and not decline to either part. And againe, he appointed iudges of the Land in all the fenced Cittyes 2. Paral. 19. 5. of Iuda in euery place.

Moreouer we muſt obſerue, that when inferiour Iudges could not agree amongſt themſelues, nor decide thoſe conferences, which were preſented to them for ſome peculiar difficulty, then they were forced to repaire to Hieruſalē to thoſe who were ſuperiour iudges, ouer whome the high Prieſt was Preſident or ſupreme iudge, to whoſe ſentence all were bound to obey vnder paine of death. This is plaine out of the words, which are ſet downe before Duet. 17. 8.

From hence we gather that there was a double Tabernacle ſeat or Coū cell amongſt the Iewes; the one was greater, the other leſſe. Between them there was great difference. Firſt becauſe the greater was only at Hieruſalē, the leſſer in euery Citty 2. In the greater were decided matters of greater moment, in the leſſer thoſe which were eaſy. 3. In greater the high Prieſt was Preſident, not ſo in the leſſer. 4. It was lawfull to appeale from the leſſe to the greater, not ſo from the greater to the leſſer. 5. In the greater there was 70. perſons beſides the high Prieſt, in the leſſer 23. 6. The greater was called Mark. 14. • 5. Luc. 9. 22. Act. 4. 5. Sanedrin, or Synedrion or the Councell of the Elders, the leſſer not ſo. Of the greater is often made mention in the Ghoſpell.

Both theſe Councells had their beginning vnder Moyſes. The leſſer was ordayned according to the Counſell of Iethro, but the greater according to the Commandment of God. The occaſion of ordeyning the leſſer is deſcribed in Exodus, in theſe wordes: And the next day Exod. 18. 13. Moyſes ſate to iudge the people, who stood by Moyſes from morning vntill night, which thing when his Allyed had ſeene, to wit all things that he did in the people, he ſayth; VVhat is this thou doſt in the people? VVhy ſitteſt thou alone, and all the people attendeth from morning vntill night? To whome Moyſes anſwered: The people cometh to me ſeeking the ſentence of God, and when any Controuerſy chanceth among them, they come vnto me to iudge betweene them, and to shew the Precepts of God, and his lawes. But he ſayd, Thou doſt not well, thou art tyred with foolish labour, both thou, and this people that is with thee, the buſines is aboue thy strengh, thou alone canſt not ſuſteine it. But heare my words and counſells, & God shallbe with thee. Be thou to the people in theſe thinges that pertaine to God, to report their wordes vnto him, and to shew to the people the ceremonyes, and rite of worshipping, and the way wherein they ought to walke, and the worke that they ought to do, and prouide out of all the people men that are wiſe, and do feare God, in whome there is truth, and that do hate auarice, and appoint of the Tribunes and Centurions, and Quinquagenarians, & Decanes which may iudge the people at all tymes, and what great matter ſoeuer shall fall out. let them referre it to thee, and let them iudge the leſſe matters only.

Of the Inſtitution of the greater Councell, thus we read. And our Lord Num. 11. 16. ſayd to Moyſes; Gather me ſeauenty men of the ancients of Iſraell, whom thou knoweſt to be the ancients of the people▪ and Maiſters, and thou shalt bring them to the dore of the Tabernacle of Couenant, and thalt make them to ſtand there with thee, that I may deſcend, and ſpeake to thee: and I will take off thy ſpirit and will deliuer it to them that they may ſuſtaine with thee the burden of the people, and thou only be not Ibid. v. 24 burdened. And in another place. Moyſes therfore came and tould the people the words of our Lord aſſembling ſeauenty men of the ancients of Iſrael, whom he cauſed to stand about the Tabernacle: and our Lord deſcended in a cloud▪ and ſpake to him, taking away off the ſpirit that was in Moyſes & giuing it to the ſeauenty men. And when the ſpirit had rested on them, they propheſied, neither ceaſed they any more.

But when the Councell was almoſt ouerthrowne, it was reſtored againe by Ioſaphat King of Iuda, as is related in theſe wordes. Ioſaphat therefore dwelt in Hieruſalem, and went forth to the people againe from Berſabee vnto mount Ephraim, and recouciled them to our Lord the God of their Fathers. And he appointed Iudges of the Land in all the fenced Cittyes of Iuda in euery place: & commanding the Iudges he ſayd: Take heed what you do, for you exerciſe not the iudgment of man but of our Lord, and whatſoeuer you shall iudge, it shall redound to you. All theſe words are vnderſtood of the leſſer Councell. But now of the greater. In Hieruſalem alſo Ioſaphat appointed Leuits, & Priests, and Princes Ibid. v. • . of familyes of Iſraell, that they should iudge the iudgment and cauſe of our Lord to the inhabitants thereof. And he commanded them ſaying: Thus shall you do in the feare of our Lord faithfully, and with a perfect hart. Euery cauſe that shall come to you of your brethren, that dwell in their Cittyes, betweene kindred and kindred, whereſoeuer there is queſtion of the Law, of the Commandment, of Ceremonyes, of Iuſtifications, shew it them that they ſinne not againſt our Lord, and leaſt there come wrath vpon you, and your Brethren, ſo long therefore you shall not ſinne. And Amarias the Prieſt, and your Bishop shallbe chiefe in theſe thinges, which pertaine to God. Moreouer Zabidias the ſonne of Iſinahell who is the Prince in the houſe of Iuda, shalbe ouer thoſe workes which pertaine to the Kings office.

Now therfore that I may repeat in a word, that which is ſayd. The matter was thus done by Moyſes in the deſert. Firſt Moyſes alone (who was an extraordinary high Prieſt) did iudge all Controuerſyes amongſt the people. Then a while after, that he might be releaſed a little from his burden, there were added to him Tribunes, & Centurions about the number of fifty, and alſo Decanes, who iudged of the leſſer cauſes, and paſſed ouer the greater only vnto him: laſtly to his greater comfort 70. Seniors were elected, who might alſo aſſiſt him in greater cauſes. After the death of Moyſes, when the children of Iſraell were come into the Land of Promiſe, there was a double Tribunall and iudgment conſtituted. The one at Hieruſalē, to iudge of more hard cauſes, and the other in euery Citty was placed, for thoſe which were more eaſy. This laſt was giuen from the Councel of Decanes, and Tribunes, but the firſt from the Councell of the ſeauenty Seniors.

Hither may be adioyned, that it was done other wiſe in the deſert vnder Moyſes, then it was vnder the other high Prieſts in the Land of promiſe; for ther was a double difference, the one by reaſon of the high Prieſt, the other by reaſon of the Councell of the Seniors. For the high Prieſt after his entrance into the Land of promiſe did not decyde Controuerſyes, but only out of the written Law. But Moyſes did decyde many out of the liuely voice, and oracle of God before the law was yet writen. Among other were theſe three. Num. 9. • . Firſt what was to be done with them who for their Legall vncleanes, could Num. 15. 32. not celebrate the Paſch with the reſt? Secondly what puniſhment was to be layd vpon him, who was found gathering Num. 27. 1. wood vpon the Sabaoth? Thirdly whether the daughters of Salphaad could haue inheritance amongſt the kindred of their Father? Of all which there was nothing at all written in the Law. Therefore Moyſes asked Counſell of God by a liuely voice, and receauing an anſwere did follow the will of God. And then firſt all theſe were tranſlated into the Law.

Of the part of the Councell of the Seninors, there was this difference. The ſeauenty Seniors, who were elected of Moyſes, receaued the ſpirit of propheſy euen at their election. But whether the reſt who ſucceeded them, by courſe of tyme did receaue the ſame it is vncertaine. But this is very credible, that whenſoeuer they conſulted of hard matters, they were helped by the ſingular aſſiſtance of God. And that this aſſiſtance was graunted eſpecially to the Biſhop, who was chiefe of them, when he did performe the office of a Iudge in giuing of ſentence. As concerning the which I wil ſay ſomthing heereafer.

AN OBIECTION.

IT may be you will ſay, that all this is to be vnderſtood of Legall Controuerſyes, in the which the High Prieſt was the ſupreme Iudge, as it is ſufficiently proued: but not of Controuerſyes in matters of fayth, in the which the Scripture alone was to be the iudge. I anſwere. This truly is ſayd without any ground at all. For all Controuerſyes, whether they were of fayth, or of other matters were called Legall, for two cauſes. Firſt they did riſe out of the Law it ſelfe not well vnderſtood. Secondly, becauſe they we • e to be decyded by the true interpre •••• of the Law. Moreouer all of them, without any exception did belong to the Biſhop, euen as to the ſupreme Deut. 17. 10. Iudge, euen thoſe which were of faith and Religion. This is manifeſt out of theſe words cyted a little before: Amarias your Bishop shall be chiefe in theſe thinges, which appertaine to God. But Controuerſyes of fayth and religion do belong eſpecially to God, therefore the Biſhop was chiefe in thoſe Controuerſyes. But what is it to be chiefe in Controuerſyes, but to play the part of a Iudge? Alſo out of the precedent wordes, VVhereſoeuer queſtion is made of the Law, of the Commandment of ceremonies, of iuſtifications, all theſe queſtiōs were brought to the Biſhop, and beſide theſe there were no other, therefore there were none exempted from the iuriſdiction of the Biſhop.

And it is confirmed by an example. For among the Controuerſyes of Fayth, of which we now eſpecially treate, a principal one was concerning the Meſſias. But euen this Controuerſy • as referred to the Councel of Prieſts, •• ether that the Meſſias was borne yet or no, in which the High Prieſt was the chiefe. Which to be ſo appeareth by the Ghoſpell: And Herod the King hearing this, was troubled, & Hieruſalem with Matt. 2. 3. him. And gathering togeather al the High Prieſts and Scribes of the people, he enquired of them, where Chriſt should be borne. But they ſayd to him. In Bethleem of Iuda; for ſo it is written by the Prophet: And thou Bethleem the Land of Iuda art not the leaſt among the Princes of Iuda, for out of thee shall come forth the Captaine that shall rule my people Iſraell. In which place, three things are to be noted. Firſt that King Herod was doubtfull of the place where the Meſſias was to be borne. Secondly that he referred the reſolution of this doubt to the Councell of Prieſts. Thirdly that the Prieſts according to their office reſolued this doubt out of the Scripture, as the rule to the which they conformed themſelues.

Moreouer that the Scripture, neither was, nor could be by it ſelfe a iudge of theſe Controuerſyes may eaſily be proued. For the Scripture which then was extant, eſpecially in ſome of the firſt ages, was no other but the law of Moyſes, or a volume of the Couenāt, & Deuteronomy. But of this volume, there are three things certaine. The Autographum or firſt copy thereof, was written by Moyſes, and placed of the Prieſts Deut. 31. 14. in the Arke of the couenāt of our Lord and there kept, that it ſhould be an authenticall inſtrument, of the which it might be manifeſt what the will and Deut. 17. 8. & Aggaei. 2. 12. & Malach. 2. 7. diſpoſition of God was. Secondly that the interpretation thereof in doubtful caſes was committed vnto Prieſts, and eſpecially to the high Prieſt. Thirdly that this authenticall coppy was to be read of the Prieſts vnto all the people, in the Solemnity of the Tabernacles, but once in ſeauen yeares when it was the yeare of remiſſion. Deut. 31. 10.

Heerehence it followeth firſt, that the people had not the firſt & authenticall coppy of the law of Moyſes, but only the Prieſts. If therefore out of the ſolemnity of the Tabernacles, in any tyme of the ſeauen yeare any legall Controuerſy had riſen, the people could not aske Councell of the authenticall coppy, which then they had not, but were to go to the Prieſt, and aske the finall ſentence of him as of the ordinary Iudge. Secondly it followeth, that although the people had the coppy, yet out of it they could not decyde any Controuerſy. For it was not the office of the people, but of the Prieſt, and eſpecially of the High Prieſt, to interprete the law of Moyſes, from the which thoſe Controuerſyes had their beginning.

But perchance you may aske, wherfore the interpretation of the law and conſequently the deciding of legall controuerſies belonged rather vnto the high Prieſt then to others? Seing that well it might be that the other Prieſts were as skillfull, yea and more skillfull in the law then the high Prieſt himſelfe? I anſwere. If we reſpect humane induſtry it is certaine that others might haue beene as killfull in vnderſtanding and interpreting of the law, as the high Prieſt. But if we reſpect the aſſiſtance of the holy Ghoſt, which is eſpecially to be regarded in this buſines, the ſame was communicated rather to the high Prieſt then to others, as we haue an example in Moyſes. For God grounted greater aſſiſtance to • oyſes then to 70. Seniors who all were miniſters to him in his office. This is gathered Num. 11. 7. out of that our Lord ſayth to Moyſes: I will take from thy ſpirit and deliuer vnto them, that they may ſupport with thee the burden of the people. Where by the ſpirit we are to vnderſtād a certaine guift of grace which is neceſſary in them, who will rightly gouerne others and end their controuerſies. This therefore is the ſenſe. I will take from thy ſpirit, and deliuer vnto them, that is, I will giue to them a guift of grace, but yet inferiour to that guift which thou haſt. To thee who art the chiefe iudge it is behoueable that more be giuen, then to them who are ſubiect to thee.

THE V. ARGVMENT. Drawne from the custome, vſe, and practiſe of the new Teſtament.

EVEN as in the old Teſtament (as I haue already ſhewed) the Scripture was not the iudge of Controuerſies but •• e high Prieſt and Councell of the Seniours: ſo alſo in the new it hath hitherto beene; yet I will briefly ſhew it, that it may appeare plainly. And firſt in the tyme of the Apoſtles there was a controuerſy aroſe about Circumciſion, to wit, whether that the new Chriſtians, who did receaue the fayth of the Ghoſpell could not be ſaued, vnleſſe they were circumciſed and kept their legall ceremonies? which controuerſy was eſpecially vnderſtood of the Gentills conuerted vnto fayth. But there was a double opinion about this. The one of ſome who of Iewes were made Chriſtians, who held that the Gentiles could not be ſaued by the fayth of Chriſt, vnleſſe they were circumciſed, and obſerued the ceremonies of the law. The other was of S. Paul, and Barnabas, who affirmed that there was no need of circumciſion, and the obſeruation of legall ceremonies.

But now how was this controuerſy decided and ended? was it brought to the Scripture alone, euen as to the common iudge? Nothing leſſe. But rather by the common conſent of both parties, ſome were elected who might go to Hieruſalem, vnto the Apoſtles, that they in ſolemne Councell being informed in the whole matter, might pronounce there finall ſentence. Which was ſo done. For of the one ſide S. Paul and Barnabas were appoynted, and of the other ſome other men. Who going together to Hieruſalem, went to the Apoſtles and Seniours of the Citty. Theſe after there was a councell gathered and the holy Ghoſt called vpon, anſwered in theſe words. It ſeemeth good to the holy Ghoſt and to vs▪ to lay no further burden vpon Act. 15. 28. you then theſe neceſſary things. That you abſteyne from the things immolated to Idolls, and bloud and that which is strangled▪ and fornication. Which words were ſent in manner of an Epiſtle to the Chriſtians conuerted from Gentility whome they eſpecially concerned. And the ſenſe is this. We will not put vpon you the burden of circumciſion or other legall ceremonies which is troubleſome, but to abſtaine from thoſe things, which were named before, and this will not be troubleſome to you.

Here two things are to be noted which are much to our purpoſe. The Act. 13. 1. firſt is that this controuerſy of circumciſion and legall rites could ſufficiently Act. 13. 2. haue beene decided by S. Paul and Barnabas, who both were Apoſtles, Prophets and Doctours: Who alſo were choſen eſpecially of the holy Ghoſt that they might preach the Ghoſpell to all Act. 14. •• . nations: And alſo had preached it in many places and prouinces, yet neyther of them would take that office, to the end that they might teach by their example, that ſuch controuerſies which concerne matters of fayth and religion ought to be brought to the ordinary Prelats of the Church, or to the Councell conſiſting of them.

The other is that the Councell of the Apoſtles in the which that controuerſy was determined, there was no teſtimony of ſcripture brought, which belonged directly to Circumciſion, though there be many for both parts, if it had beene fitting one of them only to haue ended the contention. For this place might haue beene brought for circumciſion: This is my Couenant which you shall obſerue betweene me and you, and thy Gen. 17. 10. ſeede after th •• . All the male Kinde of you shalbe circumciſed, and you shall circumciſe the flesh of your prepuce, that it may be for a ſigne of the Couenant betweene me and you &c. as well the home-bred, as the bought ſeruant of whom ſoeuer he is, not of your ſtock, and my couenant shalbe in your flesh for a perpetuall couenant. But if it be an externall couenant as here it is ſayd, it is of neceſſity to be alwaies kept, euen in the Euangelicall law: And not only of the Iewes but of others alſo who are not of the ſtocke of the Iewes. On the other ſide might be alleadged that of Deuteronomy. Our Lord thy God will circumciſe thy hart, and the Deut. 30. 6. hart of thy ſeed. Where it is inſinuated, that Circumciſion of fleſh is not to remaine in the new Teſtament, but that the circumciſion of the hart is to ſucceed in the place thereof. As alſo that of Ieremy: Be circumciſed to our Lord, and take away the prepuce of your harts, as if he ſhould ſay, I do not require the circumciſion of fleſh, but of the hart, which conſiſteth in the inward contrition and greife for ſinnes. Theſe and ſuch like might be taken out of the Scripture for both parts. But it was not ſo done. For the Apoſtles being gathered together in Councell gaue ſentence, by the direction and aſſiſtance of God, the which God had promiſed to them and their ſucceſſours for euer.

After the tyme of the Apoſtles there aroſe other new controueſies in diuers places and ages, which is certaine out of the Eccleſiaſticall hiſtories to haue beene decided eyther by the Romaine biſhops, or by ſome approued Councells. And thoſe who would not yeald to their ſentence, were accounted alwaies and condemned for heretikes. I will bring forth ſome plaine examples euen of thoſe which do firſt occure.

The firſt controuerſy was: whether the Paſch ought to be celebrated with the Iewes, on the fourteenth day of the firſt month, as many did houldVide Euſeb. l. 5. hiſt. Eccleſ. cap. 23. & ſequent. in Aſia, who for that cauſe were called Quartadecimani, or only vpon Sunday as now it is. This truly after many Councells and aſſemblies of diuers Biſhops was decided and ended by Victor the Pope, Anno Domini 198.

The ſecond was, whether the Church might abſolue thē from ſinnes,Vide Baron. circa eundem annum. who were fallen after baptiſme. Nouatian did deny it. But he was condemned of errour in the Roman Councell by Pope Cornelius, Anno Chriſti 255.

The third was, whether in God there was three perſons really diſtinct. Sabellius denyed it, affirming that there was but one perſon which had three offices, of creation, redemption, and Sanctification. But he alſo was condemnedIuxta Baron. in the Councell of Alexandria, in the tyme of Pope Silueſter, Anno Chriſti 319▪

The fourth, whether Chriſt be a pure man, as other who be mortall, & hath nothing more in nature and perſon then we haue? Paulus Samoſatenus did affirme it: But he alſo was condemned in the councell of Antioch in the tyme of Pope Dionyſius, Anno Chriſti 266▪ Iuxta Baron. vide Euſeb. l 7. cap. 27.

The firſt was. Whether Chriſt were the eternall word of his Father, and of the ſame ſubſtance with him? Arius denyed it, affirming that the word of the word not to haue beene from eternity, but created of God in tyme of Vide duas epiſt. Alexan. E. picſ Alex. quarum vna extat apud Socra. lib. 1. c. • . altera apud Theod. l. 2. cap. 4. nothing, and of another ſubſtance from God. And therefore that God was not alwayes a Father, but that there was ſome tyme, when he was not Father. But he was condemned in the firſt generall Councell of Nice in the tyme of Pope Silueſter, and Conſtantine the Emperour, Anno 325.

The fixt was, whether in Chriſt there be two Perſons, as there are two natures, diuine and human? Neſtorius Biſhop of Conſtantinople did affirme it, but he was likewiſe condemned in the Generall Councell of Epheſus, in the tyme of Pope Celeſtine, and Theodoſiu • • he Emperour Anno 434. and before by Cyrill in the Councell of Alexandria Anno 431.

The ſeaueth was, whether in Chriſt there be two natures? Eutiches, and Dioſcorus ſayd, that before the hypoſtaticall vnion, there was two natures Vide Ga • . Vaſq. tom. 1. in 3. par. D. Thom. in diſp. 14. diuine and humaine: But after the vnion that both two came into one, and were made one. But they both were condemned in the generall Councell of Chalcedon, in the tyme of Pope Leo▪ and Marcian the Emperour Anno 454.

The eight, whether there was one will only in Chriſt? Macarius Patriarch of Antioch, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius of Constantinople, and ſome others although they acknowledged two natures to be in Chriſt, yet they ſayd that there was in him but one will, to wit the diuine, In 3. p. 1. 18. art. 1. as is recorded by S. Thomas, and therefore they were called Monothelites: this their opinion was condemned in the third generall Councell of Conſtantinople vnder Pope Agatho, and the Emperour Conſtantine the 4. in the yeare 679. But whether theſe vnderſtood byVide Baro. the name of will, the power or the operation, is to be ſeene in Gabriel Vaſquez.

The 9. Whether the holy Ghoſt be God, The Macedonians deny it, of Tom. 1. diſ. 73. cap. 1. whome thus writes S. Auguſtine. The Macedonians came from one Macedonius who was biſhop of Cōſtātinople: theſe of the Greekes are called alſo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , becauſe they cōtended about the holy Ghoſt. For as concerning the Father and the Sonne, they beleeue aright, that they are of one & the ſame ſubſtance nature and eſſence, but they deny this of the holy Ghoſt, ſaying that he is but a creature. Theſe were condemned in the firſt generall Councell of Conſtantinople vnder Pope Damaſus and the Emperour Theodoſius.

The tenth is: Whether baptiſme may be reiterated, or one may be baptized twice? Which controuerſy may be two waies vnderſtood. Firſt whether baptiſme if it be once giuen well, may be reiterated againe. Marcion Epiph. haer. 42. paulo poſt princip. affirmed it, as Epiphanius is witneſſe; for he writeth thus of Marcion: After he had deflowerd (ſayth he) a certaine Virgin in the Citty, and was fled away, but yet afterwardes found in that great fault, the couſener inuented a ſecond lauer to himſelfe, affirming that three were lawfull, to wit, three Baptiſmes for the remiſſion of ſinnes, to the end that if any shall ſinne after the first doing pennance, he might take the ſecond, and alſo the third, if he should be found in fault after the ſecond. Againe it may be vnderſtood, whether Baptiſme giuen of Heretikes may be reiterated? The Donatiſts affirmed it, who did baptize again all thoſe who were baptized of Catholikes, as S. Auguſtin doth witneſſe, becauſe they Aug. in l. de haer. cap. 69. accounted Catholikes for Heretikes, and ſo thought that Baptiſme giuen of Heretikes was of no value, as is to be ſeene in Vaſquez. Theſe were condemned V • ſq. diſp. 146. c. 2. in the Roman Councell vnder Melchiades the Pope, Anno Domini 313.

The eleuenth is, whether a manApud Baron. without the grace of God can fullfill the Law only by the force of nature, if he be willing. Pelagius and Celeſtius affirmed it, but they were both condemned in the Councells of Carthage and Mileuitane in the tyme of Pope Innocentius the firſt, Anno 416. iuxta computum.

The twelft, whether Children are borne in originall ſinne, and to waſh away the ſame do need Baptiſm? The ſame Authors denyed it Pelagius and Celestius, as S. Auguſtine doth affirme: They deny (ſayth he) that children borne carnally of Adam, do contract the infection of the old death in their firſt natiuity. For ſo they affirme, that they are borne without any bond of originall ſinne, as though there were not any thing to be remitted in their ſecond natiuity. But that therefore they are baptized, to the end, that being adopted by regeneration, they maybe admitted to the kingdome of God, as tranſlated from good to better, not being abſolued by this renouation from any euill of the old obligation. But this errour was condemned in the Mileuitane Councell cap. 2. and afterwards of Pope Zoſinus, as S. Auguſtine alſoAug. in l. de pecc. orig. cap. 6. & ſequen. is witneſſe.

In theſe and ſuch like Controuerſyes, which now for breuity I omit, three thinges are to be conſidered. Firſt that one part of them who contended is clearely and manifeſtly condemned. Secondly that this condemnation was vttered & pronounced by the Catholike Church, as iudge: which ſometymes gaue ſentence by the Pope, who is the head and paſtour of the ſame Church, and ſometymes by Councells which repreſent the whole Church. Thirdly, that the Lutherans, and the Caluiniſts doe confeſſe that this condemnation was lawfully pronounced. For they confeſſe, that Nouatian, Sabellius, Samoſatenus, Arius, Neſtorius, Eutiches, & Dioſcorus, and the Monothelits, the Macedonians, the Donatiſts, and the Pelagians to haue beene iuſtly condemned, & that they are and ought to be accounted for Heretiks. And that by no other means then by the ſentence of the Catholike Church. For if the Scripture only ſhould haue been Iudge, & the Church ſhould not haue giuen ſentence at all, theſe Controuerſyes would haue continued euen to this preſent day: nor yet would it euer haue beene cleare & manifeſt to all, that thoſe Authours afore-named were to be had, and accounted for Heretikes. Now ſeeing that they were condemned by the Church, the matter is plaine, & without all doubt.

Perchance you will ſay, what if the Church her ſelfe ſhould haue erred in giuing ſentence? I anſwere. This to be iuſt as much, as though one ſhould ſay. What if Chriſt his Apoſtles and Prophets ſhould lye? For they tell vs, that the Church cannot erre, becauſe, as Chriſt himſelfe ſayth, his Church is founded vpon a rocke, and Math. 16. 18. 1. Tim. 5. • 5. Iſ • . 54. Ibid. v. 12. Ibid. v. 17. the gates of hell ſhall not preuaile againſt her. She is the piller and firmament of truth to S. Paul. And Iſaias ſaith ſhe ſhall neuer bluſh, nor be confounded. And in another place: A laſperſtone is in the defenſe thereof. And a little after: Euery tongue reſiſting in iudgment, ſhall be condemned.

THE VI. ARGVMENT, Drawne from the Analogy and proportion of the Ciuill Iudge concerning matters belonging to the common wealth.

THIS argument, which may beſt illuſtrate the matter, may well be propounded in this manner. A manifold Analogy, or proportion may be ſeene betweene thinges apertaining to faith and Religion on the one ſide, & thinges meerely Politike, and Ciuill on the other. Firſt, for euen as in politike, & Ciuill affaires oftentymes controuerſyes, and contentions do ariſe, which require ſome iudge, who may giue ſentence between the contending partyes; ſo falleth it out in matters of fayth, and religion. 2. As in Ciuill controuerſies, theſe three things are diſtinguiſhed, The Iudge, the written law, and the cuſtome: ſo alſo in controuerſies of faith, theſe three, the Iudge, the whole Scripture of both teſtaments and tradition. 3. As a ſecular Prince or Magiſtrate doth exerciſe the office of a iudge in deciding of Ciuill controuerſies: ſo alſo the Prince of the Church or Eccleſiaſticall Synod doth exerciſe the like office in decyding controuerſies of fayth. 4. As the written law is a certaine rule which the ſecular Iudge doth follow in deciding of Ciuill contentions, ſo alſo the Scripture of both Teſtaments, is a certaine line or rule which the Eccleſiaſticall Iudge doth follow in decyding controuerſies of fayth. 5. As only the written law is not a ſufficient rule for all Ciuill cauſes but the written law and cuſtome withall: ſo alſo the Scripture only of both Teſtaments, is not a ſufficient and entire rule of all controuerſies of fayth, vnleſſe tradition be adioyned.

Theſe hitherto are manifeſt. Yet leaſt that there be any doubt therein, I will expound them all breifly. And firſt that the ſecular Prince or Magiſtrate may vſe the office of a iudge in Ciuill cauſes, needeth no long proofe. For daily experience doth wittneſſe this in all Prouinces and Kingdomes. For in euery place, Ciuill cauſes and contentions are brought to the ſecular Prince or Magiſtrate, whom the parties at variance do acknowledg to be their lawfull Iudge, which is well knowne by the Ciuill and Canon law: for in each of them there are titles concerning the ordinary Iudge, and him who is the iudge delegate. Neyther is there any ſo ignorant and fooliſh that by the ordinary or delegate iudge vnderſtandeth the written law, when it is certaine that he is the ordinary, who hath the ordinary iuriſdiction and power, and him to be a iudge delegate who receauing power of the ordinary ſupplies his office and place.

Moreouer that the written law cannot be iudge may eaſily be proued, and moſt plainly in theſe three caſes. Firſt when it is obſcure and doubtfull; for then there is need of ſome other iudge or interpreter who may expound the meaning of it. Secondly when one law ſeemeth to repugne another which happenth very often: For then a iudge is needfull who may reconcile them together. Thirdly when the words of the law which are generall, ought to be reſtrained in ſome particuler caſe, yet they are in no wiſe limitted. Which then happeneth, when ſome particuler caſe doth occur, which the law did not foreſee might happen. And yet perchance if he had knowne would not haue comprehended it in the law: therefore in ſuch a caſe one muſt iudge againſt the words of the law. But then who ſhalbe iudge? Not the law it ſelfe, for it neuer giueth ſentence againſt it ſelfe. Therefore there muſt be ſome other Iudge beſides the law.

Now laſtly, that only the written law cannot be a ſufficient rule for the deciding of all Ciuill controuerſies whatſoeuer, but beſides it, alſo cuſtome is to be admitted, is moſt certaine amongſt the Lawyers▪ And eſpecially in two caſes. Firſt when ſome controuerſy doth ariſe, of the whichLeg. 3 • . ff. de legibus. there is no written law; for then cuſtome is to be taken for law, and ought to be no leſſe obſerued, according to that: Thoſe things which are approued by long cuſtome, and obſerued for many yeares as a ſecret agreement of the Citizens, are to be kept no leſſe thē thoſe things which are written.

Secondly, when there is extant indeed a written law, yet there is ſome doubt about the ſēſe or meaning thereof, which cannot be knowne but by cuſtome or traditiō that taketh place of which is ſaid in the law: For then the beſt interpreter of the Lawes is Cuſtome: and that our Emperour Seuerus hath written, how that in doubtsLeg. • 7. ff. de legibus. which proceed from Lawes, either cuſtome or the authority of things iudged alwaies in the ſame manner ought to haue the force of a law.

Perchance you wil ſay: what if ſome controuerſy occur which neither Ibid. leg. 38. can be defined out of the written law, nor out of any cuſtome: what then ſhalbe the rule that the iudge ought to follow? I anſwere: Then the matter muſt be taken vp according to that equity which doth proceed out of the law of nature But this eſpecially happeneth, when ſome certaine Caſe doth occur, which is vnderſtood according to the wordes of the law, but not to the meaning of the law-giuer, as before was ſaid. For then the Iudge is to giue ſentence according to that which he thinketh to be iuſt and right. The very ſame may happen in Controuerſies of faith. For if any controuerſy ſhould ariſe which cannot manifeſtly be decided neither by Scripture nor tradition, recourſe preſently were to be made to the help of the holy Ghoſt, who although he aſſiſt the Church in al occaſions, yet in this eſpecially he doth teach her al truth, as Chriſt himſelfe hath promiſed. And this remedy alſo the Apoſtles haue vſed in that Councel of Hieruſalem, where they were aſſembled about circumciſion and the obſeruation of legall rites and ceremonies. Now theſe be the argumēts by which 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉 hitherto hath beene proued, that the Scripture cannot be ludge of controuerſies in faith, but that the Church may. Now it remayneth that we diligently weigh and conſider the teſtimonies of Scripture which were propoū ded in the beginning, and which are obiected and often repeated by our aduerſaries againſt this doctrine, but not in that order as they were propounded, but as they are placed in the Scripture of the old and new teſtament one after another. And truly by the examining of theſe, as I did before inſinuate, it wilbe manifeſt that ſome of them are nothing to the purpoſe, and the reſt rather make for vs then for them. But to conclude and ſpeake freely as the matter is indeede, I affirme, that our aduerſaries who alwaies ſo much boaſt & bragge of Scripture, vnderſtand nothing leſſe then the true ſenſe & meaning of the Scripture.

The Testimonies of Scripture brought againſt vs heere are examined.

THE I. TESTIMONY.

YOVV shal not ad to the word that I ſpeake to you. And this alſo. VVhat I commaund Deut. 4. 2. Deut. 12. 32. thee, that only do to our Lord, neither ad any thing nor diminish.

Out of which the aduerſaries generally gather theſe two poynts. Firſt that all Traditions which Catholikes admit ought to be vtterly reiected. But what is their reaſon? Becauſe forſooth nothing is to be added to the written word of God. Secondly that no humā precepts (ſuch as are the commandements of faſting lent, abſtinence from fleſh on Fryday and Saturday, of the ſingle life of Prieſts & ſuch like) ought to be obſerued. But wherefore? Becauſe ſay they, that only is to be done which Chriſt hath cōmaunded: whatſoeuer men commaund is not to be done. Thus they, but very fooliſhly▪ as I wil ſhew two waies. Firſt by diſprouing their falſe interpretation. And againe by ſhewing the true ſenſe and meaning of theſe places of Scripture.

Now firſt that their interpretation is falſe, they themſelues cannot deny vnleſſe they will altogeather be accoū ted fooliſh and impudent. For if all traditions ought to be refuſed, the Apoſtle himſelfe muſt be reiected, who ſaith, Hould the Traditions which you2. Theſ. 2. 14. haue learned, whether it be by words, or by our Epiſtle. Likewiſe if al human precepts ſhould be contemned, and that only ſhould be done, which God commaundeth; What ſhould we ſay of the Rechabits, who moſt diligently obſerued the precept of their Father Ionadab? did they amiſſe therein? This tru • y were to be ſayd according to our Aduerſaries; but it is far otherwiſe, ſeing that for ſo doing they are commended by God himſelfe.

If our Aduerſaries know not this, let them heere Hieremy the Prophet ſpeaking in theſe words: The word that I • e. 35. 1. was made to▪ Ieremy from our Lord in the daies of Ioakim, the Sonne of Ioſias, the King of Iuda, ſaying, Go to the houſe of the Rechabits, & ſpeake to them, and thou shalt bring them into the howſe of our Lord, into one chamber of the treaſuries, and thou shalt giue them wyne to drinke. And I tooke • ezonias the ſonne of Ieremias, the Sonne of Habſamias and his brethren, and all his ſonnes and the whole howſe of the Rechabites. And I brought them into the howſe of our Lord &c. And I ſet before the ſonnes of the howſe of the Rechabits gobletts full of wyne, and cuppes, and I ſaid to them, drinke wyne: who anſwered we will not drinke wyne, becauſe Ionadab the ſonne of Recab our Father commaunded vs ſaying: you shall not drinke wyne, you and your Children for euer: And yow shall not build howſes & you shall not ſow ſeede, and you shall not plant vineyards nor haue any, but yow shall dwell in tabernacles al your dayes, that yow may liue many dayes vpon the face of the land wherein yow are ſtrangers: we therfore haue obeyed the voice of Ionadab the ſonne of Rechab our Father in all things that he commaunded vs: ſo that we drinke not any wine all our dayes, we and our wiues, our ſonnes and our Daughters: And we builde not howſes to inhabit, and vineyard, and ſeild, and ſeede wee haue not had: but we haue dwelt in tabernacles, and we haue beene obedient according to all things that Ionadab our Father commaunded vs &c. And the word of our Lord was to Ieremy ſaying: Thus ſayth the Lord of Hoſts, the God of Iſraell; go and ſay to the men of Iuda and to the inhabitants of Hieruſalem, VVhy will you not receaue diſcipline, to obey my words, ſayth our Lord; The words of Ionadab the ſonne of Rechab haue preuailed, which he commaunded his ſonnes not to drinke wyne, and they haue not drunke vntill this day, becauſe they haue obeyed the commaundement of their Father: but I haue ſpoken to you early riſing, and ſpeaking and you haue not obeyed me. And I haue ſent to you all my ſeruants the Prophets riſing earely, and ſending and ſaying: Returne ye euery one from his moſt wicked way, and make your ſtudies good▪ &c. And you haue not enclined your eare nor heard me. The Children therefore of Ionadab the ſonne of Rechab, haue firmely kept the precepts of their Father which he commaunded them: But this people haue not obeyed me. Therefore thus ſayth the Lord of hoſts, the God of Iſraell: behould I will bring vpon Iuda, and vpon all the inhabitants of Hieruſalem all the affliction, which I haue ſpoken againſt them, becauſe I haue ſpoken to them and they haue not heard: I haue called them and they haue not anſweared me: but to the howſe of the Rechabits Ieremy ſayd: Thus ſayth the Lord of Hoſts, the God of Iſraell: For that yow haue obeyed the commaundment of Ionadab your Father, and haue kept all his commaundments, and haue done all things that he cōmaunded yow. Therefore thus ſayth the Lord of Hoſts the God of Iſraell: There shall not want a man of the ſtocke of Ionadab the ſonne of Rechab ſtanding in my ſight all dayes.

In this example three things are to be noted. Firſt that the precept which was giuen to the Rechabites was moſt hard. For what is harder then that huſbands and wiues, young men, and young maides, not only for a ſhort tyme, as the Nazareans did, but as long as euer they liued ſhould abſtaine from all kynde of wyne, and neuer ſhould dwell in howſes, nor ſow their grounds, nor plant any vineyards? Secondly that this precept was not diuine but humane, it appeareth by the oppoſition which God made. For thus he argueth. The Rechabits did obſerue the precept which they receiued from man; how much more ought the Iewes to keep the precept which they receiued from God? Thirdly that the Rechabits not only did well and commendably in obſeruing the precept of their Father Ionadab, but alſo thereby 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉 deſerued a peculiar bleſſing from God: whereas contrare wiſe the Iewes deſerued nothing but great puniſhment. For it is ſayd to the Rechabits. There shall not want a man of the stocke of Ionadab the ſonne of Rechab ſtanding in my ſight al daies. But to the Iewes: I will bring vpon you affliction.

Now from hence let our aduerſaries if they be wiſe infer theſe few verities. Firſt that the Catholikes obſeruing the precepts of the Church, do no leſſe well and laudably then did theRechabites, by keeping the precept of their Father Ionadab. For doubtleſſe it is no leſſe commendable to obey the Church our common mother then it was for them to obey a priuate man their Father. And euen as the Rechabites did not ſinne againſt that aforſaid place, what I commaund you that only do to our Lord: euen ſo neyther the Catholikes ſinne againſt it. Secondly the cauſe why Catholikes haue continued and do continue ſtill, is becauſe they keep diligently the commaundments of the Church: and how much more diligently one doth obſerue them ſo many more benefits he ſhall receiue from God, and that ſome others do not proſper, becauſe of the one ſide they contemne the precepts of the Church, in the which they are not ſo perfect as the Rechabits were. And on the other they do not obſerue the tenne commaundments, in the which they are like the Iewes. But that they may pretend ſome kind of excuſe for this their damnable laſineſſe, they hould that the ten commaundement are impoſſible to be kept: In the which they make God a tyrant, as though he would commaund man that which is not in his power to fullfill.

But this may ſuffice to ouerthrow their falſe interpretation. The true interpretation therefor is this: You shall not Deut. 4. 1. ad to the word that I ſpeake to you▪ neyther shall you take away from it. Which is generally to be vnderſtood of ceremoniall and iudiciall precepts, which were giuen of God by Moyſes. And this is the ſenſe: I haue giuen ceremoniall precepts to you which preſcribe the rites of worſhiping God, and Iudiciall which preſcribe the rites of keeping iuſtice in Ciuill matters and thoſe which belong to the Common wealth. Both of which you ought perfectly and entirely to obſerue: for this is the ſignification of that, You shall not ad, nor take away. Which truly in other words, but in the ſame ſenſe is explicated in another place, where it is ſayd, do not decline eyther from the right Deut. 2 • . 14. Deut. 17. 20. hand or the leſt. And againe. That he may learne to feare our Lord his God and keepe his wordes and ceremonies, nor decline to the right ſide nor to the left. And a little after. For I Deut. 31. 29. know that after my death you will do wickedly▪ and will decline quickly from the way that I haue commanded you; and like wiſe in the Ioſue. 7. booke of Ioſue, Take courage and be ſtrong, that thou keepe and do all the Law which Moyſes my Seruant hath commaunded thee: decline not from it to the right hand or to the left.

Therefore our of that place ſo vnderſtood, as truly it ought to be vnderſtood, the aduerſaries cannot argue otherwiſe then thus. The Iewes ought to obſerue the precepts of God wholly and entirely, not declining from them neyther to the right hand nor to the left, therefore we Chriſtians, beſides the Scripture, ought not to admit any tradition which we haue receaued from the Apoſtles, Spectatum admiſſi &c.

But that place in Deuteronomy. Deut. 11. 32▪ VVhat I commaund thee, this only do to our Lord, neyther add any thing nor diminish, is eſpecially vnderſtood of one ceremoniall precept, to wit of the precept of ſacrificing as appeareth. Of which this is the ſenſe and meaning. When thou comeſt into the land of Paleſtine in the which thou goeſt, and thou ſhalt offer a ſacrifice to thy Lord thy God, thou ſhalt not imitate the Gentills, who offer their ſonnes and daughters to falſe Gods by fyer. But this only thou ſhalt offer, the which I commaund thee, as of Beaſts, Sheepe, Goats, Kidds, Oxen, Calues, Pigeons, Sparowes, and Turtle-doues: of fruits of the Earth, Bread, Meale, Salt, Frankincenſe, a bundle of greene eares of Corne, and wheat: of Liquors, Bloud, Wyne, Oyly, and Water. Do this only, that is, offer to our Lord: Neyther ad any thing, of the ſacrifices of the Gentills, nor diminish any thing of them which were now particulerly ſet downe. Now out of this place the aduerſaries can no otherwiſe conclud then in this manner. The Iewes ought only to offer thoſe things in ſacrifice, which were preſcribed of God: therefore we Chriſtians may not keepe the precepts of the Church: which is euen as fooliſh as the former.

THE II. TESTIMONY.

ISAY 8. 20. Rather to the law, and to the teſtimony.

From hence the aduerſaries gather that the Iewes in the old Teſtament, when any controuerſy did ariſe, were ſent preſently to the law and teſtimony, that is to the Scripture euen as to their iudge. But they erre groſly. Firſt becauſe it hath beene ſhewed before, that the Iudge of controuerſies in the old Teſtament was not the Scripture, but the High Prieſt. Secondly, becauſe thoſe words, to the law and testimony much other wayes are to be vnderſtood then our aduerſaries ſuppoſe, as appeareth by the precedent words which are theſe: And when they shall ſay to you: Aske of Pytho • s and of Deuiners, which whiſper in their 1. cap. 8. 19. inchantements: shall not the people aske viſion of their God for the liuing of the dead? To the law rather, and to the teſtimony. And if they ſpeake not according to this word, they shall not haue the morning light. Where it is plainly ſpoken againſt them who aske counſell of the Pythones and Deuiners, about future euents, and are remitted plainly to the law which forbiddeth it.

VVhen thou art entred the land which our Deut. 1 • . • . Lord thy God shall giue then, beware thou be not willing to imitate the abhominations of thoſe nations. Neither let there be ſound in thee any that conſulteth with Pytho • s or Deuiners, and ſeeketh the truth of the dead, partly to the teſtimony of the Prophets, who where placed of God, to foretell future things, as in the third of Kings we may ſee. And Ioſaphat ſaid: is their not heer ſome Prophet R • g • . • ap. 22. v. 7. of our Lord, that we may aske by him?

Therefore the ſenſe of the words to the law and teſtimony, is this: If you will be certified of future euents, yow ought not to aske Counſell of the Pythons as1 Reg. 28. 7. Saul did, becauſe God hath forbidden this to be done by his law, vnto the which I remit you: but aske Counſell of the Prophets of our Lord, whoſe office is to pronounce of future euents. But what is this to the iudge of the Controuerſies? Verily nothing at a • l: Vnleſſe our aduerſaries will argue in this manner: As concerning future euents, it is not lawfull to aske Counſell of the Pythones: therefore only the Scripture is the iudge of Controuerſies. Truly moſt fooliſhly, and yet which is to be admired their very cheife Rabbins of all are not aſhamed to vſe ſuch manner of arguing, of whom Chriſt himſelfe hath forewarned vs ſayi • g: Let ſuch followes alone, for they are blind themſelues, and leaders of them that are blind.

THE III. TESTIMONY.

YOV haue made fruſtrate the commaundment Math. 15. • . Coloſ. 2. • . 1. • et. 1. 18. of God for your owne tradition. And the other place in S. Paul: Beware least any man deceaue you by Philoſophy, and vaine fallacy, according to the tradition of men. And that in S. Peter: You are redeemed from your vaine conuerſation of your Fathers tradition.

From hence our aduerſaries gather that all traditions are condemned of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and that Scripture alone is ſufficient. But it is not ſo. For theſe cited places are vnderſtood of the Iewes traditions, which were obſerued of the Phariſies: but not of the traditions of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, which our aduerſaries oppugne, and we defend. But that there were diuers traditions of the Iewes, appeareth out of the Scripture.

The firſt was, that their hands were to be waſhed before taking of meat, as in this place: Then came to him from Hieruſalem Math 15. Scribes and Phariſees ſaying, why do thy diſciples tranſgreſſe the traditions of the ancients? For they wash not their hands when they eate bread.

The ſecond is, that this waſhing was often to be vſed whylſt they were eating, as in S. Mark: The Phariſees and all the Iewes, vnleſſe they often wash their hands, Mark. 7. 3. eate not, holding the traditions of the ancients. Alſo at the marriage in Cana in Galilee ſix water pots were put according to the purification of the Iewes. In the which water potts there was water wherewith they waſhed their hands at dinner.

The third was, that vnleſſe they ware waſhed they could not take meat coming from the market, as S. Marck recordeth: And from the market vnleſſe they Mar. 7. 4. bee washed they eate not: and many other things there be that were deliuered vnto them to obſerue, as the waſhing of Cupps, and Cruſes, and of brazen veſſells, and Bedds.

The fourth is, that meate was not to be taken with ſinners, as is written in S. Matth: And the Phariſies ſeing this ſayd Math. 9. 11. to his Diſciples, why doth your maister eate with Publicanes and ſinners? And in S. Luke: Luk. 5. 30. The Phariſies and Scribes murmured, ſaying to his Diſciples, why do you eate and drinke with Publicanes and ſinners?

The fifth was that none ſhould be permitted to be touched of ſinners as S. Luke recordeth: And the Phariſee that Luk. 7. 39. had bid him ſeing it, ſpake within himſelfe, ſaying: this man if were a Prophet would know certes, who and what manner of woman she is which toucheth him, that she is a ſinner. Where it manifeſtly appeareth, that the Phariſee wondred, that Chriſt ſhould ſuffer himſelfe to be touched of a woman that was a ſinner, becauſe it was contrary to the cuſtome and tradition of the Phariſees, whoſe ſpeach was this: Depart from me, thou shalt not came neere me becauſe Iſa. 65. 5. thou art vncleane.

The ſixt was, that vpon the Sabaoth it was not lawfull to cure the ſicke as S. Luke ſayth: The Scribes and Phariſees Luk. 6. 7. watched if he would cure on the Sab • th, that they might find how to accuſe him. And likewiſe S. Iohn writeth, that certaine of the Phariſees Iohn. 9. 16. ſayd: This man is not of God, that keepeth not the Saboath. Where they ſpake of Chriſt, who on the Saboath reſtored ſight to a man that was blind from his natiuity.

The ſeauenth was, that thoſe who were hungry, might not gather and eate eares of Corne on the Saboath, as it is ſayd in S. Matth. Ieſus went through Math. 12. 1. the Corne on the Saboath, and his diſciples being hungry began to pluck the eares and eate. And the Phariſies ſeing them ſaid to him. Lo thy Diſciples do that which is not lawfull for them to do on the Saboath day.

The eight was, that they ſhould faſt and pray often, as is recorded in S. Math. VVhy do we and the Phariſees faſt often Math. 9. 15. but thy Diſciples do not faſt? And in S. Luke. VVhy do the Diſciples of Iohn faſt often and make Luk 5. 35. obſeruations; but thine do eate and drinke.

The ninth was, that the tythes of all things euen of the very leaſt ſhould be offered to God, as we reade in S. Math. that Chriſt ſayd. VVo to you Scribes Math. 23. •• . and Phariſees, Hipocrits, becauſe you tith mint and aniſe, and cummin, and haue left the weightier things of the law, iudgment and mercy and fayth, theſe things you ought to haue done and not omitted thoſe. Heere to tyth is taken for to giue tythes, and this is the true ſenſe: You Phariſees giue tythes of all thinges whatſoeuer, euen of the very leaſt of all, which you do not as by a precept in the law of Moyſes, but by your one tradition which is not written, and in the meane tyme you omit thoſe things which are commaunded in the law, theſe things you ſhould do, and not omit the other. Where it is to be noted, that there was no precept in the law of Moyſes, about giuing of tythes of the leaſt things of which mention is here made, but only of the tythes of wyne, wheat, and oyle. Notwithſtanding Deut. 14. 2 • . the Phariſees in this had a peculiar cuſtome and tradition beyond others of the Iewes, becauſe they gaue the tythes of all kynde of hearbes which Luk. 11. 42. others did not. For the which cauſe one of the Phariſees did boaſt ſaying, I Luk. 18. 11. am not as the reſt of men &c. I faſt twice a weeke, and I giue tythes of all that I poſſeſſe.

The tenth was, that whoſoeuer Vide Iāſen. in concord Euan. cap. 84. ſhould ſweare by the Temple or by the Altar, he was not guilty of any fault? But he that ſhould ſweare by gould of the temple, or ſacrifices which were made on the Altar, was guilty, as in S. Matth▪ is written. VVo to you blind guides that ſay, whoſoeuer shall ſweare by the Math. •• . 16. Temple, it is nothing, but he that shall ſweare by the gould of the temple, is bound. Ye foolish and blinde, for whether is greater, the gould or the temple which ſanctifieth the gould? And whoſoeuer shall ſweare by the Altar it is nothing, but whoſoeuer shall ſweare by the guift that is vpon it, is bound. You foolish and blinde, for whether is greater the guift, or the Altar that ſanctifieth the guift?

The eleuenth was, that Children were not bound to honour their parents, or to be beneficial vnto them, but that it would ſuffice aboundantly to offer ſome guift vnto God as we read in S. Mathew, VVhy do you tranſgreſſe the commandement of God for your tradition? For God ſayd, honour Father and Mother, & he that shall curſe Father or Mother, dying let him dy. But you ſay, whoſoeuer shall ſay to the Father or Mother, the guift whatſoeuer proceedeth from me shall profit thee, and shall not honour his Father or his Mother, and you haue made fruſtrate the Commandement of God for your owne tradition.

Theſe were the cheife traditions of the Phariſees. For as much as we can gather out of the Ghoſpell. And although ſome of them were good in their kynd, others ill, certaine doubfull or vnprofitable: Yet notwithſtanding the Phariſees were reprehended in them all for theſe cheife cauſes.

Firſt becauſe they by the obſeruation of then ſought vaine glory and to be eſteemed holy amongſt men when they were nothing leſſe then holy and godly as S. Matth. ſpeaketh of them: Math. 23. 5 But they do all their workes, for to be ſeene of of men. And very often, yea and almoſt euery where in the Ghoſpell they are called Hypocrites, and whited Scpulchers.

Secondly becauſe, out of the obſeruing of them, they gaped after wealth and riches, eſpecially out of long praiers which they recited to that end, as is ſayd of Chriſt in S. Matth. Math. 23. 14. VVo to yow Scribes and Phariſees Hipocrits, becauſe yow deuour widdowes howſes, praying long prayers. And likewiſe in S. Marke. Take heede of the Scribes, who denoure widdowes howſes vnder the pretence of long prayer. Where to eate and deuour widowes howſes is nothing els but to ſpoyle and exhauſt them. For the Widowes came to the Phariſees, euen as vnto holy men (for they fayned ſanctity) and bought their prayers with money.

Thirdly, becauſe they ſuperſtitiouſly did obſerue ſome things which were to little purpoſe, and did neglect thoſe which were of greater moment, as we ſhewed a little before. For they gaue tythes of thoſe things which were leaſt of all, and did neglect mercy and iudgment, in iudging of thoſe cauſes which were brought vnto them. And that of S. Matth. may be taken in this ſenſe: They ſtraine a gnat and ſwallow a Camell.

Now out of theſe it appeareth that all the traditions of the Iewes were not reprehended by Chriſt, although the Phariſees were blamed deſeruedly becauſe they made all vſe of them. For one of their traditions was, to tythe mint, rue, and euery hearbe. Which doubtleſſe was good of it ſelfe, for it is very good to giue tythes to God not only of ſome things which we haue, but of all things wee poſſeſſe. And this is confirmed by Chriſt himſelfe, who ſayth: theſe things yow ought to haue done, and not to haue ommitted thoſe: that is, yow ought to haue kept the precept of iuſtice and mercy, and not omit the tradition of tything mint, and all kynd of hearbes.

From whence it directly followeth that the Lutherans and the Caluiniſts ſeing they condemne all Traditions, do condemne the very iudgment of Chriſt who approued ſome of them. For in the iudgement of Chriſt there be ſome traditions which are not to be omitted. But in their opinion all are to be reiected, and the Scripture only to be admited. Theſe two opinions are contrary one to the other. But which of them muſt we imbrace? Chriſts doubtleſſe if we be wiſe.

Out of which I infer againe, that the Lutherans and the Caluiniſts can conclud out of this no otherwiſe then this. Some traditions of the Iewes were euill, therefore all the traditions of the Chriſtians are euill.

Which is no conſequence at all. But this is much better. The Iewes had ſome traditions, beſides the Scripture, which ought not be omitted, therefore alſo the Chriſtians may haue ſome, although there be great difference betwixt them both. For the traditions of the Chriſtians which we now defend were receaued from Chriſt and his Apoſtles: but ſo were not theſe of the Iewes.

THE IIII. TESTIMONY.

SEARCH the Scriptures.

Lo, ſay our aduerſaries Chriſt remitteth Ioan. • . •• . vs to the Scripture, euen as to the iudge of Controuerſies. This truly they would not ſay, if they vnderſtood the meanning of Chriſt, for Chriſt in that Chapter diſputeth with the Iewes who denied him to be the Sonne of God, and therefore he proued by foure kynd of teſtimonies that he was. Firſt by the teſtimony of S. Iohn Baptiſt. You haue, ſayth he, ſent to Iohn, and he gaue teſtimony to the truth. But this was his teſtimony. Behould the Lambe of God, behould Iohn. 1. 34. who taketh away▪ the ſinnes of the world. And againe, I haue giuen teſtimony, that this is the Sonne of God.

Secondly by the teſtimony of thoſe Miracles which he wrought. I haue ſayth he, teſtimony greater then Iohns For the Ioan. 3. 36. workes which my Father hath giuen me to perſit them, the very workes themſelues which I do giue teſtimony of me, that the Father hath ſent me.

Thirdly by the teſtimony of God the Father. And the Father that ſent me himſelfe Ioan. 5 • 7. hath giuen teſtimony of me. As alſo when he ſpake out of heauen. This is my welbeloued Math 3. 17. ſonne in whom I am well pleaſed heare him. Fourthly by the teſtimony of the old teſtament. Search the Scripturs, for you thinke in them to haue life euerlaſting, and the ſame are they that giue testimony of me, and you will not come to me, that you may haue life. As yf he ſhould ſay. If you will not receaue the three former teſtimonies, which are moſt forcible (otherwiſe I would not haue made mention of them) at leaſt you cannot reiect the teſtimonies of Scriptures, of the which you brag ſo much. And thoſe if you ſearch diligently, giue teſtimony of me, that I am the true Meſſias promiſed of God: Wherefore then do ye not beleeue?

Heere hence I conclude that our aduerſaries oppugne themſelues more then vs. For they contend that Scripture only is the iudge of Controuerſies and that Chriſt remitteth vs to the Scripture alone. But the quite contrary is true. For Chriſt in the Controuerſy which he had with the Iews, to wit, whether he were the Sonne of God, ſent them not only to the Scripture but firſt to the teſtimony of S. Iohn Baptiſt. Secondly to the teſtimony of Miracles, which ſhew him to be God. Thirdly to the teſtimony of God the Father, who confirmed the ſame with a voice from heauen. And after al theſe at leaſt he ſends them to the Scriptures.

We Catholikes do follow Chriſt in this matter. For in theſe controuerſies which we haue with our aduerſaries, not only we vſe the teſtimony of Scripture, but alſo that of the holy Fathers, that of the Church our Mother, and likewiſe that of Miracles, which oftentymes are wrought for the confirmation of our fayth. But our aduerſaries, as though they were wiſer then Chriſt, will heare nothing but that which is conteyned in the Scripture. In the which they reſemble not a l • t • le thoſe Iewes with whom Chriſt had to do. For theſe reiecting all other teſtimonies did only admit the ſcripture, the which they neyther then vnderſtood, nor do yet if we may beleeue S. Paul, for their ſenſes are dulled1. Cor. 3. 1 • . ſayth he: & a little after: vntill this preſent day when Moyſes is read a veyle is put vpon their hart. All this in this caſe may be not vnſittly applied to theſe our moderne aduerſaries, as to faythfull ſchollars, and iuſt coſen-Germans to thoſe moſt ignorant blind & obſtinate Iewes.

THE V. TESTIMONY.

DAILY ſearching the Scriptures, if th • ſe Acts. 1 • . •• . thinges were ſo.

But heere againe our aduerſaries cry out that the men of Beroea did not haſtily and raſhly beleeue thoſe things with the Apoſtles tould them, but examined all things according to the rule of the Scripture, and therefore ſay they it is alſo fitting that we ſhould follow their example, and acknowledg the Scripture only to be the rule & iudge. But al this is in vaine, which will eaſily be ſeene if we conſider the matter it ſelfe, whereof they ſpake▪ For thus it was. S. Paul the Apoſtle as it is expreſſely ſhewed in the ſame Chapter, firſt at Theſſalonica, and after with them of Beroea did diſcourſe out of the Scriptures▪ declaring and inſinuating that it behoued Chriſt to ſuffer and to riſe againe from the dead, and that this is Ieſus Chriſt whom I preach to you. But now what did thoſe of Beroea? in the ſelfe ſame place it followeth, they receaued the word with all greedineſſe, daily ſearching the Scriptures if theſe things were ſo▪

This therefore is the true ſenſe of that place. The men of Beroea when they heard S. Paul cite certaine teſtimonies of the Scripture in the old Teſtament, by the which he affirmed Chriſts death and reſuriection, they ſearched whether the doctrine of S. Paul were agreeable to thoſe teſtimonies. Not truly, as though they doubted of the death and reſurrection of Chriſt, for it was ſufficiently confirmed by the force of many Miracles wrought by1 Theſ. 1▪ 5. the Apoſtle: But that they might be more ſtedfaſtly confirmed in faith, if they ſhould ſee thoſe things which S. Paul had preached to haue beene tould and ſignified long before by the Prophets.

Now what thinke you can our aduerſaries conclude by this? Nothing doubtleſſe to the purpoſe. Vnleſſe peraduenture they conclude in this manner. The men of Beroea ſearched the teſtimonyes of the Scripture cited of S. Paul therefore the Scripture only is the iudge of controuerſies: which is euen like vnto this the: Lutherans ſearch out the teſtimonies of S. Auguſt. cited by Bellar. therefore S. Aug. only is the iudge of controuerſies. Or thus. The Clownes ſearch out the teſtimonies of Luther cited by the miniſters, therfore Luther only is the iudge of all Controuerſies. Or thus. Kemnitius in the examen of the Councell of Trent ſearcheth out the traditions alleadged of Catholiks, therefore traditions are the only iudge of Controuerſies. Or Laſtly Schollars ſearch out the teſtimonies of Cicero cited of their maiſter: therefore Cicero only is the author of the Latin tongue. Away with ſuch conſequences which are not all worth a ruſh. And yet our aduerſaries make great accompt of them becauſe they haue no better.

THE VI. TESTIMONY.

IT any euangelize to you beſids that which you Galat. 19. haue receaued, be he anathema.

Therefore, ſay our aduerſaries beſids the Ghoſpell we muſt not admit any traditions: but infer the quite contrary in this manner. If any ſhall Euangelize to you any thing beſides that which S. Paul hath Euangelized, be he anathema: But the Lutherans and the Caluiniſts do euangelize ſomething beſides that which S. Paul euangelized, becauſe they oppugne traditions, which he hath commaunded when he ſayd, keepe 2. Theſ. 2. 14. the traditions, therefore the Lutherans and the Caluiniſts are anathema.

But now let vs ſee the drift of the Apoſtle, for thence it will appeare whether traditions are altogether to be condemned or no. Truly the drift of the Apoſtle is this. The Galathians were taught of S. Paul that the ceremonies Gal. 2. 15. of the law of Moyſes were abrogated, & that none could be iuſtified by thoſe ceremonies but by fayth in Chriſt: but afterward they were brought from this doctrine by certayne falſe Apoſtles who taught them that they could not be ſaued by fayth in Chriſt, vnleſſe they were alſo circumciſed, and obſerued the other ceremonies of Moyſes law, as is manifeſt by the courſe of the whole Epiſtle, but eſpecially in theſe chapters1. v. • . &c. 3. v. 1. &. 4 v. 9. &. • . v. 1. cited in the margent. And againſt theſe falſe Apoſtles doth S. Paul here diſpute, when he ſayth. If any euangelize to you, beſides that which you haue recaued, be he anathema. As though he had ſayd: You haue receiued of me, that a man is iuſtified by faith in Chriſt, and not by the obſeruation of the law of Moyſes. If any do teach you otherwiſe, affirming that faith in Chriſt doth profit nothing vnleſſe circumciſion, and other legall ceremonies be adioyned, be he anathema. But from hence it doth not follow that the Apoſtolicall traditions are to be reiected, but rather that they are to be retained, becauſe they are not contrary to that which S. Paul hath euangelized to the Galathians of iuſtification, but rather they are the ſame which he hath euangelized to the Theſſalonians, when he ſayd, keep the traditions with you haue learned

THE VII. TESTIMONY.

ALL Scripture inſpired of God is profitable 2. Tim. 3▪ 16. to teach, to argue, to correct, to instruct in iuſtice, that the man of God may be perfect, inſtructed to euery good worke.

Out of which place our aduerſaries argue two waies: Some of them thus. All ſcripture is profitable to teach and to argue: Therefore traditions are ſuperfluous, which is much like vnto this: All meat is profitable to nouriſh: Luc. 11. 41. & Dan. 4. 24. Therefore drinke is needleſſe: or els thus: All alſmedeedes are profitable to Saluation, therefore prayer is needleſſe, and the Sacraments are needleſſe. Alas who will not pitty ſuch follies.

Or thus. All ſcripture is profitable that is ſufficient: therefore traditions are needleſſe. But what an expoſition is this? Is it the ſame to be profitable, and to be ſufficient? if it be ſo, one may alſo interpret that place of S. Paul in the1. Tim. 4. 8. ſame place: Piety is profitable to all things, that is, Piety is ſufficient for all things, therefore all other things are needleſſe. And likewiſe that: Take2. Tim. 4. • 1. Marke, and bring him with thee, for he is profitable to me for the miniſtery, that is, ſufficient: Therefore Timothy Titus, and Oneſimus and all the reſt were needleſſe. But who doth not now euidently perceaue, that if this licence of interpreting the Scripture were once permitted, how eaſy it were to corrupt it all.

But that the matter may appeare more plainly, the text of the Apoſtles is well to be conſidered. For the Apoſtle in the cited Chapter doth exhort Timothy the Biſhop, that he ſhould inſtruct his ſubiects in fayth and good workes; and that he ſhould reprehend his aduerſaries who being corrupted in mynd, and reprobate concerning fayth1. Tim. 3. 16. did reſiſt the truth. And that he might ſhew that he was able to performe it, he addeth. But thou continue in thoſe things which Ibid. paulo poſt. thou haſt learned, and are commtted to thee: knowing of whome thou haſt learned. And becauſe from thine infancy thou haſt knowne the holy Scriptures, which can inſtruct thee to Saluation, by the fayth that is in Chriſt Ieſus. For all Scripture inſpired of God is profitable to teach &c. Where by the holy Scripturs which he ſayth Timothy to haue knowne, he meaneth the Scripture of the old Teſtament. For at that tyme when Timothy was a Child, the Scripture of the new Teſtament was not extant.

Therefore the Apoſtle in that text thus doth argue. All Scripture inſpired of God is profitable to teach ſubiects, & reprehend aduerſaries. But the Scripture of the old Teſtament which thou haſt knowne from thy infancy, is inſpired of God. Therefore it is profitable to teach thy ſubiects, and to reprehend thy aduerſaries. And when thou art well inſtructed with the knowledg of that Scripture, thou wilt obtaine great aide thereby to performe that which I haue tould thee.

And from the ſame head, one may conclud in this manner: All Scripture inſpired of God is profitable to teach and argue. And whoſoeuer is inſtructed with the knowledg of this Scripture, ſhall obtaine great aide thereby to performe them both.

Now out of both theſe arguments it followeth, that theſe three propoſitions are true according to the Apoſtle. 1. All Scripture inſpired of God is profitable to teach and argue. 2. That the Scripture of the old Teſtament is profitable to teach and to argue. 3. That the Scripture of the new teſtament is profitable to teach, and to argue. As therefore it doth not follow, the Scripture of the old Teſtament is profitable, therefore the Scripture of the new Teſtament is needleſſe & ſuperfluous. Nor the contrary: The Scripture of the New Teſtament is profitable, therefore the Scripture of the old Teſtament is ſuperfluous. So alſo it doth not follow, that tradition is ſuperfluous, becauſe the old and the new Teſtament are profitable.

THE VIII. TESTIMONY.

FOR I teſtify to euery one hearing the words • po. 22. 18. of the Prophecy of this booke. If any man shall add to theſe things, God shall add vpon him the plagues written in this booke. And if any man shall diminish of the word of the booke of this Prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the booke of life.

Heereby our aduerſaries conclude in this manner. If any man ſhall add to the words of this Apocalypticall Prophecy, he ſhalbe puniſhed of God. But the Catholikes add traditions: Therefore the Catholikes ſhalbe puniſhed of God. They may alſo conclude in this manner. If any man ſhall add to the words of this Apocalipticall prophecy he ſhal be puniſhed of God. But the Caluiniſts add Ghoſpells, Epiſtles of the Apoſtles, the inſtitutions of Caluin, the Cathechiſme of Hidelberge, Athanaſius Creed, and alſo the firſt foure generall Councells. Therefore the Caluiniſts ſhalbe puniſhed of God. Or in this manner: If any man ſhall diminiſh of the words of this Apocalipticall prophecy, he ſhalbe taken out of the booke of life: But the Lutherans do not only diminiſh of the words of this Apocalipticall propheſy, but alſo bring it into queſtion whether it be true or no; and not acknowledging it to be diuine and Canonicall, tell vs in plaine termes that it is counterfait & Apocalipticall: Therefore they ſhalbe taken out of the booke of life.

But now to the purpoſe. S. Iohn forbiddeth nothing els, but onely that the words of the Apocryphall prophecy be not corrupted of any: Which he inſinuateth to be done two wayes, firſt by addition, as if one ſhould add any thing to the Apocalipticall prophecy, to be as a part of it, which is not. Secondly by diminiſhing, as if one ſhould take ſomething from it, although it did not belong to it, which certainly doth. The Catholikes do neither. But with an example I will declare it better.

S. Iohn foretelleth, that in a certaine tyme two Prophets ſhall come, clothed with ſackcloath, who ſhall propheſy a thouſand two hundred ſixty dayes, and ſhall haue power to ſhut heauen that it raine not in the dayes of their propheſy, and to turne the water into bloud &c. To which prophecy the catholikes ad nothing at all, which doth not belong vnto it, nor take any thing away which is added therto: but leaue it whole, as it was propheſied of S. Iohn. But our aduerſaries do the contrary, eſpecially thoſe who ſay that Luther and Caluin were the two Prophets. For theſe, who ſay this muſt of neceſſity diminiſh of the words of this prophecy; ſeing that it is certaine that Luther and Caluin were not cloathed in ſackcloathes, nor had any power of ſhutting heauen, nor alſo had thoſe properties which follow.

The Concluſion of all that is contained in this Booke.

TWo things I haue hitherto endeauoured to performe. The one is to ſhew that the Scriptures cannot be the iudge of Controuerſies, but the Church. And this I haue declared ſix wayes. Firſt, by the office of the iudge, which is not fitting for the Scripture becauſe the Scripture cānot pronounce ſentence in that manner betweene two at variance ſo that the one party may ſee it is for him, and the other perceaue it is againſt him. Secondly out of the ſcripture it ſelfe, in the which two things are to be conſidered, the letter and the ſenſe; The letter killeth as the Apoſtle ſayth, and is cauſe of many hereſies, as was ſhewed by diuers examples. The ſenſe oftentymes is obſcure and doubtfull, both for the apparent contradictions which are found in euery place, & alſo for many other cauſes which before were numbred, and therefore there is need of ſome Iudge who may manifeſtly deſine, that this is the lawfull ſenſe, and that the vnlawfull. Thirdly out of the Controuerſies themſelues, becauſe there are many controuerſies, of the which no mention is made in the Scripture, and ſo conſequently can neyther be defined out of Scripture. Fourthly out of the vſe and cuſtome of the old Teſtamēt, where the Scripture did not vſe the office of a Iudge, but high Preiſt, who was Prince of the Sinagogue whoſe precept was to be obeyed vnder paine of death. Fiftly by the vſe and practiſe of the new Teſtament, wherein all Controuerſies hitherto haue beene decided by the Prelates of the Church. Sixtly out of the proportion of Ciuill cauſes, which are not decided by the written law, but by the Prince of the Common wealth, nor according to the rule of the written law only, but alſo according to the ancient cuſtomes not written.

The other is to ſhew that the teſtimonies of Scripture, which are obiected againſt vs, eyther to be nothing to the purpoſe or to be rather for vs thē Iſa. 8. 20. againſt vs, and not to be expounded truly by them, as for example. To the law & teſtimony, is nothing to the purpoſe, becauſe it is not vnderſtood of I • an. 5. 39. Controuerſies of fayth, but of the future euents of caſuall things. And alſo that other place, Search the Scriptures doth rather helpe vs then our aduerſaries. For Chriſt when he ſayd this to the Iewes did not diſpute with them out of Scripture only (as our aduerſaries would haue vs beleeue) but alſo out of the teſtimony of S. Iohn Baptist, to the which he added the teſtimony of Miracles, and alſo the voice of God the Father ſpeaking downe from heauen, therefore he neuer dreamed that Scripture only was the Iudge of Controuerſies. The reſt as I haue ſhewed are no better expounded by our aduerſaries, as out of our confutation the Reader if he b • but indifferent may eaſily perceaue himſelfe.

An Obiection of the vulgar people aginst all that hath beene hitherto ſayd.

MANY that be of the more ſimple 〈◊〉 thus obiect againſt vs. The Iudge of Controuerſies in matters of fayth ought to be ſo infallible that he cannot erre. Becauſe if he erre all others following him ſhould be deceaued in imbracing his opinion. But now it is moſt plaine & manifeſt of the one part, that the ſcripture is infallible, ſeing it is the very word of God, which can by no meanes erre, and of the otherſide that no man can be infallible is no leſſe certaine, ſeing that euery man is a lyar and not any one can be found who is Rom. 3. 4. not ſubiect to errour. According to that of S. Paul. God is true, but euery man a lyar. Therefore the Scripture may be an infallible iudge. Men ſeing they be lyars cannot: But the Pope is a man, & the Church is nothing but a congregation of men. Therefore the Pope & the Church are lyars and may erre. And ſo conſequently none is ſafe and ſecure in matters of fayth who followeth their doctrine.

This obiection if there be any force in it, is no leſſle againſt our aduerſaries then againſt vs. For if euery man be a lyar and may erre, it followeth alſo that Moyſes, all the Prophets, Apoſtles, Euangeliſts▪ Luther alſo and Caluin & al the Lutherans and Calumiſticall preachers are lyars and ſubiect to errour, becauſe they are men, therefore they are not to be beleeued or truſted in any thing whatſoeuer, and they ought to bee doubted of, & accounted as vncertaine. Where then is fayth? Neyther doth it help them to ſay, that they preach the word of God and not of man▪ for if they be lyars, euen in ſo ſaying they may ly. Nothing therefore is certaine.

But God forbid that we ſhould eyther ſay ſo, or thinke ſo. For it is far otherwiſe. And firſt we confeſſe that the ſcripture is certaine and infallible, becauſe it is the word of God. But this we add, that ſeing it is obſcure, the lawfull ſenſe thereof is not manifeſt to euery one. And therefore that there is need of ſome other iudge who may infallibly deliuer which is the true and lawfull ſenſe of ſcripture. But euery priuat man cannot be this Iudge, becauſe otherwiſe, there would be as many diuers Iudges as there be diuers heads and opinions. And ſo no controuerſy could euer be compoſed. For euery one would ſay that he vnderſtood it rightly, and al other falſly. Therfore it is neceſſary that there be ſome publique Iudge, who with authority may haue power to decide, and end the matter betwixt the parties at contention.

Moreouer we affirme that men may Gen. • • 1. • pſal. •• . 6. be conſidered two waies. Firſt as they are the Children of Adam ſubiect to diuers corruptions of nature. And ſo by that meanes may be prone to lying and falſity. Secondly as they are directed & gouerned by the holy Ghoſt for the inſtruction of others, and ſo they may be infallible and voyde of all errour. Such an one in the old Teſtament was Moyſes and the whole Senate of the Seniors. Such alſo were the high Prieſts who followed thē. Such were the Prophets Iſaias, Ieremy, Ezechiel, Daniel, and Num. 11. 7. Deut. •• . • . Agga. • . 1 • . 〈◊〉 • 0. 7. Ierem. r. 7. Ioan. 15. 16. Ioan. 16. 1 • . others. Such in the new Teſtament were the Apoſtles, to whom it was ſaid of Chriſt: I will ſend you from my father the ſpirit of truth. And alſo this: VVhen that ſpirit of truth shall come, he will teach you all truth. But where there is all truth, certainly there cannot be any falſhood or errour.

To conclude ſuch hath beene and at this day is the Church, which by reaſon of the perpetuall aſſiſtance and direction of the holy Ghoſt, neuer hitherto hath erred, nor euer can erre heereafter. Matth. 1 • . • 8. 1. Tim. 3. 1 • . Iſa 54. 4. Ibid. v. • 2. Ibid. v. 17. For it is built vpon a firme rocke and the gates of hell ſhall not preuaile againſt it. It is the pillar and ground of truth. It ſhall neuer be conſounded nor bluſh. The Iaſper ſtone is the munition of it. And it ſhall iudge euery tongue reſiſting it in Iudgment. Therefore it is the infallible Iudge which we ſeeke.

But now there is a queſtion, whether all who are in the Church, haue ſo much aſſiſtance and direction of the holy Ghoſt that they cannot err, or no. Which truly is very eaſy to be reſolued. For all certainly haue it, but with a certaine kynde of dependance from the Church. Therefore as long as they remaine vnited to the Church, they cannot erre, but if they once depart from it then they beginne to erre, which may be declared with two ſimilitudes: the one is taken from the proportion of a mans body. For if you ſhould aske whether all the members which are in a mans body haue vitall and ſenſible ſpiritts in them, by the which life in them is preſerued. I anſweare that indeed all haue, but with a certaine kynd of dependance from the head and the hart, for theſe ſpirits are deriued from the head and the hart, as from a double origen, ſpring or fountaine into the other members. From whence it comes that if thoſe pores and paſſages be ſtopped & intercepted, through the which that diſtribution of ſpirits is made, it followeth alſo that the other members are deſtitute of their ſpirits and cannot exerciſe their office at all, but if they be patent and open, all is well. Euen ſo in the Church all the faythfull who are as members of the Church haue the aſſiſtance and direction of the holy Ghoſt, but which a certaine kynd of dependance of the Pope who is as the head of the Church: and from the Councells which are as the hart of the Church. As long therefore as they remaine vnited to the doctrine of the Pope & Coū cells, they are pertakers of the aſſiſt • nce and gouernement of the holy Ghoſt, & cannot erre in fayth. But if they once depart by obſtinacy and ſtubborneſſe then they begin to ſhut vp all their paſſages that the diuine aſſiſtance and direction cānot be diſtributed vnto them. And ſo they begin to ſwarue from the truth, and become ſubiect to errour which happened to Arius, Neſtorius, Macedonius, Pelagius and ſix hundred others▪ And truly leaſt the ſame happen vnto vs, let vs heare the Counſell of the Apoſtle, who in euery place doth exhort vs, to the agreement and vnity of doctrine. As when he writeth thus to the Romains. And I deſire you brethren (ſaith he) Rom. 16. 17. to marke them that make diſſentions & ſcandalls contrary to the doctrine which you haue learned, and auoyd them. And to the Corinthians. I beſeech you brethren by the name of our Lord 1. Cor. 1. 10. Ieſus Christ, that you all ſay one thing, and that there be no ſchiſme among you. And to the Epheſians. Becarefull to vſe the ſpirit of truth in the bond of peace. One body and one ſpirit, as Eph. 4. 3. you are called in one hope of your Saluation: One Lord, one fayth, one Baptiſme. And likewiſe to the Hebrewes VVith variances & ſtrang Heb. 13. 9. doctrines be not led away.

Another ſimilitude may be borrowed from a flock of ſheepe, which very well doth repreſent the Church. For as a whole flock being gathered together in one fould, or one place, hath the continuall aſſiſtance of their ſheepheard who doth defend them all with his hooke & his dogge from the cruelty of wolues: eue • ſo the whole Church of the faythfull being collected in one fayth and in one ſpirit, hath the perpetuall aſſiſtāce of that diuine ſheepheard. Ioan. 10. 14. Matth. 28. 20. who ſayd, I am the good Paſtour and I know my sheepe. And againe: Behould I am with you all dayes euen to the conſūmatiō of the world. Alſo, euen as the ſheep as long as they remayne togeather with the flock and their Paſtour, they are ſafe from the biting of wolues: euen ſo all Chriſtians, as long as they remaine vnited with the Church, that is, agreeing with the doctrine of the Church, they are ſafe and ſecure from all dangers of errour and infidelity: And finally, as ſheepe which ſtray from the flock are deſtitute of the protection of their Paſtour, and ſo ſubiect to be deuoured of the rauening wolues: euen ſo Chriſtians who diſagree from the common ſenſe and doctrine of the Church, are quite deſtitute of the aſſiſtāce of the holy Ghoſt, and ſo in danger to fall certainly into peſtiferous & damnable errours. From the which Chriſt free vs all.

FINIS.