The Catholikes Reuerence towardes the Scrip­tures: with the state of the Question, touching the Scriptures not being Iudge. CHAP. I.

BEFORE we enter into any particuler redargution and reproual of the Prote­stants doctrine touching the subiect of this Treatise, I must put them in mind with what slanderous calumniations (for detraction is euer accustomed to tread vpon the heeles of truth and in­tegrity) they wrong vs Catholikes for our supposed contempt of the holy Scriptures; their chief reason thereof (besides others) being, because we deny to them that facility and easines, as that they ought to de­termine all doubts of religion, before the true sense of [Page 2] them (among so many, that are forced and adulterate) be deliuered by the Pastours of Gods Church. And heer­upon they teach, that we in effect reiect the Scriptures, and do aduance mens doctrines and iudgements aboue them: So deep are their pens steeped in gaul against vs; and so deseruedly may they be ranged with those menti­oned by the Isa. c. 32. Prophet: Fraudulenti vasa pessima sunt, vs (que) ad perdendos mites in sermone mendacij. But how easy is it to dissipate and dissolue this cloud of suggesting malice? For we teach not, that the Church is to iudge, whether that which the Scripture sayth, be true or false (since the Scrip­ture is Scripture, and most true, whether the Church should so iudge of it or not) but our doctrine is, that it being first acknowledged for an infallible principle, that the wordes of the Scripture are most true, the Church doth only teach (amongst many interpretations) which is the true sense and meaning of the sayd wordes. And in this sort it followeth not, that the Church is aboue Gods Word (for it is only a vigilant Depositary and Guardian thereof) but aboue the iudgement of particuler men in­terpreting his Word; which men do commonly make their priuate and reuealing spirit, to become (as it were) their Mercuryes-rod, therewith to chase away all constru­ction of Scripture, not sorting to their phantasyes. Nei­ther doth the Scripture, receaue any strength and force (which afore it wanted) from this sentence and iudgment of the Church, but only our vnderstanding is strength­ned & confirmed thereby: which sentence of the Church is not meerely the Word of man (which is lyable to er­rour and vncertainty) but in some sort it may be tearmed the Word of God (as being deliuered by the assistance of the Holy Ghost) in regard of those infallible promises made in the Scriptures to the Church, that she Luc. 21. should not erre. Act. 15.

2. But to proceed further in acknowledging our due respect to the Scriptures, we graunt most freely, that they are the spirituall conduits, whereby are deriued to vs the highest misteryes of our fayth; that the blessed [Page 3] penners of them were so directed by the holy Ghost, as that they neither did, nor could erre in any one letter; that they transcend in worth and dignity all humane wri­tings, as farre as an infallibility of truth surpasseth a possi­bility of errour. Lastly that the sense of them is a most powerfull and working phisicke against the poysonous receitps of all hereticall distillations, if so it be deliuered by the appointment of our spirituall Phisitian. So vene­rable and reuerent respect (we see) the Catholiks do beare to the sacred Scripture, as to one chiefe meanes ordained by God for our eternall health and wellfare; yet withall they teach, that true fayth is to be found not in leaues of the wordes, but in the roole of the sense; thus making the true and indubious interpretation of Gods word to be a rule to the Protestants imaginary rule: since it is to ouerule & con­troule the priuate spirit of euery particuler Sectary.

3. But now in the next place, to enter more particu­lerly into the state of this point, touching the Scriptures supposed Iudge of fayth, we are to conceaue, that wher­as our Sectaryes do generally maintaine, that the writ­ten Word of God is the sole and infallible Iudge, as also the only rule and square of the articles of Christian Re­ligion, thereby reiecting not only any other Iudge, but also all other points touching fayth, which haue not their expresse proofe or necessary inference in the sayd holy Scriptures; The Catholikes on the other side (running one and the same line of fayth with all antiquity) teach as followeth.

4. First that the holy Scripture is not the Iudge of all Controuersyes of fayth.

Secondly they teach, that it is norma infallibilis, an infallible rule or square of fayth, that is, that nothing con­trary to the Scripture is to be admitted; but they say not, that it is the only rule of square, and therefore they affir­me, that besids the Scripture there are Apostolical traditiōs and other definitions of the Church. Thus we grant, that the written word is, regula partialis, but not regula totalis, of fayth and Religion; and therefore we admitte some [Page 4] thinges praeter Scripturam, but nothing contra Scripturam; that is, we approue some thinges not expresly sound in the Scripture, but not any thing contrary or repugnant to the Scripture.

5. Thirdly, they hould, that graunting the Scrip­ture to be the rule or square of most articles of religion, yet it followeth not, that it is the Iudge of the sayd arti­cles, since Regula, and Iudex are in nature things different; for euen in ciuill matters the law is the rule and sqare, ac­cording to which, suites and contentions are determined; and yet the law is not the Iuge of them, but the Magi­strate himselfe expounding the law, though sometymes the Law is called improperly and Metaphorically the Iudge.

6. Fourthly, and lastly, they deny not, but that the Scripture may in a restained sense be tearmed the Iudge of all Controuersies in faith; because it Matth. 16. & 18. & 23. Ioā. vlt. Luc. 22. Act. 15. appointeth and setteth downe, who is that Iudge (to wit the Church,) as also they grant, that in the lyke reserued construction the Scripture may be said to deliuer all thinges sufficiently which belong to faith and religion: And this not only, because it deliuereth euidently al those articles of faith, which are simply and absolutely necessary for all men to know (as the Articles of our Creed, the Decalogue, and those Sacraments which are more necessary) but also in that all other poyntes whatsoeuer, concerning either the true exposition of the written word, or faith and religion in general, are warranted by the infallible authority of the Church. which infallible authority is proued & com­mended to vs by the holy Scripture. And thus on the one syde, the Scripture warranting the Churches authority, and on the other, the Church setting downe and appro­uing the true sense of the Scripture; it may hereupon be iustly sayd, that both these (I meane the Church and the Scripture) do interchangeably receaue their proofe, out of the proofe they giue. Therfore all impertinencyes layd aside, the touch of the question heere between our Ad­uersaryes and vs resteth in this: Whether all thinges, which [Page 5] necessarily belong to religion, are so fully and abundantly deliuered in the Scripture, as that they are either expresly contained therein, or els without the Churches authority interposed, they may particuler­ly be necessarily deduced from the Scripture; and so in regard heerof, whether the Scripture is to become the only Iudge of such arti [...]les, or no. In which question we hould (as is sayd) the nega­tiue parte, but our Aduersaryes the affirmatiue. So faire different in opinion are our Sectaryes from the iudgment of Vincentius Lyrinensis, touching the interposition of the Churches authority in the exposition of Scripture, who thus writeth In suo Commo­nitorio. heerof: Multum necesse est &c. It is very need­full in regard of so many errours proceeding from the misinterpreta­tion of Scripture, that the line of Propheticall and Apostolicall ex­position, should be directed according to the rule of the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense.

7. Now that the Scripture is not the Iudge of Con­trouersyes in the sense aboue set downe, shalbe proued two wayes. First Categoricè, and absolutly, that so it is not, nor cannot be; which shall appeare in the first part of this Treatise. Secondly Hypthetice, and of a supposall, that though the Scripture (as considered in it selfe) were this Iudge, yet cannot our Protestant Aduersaryes iustly vrge it, or pretend it for the same, which shalbe the subiect de­monstrated and made good in the second part heereof.

8. Yet before I enter into any particuler dispute ther­of, I intend to discouer and lay open the weaknes of one mayne retraite or sanctuary, whereunto our Aduersaryes are accustomed to fly in their maintayning the Scriptu­re for Iudge; for when they are pressed with the abstruse difficultyes found in the Scripture in regard of the seueral obtruded interpretations of it, and doubtfulnes of the true meaning of the Holy Ghost therein, their common re­fuge then they make to the priuate spirit, which spirit D. Whitaker Con­trou. 1. q. 5. cap. 3. & [...]1. & Controu. 1. q. 2. cap. 3. thus speciously entitles: An inward perswasion of truth from the Holy Ghost, in the secret closets of the belieuers hart. This spirit (say they) infallibly instructeth them in the true vnderstanding of the Scripture, so as by the assistan­ce heerof they are enabled to picke out (among so many [Page 6] false constructions) the true and vndoubted construction, and according to the same to determine and iudge the point or Controuersy, for which such passages of Scrip­ture are produced by them; and thus the end of all is, that the priuate spirit interpreting the Scripture, is to be the sole and supreme Iudge of al Controuersies of fayth. Now this their chiefe hold or strength (being indeed their last most despayring euasion, therby to decline the authority of the Church) I will ruinate, and ouerthrow in the next Chapter following, which Chapter may serue as certaine Prolegomena, to the ensuing Treatise; The force of this their refuge I will proue to be most vncertaine, yea false and erroneous, and this, first from Scripture, and secondly from force and weight of naturall reason.

That the priuate spirit is not infallibly assured of truly interpreting the Scripture: proued out of the Scripture, and from na­turall reason. CHAP. II.

IF we will take a view of what is sayd in Gods Word concerning this point, we shal find it most plentifull, in absolutly denying this power of iudging or interpreting to be­long to the priuate spirit. And first, what can be more pregnantly sayd to conuince this phantasy, then those wordes of the 1. Cor. 1. Apostle? To one is giuen by the spirit the word of wisedome, to another the word of knowledge according to the same spirit &c. to another Prophesy, and to another inter­pretation of tongues. Where we see, that the Apostle plain­ly, and as it were of purpose, refelleth this doctrine, since he teacheth, that the guift of interpreting the Scripture is not giuen to all the faythfull; contrary to the practise and [Page 7] experience of our English Puritanes, who, how ignorant soeuer they be, presuming that they are of the number of the faythfull and elect, do most confidently vaunt of the guift of expounding the Scriptures.

2. And that we may better heere obserue, how the two chiefe Apostles do second one the other in this que­stion; I will alledge S. Peters owne words, as perspicu­ous and cleare for our purpose as may be, who 2. Pet 1. Omnis propheti [...] Scripturae, propri [...] in­terpretati­one non fit. sayth No prophesy of the Scripture is made by any priuate interpretation; In both which places and texts, by the word (Prophesy) is meant (as our Aduersaries do acknowledge) the true vnderstanding and interpreting of the holy Scriptures.

3. Another place we will produce out of S. Iohn, [...] ▪ Io­an 4. who saith thus: Dearly beloued, belieue not euery spirit, but try the spirites, if they be of God. By which wordes we are taught, that the spirit of others are to be examined, if they pro­ceed from God or not. This admonition cannot be vn­derstood of the spirit of the whole Church, since then it should follow, that there should be none left to try the said spirit of the Church (euery particuler man being in­cluded therin.) If then it is to be vnderstood of priuate mē (as of necessity it must) it followeth, that a priuate spirit cannot be this Iudge, since it selfe is to vndergoe (by the former text) the iudgement and examination of some other. If it be replyed, that the Scripture is to examine this spirit, this auayleth nothing, especially if the poynt, wherin the priuat spirit doth exercise it selfe, be of the sense and meaning of the Scripture. Therfore it remaineth, that the spirit be tryed by the cōformity, which it beareth to those, whom, it is certaine, to haue the true spirit in­deed: and this is the whole Church of God it selfe, being the pillar Tim. c. 3. and foundation of truth. A poynt so cleare, that Luther Lib. de potestate Papae. (conuinced by euidency of the truth) is forced to say: De nullo priuato homine certisumus &c. We are not cer­taine of any priuat person, whether he hath the reuelation of the fa­ther or no (meaning hereby the reuelation of the sense of the Scripture) but that the Church hath it, we ought not to doubt. What answeres now will our Aduersaries bring to the [Page 8] former texts of Scripture? Will they seeke to auoyde all these by putting vs in mynd, that it is written: Luc. c. 11. Pater vester dabit spiritum bonum petentibus se: and therfore euery priuate man, that will aske this spirit of God, may haue it? Let them remember that (besydes these words are not vnderstood of the spirit of interpreting, but of the spirit of faith, hope, and charity) it is also written Iacob. 4. Petitis & non accipitis, eò quòd malè petatis. And therfore many may implore of God the guift of this spirit, and yet not obtaine it; since they perhaps demande it not with that due dis­position of mind, & in such sort, as God exacteth at their handes

4. This then being so, who in all likelyhood is fur­ther of from fruitfully & effectually praying for the same (to the gayning wherof humility & resignation of iudg­ment, euen by our Aduersaries Luth. praesat. as­sertio [...]is [...]. à Le­one Pontif damn [...]tor. acknowledment, is, among other thinges, necessarily required) then this al­censuring spirit, which is euer drunke with a self lyking, and which is arriued to that height of pryde and elation of mind, as it houldeth it more reasonable, that all autho­rityes should passe vnder the fyle & polishing of his own approbation? It cannot assure vs with In pro­legom. contra Pe­ [...]ūà [...]oto. Brentius, that it belongeth to euery priuate man to iudge of the doctrine of Religion, and to discerne the truth from falshood. It is in like sort of force to coyne and stampe this position with Lib. 4. Instit. c. [...]. §. 8. 12. Caluin, and Exam. 4. sess. Concil. Trident. Kemnitius, as a receaued Axiome, to wit, that the definitions and sentences, euen of generall Councells, are to be poysed by the ballance of each mans priuate iudgment; though with such a one (especially if he be ignorant and vnlearned) guilded apparances of rea­son do for the most part preponderate, and waigh downe reason it selfe: such is the Tarquinian and insupportable pryde of this spirit, since by such transcendent speaches & actions it warranteth, that the sheep is to guide or direct their Pastour; the subiect to determine the sentence of his Prince; and the delinquent most insolently and petulan­tly to iudge his owne Iudges.

5. But to passe from the testimony of Gods word [Page 9] written by the Apostles and Euangelistes, vnto the in­ward testimony written by himselfe in the booke of each mans vnderstanding: we shall easely find, that euen Na­turall reason is able to conuince of falshood our Aduersa­ryes former assertion.

6. And first, what greater ouersight can be, then to acknowledge that for Iudge of Controuersyes (for thus our Aduersaryes do, when they giue an infallibility of in­terpreting to the priuate spirit) which is not of power & ability to determine any Controuersie? And this insuf­ficiency we find to be in such priuate spirits; for we see by experience, that in the explication of these foure wordes only, This Matth. 26. Marc. 14. &c. is my body, as also for the texts Matth. 12. Act. [...]. Rom. 10. Ephes. 4. &c. vr­ged for Christs descending into hell; wherein the Luthe­rans, and Caluinists do so differ, as that their meere con­trary & irreconciliable Constructions do not only ma­nifest the vntruth and errour of the one of them; but also the doctrine, for which the sayd textes are vrged, is, after their long disputations and different sentences pronoun­ced, as much doubted of (if not more) then it was in the beginning: And yet both the Lutherans and Caluinists do challeng alike to thēselues the guist of this expounding spirit, withal the necessary conditions attending the same, as Prayer, Humility, Skill in the tongues, Conferences of seuerall passages of Scripture, the one stil obiecting to the other the clearnes & perspicuity of Gods word in their own behalf.

7. Secondly it necessarily conduceth to the being and perfect nature of a Iudge (as we find in the practise of all Controuersyes whatsoeuer) to haue power and authori­ty, thereby to force (euen vpon coertion and constraint, if need require) both the different partyes to subscribe to his sentence once pronounced (since otherwise his iudg­ment and definition would proue both bootles and in a­uailable.) But we cannot find, that a priuate mans spirit can iustly assume to it selfe any such coactiue power; since it cannot threaten any Ecclesiasticall and spirituall censure to one for not admitting his iudgment, determi­nation, and exposition of Scripture.

[Page 10] 8. Thirdly, seeing that the doubts of Religion do rise amongst men, who are visible and knowne one to ano­ther; how can it be imagined, that the Iudge, who is to take vp and compound al these differences, should be such a one, as can neither be seene nor heard by any of the contending partyes? For the spirit, which is in this man, suppose it did infallibly interprete aright, yet can it not be seene, heard, or acknowledged for such, by another man, in that he cannot be vndoubtedly assured, that the same spirit is warranted from God, since false teachers do ordinarily maske themselues vnder the borrowed veile of Gods Ministers, and false [...]. Cor. cap. 11. Apostles (after they once haue ascended the Thabor of the reuealing spirit, vainely talking of Elias & Moyses) tranfiguring themselues into the Apostles of Christ: All who notwithstanding do equal­ly vaunt of this spirit, and yet neuertheles doe cast in the mould thereof, most vncertaine, and oftentimes repug­nant doctrines; seeing then the rule or iudge of Fayth & Religion ought to be both knowne and certaine; for if it be not knowne, it can be no Iudge (at least) to vs, and if it be vncertaine, it can be no Iudge at all; therefore it is euidently euicted, that the reauealing spirit (as being most vnknowne and vncertaine) can in no case be ere­cted as Iudge amongst vs Christians.

9. Fourthly our Aduersaryes do teach, that this spirit is giuē not generally to all, but particularly to some, to wit, to the Elect & the faythfull, as Caluin Instit. 1. c. 7. § 5. affirmeth; from which doctrine it followeth. First, that God hath left no certaine and generall rule, or guide in his Church, wher­by all men may arriue to the true knowledge of him, but only some few and particuler men. Secondly, since we cannot infallibly know, who is of the Elect & faith­full, therefore we cannot be vndoubtedly assured (as is a­boue touched) to whome this spirit is giuen, as D. Whi­taker Contro. 2. quest. 5. confesseth (and consequently it auayleth no man but him who only enioyeth it,) seeing euery one of our Aduersaryes do in like manner obtrude themselues into the number of the Elect. And therefore seeing that Lu­ther [Page 11] and Caluin did indifferently challenge to themselues the like illumination of this spirit, and yet taught con­trary doctrines concerning Canonicall Scripture and the Reall presence: And seeing it is cortaine, that both were not inspired with the holy Ghost (for he teacheth not contradictions) and that the one had no greater illumina­tion then the other; it therefore necessarily followeth, that we ought to giue no greater credit to the one, then to the other; & so since we cannot belieue both, we ought (according to all force of reason) to belieue neither.

10. Fifthly, this spirit (wherof they make such venti­tation, as that we ought not to entertaine any other sense of Gods word, then what the influence of the said spirit may seeme to exhale) either is absolutely infallible, or els at some times, and in some thinges fallible and su­biect to errour; if the later, then it proceedeth from the Diuell, since the spirit of God neuer erreth: if the first, then how can there be any contention or Controuersy amongst the faythfull, enioying this spirit? And yet di­uers both haue beene and are amongst the Caluinists, & Lutherans. It may be, they will reply heereto, that this spirit is euer infallible, when it speaketh according to the sense of the holy Scripture. A goodly priuiledg; for so the spirit of the Diuell is infallible, as long as it followeth Gods sacred word; furthermore who must iudge, when it speaketh according to the sense of the holy Scripture? And thus is the difficulty made as intricate as before.

11. Six [...]ly and lastly, the falshood of the Protestants doctrine heerein is euicted from the Protestants doctrine in another point (thus is heresy become the sword, which woundeth heresy) to wit, that Generall Councells may erre; for if such Synods (being aduantaged with many priuiledges aboue any one priuate man) may want the assistance of the holy Ghost in interpreting the Scripture or defining what is heresy; how can we probably assure our selues, that this or that particuler Protestant infallibly enioyeth the guift of expounding truly Gods sacred writ­ten word? And because this inference is much preiudi­ciall [Page 12] to our Aduersaries, therfore I will dissect euery par­ticular veyne and sinew of all such circumstances, which may afford aduantage to the one part aboue the other.

12. Thus then, if an Oecumenical and generall Coū ­cell indicted and confirmed by lawfull authority, repre­senting the maiesty of Gods Church, as being the supreme So doth Augustin tearme a Generall Councell, epist. 162. Tribunal therof; assured by Wher two or three are gathered togeather in my na­me. Matt. 18. promise of Christ his assisting presence; warranted with the first exāple of that kind by the blessed Act. 15. Apostles; highly reuerenced and magnified by the Aug. vbi supra, & lib. de Baptis. c. 18 Anast. ep. ad Epicte­tum. Basil. epist. 78. Amb. epist. 32. Leo ep. 53. Hier. lib. cont. Luci­ferianos. ancient fathers; acknowledged and receaued by our learnedest The Lutherans receaue the first six Councells, and most of the Pro­testants the first foure. aduersaries; consisting of seuerall hundreds of most venerable Prelates, conspicuous for vertue, readines in the Scriptures, varieties of tongues, and infinitenes of reading; gathered from the most remote and opposite regions of Christendome, and therfore the lesse probable vpon their such sudden meeting ioyntly to imbrace any one poynt of innouation; battering daily vpon their knees at the eares of Almighty God with most humble and feruerous prayer, seconded with most austere fastinges, and other corporall chastisements; and all this to the end, that it would vouchsase his diuine goodnes, so to guide and sterne this reuerend assembly with his ho­ly spirit, as what expositions they giue of the Scripture, or what otherwise they determine for vndoubted faith, may be agreable to his sacred word and truth. Now, notwith­standing this, if such a celebrious concourse and conflu­ence (I say) of Pastours (being the Mart, or Rende-uous of vertue and learning) shall so faile therein, as that they may, and haue sundry tymes most fouly erred (as our su­percilious Caluin. lib. 4. Instit. 9. §. 8. Luth. lib. de Concil. Kemnitius in exam. Concil. Trident. Sectaryes auouch) in their Constructions of Scripture and resolutions of fayth, though all such their decrees be otherwise warranted with a iudiciall confe­rence of Scripture, the generall practise of Gods Church, and the conspiring testimonyes of all antiquity: If this (I say) may happen (the best meanes thus producing the worst effects) what shall we then conceaue of an obscure [Page 13] Syr Iohn (a man ingendred in the [...]lyme of pryde and ig­norance) who acknowledgeth no other Apostolical Sea, then his owne Parish Church, and who in some points euer subdeuideth himselfe from the rest of his As appeareth by their bookes written a­gainst one another; of which point, See Co [...]eius, & Hospinta­n [...]s, brethren, so as he is truely condemned of heresy, euen by the lying mouth of heresy: A man for the most part depraued in manners, but competent for learning, not hauing any warrant from God for his proceeding, nor president from his holy Church: Yea one to whome God Hatly No prophesy of Scriptur is of any pri­uate inter­pretation. 2. Pet. c. 1. deny­eth this presumed certainty of expounding Gods word; and (further) of whose spirit we are commaunded Dear­ly beloued, belieue not euery spirit but try the spirits. to doubt, and (which is more) of whose seducing These thinges I haue writ­ten vnto you concer­ning those which de­ceaue you. Ioan. 1. c. 2. we are most cautelously premonished.

13. Now, if this man being in his Pulpit vpon the Lords day, in the presence of his ignorant and psalming auditory (a fit Pathmos for his ensewing reuelations) and there opening the Bible (for thus falshood is forced to beg countenance from truth) & vndertaking to expound some text or other for the establishing of his late appearing fayth (though contrary to the iudgement of all auncient Councells) affirming himselfe to be secured by speciall Euthysiames and illuminations from God for the better iud­ging the point controuerted, rysing from his owne ex­plication of Scripture: which being don, what assurance may we haue of the truth of this his all-iudging spirit? And is there not great reason to expect more errours, then sentences to drop from this mans mouth? And what mad­nes then is it, to allow to such an one (and but one) that infallibility of spirit in expounding Gods sacred Write, and answerable determining the articles of fayth, which himselfe denyeth to a generall Councell? Yet such is the forward blindnes of our enchanted Nouellistes heerin, who (for example) preferre in this case, vnder the pretext of the reuealing spirit, before the mature and graue resolu­tions of all antiquity and Councells, the ignorant, rash, and sensuall positions and interpretations of an incestuous reuolted Luther. Monke, or stigmaticall Caluin. fugitiue; intimating heereby, that many vertuous and learned men gathered [Page 14] togeather for the disquisitiō of truth, must necessarily erre; one sole, obscure, lateborne, illiterate, irreligious Scrip­turist cannot erre. O insensa [...]i Galat. cap. [...]. Galatae, quis vos fascina [...]it &c?

14. But at this present I will stay my pen, procee­ding no further in the demolishing and battering downe of the weak fortresse of this priuate spirit. That which is already deliuered, may serue as a preparatiue to the Rea­der, the better to apprehend the force and weight of the ensewing arguments and reasons. I will now hasten to the maine subiect, and will first begin with the reasons of the Scriptures difficulty.

The reasons of the Scriptures difficulty. CHAP. III.

WHY the Catholikes do absolutely deny the Scriptures to haue this inappeachable soue­raignty of resoluing all doubts in religion, there is no reason (amongst others) more forcible, then that which is drawne from the difficulty of true vnderstanding the sayd writinges; for though our Aduersaryes do pretend the easines of them to be such, as that any how ignorant soeuer (if so he be of the number of the iustifyed) may withall readines picke out the true sense, for the approbation, and fortifying of any point of Fayth whatsoeuer: Yet he who looketh into this matter with a cleare-sighted iudgement, shall find them to be inuolued with so many ambiguityes, as that aforehand he shall haue need to repaire to some Act. 9. Ana­nias or other, to remoue from his eyes the scales of parti­ality, ignorance, and other imperfections.

2. Therefore let such, whose state (through want of learning or otherwise) is not to intermedle with those sacred writinges, remember the punishment inflicted to the 1. Reg. 6, 6. Bethsamites, for curiously behoulding the Arke, [Page 15] which belonged not to them; yet we see the considera­tion of this danger, and of far greater, is not powerfull i­nough, to controle the ignorant Sectary in his expoun­ding the Scripture; who being once placed vpon the high pinacle of his reuealing spirit, vndertakes to view al ages and Countryes of the Church; and ouerlooking the iudgments of priuate Fathers, interpreting Gods written word (as low and humble vales) extends his sight to the summity and height of generall Councells therein, still behoulding with a feuere eye, whatsoeuer standeth not right in the line of his owne exposition.

3. The chiefe and primitiue reasons of their abstruse hardnes are three, to wit: The Subiect, handled in those writinges: The mul [...]iplicity of the senses, contained in the wordes: And the Methode, or manner of the phrase, and stile. And if but any one of these three do happen, though in an inferiour degree of intricatenes, in human writings, yet we see by experience, that it doth so intangle the Reader in such a labyrinth of mistakings, as that he will freely acknowledge this ignorance in not apprehending aright in all places the authours mind; what shall we thē thinke, when all these three do meet togeather in Gods sacred Booke, and that in the highest degree of any writ­tinges euer extant; as it shall appeare in the subsequent Chapters.

Of the subiect of the Scriptures. CHAP. IIII.

TO begin with the subiect of the Scriptures; we are herein to obserue, that it as farpasseth in depth and prosundity the contents of mans wrytinges, as God (the authour therof) ouer­goeth him in wisedome and power. For wheras the matter of all such humane labours, is euer such, as that the naturall wit of man is sutable and proportio­nable [Page 16] thereto, both for the deliuering or apprehending thereof: and the reason heereof is, because the vnderstan­ding, being as it were the summe of our little world, euer keepeth it selfe within the Tropicks of naturall reason, and consequently is not of force to deliuer or apprehend any thing, which may not be confined within the same compasse; whereas if we looke into the subiect of these celestiall and diuine writinges, we shall find the height of many thinges intreated therein, to be such, as that they transcend all naturall reason.

2. I could heere insist in the Creation of the world of nothing, whereof these holy Scriptures assure vs, though contrary (in outward shew) to all Philosophy, which teacheth, ex nihilo nihil sit: I will passe ouer the infinite prophesies recorded therin, which euer of their owne nature are hardly to be vnderstood: I will in like sort pretermit to speake of the nature of the Angels, in­treated of in the said booke of Life, whose essence being merely spirituall, and indued with diuers great priuiled­ges aboue man, can but imperfectly be comprehended with our fleshly vnderstandings: finally I will forbeare to speake of the eternall predestination and reprobation of man (how and by what meanes they are wrought) of the externall working of God within our soules, with his grace or otherwise: of the Sacraments, the Conduits of his grace; poynts wherof we are instructed in the holy Scripture, and such, wherin we may truly glasse the weaknes of mans vnderstanding, and the depth of Gods wisedome and power.

3. But I will insist a little in those two incompre­hensible and astonishing Articles of Christian faith, reuea­led to vs out of those former diuine Scriptures, to wit, of the Trinity, and of the Incarnation; wherin, in the first (to omit diuers other stupendious difficulties) we are taught by [...]he said Oracles of God, that one and the same Nature (to wit the Godhead) is in three persons really distinct; & the same Nature is really and formally identifyed with each of the three persons. In lyke sort, in the article of the [Page 17] Incarnatiō, (where besydes that the Creatour of al things is become a Creature, and the father the daughters sonne) we receaue from the same fountaine, that in one Hypostasis or person (to wit in the person of Christ) are two perfect natures very far different, and that this Hypostasis is altoge­ther really & formally identifyed with the diuyne Nature, & neuertheles is most in wardly vnited with the humane Nature, which humane nature doth really and formally differ from the diuine nature. And thus much, but to skim ouer superficially this poynt of the subiect and matter of the Scriptures; which if it were handled according to the fulnes & largnes of it selfe, would iustly require a Treatise of no small quantity.

Of the diuers senses of the Scripture intended by the Holy Ghost. CHAP. V.

IN speaking of the multiplicity of the senses in the Scriptures, we are to call to remem­brance, that Gods sacred written word diffe­reth from all humane writinges (besides in many other poynts) especially in this; that wheras al such haue but one sense or meaning properly intended by the authour, this is so fertil therin, as that (like a shel (if it were possible) contayning within it se­ueral kernels of different tastes) it carrieth in many places (besydes the immediate literal sense) three diuers spiritu­all senses, and all warranted by the holy Ghost. These three are the Allegoricall, Tropologicall, and Anagogicall.

2. The Allegoricall sense euer beares reference of a spi­rituall and secret meaning to Christ, or his Church. So we read that Abraham hauing truly and really two sonnes, the one borne of the free-woman, the other of the bond-slaue, did figure out the two testamēts of God, euen by the [Page 18] exposition of Salat. 4. S. Paul.

3. The Tropologicall is directed to instruction of man­ners or conuersation of lyfe. And answerably to this we fynd that text, Deut. 25. Thou shalt not m [...]ss [...] the mou [...]h of the Oxe, that treadeth out the corne, to be interpreted S. Paul 1. Cor. 9. of Gods preachers, who are to be maintained at the charges of their [...]lock.

4. The Anagogicall sense implyeth a construction to heauen or eternall felicity; and hereupon we fynd that verse of the Psalm 94. prophet, I sware in my wrath, if they shall not enter into my rest; to be interpreted (besydes the literall meaning of the Land of promise) by the Heb. 4. Apostle of e­ternall life.

5. Now then there being, besides the literall sense, so many mysticall senses of Scripture, heere the difficulty ariseth, that seing some texts are to be vnderstood only l [...]terally, others both literally & mistically, how we may know which are the texts, that admit only a literall construction, and which both a literal and spirituall; and if a spirituall interpretation, which of the former three is to be asigned to them, since euery text is not capable of all the three spirituall senses. And which is yet more, there are some passages of Scripture, where in one and the same sentence, one and the same word (being twise repeated) is in the one place taken literally, in the other figuratiuely or mystically, as in those words of Christ, Let the dead bury the dead. Al this must be knowne, before we Matt. 8. can d [...]aw any forcible argument from any such texts; in regard of which difficulty it may not seeme strange, if sundry of the a [...]ncient doctors did erre in their comments vpon the Scriptures, some of them affecting so much the literal sense, as that they did spoyl [...] it of all mysticall con­struction; others through their nyce and wholy spiritu­allyzed imaginations, would so streyne the Scriptures, as that for the most part they neglected the letter, & would extract nothing els, but spirituall, and (as it were) certaine Chymicall senses through their own [...]ue [...] curious sub [...] ma­tion [Page 19] of the said diuyne Scriptures, as it is [...]u [...]dent out of the expositions of diuers passages of Scripture giuen by Vt te­s [...]a [...]ur [...]i­e [...]n. praf. lib. 18. in Isa. v [...] in [...]. 3 [...]. Ezech. & Aug. lib. 20. de [...]iuit. Dei cap. 7. Tertulian and Hier. ep. ad [...] ­machium. Origen.

6. In regard then of the impregnable truth of the Scriptures di [...]nculty, (both in re [...]pect of the many senses therof, as also of the phrase and style, as hereafter shall appeare) it is a wo [...]ld to obserue, how idly and im­pertinently our Aduersaryes do obiect d [...]uers passages of it to proue its owne perspicuity. To this end where the Scripture doth of [...]en inculcate, that the Commandements and will of God (being once knowne) do become a light to the soule for the gu [...]ding of her selfe; these testimonyes (I say) our Sectaryes most violently force, to proue that the Scripture is, in regard of the vnderstanding of it selfe, of that light and perspicuity, that the true sense and mea­ning of it, is most obuious and facile▪ Thus do they vrge those wordes of the Psal. 19. Prophet: [...]raeceptum Domini lucidum illuminaus oculos. The commandment of the Lord is cleare enlightning the eyes: As also that other Psalm. Text: Lucerna pedibus meis verbum tuum. Thy word is a lanterne to my feet. And finally that of the Cap. [...]. Prouerbes: Mandatum lucer­na est, & lex tu [...] &c. Thy Commandment is a lampe, and thy Law a light. In like sort we find, that they strangely racke cer­taine Texts, which only concerne the facility and easines of the D [...]alog [...]e or ten Commandments to conuince the easines of the Scripture in general, as that place of Lib. 4▪ contra Marcion [...] ▪ Deu­tronomy (to omit others) Mandatum, quod ego praecipio tibihodie, non supra te est &c. The Commandement which I command the [...] this day, is not abou [...] thee▪ neither is it farre of, interpreted of the easines only of fulfilling the Cōmandments of the De­calogue by Tertullian, as also by Ambrose, Chrysostome, and others vpon the tenth to the Romans.

7. To conclude this point where the Apostle 2. Cor. 4. particulerly meaneth, that our belief in Christ (to wit that he was borne, suffered, and did ryse from death for mans saluation) is so euident and cleare, as that if it be hid from any, it is only from such, as doe perish, & whose eyes the God of th [...] world hath blinded; which interpre­tation [Page 20] is necessarily confirmed by comparing with this text the Chapter afore in the sayd Epistle, where the A­postle teacheth, that all points touching Christ were seen in the law obscurely in shadowes and figures only: yet will our Aduersaryes haue that place to be meant of the euidency of clearnes and vnderstanding the Scripture; which passage notwithstanding is to be interpreted in the sense aboue mentioned, and whereunto those wordes of Tertullian may seeme to allude: Christo moriente nata est hae­reditas nostra, Christo resurgente confirmata est, Christo ascenden­te in Caelos permanet in eternum.

Of the Phrase, and Style of the Scripture. CHAP. VI.

NOVV to come to the third point, to wit the phrase and manner of writing; which doth (as it were) apparell or cloath those hidden and diuine Mysteries: We are first in general to consider, that the style thereof is farre dif­ferent from the writinges of any man that euer liued, as appeareth by the iudgement of all learned men. It is also in that respect vnimitable vnto man; which circumstan­ce must of necessity import an vnusuall strangenes of the phrase thereof in mans eares, and consequently a great difficulty in perfectly vnderstanding the same. Secondly (and more particulerly) we are to obserue, that there are to be found not many humane writings, which do flow with greater store of figures and schemes, then the holy Scriptures do, in so much, that it were an infinite labour to set downe all the Metaphores, Allegoryes, Hyperboles, Iro­nies, and other such Tropes, which do occure almost in eue­ry other text thereof; which kind of speach being vnaccu­stomed to an ignorant eare, cannot but occasion diuers misconstructions.

2. But besides these kind of figures common to euery [Page 21] language, there are in the sayd heauenly writings diuers Ani­ma mea in manibus me [...]s sēper. Psa [...]m. 118. And a­gaine, Thronus eius sicut dies caeli. Psa [...]m. 88. with in­finite such others. phrases peculiar only to the Hebrew tōgue (in which language the chiefest part of them was first written) and consequently with great difficulty they are to be vnder­stood of those, which are ignorant of the same tongue. If those which are skillfull in the Greeke doe deseruedly at­tribute a great hardnes therof to the diuersity of dialects, to wit, of Atticisme, Eolisme, Ionisme, Beotisme, and the like, all these being Idiomes proper to the Greeke tongue; what hardnes then must we imagine, that eare will find, when it shall read the Scriptures in some one tongue or other, and yet much therof in a phrase or speach altogeather dif­ferent from that tongue, wherein he readeth them, and peculiar to another strange language, whereof he hath no knowledge at all?

3. To passe on further, the Scripture in diuers pas­sages is deliuered in very ambiguous, imperfect, & bro­ken sentences, which are such as must greatly increase the doubtfulnes of the meaning of the Holy Ghost; And to exemplify but one amongst many, where the Ioan. 8. Iewes demanded of our Sauiour: Tu quis es? And he answered: Principium, qui & loquor vobis. Which answere of his is so ob­scure, as that it hardly standeth with good construction, especially in all Greek copyes, wherin we find the greek word signifying, principium (viz. [...]) to be of the accusatiue case; and therefore no maruaile if the Fathers, as we find in their commentaryes, did much labour in the exposition of these very wordes.

4. Lastly to conuince demonstratiuely the difficulty of the holy Scriptures concerning the Letter, the Holy Ghost (who is truth it selfe, and cannot leaue written contrary and repugnant thinges) hath neuerthelesse thought good, for our greater humility, in acknowled­ging the abysmall obstrusenes of those writinges, to pen the same in such manner, as that there appeare diuers sen­tences, which at the first sight and reading, seeme meere contradictory; in so much that if the one be true, it fol­loweth, in the iudgment of the illiterate Scripturist, who [Page 22] resteth, only in the naked word; that the other is false. Infinite examples might be alledged, but these few fol­lowing shall suffice.

5. Dominus [...]. Reg. cap. 1 [...]. precaepit Semei, vt malediceret Dauid. Our Lord commanded Semei, that he would accurse Dauid. In like sort it is said: Rom. 1. God deliuered them vp to a reprobate sense, to do those thinges which are not conuenient: both which actions no man will deny, but to haue beene sinnes. And yet weread elswhere: Nem [...]i Eccl [...]s. 1 [...]. mandauit impiè agere: God hath commanded no man to do wickedly.

6. In l [...]ke sort in one place we read: Et ne nos inducas intentationem: And lead vs not into temptation; which prayer seemes to be superfluous, if God did not sometymes tempt men; and yet to confront (as it were) this text Cap. 1. S. Iames sayth: Let no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God tempteth no man. Do we not read after the same manner, that the Luc. c. 1. Euangelist giueth most honourable commendation of Zacharias and Elizabeth in these wordes: Both were iust before God, and walked in all the Commendements and iustifications of our Lord without blame. And yet we find it registred in Cap. 7. Ecclesiasticus: Non est homo iustus in terra, qui faciat bonum & non peccet; There is not a iust man vpon earth, which doth good and sinneth not: as also in another Iac. 3. place, In multis offendimus omnes; We all offend in many thinges. Which later sentences seeme plainely to recall that iustice and pi­ety, which in the former words were attributed to those two vertuous persons.

7. Lastly, it is sayd in Cap. 20 Exodus: Ego Deus Zelotes &c. I am a iealous God, risiting the sinnes of the parents vpon their sons vnto the third and fourth generation: and yet Cap. 18. Ezechiel affir­meth: Filius non portabit iniquitatem Patris, sed anima quae pec­cauerit, ipsa morietur; The sonne shall not beare the iniquity of his Father, but that soule alone which hath sinned, shall dye. Now what greater diametrical contrariety can lye in sentences, then seemes to be in all these former, if nakedly we con­sider the bare wordes (for the vnlearned can proceed no further) though in themselues they are reconciliable, and so declared to be by the Commentaryes of the learned, [Page 23] since otherwise Scripture were to be alleadged against Scripture, and this were to make truth to lye. [...]ut to end this point of the Scriptures obscurity, we do heerin see in what a sea of diff [...]cultyes that man is tossed, who attempteth to vnderstand the Scriptures by the sole help of his owne iudgment; whether he looketh into the sub­iect or matter whereof they intreate, or into the variety of senses appearing therin, or finally into the style or phrase wherein they are written.

8. Now let our verse and lyne-cunning Scripturist, or other Sectary, who so striketh his aduersary with the scabard of the Scriptures (as one Doctour speaketh) as that he neuer woundeth him with the blade; let such a one I say, (skillfull chiefly in yelling out a Geneua Psalme) venditate the Scriptures facility, affirming that they are more illustrious for proofe of any controuersiall point, then the Sunne beames. Let him insult ouer the Ca [...]ho­likes, in mantaining that Paul and Peter with the rest, as they commonly speake (for it were ouermuch to style them Saints) are out of his owne knowledge, and rea­ding, so cleare in such and such places against the Papists, as that they need no explication or comment whatsoeuer, and that he laments the blindnesse of such, who willfully do charge Gods word with supposed obscurityes. Let him go on in this sort, since the graue and learned may iustly smyle, to see how comically such a naturalized Heretike doth lay open to the world his pryde, ignorance, and foolery; especially when they read of such men, as Origen and Tertullian were, to haue laine drowned perhaps to the eternall ship wracke and perdition of their soules) in the vast Ocean of the Scriptures profundity.

9. Thus we see the bare letter of the Scripture be­ing only stood vpon doth often seeme to maintaine an errour, which is mainly impugned by the true sense once drawns from the sayd Scripture; like as the Phisitians ob­serue, that the grosse substance of some drugs or Minerals being taken, doth occasion some diseases, which are after cured by the spirits extracted from the former drugs.

CHAP. VII. The difficulty of the Scriptures acknowledged by the Fathers.

IT is a strange thing to obserue the inconside­rate pryde of our Aduersaryes in iustifying the Scriptures perspicuity, when as the auncient Fathers (to whom our Men are infinitely infe­riour in all good parts of literature) are not ashamed to acknowledg their wonderfull depth and obscurity; which sentence of theirs is manifest two seuerall wayes: First by their owne Commentaries written vpon the Scriptures: Secondly, by their expresse and plaine wordes directly confessing so much. And concerning the first, what grea­ter proofe can be therof, then to see so many, and such as they were, to spend the greatest part of their lyues in illustrating & explaining diuers parcells of the said Scrip­tures, and in digging through the most stony and hardest passages thereof, with their written Scholies? wherin they haue most elaborately dissected (as it were) and anatomi­zed text after text, to the great ease and perspicuity of the reader; whose most commendable and painfull labours in that kynd, had bene no doubt but needles, if the true exposition and sense of the Scriptures were so obui­ous and facil, as our Aduersaries seeme to pretend.

2. To come to the second poynt (I meane to the di­rect sayinges of the fathers) I will content my selfe (for greater expedition) with the testimonies of those foure prime Fathers, and chiefe pillars of Gods Church in her purity, who are able to ouer ballance in authority so many thousands of our new Gospellers teaching the contrary, and to whom by a certaine prerogatiue, and as they say antonomasticôs, that title was giuen. S. Gregory Hom. [...]. in E­ze [...]h. then sayth: Magnae vtilitatis est ipsa obscuritas eloquiorum Dei &c. [Page 25] The obscurity of Gods word is of great profit, because it doth exer­cise the sense, that so by labour it may enlarge it selfe; and being exercised, may comprehend that, which the idle are not able to at­taine vnto: besides it hath a greater benefit then this, which is; that if the sense of the holy Scripture should be cleare in all places, by this meanes it would be smally prized, and therfore the sense of the dif­ficult passages thereof being once found, doth so much please the Reader with greater sweetnes, by how much the search thereof did afflict his mind with more labour. Thus farre S. Gregory.

3. S. Augustine Lib. 2. doctrin. Christian. cap. 6. speaking of those, who were a­customed to read the Scriptures, affirmeth thus of them: Sed multis & multiplicibus obscuritatibus &c. But such men are de­ceaued with many obscurityes and multiplicityes, who do rashly read the Scriptures, apprehending one thing for another, and not finding those thinges therein, which they falsly expected to haue found: In so thicke an obscurity and darknes are some thinges (there sayd) in­uolued. But all this, I doubt not, proceeded from diuine prouidence, heereby to tame pryde with labour, and to withdraw our vnder­standing from all fastidious misprisall, which often commeth tho­rough an ouer easy, and facile search of thinges. The same lear­ned Father is not ashamed (far different from the assuming Insolency of our Sectaryes) to acknowledge in another place his ignorance in these wordes: In Epist. 119. c. 21. ipsis sanctis Scrip­turis multa nescio plura, quàmscio: I am ignorant of many more thinges in the holy Scriptures, then I know. And which is more he Lib. de fide & ope­ribus cap. 1 [...]. & 16. confesseth particulerly of that place to the Cor. Si 1. Cor. c. 3. quis autem superaedificat super fundamentum &c. That the sense thereof was euer most difficult vnto him: so pre­termitting the true sense thereof in silence, like Painters, who veile that ouer, which they cannot delineate by Art.

4. S. Hierome in one of his Epist. ad Paulinū Epistles, whereof the chiefe subiect is the difficulty of the Scriptures, teacheth that we are not able to vnderstand the Scripturs without some speciall instructour, and as presuming this ground he passeth on further in exemplifying seuerall difficultyes, which are found in each particuler booke of them. And in another Epist. ad Alga­siam q. 8. place speaking of the Epistle to the Romans, [Page 26] he sayth thus: Ep [...]st [...]la ad Romanos nin [...]s obscurita [...]ibus innol [...]ae est; The epistle to the Romanes is in [...]olued with ouer many obscuri­tyes.

5. To conclude, S. Ambrose Epist. 44. ad Constanti­um. blusheth not to say thus of the Scriptures: Mare est Scriptura diuina, habens in se sensus profundos; The holy Scripture is eue [...] an Ocean or Sea, ha­uing within it most deep and profound senses and meanings: If then in this learned Fathers iudgment, it be a Sea of obstruse profoundityes, what remaineth but that who­soeuer would securely passe through this Sea, should im­bark himselfe in S. Peters ship, taking his successour for his Pilot (who is stearned by God to stearne vs) through whose skill, auoyding al shelfs and sandes of priuate and new glosses (which often threatneth ship wracke of fayth) he at length may arriue to the safe Porte of the most true, ancient and [...]uer receaued m [...]aning of the holy Ghost.

6. And heere now we may obserue the great mode­sty of these and many other ancient Fathers in this point, since ech of them acknowledging his owne insufficien­cy in vnderstanding exactly the Scriptures, could be cō ­tent to pray with the Prophet: Da [...]salm. 11 [...]. m [...]hi intellectum, & scruta [...]or legem tuam: giue m [...]a [...] vnderstanding, and I will search forth thy l [...]: as also, Reuela [...]hidem oculos meos, & considerabo mi­rabilia de lege tu [...]: Open myne eyes, and I will consider the won­ders of thy Law▪ If any of them had been demanded, whe­ther he did vnderstand all what he read, he would not haue beene ashamed to haue answered with the Eunuch: Q [...]omodo Act. [...]. poss [...]nt, n [...]si al [...]quis ostenderit mihi? Briefly he would haue confessed with [...]. Pet. v. [...]. S. Peter, that not only in the Epistles of S. Paul, but in many other passages of Gods sacred write, there were, quaedam difficilia intellectu, quae indocti & instabiles deprauant; Certai [...]e thinges hard to be vnder­stood, which the vnlearned and vnstable do wrest and depraue. So cleare it is, that notwithstanding the profoundnes of lear­ning in these former tymes, deuout humility with a full acknowledgment of a selfe insufficiency, was (as I may t [...]arme it) the Genius of reuerend Antiquity.

7. Which point being so, who will not admire the [Page 27] petulancy of an ignorant, & lateborne Sectary, who dare withstand and ouerballance in his priuate opinion tou­ching the Scripturs difficulty, the euer reuerenced autho­rityes: of whome? Of Ambrose, Hierome, Augustine, Grego­ry and the like, those iudginge witnesses of an [...]iquity. Where is humility? Where is the 2. Cor. c. 10. Apostles precept of captiuating our iudgment? But it is exi [...]ed, and in it room are stept in assuming Pride, and blushles ignorance: his assertions bewray his ignorance, his controle of the Fa­thers his pride.

The testimonyes alleadged by our Aduersaryes out of the Fathers, for the Scriptures sole Iudge, answered. CHAP. VIII.

THOVGH it [...]orteth not to my intended bre­uity, to answere at large all such wast testi­monyes, as our Aduersaryes by most strange detortions of the Fathers writinges are not ashamed to produce; notwithstanding I hould it conuenient heere to set downe certaine animad­uersions and cautions discouering in generall the Fathers true mindes and driftes in such thei [...] passages (diuers of which ca [...]tions are implicitly included in the state of the question already set downe in the first Chapter.) So may the obseruant Reader take notice how rouingly all such authorityes (wherin our Aduersaryes touching the Iudge of Controuersyes do chiefly insist) do ayme at their desi­gned marke. And for the greater perspicuity, I will range these their sentences vnder three peculiar heades. One sort then of them are those, which may seeme to in­sinuate, that the Scripture is the Iudge and rule of Con­trouersies; which sense of the Fathers is bounded with some of these ensewing restrictions.

[Page 28] 2. First, their meaning sometymes is, that certaine Articles only of our beliefe are most expresly set downe in the Scriptures, in this sort Aduer­sus Her­mog. pag. 350. Tertullian prouing against Hermogenus, that God created all thinges of nothing, and not out of any presupposed matter, and with particuler reference to those wordes in Genesis: God made heauen and earth, thus wryteth: Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem &c. I do adore the fullnes of the Scripture, which manifesteth to me the ma­ker of all thinges, and the thinges made. Let the shoppe of Her­mogenus teach, that it is written; If it be not written, let him feare that (Vae) to such as do add or detract &c. Which sen­tence of Tertullian, though deliuered only of one Article of our beliefe, our Sectaryes neuertheles do stretch out to al points & Controuersyes of faith whatsoeuer: Thus most inconsequently arguing affirmatiuely from the Particuler to the Vniuersall. Another like place to this they obiect out of Lib. 3. de Trinit. Hilarius touching the doctrine of the Trinity.

3. Secondly, the Fathers sometymes ascrybing great honour and reuerence to the Scriptures (the which we Catholikes most willingly admit) do teach, that the Scripture is an infallible rule; not heerby intending, that it is the only square of our faith (as our Aduersaryes seeme fondly to suggest) but that whatsoeuer the Scripture pro­ueth, is most infallibly and vndoubtedly proued by the same; and consequently, that nothing is to be admitted, as matter of fayth, which doth crosse and impugne the Scripture. And thus (besides that place of Lib. 1. cap. 1. pag. 37. Irenaeus, where he calleth the Scripture in the former sense, Canc­nem immobilem veritatis; as also the like of De fide l. c. 4. Ambrose, where he appealeth from the writings of particuler fathers to the Scripture, as also of in Cor. 7. hom. 13. Chrysostome, where he calleth the Scripture, Guomonem & regulam) we find that in Epist ad Galat. cap. 5. S. Hierom man taining, with all Catholikes, that nothing is to be receaued contrary to the Scripture, and that therefore ge­nerall Councells are to be examined thereby, thus wry­teth: Spiritus sancti doctrina &c. The doctrine of the holy Ghost is that, which is deliuered in the holy bookes, contra quam, against which doctrine if the Councels do ordaine any thing, let it be repu­ted [Page 29] as wicked. But what Catholike alloweth any thing a­gainst Scripture? And how extrauagantly then is this te­stimony obiected against vs by our Aduer saryes? Many such places of other Fathers are vrged against vs, and yet they only conuince, that nothing is to be accepted as an article of fayth, which impugneth the Scripture (such is their willfull misapplication of the Fathers wrytings:) It will be sufficient only to make reference of diuers such passages. See then Cyprian contra epistolas Stephani, Lactan­tius Institut. diuin lib. 5. cap. 20. Basilius epist. 74. ad Epis­copos Occidentales, Chrysostome hom. 49. in Psalm. 95. Epi­phan. Haer. 63. and 76. Cyril. de recta fide ad Regin. besides many others.

4. Thirdly, the Fathers disputing with certaine heretikes, who denyed all authority of the Church and Councells in determyning of Controuersies (with whom the Nouelistes of our age do altogeather interleague and conspire) were forced in their disputes to prouoke those heretikes of the holy Scripture; not because the Fathers (but those heretikes) disclaymed from the Churches au­thority in this point; and therefore the Churches au­thority being reiected by them, the Fathers were driuen to insist only in the written word. In this sort Iustinus in Triphone disputing with a Iew, who admitted not the Church of Christ, appealed willingly to the Scripture only. Augustine Contra Maximinū lib. 3. c. 14. contending with the Arian Maximinus (who admitted not the Councell of Nice) professed, that he did not expect to haue his doctrine tryed by that Coū ­cell, but only by the Scripture, and therefore sayd: Nec ego Nicaenum proferam &c. I will not produce the Nicen Councell &c. Let the matter be tryed by the authority of Scripture. Final­ly S. Basil Epist. 88. ad Eu­stochium. disputing with certaine Heretiks touching three Hypostases, and one Nature in God, and they contem­ning the authority and custome of Christes vniuersall Church therein, was compelled to recall them only to the Scriptures, tearming the Scripture in this Controuer­sy, Arbiter, and Index; but in what doth this testimony (much insisted vpon by our Aduersaryes) disaduantage [Page 30] vs, since we heere see the reason, why Basil appealed to the Scripture? Againe, what [...]ation is this? Basil thought that the doctrine of three Hypostase and [...]ne Nature in God, was expresly proued out of the Scripture; Therefore he thought, that all other points of our fayth necessarily to be belieued, haue their ex­presse proofe in the Scripture, without the Churches authority inter­posed in the exposition thereof. Inconsequently and vnschol­lerlikely concluded.

5. Fourthly, the Fathers teaching, that the proofe of the Churches authority is euicted from Scripture (as is elswhere shewed) and they also acknowledging, that the Church is to iudge of all Controuersyes of fayth and reli­gion, do thereupon, and only by reason of this inference, sometymes in their writings affirme, that the Scripture iudgeth sufficiently of all Controuersyes, not meaning, that the Scripture immediatly of it selfe, is inappealably to determine of all articles and doubts of religion (as our Aduersaryes calumniously pretend) but that it may be said so to do, because the Scripture proueth to vs the infallible authority of that (to wit, the Church) and remitteth vs to the same, which hath power definitiuely to end all Controuersies. In this sense we find, that Lib. cont. 2 ep. Pel [...]g. l. 3 c. 4. Augustine tea­cheth, that euery Controuersy is in some sort sufficiently proued out of Scripture; meaning, Mediante authoritate Ecclesiae, Through the meanes of the authority of the Church: which authority for the last resolution of doubtes of fayth is most sufficiently and abundantly proued from the Scrip­ture. Other like sentences of this nature concerning the fullnes of Scriptures (but euer to be vnderstood by the mediation of the Churches authority) are to be found in Tom 3. contra Iu­lianum. Cyrill Epist. 5. ad suos dis­cipulos. Clemens the first Pope, and in some other Fa­thers.

6. A second branch, whereunto other obscure testi­monyes of the Fathers (vsually vrged by our Sectaryes for the patronizing of the Scriptures sole iudge) may be ad­dressed, De doctrin [...] Christ. l. 2 c. 9. is drawne from the perfection, which the Fathers seeme to ascribe to the Scripture; in regard of which per­fection they yield to it a great sufficiency for seuerall res­pectes [Page 31] and ends, though our aduersaryes most fraudulent­ly omitting the scope and drift of such sayings, will needs wrest this sufficiency, as intended of the Scriptures suf­ficiency for the immediate and finall determining of all Controuersyes in fayth whatsoeuer, without any restraint or exception. Sometymes therefore the Fathers meaning is to shew, that the Scripture is sufficient to proue expres­ly the chiefest Articles of our beliefe, and of which euery man is bound to haue an explicite and cleare knowledge: such are the articles contained in the Creed, and those Sa­craments, which are more necessary; which kind of suf­ficiency we also admit. In this sense Augustine writeth (as the contexture of the passages there do shew) that, what points concerne our fayth are clearely to be found in the Scripture: another like saying of the sayd Father, and to be thus expounded, is found in Tract. 49. in Ioannem.

7. The Fathers at other tymes do teach, that the Scripture is of that perfection, that the certainty of the truth of it, in regard of it selfe alone (though not in respect of vs) is sufficiently proued from it selfe, without the help of any other probation, as being penned by them, who were immediatly assisted by the holy Ghost. In this sense Athanasius Contra Genti [...]es in exordio. calleth the Scripture, [...], Scrip­turas sufficientes. Iren [...]us Lib. 2. c. 47. in like sort sayth, that Scripturae perfectae sunt, The Scriptures are perfect; and then immediatly followeth this reason: Quippe à verbo Dei & spiritu eius dictae, Because they are indicted by the word of God and the holy Ghost: The Fathers also are in their writinges accustomed to as­cribe a great perfection to the Scripture for recording such miracles of Christ, by the which he is sufficiently proued to be the sonne of God (which is the generall doctrine al­so of the Catholikes) which testimonyes our Sectaryes are not ashamed to alleage in proofe of the Scriptures ful­nes for warrant of any article of Religion whatsoeuer. Thus we find that In Io­an. l 12. c. 68. Cyrill wryting of the miracles of our Lord sayth (with reference to the wordes of S. Iohn The number of our Lords miracles were great, yet those, which are related, Sufficiunt ad plenissimam fidem attente legentibus fa [...]iendā, [Page 32] meaning that they were sufficient to proue, that Christ was the sonne of God and Sauiour of mankind.

9. Lastly the Fathers acknowledg in their writings mostfully, that the perfection of Scripture is such, as that it is sufficient to disswade man from vice, and perswade him to vertue; a point which we al willingly grant, both in regard of the ten Commaundments expresly set down (which euery one is obliged to obserue) as also by reason of many most eminent and remarkable examples of ver­tue and vice, recorded in the Scripture, and the inestima­ble rewardes promised to the vertuous, & the most dread­full comminations and threats thundred against the wic­ked. Now of this sufficiency Theophilact speaketh in c. 2. ad Tim. 3. where he sayth, that the Scripture is of force to make, Vt nihil bonorum desit homini Dei, That no vertue be wan­ting in the man of God, & the same interpretatiō, a place Au­thoris In Mat. 22. hom. 41. imperfecti, admitteth. And heere now by these short explications it appeareth, that none of these former passages of the Fathers (whether they concerne the perfe­ction or sufficiency of the written word either in regard of exhortation to vertue, or of demonstrating Christ to be the Sonne of God, or of prouing the Scriptures cer­tainty from it owne worth and dignity alone, or finally of expresly containing the chiefest Articles of our beliefe) can in any sort preiudice our Catholike doctrine handled in this discourse, and therefore the wrong of our Aduer­saryes towardes their followers is the greater, in seeking to abuse their ignorance and credulity by such idle and trifling allegations.

9. The third and last head of those misapplyed sen­tences of the Fathers in this question, doth concerne the perspicuity of the Scripture, which word is not heere to be taken in that sense, as if the Fathers taught, that the Scripture were in it selfe absolutely so easy, perspicuous, and cleare, as that (without the helpe of the Churches authority in the exposition thereof) euery illiterate and mechanicall fellow were able to iudge of the true sense thereof, and consequently by the only meanes of it to de­termine [Page 33] & end all Controuersies: for they fully acknow­ledged it to be as (Ezechiel Ezech. 2. styled it) The enrolled volume written within and without, as also to be, that hidden booke, described by the Euangelist Apoc. 5. to be clapsed with seauen seales. But their meaning herein is, that the Scripture is perspicuous in two constructions.

10. First that the histories, similitudes, & other mat­ters of fact recorded in the Scripture, as also some principle Articles of our beliefe are there clearly and perspicuously set downe: But what is this to conuince that the Scrip­ture is in generall easy for the truth of any abstruse, specu­latiue and dogmaticall point, or article of Fayth what­soeuer.

11. Of this first manner S. Austin lib. de operibus monac. c. 9. speaketh, when he sayth, that the Scripture is most perspicuous and cleare to proue (which no man denyeth) that Christ ordayned, that those who did preach the Ghospell, should be main­tained by the Ghospell; and therupon shewing, that this is clearly and euidently set downe in the Scripture, he thus wryteth; Quid hoc apertiùs? quid clariùs? That the Fa­thers do in like sort sometymes restraine this euidency & clearnes of the Scripture to some chiefe articles of Chri­stian Religion, appeareth (as afore I haue shewed) that they in like sort attribute a perfection and sufficiency of the written word of God to the same end. Thus doth Irenaeus lib. [...] cap. 46. wryting against certaine Infidels (denying that there was one only God) affirme, that for the proofe of this verity: Vniuersae Scripturae & propheticae & Apostolicae &c. The whole Scriptures both Prophetical & Apostolical are euident, & without any ambiguity: Which wordes being spoken only of that particular point, hurteth vs nothing at all: Yet our Sectaries sleight in deprauing the Fathers wrytinges, is such, as what words are spoken for the perspicuity of the Scripture for one only article, they shame not to stretch them, as spoken in proofe of all.

12. The second sense or construction of the Fathers wordes touching the perspicuity of the written word, is, that the Scripture is cleare and euident, in that it doth [Page 34] illuminate and enlighten the mynd of the reader, vnder­standing the Scripture (a verity which we acknowledge, as elsewhere is shewed) as it is explained by the spirit of God, which spirit speaketh in the voyce of his Church. And in this sense (to omit the like sentences of diuers o­ther Fathers) Epiphanius Contra Aetium l. 3. tom. 2. wryteth, that in the Scripture omnia lucida sunt, all things are cleare, in conceauing this clearnes (as I sayd before) only in respect of the mynd, which by truly vnderstāding the Scripture is enlightned, cleared, and much freed from all spirituall darknes and ignorance.

13. To the former two senses, wherein the Fathers do call the Scripture perspicuous, cleare, and facill, I wil add a third reason, which moued them sometymes so to call them. This is taken from a certaine abuse of the cō ­mon sort of people in those tymes, who framing to thē ­selues a greater difficulty in the Scripture then there is, altogether forbare the reading of it, and in place thereof gaue themselues (more then was conuenient) to the be­houlding of prophane spectacles and sightes. Now, to be­reaue the people of this abuse and negligence, and the sooner to inuite them to the reading and hearing of Gods word, the Fathers thought good, in an Oratory and am­plifying manner to suggest to thē an easines of the Scrip­ture. This course S. Chrysostome in diuers of his homilies and sermons tooke, the sooner therby (as is sayd) to win the people to the reading of Gods holy word, as in Ioan. homil. 1. in Thesal. 2. homil. 3. With the same intentiō doth Athanasius In E­pist. ad E­phes. c. 6. relate to the people the facility of the Scrip­ture. And thus farre of the Fathers supposed defence and maintaining of our Sectaries Doctrine in this question of the Scriptures sole Iudge: where we see, that though the places vrged by our aduersaries out of their wrytings, at the first sight, seeme to carry a faire and specious glosse or graine, yet being after fully weighed and considered, they giue no satisfaction (for proofe of what they were alleadged) to a perfect and true iudgment, being like vnto those flowers, which best pleasing the eye, do commonly least please the smell.

The like difficulty of the Scriptures, confessed by our Aduersaries. CAAP. IX.

ALTHOVGH our Aduersaries do vsually pre­tend the easines of the Scriptures (and ther­fore do obtrude it as sole Iudge and Vmpier) therby to auoyde the graue and pressing au­thorities of the Councells, Fathers, and the practise of Gods vniuersall Church, vrged in any con­trouersiall point betwene vs and them; yet sometymes diuers of them can be content, both in their actions and words (so forcible is Truth, as that she can extort sufficiēt testimony euen from her owne enemies) to acknowledge the Scriptures obscurity, as contayning in it selfe a Ianus of construction, the sense looking one way, the letter an­other.

2. And first concerning their actions crossing this their Assertion; if there were such perspicuity in them, as the Protestantes do beare their followers in hand, why haue our aduersaries themselues laboured so much in ex­planing the sayd Scriptures? Why hath Luther, Caluin, Be­za, and others written seuerall books in paraphrazing & illustrating of them? Or why haue they made so many different translations of them? And if the Scriptures be hard and difficult, why do they with such obstinate per­tinacity maintaine the contrary? So illustrious this verity is, concerning the Scriptures intricate hardnesse, as that our aduersaries owne labours and actions do conuince their owne errour therin.

3. Now to come to the second point, which is, how themselues do wryte therof expresly at vnawares, as if they had forgotten, what at other tymes they had taught with such feruorous obstinacy: Luther In prae­fat. in Psalm. himselfe (alth­ough [Page 36] the Day-star of the Ghospels light) confesseth, that neyther he nor any other, is able to vnderstād the psalmes of Dauid in their true and propersense. Yea he speaketh more generally saying; Ibidem infra. Scio esse impudentissimae temeritatis &c. I acknowledge it to be a signe of most shamles temerity and rashnes, for any man to professe, that he truly vnderstandeth in all places, but any one booke of the Scriptures.

4. Chemnitius Examē 4. sess Cō ­cil. Tridēt. affirmes, that the Church is now in­dued with the guift of interpreting the Scriptures, in such sort as in it first tymes, it enioyed the guift of doing mira­cles, to wit, that neyther the one nor the other, was grā ­ted to euery particular man, but only to some persons e­lected theerto by God. Brentius In Co­fess. VVit­tember. (who at other tymes freeth the Scriptures from all difficulties) is forced to dis­maske himselfe, and to confesse thus in the end: Non est ob­scurum &c. It is manifest, that the guift of interpreting the Scrip­tures, is a guift of the holy Ghost, and not of humane wisedome, & that the holy Ghost therein is free, and not tyed to any certaine kind of men, but bestoweth this guift, as best seemeth vnto him. The Magdeburgenses Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. col. 52. do plainly grant, that the Apostles thē ­selues were of opinion, that the holy Scriptures could not be truly vnderstood without the help of the holy Ghost, as an interpreter. Neyther shall we find this Doctrine strange among our homeborne Sectaries, since D. Field l. 4. c. 15. (a late appearing Comet in our Protestants sky) doth thus say; There is no question, but that there are many difficulties of the holy Scriptures, proceeding partly from the high and excellent nature of thinges therein contayned, which are without the compasse of na­turall vnderstanding, and so are hidden from naturall men &c. partly out of the ignorance of tongus, and of nature of such thinges, by the comparison whereof, the matters of diuine knowledge are manifested vnto vs.

5. And now, if after the voluntary acknowledg­ment of so many markable Protestantes in this point, any of them would seeke to retyre back, and recall all what they haue sayd, by teaching, that though they grant some passages of Gods word to be hard and difficult, yet those places, being compared with other like sentences & [Page 37] texts, receaue from thence a cleare and plaine explication. Yet this refuge of theirs is of no strength; the reason here­of being, because as any one text in Controuersy is doubt­full, and capable of diuers constructions, so likewise are the other places and testimonies of Scripture as ambigu­ous in sense and interpretation, wherwith the sayd text is to be conferred, and by which conference it is to receaue it illustration. And thus we see by experience, that the doubt of any one place of Scripture is often more increa­sed by that meanes (to wit by conference of texts) by the which it was first hoped to haue bene extinguished. And therfore the former English Doctour l 19▪ pronounceth of the weaknes of this answere in this sort: We confesse, that neyther conference of places, nor the consideration of the Antece­dentia and consequentia, nor looking into the originalls, are of any force, vnles we find the thinges, which we conceaue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted, to be consonant to the rule of fayth.

6. And thus much concerning the difficulty of the Scriptures acknowledged by the plaine testimonies & cō ­fessions of our aduersaries thēselues (though at other times impugning the truth herein) which point we are the lesse to maruell at, if we remember that it proceedeth through his will and permissions, who commaunded 2. Cor. 4. the light to shine out of darknes, and can cause truth to be confirmed by the maintainers of falshood.

The insufficiency of the Scripture, for the deter­mining of points of fayth, discouered by force of Reason. CHAP. X.

MANY argumēts might be produced from rea­son, for the confirming of this verity, but I here content my selfe with some few of the chiefest. And first, if our aduersaries Position were true, concerning the Scriptures being [Page 38] iudge of our fayth, then must they vnderstand hereby ey­ther their whole Canon and body of Scriptures taken ioyntly togeather, or els euery particular booke therof, as it is considered by it selfe alone. Not this later, both be­cause it would follow, that if any one booke alone were a competent Iudge of all articles of our fayth, that then al the other parcels of Scripture were superfluous and need­les, which were most prophane to imagine; As also in that, euery particular Ghospell, or any such part thereof, doth omit many chiefe articles of our Fayth, without any mention had of them at all; And thus we find that the Annuntiation, the Natiuity, the Circumcision of our Lord (besides many other points) are not as much as once tou­ched in S. Iohns Ghospell; in like sort neyther doth S. Mat­thew mention the Circumcision, nor S. Marke the Presenta­tion.

2. Now, our Aduersaries Doctrine herein is no more iustisiable, if they will here vnderstand the whole body of all the Canonicall books of Scripture, ioyntly consi­dered together, to be this Iudge (which assertion they for the most part maintaine;) And the reason therof is this; In that diuers Canonicall and vndoubted parcels (euen by the Protestants acknowledgment) of both the old and the new testament, haue bene lost for the space of 1500. yea­res, and neuer yet found againe: And therfore it ineuita­bly followeth, that if all the sacred books of Scripture ta­ken together should be this iudge, and that diuers of them for so many Centuries and ages haue bene, and still are lost; that then during so long a tyme, we neuer enioyed a sufficient and competent Iudge, and such a one, as was proportionable to that fayth left to vs by the Prophets, Apostles and Euangelists; but in lieu therof we haue had a maimed, imperfect, and defectiue Iudge. Which to affir­me, were to impugne Gods care and prouidence, which he beareth towards his Church.

3. Now, that diuers parcels of both the Testaments haue perished, it is most cleare, and our Aduersaries can­not deny it. And first touching the new Testament, it [Page 39] appeareth out of the Epistle to the Colossians, c. vle. that Saint Paul wrote an Epistle to them of Laodiced, which neyther we nor the auncient Fathers haue proued euer to haue bene extant since the Apostles tyme. In like sort S. Paul may seeme to intimate in his first Epistle to the Corinthians cap. 5. in these words; Scripsi vobis in epistola &c. that before the writing of the sayd Epistle, he had written to thē another E­pistle; and yet we cannot find, that the Church euer had any such Epistle.

4. Now, it is no lesse cleare, that diuers parts of the old Testament haue bene, and are as yet lost, at least for the sayd former space of tyme. And to omit the testimo­nies of S. Chrysostome Hom. 9. in Matth. & hom. 7. in prior. ad Corinth. affirming so much, we read in the books of Kings, 3. Reg. 4. that Salomon wrote many Parables and verses, which now we haue not; for thus there it is sayd: Locutus est Salomon tria millia Parabolarum, & fuerunt carmina eius quinque millia: After the same manner we find it also registred of Dauid Paralip. vlt. in these words: Gesta autem Dauid priora & nouissima scripta sunt in libro Samuel Videntis, & in libro Nathan Prophetae, at (que) in volumine Caiad Videntis. All which wrytinges here mentioned are neyther at this pre­sent, nor haue for many former ages bene extant in Gods Church: So cleare thus we see it is, by the force of this argument, that the Scripture neyther as it is wholy takē together, nor seuerally by particular books, can be the iudge for the determining of all doubts of fayth.

5. Another reason for the incompetency of the Scripture as Iudge, may be taken from the nature of a iudge (as is else where touched) constituted in euery well gouerned Common wealth. For it cleare, that euery Iudge first ought to be able of his owne authority to take notice of the Contentions and Controuersies rysing in the state. Secondly, he must haue power by interpreting the law to giue his censure against the party offending. Lastly, he is to compell and force the delinquents to obe­dience vnder the paine of feuere punishments. None of which points can be effected, except there be (besides the wrytten law) a visible iudge. Seing then (by applica­tion [Page 40] of what is here sayd to our present purpose) that the Scripture cannot of it selfe take notice of Controuersies rysing in matters of religion, nor euidently declare to the Litigants the true meaning of such passages, of it self war­ranting or condemning the points in question; nor final­ly can constraine the aduerse party to relinquish his er­rours impugned by the wrytten Word, (as we find by the dayly experience of Heretikes flying to the Scripture as Iudge;) Therfore it is most perspicuous, that the Scrip­ture cannot be erected as a competent Iudge in the deci­sion of articles of fayth among Christians.

6. Neyther is it any satisfiable answere to reply, that God himselfe seeth all Contentions in doubts of fayth, and in some sort by meanes of the Scripture pronounceth his sentence in condemnation of the heresies impugned. This (I say) is not sufficient, and the reason hereof is, be­cause God doth not so euidently deliuer his sentence by the mediation of the Scripture, as the party conuinced therby will acknowledge it for his sentence; And conse­quently if the question should be, whether the Scripture be the word of God or not, God could not clearly giue his iudgment only by the helpe of Scripture. Therfore it followeth, that we must haue a visible iudge, and such as his finall decrees being once manifested, the party main­taining his errours, will acknowledge them (as they proceed from the Iudge, whether iustly or iniustly) to be clearly and euidently condemned by the sayd iudge, which we see falleth not out in obtruding the Scripture; for it is obserued, that the Anabaptist or any other ack­nowledged heretike, wil neuer confesse his heresies to be impugned by the Scripture, or himself condēned therby.

7. And of the like feeblenes is that other answere of some hereto, who (courteously) do grant, that there may be acknowledged indeed an external publike iudge of all doubts in religion, meaning the generall voice of gods Church; but yet this iudge (teach they) is limited in it de­finitions, and not absolutely infallible, but only so farre forth, as it treadeth the tract and path of Gods written [Page 41] word, and which declining from thence, runneth head­long into certaine deuiations, & by-wayes of most foul [...] errours.

8. This answere salueth not the doubt: for once grāting a true Iudge, it followeth, that this Iudge (though depending of God) is to haue authority in compounding of Controuersies absolutely infallible. And the reason hereof is this: for if his authority were not infallible, then might it be inferred, (an absurditity little sorting to the sweet prouidence of God) that the whole Church by force of such a delegated authority to it by God himselfe, might be led into a generall errour; since euen moral Phi­losophy and the light of reason assure vs, that granting a Magistrate (who may erre) to haue publike authority in his censures and decrees, then are the subiectes or inferi­our persons (who are interressed in the sayd definitions) bound to imbrace those errours. Which if they were not obliged to doe, then should it follow, that the Magistra­tes state were no better in defining, then the subiects, since they were not bound to stand to the cēsure of their Iudge, but only when they did know his sentence to be eui­dently most true; and consequently it might be likewise inferred, that the Magistrate hath no power at all in defi­ning; and yet all Philosophy instructeth vs, that euen in a point doubtfull, where it is not euident the opinion of the Iudge to be clearly false, the persons acknowledging obedience to the Iudge are (in regard of the former reasōs) obliged to follow his doubtfull definition, though per­haps erroneous.

9. To the former reason may be adioyned this fol­lowing (as is also afore touched;) That euen the light of reason teacheth vs, that euery Iudge in any Court of Cō ­trouersies ought to be such, as all contēding parties with­out exception may for the appeasing of their debates, haue easy accesse vnto him. Which accesse is found to be in the Church, but not in the Scripture: from which it vn­auoydably followeth, that the Scripture cannot be this iudge, whereunto ech mā is to repaire; but that the church [Page 42] may be, and is the sayd Iudge. That euery man at his pleasure, may come to the Church for resolutiō of doubts, we see it is euident by the practise of all ages.

10. But on the contrary part, euery man that main­taineth different points of fayth, hath not this freedome of comming to the Scripture for decision of his doubts: for first there are diuers Christians, who cannot as much as read the Scripture, much lesse vnderstand it; how can such men then expect to haue their Controuersies tou­ching religion to be de [...]ermined by the wrytten word a­lone? And as touching those others who can read, yet is their cause little bettred therby, seing many by their rea­ding of the Scripture, do strangely detort the true sense therof. Yea we may obserue, that diuers Nouellistes of different religions, who are dayly cōuersant in the Scrip­tures, endeauour euen from the self same passages of it, by their false constructions, to fortify their repugnant Do­ctrines. And thus though the voyce of the holy Ghost in the wrytten word, and the leter there read be but one, yet through ech mans selfelike expositions, it seemeth to speake, as euery man would haue it; by this meanes ma­king the Scripture to be like vnto the tongue of S. Peter & other the Apostles, which being but one, was notwith­standing heard in euery mans seuerall language.

11. Another argument for the conuincing of this supposed Iudge, may be drawne from the Doctrine of Traditions, which haue euer bene maintayned by the auncient Fathers and the primitiue Church. Which Do­ctrine if it be true, then may we most consequently de­duce from thence, that the Scripture is not to iudge all questions of Fayth, since the Doctrine of vnwrytten Traditions teacheth vs, that all the articles and points of Christian Religion, haue not their expresse proofe out of the Scriptures; but that some of them are belieued only by force of Tradition, and of the continued and vn-inter­rupted practise of Gods Church. To enter into any exact proofe of this point of Traditions is improper to this place, and would require a reasonable large Treatise alone; and [Page 43] therfore I remit the Reader to such Catholike wryters Hofi [...]e in 4. l. ad­uers. Pro­legomena Brentij. Peresius initio ope­ris sui do Traditio­nib. Rof­fensis, Ca­nisius, Bel­larmin, be­sides many others. as haue most learnedly handled this, subiect. Only I wil here set downe (and consequently proue the sayd Do­ctrine à posteriori) certayne pointes of Christian Fayth, which haue no cleare and conuincing proofes out of Scriptures, and yet are belieued no lesse by the Protestāts themselues, then by vs Catholikes.

12. And first against the Anabaptistes, both the Ca­tholikes, Lutheranes and Caluinistes do belieue, that the baptisme of Infantes is lawfull, and that they are not to be rebaptized after they come to ripenes of age, which point (as D. Field acknowledgeth, terming it a Traditiō) cā neuer be sufficiently and clearly proued by the Scriptures alone, without the testimony of the practise of the church, and force of Tradition, as appeareth by the testimonies of the auncient Fathers; for we find, that Origen thus spea­keth hereof in c. 6. epist. ad Rom. Ecclesia ab Apostolis tra­ditionem accepit, etiam paruulis baptismum dare. In like sort Au­stin l. 10. de Genesi ad literam, c. 23. Consuetudo matris Ec­clesiae in baptizandis paruulis nequaquam spernenda, & nec omnino credenda est, nisi Apostolica esset Traditio.

13. D. Bancroft teacheth, that Confirmation is an Apo­stolicall Tradition, as appeareth in his conference before the King. All we, do belieue that our blessed Lady dyed a Virgin, & do account Heluidius an Heretike for houl­ding the contrary; and yet no text of Scripture doth cō ­firme it to vs, but rather through misconstruction may seeme to insinuate the contrary in regard of those words: Non cognouit virum, donec peperit filium suum.

14. D. Whitguift In his defense. pag. 539. acknowledgeth, that now, du­ring the tyme of the new Testament, we are to celebrate Easter vpon Sunday (contrary to the custome of the Iewes) a point of such moment euen in the primitiue Church, that the maintainers of the cōtrary were then reputed for Heretikes, and styled Epiph. haeres. 50. Aug. hae­res. 29. Tertul. de praescript. Quartadecimani. And yet for this change of obseruing Easterday we haue no warrant from the holy Scriptures, but may say with Tertullian: De co­rona mili­tis. quod non prohibetur, vltrò permissum est. D. Couel in his booke of ex­amination [Page 44] teacheth the word Archbishop to be a Tradition. M. Hooker in his Eccles. polic. sect. 7. p. 118. in generall defen­deth the Doctrine of Traditions, and answereth diuers te­stimonies out of the Fathers alledged by Carthwright, and others.

15. Againe both Catholikes and Protestantes doe belieue, that there are certaine diuine wrytinges, which are the true and vndoubted word of God, and first pen­ned by the holy Prophets, Apostles, and Euangelistes: Yet we cannot conuincingly and demonstratiuely proue so much out of the Scriptures themselues; which point since it includeth within it selfe by necessary illation this question of the Scriptures being Iudge, it shalbe more fully discussed in the Chapter following. Now of this poynt, as also of the former, belieued without the wryt­ten word warranting them, we may say: Harum Tertull. de corona [...]ilitis. dis­cipl [...]narum Traditio tibi praetenditur auctrix, Consuetudo confirma­trix, & Fides obseruatrix.

16. The last argument heere vrged for the refelling of our aduersaries Doctrine herein, may be taken from the practise of both the auncient & moderne heretickes, who euer for the warranting of their heresies (heresies I meane euen in the iudgment of our aduersaries) haue euer fled to the Scriptures, and haue most seriously taught, (therby to auoyde the authority of the Church) that the Scriptures a­lone ought to Iudge & defyne al doubtes of Fayth what­soeuer. And therfore to the end, that the reader may see, what wicked heresies haue bene proseminated, and haue sprung from this so false and hereticall a princi­ple, I will exemplify this one point somewhat at large in a Chapter following, there shewing how many diuelish heresies haue bene countenanced by their Patrones, with the misapplyed testimonies and authorities of the holy Scriptures; which abuse of the Scriptures well sheweth, that the Doctrine hereof neuer proceeded from God; Tertull. de fuga in persecut. Quid diuinum non bonum? quid bonum non diuinum?

That it cannot be determined to vs by Scripture, that there is any Scripture, or Gods word at all. CAAP. XI.

FOR the more particuler handling of this poynt, I am to demaund of our aduersaries these three things following, which are (as it were) the three steps, wherby we ryse to the graduall difficulties of this question heere intreated of. First, how they can proue out of Scripture the particuler Ghospell of S. Marke, or of any Euangelist, to be the same, without all corruption, which the sayd Marke, or the other did wryte? considering that it is gran­ted, euen by our aduersaries, that diuers parcels of the Scriptures haue bene fouly corrupted and mangled by the Additions, Translations, and other such like depraua­tions of the auncient heretikes. Secondly, if it be gran­ted them, that any one Ghospell, or other part of Scrip­ture, is the very same vntoucht and vndefiled, as the au­thour therof did first wryte it; yet if we should demand of them, how the Scripture can assure and determine this poynt, to wit, that such a Ghospell (as for example that of S. Marke) is true and Canonicall Scripture, and yet that the obtruded Ghospell of S. Thomas is a false & prophane wryting, since both these Ghospells haue indifferently in the beginning their seuerall prefixed titles, the one but of an Euāgelist, & yet accepted, the other euen of an Apost­le, but reiected; what could they say? Thirdly if it were a­greed vpō, which were the particular books, which maks vp the Canō of Scripture, yet if any prophan Atheist should arriue to that height of impiety, as to deny flatly, that ther were any such diuine wrytinges at all, as to be counted Gods sacred word or Scripture; how could our Aduersa­ries [Page 46] conuince him herein by the Scripture it selfe? It were idle for them to reply, that the Scripture telleth him, that the bookes of the Prophets and the Apostles are diuine wrytinges, since the Atheist would not belieue the Scrip­ture so saying, vntill it were proued to him (which can­not be out of the Scripture) that this Scripture (affirming so much) is Scripture, that is, a diuine, supernaturall and sacred wryting; no more then at this present, we Chri­stians belieue that the Iewes Thalmud is diuine Scripture, though it be countenāced with the title of Gods vndoub­ted word.

2. This poynt so presseth our Aduersaries, that di­uers of them (& such as are of no meane ranke) haue bene forced to confesse, that it cannot be proued out of Scrip­ture, that there is any Scripture at all; neyther that this Ghospell is true, that forged; nor lastly that we now en­ioy any one, or other parcell of Scripture, free from all manner of corruption, and as the Prophet, Euangelist, or Apostle, guided by the holy Ghost, did first pen it. Hence it is that Chemnitius Examē Concil. Trident. intreating of Tradi­tion. & Brentius In pro­legomenis. do teach, that this one sole vnwrytten Tradition remayneth in the Church of God: to wit, that there are certaine diuine wrytings or Scriptures. But Hooker In his treatise of Ecclesiasti­call policy. in treating of this poynt, passeth on further, and iumpeth with vs in the reason thereof, for thus he sayth: Of thinges necessary, the ve­ry chiefest is, to know what bookes we are bound to esteeme holy, which poynt is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach. And then afterwardes he warranteth his Doctrine with this reason: For if any bookes of Scripture did giue testimony vnto all, yet still that Scripture, which giueth credit vnto the rest, would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it: neyther could we euer come to any pause, wheron to rest our assurance this way; so that vnles besides Scripture, there were something, which might assure vs that we do well, we could not thinke we do well, no not in being assured, that Scripture is a sacred and holy rule of weldoing. So farre we see this learned Protestant (whose calamity is the more to be deplored, in that retayning diuers Catho­like grounds, he forbare to build a fayth answere able [Page 47] therto) was from making the Scripture to be the sole iudge and vmpier of all articles of Fayth, since by his Doctrine the Scripture could not determine out of itselfe, that there is any Scripture at all, which is the Basis, or foundation of the rest, by our aduersaryes owne assertions.

3. Others of our aduersaries, who will not ack­nowledge the truth in this point, labour to salue the mat­ter with diuers weake and insufficient answeres. And first we find that Caluin l. 1. In­stit. c. 7. §. 1. & 2. sayth: That the true and holy Scriptures are discerned from the false and prophane, with the same facility that light is discerned from darknes, and sweetnes from bit­ternes. Which answere if it were true, how came it to passe then, that Luther reiecteth the Epistle of S. Iames, which Caluin himselfe reuerenceth as Apostolicall, both of them being able to discerne the materiall light from darknes & the sweet from sower?

4. The same Caluin, whom our more moderne Sectaries in most points do follow, as beasts follow the first of their heard, affirmeth also: That the maiesty & voice of God doth so present it self to vs in the sacred Scriptures, as that it secureth vs of the infallible truth therof. Against which, first I vrge, that the Maiesty & voyce of God speaking in the Scripture is not distinguished frō the Scripture it self, but is the same; euē as the Cōmandemēt of a Prince expressed in his law, is the same which his law is. Secōdly, that we cānot be assured, whether this representation of the Maiesty, voyce, or au­thority of God speaking in the Scriptures, be but a meere illusion of the diuell, or some vehement apprehension of our owne phansy; which may well be doubted of, con­sidering that all our aduersaries will auouch (no doubt) the Maiesty of God in those bookes, which they acknow­ledge for diuine Scripture; and yet we see by the example aboue, that one of them seemes to find the authority and Maiesty of God in such a booke, which himselfe ack­nowledgeth, the which another of his brethren for want of the same Maiesty vtterly reiecteth. Againe, let our ad­uersaries yield some sufficient reason (if they can) to assure vs, that there appeareth a greater Maiesty of God in those [Page 48] books of Scripture, which they all ioyntly acknowledge for Canonicall, then in those others, which the Catho­likes do receaue, and themselues reiect.

5. Others (among whome is also Caluin Inst. 1. c. 7. §. 5. for he is most various and irresolute in saluing this difficulty) to answere the former doubt, come finally to this point (which indeed is the Center of all their answeres) to wit, that God giueth to the elect and faythfull that inspiration or illumination of spirit, as that therby, they are made able to discerne, which is the true word of God, & which is forged, & adulterated; & consequētly that they are as­sured, that there are certaine diuine wrytings left to his Church: And thus they flye to the priuate spirit already refuted. To this ten our D. Field l. 4. c. 8. thus sayth: After we are enlightened by the spirit, we do no longer trust eyther our owne iudgment, or the iudgment of other men, that the Scriptures are of God, but aboue all certainty of humane iudgment we do cer­tainly resolue, as if in them we saw the Maiesty and glory of God. Thus we see, how our aduersaries not resting themselues vpon any firme resolution, but replying now this, now that, and so running in and out, are most farre from sa­tisfying the difficulty here propounded, with these their Meandrian, and wynding euasions.

6. Now, the weakenes of this last answere is dis­couered seuerall wayes, and first (besides all those reasons and arguments aboue vrged in refutation of the priuate spirit) in that, if they be demanded to proue, how they are assured of this supernaturall illumination, they en­deauour to proue it out of the Scriptures; since they can­not say, it is beleeued for it selfe, seing it then would fol­low (contrary to their owne ground) that something is to be belieued, which hath not his proofe in Scripture. And if againe they be required to proue, that there are Scriptures, they alledge for proof therof this their illumi­nation: which kind of reasoning euery yong Logitian knoweth to be a vitious circulation; since both these se­uerall pointes (to wit the certainty of the Scriptures, and the certainty of their illumination) may be questioned [Page 49] doubted of alike by them, with whome they are to deale. Secondly, the former answere is insufficient, in that this their supernaturall inspiration (wherby they dis­cerne the Scriptures) is nothing els but an Act of Fayth, and as it seemes, is so acknowledged to be by D. Field lib. 4. cap. 13., who calleth it: Apotentiall hability, the light of diuine vnder­standing, and the light of grace; all which thinges are inclu­ded in Fayth: and therfore our Aduersaries do generally teach, that the illumination of this spirit belongeth to all the faythfull. Now we know that it is their owne groūd and principle, that Fayth ryseth only out of the Scrip­tures.

7. These two thinges then being thus, by the Pro­testantes assertions (to wit, that this illumination is an act of Fayth, and that Fayth proceedeth only from the Scriptures) I see not, that it can be possibly conceaued, how this their illumination of Faith, which is later, both tempore & naturâ, then the Scriptures, as proceeding (by their Doctrine) from reading and giuing credit to the said Scriptures, should be the meanes and guide to direct them in discerning, that there is any Scripture at all, or which is the true word of God, and which Apocryphall, and prophane; since they ought to haue this illumination, be­fore they begin to censure & iudge of the Scriptures. And thus far concerning this question, whether the Scripture is able to proue, that there is Scripture. And since it can­not, it cōsequently followeth, that it cānot be the iudge of our fayth, in that (besides it is an Article of our Fayth, that there is Scripture) it is not able to proue that from which (by our Aduersaries Doctrine) all the rest is dery­ued.

That Heresies in all ages haue bene mayntained by the supposed warrant of Scripture. CHAP. XII.

NATVRE (the seale of Almighty God im­pressed in these Elementary bodies) is not only indued with a generatiue power, ther­by to eternize or perpetuate herselfe; but hath withall this annexed priuiledge; to wit, that euery indiuiduall body which is produced, beareth a great resemblance, as we see both in man, and other creatures (if so the secondary causes be not found defectiue) to that body, by the which it was begotten. And this secret or mystery of producing the like to itselfe, is extended euen to arts and sciences; hence it proceedeth, that in Logike (the artificiall refiner of reason) true Propositions euer be­get true Conclusions, and out of false premises result false and erroneous illations. Neyther doth this ground rest heere, but passeth further, it being in like sort iustifiable in all generall Axiomes and principles, which are the Basis, or foundation of any Doctrine; which Principles being true, good, and expedient, then must all that, which as necessary effectes are ingendred therby, be of the same nature. But if they be false, wicked and pernicious, the rest then, which is builded therupon, participateth of the same quality. So as to take a Synopsis, or view in generall of the state or nature of such grounds and principles, it shalbe sufficient (without recurring particularly to them) only to rest in the speculation of such propositions & o­ther poynts of Doctrine, which thence do deseend, and are (as it were) propagated by them.

2. Now then it being thus, that we are able to glasse the Fathers look in the childes face, the premises in the cōclu­sion, and the causes in the effectes; I doubt not, but who­soeuer [Page 51] will call to mynd some few of those blasphemous and wicked heresies, which haue bene ingendred, hat­ched, and nourished by this Principle and ground: That the Scripture interpreted by the priuate spirit, is the true and sole iudge of Controuersies; will at length haue iust reason to pronounce, that the sayd heresies are the defor­med and prodigious brood of so vgly and monstrous a parent, since there was neuer yet any heresy but it could support it selfe for the tyme, by misconstruction of Scrip­ture. And therfore no maruel if euery Sectary did so much couet to make his refuge to Gods sacred word: Hoping that in this sort (by disclaiming from all other proofes whatsoeuer) he was able so to varnish ouer his heresies, with some misapplyed and forced texts therof, as that to a credulous and mistaking eye, the grayne of them should appeare most faire, specious and regardable.

3. But let vs particularize this point in some few ex­amples: who knoweth not that the Arians Teste. Epiphan. haeres. 69. who labou­red to ouerthrow in effect the whole frame and Systema of Christian Religiō, by teaching that Christ was not God, did with this their blasphemy inuade, and ouerrunne whole countries, through the supposed warrant of ma­ny texts of the holy Scriptures, themselues still peruer­ting the sense therof? He that doubteth of this, let him consider the texs heere Pater maior me est. Ioan. 14. & 18. Descendi de caelo, non vt faciam voluntatē meam, sed eius qui misit me. Ioan. 6. vt agnoscant te solum ve [...]ū Deū, & quem misisti Iesū Christum Ioan. 17. Nobis au­tem vnus est Deus Pater. 1. Cor. 18. vi­de etiam 1. Cor. c. 15. & 1. Tim. 2. & Act. 2. noted in the margent which they (among many other like places) alledged. So shal he grant that these heretikes pressed Scripture against him, who is the authour of Scripture. In like sort Eutiches Apud Leonem e­pist. Fla­uiani, & epist. Leo­n [...] 97. who taught, that our Sauiour had but a phantasticall and imputatiue body, through the conuersion of his diuinity into his flesh, was not altogether depriued of all proofes through his misconstruction of Gods Verbū caro factū est. Ioan 1. As after the same phrase we read, Aqua vinum facta est. Ioan. 2. wherin we find the water to be made wine by a true conuersion of the one into the other. word. Nestorius Eu [...] ­grius l. 1. c. 2. & Theodoret. l. 4. haeret. fabularum prope finem. the former heretikes diametricall enemy in Doctrine (so easy it is for this priuate spirit, by misconstruction, to extract both fire and water, from one and the same word [Page 52] of God) so deuided Iesus from Christ, as that he affirmed Ie­sus to be only pure man, and him who was borne of the blessed Virgin, and suffred death, but Christ to be the Son of God. This man neyther wanted diuers passages In simi­litudinem hominum factus, & habitu in­uentus vt homo. Phi. 2. Est sine matre, sine genealogia. Heb. 7. where Christ is thus descri­bed. Deus meus vt quid de­re [...]quisti me? Math. 27. And else where it is [...]ayd: Pater cla­rifica me hac hora. Ioan. 12. Both which sayings might be taught to be disagre­able to the forme of God. of holy Scripture interpreted by his owne spirit, for the en­amiling of this his execrable blasphemy.

4. Wicliffe Thomas VValdens. l. 2. Doctrin. Fidei. c. 81. and Husse as appeareth out of the Councell of Constance. sessione 15. to the great preiudice of secular Princes, taught that temporal Magistrats commit­ting any mortall sinne, did, ipso facto, cease to be Magi­strates, and being in that state, might be deposed by their subiectes. Which false and wicked Doctrine they were not affraid to confirme with certaine vsurped testimonies of Gods word. The Ipsi regnauerunt & non ex me principes exti­terunt, & non cognoui: argentum & aurum suum fecerunt sibi idola, vt interi­merēt. Osee 8. Regnū à gente in gentem transfertur propter iniustitias. Eccles. 18. Waldenses (Luthers Prodromi, and pre­cursors) & the Anabaptistes They are charged here with euen by Caluin lib. 4. Institut. 2. 20. would not brooke, that chri­stian Magistrates should make any lawes, eyther to pu­nish the wicked, or to appeale to any court of iustice for redressing of wrongs; affirming, that such proceeding did take away all Christian liberty: and these fellowes made in like sort the holy Scriptures Si quis voluerit te [...]um iudicio contendere, & tunicam tuam tollere, da ei & pallium. Math. 5. Delictum est in vobis, quod iudicia habebitis inter nos, cur non magis fraudem patimini? quare non magis iniuriam accipitis? 1. Cor. 6. Dictum est anti­quis, oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente; ego autem dico vobis non resistere malo. Math. 5. Omnes qui acceperint gladium, gladio peribunt. Math. 26. Si quis te per­cufferit in vn [...]m maxillam, praebe ei & alteram. Math. 5. their sanctuary: So dā ­gerously they erred herein, through a vitious affectatiō of ouermuch patience and innocency. These (loe) & such like, are the adulterate ofspring (of which I spake afore) ingendred and brought forth by that former principle of the Scriptures sole Iudge; sucking from the same ground (tanquam ex traduce) all that falshood and impiery, which is found in them. In which poynt, we see, how sollici­tous and carefull the chiefe Patrones thereof were (as it were) to legitimate them, with so many detorsions and [Page 53] misapplyed testimonies of Gods sacred writ. Thus haue the Scriptures (through the want of the true sense) occa­sioned heresies, as the Sunne through absence of it heat, may be sayd to be the cause of cold; which heresies, ac­cording to Tertullian Ter­tul. de Pu­dicitia. dum sunt, habent posse, & dum pos­sunt, habent esse.

6. And heere now I would demaund of our Aduer­saries, who acknowledge (at least in wordes) all the for­mer opinions for damnable heresies, what prerogatiue and priuiledge themselues may take, whiles they make their sole recourse to the Scriptures, as the supreme Iudge, in defence of their late appearing fayth, which the for­mer Here [...]kes may not with the like freedome, and with as iust she [...] of reason challenge to themselues? Wil they obiect to the former heretiks want of Scripture for proofe of their Doctrine? We haue seene, how luxuriant and ryotous (as it were) they shewed to be in alledging the same for the better dogmatizing of their errours; in so much, that for iustifying of some of their heresies (if we respect not the sense, but the number) they were able [...] ­uen to vye text for text against the orthodoxall Doctrine. Will they say, they were ignorant in the primitiue ton­gues, and vsed not conference of Scripture; the two ack­nowledged meanes conducing to the true vnderstanding therof? Concerning the first, diuers of them had some of the tongues euen from their cradle; and as for the o­ther, they were so studious and painfull therin, as that they spent a great part of their life in diligent searching, comparing, and applying of seuerall passages of the Scrip­ture.

6. To conclude, will they reply, that notwith­standing all this, they wanted true humility and prayer, which (they say) with the former conditions are (as it were) the Media wherin the Species of the high mysteries of fayth are multiplyed, before they can enter into the eye of our vnderstanding, and consequently enioyed not this reuealing spirit, wherof themselues are assured? they would, if in their life time, they had ben accused her­in [Page 54] haue laboured to haue quyt themselues (as well as our Sectaries do in these tymes) from that imputation, and would, as fully charge all other with the like wants, who should interpret the former alledged texts diuersly from their constructions, and did no doubt, as boldly, when they were liuing, vaunt of the certainty and infallibili­ty of their spirit, as any of our Protestants can do at this present. Seing then, that our Aduersaries, as flying to the Scriptures alone, can alledge nothing in their owne behalfe, for the patronizing of their Caluinian fayth, but that the former recorded Heretiks actually did, & might, as well, and as truly apply vnto themselues, for the de­fence of their impieties: It may therfore be de [...]red as a most certaine and infallible Position, that it is impossible, and repugnant no lesse to the prouidence of God, then to naturall reason it selfe; that truth of fayth and religiō (the which the Protestants professe to mayntaine) should be seated vpon those grounds (and only those grounds) which euery heresy may with the like reason and proba­bility indifferently assume to it selfe.

7. Adde hereto, as a resultancy out of the whole contents of this Chapter, that seeing (as we haue shewed) it is the proper Scene of the Heretikes, euer to flye to the Scripture (vnder the wings therof to shrowd their wic­ked Doctrines) that therfore by the Scripture they are not sufficiently condemned, and consequētly that the Scrip­ture is not the proper iudge of Controuersies: since no man, that this guilty of any fault, doth willingly appeale to that iudge, still remayning in his former sentence, by whome he was afore clearly and euidently conuicted.

That our Aduersaries do confesse it to be the cu­stome of Heretikes to flye to the Scripture alone: and that therfore diuers of them do appeale to the Church, as Iudge. CAAP. XIII.

BVT to end this poynt touching the custome of Heretikes in flyeing only to Scripture, I hould two things worthy to be presented to the consideration of the discreet Rea­der; both which shalbe proued from the frequent acknowledgmentes of our Aduersaries: first, that not only experience warranteth (as appeareth aboue from so many exemplifyed heretikes) but also that our Aduersaries themselues ingeniously acknowledge, that it is the custome of heretikes euer the flye to the Scripture, for the patronizing of their heresies. Secondly, that di­uers of our learned Aduersaries do absolutly abandō this course of making sole refuge to the Scripture, as houlding it a course ful of vncertainty, and not able to affoard any secure and warrantable determining, or ending of Con­trouersies. And touching the first (to omit the like cen­sure of old Vincentius Lib. ad­uers. haeres. printed Lugduni. 1572. For­tassealiquis interroget an Haere­tici diuinis Scripturae testimonijs vtantut? vtuntur planè & vehemēter quidem: ni­hil vnquā pene de suo proferunt, quod non etiā Scrip­turae ver­bū adun­brare co­nentur, sed tanto ma­gis cau [...]ndi & perti­miscendi sunt. Lyrinensis (who liued 13. hundred yeares since) giuen against the custome of the heretikes of his tyme, and to restraine our selues to our English Aduersaries) we find, that D. Bancroft In his suruey cap. 27. chargeth Cart­wright to seeme to defend his errours by the supposed warrant of only Scripture, and within the same procee­ding this Doctrine includeth euen Beza Ibidem pag. 219..

2. M. Hooker speaking of the Anabaptistes, thus wrytes of them: The booke of God they (viz. the Anabaptists) for the most part so admired, that other disputation against their opinions, then only by allegation of Scripture, they would not heare. In his Ecclesiast. policy in the preface. [Page 56] In like sort the Brownistes In their Apology printed 1604. pag. 103. of Amsterdam, being confes­sed heretikes, wryting against D. Bilson, professe to flye in their disputes only to Scripture. Finally the Authour of the Treatise intituled: A briefe answere to certaine obiections against the descension of Christ into hell, printed at Oxford by Ioseph Barnes, reprehendeth his Aduersary Protestant, in these words: Where you say, you must build your fayth on the word of faith, tying vs to Scripture only; you giue iust occasion to thinke, that you neyther haue the auncient Fathers of Christs Church, nor their sonnes succeeding them, agreeing with you in this point.

3. Now as touching the second poynt, it is euident, that Beza himselfe is produced by Hooker In his preface to his booke of Eccle­siast. policy. (as weary of the former course, begetting nothing but vncertainty) to abandon all tryall by Scripture only, and to submit him­selfe to a lawfull assembly or Councell. D. Sutcliffe, In his reuiew of his exami­nation of D. Kelli­sons sur, uey printed 1606. pag. 42. as not allowing triall by Scripture only, thus wryteth: It is false, that we will admit no iudge, but Scripture, for we appeale still to a lawfull generall Councell.

4. M. Hooker in his foresayd preface of his former booke speaking of disputation and tryall by Scripture on­ly, thus discourseth: What successe God may giue to any such conference or disputation, we cannot tell; but we are sure of this: that nature, Scripture, and experience haue all taught the world to seeke (for the ending of Contentions) to submit it selfe vnto some iudiciall and definitiue sentence. And the same learned Pro­testant (as is else where alledged) shewing, that the Scrip­ture (which one question potentially contayneth within it selfe all other questions) cannot iudge, which is Scrip­ture, thus wryteth: lib. 2. Eccles. [...]o­lic. sect. 4. p. 162. It is not the word of God, which can assure vs, that we do well to thinke it is the word &c. This very poynt of acknowledging another Iudge, then the only Scripture, is taught by D. Bancroft in his sermon preached 8. Feb. anno 1588. The same also is maintained by D. Couel in his modest examination p. 108. and by D. Field in his treatise of the Church in the epistle Dedicatory to the Arcbishop, who, giuing a reason of this his Doctrine, thus wryteth: For seeing the Controuersies of religion in our tyme are growne so many in number, and in nature so intricate, that few haue [Page 57] tyme and leasure, strength and vnderstanding to examine them: What remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in thinges of such consequence, but diligently to search out, which among all the So­cieties of men in the world is that blessed company of holy ones, that houshould of fayth, that spouse of Christ, and Church of the liuing God, which is the pillar and ground of truth, that so they may im­brace her communion, follow her directions, and rest in her iudg­ments? So Catholike like we see this Doctour speaketh in this one Controuersy wheron all the rest depend, and so earnestly he defendeth it with strēgth of reason. But to end this point: if these acknowledgmēts of so many of our learned Aduersaries proceed from their setled iudgments therin, then haue we the poynt controuerted granted by them, who should oppugne it. Yf calumniously they ad­mit this Doctrine of the Churches Soueraingty in mat­ters of lesser moment, with intention to restrayne it only to such, and deny it in greater and more weighty Con­trouersies; then are they truly interessed in the words of an auncient Father: Tertul. contra Praxeam. Affectauit diabolus aliquando veri­tatem defendendo concutere.

6. Now the reason, why the Scripture alone (though in it selfe it be most reuerend, certaine, and infallible) doth occasion such vncertainty in the decyding of Con­trouersies, is no lesse fully acknowledged by our learned Aduersaries: For since it is not the shew, but the sense of the word, (as Doctour Reynolds In his conference with Hart. p. 63. acknowledgeth) that must decyde Controuersies; and seing the Scripture immediatly of it selfe performeth not the same; as not hauing viuam vocem (as D. Whitaker De sacra Scripturae p. 221. confesseth) wherwith it speaketh, but by the help of certaine meanes on our part to be obserued: And seing, that the meanes are these following, to wit: the reading of the Scriptures, the Conference of places, the weighing of Circumstances of the text, their skill in tongues, their diligence, prayer, and the like; furthermore seing as these are generally acknowledged by our Sectaries So teacheth D. Rey­nolds in his Crnfe­rence p. 83. & sequen­tibus. And D. VVhita­ker Con­trou. 1. q. 3. c. [...]1. & q. 5. c. 10. to be the ordinary meanes, so are they confessed by others of our most lear­ned aduersaries, to be but humane, and most subiect to er­rour and mistaking, as appeareth euen by the example of [Page 58] many Protestants, who though vsing the former sayd meanes, haue yet most fouly erred (euen in the iudgment of their owne brethren) in the interpreting of Scripture: Therfore from hence it necessarily followeth, that all priuate interpretation of Scripture proceeding from these meanes, is most ambiguous and vncertaine. But to con­clude this poynt, I will heere set downe D. Whitakers VVhi­taker vbi supra. inference or collection in his owne words, drawne frō the former premises: thus then he argueth: Looke what the meanes (speaking of interpreting the Scripture) are, such of necessity must the interpretation be; but the meanes of interpreting obscure places of Scripture, are vncertaine, doubtfull and ambigu­ous; therefore it cannot otherwise be, but the interpretation must be vncertaine: And if vncertaine, then may it be false. Thus far the former Doctour, which shall serue for the closure of this poynt, and likewise of the first part of this Treatise.

That Protestants cannot agree, which Bookes be Scripture, and which are not. CHAP. I.

IN the former part it being proued, that the Scripture is not the Iudge of Con­trouersies, by reason of the diuers ar­guments there alledged: It now fol­loweth heere to be declared, that if for the tyme we should grant ex hypo­thesi, that the Scripture (as it is abso­lutely considered in it selfe) were this only and true iudge, yet our Aduersaries, of all sorts of Christians euer being, are most exempted from pretending it for iudge, and this for three speciall considerations.

2. First, because they do not agree among thēselues which seuerall books ordinarily contained within the printed volume of the Bible, are Scripture, and which [Page 60] are not. Secondly, in that they do not acknowledge any original copy now extant to be true and incorrupted on­ly of such bookes, as they all ioyntly receaue for Scrip­ture; as also in that they condemne all Translations of confessed Scripture (as false and erroneous) eyther into Greeke, Latin, or English. Thirdly, because the confessed and incorrupted Scripture more clearly maketh for the Catholikes, then for our Aduersaries, if we insist eyther in the perspicuity of the letter, or in the expositions of the Fathers, or in the implicite iudgments of our Aduersaries themselues. Which three poynts, being iustifyed and made good (the proofe wherof shall be the subiect of this Part) it cannot be conceaued, how they should defend (with any aduantage to themselues) the Scripture to be this Iudge.

3. And intending to begin with their dissentions in acknowledging or reiecting certaine bookes of Scripture; we are first particularly and attentiuely to obserue, that wheras all Controuersies of fayth are to be determined (as our Aduersaries hould) by the Canonicall Scripture, which is the only written word of God: And seing they are at endles stryfe one with another, which is this Scrip­ture; one acknowledging such and such bookes to be this sacred word, which another discanoneth as apocryphall and prophane: Therfore they in no sort can pretend the Scripture to be the iudge of Controuersies, as not being yet resolued amongst themselues, which those bookes be that are to be counted within the body and Canon of ho­ly Scripture; and consequently not agreed with thēselues, which is this iudge. For except this last poynt be first acknowledged on al sides, it followeth, that if a Lutheran against a Caluinist, or one Caluinist against another, do vrge a place or text of such a booke, which the one ack­nowledgeth to be Scripture, the other condemning it; the vrging of such a place can be of no force for the iud­ging of the question controuerted; since it wilbe replyed, that the Canonicall and true Scripture alone is to defyne all doubts of fayth; but that booke, out of which such [Page 61] places and texts are alledged, is no part of Gods wrytten word, and therfore is not of authority for proofe of any poynt.

4. Now that our Aduersaries cannot agree hitherto what bookes are true Scripture, and what are not, it will appeare most euidently euen out of their owne wry­tinges. And first to begin with their disagrements in opi­nion touching the bookes of the old Testamēt; in which poynt I will speake nothing of certaine parts of Daniel, & of Ester, neyther of the bookes of Toby, Iudith, of the booke of Wisedome, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees; since our Ad­uersaries with a full and ioynt consent haue thrust al these out of the Canon of the Bible (though if they be to deale with Catholikes, and will needes haue the Scripture on­ly to iudge of all questions, they ought to acknowledge al those bookes to be parcell of Scripture, which the Catho­likes do take for Scripture:) But I will restraine my selfe only to such, the which some of them do reuerence as Ca­nonicall, and others reiect as Apocryphall; from whence it followeth (as I sayd before) that, they disagreeing a­mong themselues, what bookes are parts of the holy Scripture, and consequently of their supposed iudge, can­not with any shew of reason, maintaine, that the Scrip­ture ought to determine (at least among them) al doubts of Religion whatsoeuer.

5. First then the booke of Iob, though it be acknow­ledged and receaued by most of the Caluinistes both here in England and other Countries, yet Luther In Con­uiuialibus ser. titul. de Patriar­chis & Prophetis. sayth plain­ly, that he doth not belieue all those things, which are re­ported therin. Nay he proceedeth so far, as that he is not ashamed to affirme: Ibidem titul. de li­bris veter is & noui Testam. That the argument therof is a meere fi­ction, inuented only for the setting downe of a true and liuely exam­ple of patience.

6. In like sort (or rather a more scoffing manner) he sayth Ibidem titul de lib. veteris & noui Testam., (to debase therby the authority of the wryter) that the booke intituled Ecclesiastes, seemes to him, to ryde without spurrs or bootes, only with bare stockinges, though the sayd booke is generally acknowledged by the Caluini­stes: [Page 62] With such scurrilous insolency Heresy is euer accu­stomed to vent it selfe forth, against Gods saered word and truth.

7. The booke of the Canticles, which is the true por­traiture or delineatiō of the church, or according to some, of our blessed Lady, or after others, of a perfect soule not contaminated or defyled with the pitch of mortall sin: This booke Castalio Castal. in translat. Latin. suo­rum biblio­rum. defends to containe only matter of sensuall or wanton loue; and for the same he is deeply charged and reprehended, euen by Beza Beza praefatione in Iosue. himselfe.

8. The booke of Baruch is in like manner condemned as Apocryphall by Caluin and Chemnitius, In Ex­am. 4. sess. Cōcil. Trident. though ack­nowledged for Canonicall by most of our other Aduersa­ries; which to be true, appeareth in that we do not find in their wrytinges (and the same may be sayd for the ack­nowledgment l. 3. In­stit. c. 20. §. 8. of the former bookes condemned by some others of their brethren) that it was reiected by them. And thus much concerning the parcells of the old Testa­ment. Now if we will cast our eyes vpon our Aduersa­ries behauiour towards the new Testament, we shall fynd their disagreements therin no lesse (if not greater) then they were in their approbation or condemnation of the bookes of the old Testament.

9. And first touching the Euangelistes, we read that Luther, Prae­fat. in nou. Testamen. & lib. de Scripturae & Ecclesiae authorit. c. 3. & in septicipite. c. 5. vt Co­cleus notat. as soone as became a Protestant (so instant­ly doth the forsaking of Gods holy word accompany the forsaking of his holy Church) of our foure Ghospells would at one blow cut away three; affirming that the Ghospell of S. Iohn is the only fayre and true Ghospell, and by infinite degrees to be preferred before the other three; adding withall, that the generall opinion of the being of the foure Gospells is to be abolished; potesting fur­ther, that himselfe giueth more reuerence and respect to the Epistles of Saint Paul and Peter, then to the other three Euangelistes. Wherby we may clearly see, that he condemneth the exposition of al Antiquity, interpre­ting that the foure Euangelistes were figured in the foure beasts shewed to Apoc. cap. 4. S. Iohn. Luther Prole­go. epist. ad Hebr. also reiecteth the [Page 63] Epistle to the Hebrews, affirming it, neyther to be Saint Pauls, nor any of the Apostles, since it contayneth (sayth he) certaine things contrary to the Apostolical Doctrine. With Luther in condemning this Epistle do agree Brentius, Confess. VVittem­berg. c. de sacra Scriptura. Chemnitius, Ex­am. 4 sess. Concil. Trident. and the Magdeburgenses Cent. l. [...]. c. 4. col. 55.: Yet Caluin, Instit. impressa anno 1554. c. 8. § 216. acknowledgeth it to be a true Apostolical Epistle, and condemneth the Lutheranes for reiecting of it. In like sort it is receaued by the Caluinist Ministers Confess. Pissiacens. artic. 3. for Cano­nicall in one of their publike Confessions, as also by the present Church of England.

10. The epistle of S. Iames is denyed to be Canonicall by Luther, In pro­lego. huius epist. who sayth, that it is straminea epistola, an epi­stle of straw, and vnworthy altogether an Apostolicall spirit. In like sort it is condemned by Brentius, Chemnitius, and the Magdeburgenses, as appeareth out of the places of their wri­tings alledged afore. For the disproof of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Erasmus (for the Catholikes do disclaime from him, as any of theirs) sayth of this Epistle, that it doth not tast of any Apostolicall grauity. Yet Caluin, and the Church of England acknowledge it as a parcell of Cano­nicall Scripture.

11. Doth not Anno­tat. in hanc epist. Luther, Brentius, Chemnitius, and the Centuristes in the places aboue alledged condemne in like manner the Epistle of Iude, and the second Epistle of Pe­ter? and of the second and third of Iohn, rested they not doubtfull? And Erasmus Prole­go. ad hāc epist. sayth plainly, that the second and third Epistle of Iohn are not be taken, as his Epistles, but as written by some other man. Neuertheles Caluin receaueth all the sayd Epistles, and the Caluinist ministers, as appea­reth in their foresaid Confession Con­fession. Pissiacens. art. 3.. So doth also the Church of England: Of whose acknowledgment of all the former bookes condemned by Luther, see the Bible printed anno 1595. and also the last edition.

12. To conclude, to come to the Apocalips (which Dionysius Eccles. Hierarch. cap 3. doth call arcanam & mysticam visionem dilecti dis­cipuli: The secret and misticall vision of the beloued disciple of our Lord, Luther [...]n pro­lego. huius lib. professeth openly, that he doth not ack­nowledge this booke to be eyther Propheticall or Apo­stolicall: [Page 64] Brentius Locis vbi supra. and Chemnitus subscribe to Luther therin, (whose condemnation of this Booke we do lesse maruell at, since it is not strange, if the Eagle in his high to wring flight therin, did so lessen his shape, as that he could not be discerned by their fleshly and sensuall eyes) notwithstanding Caluin Vbi supra. the Magdeburgenses, and the Church of England maintaine it to be Apostolicall, and wrytten by S. Iohn himselfe. Neyther heere can it be re­plyed, that though the Lutherans do dissent from the Caluinistes or Sacramentaries in reiecting or allowing of Scripture, yet the Sacramentaries (which are the pillars of the true reformed Churches, and with whose Doctrine the church of Englād doth principally cōspire) do ioynt­ly with one accord agree of the bookes of Scripture, & cō ­sequently that at least among them so agreing, the sayd bookes are to iudge and determine doubtes of fayth. This refuge auayleth nothing, since their assertion therein is most false. For who knoweth not (to instance only in some few) that Musculus Mus­cul. locis communi­bus c. de Iustificat. a Sacramentary reiecteth the Epistle of S. Iames, and Beza Beza. the history of the adulte­rous woman recorded in the Ghospell of S. Iohn. c. 8. In like sort Bullinger So charged by Laurētius Valla. a Sacramentary reiecteth that additiō to our Lords prayer, vz. For thine is the kingdome, the power, & the glory &c. though all these parcells be acknowledged and receaued for Scripture by other Sacramentaries.

13. And thus much may serue for our Aduersaries o­pen and great contention concerning the approuing or reiecting of seuerall bookes of both the Testaments. Frō whence it most necessarily followeth, that though it might be dreamed for the tyme (as I sayd aboue) that the Scripture might be iudge of Controuersies among them which acknowledge with one consent such and such bookes only to be Scripture (since all they agree, what bookes those be, which are to be this iudge:) Yet our Ad­uersaries wherwith we now deale, cannot possibly main­taine the same for iudge; for they disagreing with them­selues of the bookes which are Scripture, must needs dis­agree, which is this iudge, and how farre it reacheth; e­uery [Page 65] one of them either extending it beyond it limites, or straitning it within to narrow a compasse. Therfore it is no more possible, that the Scripture should decyde all Controuersies with the Protestants (so long as they con­tinue in their contrary sentēces about the authority of di­uers bookes therof) then it can be conceaued, how a suite depēding betwene two, is to be decyded by a certaine li­mited company of men (as there is a limited number of the Canonicall bookes of Scripture) or els not to be tryed at all, and yet the one of these Litigants should disclaime from diuers of the sayd deputed Iudges, as altogether im­competent and insufficient, and the other in like sort frō sundry of the other iudges. Can it be conceaued (I say) how this matter should be ended, both the parties still perseuering without change in their seuerall auersions, a­gainst the seuerall persons of the intended Iudges; especi­ally if the iudgment of the matter were not to be vnder­taken, but with this condition, that both the Litigant parties should freely and voluntarily agree aforehand in the number and in the particular persons of those iudges, by whome they would haue their question and Contro­uersy determined? And thus it iust fareth with our Prote­stants, as long as they disagree what bookes are the Ca­nonicall Scripture, and yet will they haue this Scripture alone to determine and resolue all poynts of fayth and re­ligion.

14. To this argument drawne from their vn­certainty of acknowledging what bookes are the word of God; Our Aduersaries can only reply, that though there be some particular bookes (as these aboue men­tioned) of which they are not absolutely resolued, whe­ther they are to be accounted as parcells of Gods word or no: yet since they all agree in acknowledging the rest of the bookes to be Canonicall; all those other bookes so ioyntly acknowledged by them for Scripture ought to be taken for this iudge of Controuersies. Which answere of theirs is most weake and relieues them no­thing at all, and this for seuerall reasons.

[Page 66] 15. And first, seing there are many bookes both of the old Testament and of the new (not speaking of those bookes in the old, which are ioyntly condemned by thē all, and acknowledged by Catholikes) which are impug­ned by some of our Aduersaries and defended by others: And that by all probability, yea morall certainty, some one or other of those bookes so impugned by some of thē is (though not so acknowledged) Gods sacred word; which being so, it must needes then follow, that the Pro­testants teaching the Scripture to be the iudge and square of all doubts and Controuersies, and attributing this pre­rogatiue not to any one booke a part, (since any one booke or other is not able to decyde all doubts, which may arise, in that it intreateth not of all poynts which may come in question) but to the whole body and Canon of the Scripture:) It must follow (I say) that this supposed iudge of theirs is maimed and imperfect, as wanting some one booke or other, which (being reiected by some of our Auersaries) should concurre to the [...], and full perfection or accomplishment of it selfe. And therfore I conclude, that if any such one booke of sacred Scripture be exempted frō the number of those, which should make vp this Iudge (as in all likelyhood some one or other is, since there are greater proofes for the authority of them all, then for condemnation of any one) it demonstratiuely may be inferred, that our Aduersaries cannot pretend (as long as they thus contend, which bookes be Scripture) the Scripture to be this their iudge; it being taught by our Aduersaries, that fides is not obiectum adaequatum, to any one booke or parcell of Scripture, but to the whole Canon it selfe.

16. Secondly, if only such bookes, which are ioynt­ly receaued by all our Aduersaries, are to make vp this Iudge, and no others; then would it follow, that there are diuers poynts of Fayth, which by their owne ack­nowledgment are necessary to be beleeued, and yet can­not be proued at all, or at least clearly inough, out of such parcells of Scripture, as they all acknowledge to be [Page 67] Scripture, though most euidently proued out of those parts, which are reiected by some of thē. As for exāple if the three first Gospels are to be reiected (as Luther teacheth) we shall fynd, that there are diuers poynts touching our Sauiours Incarnation (and particularly that he was borne of a Virgin) as also his life, & conuersation heereupon earth, which are to be beleeued, and are found in some of these three Gospells; and yet the Ghospell of S. Iohn (only which is acknowledged by Luther) maketh no mention of them, neyther are they at al touched in any other ack­nowledged booke of Scripture.

17. Thirdly, though it were supposed, that only those bookes of Scripture, which all our Aduersaries doe ioyntly acknowledge for Canonicall were to decyde and iudge all poynts of Fayth, yet could not those books per­forme so much, except it were first agreed among them, that there were some certaine originall copies or some translations now extant of them, which our Aduersaries would acknowledge for true and vncorrupted (since o­therwise not the true word of God, but the word of God as it is corrupted, should become the iudge of our Fayth.) But there are no Originals nor Translations of the Scrip­iure (speaking euen of those bookes which themselues do ioyntly acknowledge) that are now extant, which they do not charge with sundry corruptions and falsifications, as it shall appeare most euidently in these Chapters fol­lowing: So manifest it is, that euen those bookes only, as are acknowledged by all our Aduersaries, cannot be­come the iudge of Controuersies.

18. But before we come to the Translations, it fol­loweth, that as we haue shewed aboue, that our Aduer­saries do reiect many bookes of vndoubted and Canoni­call Scripture; and consequently, that they cannot pre­tend the Scripture as iudge: So we will in this place ob­serue the carriage and comportment of the Protestants to­wards the Euangelists and the Apostles; whom diuers of our Sectaries haue not bene affraid to charge with foule errours in manner and practise or exercise of their faith. [Page 68] And first, it is cleare, that D. Whitaker De Ec­cles. contra Bellarm. controu. 2. quaest. 4. pag. 223. thus wryteth: It is manifest, that euen after Christ his Ascension, and the holy Ghosts descending vpon the Apostles, not only the common sort, but euen the Apostles themselues erred in the vocation of the gentils &c. Yea Peter also erred concerning the abrogation of the Ceremoniall law &c. and this was a matter of fayth &c. he furthermore erred in manners, and these were great errours.

19. Answerably hereto Brentius In A­polog. Cō ­fess. c. de Concilijs. p. 900. (an eminent Pro­testant) wryteth, that S. Peter (chiefe of the Apostles) and Bar­nabas after the holy Ghost receaued, together with the Church of Hierusalem, erred. D. Fulke A­gainst the Rhemish Testam. in Galat. 2. speaking vpon the said point. sayth; Peter erred in ignorance against the Gospell. Iewill In his defence of the Apo­logy. pag. 361. af­firmeth, that S. Marke did erroneously alledge Abiather for abimelech; and S. Mathew with the like ouersight did write Ieremy for Zachary. Conradus In Theolog. Calumist. l. 2. fol. 40. Schlusselburg (a famous Pro­testant) chargeth Caluin to maintaine, that the Apostles al­ledged the Prophetes in other sense, then was meant. Zuinglius Tom. 2. Elench. cō ­tra Ana­bap. f. 10. most wonderfully abaseth the wrytings of the Apostles and the Euangelists in these words: This is your ignorance, that you thinke the Commentaries of the Euangelists, and the Epi­stles of the Apostles to haue bene then in authority, when Paul did write these thinges; as though Paul did attribute then so much to his Epistles, that whatsoeuer was contained in them, was sacred &c. which thing (he sayth) were to impute immoderate arrogan­cy to the Apostle.

20. D. Bancroft In his suruey of the preten­ded disci­pline. pag. 373. alledgeth out of Zanchius his Epist­les, that one of Caluins Schollars sayd: If Paul should come to Geneua, and preach the same houre that Caluin did, I would leaue Paul and heare Caluin. Caluin In his Cōmentar. in omnes Pauli Epi­stol. p. 510. himselfe chargeth S. Peter with errour, to the Schisme (as he sayth) of the Church, to the endangering of Christian liberty, and the ouerthrow of the grace of Christ. The Century wryters Cent. 2. l. 2. c. 10. [...]ol. 580. thus reprehend S. Paul: Paul doth turne to Iames the Apostle, and a Synod of the Presbiters being called together, he is persuaded by Iames and the rest, that for the offended Iewes he should purify himselfe in the Tēple, wherun­to Paul yieldeth, which certainly is no small sliding of so great a do­ctour. In which one testimony, we see that not only Paul, but the rest of the Apostles are charged by the Centurists [Page 69] with errour in fayth. And to close this poynt with that incestuous and reuolted monke (I meane Luther) we read, that, besides the seuerall bookes of the new Testament (as it aboue shewed) denyed by him, as also besides the reprehending of Peter, of whome he thus sayth: Peter In epist ad Galat. c. 1. after the English transl. fol. 33. & 34. & Tom. 5. VVittem­berg. of anno 1554. fol. 290. the chiefe of the Apostles, did liue and teach extra verbum Dei, be­sides the word of God: he thus inueigheth most scurrilously against Moyses himselfe: Moyses Luther. tom. 3. VVitten­berg. in psal. 45. f. 423. & tom. 3. ger­man. f. 40. & 41. & in colloq. mensalib. german. f. 152. & 153. had his lips vnpleasant, stop­ped, angry &c. do you collect all the wisedome of Moyses, and of the heathen Philosophers, and you shall find them to be before God, ey­ther Idolatry or Hypocryticall wisedome, or (if it be Politicke) the wisedome of wrath &c. Moyses had his lippes full of gaul and an­ger &c. away therfore with Moyses.

21. And thus farre of this poynt, from whence we conclude, that the Protestants in charging the Euange­listes and the Apostles with errours of fayth in their words and actions, do withall labour to take away the infalli­ble authority due to their wrytings and books (for grant they erred in the first way, how can we be secured, they erred not in the second, seing their pens had no greater priuiledge from God of not erring, then their tongues and other their actions had) and consequently they cannot al­ledge their wrytings (as being subiect to errour by neces­sary inferences drawne from their owne grounds) for the finall decyding and determining of all doubts, arysing in matters of fayth and religion.

That the Protestantes allow not the Originall He­brew of the old Testament now extant, for authenticall and vncorrupted. CHAP. II.

ALTHOVGTH our Aduersaries do giue it out in their wrytings and sermons, that the He­brew Originall, which now they haue, and as it is at this present poynted with pricks, is pure and free from all corruption, and ther­fore that we ought in any text of the old Testament to re­curre to the Hebrew, as to the touch stone of truth, and to a cleare and vntroubled fountaine: Yet that this is but a meere glosse and false vaunt of them (inuented only to quit themselues from that reading of the text, altogether fauouring the Catholike Doctrine, wherunto both the Greeke and Latin Fathers, and the whole Church of God for so many ages haue bene accustomed) it is most euidēt. For it is most certaine that in diuers places, themselues do forsake the present Hebrew, and do read, as the Septua­gint, or as the Latin Interpretour doth read, both who differ much from the present Hebrew. Some few texts for example I will heere set downe.

2. First then, that prophesy of Dauid Psal. 8. concer­ning the Apostles, the Septuagint, S. Paul, Rom. 10. and the Pro­testants themselues do read thus: In omnem terram exiuit so­nus eorum: Their sound went out through all the earth: and yet the present Hebrew hath insteed of these words: (sonus eo­rum) linea, or perpendiculum eorum, so insutable with the other words, as that it is hard to collect any good and perfect sense therof.

3. The Psalme 22. affoards a most notorious pro­phesy of the particular manner of our Sauiours death in these words: They haue peirced my handes and feet: for so the [Page 71] Septuagint, the Catholikes, and the Protestantes in their Translations doe read, and yet the present Hebrew (so much magnified by thē) hath insteed therof these words: as a Lyon my handes and my feet; frustrating thereby so re­markable a prophesy of our Sauiours particular suffring & death.

4. The Hebrew sayth in one Reg. 24. place: Zedechias his brother, meaning thereby the brother of Ioachim; and yet the English Bible translated anno 1579. readeth thus: Ze­dechias his fathers brother, according to the Greeke and La­tin translation therin.

5. Likewise in another place, Par [...] ­lip. 2. the present He­brew sayth Achaz King of Israel, and yet our Aduersaries reiect this reading, and translate Achaz King of Iuda; following therein the Septuagingts translation, and the Latin interpretour.

6. I let passe the eight verses alledged out of the psalmes Psal. 11. by S. Paul, Rom. 3. & Sepul­chrum pa­tens est guttur eo­rum. Lin­guis suis dolosè age­bant &c. and translated by the Protestāts, and yet all the sayd verses are not to be found in any He­brew text now extant, as now they lye in S. Paul. And thus much (passing ouer diuers other places) to shew, that the present Hebrew is not euen in the opinion of our Aduersaries that same pure fountaine, of which they at other tymes so much boast of, (and consequently not of that absolute truth in it selfe, as to become the iudge of Controuersies) but that the cristaline streame therof is troubled with some mud of corruption; rysing eyther frō the negligence of the Printers in regard of the great like­nes and resēblance of many Hebrew letters, which might easily occasion a mistaking of one another; or partly through the ignorance of the Rabbins, who haue added pricks, since the Hebrew first wanting pricks might be read seuerall wayes; or lastly partly from the malice of the Iewes, as being desirous to read the Hebrew, in that sēse, which might seeme least to fauour Christian religion.

That the Protestantes allow no Originall of the new Testament now extant, as vncorrupted. CAAP. III.

IN the next place heere cōmeth to be exa­mined the Greeke Original of the new Te­ment: of which eyther all, or the chiefest part was first wrytten in Greeke by the A­postles and Euangelistes: This hath bene since in diuers places so corrupted euen by the acknow­ledgment of the Protestantes, as that we cannot appeale securely therunto, as to account it (such as now it is) the pure and vncorrupted word of God. All such places to note is not needfull, therfore some few shall suffice.

2. And first we will exemplify that place of the A­postle, Rom. 12. for in the Greeke it is not [...], but [...], that is tē ­pore ser­nientes. where we read: Be feruent in the spirit seruing the Lord; for so do the Catholikes and Protestantes euen in their later editions translate; and yet in all Greeke copies it is: Be feruent in spirit seruing the tyme: Which first manner of reading, that it is the more true, appeareth out of Ori­gen, Chrysostome, Theophilact, and other Greeke Fathers, who euer read and explicated this place in their wrytings and Commentaries, as the Catholikes and Protestantes do at this present.

3. Againe the Greeke text readeth in the first to the Corinthians: 1. Cor. cap. 15. [...]. that is; Se­cundus ho­mo Domi­nus de cae­lo. The first man is of the earth, earthly: the se­cond man is the Lord from heauen; But the Latin tanslation hath, Secundus homo de caelo, caelestis, which translation euen Caluin C. 7. In­stit. §. 21. acknowledgeth, & condemneth the other, since it is cleare, that the first reading proceeded from the cor­ruption of Marcion, as Tertullian l. 5. in Marcionē. witnesseth.

4. I passe ouer the words adioyned in all Greeke co­pies to the end of our Lords prayer (since they are ack­nowledged by our Aduersaries, as part of the true Greeke) [Page 73] the words be these: For thine is the kingdome, the power, and glory &c. though it is manifest, that this sentence was ad­ded by the Grecians to the text; both because the Cre­cians in their Liturgies do recyte the sayd words, but not as continuing them with the Lords prayer: as also in that Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Ierome, and Austin (all who vnderstood the Greeke tongue) do not make any men­tion at all of the former sentence, which doubtlesly they would not haue omitted, if they had found it ioyned with the sayd prayer in any authenticall Greeke copy.

5. And thus much concerning our Aduersaries reiect­ing of the Greeke Originall in such places, where it is cer­taine, that it is erroneous. Now we will adde a place or two, wherein our Aduersaries do disclayme from the Greeke, though most pure and vncorrupted. In the ge­nealogy of our Sauiour, Beza leaueth out one descent in his translation, which we find in S. Luke cap. 3. [...] qui fuit Cainan. in all Greeke copies; speaking therof after this accustomed Lordly mā ­ner: Non dubitamus expungere, that is; we make no scruple to put it out.

In like sort, where S. Matthew giueth a prerogatiue to S. Peter, in saying, Cap. 10. it being in the Greeke [...]. The first Peter; though it be thus in al Greeke copies, yet Beza In his Annota­tions vpon the new Testa­ment, set forth anno 1556. affirmeth, that the Greeke text is here corrupted by some one, who taught that Peter was the chiefe of the Apostles: and the corruption (sayth he) consisteth in adding the Greeke word [...], to the text. Lastly to auoyde prolixity, I will end with that vn­swerable place of S. Luke: c. 22. It being, in all Greeke co­pies without exception: [...], Hic calix nouum testamen­tum in sanguine meo, qui (vz. calix) pro vobis funditur: that is, This Cup being the new Testament in my bloud, which (vz. Cup) is shed for you; This is the true translation in that the parti­ciple [...] must of necessity agree in all Greeke cō ­struction, with the Greeke substantiue, signifying the vbi su­pra. Cup, and not with the Greeke substantiue the bloud, it be­ing of a different case from it. Now Beza seing, that by the construction of the Greeke, it followeth, that the Cup [Page 74] was shed for vs (meaning therby the thing contained in the Cup) but wine was not shed for vs, but the bloud of our Sauiour: Therfore his bloud was in the Cup, when he sayd these words of consecration. Beza, vbi su­pra. (I say) fore­seing this ineuitable illation, pronounceth plainly that the Greeke text is corrupted (meaning therby all Greeke Editions, that euer were in his tyme) and the Greeke word forcing this construction, crept out of the margent into the text, so making these words meere surreptitious. And this now may suffice to shew, that the Greeke Ori­ginall is neyther so absolutely authenticall in it selfe, nor at least so acknowledged by our Aduersaries, as that all o­ther translations, or doubts rysing in points of fayth, may infallibly be tryed therby.

7. Now to reflect somewhat vpon our argument, drawne from the acknowledged corruptions of the Ori­ginalls of both the Testaments: How can our Aduersa­ries with any shew of common vnderstanding, pretend the Scriptures to be the only iudge with them, when by their owne confessions, they haue no true and authenti­call Originall of such bookes only as themselues ioyntly acknowledge for Scripture? What can our Aduersaries re­ply hereto? Will they answere that such corruptions, wherwith the Originalls are stained do happen only in such places, as are not controuersiall, (and therfore the lesse materiall) but that al those passages & texts of Scrip­ture, which do precisely touch any poynt of Chrystian religiō, are most free from all such escapes? This answere faileth seuerall wayes.

8. First, because we are bound by the Protestantes owne principles to beleeue nothing, with is not expres­sed in the Scriptures: But we read not in any place or text of them, that God will euer preserue his wrytten word, free from all corruptions in essentiall poynts of Christian fayth, and yet suffer it to be generally depraued in matters of lesser moment; Neyther can it be replyed, that God▪ sweet prouidence and care ouer his Church requireth, that the Scripture be free from all such mayne corruptions; [Page 75] This (I say) cannot satisfy vs Catholikes, who do teach, that Gods pouidence and care towards his Church doth not chiefly consist in preseruing his wrytten word, since fayth (for which end the Scripture was first wrytten) may be preserued in the Church only by externall preaching and force of tradition: and answerably hereunto we read, that the church of God in the time of Nature for the space of 2000. yeares enioyed no Scripture or writtē word at al: in like sort Irenaeus (l. 3. c. 4.) wryteth that there were some Christian countries, which belieued and liued well, only by helpe of Traditions, without any wrytten word.

9. Secondly it is false, that the sayd corruptions doe chance only in such places of indifferency, as concerne not doubts of fayth; since the contrary is manifest (to omit diuers others which might be alledged) by the two for­mer produced examples out of S. Matthew cap. 10. and S. Luke cap. 22. where we see, that the corruptions wherwith our Aduersaries do charge these two texts, do fall iust vpō the touch and point of two chiefest Cōtrouersies of this time, to wit the Supremacy of Peter, and the Reall Presence.

10. Thirdly if by our Aduersaries acknowledgment all the Originalls now extant are corrupted in places not pertaining to matters of fayth, how can we be infallibly assured, that they are not in like sort corrupted in texts of Controuersies of this tyme, or of such doubts, as hereafter may ryse? Since a certainty of an errour in one place doth imply a possibility of errour in any other place? And yet this infallibility we ought to haue for otherwise we build our fayth vpon such passages of Scripture, which we doe but thinke only to be the true and vncorrupted word of God, and consequently it is not fayth, that is builded on­ly vpon a bare morall persuasion of the Scriptures inte­grity; And if this be not so, let our Aduersaries shew some priuiledge & warrāt, which the Scritpture hath to be freed from the corruptions of one kind more then of another: If they say, that the Analogy of fayth expressed therin doth demonstrate, that it is not corrupted in any such funda­mentall places; this is ridiculous: for seing that fayth (by [Page 76] our Aduersaries grounds) riseth only out of the Scripture, and in that respect is quiddā posterius & tempore & naturâ, (as the Philosophers say) that is, later both in tyme and nature then the Scriptures, as afore is shewed; therefore it fol­loweth, that the Analogy of fayth cannot be the square or rule to measure the integrity & incorruptiō of the Scrip­tures therby, but it selfe is measured by the Scriptures, euen by their owne principles.

11. And thus much to discouer the weakenes of their first answere made to our Argument drawne from theyr acknowledged corruptions of the Originalls of both the Testaments. Or will they frame a second answere to the sayd argument saying, that though the Originalls be cor­rupted, yet there are certaine translations (allowed by them) which are most pure and agreable to the first Ori­ginalls, before they were corrupted, & by these al doubts and Controuersies of fayth and religion are to be deter­mined? This shift is more feeble then the former: first be­cause it was impossible, how the corrupted Originalls should be corrected in their translations, there not being in the Protestants iudgments in the vniuersall world any one true copy, by the which their translations might be amended, since all translations now remaining were lōg after any true Originall was to be found, the vulgar La­tin, and the 70. only excepted. Secondly this answere sa­tisfyeth not, in that there is no one translation made in Greeke, Latin, or our vulgar tongue, but our Aduersaries do tax it with errours and corruptions; Which poynt shall most euidently and particularly be made manifest in the Chapters following.

12. Thus we see how forcible and vnanswerable is our reason drawne from their confessed corruptions of their Originalls for the conuincing of this their imagina­ry iudge of Controuersies. One thing only heere is to be remembred, that where, in the former Chapters, not on­ly the Protestants, but also the Catholikes do hould th [...] present Originalls of both the Testaments for corrupted; that this assertion, though proceeding alike from them [Page 77] both, doth mightily preiudice the Protestants, but the Ca­tholikes nothing at all. Not vs, in that we acknowledge the vulgar Latin translation (which is altogether reiected by our aduersaries) to be most sincere and agreable to the true Originalls afore their corruption; And hereby we maintaine, that we haue, and enioy the true Scriptures. But the Protestants are disaduantaged by their former as­sertion, because they refuse not only all Originalls (now to be had) as impure and contaminated, but also all tran­slations, and consequently hauinge in their iudgments no true Scripture at all, they cannot prostitute the Scrip­ture for their Iudge of Controuersies.

That the Protestantes reiect the Septuagint Translations, as erroneous. CHAP. IV.

NOw followeth heere to set downe the dis­like which our Aduersaries do beare to all the Translations of the holy Scripture; And first we are to begin with the famous translation of the Septuagint, who being Hebrewes borne, translated the old Testament out of Hebrew into Greeke; This translation was so generally applauded by the auncient Fathers, Ire­naeus, Eu­seb. Clemēs Alexan­drinus, E­piphan. Chrysost. Tertull. Aug. and the rest. as that they did ioyntly prono­unce the said 70. to be guided particularly by the Holy Ghost in that their translation; And yet our Aduersaries do reiect it in many places as false and erroneous: and euen there where they cannot pretend the least suspitiō of any corruptiō. And intending to shew some few places ther­of disalowed by them (for to particularize all were ouer laboursome) I will restraine my selfe only to such texts, as do belong to some particular Controuersy of this time, (wich course I will also hould for the most part in the o­ther translations heere following:) That therby it may the more clearly appeare, how insufficient all translatiōs [Page 78] are for the decyding of Controuersies, when their presu­med corruptions are found to rest principally in the texts vrged for the confirming or disproofe of the questions cō ­trouerted at this present.

2. And first concerning that text, which toucheth our Sauiours descending into Hell, the Septuagint doe trāslate: Thou Psal. 15. [...]: aximam in inferno. shalt not leaue my soule in hell: The Protestāts do read: Thou shalt not leaue my soule in the graue, they mea­ning heere, by the word Soule, Life, or Person, teaching hereby that Christ was not at all in hell (and consequent­ly, that he did not deliuer the Patriarches from thence) but only in the graue. Now that this translation doth differ from the translation of the 70. it is most manifest, & chiefly by the signification of the two Greeke words v­sed by the 70. in this translation, to wit [...], signifying anima, the soule: and [...] Infernus, hell: a thing so cleare, that Beza, first translating this text, as the Protestants doe now read, did after through the apparant falshood therof leaue the sayd translation, and insteed therof read with the Septuagint: Thou shalt not leaue my soule in hell. I will not much dwell vpon in shewing the falshood of the Protestantes translation therin (neyther in the other texts following) my meaning only being to shew, how they taxe the 70. translation for erroneous, and consequently that they cannot pretend to examine and defyne by it all doubts arysing in fayth and religion.

3. The Septuagint do in like sort translate: I haue Psal. 118. inclined my heart to keepe thy iustifications, or commandements for reward; The Greeke words vsed by thē for the words (for reward) being [...], signifying euen by the acknowledgment of all Grecians, propter retributionem, for reward; Yet because this place (so translated by the 70.) might seeme to imply merit of workes, therfore our Ad­uersaries in regard of the Hebrewes ambiguity herein, do translate thus, I haue inclined my hart to fulfill the statutes al­wayes euen to the end, the Hebrew words signifying indif­ferently eyther for reward, or otherwise, to the end.

4. The famous place out of Daniel Dan. cap. 4. to the King, vz. [Page 79] Redeeme thy sinnes with Almes, being so truly & literally out [...]. El [...]emosy­nis redime. of the Septuagint translated; Yet our Aduersaries con­trouling them herein do translate thus: Breake of thy sinnes by righteousnes; for seing the Hebrew doth affoard both sig­nifications, they for the auoyding the Doctrine of Satis­faction, haue made choice of this other construction.

5. Againe, where the Septuagint do read: Psalm. 138. [...] ▪ Thy friends (ô God) are become exceeding honorable, their princedome is exceedingly strēgthned. Yet because this place seemes in their opinion to countenance ouermuch the blessed soules in heauen, (whose honours our Sectaries can hardly brooke) therfore they leauing the 70. translation herein, do pick out of the Hebrew another translation, reading thus in their bibles: How deare are thy Counsells (or thoughts) to me, ô God, o how great is the summe of them?

6. Now heere it is to be remembred that our Aduer­saries in these and many other places (which to auoyd te­diousnes I omit) do not condemne the present Greeke of the old Testamēt, as corrupted, & much differing frō the Greeke translation therof made by the Septuagint them­selues, (though to the scope and end of our alledging of the translations it is all one:) but they acknowledge this present Greeke translation to be that translation made by the sayd Septuagint, without any change or alteration; And yet we see, they charge it as false in such places, wher the ambiguity of the Hebrew may minister any other reading more sutable to their fayth and Doctrine. So far then are our Aduersaries of from granting that all differē ­ces of fayth and religiō ought to be decyded by the Scrip­ture of the old Testament (speaking of such poynts, only as may receaue their proofes from thence) as now we find it translated in Greeke by the Septuagint.

That the Protestantes reiect the vulgar Latin Translation. CHAP. V.

THOVGH the vulgar Translatiō of the whole Bible hath bene reuerenced aboue all other Translations, for the space of more then a thousand yeares, since the Church during so many ages vsed it only; the great respect had euer therto also appearing from the testimonies of S. Austin l. 18. Ci­uit. Dei. c. 42. & epist. 10. ad Hiero­nym., S. Gregory lib. 20. moral. c. 24., S. Isidore lib. 6. Etymol. cap. 5., and diuers other auncient Fathers: Notwithstanding our Aduersaries do altogether and ioyntly disclaime from it, because (they say) it fauours to much the Papists; And therfore we find it absolutely condemned and wrytten against by Caluin, l. ad­uers. Cōcil. Trident. Chemnitius Exam. Concil. Trident., Titelmanus Heshusius, as also generally reie­cted by our English Protestants, in so much, as I hould it but lost labour to insist in further proofe hereof.

2. Now then the Translation of S. Hierome being by them discarded, and no other ancient and authenticall translation now extant, which they allow for the defi­ning therby of matters in religion, what course will they take herein? No doubt they will follow some one tran­slation of their owne men, which they with generall cō ­sent acknowledge to be most true, sincere, and answera­ble to the meaning of the holy Ghost. Nothing lesse. For here begins the Aegiptian Isa. 19. to fight against the Aegip­tian; De sex­cētis erro­rib. Pōtific. And here is now figured out the Confusion of Baby­lon, since among so many translations of the holy Scrip­ture being made by our Aduersaries, they shall not be able to shew any one, which their owne men do not traduce as false, erroneous, and hereticall; Which thing shall e­uidently appeare in the Chapters following. Thus our Aduersaries (like lines meeting in a poynt, and then in­stantly breaking of) haue no sooner iumped together to [Page 81] condemne all former Translations, but that presētly they dissent among themselues in appruoing or reiecting their owne Translations.

That the Protestantes do condemne all the chiefe Translations of their owne brethren, as false and erroneous. CAAP. VI.

TO vndertake the setting downe of all such places, as in our Aduersaries seueral transla­tions, are charged with corruption by some of their owne brethren, were ouer labour­some, and not much needfull, and therfore in this Ocean and sea of their owne dissentions (wherin we find drowned the credit of euery particular translatiō made by any of them) I will saile by a more narrow Cut; to wit, I wil deliuer only the iudgments of theyr owne brethren passed vpon euery such translatiō of theirs (our English translations only excepted) wherupon I wil stay the longer, and inlarge my discourse more particu­larly for some peculiar reasons.

2. To begin then with Luther, who translated the holy Scripture: would all the Protestants (thinke you) rely vpon that translation? you shall therfore heare Zuin­glius lib. de Sacram. f. 412. See him also respons. ad Confess. Tuguri­norum. his Encomion and prayse both of him and his tran­slation, styling him: A foule corrupter, and horrible falsisier of Gods word, one that followed the Marcionites and Arians, that ra­zed out such places of holy writ, as were against them. Neyther is Bucer dialog, contra Melanc­thon. See Lindan. dub. 84. 96. 98. dumbe in censuring Luthers sayd translation as erroneous: Besides both which censures of him, you find (to touch only one particular) that he inserteth words of his owne into the text it selfe, as though they were writ­ten by the holy Ghost; as for example, translating that text, A man is iustified by fayth without the workes of the law: [Page 82] he inserteth in (cōtrary both to the Greeke and Latin) the words (only) to explicate, as himselfe sayth, more plainly the Apostles meaning, against the Iustification of works done in the tyme of grace.

3. The same taske of translation was vndertaken and performed by Caluin, but with what dexterity he carryed himselfe therin it appeareth (to say nothing of Illyricus cō ­demning therof) by the testimony of Carolus Tract. Testam­noui part. 11. fol. 110. Molineus, a yonger brother of his owne house, who wryteth of Caluins translations in this sort: He made the text of the ghos­pell to leape vp and downe at his pleasure, and he vsed violence to the same, and added of his owne to the very sacred letter, for drawing it to his owne purpose.

4. Oecolampadius (so truly intituled per Antiphrasin, as infecting Gods house and church with the darknes of he­resy) by the helpe of his brethren of Basil, would needes busy himselfe with the like labour: Yet was their transla­tion so distastfull to Beza In res­pons. ad defens. Ca­stalion. vi­de etiam praefat. Testam. noui anno 155 [...]., as that he chargeth them al, with great sacriledge & impiety, in corrupting of the sacred word it selfe.

5. Neither will Beza passe ouer (as vncontrolled) the translation of Castalio, tearming his proceeding with Gods word to be bold, pestilent, sacrilegious, and Ethenicall, & speaking else where Annot in act. 10. of Castalio in this poynt, he sayth, It commeth to passe, that whiles euery man will rather freely follow his owne iudgement, then be a religious interpreter of the holy ghost, he doth rather peruert many things, then translate them. Beza him­selfe translated the new Testament, but with what ap­plause his work was entertained you shall heare, for (be­sides Castalio his reciprocall testimony of condemning the same) Illyricus much impugneth it, and Molineus In t [...]ā ­slat. noui Testament. part. 64. 65. 66. plainly chargeth Beza, Quòd de facto textum mutat: that actually he changeth the very text of Gods word it self, for the patro­nizing of his Doctrine.

6. Good God, would any thinke (if their owne wri­tinges were not as yet extant to charge them therwith) that such men as these, being indeed the Antesignani, the most choice and eminent Doctours, and as it were, so ma­ny [Page 83] Oracles or Sunnes of their new Ghospell, should no sooner deuide themselues by open Apostasy from the v­nity of the Catholike Church, but that they begin to in­ueigh one against another in great acerbity and bitternes of speach, concerning their different translations? Plainly discouering by their mutuall reproualls and recrimina­tions herein, that though they all conspire to make head against the Catholike Fayth, yet do they presently ther­upon broach forth different Doctrines amōg themselues, and ech one glad to fortify their opinions by impugning all other translations, which are not made sutable to their new stamped Doctrine.

7. Wherfore a company of men falling from the bo­dy of the Catholike Church, may be well resembled to some mighty fall of earth from the body of a huge moun­taine, (and this mountaine euen by Esay himselfe figureth out Christs Church) which great clod is no sooner dispar­ted from the rest, but it crimbleth it selfe into innumera­ble small parcells. But herein we are to admire Gods pro­uidēce, who is able to vse the actiōs of the Churches ene­mies, as handmaids to the Churches preseruation; no o­therwise then the betraying of Gen. [...] ▪ 45. & 50. Ioseph by his brethren to the safety of the Israelites. For seing the diuision of he­resy is not mathematicall and infinite, but determinate & limitable, therfore euery heresy, though at it first appea­rance, it drawes mens eyes vpon it (like blazing starres, which seeme high but are low, shine no longer, then their matter endures) yet at the length consumes & wasts away by subdiuiding it selfe, and striuing to make it own part good against al others; so as it falleth out, that the Ca­tastrophe and Cōclusion of all such proceeding is this, that it may be truly pronounced: The war of Heretikes to be the peace of the Church, and their diuisions her vnion.

8. But to returne, for I had almost lost my selfe in our Aduersaries former disagrements touching their tran­slations; where we are to obserue, that though some of their translations came nearer to the vulgar Latin transla­tion then others; yet ech of them (as is sayd) mainly dis­sents [Page 84] one from another; like two faces, which bearing some resemblance to a third face, haue notwithstāding no likenes betwene themselues.

That the English Translations are corrupted, & therfore not sufficient to determine doubts in Religion. CHAP. VII.

THE Hebrew and Greeke Originalls of the ho­ly Scriptures, as also the Greeke and Latin trā ­slations of the same being examined, and found defectiue by our Aduersaries assertions, we are to descend to our English translations, and to shew that they are fraughted with many corruptions, and that our Aduersaries cannot iustify the sayd translations to be true and exact only according to the Originalls, out of which they are made; and consequently, that the sayd translatiōs cannot with any shew of iudgment or reason, be exposed for the infallible iudge of Controuersies. That these tran­slations are most corrupt and erroneous, may be proued two wayes: first from the translations themselues; Secōd­ly from the Confession of our English Protestants.

2. And concerning the translations themselues, three thinges are found in them, which may assure all men of their impurity; first the adding of diuers wordes vnto the text, which words are not to be found neyther in the He­brew nor in the Greeke Originalls, and the wordes ad­ded are of such nature, as they make only for the better mayntaining of the Protestants religion.

3. I could instance this in many textes of their trā ­slations, but one or two shalbe sufficient at this tyme: as for example in the first Chapter of the Acts, our English translations speaking of the election of Matthias the Apo­stle read thus: He was by a common consent counted with the [Page 85] eleuen Apostles, to proue out of this place, that all Ecclesi­asticall functions ought, or at least may be made by a po­pular election, which diuers reformed Churches of the Caluinists doe hold at this day: Here these former words to wit, with a common consent, are plainly added by our Aduersaries, since the Greeke word [...] heere vsed, signifie only: He was reckoned, numbred, or accoun­ted: neyther is there any other Greeke wordes in the text, which they can, or do pretend to signify any such kind of election.

4. In like sort in their Bible printed anno 1577. in the ninth of the Actes, we read thus: Paul confounded the Iewes, prouing by conferring one Scripture with another, that this is very Christ, to which text our Aduersaries did adde this sē ­tence vz. by conferring one Scripture with another, since no one word hereof is in the Greeke, which might be thus tran­slated through any mistaking or supposed ignorance: But this was done to make the ignorant reader belieue, that S. Luke sayd, that conference of Scriptures is the only meane to vnderstand them, reiecting therby all commen­taries and expositions of Fathers and Councels.

5. The second poynt, which manifesteth the cor­ruptions of our English Bibles, is taken from the confer­ring together of seuerall textes of Scripture translated in them, in which seuerall textes one and the same Greeke word (for here I speake chiefly of the new Testament) is diuersly translated. My meaning here is this, that in textes concerning poynts of fayth betweene vs and the Prote­stants, the Greeke word is translated by them in a forced or secondary sense, preiudicing our Catholike fayth; the which same word being found in other textes, which touch not any Controuersiall poynt, they are content to translate in it true, immediate, and ordinary significa­tion, since they see, that in such places they cannot disad­uantage vs at all by any false translation.

6. Two examples (insteed of many scores which I could produce) shall illustrate my meaning herein The first shalbe touching the Greeke word, [...], [Page 86] which is very notorious, for wheras it signifieth to be made worthy indeed, they translate it only, to be counted worthy, in such texts wherin is included the worth & merit of good workes, meaning therby, that we are not made worthy indeed, but only so reputed by God. Thus for example they translate in the Ghospell of S. Luke. c. 21. Watch ther­fore at all tymes, praying that you may be counted worthy to stand before the sonne of God, the same translation (to wit, to be ac­counted worthy) they giue of the former Greeke verbe in the sayd Ghospell of S. Luke c. 20. and in the second to the Thessalonians c. 1. & in diuers other places, in al which the merits of workes are signified. Now in other passa­ges of Scripture, which do not concerne merit of workes, and wherin the foresayd Greeke word [...] is vsed in the Originall, they can be content to translate it with vs Catholikes in it true and proper signification, to wit, to be worthy indeed, and not only to be counted worthy: for exam­ple (to omit other places) they thus truly translate in the tenth to the Hebrewes: O how much sorer punishment shall he be worthy of, which treadeth vnder foote the sonne of God.

7. Another example of this second kind of discoue­ring the falshood of the English translations shalbe speci­fyed touching Traditions. For the better apprehending of which sleight the reader is to cōceaue, that in the new Testament there is mention made of two sorts of Tradi­tions; the one being Iudaicall, prophane, and dissen­ting from the word of God: The other godly and such, as the Apostles themselues did leaue to the Church; both which sorts of Traditions are expressed by the Apostles and Euangelistes in one and the same Greeke word vz. [...], which (comming of the Greeke Verbe [...], in Latin Trado) signifyeth as properly Traditio, as do­mus in Latin signifieth a house. Nowhere I say our Ad­uersaries falshood intranslation doth lye, in that in their Translations they suppresse the word Tradition, in all such textes, where mention is made of godly and Apo­stolicall Traditions, vsing insteed thereof the wordes, Ordinances, or instructions; And accordingly thereto we find [Page 87] that thus they translate the first to the Corinthians c. 11. I pray you brethren, that you be mindfull of me, and as I haue deli­uered vnto you, you keepe my ordinances, being notwithstan­ding in the Greeke, [...]: You keepe my traditions. Againe in like sort thus they translate in the second to the Thessalonians: Therfore brethren stand, and hold fast the in­structions (in Greeke, [...], traditions) which you haue learned eyther by word, or by our Epistle. To be short the same translation of the sayd Greeke word they vse in the fore­said epistle to the Thessalonians c. 3. where it is spoken of Traditions in a good sense.

8. But now on the contrary side (which poynt conuinceth our Aduersaries of an vnanswerable corrup­tion and iniustifiable fraude in their Translatiōs) in those textes, where traditions are mētioned in a bad & wicked sense, they euer translate the foresaid Greeke word [...], in it true and naturall signification, to wit Traditio, Tradition. As for instance sake in Math. c. 15. Why doe you transgresse the Commaudements of God by your traditions? in which very Chapter mention is made three seueral times of Iewish & wicked, traditions, in all which textes they can be courteously content to translate the word [...] (being found in them all) with vs Catholikes, Tradi­tions, and not Ordinances, or Instructions; And though the Greeke word [...] may in a secondary and strained signification be extended sometimes to signify Ordinances or Instructions; yet the sleight & subtilty of our Aduersaries herein is this, because they would haue the ignorant rea­der to find the word Tradition in Scripture euer in a bad sense, and neuer in a good sense, therby the more to alic­nate and withdraw his mynd from the Doctrine of Tra­ditions maintained by the Catholikes.

9. A third Consideration of displaying the false translations of our English Bibles may be taken from the multiplicity of their translations made heretofore in seue­rall yeares, and yet one of them crossing another in many controuersiall poynts of fayth betweene the Protestantes and vs. Now from this contrariety in translation (and es­pecially [Page 88] in pointes of Controuersies) is necessarily euicted a falshood of their translations: for supposing one transla­tion for true, it vnauoydably followeth, that all other translations, which are made absolutely contrary to that one must needes be false and erroneous. This contrariety they vse in infinite textes of Scripture, but I will instance it for great breuity only in two. Well then, their Bibles printed anno 1562. do thus read in 2. Cor. c. 6. How a­greeth the temple of God with Images? Againe in 1. Cor. c. 10. Be not worshippers of Images, as some of them are. In like sort 1. Iohn c. 5. the same Bible thus readeth: Babes keepe your selues from Images: Al which translations being supposed as true, prohibit and forbid all religious vse and reuerence to I­mages whatsoeuer. But now in all their later translatiōs made since that tyme, in the former three places and texts insteed of the word, Images, they translate and read. I­dols: restraining the former prohibition to those Images only, which are made Idols, and worshipped insteed of God. In like sort touching Christes descēding into hel, the Bibles printed anno 1562. & 1577. do read thus: Thou shalt not leaue my soule in hell: which translatiōs proue Christs des­cending into hell contrary to the Doctrine of the present Church of England. But the later translation, to wit made in the yeare 1579. 1595. and 1600. doe read, Thou shalt not leaue my soule in the graue; vnderstanding the former text of the graue only, and not of hell.

10. Now here I say that, in regard of this multiplici­ty and variety of English translations (one mainly im­pugning & crossing another) we may most strongly con­clude, that some of these translations must needes be false: and which of them is true, an ignorant iudgment (since it hath no more reason to approue one then another) can­not well censure. And thus farre touching the three seue­rall kindes of discouering the English translations as false and corrupted, the Consideration wherof doth affoard an vnanswerable argument, that our English translations in regard of their impurity, cannot, nor ought not to be pretended as iudge for the finall determining of doctri­nall poynts in fayth and religion.

[Page 89] 11. There resteth a second way (as I said) for the grea­ter manifestation of the falshood and corruption vsed in the translation of our English Bibles, and this is taken frō the frequent Confessions of the Protestants themselues in this point, whose acknowledgmēts herin are so ful, as they take away all meanes of euading. And first answerably to this my assertion, we fynd that diuers Puritan In a treatise en­tituled, A treatise di­rected to her excel­lent Ma­iesty. mi­nisters with one consent, speaking only of the translatiō of one part of the Bible (to wit, the Psalmes) pronounce in this sharpe manner: Our translation of the psalmes compared in our booke of Common prayer, doth in addition, substraction, and alteration differ from the truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at least. But other of our Aduersaries do not rest in censu­ring only one part of the Bible, as falsly and corrupted­ly translated, but absolutely do giue the like censure of the whole. Thus we read, that the Ministers In the abridgmēt of a booke deliuered to the king by the said ministers. p. 11. & 11. of the Lin­colne Diocesse do speake of the English trāslation in this sort: A translation that taketh away from the text, that addeth to the text, and this sometymes to the chāging or obscuring of the mea­ning of the holy Ghost. They vbi su­pra. further saying of it, A translatiō which is absurd and sensles, peruerting in many places the meaning of the holy Ghost.

12. In like manner M. Burges In his Apology Sect. 6. (one of our English Protestants) speakes in this sort of our English translatiō: How shall I approue vnder my hand a translation, which hath ma­ny Omissions, many additions, which sometymes obscureth, some­tymes peruerteth the sense, being sometymes senseles, sometymes con­trary? Another of our English Carliel his booke, that Christ descended into hell. p. 116. &c. Sectaries doth in these words wound their owne translations saying: The tran­slators therof haue depraued the sense, obscured the truth, and de­ceaued the ignorant, in many places they detort the Scriptures from In his answere to M. Rey­noldes. p. 225. their right sense: and finally they show themselues to loue darknes more then light, falshood more then truth. Thus he: This mat­ter touching the corrupt translations of the Bibles in En­glish is so euident, that D. Whitaker (though willing for the credit of his Church to extenuate & lessen the depra­uations of their English translations) is forced notwithstā ­ding thus to speake of them: I haue not sayd otherwise, but that [Page 90] some things (vz. in the English translations) might be amended. Againe Parkes in his A­pology concerning Christs descending into hell. another of thē speaking of the English Bibles with the notes of Geneua thus saith: As for those Bibles it is to be wished, that either they may be purged frō those manifold errours, which are both in the text and margent, or else vtterly prohibited.

13. To conclude this poynt, and to relate the like reprehension and dislike giuen by Broughton, the great Protestant Hebritian against the English translations, who in his aduertisement to the Bishops thus wryteth: The pu­blike translation of the Scriptures in English is such, as it peruerteth the text of the old testament in 848. and it causeth millions of mil­lions to reiect the new Testament, and to runne into eternall flames. Thus Broughton. In like sort we find that at the Conferēce at Hampton Court, before the King D. Reinoldes with the rest of the ministers following his part and syde, there o­penly auouched: That they would not subscribe to the Commu­niō booke, because (sayd they) it warranted a corrupt & false trā ­slation of the Bible. So euident it is, that the English transla­tions (both in regard of the impurity of themselues (being aboue seuerall wayes discouered) as also of the like volun­tarily acknowledgments of our English Sectaries) are full of many soule deprauations and errours; and therfore are not competent and sufficient in themselues for the tryall of all doubts and questions arysing betwene the Catho­likes and Protestants, or betwene one Protestant and an­other; for how can those translations of Scripture, which are corrupt, absurd, senseles, differing from the Hebrew, and per­uerting the meaning of the holy Ghost (as we see the English translatiōs are styled and confessed to be) be a rule, square, or iudge, to measure or pronounce, what is the meaning and sense of the holy Ghost, concerning the abstruse my­steries and articles of Christiā Religiō? Thus it is brought to passe that our English Sectaries by their translating of the Bible in some places truly, but in diuers places, most corruptly & falsely, doe make the Scripture (though in it selfe most pure, diuine, and in contaminate) by this their abusing of it, to seeme like to the Statua of Nabuchodonasor, of which part was gold, part siluer, and part brasse, so cō ­sisting of more or lesse pretious matter.

[Page 91] 14. Now here it is to be obserued, that what hath heretofore bene deliured of our English translations, are chiefly to be vnderstood of such translations, whose yea­res of Editions are particularly set down, or at least which haue bene published before the death of the late Queene. Yet that the reader may see, that our Aduersaries Doctrine touching the Iudge of Controuersies, is nothing furthe­red (but rather much disaduanted) by the last translation made & set forth lately since the King cam to the crown; I haue thought good (omitting many other textes of the present Controuersies betweene the Protestants and vs, wherin for the most part they iumpe with the former cor­rupt English translations for the impugning of our Ca­tholike Fayth) to set downe the seuerall courses obserued by the translatours therof in some chiefe textes only, in the displaying wherof I will somewhat enlarge my selfe,

1 15. First then sometymes (though but seldome) the authours of the last translation are content (as conuinced with the euidency of the truth, wherby withall they ack­nowledge the former contrary translations therin to be hereticall) to translate truly and simply with vs Catho­likes without any fraudulēt marginal annotations. Thus in the Acts c. 1. touching the Election of Matthias, they leaue out the words: By common consent, fraudulently in­serted in some of the more auncient English translations, In like sort Acts 9. where it is sayd, that Paul confounded the Iewes, in proofe of the Messias already then come, they leaue out these wordes: by conferring one Scripture with another, added herefore to the text in some of the former translations. So againe Rom. 8. touching the certainty or vncertainty of our saluation, they translate the Greeke verbe [...], I am persuaded, and not, I am assured, or I am certaine. The like course (I meane to translate as we Catholikes doe) they are content to take in some other few textes, where eyther they can haue no colour of truth to translate other­wise, or else where by their true translating, they thinke they do not much endanger, in an ignorāt eare, their new Doctrine therby.

[Page 92] 2 16. Secondly, when the translatours thinke, that by their true trāslating, they might greatly preiudice their Caluinian Doctrine, they are not ashamed (leauing the true Catholike translation) to translate according to the former hereticall translations. Thus we fynd (for instance sake) Hebrews c. 13. they adde the word: is, for the ad­uantage of Priests mariage, though in the sayd transla­tion, both the textes going before and comming after (wherin one and the sayd verbe is vnderstood) are trāsla­ted by them in the Imperatiue mood. Againe Cor. 2. c. 5. they falsly trāslate these two wordes: Iustitia Dei, the righte­ousnes of God, which is in him, therby to intimate to the igno­rant reader, that not inherent righteousnes is in man. In like sort Col. c. 1. they translate (according to their for­mer brethren) the Greeke adiectiue [...], meete, and not worthy, (as euery yong Grecian knoweth the signification to be) therby to eneruate the Doctrine of the merit of workes. With the like fraud and intention they trāslate Luke 21. and 2. Thessal. c. 1. the Greeke verbe [...], to be accounted worthy, which word signifieth to be worthy indeed. Finally Genes. 4. they translate (touching Cain and Abel) his desire, insteed of it desire, & thou shalt rule ouer him, in place of ouer it, therby to take away free will in man.

3 17. Thirdly, where they translate falsly, that they may the better answere for such their translations being expostulated therof, they are sometymes content in ano­ther place to translate the sayd words truly, though both the seuerall textes (so contrarily translated) do alike and indifferently concerne the Doctrine to be proued or dis­proued therby. Thus (that one instance may serue for ma­ny) we find, that where our Sauiour sayd to the persons which he cured of their corporal infirmities: Thy fayth hath made thee whole, they in like manner so translate with vs, in Luke 8. and Marke 5. Yet Luke 18. where the same Greeke word is, to wit, [...], and vsed vpon the same occasion they translate (in fauour of iustification by fayth only) Thy fayth hath saued thee, and not, hath made thee whole. This they do (as is to be presumed) that if they be charged with false [Page 93] translating of some textes, that they may reply, that such textes are not purposely and determinatly so translated against the truth, seing in other textes and places they trā ­slate the sayd words (and vsed vpon the like occasion) as we doe: So subtile is Heresy for the more cautelous pa­tronizing of her selfe. And yet they must needes grant, that if they translate one place truly, the other (seing the intention of the holy Ghost in the Scripture, notwith­standing the seuerall significations of words, is not capa­ble of contrary and repugnant senses) must needes be trā ­slated by them falsly.

4 18. Fourthly, where they translate diuers of the former textes falsly and corruptly, yet that they may in some sort (not much vnlike to the former manner) plaster the matter, they are content to set downe the true tran­slation also in the margent. Thus 1. Cor. 9. they tran­slate the Apostles words in defence of Priests mariage: Haue we not power to lead about a sister a wife? And then in the margent in lieu of the word Wife, they set downe the word Woman, as we read. So againe 1. Cor. 11. where they falsly translate the Greeke word [...] (there taken in a good sense) Ordinances, they annex in the mar­gent (the better to salue their credit, being expostulated therof) these words, or Traditions.

5 19. Fiftly, and lastly (more contrary to this former course) when they are forced euen for very shame to tran­slate truly with vs, yet for feare (as it should seeme) that the reader should giue ouer much credit therto, they adde in the margent another hereticall translation agreable to some former corrupt translation (and consequently to the vpholding of some one hereticall poynt or other) that so by this meanes, the reader may take that, which best sor­teth to his humour. Thus agreably hereto (to specify this in one or two instances) where they translate truly that text in Iohn 1. He gaue them power to be made the sons of God, implying herein a liberty of will, they thus paraphrase the margent, He gaue them right or priuiledge &c Which se­cond translation is nothing so forcible for the proofe of [Page 94] free will, as the first is. After the same manner in Math. 26. touching Christes Consecration of bread and wine, they truly translate the Greeke word [...]: when he had blessed: Yet for feare, that the reader should ascribe ouer much vertue to this significant words of the Euangelist, they thus wryte in the margent: Many Greeke Copies, haue Gauethankes.

20. And thus farre now for some tast of our new translatours seuerall sleights and collusions in these few textes, the which sleights (though for breuity omitted) might be instanced in many other passages of Scripture concerning the Controuersies of this tyme, from al which we may iustly inferre, first, that seing this their last tran­slation (so much prized and applauded) is found most cor­rupt and deceitfull, and indeed for the most part (as thē ­selues confesse in their epistle dedicatory) more agreing with some one or other former false English translation in poynts of Controuersies, then with the Catholike trā ­slation: that therfore it cannot with any shew of reason be vrged as Iudge, for the decyding of doubts in religion. Secondly, we may from hence also collect, that al these different subtile comportments of our Aduersaries in this their new translation tend but to delude their ignorant followers, obtruding to them by this meanes a false con­struction of Gods written word for the true sense therof. And so by these deuises and collusions we see the inten­ded sense of the holy Ghost in the Scripture is concealed from the Protestant by the Protestant, like as the Sunne is hid from the earth, by the earth.

21. But to proceed a litle further touching this last translation: first how can our translations therof assure any man of the truth of their translation, since they ack­nowledge no Originall, or any translation of the Bible (out of which they did make their translation) for pure & vncorrupt? Secondly, admit for the tyme, that this tran­slation is perfect according to the true Originalls; yet se­ing it differeth in diuers controuersiall textes and passa­ges from all former English translations, it therfore from [Page 95] hence followeth, that till now we here in England ne­uer enioyed the true and vncorrupted Scripture in En­glish, and consequently that till these dayes the Scripture in English could not be iustly vrged to determine and iudge Controuersies in fayth: But a true and perfect iudge is ready, not at one tyme only, but at all tymes & seasons to performe the function of true Iudicature.

That supposing the Scripture as Iudge; yet the Letter therof is more cleare and perspicu­ous for the Catholikes, then for the Protestantes CHAP. VIII.

NOW after we haue proued the incompeten­cy of the Scriptures for resoluing all doubts of fayth, and this from the disagrements of our Aduersaries eyther in approuing or dis­canoning such, or such parcells of the Bible, as also from the confessed corruptions and falsifications, as well of the Originalls as translations euen of those books, which are ioyntly acknowledged by them for Gods vn­doubted word: for as they do grant that others corrupted the fountaines, so it is most euident, that (among others) themselues haue impoysoned the streames: It wil much cōduce to our designed proiect, if we cōtinue our dreame for the tyme with our Aduersaries, that the Scripture is so­lely and finally to decyde all Controuersies; since suppo­sing this principle as true, we shall notwithstanding be able to proue, that the passages of Scripture euen of such parts, as are confessed by our Aduersaries to be authenti­call and vncorrupted, which the Catholikes do alledge in defence of their faith, are more cleare and perspicuous for the proofe of their Doctrine, then any counter textes are, which our Aduersaries do produce out of the sayd [Page 96] Scripture, to impugne the same, in regard of which diffe­rence a Catholike may commiserate a Protestant in the phrase of Tertullian to Marcion: Misereor tui, Christus enim Iesu in Euangelio tuo, meus est. The reason hereof is double; first, because the Catholikes do ordinarily insist in the li­terall and immediate sense of the wordes, which sense is euer more naturall and obuious, then any figuratiue ac­ception of them can be; wheras our Aduersaries in answer therto, as also in alledging other textes, are forced to interprete the sayd places eyther figuratiuely, or at least, not in that vsual & immediate sense, which the words do import: Which māner of literally expounding the Scrip­ture, is warranted by the authority of all learned diuines, who do ioyntly teach, that we neuer ought to depart frō the proper sēse of words, except we be driuē therto, either by some other manifest place of Scripture, or by some vndoubled article of our fayth, impugning the literal sēse thereof, or lastly by the vsuall explication of the whole Church.

2. The second reason of the greater perspicuity in our proofes, then in those of our Aduersaries is this, in that most of the textes of Scripture (for I do not say all) which we alledge, do fall directly, and (as it were) in a straight lyne vpon the question controuerted, so as after the sense and meaning of the wordes is once acknowledged, they irrefragably and directly proue that, for which they were vrged; wheras our Aduersaries testimonies do not (for the most part) touch immediatly, and (as I may tearme it) pri­mariously the poynt in question, but only by way of a secondary collection or illatiō; which illations being of­ten inconsequent, and at the most but probable, and not necessary, it followeth that though we should grant to them their owne expositions of such textes; yet do they but proue the thing questioned by a second hād, I meane, only by probable and coniecturall inferences. And this oftentymes, after their illation is granted, doth not light vpon the hart of the question it selfe, but only vpon the flanck or skirtes of the same, I meane, vpon the manner, [Page 97] or some other circumstance therof which being not de­fined, may be holden seuerall wayes as probable by the Catholikes. But now for iustifying, what I haue here set downe, let vs looke into some chiefe texts vrged by vs and our Aduersaries concerning some principall Cō ­trouersies (for to go through all, were ouer laboursome) where I doubt not but we shall fynd in ech of them, at least one, or the two former disparities, betwene vs and our Aduersaries in alledging the same.

3 3. And first touching Peters Primacy, the Catholikes do alledge in proofe therof those words of Christ to him out of S. Matthew cap. 16.: Thou art Peter, and vpon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it, And I will giue to thee the keyes of heauen &c. Which wordes being taken literally and plainly (as the Catholikes doe expound them) do directly proue this Controuersy, se­ing they fall perpendicularly vpon the conclusion of the question it selfe; for to say, that Peter is the rock of the Church, is al one in sense, as to say the head of the Church; And ther­fore our Aduersaries to auoyde this pressing authority, are forced to answere that by the word Rock, is vnderstood fi­guratiuely Christ according to Caluin lib. 4. Instit. c. 6. §. 6., or euery one of the faithfull with Erasmus Erasm. in hunc locum., or the confession of our Fayth with Luther lib. do Potestate Papae.. So distracted they are among themselues in answearing therto.

4. But let vs view what places our Aduersaries do alledge to countermand Peters supreme authority. First because our Sauiour sayd to Peter (as it is recorded in the sayd Chapter of S. Matthew:) Go after me Satan, thou art a scandall vnto me &c. As also in that S. Paul Galat. cap. 2. sayth of him­selfe, that he resisted Peter in the face. Neyther which places (we see) do directly touch Peters authority, but only by way of weake inferences, and such as are not as much as probable, seing that Peter was not then the head of the Church, when those words were sayd to him by Christ: and concerning this other, we grant that the inferiour may and ought to withstand his superiour, for the truths sake, so that he doth it with due respect and regard.

[Page 98] 5. To conuince that Paradox, that the Pope is An­tichrist, the Catholikes doe vrge the continuance of An­tichrists reigne set down in the Scripture diuersly, both by yeares Apoe. 12., monethes Ibidem. c. 11. & 13., and dayes Ibidem. c. 11.; all which seuerall de­scriptions thereof, being taken literally (as they expound them) do precisely make vp three yeares and a halfe, and consequently cannot be applyed to the Pope. And ther­fore our Aduersaries in answere to the sayd places are glad to say, that in all those textes an vncertaine tyme is figu­ratiuely to be vnderstood, though it be expressed diuers­ly by one and the same continuance of tyme. To proue, that the Pope is Antichrist, they commonly vrge that of the Apocalyps cap. 17., where it is sayd, that the whore of Baby­lon doth sit vpon that Citty which hath seauen hils, mea­ning Rome. Which wordes do not directly touch Anti­christ, but only by their supposed inference, that by the whore of Babylon is meant Antichrist: which they are ne­uer able to proue, since therby is vnderstood Rome in the tyme of the heathen Emperours, who then worshiped Idols, and was drunke with the bloud of Gods Saintes. In confirmation of the Reall Presence, we vrge the sen­tence of our Sauiour, recorded by all the Euangelistes, to wit, This is my body &c. Which text being literally taken, doth containe expresly the very conclusion maintayned by vs, not by circuitions, or ambages, but directly, plain­ly, & immediatly. So as it cannot be conceaued, how our Sauiour could speake more perspicuously in this poynt.

6. Now against the Reall presence our Sacramen­taries do chiefly obiect that saying of Christ Ioan. 6.: It is the spirit, which quickneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. Which wordes do not fall directly vpon the question of Christ his Reall Presence in the Sacrament; Neyther is so much as Christ his flesh vnderstood hereby, as they would seeme to inferre (since then it would follow, that his Incarnation and death auayled vs nothing) but only the carnall conceite of the Iewes is cheked hereby, who thought that Christ would deliuer his body to be eaten fleshly, corporally, and carnally, as other common meates are eaten.

[Page 99] 7. To the same end, they o [...]ct those words of Christ: Do this in remembrance of me: which place by no necessary or probable illation can include the true absence of himselfe (which is the poynt in question) since they haue a referēce only to a circumstance of himselfe, to wit of his death & passion (which as being past, is absent) in remembrance wherof, he commandeth vs in the former wordes to re­ceaue his sacred body and bloud in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, conformably to that speach of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11.: mortem Domini annunciabitis do nec veniat: You shall shew the death of our Lord, vntill he come▪ the Apostle so interpreting Christs former words.

8. To proue that Priests in the Sacrament of Pen­nance, (where by putting God in remembrance of our sinnes, he soonest forgetteth them, and in acknowled­ging our selues to be sinners, we cease to be sinners:) haue power to remit or retaine sinnes, we alledge the playne wordes of our Sauiour to them, Math. 18. whatsoeuer you shall loose vpon earth, shalbe loosed in heauen, as also those words re­corded by S. Iohn 20.: Whose sins you forgine they are forgiuen them, and whose sinnes you retaine, they are retained. Both which places, in plaine, direct, & immediate construction containe in themselues the very touch and poynt of this controuersy without any inference or circuition at all; since they giue a direct and streight proofe of the conclu­sion it selfe, to wit, that Priestes haue power to remit or retaine sinnes. For denyall of Priests authority in remit­ting or retayning of sinnes, our Sectaties are accustomed to produce that text of the Psalmist Psalm. 50.: Tibi soli peccauimus, we haue sinned only against thee; inferring herby, that because we sinne only against God, therfore only God can remit sinne: which inference if it were true, then should it by the same reason, take away the vertue of Baptisme for re­mitting of Originall sin. They likewise obiect certaine places of Psalm. 18. & 37. Scripture, which shew, that we are not able to number all our sinnes, and consequently not able to confesse them to the Priest; which illatiō is most weake, since it maketh as must against the Confession of ous sins [Page 100] to God, as to the Priest.

9. For confirming the Doctrine of Freewil, the Ca­tholikes do alledge (among other authorities) these fol­lowing. In arbitrio Num. 30. viri erit, siue faciat, siue non faciat: that is, It is in the choice or will of a man whether he will do or not doe: As also, Optio Iosue 24. vobis datur, eligite hodie quod vobis places; Choice is giuen to you, chuse that to day which pleaseth you. And againe: Quoties Math. 23. volui congregare &c. How often would I gather togeather thy children, as the hen gathereth her chickens, and thou wouldst not? All which places directly and flatly teach, that we haue frewill to do, and not to do. Now our Aduer­saries for denyall of this Doctrine are accustomed to al­ledge chiefly such places, where it is sayd, that all things are done according to the will and counsell of God; As for example that of Christ (as if the eternall Word of the Father came downe to destroy that former wrytten word of God) Vnus passer Math. 9. &c. Not one sparrow shall fall vpon the ground without your Fathers will. And againe, Qui Ephes. 8. operatur omnia &c. Who worketh all thinges according to the Counsell of his will. Both which texts (besides diuers others of the same nature) conclude nothing, except first they be able to proue, that the Will, Counsell, and Foreknowledge of God cannot stand with mans freewill. The contrary wherof is most cleare; as appeareth by the example of A­dam, who by our Aduersaries Caluin. 1. l. Instit. c. 15. §. 8. Luther in comment. in Gen. acknowledgment had freewill to stand or fall, and yet his fall was neyther mee­rely contrary to Gods will, since he permitted the same, nor to his foreknowledge and prouidence, since he fore­seeth all things.

10. Concerning Iustification by works, the Catho­likes Conclusion and Position is found literally, and euē in those words, wherin they vsually expresse this theyr Doctrine; since we read in S. c. 2. Iames: That, ex operibus iu­stificatur homo &c. A man is iustifyed by workes, and not by fayth only. In like sort, where our Aduersaries doe obiect any place against vs, the very distinction sometymes (such is their scarsity and dearth of pertinent texts) which the Catholikes do vse to auoyde their argument, is literally & [Page 101] expresly set downe in the words of those texts: Thus we fynd; that they vrge to this end, those words of the Apo­stle: Arbitramur Rom. 3. hominem &c. we account a man to be iusti­fied by fayth without the workes of the law, as also that other vz. Scientes Galat. 2. &c. Knowing, that man is not iustifyed by the works of the law: In both which places, the very answere is expres­sed, which the Catholikes are accustomed to make to such arguments; since in the sayd testimonies it is set down (& so we Catholikes do teach) that the works of the law of Moyses (and consequently all others done meerely by na­ture and freewill, without the fayth, spirit and grace of Christ) can in no sort iustify a man; vpon which expresse distinction of works in the Scripture it selfe, it followeth, that all other places, which through a naked resemblance of words may seeme to make more literally for the Pro­testants in this poynt, then these alledged, are to be ex­pounded by these former texts, since the holy Ghost cā ­not set downe contrary and repugnant Doctrines.

11. For defence of Traditions, we vsually alledge that place of the Thessalonians 2. c. 2.: Brethren hold the traditions, which you haue receaued, whether it be by word, or by Epistle. Wher we see that the Apostles words do immediatly and ne­cessarily (without any helpe of strained consequences) imply a diuision, or partition of his Doctrine, which (no doubt) was Gods word. And that part therof was deliue­red to the Thessalonians, by his Epistle, the rest by word of mouth only: Which Text containes the very conclu­sion of the Catholikes Doctrine, to wit, that the Euan­gelists and Apostles did not wryte all things touching Christian fayth, but deliuered part therof only by preach­ing or by some other such like instruction. Now our Ad­uersaries (to confront this text, and the Doctrine deriued thence) are acccustomed to obiect the words of S. Paul Galat. 1.: Sed licet nos &c. But if we, or an Angell from heauen euangelize to you, besides that we haue euangelized, be he anathema: In which words they suppose two things (and both false) before they can square this text to their purpose.

12. First, that the word, Euangelizare, doth include [Page 102] only the wrytten word, and not verbum traditum, the word left by Tradition, which is implicitly the matter in question, and as the Sophisters call it, Petitio principij. Se­condly, that the Latin word (praeter) being in this text, hath reference to euery thing, which is not expresly set down in Scripture, since indeed it here signifieth as much as contra: meaning therby all Doctrine contrary to the Doctrine already deliuered by the Apostles: for other­wise S. Iohn should haue had the Anathema pronounced a­gainst him, for wryting of the Apocalips, after this Epistle of S. Paul was wrytten: So farre distant is this text from falling directly and plainly vpon the impugning of Tra­ditions, since from such false supposalls as granted, they draw their Illation against the Catholike Doctrine ther­of.

13. In like sort they alledge that saying of the Apo­stle to Timothy: All Scripture 2. c. 3. inspired of God is profitable to teach, to argue, to correct, to instructe in iustice, tha [...] the man of God may be perfect, instructed to euery good worke. Where we see, that this text (as well as the former) is so farre frō pres­sing the Doctrine of Traditions immediatly, and without any helpe of a secondary inference, as that it doth not so much as once make mention of Traditions at all either in word or sense; neyther can any thing be racked against vs from thence, vntill it be first proued (which neuer shalbe) that the word vtilis, signifyeth sufficient; and be­cause a thing is profitable and conduceth to another thing or end, it therfore is sufficient alone of it selfe, for the ob­tayning therof.

14. Lastly, they bring forth certaine places Math. 15. Galat. 1. Coloss. 2. which do particularly condemne certayne pernicious and friuo­lous Traditions of the Iewes, and the Traditions, which the Catholikes do teach to haue bene deriued from our Sauiour and his Apostles be all one: So impertinently do our Aduersaries alledge these and such like places a­gainst our Doctrine of Traditions.

15. Concerning prayer for the dead, what can be more cleare & perspicuous for proofe therof then those words [Page 103] alledged out of the Machabees 2. c. 1. (a testimony so euident, as that I cannot forbeare it, though it impugne my former method:) Sancta ergo & salubris est cogitatio &c. It is therfore a holy and heathfull cogitation to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sinnes. Which place we see, doth literally & expresly contayne the very conclusion of the Catholike Doctrine therin, and which words proceeded vpon the practise of Iudas Machabeus, who sent a summe of money vnto Ierusalem to procure sacrifices to be performed for the spirituall reliefe and ease of his dead souldiers. I know that our Sectaries do expunge out of the Canon of Scrip­ture this booke as Apocryphall, yet they are to remem­ber, that it is reckoned among other diuine and vndoub­ted bookes of Scripture by the third Councell of Carthage Can. 47. by Innocentius Epist. ad Exupe­rium. the first, and by S. Austin himselfe, who thus l 18. de Ciuit. Dei c. 36. sayth: Libros Machabeorum &c. The bookes of the Machabees are acknowledged by the Christians, for Canonicall, not by the Iewes.

16. Now the chiefest places, which our Aduersaries do obiect herein, are (among others) such as being intended of the generall resurrection of the Iust, are calumniously wrested by them, to the particular tyme of ech vertuous mans death. Thus they alledge that sayng of the Psalmist: Psalm. 126. Cùm dederit dilectis suis somnum, ecce haereditas Domini, as also that place of the Apocalips 14.: Beatiqui in Domino mo­riuntur &c. Blessed are they which dye in the Lord, from hence­forth now sayth the spirit, that they rest from their labours, for their workes follow them▪ And as concerning this later place Saint Iohn throughout his whole Chapter speaketh of the later iudgment, and therfore, except the Protestants do first cō ­found the particular tymes of mens deaths with the tyme of the general iudgment, they can draw nothing from hence in denyall of purgatory; adde to this, that some of the Fathers (as shalbe shewed hereafter) do interpret this text of martyrs only, who neuer suffer any paynes in Purgatorie.

17. They also produce to the same end the place in Ecclesiastes [...]1. Si occiderit lignum ad Austrum &c. If the tree [Page 104] shall fall towardes the Souht, or towardes the North, it shalbe in that place, where it did fall. The meaning of which passage being deliuered in Metaphors or Allegories, doth the more hardly conuince any thing, since the sense in regard therof appeares the more doubtfull: Notwithstanding the common exposition of this place is, that euery man eyther dyes in state of grace (vnder which state, are also vnderstood those, which come to Purgatory) and so fal­leth towards the South, wherby is meant Heauen: or in the state of mortall sinne, and then falleth towards the North, to wit, into hell. And whosoeuer dyeth in eyther of these states, shal for euer remaine in the same. And thus we see how farre of, the texts obiected by our Aduersaries are from conuincing plainly, literally, and without any strained deductions, the Doctrine of Purgatory or Prayer for the dead.

18. Lastly to omit the like examples of diuers other Controuersies, the Catholikes do produce for proofe of Euangelicall Counsells, that plaine saying of our Saui­our Math. 19.: Sunt Eunuchi &c. There are Eunuchs, who haue gel­ded themselues for the kingdome of heauen. Which words con­tayning no precept, are so cleare and direct in proofe of those Counsells, as that our Aduersaries Peter Martyr l. de caelib. & votis. (therby to a­uoyd the force of them) are constrained to say, that by the words: For the kingdome of heauen, is figuratiuely meant for the more speady preaching of the Ghospell. So ridiculous & far fetcht is this their answere.

19. As cleare also are those other wordes of Christ spoken to the yong man for confirmation of the said Do­ctrine, being taken literally & plainly vz. Si Math. 19. vis perfe­ctus esse &c. If thou wilt be perfect, Go and sell all, and follow me. and thou shalt haue a treasure in heauen. Which text (as also the former) doth immediatly and primatiuely without any secondary deductions, touch and proue the Doctrine it selfe of Euangelicall Counsells.

20. Now against the sayd Doctrine, they vsually obiect diuers passages Math- 22. Marc. 12. Luc. 10. of Scripture, where we are cō ­manded to loue God with all our soule, and withal our [Page 105] strength, where we fynd, that what is collected is by this supposition, to wit, that the phrases, Toto corde, & tota a­nima, do signify all our endeauour possibly in the highest degree: which being false, they heerupon infer, that there is no­thing, which is good, left vncommanded to be done, & then they conclude there is no place for Euāgelical Coū ­sells, which are distinguished against precepts: Now what toto corde, & tota anima, or totis viribus, do signify, shall ap­peare in the Chapter following.

21. To the same purpose they detort those words of our Sauiour Luc. 17.: Cùm feceritis haec omina &c. When you haue done all these thinges which are commanded you, say, we are vn­profitable seruants, we haue done that which we ought to doe. Which place, (as it is manifest) in it immediate sense doth not touch the Doctrine of Euangelicall Counsells; besy­des the very words themselues do expresly shew, that it cannot be applyed to our Aduersaries sense and meaning; since our Sauiour speaketh precisely of those things, which are commanded to be done; where the Catholikes doe teach, that nothing which is particularly commanded in Gods word, is an Euangelicall Counsell.

22. Now, by these few example, set down of the places alledged out of Gods holy word both by the Catholikes and Protestants, we may make a coniecture of the rest, wherin (as I sayd before) we see the great disparity be­twene the seuerall kinds of those texts. Seing that if we grant the literall, ordinary, facill, and most naturall sense, of the testimonies vrged by Catholikes, we necessarily grant the conclusion it selfe of that Doctrine, for which they are vrged; since they do touch immediatly without any ambages, or borrowed supposalls, the primary and radicall poynt or question controuerted betwene vs and the Protestants: wheras our Aduersaries testimonies out of the sayd Scriptures, though they were granted them in their own sense & cōstructiō, yet they presently force not the proofes of their assertions: and the reason her of is, be­cause they fall not directly vpon the question it selfe, but only by meanes of their supposed inferences and dedu­ctions, [Page 106] and then sometimes they but concerne the māner, or some other circumstance therof, which (being only ac­cessory and subsequēt) euen among Catholike Deuines is holden indifferent and disputable.

23. Thus we see, that these men, though they be much verbally conuersant with the Scripture, yet for any conuincing proofes deduced by them from thence, they are most needy therin; not much vnlike vnto those, who haue the stamping or coyning of siluer and gold, who, though great store therof come through their handes, yet commonly are poore, as hauing no true interest in any part of the same.

That the textes of Scripture are expounded by the Fathers in the same sense, in the which they are alledged by Catholikes, for proofe of their Doctrine and fayth. CHAP. IX.

IT being made cleare in the precedent chap­ter, that the texts of holy Scripture alledged by the Catholiks for proofe of their faith are more literall & perspicuous, as also do touch more directly and punctually the doubts for which they are vrged, then any cōtrary passages or places therof obiected by our Aduersaries: It now remaineth, that we shew two things, first that the ancient Fathers haue in their wrytings and commētaries euer interpreted the sayd former texts, and others of like nature vrged by vs, euen in the same sense and meaning, which we do for the iustifying of our Catholike Doctrine. Secondly that they haue deliuered a different construction from our Ad­uersaries of those principall texts, which they now pro­duce against vs; so as, according to the Fathers exposi­tions of the sayd places (which agree with the Catholikes [Page 107] construction therof) they do nothing at all impugne our Religion. Both which poynts being once made good, do mightily preiudice our Sectaries. For what probability (I might say possibility) can there be conceaued to the con­trary, but that the Fathers did interprete both the sayd sorts of texts (I meane of such as are produced eyther by vs or our Aduersaries) according to the intendment of the holy Ghost, or at least were much aduantaged aboue the Nouellistes of these dayes for the true construction ther­of? When we consider, that they were men of admirable vertue and piety, of great and extraordinary learning, such as were not interessed our in Cōtrouersies, as neither hauing then enemies to crosse their present Doctrine (ex­cept it were some one or other confessed Heretike) nor yet knowing what doubts in fayth might aryse in after ages; but especially, when we call to mynd the tymes wherin they liued, to with euen then, when by our Ad­uersaries confessions, the Church of God (of which they were the graue and reuerend Pastours and Doctours) had in no one poynt departed from the Doctrine deliuered by our Sauiour, and his Apostles. So litle reason we find, hath our Nouellist to make his sole refuge, to Gods sacred word, were it not therby to auoyde the ordinary and v­suall tryall drawne from all other proofes or testimonies whatsoeuer, and finally to make himselfe sole iudge of the sayd word.

2. But to begin with some chiefest of those testi­monies of Scripture, which the Catholikes are accusto­med to alledge, (reseruing the textes obiected by our Ad­uersaries to the next Chapter) where I intend to restraine my selfe only to some few texts of euery maine Contro­uersy; both because to examine al the places of euery Cō ­trouersy, according to the exposition of Fathers giuen therof, would not be answerable to my designed bre­uity, as also, in that by the examples heere set down, it wilbe easy to make a true coniecture of their interpreta­tion of the rest; for since they did not contradict them­selues in their owne fayth & Doctrine, it cannot be ima­gined, [Page 108] that they did contradict themselues in the exposi­tion of such texts, as conduced to the maintayning and iustifying of their fayth and Doctrine.

1 3. And first concerning S. Peters Primacy, that place of S. Matthew c. 16., vz. Thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke I will build my Church &c. is interpreted ioyntly by the Fathers, that Christ euen in those words did promise to him that supreme authority ouer his Church, which the Catholiks do teach that after he receaued, and which the Bishop of Rome at this day inioyeth. This text I say, is thus expoū ­ded by Origen Hom. 5. in Exod. Athan. ep. ad faelicem, Basil l. 2. in Eunom., Chrysostome Hom. 55. in Math. vi­de Cyril l. 2. c. 12. in Ioan., Tertullian lib. de Praescript., Cyprian Ep ad Quintum., Ierome In c. 16. Math., Austin In psal. cōtra par. tē Donati., and others, all whose direct words were ouer laboursome to set downe, and therfore it shalbe sufficient to referre the Reader only to the places, where thus they wryte.

4. In like sort that place of cap. 11. Iohn: feede my sheepe, is expounded by the Fathers in the same sense, as we doe expound it, who in their wrytings doe plainly teach, that Christ euē in these words did institute Peter the head ouer his Church, giuing him that authority which in the aboue alledged place of Matthew he had only promised: Chrysostome sayth vpon this place: Alijs omissis Petrum dum­taxat affatur, fratrum ei curam committit: that is, The rest of the Apostles being omitted, our Lord doth in this place speake only to Peter, to whome he committeth the charge of his brethren. Am­brose In cap. vlt. Luc. expounding the same words, sayth of Peter: Quia solus profitetur ex omnibus, omnibus antefertur: Because Peter a­loue of all the rest, did only professe Christ, (meaning at that tyme, when Christ did aske his Apostles who he was) therfore he is preferred before them all. Gregory 4. epist. 32 teaching that the care of the Church was deliuered to Peter, sheweth the reasō therof, in these words: Ipsi quippe dicitur, pasceoues meas, that is, because to Peter it was sayd, feed my sheepe: See also the cleare and pregnant expositions of the former words in Epiphan. In anchorat., Leo Serm. de Assump. ad Pontif., Theophilact In cap. vls. Ioan. &c.

2 5. The Catholikes to proue, that Antichrist is to reigne but three yeares and a halfe, do vrge diuers places of the Scripture, where his continuance is described by [Page 109] yeares Apoc. 12., monthes Ibid. c. 11. & 13., & Ibidem [...]. 11. dayes (as is aboue touched) which places if they be expounded literally, do make vp iust three yeares and a halfe, and then it followeth, that the Pope cannot be Antichrist, as hauing reigned by our Aduersaries confessions many hundred of yeares. And yet we fynd, that the sayd places are expounded literally by the Fathers: Austin l. 20. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 23. thus wryteth of this poynt: An­tichristi aduersus Ecclesiam saeuissimum regnum &c. Though the kingdome of Antichrist shalbe most seuere and cruell, yet shall it cō ­tinue but for a small tyme, and he which halfe sleeping readeth the Scripture herein, cannot doubt: for the words, a tyme, two tymes, & halfe a tyme, do signify, a yeare, two yeares, and halfe a yeare, & consequently three yeares & a halfe: besides the same appeareth by the number of the dayes, and moneths, set downe in the Scriptures: Thus far S. Austin.

6. S. Hierome In c. 7. Daniel. thus also wryreth: Tempus annum significat &c. A tyme doth signify a yeare, 2. tymes, two yeares, halfe a tyme, six moneths, during which period, the Saints of God shalbe subject to the tiranny of Antichrist. See also the like literall ex­positions of the former places, in Hippolitus Orat. de consūmat. mundi. Martyr, Cyril, Catech. 15., Ireneus lib. 5. in fine., Theodoret In c. 7. Daniel. &c.

7. Wheras to the like end, we produce certaine places of Scripture Ma­lach. 4. Eccles 44. Apoc 11., prouing that Enoch & Elias are to returne personally, and truly in their owne naturall bodies into the world at the comming of Antichrist; and therfore the Pope cannot be Antichrist, in that those two are not yet come, for the auoyding of which argument the Prote­stants are forced to expound the sayd places figuratiuely of other men, to wit of their owne ministers and Ghos­pellers; yet the Fathers do interprete the sayd textes lite­rally of Enoch and Elias. Thus we find, that Damascene l. 4. c. 28., Hypolytus De mundi cō ­summat. Martyr, Gregory l. 4. c. 11. & 12., and Austin l 9. c. 6. commenting vpon these places do write literally the personall cōming of them in the tyme of Antichrist. In like sort doth Hierom, and Origen, and Chrysostome all writing vpō the 17. Chap­ter of Matthew, as also Lactantius l. 7. c. 17., Theodoret In vlt. c. Malach., and Austin Tract. 4. in Ioan. do proue out of the former passages of Scripture the cōming of Elias in his owne true and naturall body.

[Page 110] 3 8. As concerning these words of our Sauiour tou­ching his true and reall being in the Sacrament of the Eu­charist. vz. This is my body, Two things are to be obserued in the Fathers: first that our Aduersaries cannot produce any one father (among so many as haue commēted vpon the said words) which doth interprete the said text figura­tiuely. Secondly, that diuers of them haue taught most ex­presly, that the said words are not to be takē figuratiuely, but properly and literally: Thus we read, that Theophilact In hunc loeum., Chrysostome In hūc locum., both the Cyrils Alex­and. epist. ad Calofi­rium Hie­rosolym cateches. 4. mystag., Ambrose l. 4. de Sacram. cap. 5., Euse­bius Emissenus hom. 5. de Paschat., Epiphanius In Ancorat., and others do ioyntly teach, that in this point we haue need of fayth therby to declare that, which seemes most absurd to our senses. But to vn­derstand the words figuratiuely, (to wit, that the body of Christ is to be signified by bread) is neither absurd in sense, neither is there any great difficulty of fayth required ther­to.

9. In likesort for the prouing of the said mystery & Article of our beliefe, we vsually alledge those words of the Apostle 1. Cor. c. 11.: Qui manducat & bibit indignè &c. He that ea­teth and drinketh vnworthily, eateth and drinketh iudgment to him­selfe, not discerning the body of our Lord: Out of which words we gather, that some are here reprehended, in that they re­ceiue the body of Christ vnworthily, but these do not re­ceaue it in spirit and fayth, for in so doing they should re­ceaue it with profit and worthily; therfore they receaue his body only in body, and not in spirit, and consequently his body is there really and truly present. And in this sort is this text expounded by the fathers, vz. Ambrose In c. 11. prioris ad ad Corinth. & Theo­dor., Iero­me In c. 1. Malach., Chrysostome Hom. 24. in pri­or. ad Co­rinth. & hom. 83 in Matth., Origen Hom. 2. in psal. 37., Basil l. 2. de baptisae. 3., & others, which exposition of the fathers being true, depriueth our Aduer­saries of all sufficient answere to the said text.

10. That those three places, which the Catholiks do commonly vrge for proofe of Priests authority in remit­ting sinnes, vz. Math. 16. To thee I will giue the keyes of heauē, and whatsoeuer thou shalt bynd vpon earth shalbe bound in heauen &c. Math. 18. What things you shall bynd vpon earth shalbe boūd in heauen, and what things you shall loose &c. Lastly Iohn. 20. [Page 111] Whose sins you shall remit, are remitted vnto thē, and whose sinnes 4 you shall retaine, are retained: That these places (I say) doe proue, that Priests haue authority giuen them truly and really to remit sins in the Sacrament of Pennance, & not only by declaring and pronouncing their sinnes to be re­mitted (as our Sectaries do teach) it appeareth out of the fa­thers expositions of the foresaid places, who expounding them literally with the Catbolikes, do proue therby the true authority of the Priests therin. S. Gregory Hom. 26. in E­uang. expoun­ding the words: Whose sinnes you shall remit, thus sayth: Prin­cipatum superni iudicij &c. The Apostles do obtaine a principality of supreme iudgment, that in the place of God, they may retayne the sinnes of some, and loose the sinnes of others. S. Chrysostome l. 3. de sacerd. the scope of which booke is to proue this point. ex­pounding the former texts, and comparing the authority of the Priests of the old law ouer the leprous persōs, with the Priests of the new law, thus concludeth: At nostris Sa­cerdotibus non corporis lepram &c. It is granted to our Priests, I say not to try them which are purged, but absolutely to purge and cure, not the leper of the body, but the filth and foulnes of the soule. See also S. Austin l. 20. de Ciuit. Dei expoūding those words of the Apoc. Et vidi se­des, & se­dentes &c., Ierome Ep. ad Heliodorū, de vita so­litaria., Ambrose l. 1. de poenit. c. 2 & se­quent., Gregory Oratio­ne ad ciues timore per­culsos Naziazene, all which do interpret the former texts literally, and ack­knowledge from thence the sayd authority in Priests for remitting of sinnes, which the Catholikes at this day do teach.

11. That place of S. Iohn c. 3. vz. Except a man be borne againe of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdome of God: doth proue, that the Sacrament of Baptisme doth ex opere operato conferre grace, and iustify a man; which perspicuous and cleare testimony to peruert, our Aduersaries are forced to say, that the wordes are not spoken of the Sacrament of Baptisme, but only of regene­ration caused by the holy Ghost, whose property is to wash the soule, as the water doth wash the body. And yet against this phantasticall exposition we are able to pro­duce the fathers, who do literally vnderstand the former words as spoken of the Sacrament of Baptisme; which ex­position of theirs granted as true, doth necessarily force the 5 Catholike Doctrine therin. See Cyrill, Austin, Chrysostome [Page 112] and Origen, all interpreting this place, as also Ambrose l. 3. de spirit. sāct. c. 11., Cyprian l. 3. ad Quirinum., Ierome In c. 16. Ezech., and the rest.

12. In proofe of Freewill (mong other places) we alledge those words of God spoken to Cain: Nonne Genes. 4. si bene egeris, recipies &c. If thou dost well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou dost not well, sinne lyeth at thy doore. Sub te erit appeti­tus eius, & tu dominaberis illius, that is, And vnto thee it desire (vz. of sinne) shalbe subiect, and thou shalt rule ouer it. vz. ouer sinne.

13. Now our Aduersaries in answere hereto do say, that the words, Sub te erit appetitus eius, & tu dominaberis il­lius, ought to haue reference to Abel; meaning hereby, that Abel should be subiect to Cain, and that as being the elder he should rule ouer Abel. Which construction being most forced, & indirect, is generally impugned by the Fathers, who in the exposition of the former words do in both places vnderstand sinne, and not Abel. Thus we find that S. Austin l. 15. de Ciuit. Dei c. 7. saith of this place as interpreting it: Quiesce, ad te enim conuersio eius, & tu dominaberis illius, numquid fratris? ab­sit: cuius igitur, nisi peccati? that this: Content thy selfe (Cain) for it shall turne it selfe to thee, and thou shalt rule ouer it: ouer what? ouer thy brother? God forbid: ouer what then, but ouer sinne? S. Ie­rome in like sort wryteth thus, Inquae­stion. He­braicis. Quia liberi arbitrij es, mone [...] vt non tibi peccatum, sed tu peccato domineris, (alluding to the words in Genes.) Because thou art of freewill, I do counsell thee, that sinne may not rule ouer thee, but thou ouer sin. See also Am­brose lib. 2. de Cain c. 7., Gregory lib. 4. moral. cap. 22. and Prosper l. 2. de vocat. gē ­ [...]ium. c. 13., expounding those for­mer words of sinne, and not of Abel; all which fathers do euen deriue the Doctrine of frewil from their foresaid ex­position therof.

14. For maintenance of Iustification by workes (for we allow that saying of the Historiographer, Fayth, that is seene is better, then faith that is heard) we do vrge that place of Iames cap. 2. (aboue touched) Do you see, because of workes a man is iustified, and not of faythonly? which text is so plaine & direct for Iustification by workes, as that S. Austin lib. de side & ope­ribus c. 14. is not afraid to say, that the very scope and drift of this Epistle of S. Iames, as also that of Peter, Iohn, and Iude, was chiefly [Page 113] to represse the heresy then begun about Iustification by fayth only: so great an impugner was this auncient Fa­ther of our Aduersaries sole and melancholy fayth; for so I may well tearme it, since it will be euer alone, and cā ­not brooke the company of good workes.

15. In like manner, for proofe of merit of workes (a­mong other testimonies) is alledged that saying recorded in Matthew c. 20.: Voca operarios, & redde illis mercedem: Cal the workmen, and pay them their hyre, or wages: in which place by the word, hyre, is vnderstood their daily wages, as appea­reth by the parable it self. Now by this daily wages is sig­nified eternall life euen by the common exposition of the Fathers vpō this place. See also S. Austin lib. de sancta vir­ginit. c. 26., S. Ierome l. 2. in Iouinian. & S. Gregory lib. 4. moral. c. 42., all of thē so interpreting the former words.

16. For proofe of Euangelicall Counsels, which make a difference betwene a Stoicks dulnes, and a Christian and 8 religious contempt, is (as I said before) that place of Saint Matthew alledged Math. 19.: There are Eunuches, which haue gelded themselues for the kingdome of heauen: where the words, for the kingdome of heauen, do not signify (as the Protestāts would haue it) for the better and more easy preaching of the gos­pell, meaning that some are to abstaine from mariage on­ly to that end: but the former wordes do truly import so much, as literally they signify, that is, that some forbeare mariage and liue in perpetuall chastity for the gayning of the ioyes of heauen: and thus is this place expounded by Cyprian lib. de habitu vir­ginum., Chrysostome In hūc locum., Ierome l. 1. con­tra Iouin., Austin De san­cta virgi­nit. c. 24., who thus wryteth therof: Christo laudante eos, qui se castrauerum &c. Christ praysing them, who haue gelded thēselues, not for this world but for the kingdom of heauē, shall any Christian gainsay the same, in affirming that this kind of gelding is profitable only for this life, & not for the life to come? For proofe of the said Doctrine, we synd that the Fathers do interprete those words of our Sauiour: Si vis Math. ibidem. perfectus &c. If thou wilt be perfect, Go and sell all that that thou hast, &c. [...]nd follow me &c. only as a Counsell, and not as a Precept, as our Aduersaries do teach. See vpō this text Ambrose l. de vi­duis vltra med., Ierome Contra Vigil., Austin Epist. 8 [...] q. 4., Chrysostome [...]n hūc locum., who do ioyntly teach, that our Sauiour exhorted and counsel­led [Page 114] only to Pouerty in his former words, but imposed no commandement and precept therof; whose exposition being true, it followeth, that who voweth perpetual po­uerty, performeth an Euangelicall Counsell. And of such an one is verifyed that saying of one Father: Omnia inuenit in Deo, qui propter Deum omnia reliquit.

9 17. Concerning the visibility of the Church, we vrge those words of the Psalmist Psalm. 18., to wit, In sole po­suit tabernaculum suum: He placed his tabernacle in the sunne: Which place Saint Austin Tract. 2. in epist. Ioan., doth thus expoudd: In ma­nifesto posuit Ecclesiam suam: He placed his Church in an open and conspicuous place. In like sort according to the exposi­tions of S. Ierome and S. Austin, the Church of Christ is cō ­pared to a mighty huge mountaine, which is euer in sight. See their expositions giuen vpon Isa. 2. Dan. 2. and Micheas 4. S. Austin l. de v­nitat. Ec­cles. c. 14. also doth expound those words of S. Mat­thew 10 vrged by vs of Christs Church, vz. A citty placed vpon a mountaine cannot be hid: So clearly did those fathers thinke, that the sayd text did confirme the visibility of the church.

18. For proofe of Traditions we vsually alledge that place of the 1. Cor. 11. Apostle: Laudo Laudo vos, quòd per omnia &c. I prayse you, that in all things you are myndfull of me, and that, as I haue deliuered to you, you keepe my precepts: Which text the Fathers expounding do cōstantly teach, that the Apostle did heer speake of vnwritten precepts and Traditions: so doth Damascene l. 4. c. 17., Basil l. de spi­rit. sanct. c. 29., Chrysostome In hunc locum., Epiphanius Haeres. [...]1., & Theo­philact In hūc locum. interprete this place.

19. In like sort the Fathers do interprete that other place of S. Paul (aboue mentioned) of vnwritten traditiōs, to wit that of the Thessalonians: It aque fratres tenete &c. Ther­fore brethren, hold the Traditions, which you haue receaued eyther by speach or by Epistle. So doth Theophilact hoc loco., Damascene l. 4. de si [...]e c. 17., Oecumenius In hūc locum., Basil De spi­vit. sanct. c. 29. expound it; And Chrysostome In hunc locum. thus briefly wryteth of the former words: Hinc patet, quod non omnia per epistolas tradiderint &c. Hence it app [...]areth, that the A­postles did not deliuer all things by their Epistles, but many thinges also euen without writing, which do deserue and are worthy of as much credit & authority, as the former things deliuered by writing.

[Page 115] 11 20. Touching Lymbus Patrum, or the place where the soules of the iust were before Christ his Incarnation and death, we are accustomed to alledge that place of the booke of the 1. Reg. cap. 28. Kings, where the soule of Samuel appea­ring to Saul, was seene to ryse out of the earth. And that it was the true soule of Samuel, appeareth by the testimo­nies of the fathers, so expounding that place, See S. Au­stin De cure pro mor­tuis c. 15., Ambrose In 1. c. Luca., Ierome In 7. Isa., Basil Epist. 80. ad Eu­stachium., and Iosephus l. 6. an­tiquit. c. 156.

21. That Christ after his death and Passion did truly descend into hell, that Hebr. c. 2. so he might destroy through death him, who had power ouer death, we produce that plaine place of S. Matthew, where it is sayd c. 12.: Sicut fuit Ionas &c. E­uen as Ionas was three dayes & three nights in the belly of the whale, so shal the sonne of man be in the heart of the earth. Which place that it is not vnderstood of the graue (as our Aduersaries do answere) but of hell it selfe according to the Catholiks 12 exposition, appeareth from the testimonies of Ierome In c. 2. Ionae., who thus wryteth: Sicut cor est in medio animalis, ita infer­nus in medio terrae esse perhibetur; that is, Euen as the hart is in the midst of the liuing creature, so is hell in the middest of the earth: of Irenaeus l. 5 cir­ca finem., of Tertullian l. de a­nima c. 31., of Gregory Nissenus [...]n ora [...]. 1. de resur­rect., and of Ambrose In c. 4. ad Ephes., all which Fathers do vnderstand by those wordes of Matthew, in corde terrae, Hell.

22. We also alledge for proofe of the same article, that saying of the Apostles: Qui ascendit, ipse est &c. He that as­cendeth, is the same, which descended into the lower parts of the earth; where the Latin words, inferiores partes terrae, do not signify the graue (as our Aduersaries do interprete) but hel, and thus we fynd this place expounded by S. Ierome Omnes hi in hunc locum., Ambrose, Chrysostome, and Theophilact, they prouing Christ his descending into hell out of this, and the former alled­ged text.

13 23. For confirmation of Purgatory and Prayer for the dead (besides that place of the Machabees, which is so plaine, as that it needeth no illustration of the Fathers) we alledge that place of Matthew c. 12. where it is said, that there are some sins, which neyther are remitted in this world, nor in the world to come: Wherby we Catholikes, & the Fathers afore [Page 116] vs, do gather that some sinnes are remitted in the world to come by prayers and suffrages of the Church, and this Illation is deduced from this text, by S. Austin l. 21. de Ciuit. Dei. c. 24. & l. 6. in Iulian. cap. 5., S. Iero­me lib. 4. dialog. c. 39., Bede In c. [...]. Marci., and others.

24. Another authority for proofe of Purgatory is vsually alledged out of S. Matthew Math. 5. Lu [...]. 12. and S. Luke, where it is sayd: Esto consentiens aduersario tuo &c. Be at agreement with thy aduersary betymes, whiles thou art in the way with him, least perhaps thy aduersary deliuer thee to the iudge, and the iudge deliuer thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison: verily I say to thee, thou shalt not go from thence, till thou repay the last far­thing. Now by the last farthing, is here mistically and figu­ratiuely vnderstood small sinnes, which shalbe payed for, that is, shalbe punished in the fire of Purgatory, and thus is this place expounded by Tertullian l. de a­nima c. 17., Cyprian lib. 4. epist. 2., Ori­gen Hom. 35. in Luc., Ambrose In c. 12. Luc., and Ierome In c. 5. Math., who thus plainly in­terpreteth the former words: Hoc est, quod dicit, non egredie­ris de carcere, donec minuta peccata persoluas, that is: This he saith, Thou shalt not get out of prison, till thou hast discharged euen thy little sinnes.

14 25. Touching Prayer to Saintes. And first that Saintes do intercede and pray for vs, we proue out of Ieremy cap. 15. where it is sayd: Dixit Dominus ad me, si steterint Moyses & Sa­muelcoram me, non est anima mea ad populum istum: that is, If Moyses and Samuel stood afore me, my mind is not to this people: Meaning that if Moyses and Samuel should thē pray to God for the people of the Iewes, yet God would not heare thē: out of which place we gather, that Moyses and Samuel (thē being dead) were accustomed at other tymes, to pray to God for thē, since otherwise this speach of God had bene indirect and to no purpose. Now wheras our Aduersaries to auoyd this argument, do say, that the meaning of this place it not, that if Moyses and Samuel in their owne per­sons, but if any other godly men, (such as Moyses & Samuel were) should pray to God, he would not heare them. Yet notwithstanding we find this place expounded literally. personally, and truly (and so consequently against our Ad­uersaries their answere) of Moyses and Samuel, by Chrysostome Hom. 1. in epist. 1. ad Thes. sal., Ierome In hūe locum., & Gregory l 9. mo­ral. c. 12..

[Page 117] 26. To the same end we produce out of the Macha­bees 2. Mac. cap. vlt., how Iudas did see in a vision Onias the Priest, and Ieremy the Prophet (both which were then dead) praying for the Iewes. Now seing that this booke of the Machabees is accounted true and vndoubted Scripture by S. Austin l. 18. de Ciuit. Dei. cap. 36. Cypryan l 1. ep. 3. ad Cor­nelium., Ambrose l. 2. de Iacob. c. 10. 11. & 12., Gregroy Inorat. de Mach. Nazianzen, and others, it therfore followeth, that these Fathers acknowledging the Machabees for Scripture, and neuer making any other con­struction of this vision, then literall, & such as the words import, do also acknowledge that this place doth infalli­bly proue, that the Saintes do pray for vs.

27: Now more particularly that Saintes are to be prayed vnto, we proue by the words in Iob Iob. c. 5., where it is sayd: Voca, si quis est, qui tibi respondeat, & ad aliquem Sancto­rum conuertere. That is, Call if any there be, which may answere thee, and turne thy selfe to any of the Saints. Where by the name of the Saintes are vnderstood the Angells according to the exposition of S. Austin In an­not. in Iob.. But if Angells do pray for vs, then do Saintes the like, since there is one and the same reason of both.

15 28. Now to make an end of this Chapter, I will fi­nally rest in bringing a place or two out of the Scripture to proue that the Eucharist is a true and proper (though vnbloudly) Sacrifice, contrary to our Aduersaries wicked Doctrine herein. And first we are accustomed to alledge in proofe hereof the priesthood of Melchisedech, of whome it is thus said: Melchisedech Genes. 14. rex Salem protuli [...] &c. that is, Melchisedech being King of Salem, did offer bread and wyne, for he was a priest of the high God. Now not only Dauid Psalm. 109., but also S. Paul Hebr. 7. do so referre this place to Christ, as that S. Paul doth plainly say, that Christ was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, & not according to the order of Aarō. Now if Christ be a Priest according to the order of Mel­chisedech; then the reason hereof is, in that Christ is to in­stitute an vnbloudy sacrifice vnder the forme of bread and wyne, and so we Catholikes do hould, that this he did, when he first instituted the blessed Eucharist. And an­swerably hereto, the Fathers do interprete those words of [Page 118] the Psalmist l. 4. stormat.: Thou art a Priest according to the order of Mel­chisedech: and the like words of S. Paul, to wit, that Christ is therfore properly and truly called a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, because he instituted at his last supper, a Sacrifice vnder the formes of bread and wyne: Thus are those former places expounded by Clemens lib. 5. demonstr. Euāg. c. 3. A­lexandrinus, Eusebius l. [...]. ep. 3. ad Caecil. Caesariensis, Cyprian Haeres. [...]9., Epiphanius lib. 5. de Sacram. c. 1., Ambrose Hom. 35. in Gen., Chrysostome Epist. ad Marcel., Ierome Epist. 95. ad In­nocent. Pap., Austin Dialog. cū Tripho. and others.

29. A second conuincing testimony in proofe of the sacrifice of the Masse, is takē out of Malachy in these words: Non est mihi voluntas in vobis, dicit Dominus Exercituum &c. I haue not a mynd or will in you, sayth the Lord of hostes; and I will not take any guift from your hand, for from the rising of the sunne vnto the setting therof, my name is great among the Gentles, and in euery place is sacrified and offered to my name a cleane oblation, because my name is great among the Gentils, saith the Lord of hostes. Which text containeth a prophesy of the sacrifice, which shalbe offered to God, by the Gentils, after their conuer­sion to Christian religion. And because thus far the Pro­testants do acknowledge, they therfore interprete this l. 4. c. 32. place of spirituall sacrifices (to wit prayers, thankesgiuings and such like) which the elect and faythfull offer vp to God. But the Catholikes do expound this sayd place of Malachy of a Sacrifice, as it is truly and properly taken, to wit of the sacrifice of the Eucharist. And in this particu­lar sense, they find this prophesy expounded by Iustinus l. 3. con­tra Marc. Martyr, who thus plainly saith: De nostris gentium &c. Of our sacrifices of Gentils, that is of the bread and Cup of the Eucharist. Malachias did then speake &c. By Ireneus l. cont. Iudaeos c. c. 16., by Tertullian In Cō ­ment. Psal. 95., by Cypriā, by Chrysostome by Ierome In Cō ­ment. Ma­lach., & finally by S. Au­stin l. 1. con­tra aduers. leg. & prophet. c. 20. & l. 18. de Ciuit. Dei c. 36., al which Fathers do directly & in plaine words ex­poūd this prophesy of Malachy, of the sacrifice of the masse.

30. I could exemplify, in many more textes, both of these articles and of others, the Fathers like agrement with the Catholiks, in expounding such passages of Scrip­ture, as we at this day do alledge in warrant of our reli­gion. But the seformer examples, being of the chiefest cō ­trouersies, and of the most markable textes obiected by vs, [Page 119] may seeme as a scantling, wherby to measure the Fathers mynd and inclination in interpreting of all such others. And now by this, which hath bene already set downe, we may gather, how much our Aduersaries are en dange­red, by seking to determine all controuersies betwene vs and them, only by the wrytten Word, if therein they would stand to the iugdgment of the auncient Fathers, whose great distāce of a thousād yeares at least is the reasō (belike) why they appeare so litle in the eyes of these our Sectaries, who (we see) do not only beleeue the Doctrine answerable to the Catholikes expositions of the former texts, but thēselues do expound the sayd texts & authori­ties, as we do, and from their owne such constructions do deryue and iustify their faith and Doctrine equally main­tayned by vs both, so as those wordes of Tertullian lib. de pudicitia. doe rightly concerne the Fathers and vs: Concorporauit nos scrip­tura diuina, literae ipsae glutina nostra sunt: So hard (indeed so impossible) it is to deuyde the thred euenly betwene the Fathers and vs, but that we both must ioyntly participate, eyther of interpreting the Scripture, according to the in­tended sense of the holy Ghost, or else of most fowly de­prauing and adulterating the same, since if we Catholikes erre therein, we see, how iustly we may insimulate the Fathers within our sayd errour. And yet our Aduersaries (see the subtilty of Heresy) do peremptory call the sayd poynts of fayth and Doctrine deduced out of the former constructions of Scripture, Antichristian and damnable here­sies (as they are maintayned by vs Catholikes) which in the Fathers they allieuate and gentle, by tearming them but Naeuos and Naeuia: idle and inconsiderate, eyther here­sies in both, or but spots and blemishes in both, for it is the Doctrine which denominates the person, not the person the Doctrine: Yet neyther dare they iustify; since the one, would discouer their open & dangerous breach with the Fathers; the other an ouer fauorable extenuation of our religion; both an acknowledmēt of their ouer sight in retracting that in the end, which hitherto they haue so pertinaciously auerred. But to recall my selfe and to hastō to the next Chapter.

That the textes of Scripture obiected by the Pro­testantes in disprouall of our Religion, are o­therwise expounded by the Fathers, then in that sense, wherin our Aduersaries do vrge them. And that their expositions of them do commonly agree with ours. CHAP. X.

NOw after we haue shewed, that the Fathers do ioyne with vs Catholikes in their expo­sitions of the chiefest and most conuincing textes, which we are accustomed to alledge for warrant of our Doctrine; it followeth (according to our former designe) that we in like sort do demonstrate, that the Fathers do deliuer farre differēt cō ­structions (and for the most part the same with vs Catho­likes) of the principall and mayne passages of Scripture, obiected against vs, from that sense and meaning, wher­in our Aduersaries do vrge them; so as it is most euident, that in the sayd Fathers iudgment (which in all reason is to ouerballance the priuate spirit of any Sectary whatso­euer) no one such text doth preiudice our Catholike faith at all.

1 2. And to begin: The Protestantes greatest argu­ment against the Supremacy of S. Peter is taken frō S. Pauls cōtradicting of him (as we read in the Epistle to the Gala­thians cap. 2. and as it is aboue touched) yet we fynd that the Fathers in the exposition of this place, do so prayse the humility of S. Peter therein, as that they take occasion therby to intimate his superiority ouer all the other Apo­stles▪ See S. Cyprian Epist. ad Quintū., S. Gregory Hom. 18. in E­zech., S. Austin Epist. 19. ad Hie­ronym., who thus wryteth of this point: Rarius & sanctius exemplum Pe­trus &c. Peter hath left a more rare and holy example to his suc­cessours, [Page 121] then Paul hath done; since by that of Peters, they are taught not to disdaine to be corrected by their inferiours; wheras by the other of Paules, the inferiours are emboldned to resist their supe­riours in a charitable manner for the defence of truth. Thus farre S. Austin: who (we see) by the commenting of this place doth strengthen and fortify the Doctrine of Peters Prima­cy.

2 3. To proue that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist, they obiect those words in the Apocalips, where it is said, that the whore of Babylon shall sit on that Citty, which hath seauen hils, to wit Rome. Now we find, that such Fathers as do interprete this place of Rome, doe meane therby Rome in the tyme of the heathen Emperours, then worshipping Idols, & persecuting the Church of Christ. In this sort this place is expounded by Tertullian l. cōtra Iudaeos & l. 3. contra Marcionē, and Ierome Epist. 17. ad Marcellā.. But others of them, to wit, S. Austin (h), and S. Bede In cap. 17. Apoc., doe vnderstand, by the Whoore, in the Apoca­lips sitting vpon the seauen hils, the generall all and vniuersall Citty of the diuell, which in the Scripture is often called Babylon, & by the seauen hils is vnderstood the number of the proud, and chiefly of the earthly kings. So thus we find, that according to either of the constructions deliue­red by the aunciēt Fathers, this former obiected text doth nothing at all touch Antichrist.

4. In like manner our Aduersaries do vrge those words in the second to the cap 2. Thessalonians: Ita vt in templo Dei sedeat &c. So as he is to sit in the temple of God. Where the Apostle speaking of Antichrist, the Protestantes wil needs haue him to meane, that Antichrist shall sit in the Church of vs Christians, forsooth, because the Pope sits therin, as head therof: whereas the Fathers do interprete the former wordes of the temple of the Iewes, which once was the temple of God, and where according to the iudgments both of the Fathers and vs Catholiks, Antichrist is to sit: & thus is this place expounded by Chrysostome In hunc locum., Ambrose In c. 21. Luc. Hilary Can 25. in Math., Cyril Catech. 15. Hierosolym. Hippolitus Orat. de mundi. consūmat., Ireneus lib. 5. and others.

3 5. Against the Reall Presence, they vrge the words of [Page 122] our Sauiour recorded by S. Iohn (as is afore touched) vz. The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the spirit, which quickneth. Now that this place is vnderstood only of the carnall apprehen­sion of the Iewes of eating grosly and carnally Christs body, appeareth out of Chrysostome In hunc lo [...]um., Theophilact ibidem., Cy­prian In ser. de coena Domini, and Origen l. 3. in epist. ad Rom.. To the same end they produce those words: Non (y) bibam ex hoc sanguine vitis &c I will not drinke henceforth of the fruit of this wyne, vntill that day as I shall drinke it new with you in my Fathers kingdome: Drawing from these words, which do tearme the cup wyne (as if our Sa­uiour had spoken of the Cup consecrated) that there was no reall change of bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christ; wheras we find, that S. Luke cap. 22. doth (x) Math. 26. make mention of two cups, the one at supper (wherof the former words were spoken) the other after supper, which our Sauiour consecrated, and to which the former words had no reference. And thus we find this place explicated (answerably to S. Lukes relation) by Ierome in c. 26. Math., Bede In c. 22. Luc., & Theophilact In cap. 22. Luc..

6. In denyall of auricular Confession, and of Priests their authority for remitting of sinnes therby, they pro­duce the wordes of Christ recorded by S. Iohn cap. 20. vz. Sicut misit 4 me pater &c. Euen as my Father sent me, so I doe send you; But Christ (say they) when he remitted and forgaue sin, exacted not any particular enumeration of them, as ap­peareth out of S. Luke cap. 7., & S. Matthew cap. 9.: Therfore we are not bound to any secret confession of our sinnes. To which argument we answere, that the former place of S. Iohn is not so to be vnderstood, that the Apostles, & their successours were precisely bound to do all things after the same manner, as they were done by Christ (since by that rule then, the Apostles ought not to baptize in Act. 2. remis­sion of sinnes, because Christ without Baptisme did re­mit the sinnes of Mary Magdalen, neither to giue the holy Ghost by imposition of handes, since Christ gaue it by breathing Ioan. 20. vpon the Apostles:) Therfore the former text alledged (according to the expositiō of S. Chrysostome) In hunc locum. doth import, that our Sauiour said, that he did send [Page 123] the Apostles, as himselfe was sent, because he gaue to thē the power of remitting or retaining of sinnes, as himselfe had receaued of his Father, or according to the interpre­tation of S. Gregory Hom. 2 [...]. in E­uang., because he did send the Apostles to suffer persecution and death, as himself was sent to vn­dergoe. Lastly because (according to In hūc locum. Cyril) he did sēd them to performe the sayd office, which himselfe was sēt to accomplish; to wit, to reclayme men from sinne, to propagate the Church, to preach the Ghospell. And thus (we see) that though the Fathers do sometymes differ in literall exposition of certaine texts, yet they all agree in this (in which point we heere chiefly insist) that they do not affoard any such sense, wherin the Protestantes doe vrge them against the Catholike fayth.

7. To take away auricular Confession they alledge those words of Ezechiel c. 33.: Quotiescunque ingemuerit pecca­tor &c. As often as a sinner shall grieue and lament, I will not remē ­ber his iniquities: Out of which words, they labour to proue that God only exacteth this repentance & griefe of a sin­ner, for the remission of his sinnes, and not any auricular confession of them, or absolution of the Priest. To which we answere, that neither of them is excluded by the sayd words, since no man can grieue and lament for his sinnes in any auaileable manner, but that he must desire al those meanes (as confession therof and absolution) which God hath instituted in his Church. And in this sort we fynd that S. Epist. 91. ad Theodorū. Leo doth obiect this very place against him­selfe in this poynt, and then thus answereth it. Which ex­position of his must needs be true, since the former text, if it should exclude confession and absolution, by the same reason it should also exclude Baptisme, yea fayth, & cha­rity, as necessary for the remission of our sinnes; since a man may grieue for his sinnes only by reason of the tem­porall losse 5 comming therby.

8. Wheras against Freewill, they vsually obiect that text of Isay c. 22.: vz. Omnia opera nostra &c. O Lord thou hast wrought all our workes in vs: yet we find, that Ierome In com­ment. eius­dem loci. doth (p) In hūc locum. vnderstand those words of Gods chastisements of that [Page 124] people, and Cyril In hūc locum. of Gods miracles and benefits she­wed to thē. So as neither of thē, nor any other do vnder­stand them in our Aduersaries sense.

9. For proofe of Iustification by fayth only, they vrge that saying of the Rom. c. 3. Apostle: Arbitramur hominem iu­stificari &c. We account a man to be iustifyed by fayth, without the workes of the law. Where besides that the very text it selfe 6 doth expresly speake of the workes of the law (which kind of workes no Catholike doth teach to iustify) S. Au­stin l. de gratia & liber. arbit. c. 17. doth euen in the same sense expound this place say­ing thus: Homines non intelligen [...]es &c. Men not vnderstanding what the Apostle heere sayth, did thinke that he sayd fayth would suffice a man, though he liued euilly, and had no workes: which God forbid, that a Vessell of Election should so thinke, who in a cer­taine place after he had sayd: In Christ Iesus neyther Circumcision nor prepuce auaileth any whit, straight added, but Faith which worketh by loue. Thus S. Austin. In like sort they vrge ano­ther saying of the sayd Apostle: vz. Si Abraham Rom. 4. ex operi­bus &c. If Abraham be iustifyed by workes, he hath glory, but not with God: As also that other: Gratia estis saluati &c. By Ephes. [...]. grace you are saued through faith &c. and not of works. In both which places are vnderstood workes done by the force of nature, before our vocation and calling in Christ, as appeareth out of S. Austin Supra. & praefat. in psal. [...]1., and S. Ierome E [...]ist. ad [...]thesi­phontem. expounding the sayd places. See also Austin expounding the former and other such like places, in l. de praedest. Sanct. c. 7. & epist. 105. ad Sixtum, & l. de hono perseueren [...]iae c. 2.

7 10. Against the merit of good workes, they alledge diuers places, which may seeme to intimate, that God doth crowne men only in mercy, and consequently not by force of their owne workes; as where it is sayd: Beati misericordes, quia &c. Blessed are they which be mercifull, for they shall obtaine mercy: which place both S. Austin Epist. 105. & l. de correp. & gratia cap. 13. and S. Gregory In psal. 7. paeni­tential. expound thus, to wit, that blessednes and eternall felicity is attributed to mercy, not because there is not a true reward of merit, but because the merit it selfe is giuen to man by the mercy of God: For a man cannot do any meritorious worke, be­fore he be iustified, but he is iustified by the grace & mercy of God.

[Page 125] 11. They also vrge that place aboue mentioned, of S. Luke: Cùm feceritis haec omnia &c. When you haue done all these thinges, which are commanded you, say, we are vnprofitable seruants, for we haue but done what we ought to haue done: which text may seeme to make against the merit of workes, and against workes of supererogation; yet in the Fathers iudg­ments it nothing impugneth the same, who though they do giue seuerall expositions thereof, yet not any one of thē maketh against the Catholike Doctrine in this point. S. Chrysostome Hom. in illud, Il­latum est cor Oziae. sayth, that our Sauiour did not meane, that we were vnprofitable seruants, but that we should so say and thinke of our selues, therby to humble our selues, least a selfeliking & pride might corrupt our good works. S. Austin Serm. [...]. de verbis Domini. sayth, that we may be called vnprofitable ser­uants, because when we haue kept all Gods commande­ments, we haue done nothing, but what we ought to haue done, and therfore in rigour and iustice, we can ex­pect no reward, but only from the liberall promise and bargaine of God with vs.

12. S. Ambrose l. 8. in Lucam. expoundeth the former wordes in this sense, to wit, that we should acknowledge how weake and imperfect we are of our selues, to do any good worke, and that we are made profitable seruants therto, only by the assistance and grace of God. Now no one of these expositions (as I sayd before) doth agree with our Aduersaries exposition of the sayd place, or preiudice the Doctrine of merit.

13. Against actuall and inherent Iustice, they vsu­ally prostitute that saying of Isay cap. 64.: Facti sumus immundi 8 omnes nos, & tanquam pannus menstruatae omnes iustitiae nostrae: that is: We are all made vncleane, and all our iustice is like vnto the cloath of a menstruous woman. Out of which words they endeauour to proue all our actions to be bad and sinfull: wheras it is certaine, that the Prophet did speake these wordes, not in the person of himselfe, or of the iust, but only of the wicked Iewes, by reason of whose sinnes, both their Citty and the people were to be deliuered into the hands of the King of Babylon. And this appeareth out [Page 126] of the word, which a little before he had spoken, vz. Ecce iratus es, & peccauimus: behould thou art angry, because we haue sinned. And thus we fynd this place expounded by Cyril In hūc locum.. The truth of which expositiō appeareth more clear­ly out of the words following the former textes, vz. Non est qui inuocet nomen tuum. There is not any, which calleth vpon thy name, which saying must haue reference only to the wicked, and not to the iust.

14. To the sayd end they obiect Dauid saying: Non intres c. 142. in iudicium cum seruo tuo &c. do not enter into iudgment with thy seruant, because no liuing creature shalbe iustifyed in thy sight. Of which place the Fathers do deliuer seueral expo­sitions, but all different from our Aduersaries meaning & intention. S. Ierome In hunc psalm., Hilary Ibidem., Arnobius Ibidem. do say, that the meaning of Dauid was, that man cannot besayd to be iustifyed, if he be compared with the purity and sublimi­ty of the iustice of God, in respect wherof the iustice not only of men, but euen of Angells may be accounted to be but Iniustice and impurity. Lastly S. Gregory In cō ­ment. hu­ius psalm., as also S. Austin l de perfect iu­stitiae. do referre the sayd wordes of Dauid to veniall sinnes, without committing of which our life cannot be passed ouer.

15. Concerning Euangelicall Counsels, of which our Aduersaries are professed enemies, they therfore doe alledge those sayings, Math. 22. Marc. 12. & Luc. 10. where we are commanded to loue God with all our forc [...], strength, and will (as is aboue re­hearsed) wheras indeed those words are put downe only for greater efficacy; vnderstanding therby, that we are to loue God sincerly, truly, and aboue all other thinges, & thus doth S. Ierome In cō ­ment, ad c. 22. Math., Chrysostome Chryso­stom. ibid., and Ambrose ad c. 10. Luc. ex­pound this place. They also obiect that saying of Christ, where he Luc. 14. teacheth: That except a man renounceth all the things he possesseth, he cannot be Christ his disciple; concluding frō thence, that there are no Euangelicall Counsells: which place notwithstanding S. Austin Epist. 5. & epist 59. q. 4. doth expound with vs Catholikes, to wit, that our Lord spake only of our rea­dines and preparation of mynd for the renouncing of all, which he requireth at our hands, when iust occasion is [Page 127] giuen therof; which exposition no doubt is true, because a little before in the sayd Chapter our Sauiour did reckon our wyues, and our owne bodyes among those thinges, which we are to renounce.

10 16. To iustify the Inuisibility of the Church, they rack and tenter those words of our Sauiour: Venit [...]ohn. 4. horae & nunc est &c. The houre commeth and now is, when the true worshipper shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: Where they labour to proue the words, in spiritu, in spirit, to im­ply the Inuisibility of the Church, because such cannot be certainly knowne and seene, who serue God only in spi­rit; wheras Cyril In hunc locum., Chrysostome Ibid., and Euthymius Ibid. doe oppose the wordes, In spirit, to the ceremonies of the Iewes, as they were corporall & externall; & the words, in Truth, to the same ceremonies, as they were figures of thinges to come.

11 17. They in like sort do obiect (to iustify the sayd Heresy) the wordes of the Apostle, who sayth: Non Hebr. 12. ac­cessistis ad tractabilem mōtem &c. You are not come vnto the moūt, that may be touched &c. but vnto the mount Sion, and vnto the Citty of the liuing God, the celestiall Ierusalem &c. Where, by the wordes, Mount Sion, and the Citty of God, they teach that the militant Church is vnderstood, which because it is spiri­tuall, is opposed in this text, to the mount Sinai, which is visible. But S. Chrysostome [...]n hunc locum., Theophilact ibidem. and others do expound (with the Catholikes) that by spirituall Sion, and the Citty of God in this place, is not vnderstood the Church militant, but triumphant, which doth consist of the blessed spirits, and therfore it followeth immediatly c 9. after: But you are come to the company of many thousand Angells, and to the spirits of the iust: Which words cannot haue a di­rect reference to the militant Church.

18. To proue in like manner that the Church of God may vtterly faile and decay, they vsually obiect that pro­phesy of Daniel: Deficiet hostia & sacrificium, the sacrifice shall cease; wheras those wordes are not vnderstood of the time of Antichrist, but of the ouerthrow of Ierusalem, and of the ceasing of the Iewish sacrifices, and thus is this pro­phesy [Page 128] expounded by Chrysostome in cap. 24. Math., Ierome ibidem., Austin Epist. 80. ad He­sichium., Eusebius l. 8. E­uang. de­monst. c. 2., Clemens lib. 1. stromat. Alexandrinns, and Tertullian l. con­tra Iudaeos cap. 5..

19. They also obiect to the same purpose those words of Christ: Cùm Luc. 28 venerit &c. When the sonne of man shall come, dost thou thinke he shal find fayth vpon the earth. Which is not vnderstood, that at Christ his cōming the Church of God shalbe extinct, but only that markable and exi­mious fayth, which is so much commended, shalbe found but in few at those later dayes. And thus doth S. Ierome Dialog. contra Lu­cifer., & S. Austin de Vni­tat. Eccles. cap. 1 [...]. expound this text. To the short, they among other textes do bring forth the words of the Apo­stle 2. Thes­sal. 2.: Nisi venerit discessio primùm &c. Except there come a de­parting first, & that man of sinne be disclosed &c. Out of which wordes they labour to proue, that there must be a general departure from the true fayth at the comming of Anti­christ. And the contrary to this sense and meaning di­uers of the Fathers, to wit, Chrysostome In hunc locum., Theodoret Ibidem., Theophilact Ibidem., and Austin l 20. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 19. do by the word discessio, or departure, in this place vnderstand Antichrist himselfe, by the figure Metonymia, as being the cause, that diuers shall depart from the fayth. Others of them, to wit, Ambrose In hūc loum., & Sedulius Ibidem., do vnderstand therby a departure from the Roman Empire; neyther of which expositions do fauour our Aduersaries at all.

20. To obscure the Doctrine of Traditions they peruert the sense and meaning of the Apostle Galat. 1, who sayth: Sed licetnos, vel Angelus decaelo euāgelizat vobis, praeterquā quod euangelizauimus &c. But though we, or a Angell from heauen preach vnto you contrary to that which hath bene preached, let him 12 be accursed. Where they deduce, that al Traditions are her­by condemned. But notwithstanding the Fathers, doe expound this place only of such Doctrines, as are contra­ry and opposite to the Doctrine there already preached. And therfore S. Ambrose In hūc locum. doth expound this place by these wordes, si contra: in like sort S. Austin l. 17. cōtra Eau­stum. c. 3. si contra, S. Ierome In hūc locum., si aliter, meaning therby, if not agreable, but repugnant to the former Doctrine. In like sort they pro­duce certaine places Math. 1 [...]. Col. 2▪ (aboue touched) where our Saui­our [Page 129] and his Apostles do disproue and reprehend Tradi­tions in generall. Which words being spoken only of cer­taine friuolous and wicked traditions of the Iewes, do no­thing at all impugne the Traditions of the Catholike Church: & thus we find those texts expounded by Ireneus l. 4. cap. 25., Epiphanius In hae­res. Ptolo­me [...]., & S. Ierome In c. 8. Isa. & in c. 3. ad Titū..

21. Wheras we hould the vnlawfulnes of mariage in some persons, and of meates at some tymes: our Ad­uersaries to impugne our Doctrine herein, do vsually al­ledge that place of the Apostle, where he sayth 1. Ti­moth. c. 4.: In no­uissimis 13 diebus discedent quidam à fide &c. prohibentes nubere, & abstinere à cibis: In the later dayes certaine shall depart from the fayth &c forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstaine from meates. Wheras the Apostle in this place speaketh of such who absolutly forbeare mariage and meates, as things al­together vnlawful (which cannot in any sort be applyed to the Catholikes;) And these were the Tatians, Marcio­nites, and the Manichees. Thus is this text expounded by Austin l. 30. cōtra Fau­stum., Ierome l. 1. in Iouinian., Ambrose In hūc locum., and Chrysostome In hūc locum..

22. Concerning our Sauiour they teach seuerall er­rours; 14 first that he increased in wisedome and knowledge, cap. 2. as other men do, and that he was not filled with grace and knowledge from his mothers wombe. To proue this their Heresy they bring those words of S. Luke: Iesus profi­ciebat sapientia, ae [...]ate, & gratia; Iesus did profit and increase in wisedome, and grace. But the common exposition of the Fa­thers is that he profited in wisedome & grace only in the opinion of men, to whome he dayly discouered his wise­dome, and grace more and more. Thus doth Gregory In Ba­sinum. Nazianzene, Cyril l. 20. Thesauri. c. 7., Damascene l. 3. c. 22., Theophilact, and others expound this place. In like sort to proue Christes ig­norance, they produce that place where it is sayd: De illo die nemo Mar. 13. scit: That day no man knoweth, neither the Angells, nor the sonne, but only the Father. Wherby is not ment, that Christ did not know, when that day should be, (as our Aduer­saries do infer) but that he did not know it to tell it to o­thers. And thus Ambrose l. 5. de fide cap. 8., Gregory l. 4. E­pist. 42., Ierome [...]n c. 24. Math., Basil l. 4. in Eunomiū., and Austin l. 1. de Gens. con­tra Ma­nich. c. 22. expound these words.

[Page 130] 15 23. To maintaine that blasphemy, that Christ suffered throughout his Passion the paynes of hell, they are not ashamed to vrge his feare & sweating in the Gardē, most differently from the iudgmēt of the aunciēt Fathers; for S. Hilary Can. 31. in Math. saith, that Christ thē feared in regard of his dis­ciples, whom he saw would forsak him: Ierome in 26. Math. writeth that he then grieued for the Iewes, in sinning so much by crucifying him. Ambr. In c. 22. Luc. & Chrysost. In c. 26. Math. attribute his feare, to his naturall affectiō, as fearing the death of his body.

24. To the vphoulding of the same impiety, they wrest those words of the Apostle, VZ. Indiebus Hebr. 5. carnis pre­ces &c. Who in the dayes of his flesh did offer vp prayers and suppli­cations with strong crying, and teares vnto him, that was able to saue him from death, and was also heard, in that which he feared: Our Aduersaries meaning hereby, that Christ did not pray, that he should not dye, but that he might not be e­ternally damned; and through this feare he was heard of his Father. Wheras the true, both reading (according to the [...] propter re­uerentiam eius. Greeke) and meaning is, that Christ was heard of his Father, either because himselfe was worthy of all honour and reuerence; or in that, he did affect his Father withall due honour and reuerēce. And thus do we find this place expounded by Chrysostome, and Oecumenius, all of them so wryting vpon this text.

25. To impugne Purgatory and prayer for the dead, they alledge the saying of Dauid: Cū Psalm. 126. dederit dilectis suis sō ­num, ecce haereditas Domini. When he shall giue sleepe & rest to his beloued, then behould the inheritance of the Lord. They inferring hereby, that al the godly presētly vpō their death do come to heauen; wheras indeed this text is menat of the general 16 resurrectiō of all: & this is so expounded by S. Austin In hūc locum. In like sort they produce that place of Ecclesiasticus c. 9.: Quodcū (que) facere potest manus tua, instanter operare: Whatsoeuer thy hād can do, do it instātly, because neither any worke, nor reasō, nor knowledg, nor wisedome is beneth, whither thou hastest: they meaning heerby, that the dead haue no feeling, knowledg nor help of the liuing. Which place (according to the expositiō of the Fathers) makes nothing against Purgatory; for S. Ierome In Cō ­ment. hu­ius loci. [Page 131] doth interprete these wordes, either of such, as beleeue nei­ther heauen nor hell, nor any thing els to follow after this life; or els of those, who liuing wickedly, and so dy­ing, do descend directly into hell, where there is no re­medy nor hope of solace. S. Gregory l. 4. Dialog. c. 39. applyeth this place, euen to those which come to Purgatory, interpreting, that a man after he is dead, by himselfe can make no mea­nes of ease and releefe, but if he be holpen with the prayers of the liuing, it is because he hath deserued so to be relie­ued, when he was aliue by his good works and life.

26. Lastly they alledge that passage of Ecclesiastes c. 11. (aboue touched) the answere wherof, is in the former Chapter but one set downe; to wit, that those which are in Purgatory, belong to the South, that is to heauen, frō whence there is no passage to hell, nor from hell thither. And thus is that text expounded by S. Ierome In Cō ­ment hu­ius loci..

27. Against prayer to Saintes. They vrge that, which the Apostle saith: Vnus 1. Ti­moth. 2. est mediator Dei & hominum &c. 17 One mediatour betwene God and man, which is the man Christ Ie­sus. Which place indeed is vnderstood of a mediatour on­ly in respect of our Redemption, but not in regard of In­tercession. In which sense Cyril l. 12. Thesau. c. 10. was not affrayd to cal the Prophets & Apostles Mediatours betwen God & VS, & Gregory Orat. ad Gregoriū. Nyss. Nazianzene the martyrs. To the same end, they wrest those words to the Colossians Coloss. 2.: Nemo vos seducat, vo­lens in humilitate & religione Angelorum &c. Let no man se­duce you by humblenes of mynd and worshipping of Angells &c. In which place the Apostle doth condemne the heresy of Si­mon Magus, who following the Platonicks, did teach, that certaine Angells were to be worshipped, as inferiour Gods, & which made the world, and through whose me­diation only the wrath of the great & inuisible God was to be appeased, as appeareth (besides out of the text it selfe) from the expositions of Chrysostome Hom. 7. in epist. ad Coloss., Occume­nius In hunc locum., and Theophilact Ibidem. of this place. S. Ierome q. 10. ad [...]gasiam. teacheth, that in that former place of the Apostle, those are reprehē ­ded, who did sacrifice to the Angells. They also alledge some places, which do seeme to intimate, that the Saintes, [Page 132] & such as be dead, do know nothing of the actions of the liuing, as for example, Tues Isa. 63. enim Pater noster, Abraham nesciuit nos &c. Thou art our father, Abrahā hath not known vs, & Israel hath bene ignorant of vs. To which place is answered, that Abraham, and others of the old Testament did not know, what their children & successours being aliue, did here vpon earth, because themselues were not as yet bles­sed. And we grant, that the dead naturally do not know, what the liuing do. And thus S. Austin l. de cu­ra promort. c. 13. expoundeth this text.

18 28. Lastly (to conclude this poynt of producing the Fathers expositions of Scripture against our Aduersaries) wheras they do alledge to proue, that there is now no sa­crifice in the Church, the words of our Sauiour, Ioan. 29. Cō ­summatum est, It is consummated or finished. As if our Sauiour testifyed hereby, that whatsoeuer was requisite for our health and saluation was accomplished and consummated by his only sacrifice vpon the Crosse: wheras his meaning only was, that all his afflictions and punishments, which he suffred in flesh, were consummated and ended by his death vpon the Crosse: & thus do Austin, Cyril, Theophilact, & Chrysostome teach in their expositions of this place.

29. This now (among many other like passages of Scripture, obiected by our Aduersaries) may serue to dis­couer the Fathers iudgments, in the explicating of al such texts; and how far distant (at least in those learned Do­ctours censures) they are from cōtradicting any one point of our Catholike Fayth; & consequently how preiudici­all it were to the Protestants in the Fathers iudgments, to make the holy Scripture, the sole and last resort and Tri­bunall of Controuersies. And here we are to aduertise the Reader, that he is not to expect, that the Fathers should preuent in their bookes & Commentaries, by way of ex­plication, the obiections, and arguments drawne from all such places of Scripture, as are vrged by our Aduersaries; both because they could not foresee the Heresies of our tymes; as also if they had, yet could they not be induced to belieue, that any one of learning, professing Christian [Page 133] Fayth and Religion would so pertinaciously, and imper­tinently rack and force Gods sacred word for the vphoul­ding of their Heresies, as the Sectaries of our age haue done.

30. Neither is the Reader to looke, that our Catho­like Expositions of euery text, which our Aduersaries doe vrge against vs, should be warranted with the authori­ties of many Fathers, (though most of them haue bene so fortified) in that, some such passages of Scripture there are, of which few Fathers did vndertake to make any pecu­liar Comment or exposition at all. Only it suffiseth, that we can haue our expositiōs of euery such sentēce of Scrip­ture strengthned with the authorities of some few of thē. And that the Protestants are not able to alledge so much as one Father interpreting in the Protestants construction against our Catholike Doctrine, any one of the former al­ledged places of Scripture, or any one other text which our Aduersaries alledge though heere it be not set downe. And now hauing thus dislodged our Aduersaries of their best couerts and places of Retyre, for patronage of their strange and exorbitant Positions and Do­ctrine; as also, hauing in the precedent Chapter forti­fied and strengthned with the Fathers explications the sense and meaning of such texs, as we produce against thē, I will herein proceed no further, referring one point to their owne considerations and iudgments; to wit, whe­ther themselues receaue greater hurt and domage, by the Fathers erecting their impregnable Forts of Gods word, from whence they make their issues & sallyes out in pur­suite and profligation of these mens Heresies; then by the sayd Fathers raising and battering downe, the weake houlds and fortresses of such misapplyed texts of holy Scripture, wherin our Sectaries are wont to place theyr greatest strength and confidence; since by the first, theyr Heresies receaue most deadly and incurable wounds; by the second, the Catholike Faith is secured & freed from al dangerous assaults and encounters.

31. But to end this point, (to wit that the Fathes [Page 134] interpreted the Scripture in generall, in one & the same sense with vs Catholikes) the euidency of it is such, as that therefore the Fathers are charged by our Aduersaries (through their supposed misconstruction of Scripture) as maintainers of Popish Religion. The consideration of which assertion of theirs, being for seueral respects not to be neglected, and as particularly conducing to our presēt purpose, induceth me a litle to insist in setting downe the seuerall reproualls and criminations of the Protestantes bouldly deliuered against the Fathers for their defending of our Catholike Articles and Doctrine. Which point being made manifest, it then ineuitably followeth, that euē in our Aduersaries iudgments, the Fathers did deliuer the sayd constructions of Scripture, which we Catholik [...] do, seing the Fathers maintained no Doctrines, but such as were in their owne opinions warranted with the au­thority of Gods sacred wrytten word, or at least not any way impugned by the same.

32. And first we find D. Whitaker Contra Duraeum. l. 6. p. 423. (scornefully traducing the Fathers in a generall) to write, thus the Popish Religion (to vse his own words) is a patched Couerlet of the Fa­thers errours sowed together.

33. D. Whitguift In his defence of the answer to the ad­monition pag. 472. & 473. (the once pretended Archbishop of Canterbury) in like manner thus chargeth the Fathers: How greatly were almost all the Bishops and learned wryters of the Greeke Church, and Latin also for the most part, spotted with Do­ctrines of freewill, of merits, of Inuocation of Saintes, and such like? meaning such like points of our Religion.

34. Peter De vo­tis p. 476. Martyr speaking of the supposed Po­pish Errours, thus insimulates the Fathers within the said errours, saying: As long as we insist in Councels and Fathers, so long we shalbe conuersant in the said errours. Malancthon Iu 1. Cor. c. 3. in like sort inueighing against the Fathers, thus auerreth: Presently from the beginning of the Church, the anncient Fathers obscured the Doctrine concerning the iustice of faith, increased Ce­remonies, and deuised peculiar worships.

35. M. Iewel l. de vi­ta Iewelli printed at London. pag. 212. most Hypocritically appealing to the Fathers at Paules Crosse, as challenging them for Prote­stants, [Page 135] is sharply reprehended for such his idle vaunting by D. Humfrey himselfe in these words: He gaue the Papists too large a scope, was iniurious to himselfe, and after a māner spoi­led himselfe and his Church.

36. Beza thus In his preface vpō the new Test [...]ment dedicated do the Prince of Condy an­no 2587. confidently wryteth vpon the said poynt: Euen in the best tymes (meaning the tymes of the Fa­thers of the Primitiue Church) the ambition, ignorance, and lewdnes of the Bishops was such, that the very blynd may easily per­ceaue, that Sathan was president in their assemblies or Councels.

37. But I will conclude this point with the testi­mony of Luther, who, as he was the first in our age; that broached a religion vnknowne to the Fathers of the Pri­mitiue Church: So he shewed himselfe most insolent in controlling them for their maintaining of our Catholike Religion, he thus speaking of them Luther Tom. 2. VVitten­berg. anno 1551. deser­uo arbitrio pag. 434.: The Fathers for so many ages haue bene plainly blind, and most ignorant in the Scrip­tures, they haue erred all their life tyme, and vnles they were amē ­ded before their deathes, they were neuer Saintes, nor pertayning to the Church.

38. Now from all these assertions of our Sectaries it is necessarily gathered, that their disclaiming from the aun­cient Fathers, as patrones of our religion, doth implicitly inuolue in it selfe (as aboue I haue touched) that euen in our aduersaries acknowledgmēts, the Fathers interpreted the Scriptures in one and the same sense with vs Catho­likes, (for if they had made one and the same construction of the Scripture with the Protestāts, they had then taught the same Doctrine, which the Protestants now teach) and consequently it appeareth, how dangerous it is to our Ad­uersaries to appeale to the Scripture alone, as Iudge of all Controuersies, if for the true construction and sense ther­of, they would rest in the iudgments of the anncient Fa­thers.

That the Scripture doth make for the Catholikes, euen by the tacite acknowledgment of our Aduersaries, rising from their main­tayning of our Catholike articles. CHAP. XI.

IN this last place we are to vndertake to shew, that euen by our Aduersaries Confes­sions, the holy Scripture is most cleare for iustifying our Catholike Faith: which point might be proued at large by producing their owne words and expositions of many of the chiefe pas­sages of Scripture, wherby we are able to demonstrate out of their owne books and writings, that they are interpre­ted by them in the same sense and meaning, wherein we Catholikes do vsually expound them. But this course I will purposely forbeare, partly to auoyde the distastfull iteration of the former texts so often already repeated, but chiefly in regard of the tedious prolixity, which would necessarily attend the deliuering (in their owne wordes) of our Aduersaries expositions of all such places; and in supply therof, I will take a more briefe (and yet no lesse conuincing) method. That is, I will set downe ten of our mayne Controuersies (for example of al the rest) acknow­ledged, taught, and iustified by our Aduersaries, and such who for wit and learning may seeme to equall any o­thers of their owne side. Which thing being once perfor­med, it then ineuitably followeth (euen from their owne Principles) that they acknowledge the Scriptureto make for the Catholikes in the sayd Doctrines confessed by thē, since their owne generall and constant axiome Luther i [...] Cōment. c. 1. ad Ga­lat. Caluin. l. 4. Instit. c. 8. §. 8. Chemnit. in Exam. Conc. Tri­dent. sess. 4. & in libro quem in­seripsit, Theologiae Iesuit. prae­cip. capit. Brentius in suis Prologe­minis c. de Traditio­nibus. Hā ­melmanus in suo vo­lumine cō ­tra Tradi­tiones, & alij per­multi. is, that they are not to beleeue any thing, as matter of fayth, but what hath it warrant in Gods written word. And to proceed yet more particularly, seing that for iustifying of [Page 137] such Catholike articles, no passages of Scripture can be alledged more forcibly and pressingly by our Aduersaries own censure, then the texts alledged in the former Chap­ters, it therfore may be concluded, that those very parti­cular 1 texts (euen by the acknowledgment of the Prote­stants) do receaue that sense and construction, which the Fathers, and we Catholikes haue deliuered of them for proofe and warranting of our fayth. Agayne, wheras our Aduersaries (which maintaine any such Catholike Posi­tions) will (no doubt) confidently auouch, that they teach nothing which may be contradicted by the Scripture; It in like sort followeth, that all such texts of Scripture mē ­tioned aboue, and others of like nature (which are vrged by other protestāts to impugne the said Catholike points) are, at least in these mens iudgments, to be taken in a con­struction far different from ouerthrowing the sayd arti­cles. 2 So as the conclusion of all is this, that in these mens censures, we implicity do shew, that such authorities of Scripture vrged by vs, do confirme our Catholike Fayth, and obiected by them do preiudice it nothing at all. But to beginne.

1. And first concerning the Primacy of one in the Church of God; we fynd that Caluin Alled­ged by VVhitg. p. 137. thus sayth: The twelue Apostles had one among them to gouerne the rest. D. Whit­guift vbi su­prap. 375. sayth: Among the Apostles themselues there was one chiefe. &c. In like sort Musculus Alled­ged by VVhit­guift vbi supra. p. 66. sayth: Peter is found in many places to haue bene chiefe among the rest. Melancthon In his booke inti­tuled Cen­tur. epist. theolog. epist 74. thus writeth: as certaine Bishops are President ouer many Churches, so the Bishop of Rome is President ouer all Bishops, and this Canonical policy no wyse man (I hope) will, or ought to disalow. To maintaine this sayd Doctrine Iacobus Andraeas is alledged by Hospinianus Histo­ria sacra­mentaria part. 2. fol. 589.

2. That the Pope is not Antichrist appeareth frō the testimonies of diuers Protestants, which teach, that Antichrist is not yet come. So doth Zanchius In epist. Pauli ad Philippens. teach: the like doth Franciscus In his booke inti­tuled An­tichristus siue progno sti [...] mun­di Lambertus affirme: And Done in one of his sermons Of the s [...]ond cō ­ming of Christ. confesseth: That some Protestantes do make a doubt, whether Antichrist be yet reuealed or no. And heere we are to obserue, that some other Protestants, who do teach [Page 138] him to be come, do make the Turk to be him; thus doth Melācthon (so vrged by Haruey, in his Theological discourse, pag. 102.) Bucer, and Fox teach, vz. Act. Mon. of anno. 1577. pag. 539.

3 3. Touching the Reall Presence, who knoweth not, that Luther, and the Lutheranes defend it. And ther­fore it is needles to set down the particular names of any of them, since the maintainers of this Doctrine (which are not Catholikes) are tearmed Lutherans, especially be­cause they chiefly dissent from the Caluinistes in this poynt.

4 4. That Priests do truly remit sinnes by Absolution, and not only pronounce them to be remitted, appeareth from the testimony of the English Communion booke, where the Priest sayth: And by his authority committed to me, I absolue thee from all thy sinnes. Which booke is therfore re­prehended by the booke called, the Suruey p. 145. of the booke of common prayer. As also the same is proued by Lobechius Disput. Theologic. pag. 301., who sayth: That God remits sinne immediatly by himselfe, but mediatly by his ministers. And that the Caluinistes do therfore erre in withdrawing this efficacy from the absolution giuen by the minister of the word. Thus farre Lobechius. And answerably hereto we find, that Melancthon In A­polog. con­fess. Aug. art. 13. did teach, that Absolution is properly a Sacrament. The like did Spandeburge In margarit. Theologic. pag. 116., Andraeas In con­cilat. loco­rum seript. pugnant. loc. 191. Althamerus, and Sarcerius Loc. com. hom. 1. de potest. Eccles. fol. 305. affirme.

5. That the Sacraments of the new Testament, con­ferre grace, ex opere operato, appeareth from the iudgment of D. Bilson in his true difference, part. 4. pag. 539 D. Whita­ker contra Duraeum. l. 8. p. 662. M. Hooker in his Ecclesiasti­call policy lib. 5. sect. 57. Melancthon in cap. 4. epist. ad Roman. Iacobus Andraeas, in Epitom. colloq. Montisbelgar. pag. 58. Luc. Osiander in Enchirid. controuers. &c. p. 272.

6. The Doctrine of Freewill in like sort is maintay­ned by Osiander, Cent. 16. p. 814. by Siccanus & Hemingius, as Willet doth witnesse in his Sinopsis printed 1600. p. 808. By Perkins, in his reuelat. p. 326.

5 7. The Doctrine of merit of workes, to wit, that in re­gard of Christ his Passion and promise, and as proceeding [Page 139] from faith (all which poynts the Catholiks do acknow­ledge 6 as necessary) they are meritorious, is warranted by the testimonies of Melancthon loc. com. de bo­nis operib., of the Confessions (q) in the Harmony, of Hooker l. 5. Ec­clesiast. po­lic. sect. 72. pag. 208., and of the disputation holden at Ratisbone p. 509..

8. The forbearance of certaine meates at set tymes, and this not for a politick respect, but in regard of spiri­tuall ends, is iustified by Hooker In his Ecclesiast. polic. l. 5. sect. 72. p. 204., who not only condem­neth Aerius and Montanus for teaching the contrary, but doth also answere the place vrged out of S. Paul by our 7 Aduersaries, in disproofe of our Catholike fastings. The sayd Doctrine is also approued by a booke (wrytten by a Protestant authour) intituled, Querimonia p. 31. & 94. Ecclesiae, prin­ted in London anno 1592.

9. The Doctrine of Euangelicall Counsels is maintained by Luther, assertio­nib. art. 30. by Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall policy. lib. 3. 8 sect. 8. pag. 140. and by D. Couel in his defence of Hooker art. 8. p. 49. 50. &c.

9 10. Lastly that the true Church is euer to be Visible, is proued from the testimonies of Melancthon, who alled­ging sundry texts out of Scripture in proofe therof, thus loc. com. de Ec­cles. p. 354. concludeth: Hi & similes loci non de Idea Platonica, sed de Ec­clesiae visibili loquuntur. D. Field l. 1. of the Church p. 19. & 21. doth affirme the same, and therupon reprehendeth Bellarmine for prouing need­lesly 10 the Visibility of the Church, as if the same were de­nyed by the Protestants. D. Humfrey in like sort iustifieth the Churches Visibility: and intreating at large and prouing this poynt, in the end directeth his wordes to the Catho­likes in this manner: Cur In Ie­suitismo part. 2. rat. 3. p. 240. ergo anxiè & curiosè probant, quod ànobis nunquam est negatum: that is, why do our Aduersa­ries so painfully proue that (to wit the Churches Visibility) which we neuer denied? Thus teacheth the said Doctour.

11. The same Doctrine of the Churches Visibility, is in like sort maintained by Henoch Clappam In his soueraigne remedy against schisme p. 18., who thus saith: Not only all Auncients did hould the Churches Visibility, but also al learned men of our age.

12. These now ten articles among many other such like Catholike poynts, acknowledged by our Aduersa­ries, [Page 140] (as the Reader may fully see in that most elaborate, learned, conuincing, and vnanswerable booke, stiled, The Protestants Apology of the Roman Church) may be sufficient to proue, that the Scripture maketh most cleare and euidēt for the iustifying of our Catholike Fayth in the former poynts, at least in the iudgments of these (as I may tearme them) Agrippian, and halfe Christians; I meane, in the iudg­ments of the aforealledged Protestants teaching and ac­knowledging these Catholike Positions. And the reason hereof is, in that those who maintaine and defend the sayd former articles, do neuertheles (as I touched before) confidently teach & auouch, that, that only (and nothing els) is to be beleeued in matters of faith, which is manifest­ly and expresly warranted, or necessarily deduced out of the written word. Now this being thus, I see not how our former Protestants can auoyde and diuert the danger of this their present Doctrine, which broacheth, that the written word alone is solely & definitiuely to determine all Ecclesiastical doubts & Controuersies of Religion.

The Conclusion. CHAP. XII.

IT is recorded of a certaine Heathen Poet, who endeauouring to discounsell his Prince and Me­caenas from waging of warre (to the which he had bene ouermuch inclined) composed a Tra­gedy, representing therin all those aggreuances and ter­rours commonly attending vpon warrs; as sacking of townes, depopulation of countries, slaughter of souldiers, murthering of the innocent, and other such lamentable effects. But insteed of his Catastrophe, or last Act therof, he caused the Chorus, without any speach at all, to bring forth in a vessell, certaine dead bones of his Princes predeces­sours, with a paper therin bearing this (or the like) inscrip­tion, [Page 141] [...]. That is: Behould heere (mighty Prince) the bonesof such thy aun­cestours, which were slaine and dyed in the warres. Which dead­liuely spectacle being set in the sight of his Lord, spake (no doubt) more feelingly and persuadingly) as forcing or inuading his Vnderstanding by the irresistable assault of the Eye) then the deliuerance of words, or any other external representation could import.

2. The like in the closure of this treatise I thinke good to obserue, for hauing laboured to withdraw our Sectaries from erecting the Scripture as sole Iudge of Cō ­trouersies; in the patronizing wherof they warr & fight a­gainst Gods sacred word, against the practise of the church in her first purity, against the vniforme iudgment of the auncient Fathers, and finally against Reason it self. And hauing refuted this their Doctrine, first by discouering the difficulty of the Scriptures, in regard wherof, euery pri­uate spirit (though of such as are predestinated and ele­cted) cannot assure himself indubiously of their true sense & meaning. Secōdly by laying down the incōpetency & insufficiency of the Scriptures in this poynt, proceeding both from the Protestants disagrements, which is Scrip­ture, from the corruptions of all Originalls and Transla­tions therof now extant, at least by the iudgment of our new Ghospellers; and lastly by shewing, that supposing the Scripture to be this iudge, yet it maketh in behalfe of vs Catholiks, and not for our Aduersaries, if we insist ei­ther in the perspicuity of the letter therof, or in the iudg­ment of the Fathers and Protestants passed theron. The proofe of which passages necessarily forcing, that the Scripture cannot be this determining Iudge. Which being accomplished, it now remaineth (by allusion to the for­mer Poet) that in place of an exact & ceremonious Con­clusion, I only present to the view of the Protestants, the yet extant, and (as it were) the vn-entombed sentences & Iudgments of their own ancestours, (I meane of Luther, Caluin, Zuinglius, and their followers) wherin with great bitternes of speach, they do anathematize and damne one [Page 142] another for their different opinions rysing out of their supposed reuealing spirit, & out of their priuate interpre­ting the Scriptures, as ech one doth truly charge another; though they all indifferently maintained with the like feruour this Doctrine, promising infallibly to thēselues in particular the certainty of this spirit, and iustifying in like sort the Scripture for Iudge.

3. These censures (I say) I will present to the eye of their iudgments, as so many vnburyed parcels of their forefathers dead memories, still remaining to witnes to their children, that their said Predecessours in this Do­ctrine, did perish in the iustifying of this their quarrel, not only by the hands of their professed Aduersaries the Ca­tholiks; but also by the bloudy wounds, which their cre­dit and estimation reciprocally receaued from their seue­re sentencing of one another, as often as any of them at­tempted to practise in their particular works and labours, touching the making the Scripture sole Iudge of Contro­uersies, which afore they all had ioyntly taught by spe­culation. And heere it is to be obserued, that their inter­changable condēnations are in seueral māners & sorts. 1. The Lutheranes with the Sacramentaries (I meane with the Swinglians and Caluinists.) 2. The Sacramentaries, with the Lutheranes. 3. The Lutheranes among themselues. 4. The Sa­cramentaries among themselues, vnder whome are comprehē ­ded the Protestants and Puritanes here in England. All which parties notwithstāding equally maintained the Scripture for Iudge, and the infallibility of the priuate spirit, and therfore vpon this ground and principle (if so it were true) their own spirits (ech one challenging the like priuiledge therin) should haue necessarily conspired and agreed togeather in their Doctrine & expositions of the sayd Scriptures, since the spirit of God is one, not ma­ny. Epist. ad Ioannem Heruagiū Typogra­phum Ar­gentinum. And first I will begin with the iudgments of the Lu­therans passed vpon the Sacramentaries.

4. Luther Thes. 2. cont. Louaniens. himselfe saith: We seriously iudge the Zuin­glians and Sacramentaries to be Heretikes, and Aliens from the Church of God. And in another place he saith: The Sacra­mentaries [Page 143] began their opinion of the Sacrament with lyes, and with lyes they defend it. As also in third Tom. [...]. in def ver­bor. caenae Domini f. 389. place he thus wryteth against them: We will reproue and condemne them (to wit the Sacramentaries) for Idolaters, corrupters of Gods word, blas­phemers and deceauers, and of them as of the enemies of the Ghos­pell, we will sustaine persecution, and spoile of our goods, and what­soeuer they shall do vnto vs, as long as God will permit.

5. Neither are Luthers Posthum, or his after-broode (I meane the Lutherans, whome by the testimony of Doct. Whitaker In his answere to F. Campiā the eight reason. the English Protestāts imbrace as their deare brethren in Christ) more mild in censuring the Sacramē ­taries, then their Father was: for Luke Enchi­rid. cont. Caluinian. c. 7. Osiander (a Luthe­ran) speaking of certaine wicked assertions of them tou­ching Christ saith thus: But heere gētle Reader) behind & aboue those blasphemous things, which in the discourse, afore, we haue heard against the Sonne of God, out of the opinion of our Aduersa­ries the Caluinistes, there openeth it selfe a gulfe or hell of Caluiniā Doctrine, in which, if thou diligently waigh the matter, God is said to be the author of sinne &c. and hence of necessity must arise in the harts of men manifest blasphemies against God. The said au­thour Ibid. in Conclus. p. 267. in the same booke saith also thus: Let any godly or friendly Reader whatsoeuer thinke, what deadly poison doth powre it selfe into men vnder the Caluinian Doctrine, by which al Chri­stianisme almost is ouerthrowne.

6. Brentius In re­cognit. prophetar. saith: All the Zuinglians workes are full of deprauations, cunninges, deceipts, and slaunders. Westphalus Apo­log cont. Caluin p. 430. c. 19. reporteth: That all the Caluinian workes are stuffed with tauntes, curses, and lyes. And he further affirmeth, that he is able to shew certaine pages of Caluins workes, of which euery one containeth aboue 30. notable lyes and taunts. Con­radus Schlusselb. In prae­fat. theo. Caluinist. protesteth; that the Caluinistes do nourish Arian and Turkish impieties in their hearts, which doth not seldome at fit tymes openly disclose it selfe.

7. Stankarus Contra Caluin. k. 4. thus wryteth to Caluin: What deuill (ô Caluin hath seduced thee, to speake with Arius against the sonne of God &c And after the said Lutheran concludeth: Beware (ô Christian Readers) and especially all you Ministers, beware of the bookes of Caluin, and principally in the articles of the Trinity. [Page 144] Incarnation, Mediatour, the Sacrament of baptisme &c.

Hunnius In [...]his epist. dedi­catory of the Cōfut. of Caluins depraua­tions. chargeth Caluin: That he wresteth the Scripture horribly, from the true sense to the ouerthrow of himselfe and others. And thus passing ouer the censures, which the bookes Caluinus Iudaizans, & Caluino-papismus affoard against him, as also omitting many other Lutherans writings against Caluin and his sect, and leauing out of the former Luthe­ranes (for breuity sake) infinite other most notorious pas­sages directed to the same purpose; this already set down shall suffice concerning their condemnation of him, & the Sacramentaries.

9. Now let vs see on the contrary side, how the Sa­cramentaries do beare themselues towards Luther and the Lutherans, contenting our selues with the same few pla­ces only of their censures, which may serue for a tast of the rest.

10. And first Zuinglius Tom. 2. in respons. ad Luther. confess. fol. 458. & 459. calleth Luther, Marcion; & fur­ther saith, that he is guilty of high blasphemy against the nature & essence of God, in that he taught that Christ dyed according to his diuinity. He further thus speaketh of Luther, touching the same poynt: This can be by no reason explained or excused, for (Luther) clearly and manifestly confesseth, that he wil not acknow­ledge Christ to be his Sauiour, if only his humanity had suffered. Zuinglius In res­pons. ad Luther. l. de Sacram. fol. 401. also wryting in another place against Luthers Doctrine thus sayth: Thou (Luther) shalt be forced either to de­ny the whole Scriptures of the new Testament, or to acknowledge Marcions heresy.

11. Caluin Instit. l. 4. c. 17. §. 16. speaking of Luthers heresies sayth: By the Lutherans, Marcion is raised out of hell: and in another place Ad­monit. 3. ad VVestpha­lum. Caluin sayth: The Lutheranes are forgers and lyars.

12. Ioannes Campanus In Col­loq. lat. Luther. Tom. 2. c. de Aduer­sar. a Sacramentary saith: as cer­taine as God is God, so certaine it is, that Luther was a diuelish lyar.

13. Lastly (for greater contraction of this point) Oe­colampadius affirmeth that the Lutherans bring forth only a co­lour or shadow (as Heretikes commonly are accustomed to do) of the word of God. They bring not the word of God, and yet will seeme to Dialog. cont. Me. lancthonē. build vpon the word of God. See with what ful & intemperate termes they do enterchāge one another. Now as we haue [Page 145] seene the Lutherans condemning the Sacramentaries for their interpretation of Scripture, and these them againe: So neither of these two sects do absolutely approue such, as are euen of their owne faction.

14. And first we find that Conradus In Ca­talog. nostri tem­poris l. 1. the foresayd Lutheran placeth six sorts of his owne Lutherans in the Catalogue of Heretikes. So (through the disallowing of one anothers Doctrine) did first rise the distinction of Molles & Rigidi Lutherani; so as it is manifest, euen out of their owne bookes and inuectiues, that they hould one another for Heretikes.

15. Now touching the Sacramentaries among themselues: Doth not Caluin lib. de coena Do­mini & l. 4. Instit. c. 15. §. 1. condemne Zuinglius, for teaching that the Sacraments are bare externall signes? And is not Caluin reciprocally condemned by Zuinglius Zuin­glius epist. ad quandā Germaniae ciuitatem fol. 196. & in Com­mentar. de vera & falsa relig. c. de Sacra. againe, because he attributed more to the Sacraments then externall signes?

16. Castalio In l. ad Caluin. de praedest. a Sacramentary, charging Caluin for teaching God to be the authour of sinne, maketh a distinction of the true God, and of Caluins God, and gi­ueth a different description of them both, and among o­ther thinges he there thus concludeth: By this meanes not the diuell, but the God of Caluin is the Father of lyes: but that God which the holy Scripture teacheth, is altogether contrary to this God of Caluin &c. And then after: The true God came to destroy the workes of the Caluinian God, and these two Gods, as they are by na­ture contrary one to another, so they beget and bring forth children of contrary disposition; to wit, that God of Caluin children without mercy, proud, &c. Thus Castilio. And thus much of our for­raine new Ghospellers for some tast of the bitter sentences deliuered against one another; in which poynt I acknow­ledge not to haue set downe the hundred part of theyr mutuall accusations.

17. Now if we looke here at home, it is easy to shew that the Protestantes and Puritanes do as litle fauour one another for their seuerall Doctrines rysing from making the Scripture sole iudge of Religion, as the fore named Sectaries haue done. Hence it is, that the Puritanes will [Page 146] not acknowledge the Protestantes to be true and sincere professours of the Ghospell, as appeareth by their diuers admonitions exhibited to the Parliamentes, euery lea [...]e almost therin inueighing against them, as against the Ghospells enemies. So we see that in one of their bookes A Christian and modest offer &c. pag. 11. they say: That if themselues be in errour, and the Prelats on the contrary haue the truth, they protest to all the world, that the Pope and the Church of Rome (and in them God and Christ Iesus himselfe) haue great wrong and indignity offred vnto them, in that they are reiected &c.

18. Touching the Protestantes recrimination of the Puritanes; we find, that the Protestantes Powel in his Con­sideratiōs. do cen­sure them to be notorius and manifest Schismatikes, and members cut of from the Church of God. They are sayd by another Protestant The Suruey of the pretē ­ded disci­pline 1. 5. &c. 24. &c. 35. To haue peruerted the true meaning of certaine places, both of Scriptures and Fathers, to serue theyr owne turnes. And agayne the said Authour saith of them: The word of God is troubled with such choppers and changers of it &c. And to conclude he further affimeth (to leaue out infinite other places) That the later braules, pittifull distractions and cō ­fusions among the Puritanes, proceed of such intollerable presump­tion, as is vsed by peruerting and false interpretation of holy Scrip­ture. Which seuere and bitter condemnations of one ano­ther cannot be vnderstood to be spoken of things indiffe­rent, and touching ceremonies only, as they are wont to salue the matter, when they be charged therwith by Ca­tholikes.

19. These (loe) are the yet liuing-remembrances of our Sectaries Progenitours ouerthrow, occasioned through their waging of warre in the defence of so erro­neous a Doctrine; which alone are of force (if all other former proofes and arguments were defectiue) to con­uince our Nouellists of their foule errour therin. But since all these alledged authours were Protestants, and (for the greater part) acknowledged for men of Piety, and as pro­fessing the Ghospell, by the present Church of England; since they all disclaymed from the Churches authority in defining of Controuersies; all ventilated alike the facili­ty [Page 147] of the holy Scripture, & acknowledged it as sole iudge, and warranted their different Doctrines, from Scripture alone; finally all actually impatronized themselues of the interpreting spirit: since (I say) they all proceeded thus far, and were warranted therin with as much reason, as any Protestāt maintaining the same Doctrine at this pre­sent, can iustly apply to himselfe: yet seing not one of those would affoard any approbation of an others mans reuealing spirit, in the exposition of Scripture, but open­ly traduced ech others spirit, as erroneous and hereticall, and vpon their contrary expositions of Scripture they did beget contrary Doctrines: What then remaineth, but that euery sober and discret Christian do reiect this Paradox, to wit, that the Scripture is the sole and only iudge of Controuer­sies, since it hath ingendred in the propugners thereof such a Babylon of confused and tumultuous accusations? & that with al resignatiō of iudgment he humbly acknow­ledge, that Christ his Vicar (assisted with competency of meanes from the whole Church) is appoynted by Christ himselfe to be heere vpon Earth, the sole, supreme, and inappealable Iudge in all matters of fayth and religion; often recalling to his memory, that it is Math. 18. wrytten: Dic Ecclesiae, & si Ecclesiam nō audierit, sit tibi veluti Ethnicus & Pu­blicanus.