SECT. I.

SECT. II. The sacred Scriptures clearely teach that we are to repaire to the Church of Christ, for the finall deciding of Con­trouersies in Religion.

I Must once for all, most earnestly intreat the Christian Reader, of what Profession soeuer he be; that he diligent­ly obserue, whether the Texts of Scripture alledged, being taken in their natiue signification, and according to the li­terall sense which the words of themselues doe import, doe not clearely make for that Catholike point of doctrine, for which they are produced: for that being graunted, I gayne the intent which is heere desired.

In the booke of Exodus we read that, Moyses said to Ie­thro,C. 18. 15. 16. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23 24. 25. 26. The people commeth to me seeking the sentence of God. And when any Controuersie chanceth amongst them, they come vnto me to Iudge between them, and to shew the Precepts of God, and his Laws. But Iethro said &c. Heare my words and counsailes &c. Be thou to the people in those things that pertayne to God &c. And to shew to the people the Ceremonies and rytes of worshiping, and the way wherein they [Page 41] ought to walke, and the workes that they ought to doe. And prouide out of all the People, men that are wise, & doe feare God &c. which may iudge the people at all times: and what greater matter soeuer shall fall out, let them refer it to thee, and let them iudge the lesse matters only &c. If thou dost this, thou shalt fulfill the Commandmēt of God &c. which things when Moyses heard, he did all things that he had suggested vnto him. And choosing substantial men &c. he appointed them Princes of the people &c. who iudged the people at all times; and whatsoeuer was of greater difficulty they referred to him, themselues iudging the easier causes only. Now that these might rightly per­forme their charge, it is further said by God to Moyses,Num. 11.17. I will take of thy spirit, & will deliuer to thē &c. Many wordes in this Text plainly proue, that Moyses was the Supreme Iud­ge ouer the Israelits euē in matters of Religion. Let vs now examine those poorest euasiōs, which Protestāts haue for the auoyding of this plainest Text. M. BridgesDefence &c. l. 2. fol. 237. answereth heerunto, that the charge giuen heerto Moyses, was only in regard of ciuill causes, but this is cleerly contrary to the for­mer words of Scripture, Moises being to shew to the people, The precepts of God & his Lawes, the things that pertayne to God, & the very Ceremonies & rytes of worshipping. Other Protestāts yet further reply, that Moyses was not a Priest, but only a tem­porall Prince. But this is likewise most vntrue, for the same Scriptures affirme, that Moyses exercised all functions of Priesthood, as teaching theExod. 18.15 People all Precepts of God & his Lawes, Exod. 21.1. consecrating Aaron, and other Priests, and Ib. ver. 7.21. annoin­ting them, and their garments; yea which is most proper vnto a Priest;Ibid. vers. 36.37. he offered sacrifice euery day continually. A truth so manifest, that the Prophet Dauid sayd,Ps. 98.6. Moyses and Aaron in his Priests. And wheras Hunnius auoucheth thatColloq. Ratisb. Sess. 1. Moy­ses sacrificed as a Prophet of the Lord, not as a Priest, this is barely affirmed without all ground or proofe, and is cleerly con­uinced of falshood, by what hath been sayd next before.

As Moyses being a Priest, was thus ordayned by God the supreme Iudge euen in causes Ecclesiasticall: so were the people of Israel commanded to go to the high Priest for the finall decyding of their doubtes and dissentions.Deutr. 17.8.9.1 [...].11. And see cap. 1.5. If thou perceyue (sayth Moyses) that the iudgement with thee be hard and [Page 42] doubtfull betweene blood and blood, cause and cause &c and thou see that the words of the Iudges within thy gates do vary; aryse and go vp to the place which our Lord thy God shall choose. And thou shalt come to the Priests of the Leuiticall Stock, and to the Iudge that shall be at that time; & thou shalt aske of them, who shall shew thee the truth of the Iudgment. And thou shalt do whatsoeuer they that are Presidents of the place, which our Lord shall choose, shall say and teach thee, ac­cording to his Law, and shou shalt follow their sentence: neither shalt thou decline to the right hand, nor to the left hand. But he that shalbe proud, refusing to obey the Commandement of the Priest, which at that tyme ministreth to our Lord thy God, and the decree of the Iudge, that man shall dye. Here the people are commanded vnder paine of death, to submit themselues and their causes to the deci­cision of the high Priest. But D. Whitaker heereDe sacra Script. con­trou. 1. q. 5. p. 463. re­plieth, that the people were but commanded to obey the Priest, if he taught them according to the Law; in which sense Protestants professe to obey the Church or Councels, if they decree according to the Scriptures: Yet this doth nothing auayle; for first D. Whitaker and other Protestants, appea­ling euer to the Originall, as to the fountaine, and text most authenticall, and reiecting our vulgar translation as corrupt, these words, And teach thee according to his law, are only to be found in our vulgar, and not in the Hebrew. Secondly the forsaid words are not conditionall, but words of promise or assurance, that he shall teach the truth according to the Law, which appeareth as well, in that the people are comman­ded vnder payne of death, to abyde the Priests absolute sen­tence, as also in that, if the people were to iudge whether the Priest gaue sentence according to the Law, or no, then not the Priest, but the People were Iudges: And so wheras this Law was made for the Satisfaction of the People in their doubts, and finall ending of their controuersies, all things would be left no lesse doubtfull and disagreeing then before.

WherforeIn Prole­gom. cont. Petrum à Soto. Brentius further replieth, that the people are here referred not only to the Priest; but also to the ciuil Iudge, who therfore may heare and determine causes Eccle­siasticall. But the answere is easy, for first by the word, Iudge, [Page 43] we may wel vnderstand the chiefe or high Priest, for accor­ding to the Hebrew it is said; Ascend to the Priests, and to the Iudge, as if it had been said, Ascend to the Councel of Priests, and their Prince the high Priest. Secondly though we vn­derstand by the Iudge the ciuil Magistrate, yet this only ar­gueth their Offices to be distinct, as the Priests Office to concerne matters Ecclesiasticall; the Magistrates, matters ci­uil; the Priests, to giue definitiue sentence; the Magistrats to execute the same.

This answere then not satisfying, other Protestants seeke to euade by affirming barely that the forsayd Law of Deutronomy concerned only matters ciuill, not spirituall or directly tending to God. But besids that the law was ge­nerall, concerning all doubts arysing from the law, and the text sayth in generall, betweene cause and cause; seeing heer it is euident that the people are referred by God to the high Priest, for the determining of their difficulties; how absurd & distasting would it be to our politick State, if our English Clergy should affirme, that the decision of temporall and Ciuill suits were to be referred to the Priest or the Church? Yea how seuerely would Bishops and Ministers be puni­shed, if they should but endeauour to assume any such pre­tended authority?

Others obseruing that none of the foresayd euasions do sa­tisfy so plaine texts of Scripture, as not being able to deny the words to be most euident, do therefore, as acknowled­ging the same, yet further answere; that many things esta­blished in the old Law, are now abrogated by the new, and therefore, an argument drawne from the decrees & pra­ctise thereof, to be now inualide, in regard of our tyme of grace. But this also is as insufficient as the former answers; for although many things vsed in the old Law, being Cere­monial, be now abrogated; yet that maketh no more against the Ecclesiasticall Iudge now, then it doth against the Iudge in Ciuill causes, or the temporall Magistrats, which were appointed by God, and exercised their authority during the old Law: and therefore most things then prescribed, not being Ceremoniall, are still with vs Christians, though not [Page 44] in euery circum [...]tance, yet in substane obserued. And the rather ought this to be, seeing the occasions to haue Con­trouersies ended, and the dangers of erring are now no lesse then they were during the tyme of the old Law.

But all this is yet more fully explained and confirmed by holy King Iosaphat, who hauing appointed Priests in Hierusalem, sayd thus vnto them;2. Para­lip. c. 19. 10. 11. Euery cause that shall come to you of your brethren &c. Whersoeuer there is question of the Law, of the Commandement, of Ceremonies, of iustifications; shew it them, that they sinne not against our Lord &c. And Amarias the Priest, and your Bishop shalbe Chiefe in these things, which pertaine to God: moreouer Zabadias &c. who is the Prince in the house of Iuda, shalbe ouer those works, which pertaine to the Kings Office. So dinstinct­ly doth King Iosaphat allot to the Bishop the decision of questions of the Law, of the Commandement, and of all things which pertaine to God, leauing the care of such things as pertaine to the Kings Office, to Zabadias a temporall Prince.

Now it will not suffice to a [...]were, that Iosaphat made this distinction and Decree by his owne authority, & there­fore that the power which the Priest had for iudgment, was but giuen him by the King, and depended of his pleasure; for we haue seene before to the contrary, that the Ordinance was by God himselfe, who gaue the same authority to Moyses, and afterward enacted a Law thereof in Deutero­nomy, chap. 17. So that Iosaphat did onely command the execution of that which God had formerly prescribed.

By the Prophet Ezechiell God saith of Priests,C. 44. 23. 24. They shall teach my people what is between a holy thing and polluted, & between cleane and vncleane they shall shew to thē; And when there shalbe a Controuersy, they shall stand in my Iudgments, & shall Iudge &c. By the Prophet Aggeus God directeth his people to aske C. 2. 12. the Priests the Law. And by Malachy he promiseth thatC. 2, 7. The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, & the Law they shall require of his mouth, because he is the Angell of the Lord of Hosts; that is, his messēger sent & appointed to declare the truth. These texts are cleare for the Priest being Iudge, and the peoples requiring the knowledge of the Law from him.

This place of Malachy is so forcible, that Protestants [Page 45] for want of better answere, insteed of, shall keepe knowledge, doe most corruptlyEngl. Bibl. of 1578. translate, should preserue knowledge, contrary to all Originals.

Lastly of the practise of the old Testament, it is said, expressely, and this according to the Protestants translationEngl. Bibl. of An­no 1578., that Esd. 2.8.7.8.12.13. the Leuites caused the people to vnderstand the Law &c. and they read in the booke of the Law of God distinctly, and gaue the sense, and caused them to vnderstand the reading &c. Then all the people &c. made great ioy because they had vnderstood the words that they had taught them. And on the second day, the chiefe Fathers of all the people, the Priests, and the Leuits, were gathered vnto Esdras the Scribe, that he also might instruct them in the wordes of the Law. So plaine it is, that the people of the old Law, were instructed in their vnderstanding of the Law, and the Scri­ptures, not by their owne reading and conferring of Scri­ptures, or by any imagined and inuisible Ghost, but by the Priests & Leuits, who were then the Pastors of their Church. And agreably to this we shall see shortly, that the ApostleEph. 4.11. affirmeth, that now in the Church Christ hath placed not only Apostles, Prophets, and Euangelists, but also next after them Pastors and Doctors: The diuine Prouidence disposing, that we should haue not only the sacred writings of the Apo­stles, Prophets, and Euangelists, but also the Commentaries, Interptetations, and Preachings of Pastors and Doctors, in explanation therof. Which Pastors and Doctors (as CaluinInstit. c. 5. de fide. gathereth vpon this place) haue an ordinary Charge in the Church, and the Church can neuer want them, but euermore, as he sayth, Doctores praesunt Scripturae interpretationi &c. Doctors haue authority to interpret the Scriptures, that sincere and wholsome do­ctrine may be retayned among the faithfull. So false it is, that the externall Iudgment granted in the old Law, is now abro­gated by the New.

Now this course of deciding Controuersies by the Priests or the Church, being so generally prescribed and practised in the old Law, was in it selfe so good and profitable, that Christ at his comming approued and confirmed the same, saying,Mat. 23.2.3. Vpon the Chayre of Moyses haue sitten the Scribes, and the Pharisees. All things therefore whatsoeuer they shall say to you, [Page 46] obserue yee, and do yee; but according to their workes do you not, for they say, and do not. Heer our Sauiour commandeth the peo­ple to obserue and do, whatsoeuer the Scribes and Phari­sees shall say, or prescribe vnto them; and that for this rea­son, because vpon the Chayre of Moyses haue sitten the Scribes and the Pharisees: signifying thereby, the Supreme and infal­lible authority, which I haue proued before, was giuen to Moyses by God, for the decyding of Ecclesiasticall Con­trouersies: as also that his Successours in that Chayre, were to haue the same, though in their liues and conuersations they proued offensiue and scandalous. Where I cannot but note the speciall prouidence & care of God ouer his Church, who though he sometyme permit the Superiours and Pre­lates thereof, to be of sinnefull & scandalous lyfe, yet he euer so preserued them from teaching false doctrine to the people, as that he commandeth these still to follow their teaching, though their workes be bad: which in his goodnes and wis­dome he would not do, if in like sort he permitted them to erre in fayth and doctrine, as in lewdnes of lyfe; but rather to the contrary would giue them Counsayle, to take good heed both of their doctrine and lyfe. To conclude then, frō the ordinance and pactise of the old Law; If the cause to haue Controuersies ended be as vrgent now, as during the Old Testament, and the danger of errour as grieuous; then if the People were not referred to the written word, or the Priuate Spirit, for the decyding of their doubts, but e­uen to a visible and knowne Iudge, to wit, the Priests; may Christians,Heb. 8 6. Whose Testament is established in better pro­mises, expect lesse playne and certaine meanes for ending of their Controuersies? To affirme the contrary were indeed to prefer in this behalfe, Moyses before Iesus-Christ, & the Ecclesiasticall gouernment and policy of the old Law, be­fore ours, which were no lesse absurd in it selfe, then other­wise impious. And so I will passe to the Law of Grace.

It is prescribed by Christ himselfe, thatMat. 18.15.16.17.18. If thy Bro­ther shall offend agaynst thee, go and rebuke him beeweene thee and him alone. If he shall heare thee, thou shalt gayne thy brother. And if he will not heare thee, ioyne with thee besides, one or two &c. And [Page 47] if he will not heare them tell the Church. And if he will not heare the Church, let him be to thee as the Heathen and Publican. Amen I say to you, whatsoeuer you shall bynd vpon earth, shalbe bound also in hea­uen, and whatsoeuer you shall loose vpon earth, shalbe loosed also in heauen. Our Sauiour heere referreth the finall deci­ding of dissentions amongst Neighbours vnto the Church; therefore much more doth he the same in matters of Reli­gion. If he command an Adulterer to be brought to the iudg­ment of the Church, much more an Heretike. And if the Church haue authoritie to loose whatsoeuer (not onely whomsoeuer) vpon earth, then no question she hath autho­rity to loose all difficulties arysing in Religion. And if they who disobey the Churches sentence are to be accompted as Heathens and Publicans, that is, damnable sinners, then it fol­loweth euidently not onely the said sentence of the Church to be finall, not admitting any further appeale either to Scri­ptures, or the Priuat spirit, but also that the not hearing or disobeying the Churches Iudgment, is sinfull & punishable. D. Whitaker would auoid this two waies, first by expoun­ding it ofCon­trou. 2. q 4. c. 2. 3. Ecclesiasticall Censures, not of doctrine. Secondly by affirming that the Church is to be heard, but in those things onely, in which she heareth and obeyeth Christ. But if she be to be heard & obeyed in her Ecclesiasticall Censures of Excommunication and the like, much more in condemnation of Heresies; if she be confessedly the supreme Iudge in correcting and puni­shing vs, much more in directing & preseruing vs frō error. Neither doth Christ (as Whitaker pretendeth) restraine this Precept of obeying the Church to any particular matter, but indeed enlargeth it to all, saying,Mat. 18.18. Whatsoeuer you shall bind vpon earth &c. whatsoeuer you shall loose vpon earth &c. Ibid. v. 19. Concerning euery thing whatsoeuer they shall aske it shalbe done them. Luc. 10, 16. And he that heareth you heareth me. All (30) things whatsoeuer they shall say to you, obserue and doe yee. So cleare it is, that the forsaid place is not to be vnderstood only of Cēsures. In like sort to say the Church is to be heard,Mat. 23.3. but in those things on­ly in which she heareth and obeyeth Christ, or teacheth ac­cording to the Law, or Scriptures, is most idle, for so is any Child, and the Deuill himselfe to be heard. And so insteed [Page 48] of ending Controuersies, it begetteth new ones, calling the Church it selfe into question, when it is to be heard, and when not, and thereby making the sense onely to be this; Heare the truth wheresoeuer the truth is taught according to the Law, which to say, is not infallible, and finally to di­rect vs, but rather to leaue vs in our first and other new per­plexities. This place is so conuincing for the authority of the Church, as that our English Protestants in their Bible of 1562. doe translate the foresaid words thus: If he heare not them, tell the Congregation. So fearefull they are of the word Church, and the power therto giuen. This directiō of Christ, his Blessed Apostles and our first Christians obserued most diligently, for when some hadAct. 15.1.2.4.6.7.8.9.10.11.13.19.22.28.29. taught that, vnles you be cir­cumcised according to the manner of Moyses, you cannot be saued: No litle sedition therefore being risen to Paul and Barnabas against them, the Church of Antioch appointed, that Paul and Barnabas should go vp, and certaine others of the rest, to the Apostles and Priests vnto Hierusalem vpon this question. Which they accordingly doing, the Apostles and Ancients assembled to consider of this word. And when there was made a great diputation, Peter rysing vp decided the mat­ter, whose speach Iames confirmed, and the whole Church of Hierusalem so assented thereunto, as that they agreed the forsaid decree to be sent to Antioch, saying, It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to vs, to lay no further burthen vpon you, then these necessary things &c. Now when this decree was read at Antioch, they reioyced vpon the consolation. And when Paul and Timothy passed through the citties, they deliuered vnto them to keep the Decrees that were decreed of the Apostles [...]and Ancients which were at Hierusalem; yea it is expresly said, that Paul walked through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches: Commanding them to keep the Precepts of the Apostles and the Ancients. Here the deciding of the forsaid Controuersy, was not referred to the conference of Scripture, or the Priuat spirit, but to the Iudg­ment and determination of the Apostles, Priests, & Church of Hierusalem: which after consult had therof, they deter­mined, and their Decree without al further apeale was re­ceiued with ioy, and was holden as a Precept, and the ob­seruation therof was cōmanded by S. Paul. The Scrip [...]ures [Page 49] further teach vs, that we are bound to heare and obey our spirituall Pastors: Christ said vnto his Apostles,Luc. 10.16. He that heareth you, heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me. S. Paul likewise,Heb. 13.17. Obey your Prelates, and be subiect to them: for they watch, as being to render account for your soules. Now if we be commanded to heare and obey them, as our Prelates, Eph. 4.11. Pastors, and Mat. 28.19.20. Doctors, then may we safely rely vpon their Iudgment and determination: for if they could erre, and so we, in following and obeying them, then might we lay the fault vpon Christ and his Apostles, who commanded vs to obey them. And whereas some reply, that Pastours, Pre­lates, and Doctours, being men, and according to Scrip­ture,Psal. 115.11. Euery man is a lyar, that therefore we cannot be in­fallibly a certained that their teaching is not erroneous: This doth not suffice, for though by nature they be men and sub­iect to lyes and deceyptes, yet by Pastorall authority they are true Gouernours of the Church, and instruments of the holy Ghost, by whose assistance in their Generall as­semblies, and publick decrees, they cannot erre in matters of faith. S. Paul speaking of the Ghospell which himselfe prea­ched, and which he had from the holy Ghost, sayth,Gal. 2.1.2. I went vp againe to Hierusalem with Barnabas &c. And I went vp according to Reuelation, and conferred with them the Ghospell, which I preach among the Gentils, but apart with them that seemed to be something, least perhaps in vaine I should runne, or had runne. By this it is cleere, that though S. Paul was taught his Ghospell of God, and not of men, and had an Extraordinary calling by Christ himselfe; yet by Reuelation he was sent to Hierusalem, to confer the said Ghospell with his Elders, the Ordinary Apostles, which afterwards he nameth toVer. 9. be Peter, Iames, and Iohn: not that himselfe was doubtfull of the truth of his G [...]ospell, but because other men could not, nor would ac­knowledg so much, till he were allowed by such as were without all exceptiō knowne to be Apostles, and to haue the spirit of truth, to discerne whether the vocation, Spirit, and Ghospell of Paul, were of God: he knowing that otherwise without conference with them, he should loose his labour, both for the tyme past, and to come.

These texts of Scripture do plainly direct vs to the Church and Pastors therof, for the cleering of all doubts, and the determining of all controuersies and questions, which shall aryse in matters Ecclesiasticall.

SECT. III. That the Ancient Fathers expound the sacred Scriptures agreably with Catholicks in proofe of the Church being the Iudge of Controuersies.

FOr the right vnderstanding of the true sense of the fore­said Scriptures, let vs now see in what manner they were expounded by the ancient Fathers and Doctors. Wheras I proued before that Moyses was appointed by God the Supreme Iudge in matters Ecclesiasticall; and Prote­stants answered therto, that Moyses was no Priest, and ther­fore could not be a competent Iudge in those causes: S. Au­stin expounding these words of the Psalme, Moyses and Aa­ron in his Priests, saith,In Psal. 98. Aaron was brother to Moyses, whom he ordained Priest &c. But if Moyses was not a Priest, what was he? Could he be greater then a Priest? This Psalme expresseth that he was a Priest, Moyses and Aaron in his Priests. Therfore they were priests of our Lord. Yea els where he affirmeth, thatQuaest, 23. in Leuiti­cum. This Psalme ma­keth it vndoubted, that Moyses was a Priest. S. Hierome intending to proue that Samuel was not Priest or Bishop, (though some hould that he was Extraordinary,L. 1. cont. Iouin. writeth thus. In the psalmes he is not named among Priests, but amongst those who in­uocate the name of our Lord: Moyses and Aaron in his Priests, and Sa­muel amongst them who inuocate the name of our Lord. And S. Gre­goryOrat. ad Greg. Nysse­num. Nazianzen in proofe heerof, hauing produced the same psalme, calleth Moyses the Prince of Princes, and the Priest of Priests: so cleerly do the Fathers proue from Scriptures that Moyses was a Priest. Now that Moyses was not only a Priest, but that his Chaire or authority was to be reueren­ced and obeyed, S. Austine confirmeth from the words of Christ himselfe; for hauing numbred in order of succession all the Bishops of Rome, from S. Peter to Anastasius, who [Page 51] then was Pope, he auoucheth, that,Ep. 165. If any traytor in those tymes had stolne into that Order of Bishops &c. it would haue nothing preiudiced the Church and innocent Christians: for whom our Lord prouiding, said of euill Prelates: whatsoeuer they say, do ye, but what they do, do you not, for they say, and do not. And againe,Cont. lite­ras Petil. l. 2. c. 51. why dost thou call the Apostolick Chaire, the Chaire of Pestilence? If for the men, why? did our Lord Iesus-Christ for the Pharisees any wrong to the Chaire wherin they sate? Did he not commend that Chaire of Moy­ses, and preseruing the honour of the Chaire, reproue them? for he sayth they sit vpon the Chayre of Moyses, that which they say do ye. As alsoIbid. c. [...]1. And see Aug. ep. 166. neither for the Pharisees &c. did our Lord command the Chaire of Moyses to be forsaken, in which Chaire verily he figured his owne. For he warned the people to do that which they say, and not to do that which they do, and that the holines of the Chaire be in no case forsaken, nor the vnity of the flock deuided, for naughty Pastors. So fully doth S. Austine confirme the authority of Moyses and his Chaire, as also of the Church of Christ from the words of Christ. But S. Austine is so full herein, as that he referreth our cer­taine knowledge of the Scriptures themselues, to the autho­rity and determination of the Church, saying of himselfe,Cont ep. Fundamenti, c. 5. I would not belieue the Ghospell, vnles the authority of the Catho­licke Church moued me therto. Neither did he speak this of the tyme past when he was a Manichee, as someSee Whitak. Duplicat. aduersus Sta­pletonum. l. [...]. c. 8. p. 387. pretend, for all the words and circumstances of the place contest the contrary, and accordingly are vnderstood of the ProtestantC [...]nturiae tres Cent. 2. q. 3. p. 267. Brachmanus. Yea Swinglius so much disliketh them, as that he sayth;Tom 2. fol. 135. Here I intreat your indifferent iudgments, that you freely speake, whether this saying of Austine may not be thought more audacious then meet, or to haue been vttered imprudētly. But here without intreaty, euery man may see, how impru­dent and impudent Swinglius is, in this his vnworthy cen­sure of S. Austine. Iosephus witnesseth thatL. 2. cont. Apion. the Priests were appointed by Moyses to be ouerseers of all things, and Iudges of Controuersies.

Concerning S. Pauls conferring his Ghospell with S. Peter, Iames, and Iohn, Tertullian argueth thus:L. 4. cont. Marc. 10. c. 2. If he from whome S. Luke receyued his light, desired to haue his faith and preaching authorized by his Predecessours, how much more rea­son [Page 52] haue I to desire the like for the Ghospell of S. Luke, seeing the same was so necessary for the Ghospell of his mayster. S. Austine al­so sayth hereof,Tom. 6. cont F a [...]t. M [...]nich. l. 28. c 4. The Apostle S. Paul called from heauen, if he had not found the Apostles with whome by conferring his Ghospell, he might appeare to be of the same Society, the Churcb would not be­lieue him at all. S. Hierome auouche [...]h thatEp. 89. c. 2 he had not had security of preaching the Gholpell, if it had not been approued by Pe­ters Sentence, and the rest that were with him. In Mat. 28. S. Chrisosto­me vpon these words, Tell the Church, vnderstandeth by the Church, the Prelates of the Church. Now as the auncient Fa­thers haue thus expounded the former Scriptures in behalfe of the Church, being the Iudge of Controuersies in causes Ecclesiasticall; so was their owne practise answerable in all succeeding ages: for neuer did there heresy aryse in any age, but it was still condemned and extinguished by the supreme Pastour and other Bishops assembled who liued in the same age. Now to censure that for errour, which the vniuersall Church teacheth, S. AustinEp. 118. termeth most insolent madnes. This is proued particularly throughout all ages by Cardi­nall Bellarmine,De verbo Dei. l. 3. c. 6. who reciteth the heresies, and the Po­pes and Councels that condemned them; shewing withall, that they were euer reputed hereticks who did not obey them. Agreably to which, D. Bilson confesseth, that the Fa­thersPerpet. gouern. pag. 374. In all ages, as well before as since the great Councell of Neece, haue approued and practised this (of Councels) as the surest meanes to decide doubts. By this it appeareth, that according to the Exposition made by the ancient Fathers, the Scriptures do teach vs, that not the Scriptures alone, but the Church of Christ expounding the same, is to be acknowledged and re­ceiued for our Guide and Iudge in matters of Faith.

SECT. IIII. That Protestants expound the Scriptures agreably with Ca­tholikes in proofe of the Church being the Iudge of Con­trouersies; and that sundry Protestants do teach and de­fend the same Doctrine.

THe Text of Scripture is so cleare and conuincing for this our Catholike doctrine, as that sundry of our chie­fest Protest [...]nt D [...]ctours, not only interprete the same ac­cordingly, but withall do teach and defend the same truth. The very Puritanes acknowledge, concerning the Eccle­siasticall Primacy in tyme of the old Law, that,English Puritanisme p. 16 And see Hook. Eccl. pol. l. 5. pag. 235. The high Priest of the Iewes, was Typically and in a figure the supreme head of the whole Catholike Church; which though (say they) it were vi­sible only in the Prouince and N [...]tion of Iewry, yet those of other Na­tions and Countries (as appeareth by the history of the Acts, euen though they were Aethiopians) were vnder this high Priest and acknowledged homage vnto him. So that he was not a Prouinciall Metropolitan, but in very deed an oecumenicall and vniuersall Bishop of the whole world. And thersore the Pope of Rome, who alone maketh clayme vnto, and is in possession of the like vniuersall Supremacy, hath more warrant in the word of God to the same, then any Metropolitan or Diocesan, not dependant vpon him, hath or can haue. So that by the word of God, ei­ther there must be no Metropolitans, or Diocesans, or els there must be a Pope.

In like sort teacheth M. Cartwright,In VVhi­teg. Def. pag. 428. The high Priest was the head Priest ouer all the whole Church, which was during his tyme to our Sauiour Christ. So cleere it is that not only Moyses, but euen during the whole tyme of the old Law, there was one supreme head Ecclesiasticall, vnto whom all others were bound to obey. Now concerning the law of Deutro­nomy, wherby, as I haue formerly proued, the authority & Primacy of the Church was established; Protestants in so euident a matter affirme, that the people were boundMarg. notes of the Engl Bib. of Anno 1585. in Deut. 17.11. to obey their sentence, that the controuersy might haue an end. D. Rai­nolds confesseth that, (4) The law of Deutronomy was made to [Page 54] establish a highest Court of Iudgment, in which all harder causes Ec­clesiasticall and Ciuil, should be determined. And the selfe same is taught byDe sacra scrip. pa 466. Bilson per­pet. Gouern. c. 4. p. 20. And see his true Diff. &c. part. 3 p. 36. 37. D. Whitaker, D. Bilson, and M. Hooker. Now that the sentence grounded vpon this Law was definitiue and final, it is acknowledged by D. Bilson saying,Perpet. Gouern. p. 20. Their sentence by Gods Law no man might refuse without punishment of death. Yea sayth D. Whitaker, in this CaseDe sacra scrip. pa. 466. of defyning Ec­clesiasticall controuersies by the Minister, it was not lawfull to ap­peale, for otherwise there would haue been no end of Contention. With whom accordeth Doctour Reinolds affirming,Confe­rence, pa. 251. that in this highest Court of Iudgment, all harder causes Ecclesiasticall were to be determined without appeale further. And the like is taught by M. Hooker,Preface before Eccl. Pol. pag 26. 27. 28. who further alledging this Law of Deutro­nomy, and the former example of the Apostles out of the Acts, telleth the Puritanes, that what successe God may giue to any Conference or Disputation, we cannot tell, but we are sure that nature, Scripture, and Experience, haue all taught the world to seek for the ending of Contentions by submitting it selfe vnto some iudiciall and definitiue sentence, whereunto neither part that contendeth may vnder any Pretence refuse to stand. Yea it is a truth so certaine, that the Church of Christ is the Iudge of interpretation of Scripture, and of all other Controuersies, that Martin Lu­ther confesseth, that,Luthe­rus l. de po­testate Papae. we are not certaine of any priuate man, whether he haue the Reuelation of the Father or no, but the Church it is, of whom it is not lawfull to doubt. And therupon he sayth,In Dis­put. Lipsiaca. I submit my selfe to the Iudgment and determination of the holy Church. And in another place;Ep. ad marchionem Brandeburg. quae est tom. 2. Germ. fol. 243. It is a dangerous and horri­ble thing to heare or belieue, any thing which is contrary to the vnani­mous testimony of fayth, and the doctrine of the holy and Catholicke Church, which she hath agreably kept from the beginning, for aboue a thousand and fyue hundred yeares. Were it possible to thinke that any man should say thus much for the authority of the Church, and do the quite contrary if he were not a Luther. Caluin expresly teacheth, that,Inst. l. 4. c. 1 sec. 5. as (God) in tymes past was not content only with the Law, or only with the Scripture, but added Priests for interpreters, from Mal. 2.7. whose lippes the people should se [...]k the true sense therof: So at this day he would not haue vs only to at­tend to reading, but he also ordayned maisters, by whose labour we [Page 55] may be holpen. And in his Commentary, vpon these words, It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and vs, he sayth,In com­ment in Act. 15. by this is confuted the obstinacy of those who with full mouthes boasting of faith, do no lesse impiously, then proudly contemne the ministery of the Church. For as it were a Sacrilegious diuision, if fayth but in one Ar­ticle should depend of man a part; So they openly mock God, who pas­sing by (or neglect [...]ng) his ministers by whom he speaketh, pretend to receiuo him their maister. Now who are these true Ministers, himselfe telleth vs to his owne shame, saying,Com­ment. in Eze­chiel. 13. we see at this day how the Papists do take vnto themselues the name of the Church, because perpetuall succession is pretended by them. And truly we are compelled to confesse, that they haue the Ordinary Ministery. So Catholikly Caluin. Chemnitius teacheth, that in respect ofExam. part. 1. fol. 63. many hard questions, God would haue to remaine in his Church (to auoyd all occasion of errour) the guift of Interpretation, which is not common to all, no more then is the guift of healing and miracles. And this gift God would not haue to be contemned or reiected, but re­uerently vsed, as an Instrument and help to fynd out the true and sound sense of Scripture. According to the Confession of Wittemberg,Cap. de Eccles. the Church hath right to Iudge of all doctrines: Cap. de Concil. She hath an assured promise of Christs perpetuall presence, and is gouerned by the Holy Ghost. Yea sayth D. Whitaker,Controu. 1 q. 3. c 6 pa. 323. She hath the spirit of God, by whom being taught, she heareth the voyce of her spouse, and acknowledgeth his doctrine. And in answere to Duraeus,Cont. Duraeum. l. 2. f. 134. Thou dost affirme that to be the sense of the word, which the Catho­licke Church hath receiued from the Holy Ghost: I confesse so much for the Church is taught the true Sense of Scripture from the Holy Ghost, she is the keeper of fayth, the ground and Pillar of truth. And a­gaine,Ibid. fol. 142. 143. It seemeth to thee as though I should esteem that for a great offence, that when any hard question aryseth the Iudgment of the Church should be required; which thing I confesse neuer came into my mynd, for the Iudgment of the Church is greatly to be accounted of, and is euer greatly of force to interpret the Scriptures rightly, and to determine Controuersies.

D. Reynolds after his long debating this point, doth in the end acknowledge, that not only,Confer. p. 99. Christ our Sa­uiour is to be our Iudge, but also they, which vnder him haue it com­mitted to them, euen the Church of Christ.

D. Bancroft preached publikely,Sermon preached the 8. of Fe­bruary, An­no 1588. pag. 42. 43. God hath bound himselfe vnto his Church of purpose, that men by her good direction might in matters of doubt be relieued; to whose godly determination in matters of question, her dutifull children ought to submit themselues, without any curious or willfull contradiction. A saying so Catho­licke, that a Puritan writer repeating the sameA Trea­tile entitu­led a Briefe discourse of vntruthes &c. contai­ned in a Sermon preached by D Bancroft. p. 34. sayth, If this be not to ioyne hands with the Papists, let the Reader be Iudge. Def. of the Art. art. 20. Prop. 3. p. 103. Rogers defendeth, that the Church hath authority to Iudge and determine in Controuersies of fayth. AndIb. Art. 20. p. 104. that to interpret the word of God is a peculiar blessing, giuen by God only to the Church, and company of the faythfull, though not to all and euery one of them.

And whereas Generall Councels do truly represent the Church, the authority of them for the finall decyding of Controuersies, Protestants do confirme from the sacred Scriptures; in so much that Melancthons aduice is, thatConcil. Theol. part. 2. p. 1. 2. And see l. 1. epist. 211. They assemble generall or nationall Councels &c. because it is written, Tell the Church. This was the custome of the Church from the very be­ginning &c. And Councells are the proper Iudgements of the Church: yea it is expedient, that there be Iudgements in the Church, for o­ther Nations cannot but be scandalized, if they shall heare that we will not vndergoe the sentence of any Councell. D. Whitgift, D. Rai­nolds, D. Bilson and others do gather from the former e­xample of the Apostles in the Acts, the necessity of Whit. Def. p. 661. And see Carth­wright, ib. and p 678. Rain. Con­fer. p 254. 255. Bils. in his Perpet. Gouern. c. 16. p. 373. Coun­cels for the deciding of Controuersies.

In regard heerof Caluin sayth,Inst. l. 4. c. 9. §. 8. We willingly imbrace and reuerence as sacred, for as much as concerneth decrees of fayth, those ancient Synods, as that of Neece, Constantinople, Ephesus the first, Chalcedon, and the like, which were assembled for the confuting of he­resies; for they contayne nothing but pure and natiue Interpretation of Scripture, which holy Fathers applyed with spirituall wisdome, to the ouercoming of the enemies of Religion, who then appea [...]d. And in another place,L. 4. c. 9. §. 13. We truly do willingly grant, that if Disputa­tion happen concerning any opinion, that there is no remedy either bet­ter or more certaine, then if a Synod of true Bishops do assemble, where the doctrine controuerted may be discussed: for much more waight will such Definition haue to which the Pastors of Churches hauing inuoca­ted the spirit of Christ, shall generally consent, then if any one alone at home, what he hath conceiued, shall deliuer to the people, or some few [Page 57] men priuatly should make it. Syr Edwin Sandes confesseth thatRela­tion &c. fol.. 82. The Papists haue the Pope as a common Father, ad­uiser, and conductour, to reconcile their iarres, to decyde their differences, to draw their Religion by consent of Councells vn­to vnity &c. whereas on the contrary syde, Protestants are as se­uered, or rather scattered troopes, each drawing aduerse way, without any to pacify their quarrels, no Patriarch one or more, to haue a common superintendance or care of their Churches for cor­respondency and vnity: no ordinary way to assemble a Generall Coun­cell of their part, the only hope remayning euer to asswage their contentions. Now that these Councells cannot erre, D. Bil­son acknowledgeth with them the presence & assistācePerpet. Gouern. pag. 372. 373. 374. of the holy Ghost. Ib. p. 371. And (43) that they are strengthned with the pro­mise of our Sauiour. M. Ridley affirmethAct. Mon. pag. 1288. that, Councells do indeed represent the whole Church, and being so gathered togeather in the name of Christ, they haue a promise of the guift and guyding of his Spirit into all truth. From which ground of their freedome from errour, D. Bilson obseruing truly, that,Perpet. Gouern. pag. 372. To haue no Iudge for the ending of Ecclesiasticall contentions, were the vtter sub­uersiō of all peace, doth therupon inferIbid. p. 370. Synods to be an exter­nall iudiciall meanes to discerne errour. And further he affirmeth, that the Fathers inIbid. p. 374. all ages, aswell before as since the great Councell of Nice, haue approued and practised this, as the surest mea­nes to decyde doubts. Luther was opinion that,Lib. cont. Swing. de ve­ritate Corp. Christi in Euch. If the world shall continue longer, it wilbe necessary by reason of the different interpetations of Scriptures, which now are, for the preseruing of vni­ty of fayth, that we receaue againe the Decrees of Councells, and fly vnto them. To whome D. Couell addeth that,Modest Examina­tion. p. 110. If Sy­nods want, the Church neyther at any tyme was, nor indeed can safty be without tempests. Yea such is the force of a Generall Coun­cell, that Sir Edwin Sands (as before) thinketh itRela­tion. f. 8. 2. The only hope remayning euer to asswage (Protestants) dissentions. And M. Hooker auoucheth that,Pref to Eccl. Pol. p. 28. The will of God is to haue vs do whatsoeuer the sentence of Iudiciall and finall decision shall de­termine, yea though it seeme in our Priuate opinion to swarue vtterly from that which is right. Which sentence sayth he,Ibidem. Is ground sufficient for any reasonable mans Conscience to build vpon, whatsoeuer his opinion were as touching the matter before in question. And that, [Page 58] Ibid. p. 26. As for other meanes without this, they seeldome preuayle: because that,Ibid. p. 28. without this, it is almost impossible that we should auoyd confusion, or euer hope to attaine peace. Of all which we may conclude, that seeing Protestants expounding the sacred Scriptures, are inforced from thence to confesse, that Coun­cels do truly represent the Church, that they are guided by the holy Ghost into all truth, that the Fathers of all ages haue vsed them for the ending of Controuersies, that without them the Church can ne­uer be without tempests, and that, they are the surest meanes to de­cyde doubts, that therfore for the ending of Ecclesiasticall cō ­tentions, we are to appeale vnto them, as a most certayne and Supreme Iudge.

And that our Protestants at home, do not rely only vpō Scripture, but vpon an external Iudgmēt or definitiue sen­tence appointed for the ending of Controuersies, appeareth by their answerable practise thereof, in the high Court of Parlament, Anno 1. Eliz. cap. 1. Where hauing reserued the Iudgement of Heresy to a Generall Councell, but yet with limitatiō that the matter be declared Heresy by the Scripture: it next afterwards determineth that to be Heresy absolutly, & without any such or other limitation, whatsoeuer shalbe heerafter iudged to be Heresy by the high Court of Parlament of this Realme. And so accordingly, the Puritanes in their treatise intituled,Pag. 3. A Petition directed to her most excellent Ma­iesty &c. do referre their matters in question to the Parla­ment to iudge therof. But this flying of Protestants in causes Ecclesiasticall to Parlaments, consisting for the greatest part, of the Laity, strongly conuinceth their desperation to de­cyde their dayly and deadly arysing dissentions, only by the Scriptures.

But now, because the Councell of TrentSess. 4. hath further decreed, that, none presume to interpret the sacred Scriptu­res contrary to the vnanimous consent of Fathers; let vs see how farre sundry of the learnedst Protestants, do agree with vs in the same Rule of interpretation by Fathers. D. Morton professeth, that,Prote­stants Ap­peale. pag. 354. It hath been the common and constant pro­fession of Protestants to stand vnto the Iudgment of Antiquity, for the continuance of the first foure hundred yeares and more, in all [Page 59] things. YeaIbid. p. 512. Protestants in the disquisition of truth, do not abso­lutely bound the name of Antiquity, within the compasse of the first Century of yeares, but are content to allow it a longer extent, & ther­fore in all doctrines which are truly Catholicke, &c. they refuse not to be tried by the testimonies of the Ancient Fathers in the first fiue hun­dred yeares after Christ. This doctour maketh here a faire flo­rish, as though all Protestants did stand, as in all reason they ought, to the Iudgment of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church: but how false this is, euery Section through this whole Treatise, which treateth of the Fathers interpreting Scriptures, will cleerly demonstrate.Exam. part. 1. p. 74. Chemnitius con­ceiueth this tryall by the Primitiue Church, to be so good & iust, as that he thinketh, that no man doubteth, but that the Primi­tiue Church receiued from the Apostles and Apostolick men, not only the text of Scripture, but also the right and natiue sense therof. Wherupon sayth he,Ibid. pag. 64. we are greatly confirmed in the true & sound sense of Scripture, by testimony of the Ancient Church. And accordingly other Protestants confesse, that the Harmo­ny of Con­fess. p. 400. Primitiue Church is the true and best Mistresse of Posterity, and going before leadeth vs the way. D. Sarauia confirmeth the authority of the Primitiue Church, from her speciall assistance by the holy Ghost, saying,De diuer­sis Ministro­rum gradi­bus p. 8. The holy Ghost who gouerneth the Church is the best Interpreter of Scriptures, from him therfore is the true inter­pretation to be sought, and seeing he cannot be contrary to himselfe who ruled the Primitiue Church, and gouerned it by Bishops, it is not agreable to truth now to cast them of.

D. Whitaker renewing the most audacious challenge made by D. Iewel, writeth thus to the glorious Martyr Campian,Resp. ad Rat. Camp. p. 90. 9. Attend Campian, The speech of Iewel was most true and constant, when prouoking you to the Antiquity of the (first) Six hundred yeares, he offered, that if you could shew but any one cleere & playne saying, out of any one Father or Councell, he would grant you the victory: It is the offer of vs all, the same do we all promise, and we will all performe it. And the like is proclaimed byOf the Church l 5. in his Ap­pendix therto. Part. 1. p. 33. Mort. Protestants Appeale p. 573. 574. D. Field, and D. Morton. So that if we may belieue these great Do­ctours, all Protestants do appeale to the Councels and Fa­thers of the Primitiue Church for the deciding of Contro­uersies, and for the fynding out of the true sense and Inter­pretation [Page 60] of Scripture. Neither may we in reason thinke that this guift of interpretation of the sacred Scriptures, ceased with the Pastors of the Primitiue Church; but as Pa­stors and Doctors are to continue, toEph. 4.11 12.13.14. the consummation of the Saints &c. vntil we meet all into the vnity of fayth, which is, ac­cording to Protestants,Whi­tak. ag. Rei­nol. f. 76. Melanct. loc. com de Ecclesia. for euer, to the end that we be not Children wauering, and caryed about with euery wynd of doctrine. And who therfore not by any humane authority, but byAct. 20.28. the holy Ghost are placed &c. to rule the Church of God: that so like­wise their infallible power and authority of interpeting Scripture, and declaring the true sense therof, is also to con­tinue in the Church. In proofe wherof, Caluin gathereth from these words of the ApostleEph. 4.11.12. And he gaue some Apo­stles, and some Prophets, and other some Euangelistes, and other some Pastors and Doctours &c. that,Instit. impress. Ge­neuae. 1550. c. de fide f 234. these Pastours and Doctours haue an ordinary charge in the Church, & the Church can neuer want them, but euermore Doctors haue authority to interprete the Scriptu­res, that sincere & wholsome doctrine may be retained among the faith­full. D. Fulke confesseth that,Ans­were to a Counterf. Cath. art. 14. f. 81. the Church neuer wanteth the guift of vnderstanding. And both he, and D. Whitaker teach that,Against Rhem. Test. f. 445. 6. Whitak. de sacra Scrip. contro. 1. q. 4. f. 406. The people are not sufficient to read the Scriptures without their Pastors to guide them in all matters and doubts. The transla­tour of the Bible into English published Anno 1556. in his Epistle therto prescribeth, that euery one as he is placed in this bo­dy which is the Church, ought to enquire of the Ministers concerning the will of the Lord, which is reuealed in his word; for they are, sayth Hieremie, the mouth of the Lord, yea he promiseth to be with their mouth, and that their lippes shall keep knowledge, and that the truth and the law shalbe in their mouth, for it is their Office chie­fly to vnderstand the Scriptures, and teach them. So cleerly do Protestants attribute to the Pastors and Doctors of the Church in all ages the guift of interpretation, the true vn­derstanding of Scriptures, and the Peoples duty in learning of them the will of God, and the decision of their doubts. And thus we see by the seuerall texts of the holy Scriptures, either taken in that literall & natiue sense which the words do afford, or according to their Exposition made by the An­cient Fathers, and Protestant writers, that our Iudge of [Page 61] Controuersies is not only the written word, but the Church of Christ in all ages, Generall approued Councels, and the vnanimous consent of Ancient Fathers.

Such obiections from Scriptures as are vsually vrged against the Iudicature of the Church, are either taken from such texts, as giue great praises to the Scripture, or seeme to assure euery man of the assistance of the spirit, or which may be thought to detract from the Infallibility of the Church: of all which being to speake in the Chapters following, I re­serue the answeres for their more proper places.

Whether the Vniuersall Church of Christ can erre in defy­ning matters of fayth, and manners: or rather, that such her Decrees are alwayes most true and infallible, and for such are to be belieued, and obserued by the faythfull. SECT. I.

SECT. II. It is proued by Scriptures that the Vniuersall Church of Christ, cannot erre in matters of fayth and manners.

I Must suppose what I haue formerly proued,See be­fore c. 1. §. 1. See 3. Reg. 8. 14. Mat. 18.17. Fulk. ag. Rhem. Test. in Act 15. sect. 5 Ridley Act. Mon. p. 1288. and which is acknowledged for true by sundry Protestants which is, that by the Church in this question is vnderstood, not only the whole company of the faithfull, comprehen­ding therin both the Clergy and the Laity, but chiefly that which doth truly represent the whole Church, to wit, the head therof, and the Bishops lawfully assembled togeather in Generall Councell: Euen as the Parlament representeth the whole Common wealth, and hath the Authority ther­of. And so S. AustinL. 1. de Bap. c. 18. &. l 7. c. 53. calleth the sentence of a Generall Coun­cell, the consent of the whole Church. Now that the Church taken in this sense cannot erre, may first be proued by all such ar­guments, as weSee be­fore c. 1. vsed before in proofe that the Church of Christ, is the lawfull and finall Iudge of Controuersies in Religion, for it doth euidently follow therof, that she is not subiect to error. Or els it must be granted, that Christ hath made for vs in matters of Saluation, an erroneous Iudge, which were absurd and blasphemous. The same is confir­med by such places as speake expresly of the Church it selfe,Mat. 16.18. Vpon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not preuayle against it. Mat. 18.17. If he will not heare the Church, let him be to thee as a Heathen and Publican. Now if the Sentence or decree of the Church may be false and erroneous, it were most iniurious to bynd euery one vnder so great punish­ment to assent therunto.

Those textes litterally taken being most plaine in our behalfe, let vs see how Protestants would euade them. To this place Whitaker answereth:De script. l. 1. c. 12. sect. 1. pa 143. The sonne of God hath com­mended the voice of the Church to be heard, but not vnles she show the Scriptures. Or as Herbrandus sayth,In Com­pend. loc. de Ecclesia. pag. 492. As long as she soundeth heauenly and vncorrupt doctrine, but so long a Child may be be­lieued. FieldOf the Church. l. 4 c 4 Hun­nius in Col­loq Ratis­bon. sess. 6. Molineus in Scuto. p. 84. and others do limit this to contentions bet­ween particular persons, not to Controuersies of Religion: but if the Church be to be heard in matters Ciuill, much more in Ecclesiasticall.

Herbrandus also limiteth this to the Church of Christs tyme, saying, The In Com­pend. loc. de Eccles. pag. 494. Commandement is not vniuersall of the Church of all tymes, but Christ speaketh of his little Church, according to the Condition of those tymes, which then wanted a pious politick Ma­gistrat, and who should be a member of the Church. But this dero­gateth from Christs perpetual Prouidence ouer his Church: neither are those tymes lesse needfull of an Infallible tea­cher and Iudge, then the former. Christ also is calledEph. 1.22.23. The head of the Church, and the Church his body; &Eph. 4.4. one body, one spirit; Therfore if the Church should erre, the error ther­of would be ascribed to Christ, he being the head therof, and to the holy Ghost, as the Soule or lyfe. And wheras Caluin answereth, that Christ and the holy Ghost do teach the Church all truth absolutely necessary, (which is contrary to his former brethren) but yet do alwayes leaue some ble­mishes or smaller errours; which no more are to be ascribed to Christ, or the holy Ghost, then Ignorance, wherof doubt­les there is some in the Church: I answer, as the husbād who is head of the wife, is not bound to remoue all Ignorance from her, and yet is bound to remoue all errour, wherof great hurt may aryse, although she may be excused by Igno­rance: So Christ is bound to preserue the Church from all error, wherof great Euill may ensue, of which kind is all er­ror concerning faith: seeing it is a most pernicious euill, that the Church should worship God with false faith, Gods true worship chiefly consisting in fayth, hope, and charity. A­gayne, if the Church only cannot erre in matters necessary to saluation, then the most points of fayth may be called in [Page 67] question, for many things are to be belieued, which are not absolutly necessary to saluation, as that there are Di­uine Scriptures, without the fayth whereof, many haue been saued, as well before the Scriptures were written, as since theIrenaeus l. 3. c. 4. tyme of the new Testament, in remote Na­tions. Now I presume that Caluin will not allow that doubt to be made of the Scriptures.

Agayne those smaller errours are eyther such as do not preiudice the integrity of fayth and mans saluation; & then without iust cause did Luther & all Protestants reuolt from the Catholicke Church, with so much combustion and ef­fusion of Christian bloud: Or if they do preiudice fayth & saluation, then they are not small, but waighty errours, & such, as therewith the Church cannot stand. For Whitaker confesseth, thatControu. 2. q. 5. c. 17. If any fundamentall point of doctrine be re­moued, the Church presently falleth; but no man will deny that such things as preiudice fayth and saluation, are fundamen­tall, vnlesse he will speake so absurdly and contradicto­ry as Whitaker doth in the same place, affirming that, The Church may erre for a tyme in some foundations, and yet be sound. So that you must imagine a Church to be sound, and yet fayle in the foundation.

Yea directly contrary to Whitaker, S. Paul calleth the Church,1. Tim. 3.15. The pillar and ground of truth. This text is so plaine in our behalfe, that Protestants labour extremely to auoyd the same.Calu. in Tim. VVhi­tak. cont. Staplet. fol. 289. Vrfinus Comment. Catech. fol. 17. Rein. Confer. pa. 639. Caluin and others answere, that she is only so called, because she is a faythful keeper of the truth, preseruing the Scriptures. But this maketh for me, for if she be a faythfull keeper of the truth, how then doth she erre? for in erring she doth not keep the truth, but depart from it. And if it be only vnderstood that she kept the written word from perishing; then in that sense, Libraries, Satio­ners shops, and Arkes, may be called Pillars and grounds of truth: neyther is heer any mention made of Scriptures, but absolutely the Church is called the Pillar and ground of truth: Besides the Church was a Pillar of Truth, when there were not any Scriptures to be preserued.

Whitaker further answereth, thatControu. 2. q. 4. c. 2. p. 485. not simply euery [Page 68] truth, but only necessary is vnderstood in this place, Answerably to which saith Vorstius,In An­tibel. p. 143. The Apostle treateth not of euery truth in any respect belonging to Religion, but only of sauing truth, or neces­sary to Saluation to be knowne; and this conditionally, to wit, so long as she perseuereth the true Church of Christ. Or (as Peter Martyr sayth)In loc. Clas. 4. c. 4. §. 21. I confesse she is truly the Pillar of Truth, but not al­waies, but when she relyeth vpon the word of God. Or as others say,Confess Heluet. c. 17. She erreth not as long as she relyeth vpon Christ the Rocke, and the foundation of Prophets and Apostles. Or as Bullinger writeth,Decad. 4. serm. 5. fol. 229. the Church erreth not when she heareth the voyce of her spouse & Pastor. But all this is so impertinent, that with the same li­mitations, I may truely affirme any Cobler or Tinker, any Hereticke or Deuill, to be the Pillar of truth: for none of these erre so long as they rely vpon Christ, and the word of God. And indeed it is all one as to say, She is the Pillar of truth, whilest she is the Pillar of truth. So idle is all this.

Againe, Protestants must vnderstand here, either all Truth, or but some Truth: if they meane that some truth is euer in the Church only, and she in that respect the Pillar of Truth, that cannot be so, for some truth is euer also among hereticks, and yet is not their Congregation the pillar of Truth. And if they meane that all Truth is euer in the Church only, then we haue our intent, that the Church cannot erre, seeing euery error is a deniall of some truth. Lastly, Chem­nitiusExam. part. 1. p. 10. Rein. Confer. p. 652. c. 9. and Reinolds answere, that the Apostle calling the Church the Pillar of Truth, meant only, that she ought to be the Pillar of Truth, and so though not alwayes indeed, yet alwayes in office and duty, she is the Pillar of Truth, euen when she erreth: Euen as in like manner the Priest is calledMal. 2.7. The Messenger of the Lord of Hosts, not for that he did alwayes the Lords message truly, but for that he alwaies had authority so to do. I ans­were this shift is no better then any of the former, the Com­parison being most vnlike, for though it were granted, that the Priest did not Gods message alwaies truly, yet was he al­waies truly and indeed Gods Messenger, receiuing that name and office, not from the message done, but from the authority & charge, giuen him to do the same: for the word Messenger, is a word of Office, respecting only an authority [Page 69] & charge of a thing not already done, or presently in doing, but herafter to be done, namely of the message to be execu­ted, & so euen before the message done, the party is actually inuested in that office, in respect only of the authority and charge, which actually he enioyeth? As in like, Kings Embassadours are actually for the tyme Embassadours, be­fore they do their Embassy, or although they do it vntruly. But these words which the Apostle referreth [...]o the Church, are of another nature, being titles not of Office only, but of Priuiledge, respecting an action still present. And so the Church, is in this place also called the House of God, for that God still dwelleth in her; and in the next words, she is ter­med The Pillar of Truth. Because (euen asConfer. p, 639. Reynolds himselfe sayth) it beareth vp the Truth and confirmeth it: for no man cā say of the Church, that she is the House of God, when God dwelleth not in her; or that she is actually the Pillar of Truth when she erreth, as on the other part it may be sayd in the example obiected of the Priest, that he is actually Gods Messenger, and may so be called euen before his message done, or though he erre therein: As also in like manner he is truly his Priest, though he should erre in the function ther­of.Instit. impress. Ar­gentor. c. 4. defide. p. 147. Caluin himselfe confesseth thus much, speaking of the Iewes Church when it had reuolted, in which not­withstanding he then acknowledgeth peculiar prerogatiues of the Church, and yet in respect of the Reuolt and defe­ction of those times, he sayth thereof, If those be Churches, then is the Church not the Pillar of Truth &c. not the Tabernacle of the liuing God: whereas if the foresayd answere were good, the Church reuolted, which he speaketh of, was euen the Pillar of Truth, because as then she ought to haue been such. To conclude, as the Church is euer actually, and indeed The house of God: So is she euer actually and indeed the Pillar of Truth: and vnto her, as Gods house the faithfull ought to re­sort to be taught, as the Prophet foretelleth of Christs Church, saying,Isa. 2.3. Mich. 4.2. Come let vs ascend to the House of the God of Iacob, and he shall teach vs his wayes. The same is proued by such places as argue that lawfull Councels cannot erre. If the first Councell said confidently,Act. 15.28. It hath seemed good to [Page 70] the holy Ghost & to vs, so auouching the decrees therof to be the decrees of the holy Ghost, then the like may say other Councels, the holy Ghost no lesse assisting them for the good of the Church. Christ himselfe alsoMat. 18.20. promiseth his owne perpetuall and present assistance, saying, Where two or three are gathered togeather in my name, there am I in the middest of them. But for the better vnderstanding hereof, obserue, that our Sauiour speaking before of the incorrigible man, said, Tell the Church, and if he will not heare the Church &c. Now least any should thinke that the Church might be contemned or disobeyed, he annexeth immediatly, Whatsoeuer yee shall bynd vpon Earth &c. And least any should doubt of Gods assi­stance, when the Pastors of the Church assembled do con­demne or absolue any man, therfore it followeth, Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the middest of them. And concerning euerything whatsoeuer they shal aske it shalbe done to them of my Father &c. Now what request more iust & necessa­ry, then to be able infallibly to discerne truth from falshood?

Christ speaking of the cōming of the holy Ghost, sayth,Io. 16.23 & 14.26. when he is come which is the spirit of Truth, we will lead you into all truth: Whitaker would euade this, saying,Controu. 2. quaest. 4. c. 2. p. 486. 488. I ans­were, Christ and the holy Ghost do teach the Church all truth, simply necessary, but often do leaue some error: And the same answere is giuen by ReinoldsThes. 2. Bucanus loc. 41. and others. But this is contrary to the text which sayth, that the holy Ghost will lead into all truth. Neither would this be sufficient direction for Chri­stians, who are not able to discerne, what truth is simply ne­cessary, and what not. Daneus therfore restrayneth this only to the Apostles, sayingControu. 4. p. 632. This promise of Christ belongeth pro­perly and truly to those twelue whom he then spoke vnto: Therfore it is a personall benefit, which cannot be extended to others then those twelue Apostles. And the same answere is made by Molineus.In Scuto. p. 51. But S. CyprianCypr. l. 4. Epist. Ba­sil. Constit. Monast. c. 23. and S. Basill apply this to their Successors. And Fulke confesseth, that,Fulk. Rhem. Test. in Luc. 10.16. It is all one to des­pise the Minister of Christs Catholicke Church, and to despise Christ. And that this is not spoken only to the Apostles, but also to their Successors, is manifest, in that the said Spirit is promi­sed to abyde with the Apostles Io. 14.16. for euer, that is, with them [Page 71] and their Successors. And so Christ himselfe sayth,Io. 14.16. I will aske the Father, & he will giue you another Cōforter, that he may abide with you for euer, the Spirit of truth, which Io. 16.13. shal teach you all truth. And accordingly he prayeth after to his Father, not only for the Church of that age, but also for the Church in all ages following, in these words:Io. 17.20. And not for them only do I pray, but for those also that by their word shall belieue in me. So expresly is Christs Church sāctified for euer in the truth of this word.

Now, the holy Ghost doth not teach all truth to euery par­ticular man, or Bishops being apart, therfore when they are assembled togeather. Fulke further replyeth, that euery true Christian may erre, & yet is no true Christiā voyd of Christs Spirit; for as the Apostle teacheth,Rom. 8.9. He that hath not the Spirit of Christ, is none of his. But this is but a deceipful euasiō, for the guift of Christs spirit is not alwais one; it is one in the whole Church, & another in euery true Christiā, we speake heer of that particular spirit which is theIo. 16.3. Spirit of truth, which doth teach al truth; the guifts of this Spirit (I say) be not alwaies one, but it distributeth as the Apostle affirmethRom 12.6. Differēt guiftes, & therfore though euery true Christian hath Christs Spirit to Satisfaction, yet hath he not thereby, his speciall guift of the Spirit of Truth, whereof we now speake, no more then he hath the guift of prophecying, and of miracles.

Of Bishops & chiefe Pastours it is said,Luc. 10.10. He that heareth you, heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me: Heb. 13.17. Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them: they are called Pastors, Eph. 4.11. or Shepheards, andMat. 28.19. teachers. Eph. 4.11. And he gaue some Apostles▪ & some Prophets, & othersome Euangelists, and othersome Pastors & Do­ctors, to the consūmation of the Saints, vnto the worke of the ministery vnto the edifiing of the body of Christ, vntill we meet all into the vnity of fayth &c. And now followeth the reason why Christ pro­uideth these Pastors in his Church; That now we be not Children wauering & carried about with euery wynd of doctrine, in the wicked­nes of men, in craftines to the Circūuention of Errour. So prouident­ly doth God preserue his Church against euery wynd of false doctrine, and Circumuention of Error. Accordingly as the Pro­phet foretould, calling the Church of ChristIsa. 35.8 a direct way, so that fooles cannot erre in it. Now, if we be commanded [Page 72] by God to follow and heare them as our Prelates, Pastors, and Doctours; then either they cannot erre, or erring, and we fol­lowing them therin, we may lay the fault vpon God, who commanded vs to follow them: And then seeing euery Bi­shop apart, or seuerall from the rest may erre, it followeth, that many lawfully assembled in Councell togeather can­not erre.

The same is proued by all such texts as conuince, that the Head, or Chiefe Bishop of the Church cannot erre in defyning matters of faith,Luc. 22.31. Simon, Simon, Sathan hath de­sired you, that he might winnow you as wheat, but I haue prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fayle. Here Christ prayeth not for all the Church, but in particular for Peter, as all the words show, Simon, for thee, thy fayth, thy brethren: Also wheras our Sauiour began to speake in the Plurall number, Sathan hath desired that he might winnow you (vos) forthwith he changeth his manner of speaking, and sayth, but I haue prayed for thee: fur­ther he prayeth for him to whom he sayth, and thou some­times conuerted, which cannot agree to the whole Church, except we will say the whole Church to haue been first peruerted, which is many wayes vntrue. But now that which Christ prayed for, is expresly, that his faith should not faile, and then seeing this prayer for Peter, was for the good of the Church, the Deuill still desiring to winnow the faithfull, it therof followeth, that she neuer wanteth one, whose faith may not faile, by whom she may be confirmed. Againe, Peter is calledMat. 16.18. a Rocke, and foundation, both which argue firmenes; for a Rock is not broken with wynd or tem­pest, and if the foundation fall, all the whole house falleth withall.

Againe, if the Church could erre, then there were no meanes left to decyde controuersies, and preserue vnity: yea all former decrees of the Church, and many condemned he­resies therby would be called in question. And we should euer remayne vncertaine of sundry parts of Scripture it selfe, the authority wherof was holden doubtfull, vntill they were approued as Canonicall by the Church and her Councels. And if the church can erre, how can Protestants [Page 73] be assured that their Church doth not erre, in condemning the Roman Church of superstition? Or how can the vul­gar be sure they are taught the truth, when their Teachers themselues confesse, that their Church, and all their Pastors may lye?

And lastly, if the Church can erre, one of these absur­dities must ensue, that either Christ may sometimes be with­out a Church, an Espouse in Earth, (as he was all the while there were no Protestants, if their Church be the Spouse of Christ) or else, if the Catholicke Church only is, and hath been his wyfe and spouse, and the same haue such Errors as Hereticks falsly pretend; then his wyfe so deareEph. 5.26. and so praised, is notwithstanding a very whore: this so grosse ab­surdity conuinceth, both that the Catholicke Church al­waies is, and that it teacheth truth alwayes.

In briefe,Io. 14.16. Mat. 16. mar. 28. Eph. 4. Io 17. Luc. 22. Ps. [...]. Eph. 5. if the Church be the Pillar of Truth, if it hath the spirit of God to lead it into all truth till the worlds end; If it be builded vpon a Rock, and hell gates shall not preuayle against it; If Christ hath placed in it Apostles, Dostors, Pastors, and Rulers, to the Consummation, and full perfection of the whole body, that in the meane tyme we be not carryed away with euery blast of doctrine: If Christ haue prayed for it that the faith of the chiefe Go­uernour therof do not fayle: If it be his house, his Spouse, his body, his lot, kingdome and Inheritance giuen him in this worlld: If he loueth it as his owne flesh, and it cannot be diuorced or separated from him: Lastly if the new Testament, Scriptures, Sacraments, and Sacrifice cannot be changed, being the euerlasting do­wry of the Church, continued euer in this our Catholicke Church; then certainty it cannot erre. So plaine then are so many textes of Scripture in proofe that the Church cannot erre.

SECT. III. That the Fathers do expound the Scriptures, in proofe that the Church of Christ cannot erre.

SAint Cyprian (or rather as some thinke Ruffinus) spea­king of the Church sayth,De symbo­lo Apost. This is the holy Church not ha­uing [Page 74] blot or wrinkle &c. The Churches of Heretikes are not with­out blot or wrinkle of vntruth, Eph 5. v. 27. and therefore the Prophet sayd of them, Ps. 25.5. I haue hated the Church of the malignant, but of this Church which keepeth the fayth of Christ whole, the holy Ghost sayth, Cant. 6.8. my Doue is one.

S. Austine directeth vs to the Church for the fynding out of all truth, saying,L. 1. Cont. Cres [...]o. c. 33. The truth of Scriptures is houlden by v [...] when we do that, which now hath pleased the vniuersall Church, which the authority of the same Scriptures doth commend, that seeing the holy Scripture cannot deceiue, whosoeuer feareth to be deceiued by the obscurity of this question, let him take Counsayle thereof from the Church, which without any ambiguity the holy Scripture doth de­monstrate. S. Lucius Pope and martyrEp. 1. ad Episcopos Hisp. & Galliae. affirmeth that, The Roman Church is Apostolicall, and the Mother of all Churches, which is neuer proued to haue erred from the path of Apostolicall tradition; nor depraued with Hereticall Nouelties, to haue fayled according to the promise of our Lord himselfe saying, I haue prayed for thee that thy fayth fayle not.

That the Fathers taught from Scripture, that Councells could not erre, appeareth by S. Cyril, who speaking of the Bi [...]hops of the Councell of Nice, who made the Creed, sayth,Cyr. Alex. in Expos. Symb. Ni [...]eni. Truly with them sate Christ himselfe, who sayd, where two or three shalbe gathered in my name, there I am in the middest of them: for how can it be doubted, that he did inuisibly rule that holy and great Synod? As also in that the sayd words of Christ are cyted and vrged in proofe that Generall Councells cannot erre, by the Councell ofEpi ad Leon. quae est post tertiam Act. eiusdem cont. Syn 6. Act. 17. Tol. 3. propè init. Innoc. disp. 20. can. de quibus. Celest. ep. ad Conc. Ephes. pri­mum. Chalcedon, by the sixt Sy­node, by the third Toletan Councell, by Innocentius & Celestinus. S. Austin in another place sayth,In Ps. cont part. Donat. Number the Priests euen frō the sea of Peter, obserue who in that ranck of fathers succeedeth one another, that is the Rock which the Proud gates of Hell do not ouercome. In proofe of the supreme Pastors free­dome from erring, I may alledge that, Theodoret writeth to Pope Leo in these words, If Ad Leo­nem Papans. Paul the preacher of truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost ranne to great Peter, that from him he might bring the answere (or resolution) to them who contended at Antiochia concerning the legall ordinances; much more we, who are abiect and little, do runne to your Apostolicall Sea, that we may re­ceiue [Page 75] from you, remedy for the wounds of the Churches. S. Bernard writeth thus to Pope Innocentius,Ep. 190. ad Innocen. It is meete that all dangers and scandals of the kingdome of God (or Church) be brought to your Apostleship, those especially which concerne faith. For I thinke it conuenient, that there chiefly the domages of Faith should be repayred, where faith cannot feele defect; for to what other Sea was it euer said, I haue prayed for thee that thy faith faile not. So eleer­ly do the Fathers and Councels expound the Scriptures, in proof that the Church, Generall Councels, or the Supreme Pastor of the Church cannot erre in matters of faith.

SECT. IV. Protestant writers teach, that the Church of Christ cannot erre in matters of fayth.

THe place before cited out of the Prophet Isay, is so cleere for the Churches not erring, as that the Glossers vpon the English Protestant translation, confesse the truth therof in the marginall notes vpon that place: Caluin commen­ting vpon the same place sayth,In Isa. c. 50. God promiseth that his Church shall neuer be spoyled of this inestimable good, but that it shalbe gouerned by the holy Ghost, and vnderpropped with heauenly doctrine &c. And a litle after, such is the promise that our Lord will so assist his Church, and will haue that protection and care of it, as he will neuer permit it to be depriued of his doctrine: what more cleere could be spoken by a Catholicke?

But no man deliuereth his mynd more freely in this point then Luther, The De decem praeceptis. Church (sayth he) cannot erre, but euery man may erre in his deuotion &c. The Church is gouerned by the holy Ghost. AgaineTo 7. Ger. VVit. de vet. Eccl fol. 561. they are inforced to confesse the Church to be the Rocke against which the gates of hell cannot preuayle. Matt. 16. or as Paul expoundeth, the Pillar and groundworke of truth &c. Therfore the Church neyther will nor can suffer a lye & false doctrine. Yea,Tom. 7. de Antiqua Ecclesia f. 562. Germ. The Church neyther ought nor can lye, nor teach errours, not in the least things▪ seeing God is the mouth of the Church: & as God cannot lye, so also neyther the Church. AndResp. ad Dialog Silue­stri Priorat. the vniuersall Church cannot erre, as the Cardinall Cameracensis proueth most learnedly, [Page 76] vpon the first of the Sentences. Yea sayth heEpist. ad Marchion. Brandebur. Tom 2. Germ. fol. 324. It is dangerous & fearefull to heare or belieue any thing which is contrary to the vnani­mous testimony of fayth, and the doctrine of the holy Catholike Church, which from the beginning she hath kept with one consent for 1500. yeares. And,In Prote­statione. I protest (sayth Luther) first, that I will ney­ther speake or hould any thing, but first that which is had, and may be had, in and from the sacred Scriptures; then from Ecclesiasticall Fathers receyued by the Roman Church, hitherto obserued; and from the Cannons and Decretals of the Pope. But if any thing cannot be proued or disproued from these, that will I only hould for disputation sake. If Luther had performed this his iust protestation, he had neuer bin condemned by the Church for an Heretike.

Would any man thinke it credible that Fox and many of his canonized Saints, who so obstinately opposed and disobeyed the Church, should expressely teach, that the Church cannot erre; and yet I find that Fox himselfe saith,Act. mon, p 999 The true Church Christ neuer suffereth to erre in the whole. Ib. pag. 493. Rid­leyIbid. 1362. I do acknowledge an vnspotted Church of Christ, in which no man can erre, without which no man can be saued. And,Ib. pag. 1186. the Ca­tholicke Church is the Spouse of Christ, the Pillar and stay of truth, this Church I belieue according to the Creed. Philpot.Ibid. pag. 1401. I do not thinke that the Catholike Church can erre in doctrine. Bradford calleth the Church,Ib p. 1211. Christs wyse, the Chayre and seat of verity. Iames Bainhams opinion was, that, There be two Churches, the Church of Christ, and the Church of Antichrist; the Church of Antichrist doth and may erre, and the Church of Christ not. Bilney auoucheth thatIb. p. 464. the Catholicke Church can by no meanes erre in fayth. And the same truth of the Church not erring, is taught byIn his Serm. prea­ched 8. Feb. 1588. Hun. Act Colloq. Ratisb. fol. 105. Keker. in System. Theol. Pow. of things in­different. c. 2 p 7. D. Bancroft, Hunnius, Kekerma­nus, and Powell. Bertrand de Loque sayth of this very que­stion,Dis­course of the Church. c. 11. p. 198. The Controuersy in my Iudgement is not of the Catho­licke (or vniuersall) Church, for we all agree heerin, that she can­not erre touching fayth &c. Wherefore this question is, touching (only) a particular Church: but that a particular Church may erre Ca­tholikes do not deny. In this sense also is S. Paul expounded by Zanchius, saying,De Re­lig Christ. c. 24 §. 20. p. 139. We belieue and acknowledge this Ca­tholicke Church, which we haue aboue described, so to be gouerned by the spirit of Christ, that he will neuer suffer all the same at once [Page 77] to erre &c. Whereto we doubt not to pertayne that which Paul sayd, The Church to be the Pillar and foundation of truth, because out of the Church there is no truth, but in it, it is perpetually kept, seeing all­alwayes some company great or litle may be found, in which the word of truth soundeth. But of euery particular Church we haue learned the reason to be vnlike. In like sort sayth Rhegius,Discuss. Theol. p. 213. See Hun­nius in Acta Colloq. Ra­tisb. f. 105. We grant that although particular Churches may erre, yet the whole Church can­not erre altogether, for the promises of God do withstand it.

Husse also in this is very liberall saying,Serm de fidei suae elu­cidatione. I admit all the doctrines of holy Doctours, declaring faythfully the law it selfe: I reuerence also all generall and particular Councells, Decrees, and Decretals, & all lawes, Cannons, and Constitutions. And concer­ning Councells which do represent the Church, Luthers opinion was that,Cont. Swinglium & Ocolamp. If the world shall longer continue, it wilbe againe for the different interpretations of Scripture, which now are, to preserue vnity of fayth, that we receiue the Decrees of Councels, and fly to them. Againe,In De­claratione Eucharistiae. I haue not said nor counsailed, neither is it my Intention, that one or some Bishops by proper authority beginne to giue to any one both kinds, vnles it should be so ordained and comman­ded in a Generall Councell. So respectiue in this humour was Luther to a Generall Councell. D. Bilson acknowledgeth with Councels, the presence and assistancePerpet. Gouern. pag. 372. of the holy Ghost. And, that they are strengthned with the promise of our Sa­uiour. Ridley affirmeth thatAct. mon. p. 1288. Councels do indeed represent the whole Church, and being so gathered togeather in the name of Christ, they haue a promise of the guift, and guiding of his spirit into all truth. Thus do many of the chiefest Protestants expound the Scriptures in behalfe of the Church not erring, and belieue and teach the same doctrine themselues.

SECT. V. Obiections from Scripture, in proofe that the Church may erre in matters of fayth, answered.

SOme obiect that Aaron, and the whole multitude ado­red the golden calfe. But the Answere is easy, for Aaron was not then inuested with the authority of high Priest, but that office was imparted long after vnto him, as appeareth [Page 78] in Exodus c. 40. Neither did the Leuits consent to that Ido­latrie, or Moyses in whom the supreme Priestly dignity still remayned; so many wayes impertinent is this Obie­ction. Such places are also obiected, as seeme to argue all Pastors, Priests and Prophets, not only of euill life, but euen of ignorance or error. His Isa. 56.10. Ierem. 6.13. watchmen all blynd haue been ignorant &c. The Pastours themselues haue byn ignorant of vn­derstanding. Answere. It is frequent in ScripturesMat. 2.3. Luc 10 25. for the faults of some, all to be reprehended in generall, that so the reprehension may seeme more vehement: and this is obserued by S. Austine.De Ciu. Dei. l c. 12. Yea Iewell himselfe doth ac­knowledge that, In Defence. p. 442. the holy Scriptures, this word, All, is often vsed insteed of many. Againe, these reprehensions concerne Priests as they are seuerall, not as they are assembled in any lawfull Councell togeather. Neither is it necessary that these things which are spoken against the Priests of the old Testament, should be applied also to these of the new, espe­cially assembled in Councell, the Church hauing greater promises from God, then the Synagogue had, of which it was neuer said; Vpon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not preuayle against it, with sundry such like.

Some vrge those words of Christ,Luc. 18.8. But yet the sonne of man cōming shall he fynd, trow you, faith in the earth? as though at Christs coming all faith should be ceased, and so the Church to haue erred and perished. Answer. The Ancient hereticks Luciferians, and Donatists, as Protestants now do, vsed this place to excuse their fall from the Church; saying it was de­cayed in faith, when they forsooke it: to whom S. HieromeHier. cont. Lucif. c. 6. Aug. de vnit. Eccle­siae. c. 15. & de verb. Dom. Serm. 36. and S. Augustine answered; that Christ sayth not, that there should be no faith left in earth, but by this manner of speech insinuateth, that at the latter day in the great persecu­tion of Antichrist, faith should be more rare, especially that perfect faith, containing deuotion and affection towards God. Rogers obiectethDef of the Art. art. 11. p. 116. that at the death of Christ, the chiefe Priest, with the rest of the Priests and the people erred in fayth, condemning our Sauiour as guilty of death, and denying him to be the Messias, accordingly as was fore­tould by the Prophet,Ezech. 7.26. The law shall perish from the Priests & [Page 79] Counsaile from the Elders: As also that at the same time the a­postles lost their faith. Answer. 1. The Chiefe Priest and the rest were not assembled to expound the Law, or teach the people, but to pronounce sentence in a matter of fact; in which no man doubteth but that they might erre. 2. The Priuiledge of not erring was graunted to those Priests, but vntill the tyme of Christs comming; and of it the Prophet said, The law shall perish from the Priests: but the New Testa­ment is to continue vnto the worlds end, and to it the pro­mise was made for Ps 88.29. Isa. 54. Ier. 31.31. euer, and that the Mat. 17.18. gates of hel should not preuaile against it. 3. As for the rest or the people, to many of them these iniuries to Christ were most displeasing, as to Nicodemus, Ioseph of Arimathia, and others. And to many others in Iudea, and sundry other parts of the world they were altogeather vnknowne, who therfore remayned at the same tyme faithfull. And so accordingly Protestants tell vs ofHarm. of Confess. pag. 326. Zacharie, Symeon, Ioseph, Elizabeth, Marie, Anne, the teachers, and many others, who agreed in pure doctrine and did not heare the Pharisees and Saducees; many of whom being then li­uing. neuer consented to Christs condemnation. Yea Cai­phas himselfe did not erre in faith, when heIo. 11.49. said, that it was expedient that one man dye for the people, and the whole nation perish not. And this he said not of himselfe, but being the high Priest of that yeare, he prophecyed, that Iesus should dy for the Nation &c. And as for the Apostles they were not as then Bishops, but only designed. Neither is it probable, that they as then did erre in fayth; for though it be said that,Mar. 16.14. He reproued their incredu­lity, yet this doth not signify that they lost their faith which they had, but only that they were slow to belieue that which they had not formerly belieued, to wit, our Sauiours resurrection, wherof when himselfe had said,Luc. 18.33.34. They will kill him but the third day he shall ryse againe; it is imediatly said, but they vnderstood none of these things. And S. Iohn giueth the reason hereof:Io. 20. [...]. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he should ryse againe from the dead. Besides the B. Virgin Mary, & S. Mary Magdalen and others, continued as then with great Charity, which necessarily presupposeth fayth. Againe, the state of Christs Church with obligation to enter therinto, [Page 80] did but beginne at Pentecost, when the Apostles preached publickly the faith of Christ. Lastly Protestants acknow­ledge, that the Church cannot erre in matters necessary to saluation, wherfore if they charge the whole Church with this damnable error, they therin impugne themselues no lesse then vs. For so sayth Willet,Willet. Synop. p. 51. The Church of God may erre in some points not necessary to Saluation, but (she) cannot fall in­to any dānable error, Against Rhem. Test. p 122. 168. 169 336. 373. 372. Cal. Instit. Ar­gent. pa. 369. & the like is taught by (37) Fulk & Caluin, so many waies doth appeare the weaknes of this Obiection. Fulke Ans. to a Counterf. Cath. p. 89. vrged frō S. Paul,1. Cor. 13.9. That our knowledge is imperfect, our prophecying imperfect; therefore the doctrine of the Church may also be imperfect or erroneous. Answer. Fulke may as well cōclude that therfore S. Pauls doctrine & writings may be erroneous, for this his saying cōcerneth himselfe, as much as the Church; we must therefore vnderstand, that S. Paul in this place (as is affirmed by S. AustineCited by Bede v­pon this place. and is other­wise manifest by the1. Cor. 13.10.12. Circumstance of the text) onely insinuateth our knowledge in this life not to be so cleer & manifest, as it shalbe in the next life, saying to this end in the place cyted; we see now by a glasse in a darke sort, but then face to face: now I know in part, (for which Fulke translateth falsly, imperfectly) but then I shall know, as also I am knowne. Which knowledge of the Church, although in this sense and res­pect, it be, and euer was but in part, yet it hath been, and still is so certaine in it selfe, that she may be bould to say in her determinations,Act. 15.28. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs. Rogers obiecteth thatDef. of the Art. art. 21. p. 115. Fulk. Ans. were to a Counter­fet Cath. p. 86. Generall Councells con­sisting of men, who may erre, and who are all lyars, God only being true, that therefore they are subiect to errour. Answer. Though men of themselues be all subiect to er­rour, yet God being true, who hath promised in that case to be in the middest of them, the danger of errour is taken a­way. 2. Though euery man be of himselfe a lyar, yet may some men notwithstanding by Gods speciall grace, be true and no lyars, as the Euangelists and Apostles of Christs, a­gainst whose doctrine and writing this argument maketh as much, as against the Church, vnto which the direction of the holy Ghost is no lesse promised, then to the Apostles [Page 81] and Euangelists. Whitaker and Reynolds argue thusContro. 2 q 4. c 3. Rem. in his 2. Concl. That which befalleth to one, may befall to the whole: but euery one in particular may erre, therefore the whole may erre. This is a poore sophisme, for in the lyke sort might I argue, Whitaker cannot remoue a milstone, nor Reynolds, nor any other Minister; therefore all the Ministers in the world togeather, cannot remoue a Milstone. So though par­ticular Pastours of the Church may erre, yet not the whole Church, especially it being guarded by Gods promise, and the assistance of the holy Ghost. But Whitaker and Fulke re­ply,Contr. 2. q. 4. c. 2. Fulk. in c. 16. Io, sec. 5. (23) That the holy Ghost is promised to euery one in particular, Christ prayed to sanctify euery one, and con­firme him in verity, as he did for the whole, for the laity, aswell as for the Clergy. Answere. It is true that he promi­sed to euery particular, and prayed for them, but in a diffe­rent manner, to euery one according to their seuerall state and degree: he prayed for S. Peter, and the rest of the Apo­stles, and Bishops their successours, and assured them the holy Ghost; as to parents, maisters, and sheepheards of his fold; to the Laity and euery particular man, as to Children, schollars, and sheep to be directed by them: they haue the holy Ghost to teach, preach, and gouerne; these to obey, learne, and belieue. Wherfore as the Pastours cannot erre in teaching, defyning, and condemning heresies; so ney­ther any particular man in belieuing, obeying, and submit­ting himselfe vnto them.

Thus haue Prot. like vnshamefast Children, sought (though with small successe) to discouer the nakednes of their spirituall mother, Christs Spouse.

Whether the Sacred Scriptures be so easy and plaine to be vnderstood, as that without the explication of the Church, they are sufficient to decyde, and end all con­trouersies of fayth, or rather in many places are very obscure and difficult, euen to the learned. SECT. I.

SECT. II. That the Scriptures are obscure and hard to be vnderstood, it is proued by the Scriptures themselues.

THe Prophet Dauid, who was a man most conuersant in such Scriptures as were written in his tyme, was skilfull in the Hebrew, and otherwise humble, not proud or vnbelieuing; yet he prayeth for the true vnderstanding of [Page 84] the Law, or Scriptures, as for a speciall guift from God, say­ing,Ps. 118.18. Reueile my eyes, and I shall consider the meruailous things of thy Law. Ib. ver. 26. Teach me thy Iustifications. Ib ver. 34. Giue me vnderstanding, and I will search thy law, and sundry such like.Praefat. Assert. Ar­tic à Leone 10. damnato­rum. Protestants ordinarily answering, that the Scripture of it selfe cleere, is made obscure to the proud and incredulous, through their owne blindnes & wicked affections, will nothing helpe them in this case; for Dauid was a man humble, and a true belieuer, and yet he prayeth for the true vnderstanding of the Law, or Scriptures. Neyther will it suffice to answere withProlog. Cont. Petr. à Soto. Brentius, that the Scriptures obscurity is somtymes by reason of the Hebrew and Greeke Phrases, yet the Sense is euer most cleer: for besides that this seemeth to be spoken contrary to it selfe, as the wordes to be obscure, but the Sense most cleer; Dauid doubtles well vnderstood the He­brew Phrases, and therefore that could cause no difficulty to him.

The Apostles likewise who had heard so many hea­uenly lessons, giuen from the mouth of Christ, were yet so troubled with this difficulty of Scriptures, as that our Sa­uiour accompanying the two disciples going to Emaus,Luc. 24.27.32. Beginning from Moyses and all the Prophets, he did interpret to them in all the Scriptures the things that were concerning him &c. And they sayd one to the other, Was not our heart burning in vs, whyles he spake in the way, and opened vnto vs the Scriptures? Yea immedi­atly before his Ascension, all his Apostles being assembled togeather, he sayd to themLuc. 24.44.45. These are the words which I spake to you when I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the Law of Moyses, and the Prophets, and the Psalmes of me. Then he opened their vnderstanding, that they might vnderstand the Scriptures. Signifying therby that the Apostles themselues, could not rightly vnderstand the Scriptures, had not Christ specially opened or enlightned their vnderstan­dings, that they might vnderstand the Scriptures. Heere I hope it will not be replyed, that the Apostles did not know the Hebrew Phrases, themselues being Hebrews borne: nor that they were proud and misbelieuers, being the chosen A­postles of Christ our Sauiour.

In respect of the Scriptures difficulty, as also of the weaknes of vs to conceyue; the ApostleHeb. 5.13.14. maketh diffe­rence not only of persons, but of doctrine, affirming some to be vnskilfull of the word of Iustice, and such as are to be fed with milke, or easy doctrine: others who by custome haue their senses exercised to the discerning of good and euill; and of these the Apostle sayth, strong meat is for the perfect. And so elswhere he sayth,1. Cor. 2. v. 7. we speake wisdome among the perfect, dis­coursing oftentimes of doctrine hard to be vnderstood, such as the Apostle termethHeb 9.1 [...]. inexplicable. So cleere it is that some misteries and doctrines of faith, are so farre from being easy, that they are so hard that they are inexplicable.

S. Philip hearing the Ethyopian EunuchAct. 8.30.31. reading Esay the Prophet, said, Trowest thou that thou vnderstandest the things which thou readest? who said, And how can I vnlesse some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come vp, and sit with him. And the place of the Scripture which he did read was this; As a sheep to slaughter was he led &c. And the Eunuch &c. said, I beseech thee of whom doth the Prophet speake this? of himselfe or of some other? And Philip opening his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, E­uangelized vnto him Iesus. Here the Eunuch acknowledging his ignorance in the vnderstanding of the Scriptures, in­treateth the Apostle to expound the same, which he accor­dingly performed, not referring him backe againe to the Scriprures, or any conference therof. Now wheras some reply that this Eunuch, as also the Apostle at those tymes were carnall, & therfore no meruaile if the Scripture were to them as then obscure: I answere, that all hereticks and Infidels, to whom the Protestants prescribe the sacred Scri­ptures for their only certaine Rule, direction, and Iudge in matters of fayth, are doubtles no lesse carnall; yea all igno­rant persons are in like manner carnall, at least before their Conuersion, and yet in the meane tyme the foresaid Scri­ptures must be their only stay; yea after their Conuersion, they are still, in regard of their capacity & vnderstanding, weak, and carnall, though otherwise spirituall in respect of their faith, humility, and obedience.

But none more cleerly testifyeth the obscurity of Scri­ptures [Page 86] then Saint Peter, who expressely writeth thus:2 Pet. 3.15.16. As also our most deare Brother Paul acccording to the wisedome giuen him hath written to you. As also in all Epistles speaking in them of these things, in the which are certayne things hard to be vnder­stood, which the vnlearned, and vnstable depraue, as also the rest of the Scriptures, to their owne perdition. This text is to conuin­cing, that D. Fulke in his translation thereof, most directly contrary to the Greeke and Latin, doth thus fowly corrupt and falsify the same,Against the Rhem. Test. 2. Pet. 3.16. Yea almost in euery Epistle speaking of such things, among which are many things to be vnderstood, which they that are hard, vnlearned, and vnstable, peruert, as they do also the other Scriptures, vnto their owne destruction. This making of Hardnes to agree to the Readers, not to the Scriptures, is so grosse a corruption, as that other ProtestantSee Bi­ble of Anno 159 [...]. Transla­tours reiecting the same, do agree with our vulgar transla­tion heerin. And though S. Peter doth not say, that S. Pauls Epistles are hard, but only that in them are certaine thinges hard to be vnderstood, which some pretend for an answere; yet all is one to say, such an Authour is hard to be vnder­stood, or he writeth of matters hard to be vnderstood: And the rather heer, in that S. Peter alledgeth this hardnes, as a reason why S. Pauls Epistles are depraued by the vnlearned and vnstable. And it may iustly be further obserued, that seeing S. Peter affirmeth, those things of S. Paul, as also the other Scriptures to be depraued by vnlearned, and vnstable men, therby he sheweth the other Scriptures for the most part to be likewise obscure: for by reason of the difficulty, the other Scriptures also are depraued, euen as those things of Pauls Epistles. All this notwithstanding, Whitaker blusheth not to affirme, that Peter doth not say,Controu. 1. q. 4. c. 3. pa. 341. Pauls Epistles to be ob­scure, no nor that in Pauls Epistles there are certayne things obscure: but this the very sense of Seeing will easily confute, by but reading the words themselues.

SECT. III. That the Ancient Fathers expound the sacred Scriptures a­greably with Catholikes, in proofe of the Scriptures ob­scurity, and difficulty.

SAint Ambrose writing vpon the former words of King Dauid, Giue me vnderstanding, and I will search thy Law, saith,Serm 10. in Psal. 11 [...]. The Prophet who had receyued the Holy Ghost, after he was annointed King, annoynted a Prophet, writing the hun­dred and eighteene Psalme, desireth vnderstanding to be giuen to him, that he may vnderstand the Commandements of God; and knoweth, that vnles he receyue grace from our Lord, he is not able to vnderstand his Commandements. S. Hierome alleaging the selfe same words inferreth thus,Ep. 13 ad Paulin. c. 4. If so great a Prophet confes­seth the darknes of his Ignorance, with what a night of Ignorance doest thou thinke vs little ones and almost sucking babes to be compassed? But this veyle was not only put vpon the face of Moyses, but also vpon the Euangelists and the Apostles. S. Chrysostome expounding those words of Christ our Sauiour, Search Io. 5.39. the Scriptures, saith,Hom. 40. in Ioan. Christ referred the Iewes not to the simple and naked reading of the Scriptures, but to a very diligent search; he said not, Read the Scri­ptures, but Search, for diuine things do need greatest diligence. In a shadow to those Ancestors not without cause he spoke, he commanded therfore to dig more deep, that so we may fynd those things that lye bid in the bottome. For we do not dig for any thing that lyes in the Su­perficies, and is apparant, but for that which as a treasure is hid in the bottome; for he that seeketh for such things as these, vnles he vse grea­test diligence and labour, he shall neuer fynd the things sought for. S. Hierome instanceth this obscurity in diuers bookes of the Bible,Ep. 103. ad Paulinum. ca 7. Who is able (sayth he) to vnderstand or expound Esay, Hieremy, Ezechiel, and Daniel. Ezechiel hath a begining and ending inwrapped in so great obscurities, as that these parcels with the begin­ning of Genesis, were not read by the Hebrues before they were thirty yeares old &c. Iames, Peter, Iohn, Iudas set forth seauen Epistles, as mysticall as succinct, & both short and long: short in words, but long [Page 88] in Sentences: so that he is a rare man, who is not halfe blynd in the rea­ding therof. The Apocalyps of Iohn hath as many mysteries as words. Againe,Praef. in Oseam. If in the expositions of all the Prophets we need the com­ming of the holy Ghost, that by his reuelation they may be opened, by whose instinct they were written; And we read in Esay, that the booke was sealed, which the Scribes and Pharisees, who boasted they knew the letters of the Law, could not read, because it was sealed, and none could be found but the lyon of the Trybe of Iuda, whom God the Father si­gned, who was able to open the mysteries therof: How much more in the explanation of the Prophet Osee is our Lord to be prayed vnto, & with Peter we are to say, Mat. 13. Expound vs this Parable; especially since he testifieth the obscurity of this volume in the end therof who writ it, Ose 14.10. Who is wyse and shall vnderstand these things? Vnderstanding, and shall know those things? which we are to vnderstand, not as impossi­ble, but as difficult. In like sort concerning the Epistle to the Romanes, he auoucheth, thatEp 150. ad Hedibiam q. 10. All the Epistle to the Romanes needeth interpretation, and is wrapped in so great obscurities, as that to vnderstand the same, we need the help of the holy Ghost, who by the Apostle did speake these things.

S. Hierome also alledging the former example of the Eunuch mentioned in the Acts, writeth thus,Ep. 103. ad Paulinum. That in the meane tyme I may speake of my selfe, I am neither more holy, nor more studious then this Eunuch, who came from AEthtopia, that is, from the vttermost Coasts of the world, to the Temple, left the Court, and became so great a louer of the Law and diuine knowledge, that euen in his Chariot he read the Scriptures: And yet hauing the Bible, thinking of the words of our Lord, with tongue and lippes speaking therof, yet he knew not him, whom vnknowne he worshipped in the Booke: Philip came and showed to him Iesus, who shut vp lay hid in the letter. O wonderfull vertue of the Teacher! The same houre the Eu­nuch belieueth, is baptized, and is made faithfull and holy, and of a schollar becometh a Maister &c. these things I haue briefly touched &c. that thou shouldest vnderstand, that in the sacred Scriptures, thou art not able to enter the narrow path without a guide and a tea­cher. And then shewing that neither Grammarians, Rhetori­cians, Philosophers, Geometricians, Logicians, Musicians, Astrono­mers, Astrologers, Phisitians, no nor Husband men, Carpenters, Smi­thes &c. can come to be that which they desire, without a [Page 89] teacher &c. he addeth, as also our tymes do plainly con­firme, that it is only the Art of Scriptures, which all do challenge to themselues &c. This the chatling old wife, this the foolish old man, this the pratling Sophister, this all presume, teare, and teach, be­fore they learne.

S. Austine endeauouring to expound these wordes of S. Paul,Cor. 3 12. If any man build vpon this foundation, gould, siluer, precious stones &c. promiseth thatDe fide & operibus. c. 15. it is meet diligently to at­tend how that sentence of Paul the Apostle is to be taken, being plainly difficult to be vnderstood. Yea he further teacheth, that this Sentence is to be accounted amongst those whereof Peter affirmeth, that in the writings (of Paul) there are certaine things hard to be vnderstood. And comming to set downe his owne opinion he saythIb. c. 16. Heer peraduenture it wilbe expected of me, what I thinke of this Sentence of Paul the Apostle, and how I thinke it is to be vnderstood? Heer I confesse I had rather heare others more vnder­standing, and more learned &c. So cleerly doth S. Austine ac­knowledge the difficulty of Scriptures, exemplifying the same particularly in S. Pauls writings, which he taketh to be of those which S. Peter meant, when he affirmed, that there were certaine things hard to be vnderstood in the E­pistles of Paul. And thus we see that the auncient Fathers do cleerly expound the Scriptures agreably with Catho­likes, in proofe of their obscurity and difficulty.

SECT. IV. That Protestants expound the Sacred Scriptures agreably with Catholikes in proofe of the Scriptures obscurity: And that sundry Protestants do teach and defend the same Doctrine.

CHemnitius producing the former example of the Eu­nuch, teacheth that in respectExam. part. 1 f. 63. of many hard questions, God would haue to remayne in his Church, to auoyd all occasion of er­rour, the guift of interpretatation, which is not common to all, no more then is the guift of healing▪ and miracles. And this guift God [Page 88] would not haue contemned or reiected, but reuerently vsed as an In­strument and help, to fynd out the true and sound sense of Scriptures, euen as the Eunuch said, How can I vnderstand without a Guide?

The Translatours of the English Bible of Anno 1578. in their marginall notes, of the place before alleadged from S. Peter (2. Pet. 3.16.) do affirme that; As no man condemneth the brightnes of the sunne, because his eye is not able to sustayne the cleernes therof; So the hardnes which we cannot sometyme compasse, or perfe­ctly vnderstand in the Scriptures, ought not to take from vs the vse of the Scriptures.

Aretius affirmeth thatLoc. com. loc. 53 f. 164. Many thinges remayne obscure euen to the Godly &c. Who did euer sufficiently expresse the matter of the Trinity, of the Incarnation of the sonne of God &c. I passe ouer in si­lence the different vnderstandings of the places of the Ghospell, wherin thou mayest fynd among the Interpreters, almost so many opinions, as there be Interpreters. And immediatly after, he alledgeth the foresaid saying of S. Peter, to proue the obscurity of S. Paules Epistles; affirming generally of the Scriptures, that they contayneIbid. fol. 106. obscurity, as well in the matter as in the phrase. And that the veyle (or darknes) of the letter, is taken away by fit Interpreters. And that those being wanting, the Church is brought in­to darknes. The like wherof is also taught byDe sacra. Script. p. 46. D. Whita­ker. D. Fulke not only produceth seuerall of the forealled­ged textes agreably to this purpose, but also declareth his owne opinion to be the same, saying:Agaynst Rhem. Test. in 2. Pet. 3. p. 821. As concerning the Argument and matter of the Scriptures, we confesse that for the most and chiefest matters, it is not only hard, but impossible to be vnderstood of the naturall man &c. Againe, Hierome to Paulinus noteth cer­taine difficult places in the Prophets; and who will mislike him that he desired to learne of Didimus? &c. And Dauid prayed for vnder­standing. The Eunuch required an Interpreter. And we also af­firme that prayer is necessary for all men, and an Interpreter requisite for the vnlearned, that will come to the right vnderstanding of the Scripture &c. Yea we deny not but the Scriptures are in some places very hard. AndIb. p. 810. we plainly protest, that whosoeuer despiseth the ordinary Ministery of the word, which God hath established in his Church, for the direction of vs in truth and loue, shall neuer attayne to true knowledge, no, though he were otherwise neuer so well learned, [Page 89] much lesse if he be ignorant and vnlearned.

Cartwright the Puritane auoucheth, thatIn Whi­teg. Def. p. 784. Vnles the Lord worke miraculously and extraordinarily, the bare reading of the Scriptures without t [...]e preaching cannot deliuer so much as one poore sheep from destruction. But would any man thinke it credible, that so learned a man as D. Martin Luther, should so in­genuously confesse his owne ignorance in the vnderstan­ding of any one Booke of Scripture? obserue but his words: I would Pref in Psalmos. not haue that to be presumed by any of me, which none yet of the most holy and most learned could performe, to wit, to vnder­stand and teach the true sense of the Psalter, in all thinges. It is i­nough to haue vnderstood some, and those in part, the holy Ghost hath reserued many things to himselfe, that he might alwayes haue vs his schollers. And I know it to be a point of most impudent rashnes of him that dare professe, that he vnderstandeth anyone booke of Scripture, in all parts. De Conci­ [...]ij [...]. p. 12. Aboue twenty yeares agoe I was compelled to contemne the Commentaries of the Fathers, when I was to read the Scriptures in the schooles, and with great sweat (or paines) to seeke the true and proper meaning.

The Translatour of the English Bible of Anno 1600. auoucheth, that it is,Pre­face. A very hard thing to vnderstand the holy Scriptures, and that diuers errors, sects, and heresies grow dayly, for lacke of the true knowledge therof. The Centurists doubt not to affirme that,Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. col. 52. The very Apostles thought that the Scriptures cannot be vnderstood, without the holy Ghost, and an Interpreter. Cal­uin speaking of the Scripture sayth,Instit. l 3. c. 2 §. 4. See l 4. c. 17. §. 10. Daily reading, we fall into many obscure places, which do argue vs of Ignorance. But with this bridle God keepeth vs in humility, assigning to euery one a mea­sure of faith, that euen the best Doctour may be ready to learne. So cleerly do the learnedst Protestants expound the sacred Scri­ptures, in proofe of the Scriptures obscurity, and conse­quently agreably with Catholiks defend the same Doctrine.

SECT. V. That the Scriptures are obscure, it is further proued by sun­dry reasons.

IN Scriptures we may consider, either the things there spoken of, or the manner wherwith they are spoken, both which are obscure: for the matter therin contayned, it is concerning the blessed Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, the Sacraments, the hidden working of God in the soule of man, sundry Prophecyes not to be accomplished so many hundred yeares after their first prediction, and other the like. All which being high Misteries, must of necessity be difficult.

Now the manner wherwith they are set downe is no lesse obscure, for first many things seeme to be contrary,Exod. 20.5. as, I am the Lord thy God &c. visiting the iniquity of the Fathers vpon the Children. And theEzech. 18.20. Soule that shall sinne, the same shall dye: the sonne shall not beare the Iniquity of the Father. S. Matthew and S. Luke report,Mat. 10.10. Luc. 9.3. that our Sauiour sending his Apostles to preach, forbad them to take a Rod. But S. Marke recordeth that,Mark. 6.8. he commanded them that they should take nothing for the way, but a Rod only. S. Paul affirmeth that,Heb. 9.4. In the Arke of the Testament, there was a goulden pot hauing Manna, and the Rod of Aaron that had blossomed, and the Tables of the Testament. And yet in the third Booke of kings, and elswhere it is said,C. 8 9.2. Paralip. 5.10. In the Arke there was nothing but two Tables of stone. Againe in the Acts of the Apostles it is said,C. 9 7. The men that went in company with (Paul) stood amazed, hearing the voyce, but seeing no man. And yet in the same Actes, S. Paul sayth,C. 22.10. They that went with me, saw the light indeed, but the voice they heard not of him that spake with me. So likewise in S. Luke, Christ said to Peter,C. 22.34. The Cocke shall not crow to day till thou deny thrice that thou knowest me. And yet S. Marke relateth that,C. 14.68.72. After the first deniall the Cocke crew, and that after another deniall, immediatly the Cocke crew againe, all which, with manySee Mar. 15.25. & Io. 19.44. Also Luc. 3.35.36. & Gen. 11 12. See also Hook. l. 5. sec. 19. p. 30. other such like, are seeming Contrarieties. Which must needs argue greatest [Page 93] difficulty for their right vnderstanding, seeing, that we are bound to belieue, that they are not truly contrary, but all true in themselues.

In like sort there are many speaches so obscure & doubt­full, as that the learnedst Interpreters do vary and are trou­bled therwith. When the Iewes said,Io. 8.25. Who art thou? Iesus said to them: The beginning who also speake to you: here Beginning in Latin (Principium) is of the newter gender, and the Rela­tiue which (qui) of the Masculine: And which is more, in Greeke [...], Beginning, is the Accusatiue case, both which according to our ordinary conceipt, would seeme a most manifest incongruity.

There are also in the sacred Scriptures obscure figures and parables almost innumerable. And if we be to examine and determine Controuersies by the Originalls, we shall fynd the Ambiguity, of the Hebrew especially, most intri­cate, one and the same word or Phrase being oftentymes indifferent to receiue diuers significations, whereof great incertainty groweth among the learned, and to the igno­rant in tongues, a difficulty inuincible.

And if (as Luther affirmeth)Praef. assert. Artic. à Leone dam­natorum. the Scriptures be more cleer then the Commentaries of all the Fathers, and as other Prot. make so easy, that the vulgar people may vnderstand them by their owne reading, to what end then the Fathers not only heertofore, but euen Protestants now continually do write so many Commentaries in explanation thereof? But chiefly seeing Prot. decyde all Controuersies only by Scrip­ture, how aryse so daily and deadly dissentions among them­selues, concerning things taught and set downe in the Scri­ptures, if the Scriptures be so easy as is pretended?

To these demands two things are vsually answered; first, that though the Scripture be most cleer, yet it is darke to the proud and vnbelieuing, by reason of their blindnes, and wicked affection. Secondly, that though in some pla­ces it be obscure, yet the selfesame thing is cleerly set down in other places. But by the first it followeth, that Luther himselfe (who giueth these reasons) is a Proud man and In­fidel, it being euident, and for such euen by Prot. acknow­ledged, [Page 92] that he taught and maintayned sundry grosse errors, and in all for his defence pretending Scriptures. And by the like reason the same crymes of Pride and Infidelity incurre all Lutherans, by the iudgement of Caluinists, and all Cal­uinists by the iudgement of Lutherans; & so the like may be affirmed of our Protestants and Puri [...]ans, euery one of these condēning the other of false doctrine in sundry points, and yet all building their opinions vpon the Scriptures.

And against the second I vrge first, that sundry obscure places, haue not coherence with any other place; as the greatest part of the Apocalyps, and the beginning and end of the Prophet Ezechiel. Secondly though it were true, yet a true conference of places amongst themselues, is a thing of it selfe very difficult; for that place which a Caluinist would thinke to be cleere, and therefore other places con­cerning the same matter to be expounded thereby; a Luthe­ran will auouch to be obscure, and other places to be more plaine. Besides this, it is also very difficult alwayes truly to discerne whether the places so conferred do speake of one and the same thing, seeing the same word, and almost the same phraze is vsed in Scriptures to signify diuers things, as the ScriptureBaptisme is someti­mes vsed for the Sa­crament of Baptisme, othertimes for Pen­nance or Martyr­dome. See Mar. 1.4.1. Cor. 15.29. & Mar. 10.38. Luc. 12.50. it selfe testifyeth, and S. AustineL. 2. de Doctr. Chri­sti. c. 24 25. 26. ob­serueth. But because this conference of Scripture is accoun­ted by Protestants so auaylable for the making of Scriptures easie to be vnderstood, and to be our Iudge of Controuer­sies; I will therfore treat therof more largely in this Section following.

SECT. VI. That the Conference of one place of Scripture with ano­ther, doth neither make the Scriptures to be our Iudge of all Controuersies, nor alwayes easy to be vnder­stood.

SEeing Protestants generally teach, thatReinolds in his Con­ference. pa. 68. It is not the shew, but the sense of the words that must decyde Controuersies: And seeing as D. Whitaker auoucheth,De sacra Script. p. 521. The Scripture hath no [Page 93] liuely voyce which we may heare we must vse certayne meanes wherby we may search out what is the true sense & meaning of the Scriptures. And these meanes, as theyRein in his Conf. p. 83 84. 9 [...]. 99 Whitak. de sacra Scrip. p. 511. 522 523. prescribe, are our reading of the Scriptures, our Conference of places, our waighing of the Circum­stances of the text, our skill in the tongues, our diligence, our Prayer and such like. Of which meanes D. Reynolds doubted not to auerre, that,Confe­rence. pa 99. They are still effectuall, if men pray as they should, and search as they ought in the spirit of fayth and modesty. And D. Fulke auoucheth that,Against Purgat. p. 434. Who so obserueth this search shall come to the knowledge of the truth most certainly.

I will now make manifest the vanity and insufficiency of this pretended course of tryall, and that for sundry res­pects: for first if in the obseruation of the foresayd meanes, they require such a conference and diligence as is but imagi­nary, and cannot be performed; then they prescribe vainly and to no purpose: And if they intend but such a diligent obseruation as is possible and within our power; then I al­ledge them the example (to omit others) of D. Martin Lu­ther, whome Prot. acknowledge to be a manApolog. Anglic part. 4. c. 4. q. 2. sent of God to lighten the world, Act. Mon. p. 416. the Elias, Conductour, and Chariot of Israel, whose calling they thinke Aret. loc. com. loc. 63 p. 198. Daneus Isagog. part. 4 l. 2. p. 36. Lascius de Rus. Religio­ne p. 93. extraordinary, and his comming and speaking speciallyAnti-Christus p. 12. 13. 80. Co [...]radus Schlusselb. in Catol. haeret, p. 314. 316. foreshewed in the Scriptures, & since foretould byAct. Mon. p. 399. & see Fox in Apoe. p. 324. sundry Prophecyes (of later tymes) which went vpon the tyme of Martin Luther: yea they accompt him aSleidan. l 16. & after the Eng. Transl. fol. 222. Prophet, and that sundry of his Prophecies proued true: And him­selfe vndertooke that he was so assured and certayne of the truth of his doctrine, as he feared not to say;Aduer­sus falsò no­n [...]matum Ecclesiasticum statum. I would haue you know, that heerafter I will not honour you so much, that I will eyther suffer you, or the Angells from heauen to iudge of my doctrine &c. Neyther will I haue my doctrine iudged by any, and therefore not of the very Angels: for seeing I am certaine thereof, I will thereby be Iudge both of you and the Angells. This is the pure spirit of a new Ghospeller.

Now this so rare a man, being skillfullAct. Mon p. 403. in the Gerecke and Hebrew did not only conferre the Scriptures most diligently, euen with a desire (as himselfe confesseth) to alter his Iudgement agaynst the Real Presence,Ep. ad Argenti­nens. And in the Treatise against the Defence of the Censure p. 99. 100. Be­cause (sayth he) I did well perceyue that I might very greatly hurt [Page 96] thereby the Papacy (so direct and holy was his intention:) and, If Carolostadius or any man els could haue persuaded (him) that there had been nothing in the Sacrament but Bread and Wyne, he should haue bound him to him by a great good turne. But also he had personallCoo­pers Chro­nicle fol. 290. Sley­dan l. 6. f. 83. Communication therein with Oecolampadius and Swinglius,Act. Mon p. 403. he heard and obserued their conference and Collections from the Scriptures: and yet all this notwith­standing still persisted in his former opinionSee Bridges in his defence of the Go­uern. pag. 559. Perkins in his 4. Treatises Tract. How to apply Gods word. num. 10. of the Real Presence: Ep. ad Argenti­nens. And in the Treatise against the Defence of the Censure p. 99. 100. the which he thought to be so cleere a truth, that mentioning his former desire to change his Iudgment ther­in; he yet concludeth and sayth,Ep. ad Argenti­nens. and the Treatise against the Defence of the Censure. p. 100. But I do see my selfe cap­tiue, no way being left to escape; for the Text of the Ghospell is too playne &c. And not content with this, he proceedeth so farre, as toSleydan. l. 16. f. 215. after the Eng. Translat. set forth a booke against Swinglius, wherin he reciteth andDefens. verborum Coerae in the 7. Tome of Luthers workes. reiecteth the arguments and conferences of Scrip­ture framed by Swinglius and Oecolampadius agaynst the Real Presence.

Now vpon these premises I do inferre, that for so much as Luther obserued the foresayd prescribed meanes of con­ferring the Scriptures, and that with all diligence he could, and yet the same notwithstanding, still belieued and taught (in other Protestants Iudgements) a doctrine most errone­ous, as also the like did his followersExam. part. 2. 92 94. 100. Chemnitius, Ia­cobusIn Confut. Disput. Grinaei de [...]oena Domini. Andreas, andAct. disp. de 8 [...]oena pub [...]i­cè in Academia Heidelberg. Anno 1584. and see Haffenreff loc. Theol. l. 3. loc. 7. de Sacram. p. 371. others of the learnedst Pro­testants; that therefore the Conference of Scriptures, though obserued & vsed with all diligence we can, is yet neuerthe­lesse vncertaine, and vnauoydable to resolue vs priuatly, much more to end and determine our publicke Controuer­sies.

Secondly, I argue from the nature of the thing it selfe, that seeing our foresayd skill in tongues, our conference of places, and other prescribed meanes, are but actions on our behalfe humane, and such wherein, as in our other humane [Page 97] endeauours, euery man without extraordinary Priuiledge from God, is (all his prayer, learning, and possible diligence not withstanding) subiect to error, ouersight, and mans in­firmity, as both reason and Experience teach, that therfore the same can be no certaine and infallible Course of Iudg­ment, wherby to determine Controuersies. A truth so cer­tayne, that Lubbertus speaking of their owne learnedst mi­nisters and Interpreters sayth,De prin­cipijs Chri­stian. dogm. p. 563. As we haue showed that all these may erre in expounding, so also do we affirme, that they may erre in Iudging. Yea sayth Zanchius,De sacra Script. pag. 411. 412. with Iudgment let vs heare them, knowing that they are men, and that they could, and may erre. And as it were despairing to prescribe any Rule for meanes, he iumpeth from them to the point of Elections, so restrayning the vnderstanding of Scriptures, as an imme­diate and speciall guift peculiar only to the Elect,Ib. pag. 375. chiefly by reason of this obscurity (sayth he) we can giue no rule for the vn­derstanding of Scriptures, because it is in no mans power, that he be Elect. And, It is only graunted to the Elect, that they may vnderstand the sacred Scriptures truly, cleerly, properly, and soundly.

D. Whitaker, who prescribed the foresaid meanes, is enforced yet to giue sentence against them, and therin a­gainst himselfe, saying,De Ec­clesia Con­trou. 2. q. 4. p. 221. Such as the meanes are, such of ne­cessity must the Interpretation be: but the meanes of Interpreting are obscure, vncertayne, doubtfull, and ambiguous, therfore it cannot be, but that the Interpretation also must be vncertaine; If vncertaine, then may it also be false &c. So that all diligence in Conferring is insufficient to assure vs infallibly of the true sense of the Scriptures.

Thirdly such as are Ignorant in the tongues, wherin Scripture was first written, as also such as cannot read at all, cannot haue the foresaid. Conference for their Infallible Iudge, seeing whether the Translatours haue erred, either vpon Ignorance or malice, or both, they are not able to dis­cerne; and consequently whether that which they read or heare, be altogeather true Scripture, or rather replenished with manifold errors, and so no certaine Iudge, they re­maine most vncertaine. According to which D. Whitaker is enforced to confesse, that,De sacra Script. pag. 523. The Ignorance of the Hebrew [Page 98] and Greeke tongues, hath brought forth many Errors: truly those that know them not, do erre often and vnauoydably. And therfore for the instruction of these he is enforced to fly to their immediate knowledge from the holy Ghost, saying,Ib. pag. 127. The Ignorant in tongues, although they cannot Iudge of all places whether they be truly translated, yet they acknowledge and allow the Doctrine being instructed by the holy Ghost. And as for those others,Ib. p. 588. Who know not letters, and cannot read, he granteth that, They retayne wholsome saith by the preaching of their Pastors. So that to all such as do not vnderstand the Hebrew, and the Greeke, or that cannot read at all, the foresaid Conference of Scripture can be no immediate and certaine course of Iudgment.

Fourthly, this foresaid Conference is only a Coloura­ble refuge of words, wherby to make, not the Scripture our Iudge, but ourselues Iudge of the Scripture: for to Conferre and apply the Scriptures, and therby to determine the right sense, is in vs an acte of our vnderstanding, euen as it is the like to confer our temporall lawes: wherfore if the Scrip­ture only without our conference therof, do not determine to vs the true meaning of it selfe, then is it no more our Iudge in Matters of faith, then the law is in temporall causes: And then further, if euery one of vs be to vndertake this Conference for himselfe, without relying vpon the Confe­rence▪ and Iudgment of any Interpreter, further then we our selues can discerne the same to be true by our Confe­rence, (as many ProtestantsZan­chius de sa­cra Script. p. 412. Whi­tak. de sacra Script. pag. 529 Carth­wr. in Whi­teg. def. pag. 511. & Whitguift 16. Bilson in his differēce &c. part 2. p. 353. Willet Synops. Controu. 1. q 2 p. 127. teach) it therof necessarily followeth, that euery man must iudge and determine the sense of the Scriptures for himselfe, which is all one as to make himselfe his owne iudge. A cleere Example hereof Protestants haue in their Lutheran and Puritane Brethren, of whom they must needs confesse, that concerning such Errors as they lay to their charge, they make themselues Iudges of the Scripture, and not the Scripture their Iudge.

Neither doth it suffice to answere, that they defend not an erroneous, but a sincere Conference: for the right­full conference maketh the Scripture no more Iudge, then doth the right conference of the lawes, make the Law to be our Iudge. And as for the different kinds of erroneous and [Page 99] rightfull Conference, they do equally and alike admit our Iudgment and act of conferring, only the nature of this conference is seuerally altered, according to the sincerity or errour therof. So that as Protestants must needs confesse of their foresaid Brethren, that they in their said Erroneous conference make not the Scripture their Iudge, but themsel­ues Iudges, though erroneous Iudges of the Scriptures mea­ning: In like manner in their owne Conference, they make themselues (though in their opinion rightly Iudges, yet) Iudges and determiners therof. Wherupon it followeth, that Protestants whether learned or vnlearned, conferring the Scriptures either sincerely or erroneously, do neuertheles in the said Conferences make themselues Iudges of the Scri­pture, and not the Scripture their Iudge.

This sequele is so cleere, that sundry Prot. do in plaine termes acknowledge the same. Lubbertus teacheth,De Prin­cip. Chri­stian. dogm. l. 23. p. 563. All the faythfull are Iudges of interpretations and doctrines. AndIbid. p. 573. that God hath giuen to euery faythfull person, not only the Spirit of vn­derstanding but also of discerning false doctrine from true. D. Bilson expressely defendeth, that,True difference &c. part. 2. p. 353. The people must be discerners & Iudges of that which is taught. Brentius auoucheth most fully that,In Pro­logom. Cont. Sotum & in Confess Wit­temberg c. de sacra Script. It appertayneth to euery priuat man to iudge of doctrine concerning Religion, and to discerne true doctrine from false. So that now any Cobler may be a competent Iudge of the true sense of the Scriptures, or of any doctrine preached by his Pastour.

But what seriously doth ensue of all this, but that eue­ry heretike and ignorant fellow, may at his pleasure, exēpt himselfe from all authority of Scriptures, Councels, Fathers, Pastours, and the Church it selfe, making his owne fancy and conceypt, the supremest Iudge of all. Whereby amōgst other absurdities, it euer happeneth, that as yet could ne­uer be established any agreement in Religion amongst the Protestant faction: but rather to the contrary, the schisme and diuision so long continued between Lutherans, Swin­glians, Caluinists, Anabaptists, Brownists, Puritanes &c. heerby to be most strongly vphoulden and maintayned, & that which is most dangerous, without all hope and proba­bility [Page 100] of any future vnity and consent. Wherefore I may cō ­clude, that our Moderne Protestants creating for their Iudg their our Conference of Scripture, do thereby only endea­uour, as S. Austine affirmeth of all heretickes, thatL 32. conc. Faust c. 19. Euery mans mind may be his owne guide, and, that he be not subiect to the au­thority of Scriptures, but that, he may make subiect the authority of Scriptures to himselfe.

Adde only heerunto what M. Hooker thinketh of this cyting & cōferring of Scriptures:Eccl pol. l. 2. Sect. 7. fol. 113. Such are readiest (sayth he) to cyte for one thing fyue hūdred sentences of holy Scripture what warrāt haue they, that any one of them doth meane the thing, for which it is alleadged? Is not their surest ground most commonly, either some probable cōiecture of their owne, or the Iudgmēt of others, taking those Scriptures as they do? which notwithstanding to meane otherwise then they take them, it is not still altogeather impossible. So that now and then they ground themselues on humane authority, euen when they most pretend diuine. So fallible still is this Conference of Scriptures.

But I will conclude with D. Fields Iudgment in this Case.L. 4. c. 19. We confesse (sayth he) that neither conference of places, nor consideration of things precedent and subsequent, nor looking into the originall; are of any force, vnles we fynd the thing which we con­ceiue to be vnderstood and meant, in the places interpreted, to be conso­nant to the Rule of faith. And this Rule of faith (he teacheth) must be tryed,Ibid. eyther by the generall practise of the Church, the renowned of all ages, or the Pastors of an apostolicall Church. So vn­able is this pretended Conference to make a competent Iudge.

I must needs yet obserue how aduenturous Protestants are for the maintaining the honour of their supreme Iudge the Conference of Scriptures. For whereas it is sayd, that S. PaulAct. 9.20.21.22. Entring into the Synagogue, he preached Iesus &c. and all that heard, were astonyed &c. But Saul waxed mighty much more, and confounded the Iewes that dwelt at Damascus, affirming that this is Christ, Protestants translate those last words thus;See the English Church Bible of Anno 1 [...]77. Saul confounded them, prouing (by conferring one Scripture with another) that this is very Christ. Here for affirming, they say, prouing, but this not satisfying inough, they add to the text it selfe these [Page 101] words, By conferring one Scripture with another, which words are not to be found in any Originall. And though some o­ther Bibles haue left out this impious addition in the Text, yet in their marginallThe Engl. great Bible of 1578. notes they are pleased to say, Prouing by the conference of the Scriptures: wheras in the place cited, there is not the least mention or intimation of any Scriptures; but directly otherwise it is said, that he preached in the Synagogues, and confounded the Iewes. If a Catholicke should add but one word to the text, presently all the woes threat­ned in Scripture against such Adders, would be thundred against him.

SECT. VII. An Examination of such Obiections as are vsually vrged by Protestants against the Scriptures obscurity.

MOstBrentius in Prole­gom. Cont. Petr. Sotum. Protestant writers obiect those words in Deutronomy,C. 30.11.12.14. This Commandement that I command thee this day, is not aboue thee, nor so far of, situated in heauen, that thou mayest say, which of vs is able to ascend vnto heauen to bring it to vs, that we may heare and fulfill it in the worke? &c. But the word is very neare thee in thy mouth and in thy heart to do it. Answer. 1. Wheras the question is, whether the Scriptures be easy to be vnderstood, here is not any mention made of the Scriptures at all. 2. The words obiected do only proue, and that dire­ctly against Protestants, who teach that the Commande­ments are impossible to be kept, that indeed the Comman­dements may be easily performed. And in this sense, is this place vnderstood by AncientTertul. l. 4. cont. Marcion. Orig. Am­bros. & Chrysost. in. c. 10. ad R [...]m. Aug. l. de Perfectione Iustitiae Resp. penult. Fathers. 3. It may be vn­derstood withAbu­lensis in hunc locum. others of the facility in knowing, not the Scriptures, which as then peraduenture were none, but the Precepts only of the Decalogue, which being naturall, are easily vnderstood, & especially by those Iewes, who had heard Moyses explicate the same: so that according to either sense, the Obiection is impertinent.

Secondly are obiected these wordes of K. Dauid;Ps. 118.105. Thy word is a lampe to my feete; and a light to my pathes. And those [Page 102] of S. Peter, 2. Pet. 1.19. And we haue the propheticall word more sure: which you do well attending vnto, as to a candle shyning in a darkeplace &c. Answere. 1. Neyther of these places do speake of all the Scriptures, and therefore they cannot conclude that all the Scriptures are easy. Secōdly though they were spoken of all the Scriptures, yet the Scriptures may be well called a lampe, light, or Candle, not that they be all easy to be vnder­stood, but because being once rightly vnderstood, they do illustrate the vnderstanding, and direct it in the working of good. And so K. Dauid in the place obiected, intended to shew, that greater was the knowledge which was gotten by the word of God reueiled, then by his Creatures, and therefore he compareth the word of God to a lampe, which more auayleth vs for expelling the darknes of the night, then the light of all the starres. Thirdly though the Scriptu­res be as a lanterne of themselues, yet we must consider with­all how they do, as the Propet sayth, enlighten our eyes: for what if a Candle be put vnder a Bushell? truly it will as then shyne and burne, but it will not giue light to the stan­ders by, except the bushell be remoued. Euen so, if the light of holy Scripture, shalbe placed vpon the authority of Gods Church, it will illuminate the whole house, but if it be cō ­prehended within the limits of euery priuat mans wit & in­dustry, as vnder a bushell, though it remayne in it selfe e­uercleere, yet to the Readers it shalbe as extinguished.

Thirdly, it is vrged, that in the Prophet Isay it is said, that,Isa. 29.11.12. The booke was sealed: And in the Apocalyps we read that,C. 5.8.9. The Lambe opened the booke, therfore though in the old Testament the booke of Scripture was sealed or obscute, yet now in the new, it is opened and easy. In signe wherof at the Death of Christ,Mat. 27.51. The veyle of the Temple was rent in two peeces. Answere. 1. The wordes of Isay are, The vision of all shalbe vnto you as the words of a booke sealed; which when they shall giue to him that knoweth letters, they shall say, Read this: & he shall answere, I cannot, for it is sealed. And the booke shallbe giuen to one that knoweth no letters &c. And he shall Answere, I know not letters. Heere the words do only import, that the vision should be obscure, as a book sealed, which neither the learned nor vn­learned [Page 103] could vnderstād: wheras the Scriptures of the old Te­stamēt were vnderstood and expounded, by Moyses, Esdras, the Priests, & the Prophets. Secōdly the difference of the old Testament from the new, consisteth in this, that the myste­ries of Christ were not then vnderstood, and therefore the Booke was sayd to be sealed, as well to the learned as vn­learned, whereas now in the new, Christ hauing fulfilled the figures and Prophecies, though many do not vnderstād the Sentences of Scripture, yet yong Children and ignorant women, do know the mysteries of our Redemption. And that in regard of the Sentences of Scripture, the booke is still sealed, euen now during the tyme of the new Testament, learned Origen testifyeth in these words:Hom. 12. in Exod. Let vs see if not only when Moyses is read, but also when Paul is read, the veyle be put ouer our hearts. And it is cleer, that if we heare negligently, if we do not adde study to learning & vnderstanding; not only the Scri­ptures of the Law and Prophets, but of the Apostles and Ghospells are couered to vs with a great veyle &c. From whence it appeareth that we are not only to study for the learning of the Sacred Scriptures, but we are also to pray to our Lord, and day and night to intreat, that the Lambe will come from the Tribe of Iuda, and taking the sealed booke, will vouchsafe to open it: for he it is who opening the Scriptures, in­flameth the hearts of the Disciples, in so much that they say, 24 32. Was not our heart burning within vs, when he opened vnto vs the Scrip­tures? With Origen agreeth S. Hierome, teaching that,Ep. 13. ad Paulin. de iustitit. Mo­nach. c. [...] This veyle is not only put vpon the face of Moyses (or the old Testa­ment) but also vpon the Euangelists and Apostles. Our Sauiour spake to the people in Parables, and witnessing that it was mysticall which he spoke, he sayd, He that hath eares to heare, let him heare. Vnles all things which are written be opened by him, who hath the key of Dauid, Apoc. 3.7. who openeth, and no man shutteth, who shutteth, and no man openeth, they cannot be opened by any other: So cleer it is, that euen now during the tyme of the new Testament, the Scriptures remayne obscure, without some speciall light & help from Christ, and our owne paines, study and prayer.

Fourthly, some obiect these words of S. Paul:2. Cor. 4.3.4. And if our Ghospell he also hid, in them that perish it is hid, in whome the God of this world hath blynded the mynds of the Infidels, that the il­lumination [Page 104] of the Ghospell of the Glory of Christ▪ &c. might not shine to them: Wherfore to the faithfull the Scriptures are ea­sy. Answ. 1. The Apostle speaketh not here of the vnder­standing of the Scriptures, neither is there any mention made of Scriptures, but of the knowledge and faith in Christ, which the Apostles preached. And so in the very next words following S. Paul sayth; For we preach not our selues, but Iesus-Christ our Lord: Now no man doubted, but that the Apostles preaching was easy to be vnderstood. Se­condly in the former Chapter S. Paul declareth this to be the difference between the Old and New Testament, that in the Old (as I noted before) men did not see the misteries of Christ (which thing the2. Cor. 3.12. veile of Moyses, wherwith he couered his face when he spoke to the people, signifyed) wheras in the new, they are generally knowne. Now be­cause some might say, If this be so, wherfore after the prea­ching of the Ghospell, so many as yet do not belieue, nor see (especially the Iewes) any thing but shadowes & figures? Therfore the Apostle annexeth, the Ghospell to be hid to some, because the Deuill hath blinded their vnderstandings by wicked affections; to whom our Sauiour also saith,Io [...] 5.44. How can you belieue that receiue glory one▪ of another? Thirdly this place is so insufficient to proue the Scriptures to be ea­sy, as that the Protestant Aretius answereth the same and saith,Loc. Com. l. 53. f. 164. But many things remayne obscure, euen to the Godly &c. who did euer sufficiently expresse the matter of the Trinity &c. I passe ouer in silence the different vnderstandings of the places of the Ghos­pell, wherin thou mayest fynd among the Interpreters, almost so many opinions as there be Interpreters. So confessed is it, that not only during the tyme of the old Testament, but euen now in the new, the Scriptures are difficult to be rightly vnder­stood.

Whether the Sacred Scriptures are made easy to be vnder­derstood, or our Iudge of all Controuersies, by the Spi­rit reueyling to euery Priuate man the true sense and determination thereof. SECT. I.

SECT. II. It is proued by Scriptures, that the sayd Scriptures are not made easy to be vnderstood, or our Iudge of all Con­trouersies, by the Spirit reuealing to euery Priuate man, the true sense and determination thereof.

AGaynst this illusion & Priuat fancy challenged by all Sectmaisters, Lutherans, Caluinists, Swinglians, A­nabaptists, Puritanes &c. we are specially forewarned by the sacred Scriptures saying;Ezech. 23.2.3.4.6.9. Thou shalt say to them that pro­phecy of their owne heart &c. Wo to the foolish Prophets, which fol­low their owne Spirit, and see nothing &c. they see vayne things, & they diuine lyes, saying: Our Lord sayth, whereas our Lord sent them not. Hier. 23.16. Heare not the words of the Prophets that prophecy vnto you, and deceyue you, they speake the vision of their owne hart, not from the mouth of the Lord. Hier. 14.14. The Prophets prophecy falsly in my name: I sent them not, and I commanded them not, neyther haue I spoken vnto them: lying vision and deceyptfull diuination, guilefulnes and sedu­ction of their owne hart, they prophecy vnto you. These places shew that it is vsuall with false Prophets, and lying teachers, vn­der pretence of being sent, or instructed by the Spirit, to broach their owne Priuat conceypts, and foolish fancyes: for this Spirit is sayd to be the Spirit of their owne hart, the [Page 108] effects whereof are blindnes, they see nothing; vanity, they see vayne things; lyes, they diuine lyes; fraud, as foxes in the desertes; and finally punishment, wo to the foolish Pro­phets, which follow their owne Spirit &c. My hand shalbe vpon the Prophets &c. Let any man Iudge whether these things do not agree with our moderne Spiritualists.

I will shew a liuely Patterne of this proud Spiritualist in Eliu the Busit, who opposed holy Iob, sayng,Iob. 32.6. &c. I am yonger in tyme and you more ancient, therefore &c. I was afrayd to shew you my sentence. For I hoped that longer age would speake, and that a multitude of yeares would teach wisdome. But as I see there is a Spirit in men, and the inspiration of the Omnipotent giueth wisedome. They of many yeares are not the wise men, neither do the ancients vnderstand Iudgment. Therfore will I speake; heare yee me. I also will shew you my wisdome &c. I am full of words, and the Spirit of my belly streineth me &c. and sundry such like. Here you see a Puritane in his liuely colours, who though he be but of a late birth, yet by the presumed inspiration of the omnipotent, he preferreth himselfe before the auncient, for wisdome and iudgment. And his reason is, because his very belly is ful of the Spirit: as this proud young fellow against iust Iob, doth not euery new Ghospeller speake the like a­gainst the Church, Councels, and Fathers, and all vpon conceipt, that his braines and belly are full of the Spirit?

S. Paul affirmeth that1. Cor. 12.8.10. To one by the spirit is giuen the word of wisdome; and to another the word of knowledge, and to another Prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another kinds of tongues; to another interpretation of languages. And all these things worketh one and the same spirit, deuiding to euery one according as he will. Heere it is expresly taught, that God giueth not to euery man the guift of knowledge, but to one that, and to others other gutftes; wherfore euery priuat man may not presume that he is endowed therwith. For which we must note that these guifts do not necessarily depend or follow iustifying Grace, and so common to all the faithfull and iust; but are speciall guiftes freely giuen, some vpon one, some vpon another, as the text sayth.

S. Peter hauing compared2. Pet. 1.19.20.21. the Propheticall word, to a [Page 109] Candle shyning in a darke place, immediatly addeth, vnderstan­ding this first, that no Prophecy of Scripture is made by priuat Inter­pretation, for not by mans will was Prophecy brought at any tyme, but the holy men of God spake, inspired with the holy Ghost. Here by Prophecy of Scripture, is vnderstood the sense thereof, for so they are calledEph. 4.11. Some Prophets, because they did foretell and expound hidden misteries of Scripture; which Prophecy or sense is not to be made by Priuat Interpretation, because not by mans will, or selfe seeming humane conceipt, was prophecy, or the true sense of Scripture brought, or made at any time; but the holy men of God, Prophets and Apostles, inspired by the holy Ghost, spake and expounded the same, not leauing it to the priuat interpretation of euery particu­lar man. S. Iohns aduise is, that, we 1. Iohn. 4.1.6. belieue not euery Spirit, but proue the Spirits if they be of God: because many false Prophets are gone out into the world &c. He that knoweth God, heareth vs, he that is not of God, heareth vs not. In this we know the Spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. Here we are admonished not to belieue e­uery one that pretendeth the spirit, because many false tea­chers will challenge the same, but we are to try them by this, that those which be of God, will heare and obey their Apostles and lawfull Pastors, succeeding the Apostles, and submit themselues to the Church of God, the other that be not of God, will not heare either Apostle, Pastor, or Church, but be their owne Iudges, pretending their Instruction by the spirit.

S. Paul, as it were, for the first conceiuing of true faith, requireth these helps amongst others, of hearing and prea­ching:Rom. 10.14. How shall they belieue him whom they haue not heard? And how shall they heare without a Preacher? But for the nourishing and preseruing thereof, he further exacteth obedience to Pastours, saying,Heb. 13.17. Obey your Prelates and be subiect to them, for they watch, as being to render account for your Soules: Yea he af­firmeth that these Pastours were placed by Christ in the Church, to this end, that,Eph. 4.14. Now we be not Children▪ wauering and carryed about with euery wind of doctrine, in the wickednes of men, in craftines, to the circumuention of error. Now, if the holy Ghost by himselfe alone, did infallibly teach euery Priuat [Page 110] man, inspiring into him the true sense of all the Scriptures, and consequently true knowledge, for the infallible deci­ding of all doubts and controuersies, to what end is prea­ching commanded? to what end are Pastors appointed in the Church of God, for the teaching and guiding of the people? But to these, who euery one so much glory of their owne spirit, I may iustly say, as Christ our Sauiour said vn­to the Iewes,Io. 8.44. You are of your Father the Deuill, and the de­sires of your Father you will do &c. He stood not in the verity, because verity is not in him; when he speaketh a lye, he speaketh of his owne, because he is a lyar, and the Father therof. For so euery priuat Protestant expounding the Scriptures according to his owne spirit, speaketh of his owne, and consequently spea­keth lyes.

But some Protestants will reply, that all these Scriptu­res alledged, are only meant against those, who in truth ha­uing not the Spirit of God, do yet euer pretend and chal­lenge the same; wheras all faithfull Protestants haue the true Spirit of vnderstanding and iudging: But besides that this is barely begged, not proued, I demand whether Luther, Swinglius, Caluin, or any other Prorestant now in rerum natura, be a faithfull Protestant, and consequently had, or hath the true spirit of God, euer infallibly directing him, in the true vnderstanding of the Scriptures? If they affirme, then not only all Catholickes, who haue equall Priuiledge of challenging the spirit, but euen others of the learnedst Protestants, will contest, that he erred, and that grieuously in sundry points of faith, and so was not infallibly directed by the spirit of God. If they say, that the faithfull Protestant is not at all times, and in all points of Religion so infallibly assisted by the holy Ghost, but that sometimes he may erre; then it followeth euidently, that no Protestant pretending to be assisted in that sort, can be to himselfe or others an in­fallible Iudge, in all the weightiest matters of faith and Re­ligion.

SECT. III. It is proued by the Ancient Fathers, that the Priuat spirit is not a Iudge sufficient, for the deciding of Contro­uersies, and interpreting the Scriptures.

VVHeras we haue seen from S. Peter, that no Prophecy (or sense) of Scripture, is made by Priuat Interpretation: th [...] is according to S Chrisostome, Hom. de Spir. Sancto adorando. not by the Spirit which many brag of, as the spirit of God, but falsly pretending it, do speake that which is their owne. According to S. Clement, L 10. Re­cog. It is to be obs [...]rued, when the Law of God is read, it ought not to be read or vn­derstood, according to the meaning of euery mans owne wit; for there are many things in holy Scripture▪ which may be wrested to that mea­ning, which euery one of his owne accord presumes to himselfe: but this cannot be. S. Hierome affirmeth that, Ad Pou­lin Ep. 2. whatsoeuer hereticks speake they thinke it to be the Law (or word of God.) Neither do they vouchsafe to know what the Apostles, what the Prophets thought, but do apply incongruous testimonies to their owne meaning: as though it were not a great and most wicked manner of teaching, to depraue the Sentences, and to draw the contrary Scriptures to their owne will.In Ose c. 8.60. They haue turned the sacred words and senses into Idols, which they haue framed out of their owne heart.Ep. ad Ioan. Hieros. The testimonies which the Manichees, Marcion, Ebion, Gnostickes do take from the purest fountayne of Scriptures they do not so interprete as they are written, but they will haue (simplicitatem sermonis Ecclesiastici) the playnes of Gods word to signify that which themselues do thinke. S. Austine reprehendeth the Pelagians, De Nat. & Gra. c. 42. For that they read all the Scri­ptures according to their priuat Senses. And he saith to the Ma­nichees, Cont. Ma­nich. You see that your worke is, that the authority of Scri­ptures may be taken away, and that euery mans mynd may be author to himselfe, what he approueth or disaproueth in any Scripture, that is, not that he should be subiect to the authority of the Scriptures, but that he should subiect the Scriptures to himselfe. S. Bedes direction is, that, In 2. Pet. 1, The Prophets did write, deliuer, and preach, not their owne words, but the words of God: So also the reader of them must not vse [Page 112] his owne proper Interpretation, least he decline from the sense of the truth. Therfore we affirme that no man presume to expound Scriptures according to his owne pleasure.

SECT. IV. It is proued by Protestants that the Priuat Spirit is not our Iudge of Controuersies.

THis point is so cleer and vndenyable, that sundry Pro­testants do agree with vs heerin against their other Bre­thren. D. Luther teacheth that,De Potest. Papae. we are not certayne of any Priuat man, whether he hath the Reuelation of the Father or no: but the Church it is whereof it is not lawfull to doubt. Ep. ad Antwerp. Tom. 2. Ger. Ienae. And, there is no Asse in this tyme so sottish and blockish, but will haue the dreames of his owne head, and his opinion accepted for the instinct of the holy Ghost, and himselfe esteemed as a Prophet: whereof ensueth, as himselfe complayneth a litle before, That there are as many Se­ctes & Religions among vs, as there be men. Caluin calleth thē,In Ep. ad. Eph. 4.12. Fanaticall, who fayne to themselues secret Reuelations of the Spirit; and proud, who thinke the priuat reading of Scripture to suffice them, that they need not the Common Ministery of the Church. In. 1 [...] Ioan. Many false Doctours belye (or counterfaite) the title of the Spirit: many mad-men start vp, who rashly boast themselues to be endowed with the Spirit of God &c. They speake in their owne Priuat name, go out in their owne name, vtter out of their owne sense. Yea writing a­gaynst Swenckfeldius, who contemning the Scriptures, challenged only the Spirit for his Iudge, he disputeth thus,Instit. l. 1. c. 9. § 1. If that were a good Spirit, it were the same with the Spirit of the Apostles, and first belieuing Christians; but the Spirit of the Apostles, and first belieuing Christians did not make it selfe Iudge contemning the Scriptures: Ergo, it is not a good Spirit.

Now in like manner may I argue agaynst Caluin, and our English Protestāts; If the Spirit which they make their Iudge, were a good Spirit, it were the same with the Spi­rit of the Apostles, and the first Christians: But the Spirit of the Apostles, and the first Christians, did not make it self Iudge, but made recourse in their Controuersies to S. Pe­ter, [Page 113] and other Apostles, and Priests, sitting in Councell at Hierusalem, and obeyed their sentence. Ergo the Spirit of Protestants is not a good Spirit.

Chemnitius hauing taught, that,Exam. part. 1 f. 63. The guift of Inter­pretation is not common to all, no more then the guift of healing or mi­racles, he addeth that, No man ought to stay vpon his owne wit, in the Interpretation of Scriptures, not (so much as) in playne pla­ces, for it is written, that no Scripture is of Priuate Interpretation. 2. Pet. 1.

D. Whitaker auoucheth that,Aduersus Staplet. l. 2. c. 6. p 370. 357. See Hook. Eccl. Pol. Sec. 8. p. 147. The testimony of the Spi­rit being Priuat and Secret, is not fit to teach and refell others; And that as often therefore as controuersy of the Scriptures doth aryse, we must fly to common arguments taken from the Scriptures themselues and the perpetuall testimony of the Church. So inforced is he to ap­peale from his Priuat Spirit, to the Scriptures themselues, and the Church.

M. Hooker and others do auouch that,Eccl. pol. l. 1. sec. 14. l 2. sec. 8. l. 3. Sec. 3 l. 2. Sec. 7. Whitak. ad­uers. Stapl. l. 2. c. 4. Zanchius in confess. c. 1. Bren. in Pro­leg. The outward letter sealed with the inward witnes of the Spirit, it not a sufficient warrant for euery particular man to Iudge and approue the Scripture to be Canonicall, the Ghospell it selfe to be the Ghospell of Christ: but the authority of Gods Church (as he acknowledgeth) is necessarily required thereunto.

So that Protestants themselues teach from the Scriptu­res, that the Priuat Spirit is not a sufficient Iudge for the decyding of Controuersies, or interpreting the Scriptures.

SECT. V. It is proued by reason, that the Priuat Spirit, is not our Iudge of Controuersies.

IN Common Sense and reason we see, that in the tem­porall Common wealth, men generally haue that natu­rall light wherewith the Law was made, & which is suffi­cient to expound the same, and yet the interpretation of the Law is not permitted to the Priuat Iudgement of euery man, though they pretend neuer so much skill, or speciall [Page 114] assistance of any reuealing spirit: And if it were, the Com­monwealth could not long continue in peace. How much lesse is the interpretation of Scripture, to be permitted to e­uery man, seeing all haue not that supernaturall light, wher­with the Scripture is to be vnderstood, as I proued before from S. Paul 1. Cor. 12.10.

Agayne, the holy Ghost which directeth another, is neither seene nor heard of me; wheras a Iudge must both be seen & heard of the parties in strife, they being corporal men.

A Iudge likewise must haue authority to compell both parties to stand to his sentence, otherwise his Iudgement or Sentence would be idle and vnprofitable. But this autho­rity Priuat men (though neuer so much replenished with the Spirit) altogeather want.

Againe, if this Priuat Spirit of euery man, might be ap­proued for a competent Iudge, neuer could hereticke be cō ­uinced or conuerted, or any Controuersy euer ended, eue­ry hereticke preferring his owne Spirit, before the Spirits of others, yea euery one demanding with Sedecias the false Prophet, agaynst the true Prophet Micheas,2. Paral. c. 18. 23. Which way passed the spirit of our Lord from me, that it should speake to thee.

Lastly, seeing Prot. ground their saluation vpon only Fayth, which say they, doth only iustify; & Faith vpō only Scripture, which according to them, contaynes all things necessary to be belieued; and the Scripture and sense therof, only vpon the Priuat Spirit, by which (excluding Church, Coūcels, & Fathers) they expound the Scripture; it therof followeth that the Priuat Spirit is the principall, or sole ground to thē of their sense of Scripture, the Scripture sense the like ground of their fayth, and this their fayth the like ground of their saluation: wherfore no Protestant can haue greater certaynty of his fayth or saluation, then he hath of this Priuat spirit; whereof seeing he hath none, either from Scripture, Church, Councells, Fathers, common sense, or experience; it must needs follow, that his sole relying vpon the Priuat spirit, must perforce bring him into infinite & inextricable Errors. So many wayes is this Priuat Spirit altogether insufficient for the finall decyding of all Contro­uersies.

SECT. VI. Obiections from the Scripture, for the Priuate Spirit, answered.

SOme obiect such places of Scripture as seeme to affirme, that God himselfe will teacheth vs all thinges, if we aske it of him:Luc. 11.13. How much more will your Father from hea­uen, giue the good Spirit to them that aske him? Iac. 1.5. If any of you lacke wisedome, let him aske of God, who giueth to all men aboundantly &c. And it shalbe giuen him. And sundry such like. Answer. 1. Heere is not the least mention made of the spirit of Interpreting the Scriptures, which is a guift gratis giuen, and wherof we only speake in this question; but of the spirit of Faith, Hope, Charity, and wisdome ne­cessary to Saluation: for according to S. Augustine,Tract. 73. 81 & 103. in Ioan. Prayer doth not infallibly obtayne, but that which is necessary or profitable to the saluation of him that prayeth. Now the guift of Interpre­ting as also the guifts of tongues, and miracles, and such like numbred togeather by S. Paul, are not alwaies profitable to him that hath them. Therfore as by prayer we cannot euer infallibly obtayne the spirit of tongues, miracles &c. Though it be said, he will giue the good Spirit to them, that aske him; so neither the spirit of Interpretation. Secondly, al­though the places obiected, were to be vnderstood of the spirit or guift of Interpretation, yet no man that prayeth for it, can be certaine that he obtayneth it, because no man can be certaine that he prayeth as he ought,C. 4.3. You aske (saith S. Iames) and receyue not, because you aske amisse &c. And this we see verified in all hereticks, Lutherās, Caluinists, Swin­glians, Anabaptistes, Puritanes &c. all whom pray for the spirit, and yet they are possessed with most different & con­tradicting Spirits. Such places also may be vrged, as seeme to insinuate that God teacheth all truth to euery man,Hier. 31.33.34. I will giue my law in their bowels, and in their heart I will write it &c. and a man shall no more teach his Neighbour &c. saying: know our [Page 116] Lord; for all shall know me, from the least of them euen to the grea­test. Io. 6.45. It is written in the Prophets, And all shalbe docible of God. Euery one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me. Io. 10.27. My sheep heare my voyce &c. and they follow me, and sun­dry such like. Answer. 1. I answer in generall, that both is true, that we are taught by God, as the places obiected do insinuate, and yet ordinarily we are not taught immediatly by himselfe, but by mans ministery, for it is vsuall in the Scri­ptures, that those things which God doth worke as the Principall Cause, are attributed to him as though he effe­cted them without any instrumentall cause; and that for this cause also, because he giueth vertue and power to the Instruments, that they may worke: So S. Paul affirmeth that,1. Cor. 3 7. Neither he that planteth is any thing nor he that watereth, but he that giueth the increase, God. And Christ himselfe said to his Apostles,Mat. 10.20. It is not you that speake, but the spirit of your Fa­ther that speaketh in you. And yet it is cleere, that men as Gods Instruments do plant, water, and speake; therfore though it be said, that God doth teach vs, yet this is vnderstood ordi­narily to be by mans Ministery, by whose mouth he spea­keth, and is heard, according to that of S. Zacharie,Luc. 1.70. he spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets, that are from the beginning. And agreably hereunto Christ, not by himselfe alone, but by AnaniasAct. 9.7.10. &c. taught Paul, byAct. 8.26. &c. Philip the Eunuch, & by PeterAct. 10.6.22.34. Cornelius.

Secondly, in particular I answer to the first place with S. Augustine, thatL. de spi­ritu & lit. c. 24. by those words, I will giue my Law &c. is vnderstood the Grace of the New Testament, that is, Faith working by Charity, which God powreth into our hearts, not only that we may know him, but withall may fulfill his Commandements. And by these words, A man shall no more teach his Neighbour, is signified the reward of faith, to wit, Beatitude; in which all the Elect shall see God face to face. And though we should vnderstand these last words of this present tyme, yet they only speake of knowing of one God, which not only the Gentiles conuerted, but euen Iewes, Turkes, and hereticks do acknowledge.

To the second text, And all shalbe docible of God, I may ei­ther [Page 117] answer with S. Cyril,Cyril. in hunc. loc. that this is meant of the do­ctrine of the Ghospell, which Christ, not by Prophets, but by himselfe, taught & preached, according to that of S. Paul,Heb. 1.1.2. Diuersly and many wayes in tymes past God speaking to the Fa­thers in the Prophets, last of all in these dayes hath spoken to vs in his Sonne: Or I may answer with S. Augustine,De gratia Christi c. 12. 13. 14. that this is vnderstood of the Grace of the holy Ghost, wherby a man is inwardly & sweetly moued by God to belieue and loue.

To the third text, My sheepheare my voyce, I answer with S. Augustine,In hunc locum. that Christ here speaketh of the Predesti­nate, who before their death heare Gods calling, and fol­low him. Besides, God speaketh to his Sheepe, not only by the Scriptures, but also by internall inspirations, and by the mouthes of their Pastors, of whom he sayth expresly,Luc. 10.16. He that heareth you, heareth me. So not excluding by those words (My sheep heare my voyce) his Vicars and Pastors, but only enemies, as himselfe directly sayth,Ioan. 10.5. But a stranger they follow not, but flye from him, because they know not the voyce of strangers.

In like sort it is vrged, that S. Iohn sayth,Io. 2.27. You haue no need that any man teach you; but as his vnction teacheth you of all things. Answer. 1. It is not here spoken absolutely of the knowledge of all heauenly things, in such sort, that those who haue receaued the holy Ghost, should not need a mai­ster or teacher in any thing: for then to what end should S. Iohn haue written this Epistle, instructing them therby, whom the vnction of the holy Ghost did still instruct in all thinges? Or to what end should God haue placed in his Church Pastors and Doctors? It is therfore here only spoken of such Doctrine, as they had learned from the Apostles; wherin that they should persist, and not attend to teachers of the contrary, S. Iohn warneth them, as is manifest by the verses precedent,Ver. 21. I haue not written to you, as to them that know it. Ver. 24. That which you haue heard from the beginning, let it abyde in you. Ver. 62. These things haue I written to you concerning them that seduce you. Secondly this place is answered by S. Augustine, speaking thus to S. Iohn.Tract 3. in 1. Ep. Ioan. They had the vnction to whom thou didst speake: thou saidst (1. Io. 2.) Because his vnction [Page 118] teacheth you all things: wherfore then dist thou write that Epistle? why didest thou teach them? why didest thou instruct them? why didest thou erect them? And now he answereth for S. Iohn, Brethren here you now see a great Mistery. The sound of our words beateth the eares; the maister is within. Do not thinke that any man doth learne any thing of man: we may admonish with the noyse of our voyce. If he be not within who teacheth, in vayne is our noyse &c. He hath his Chayre in heauen who teacheth the harts. The Prophet said, and he in the Ghospell, Mat. 23. Neither be ye called maisters, for one is your maister, Christ. So learnedly teaching, that the Doctrine of faith ought to be attributed to God, not that he alone with­out mans ministery, doth ordinarily teach vs all things, but because he is the principall maister of this Doctrine.

Others obiect those words of S. Paul,1. Cor. 2.15. The spirituall man iudgeth all things, and himself is iudged of no man. Ergo he is to iudge of the sense of the Scriptures. Answer. 1. Though there be some spirituall men, which do truly Interpret Scri­ptures, as there be some who Prophecy, and who worke miracles, yet to them doth not pertaine the definitiue Sen­tence of the true sense of Scriptures, or other Controuersies; because we neither haue certainty of faith, who these spiri­tuall men be, as also it is most cleere, that the most spirituall are ignorant of some things. So Eliseus who had receiued the double spirit of Elias, acknowledged of himselfe,4. Reg. 4.17. Our Lord hath hid it from me, and hath not tould me. And sundry learned Fathers had excellently the guift of Interpretation, yet neither did they assume, or others attribute to any of them in particular, the infallible knowledge of the true sense of all Scripture; wherfore, wheras it is said, that the spirituall man Iudgeth all things; the meaning is, That he iud­geth as well spirituall things as temporall, aswell heauenly as earthly; according to which S. Paul had said before,Ver. 14. The sensuall man perceiueth not those things that are of the spirit of God: But from hence it will not follow, that the spirituall man is able to iudge either all diuine and spirituall things, or all temporall and earthly matters.

D.Against the Rhem. Test. in Act. 17.11. Whitak ad­uersus Stap. l. 3 c. 7. p. 529. Fulke, D. Whitaker, and others do vrge, that it is written of the People of Beroea, that,Act. 17.11. They were [Page 119] daily searching the Scriptures, if these things were so as Paul taught. Ergo, the people may iudge by the Scriptures, whether the Church teacheth truely or no. Answere. Though S. Paul was an Apostle, & could not preach false Doctrine, yet this was vnknowne to those of Beroea, and therefore they were not bound presently to belieue, except they had seen first some miracle, or other credible motiues of beliefe: when then S. Paul proued to thē Christ, by the predictions of the Prophets, deseruedly they searched the Scriptures for the same. But Christians, to whome it is cer­tayne, that the Church cannot erre in matters of fayth, are bound to receyue her decrees, without all doubt thereof. And if (as some thinke) the Beroeans formerly belieued, thē their searching of the Scriptures, might be for their Comfort and Confirmation. But this Obiection is so weake, that D. Bilson answereth the same against M. Iacob saying,Suruey of Christes sufferinges. p. 84. Where you say the Beroeans are commended by the holy Ghost, for not belieuing that which Paul spoke of Religion, till they had examined by Scriptures, and seen whether the truth were so as he vttered, you speake not only vnwisely, and vntruly, but if you would haue Christi­ans to follow that Course, you shew intollerable pride against the word of God: for the Beroeans were commended, (whereas yet they neyther belieued in Christ, nor acknowledged Pauls Apostleship) for their rea­dines to heare, and care to search, whether Paul spoke true or no. This if you now assume to your selfe ouer Paules words or writings, you incurre the crime of flat impiety: Paules words to vs that belieue with­out further search or other credit, are of equall authority with the rest of the Scriptures, and not to belieue him, till we examine and see the truth of his Doctrine, is meer infidelity; So confessedly imperti­nent is this common obiection.

Some obiect that the Church receyueth from God in­spiring her the right sense of Scripture, and so first decydeth the Controuersy in her mynd, before she can exteriourly decyde what is to be belieued: therefore the Spirit speaking in her hart is the supreme Iudge, euen to Catholikes. An­were. The motions of the Spirit inspiring the Pastours of the Church, are vnknowne to others, and to themselues are vncertaine, vntill they be outwardly decreed and sub­scribed [Page 120] by the head and members of the Church, and so are no Iudiciall sentences, or finall decisions, or rules infalli­ble, eyther to themselues, or others.

Sander. de visiō. Mon. l. 4. c. 3.4.Others vrge, that in the law of Nature there was no other Iudge but only the Spirit instructing. Answere. (23) Adam during his lyfe was the Chiefe head and directour of Gods people in points fayth: then Seth, Enos &c. And so in succeeding ages, the first borne by Prerogatiue of his Pri­mogeniture, or some other by Gods speciall Election, dis­charged that Office.

Some obiect that the belieuing Gentiles were not sub­ordinate to the high Priest of the Iewes, nor had any other appointed ouer them, and so were only guided by the spi­rit. Answere. The faythfull Gentiles were not subiect to the high Priest of the Iewes; because they had no such positiue Precept imposed vpon them, but the necessary my­steries of fayth were reuealed vnto them, eyther by God himselfe, or by an Angell, or by some other infallible Tradi­tion. But all this being Extraordinary, can be no warrant for paricular men to challenge the lyke, nor preiudice the ordinary Course prescribed by Gods wisdome: especially now in the Law of Grace, when both Iew and Gentile are subiected to one head, according to that of Christ our Sa­uiour,Io. 10.16. Other sheep I haue which are not of this fold; them also must I bring, and they shall heare my voyce, and there shalbe made one fold and one Pastour. This cannot be vnderstood of Christ, as inuisibly gouerning, for so there was alwayes one fold and one Pastour; but of his inuisible headship, and of his secon­darie visible Pastour, who is his Vicar vpon Earth; and of whomeL. 1. ep. 6. ad Magnum. S. Cyprian interpreteth these very words.

Whether the bookes of Tobie, Iudith, Wisedome, Eccle­siasticus, and the first and second of Machabees, be Scriptures truly Canonicall, or Apocryphall. SECT. I.

SECT. II. It is proued by sundry reasons and authorities, that the foresaid Bookes are truly Canonicall.

IN Confutation of the foresaid Rules giuen by Protestants for the discerning of Canonicall Scriptures from Apo­cryphall, I will begin with such bookes as were reiected or doubted of by some Ancient Fathers. It is euident that the Booke of Hester was not admitted within theAthanas. in Synopsi. Greg Naz. in carmine quod scripfit de geminis Scripturis. Melito apud Euseb. l. 4. hist. c. 26. Canon by S. Athanasius, S. Gregory Nazianzene, & Melito Africanus. AndPraefat. in Hester. S. Hierome reiecteth the last 7. Chapters thereof. Baruch is not expressely named or placed by such Auncient Councels and Fathers, as did make a Catalogue of the seue­rall Bookes of Canonicall Scripture. The auncient belie­uing Iewes reiectedHier. Prae­fat. in Daniel. the Hymne of the three Children, the hy­story of Susanna, (which also was refused byApud Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 23. Iulius Afri­canus) and the History of the Dragon, as also the bookes of Tobis, Iudith, Wisedome, Ecclesiasticus, and Machabees. Neyther do Melito, Amphilochius, Nazianzenus, or the Councell of Laodicea, number Tobie, Iudith, Ecclesiasticus, or the Macha­bees, in the Catalogue of their Canon; of all which also S. Hie­romePraef. in Iudith. & l. 10. ad Furiam. c. 6. in Prole­go. Galeat. & Praef. in li­bros Salomo­nis. Praef. in Daniel. seemeth to doubt. Some ancient writers doubted also of theSee in S. Hier. Ep. ad Hedibiam. q. 3. last Chapter of S. Marks Ghospells; others of some partSee Hi­lar. l. 10. de Trinit. & Hier. l. 2. cont. Pelagianos. of the 22. Chapter of S. Luke; others of theSee Eu­seb. hist. l. 3. c. 39. beginning of the 8. Chapter of S. Iohn, others of theSee Eu­seb. hist. l. 4. c. 3. Hier. l. de viris illust. in Paulo. Epistle to the He­brews, others of theSee Eus. hist. l. 3. c. 25. Hier. l. de vi­ris illust. in Iacobo, Iuda, Petro, & Ioanne. Epistles of Iames, Iude, the second of Pe­ter, the 2 and 3. of Iohn, and the See Eus. hist l. 3. c. 28. & l. 7 c. 23. Hier. Ep. ad Dardanum. Apocalyps.

And it is so certayne that these bookes and parcells of Scripture were doubted of by some Doctors of the Ancient Church, as that M. Rogers who defendeth the foresayd ca­nonizing of Scripture, by being neuer doubted of in the an­cient Church, is enforced yet to say,In his defence of the 39 Arti­cles, p. 31. Although some of the ancient Fathers and Doctours, accepted not all the Bookes contayned within the volume of the new Testament, for Canonicall: yet in the end, they were wholly taken and receyued by the common Consent of the Church of Christ in this world, for the very word of God &c. D. [Page 127] Bilson auoucheth, that,Suruey of Christes sufferings p. 664. The Scriptures were not fully recei­ued in all places, no not in Eusebius tyme: He sayth, the Epistles of Iames, Iude, the 2 of Peter, the 2. & 3. of Iohn, are contradicted as not written by the Apostles. The Epistle to the Hebrewes was for a while contradicted &c. The Churches of Syria did not receiue the 2. Epistle of Peter, nor the 2. & 3. of Iohn, nor the Epistle of Iude, nor the Apocalyps &c. The like might be said for the Churches of Ara­bia: will you hence conclude (saith D. Bilson) that these parts of Scripture were not Apostolicke, or that we need not to receiue them now, because they were formerly doubted of? The Deanes of Paules and Windsor, in the Towers disputation had with the most illustrious Martyr Campian, in proofe of this point, do thus report of themselues.The 1. dayes Con­ference. D. 1. For proofe herof, we alleadged the testimonies of Hierome in Catal. where he thus writeth, The E­pistle of Iames is said to be published by some other vnder his name; and of the 2. of Peter he sayth, that it is denied by many to be his. We also alleaged Eusebius writing thus; Those bookes that be gainsaid, though they be knowne to many, be these; The Epistle attributed to Iames, the Epistle of Iude, the later of Peter, the 2. & 3. of Iohn. With these agreeth D. Walker, affirming in the same Dispu­tation, that4. Dayes Conference f. 2. B. S. Hierome sayth; Concerning that (Epistle) which is written to the Hebrewes▪ many haue doubted of it: and also con­cerning the 2. of Peter, he sayth, It was doubted of by many, and so with some were the 2. last Epistles of Iohn &c. By all which it is cleere, and for such confessed, that if nothing must be admit­ted for Canonicall Scripture, wherof any doubt was made in the Primitiue Church, as Protestants formerly exacted; then must not only the Machabees, Tobie, Iudith, and other Bookes of the Old Testament be discarded out of the Ca­non, but a farewell also must we giue to some parts of the Ghospels, written by S. Marke, S. Luke, and S. Iohn, the Epistle to the Hebrewes, and the other of S. Iames, S. Iude, S. Peter; S. Iohn and the Apocalyps; all which yet contrary to their former Rule, our English Pro [...]. are content to accept for Canoni­call. So that the foresayd Rule prescribed by Prot. must be accepted for good agaynst Tobie, Iudith &c. but it must be reiected for a most false Rule, in regard of the Epistles of S. Ia­mes, Peter, Iohn &c. And what it is that maketh this incre­dible [Page 128] or rather impossible difference, in one and the same Rule? Certainly nothing else, but that some Bookes so doubted of, spake ouer plainly agaynst Prot. Doctrine; and others no lesse doubted of, they hoped they could euade with better colours, and lesse difficulty.

But it is to be obserued yet further, that the foresayd Bookes were neuer so doubted of in the Primitiue Church, but [...]hat some then there were, who could testify, that they were set forth by Prophets or Apostles: for the want wher­of, the booke of Enoch was neuer receiued by the Church. And although some others doubted, and the Church then did not determine the truth; yet, that no more inferreth that the Church since cannot determine it, then that the Coun­cell of Nice could not decree the booke of Iudith to be Cano­nicall, being formerly doubted of.

Adde lastly that although the Lutherans sayd,In Con­fessione Wit­temberg. We call sacred Scriptures those Canonicall Bookes, of the old and new Te­stament, of whose authority it was neuer doubted in the Church: Yet the Diuines of Geneua adde to those words, thus, Although in the Catalogue of the new Testament some bookes may be found, wher­of sometymes doubt hath been made by certaine Ancient Doctours of the Church: yet at length, by the consent of the whole Catholike Church, they also were accounted and receyued for Canonicall; ther­fore vndeseruedly, for the doubts of some, are cast behind. So croo­ked, imperfect and wanting is that Rule of making onely such bookes Canonicall, as were neuer doubted of, in the Primitiue Church.

To come now to the 2. Rule wherby true Scriptures must be discerned frō false, which is the restrayning the Old Te­stament to haue been written only in the Hebrew, so that whatsoeuer is not found in the Hebrew, must be reiected as Apocryphall: But besides that, it is no litle temerity to re­strayne the holy Ghost, to one onely language in the wri­ting of the Scriptures; the falshood and vanity heereof is cleerly discouered, by example of Daniel a good part, wher­of,To wit, from Chap. 2. ver. 4. to the end of the 7. Chap­ter. though not written in Hebrew, is [...]et by ourSee all our English Protestant Bibles. Aduersaries themselues acknowledged for Canonicall.

In like sort concerning the third Rule, it is most vn­true, [Page 129] that God would direct by his holy Spirit, no authors in their writings, but such as were knowne, and also fur­ther declared by certaine testimony to be Prophets: for Pro­testants themselues cannot yet tell, who were Anthours of the seuerall Bookes of Iudges, the 3. and 4. of Kings, the two of Paralippomenon, and the Bookes of Ruth, and Iob. In so much as D. Whitaker himselfe doth directly answere his owne obiection, saying,De sacra Script. p. 603. The authours of many Bookes are not knowne; as of Iosue, Ruth, Paralippomenon, Hesther &c. AndSynops. p. 4. we receyue (sayth D. Willet) many Bookes in the Old Testament, the Authours whereof are not perfectly knowne. Yea Cal­uin, Beza, and theOf Anno 1584. and 1579. See Caluin. in Heb. 2.2. publishers of certaine of our English Bybles, in the Preface or Argument vpon the Epistle to the Hebrews, do all of them professe to rest doubtfull of the Authour thereof: Caluin and Beza there affirming, that it is not written by S. Paul. So that though some parcels of the Bible haue not their Authors or Penners knowne, much lesse knowne to be Prophets, yet by lyke examples of other approued Scriptures, it maketh nothing against their sacred and diuine Authority.

Lastly, wheras Protestants make the written word of God, or the reuealing Spirit, their generall Rule wherby to square them in all doubts; it is fo manifest, that by neither of these meanes, the Canonicall Scriptures can be discerned from the Apocryphall, as that M. Hooker teacheth to the contrary, that,Eccl. Pol. l. 1. sec. 14 pag. 86. Of thinges necessary, the very chiefest is to know, what bookes we are bound to esteeme holy, which point is con­fessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach: for Ibid. l. 2. c. 4. p. 102. (sayth he) If any one Booke of Scripture did giue testimony to all, yet still that Scripture which giueth credit to the rest, would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it. Neither Ibid. p. 103. could we euer come to any pause wheron to rest, vnles besides Scripture there were something else acknowledged. Herein M. Hooker writeth so Catholik­ly, that he is therfore reproued by a PuritaneSee the Christian letter to that Reuerend man M. R. Hook. p. 9. Brother. In like sort D. Whitaker teacheth, that true Scriptures can­not be discerned from counterfait, by the Aduer­sus Staplet. l. 2 c. 6. p. 370. & p. 357 and see Hook. in his Eccl. pol. sec. 8. p. 147. testimony of the Spirit: the which (saith he) being priuat and secret, is not fit to teach and refell others.

Wherfore the only meanes remaining, wherby infalli­bly to discerne true Scriptures from false, is (as all Catho­licks teach) the Church of Christ. A truth so cleere, as that forbearing all other proofes, I may well content my selfe with the manifold acknowledgments of Protestants them­selues. To this purpose then D. Fulke auoucheth, that,Answer to a Coun­terf. Cath. p 5. The Church of Christ hath Iudgment, to discerne true writinges from counterfait, and the word of God from the writings of men, and this Iudgment she hath of the holy Ghost. With him agreeth D. Iewel, affirming, that,Defence of the Apo­logy. p. 201. The Church of God hath the spirit or wis­dome, wherby to discerne true Scriptures from false. M. Hooker hauing before taught, that true Scriptures cannot be know­ne, vnlesse besides Scripture there were some thing which might assure vs; this Something afterwards he acknowled­gethEccl. Pol. p 146. & 116. And see Aret. his Examen. p. 24. Bach­manus his Centuriae tres. p. 267. To be the authority of Gods Church, or (as D. Whita­ker termeth it)Aduer­sus Stap. p. 300. 298. 24. 25. and a­gainst Rei­nolds. p. 44. The Ecclesiasticall Tradition: An argument (sayth he) wherby may be argued and conuinced what Bookes be Ca­nonicall and what not. With whom accordeth another Prote­stant writerAuthor of the Script. and the Church. f. 71. 72. 74. 75. much commended by Bullinger,Ibid. in the Preface. affir­ming that, The Church is indued with the spirit of God, and that the diligence and authority of the Church is to be acknowledged here­in, which hath partly giuen forth her testimony of the assured writinges, and hath partly by her spirituall Iudgment refused the writinges which are vnworthy. Yea he further assureth vs, with S. AustineTom. 6. cont. ep. Fun­dam. c. 5. Ter­tul. l. 1. de Praescript. c. 6. and Tertullian, that, we could Scri­pture and the Church. p. 72. 74. 75. And see Me­lancton in Ep. ad Rom. c. 14. pa. 358. 359. not belieue the Ghospell, were it not that the Church taught vs, and witnessed that this Doctrine was deliuered by the Apostles. And the like might be showed by sun­dry otherSee Pet. Mart. in his com. Pla. in English. part. 1. c. 6. Sec. 8. p. 42. Chemn. Exam. part. 1. p. 69. Lubb. de principijs Christ. dog. l. 1. c. 4. p. 18. Protestant writers.

Wherfore to conclude, seeing the sacred Scriptures of God cannot be discerned from the Apocryphall writinges of men, either by that they haue been neuer doubted of, or because they were originally written in Hebrew, or had for their penners knowne Prophets, or by any Proofe from the Scriptures themselues, or the reuealing spirit, but only in that the true discerning thereof, is confessed by the senten­ce and determination of the Church of Christ; it remaineth next to be examined, whether the foresaid bookes of Eccle­siasticus, Wisdome, Toby, Iudith, Machabees &c. reiected [Page 131] by Protestants as counterfait, and belieued and defended by Catholickes as Canonicall, were euer admitted, acknow­ledged and approued by the Church of Christ, as sacred, di­uine, and the true word of God.

SECT. III. That the Primitiue Church of Christ, and the Councels therin celebrated, haue admitted and approued for Canonicall, the foresaid Bookes of Ecclesiasticus, Wisdome, Toby, Iudith, Machabees &c.

HAuing elswhere proued from the ample Confessions of the learnedst Protestant Doctors, that the Primitiue Church continued the true Church of Christ, during the first 500. or 600. yeares; I will now only make manifest, that the said Church admitted and approued the foresaid Bookes, as truly sacred, diuine, and Canonicall. Which though I might conuince at large, by producing the particular say­ings of Fathers, and Decrees of Councels, yet seeing the Case on our behalfe is so cleere, as that our Aduersaries themselues do confesse what I intend to proue, I will only set downe such graunts as they affoard in our behalfe.

Whereas in the third Carthage Councell, whereat S. Austine and sundry other Fathers and Bishops were present and subscribed, it is expressely defyned, thatCan 47. Nothing be read in the Church, vnder the name of diuine Scriptures, besides Ca­nonicall Scriptures. And, the Canonicall Scriptures are Genesis, E­xodus &c. fiue bookes of Salomon &c. (whereof Ecclesiasticus and Wisdome are two) Tobie, Iudith, Esther &c. two bookes of Ma­chabees &c. Wheras also the same Canon of Scripture is made and numbred particularly byDe doct. Christ. l. 2. ca. 8. Innocent. Ep. ad Exupe­rium. c. 7. Gel. Tom. 1. conc. in Decret. cum 70. Epis. Isid. l. 2. Etymol. c. 1. Rabanus l. 2. Instit. cleric. Cassiodorus l. 2. diuinarum lectionum. S. Austine himselfe, as also by Innocentius, Gelasius and other Ancient writers; the truth heerof is so manifest, that the same is confessed by sundry Prot. writers, and the same Councell and Fathers (insteed of better Answere) are seuerely reprehended for the same.

Mathaeus Hoe reproueth the Carthage Councell in these [Page 132] words,Hist. Tri­par. Theol. p. 46. The Councell of Carthage hath decreed for Canonicall, all the bookes of the old Testament, excepting the 3. and 4. of Esdras, the 3. of Machabees &c. I adde, that the Councell ought not to haue Canonized more bookes, because it had not authority. Poliander likewise saith,In his Refutation p. 44. To come now to the Error of some Councels, the Councels of Carthage, and Florence haue enrolled for Canonicall Bookes, and as diuinely inspired &c. the bookes of Toby, Iudith, Wisdome, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees &c. And the Popes Inno­centius and Gelasius, haue reckoned these bookes among the Cano­nicall.

Hiperius auoucheth, thatMethod. Theol. l. 1. p. 64. In the third Carthage Coun­cell there are added to the Canon &c. Sapientia & Ecclesiasticus, two bookes of Machabees, Toby, Iudith &c. All which bookes in the same order numbreth Austine, Innocentius, and Gelasius, for which he at large afterwards reiecteth their Iudgment. I graunt (saithDe princip. Christ. dogm. l 1. c. 4 p. 8. Lubbertus) certaine of these bookes to be admitted by the Carthaginians, but I deny that therfore they are the word of God, for no Councels haue that authority. So confessed it is that the foresaid Bookes were holden Canonicall by the Councels and Fathers of the Primitiue Church.

Now, where our English Doctors in the DisputationThe first dayes Con­ference. had in the Tower Anno 1581. with Fa. Ed. Campian Martyr, did publickly and seriously answere, that S. Austine numbring the foresaid Bookes▪ within the Canon, vsed the word, Canon, improperly, as not meaning therby that the bookes now in question were properly Canonicall, but on­ly that they were in the Canon of manners, not of Do­ctrine; first, this appeareth to be most vntrue, in that S. Au­stine ranketh these bookes in the same order with Genesis, & the rest of vndoubted authority, & therfore by the same rea­son according to S. Austin, these other bookes should not be properly Canonicall. Secondly S. Austine was one who subscribed to the foresaid Carthage Councell, and his mea­ning with the said Councell and other Fathers, is so Ro­man Catholike, as that they are therfore all of them re­proued by sundry ProtestantReinolds in his Con­clusions, an­nexed to his Conference. p. 699. 700. Zanchius de sacra Script. p. 32. 33. Hos­pi [...]. hist. Sa­cram. part. 1. p 160. Trel­catius loc. com. p. 15. Hoe Tract. Tripart. Theol. p. 46. Parker ag. Symbol. part. 2. pa. 60. Field of the Church. p. 246. 247. writers, which had bene blamlesse, euen according to Protestants, if they had taken the word (Canonicall) only improperly.

But Brentius auoucheth more in generall, thatApol. Confess. Wittemb. And see Bu­cers scripta Anglicana p. 713. There are some of the Ancient Fathers who receiue (sayth he) these Apocry­phall bookes into the number of Canonicall Scriptures: and in like sort some Councels command them to be acknowledged as Canonicall. I am not ignorant what was done, but I demand whether it was rightly & Canonically done? D. Couell aryseth yet higher, not only con­fessing S. Augustines like Iudgment had of the Booke Against Burges p. 76. 77. of Wisdome, but withall further affirmeth of all these Bookes, that. If Ibid. p. 87. Ruffinus be not deceiued, they were approued as parts of the Old Testament, by the Apostles. And if you desire to ascend yet higher, you shall findOf the Church. p. 245. 246. Hut. 2. part of his answere. p. 176. D. Field, and M. Hutton both of them to acknowledge, that some of the Ancient Iewes receyued the foresayd Bookes for truly Canonicall.

But though all the Iewes had reiected the forsaid boo­kes, yet we Christians are to be directed heerin (as is con­fessedSee be­fore Chap. 5. sec. 2. before) by the Church of Christ. And according to thisDe Ciu. Dei. l. 18. c. 36. S. Austine sayth of the Bookes of Machabees, not the Iewes, but the Church accounteth (them) for Canonicall. Saint Hierome also maketh the like opposition, betweene the Iudgemēt of the Hebrews, & the Nicene Councell concer­ning the booke of Iudith, saying,Praef. in Iudith. With the Hebrews the booke of Iudith is read among the Hagiographall &c. (which they receyued into their Canon) but because we read that the Nicene Councell accompted this in the number of holy Scriptures, I haue yiel­ded. In like sort writeth S. Isidore,L. 6 Ety­mol. c. 1. Though the Hebrewes do not receyue (the Machabees) into their Canon, yet the Church of Christ doth honour them among the diuine Bookes: So litle forceth it, what the Iewes thought, but what the Church determi­neth concerning the Canonicall Scriptures: And so cleere it is, that the foresayd Bookes reproued by Prot. for Apo­cryphall, were confessedly approued by the Fathers and Councells of the Primitiue Church for Canonicall.

SECT. IIII. That Protestants themselues do defend the foresayd Bookes.

VVHereas many of the Ancient Iewes would not admit the foresayd Bookes into their Canon, the Protestant Bibliander censureth this to be, The rashnes of the Iewes; In which his Censure, he is approued by the Prote­testāt Sceltco in his booke of the second comming of Christ, englished byfol. 6. M. Rogers, for the supposed worth therof.

Concerning all the foresayd Bookes pretended now to be Apocryphal, the Caluinists of Geneua do teach that,Admoni­tio ad lectorem ante Biblia Calu. Anno 1551. per Ioan. Tornesium in folio edita. We are not to stand to the Censure of the Iewes, in regard of this mayming of the Canon of the Scriptures: and in these bookes there are true Prophecyes, and hidden mysteryes, which could not be spoken but by the holy Ghost, who for preseruation of that Church which he gouerneth and assisteth, hath moued the mynd, and directed the hand of writers to write these things.

D. Bancroft in the veryPag. 60. Conference before his Maiesty, reiecteth the obiections of the Iewes made agaynst these Bookes, calling them, The old Cauils of the Iewes, renewed by Hierome, who was the first that gaue them the name Apocrypha, which opinion vpon Ruffinus his Challenge, he after a sort disclaymed. Yea D. Bancroft so fully defendeth the foresayd Bookes, that o­ther of his Brethren charge him to say that,The 2. part of the Ministers defence. pag. 108. The Apocrypha were giuen by inspiration from God: which is all one, as to affirme them to be truly diuine and Canonicall Scriptures.

And as concerning the booke Ecclesiasticus, it is defended to be truly Canonicall by the Prot. writersEp. ad Vo­lanum. Lascicius, and M. Parker: of which latter D. Willet sayth,Londoro­mastix. p. 69. How audacious is this fellow, that contrary to the determination of this Church (of England) dare make Ecclesiasticus a booke of Canoni­call Scripture. In Phycho­pannichia pro­pè initium. Caluin calleth the authour of this booke A Saint. And other Prot.Clypaeus Calu. fides dial. 2. cyte it, and ascribe it to Salomon. And also affirme,Admoni­tio Minist. ante hunc librum edit. 1563. & 1570. that therein are contayned diuine, singular, [Page 135] and ancient histories of men approued by God.

D. Couell in answere to some that impugned these Bookes, saith thus,Answer to Burges p. 85. We could without violence haue affoarded them the reconcilement of other Scriptures, and vndoubtedly haue proued them to be most true. In like sort Conradus Pelican Pro­fessour at Tigure, writing his Commentary vpon the fore­sayd Bookes, sayth,Ep. De­dic. I easily yielded &c. especially seeing those bookes were alwayes accompted so Ecclesiasticall and Biblicall, that euen from the Apostles tymes they were read in the Catholike Church, with much reuerence, although they were not produced in authority agaynst the Iewes as Canonicall, who receyued not these in­to their sacred Canon: whereas they doe not only not contradict in any thing, the writings of the Law and the Prophets, but also &c. for the most part they cleerly carry the right style of the holy Ghost; certayne knots (or difficulties) being intermingled, which are found more easy to be loosed then some haue thought &c. Whereupon they were reuerenced and read by holy men, yea the sayings therof are found to be alleaged by the Apostles. So cleere it is that the forsaid Boo­kes are truly Canonicall Scriptures, euen by the Confessions of Protestantes themselues.

SECT. V. Sundry Obiections produced against the foresaid Bookes, answered.

VVHere it is vsually obiected by many Protestants, that in the foresaid Bookes there are many repu­gnancies or Contradictions, and Consequently that they are not inspired by the holy Ghost: To omit that in those Scriptures, which are belieued by all to be Canonicall, there are many hidden difficulties and seeming1. Reg. 8.9. 2. Paral. 5.10. & Heb. 9 4. Act. 9.7. & Act. 22.9. Mat. 10.10 & Mar. 6.8. Mat. 26 34. & Mar. 14.68. Mar. 15.25. & Io. 19.14. Luc. 3.35.36. & Gen. 11.12. And see Iewels Def. p. 36 [...]. repugnācyes, which yet notwithstanding, we are bound to acknow­ledge the same Scriptures to be true and sacred; I will for breuity only alledge, what other Protestants thinke, and answere themselues, to the foresayd pretended Contradi­ctions in the Bookes of Machabees, Tobie, &c. D. Couell [Page 136] (as before) answereth thus,Answere to M. Burges pa. 85. We could without violence haue affoarded them the reconcilement of other Scriptures, and vndoubtedly haue proued them to be most true: And heIbid. p. 87. 88 89. 90. particularly answereth certaine of the pretended repugnancyes. Con­radus Pellican confesseth, that in these booke,Ep. Dedic. certayne knots (or difficulties) are intermingled, which are found more easy to be loosed, then some haue thought &c. Whereupon they were euer reuerenced and read by holy men, yea the sayings thereof are found to to be alledged by the Apostles. And agreably heerunto M. Hut­ton at large answereth and cleereth the common Obiecti­on agaynst2. part. of the Answere p. 238. 239. Iudith, and the like in behalfe ofIbid pag. 247. Ecclesia­sticus &Ibid. pag. 246. And see Bucers Scri­pta Angli­cana. Daniel. And where it is obiected that these bookes were reiected, omitted, or doubted of by S. Hierome, & some others of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church, as also that they were not first written in the Hebrew; these are at large cleered and answerdSee here­tofore. sec. 2. p. 117. &c. heertofore by sundry Pro­testant writers.

But yet more in particular agaynst the Booke of Tobie, it is obiected, that in the third Chapter it is sayd, that Sara whome younger Tobie was to marry dwelled in Rages a Citty of the Medes, where also Gabel was, Tob. 4. and yet in the ninth Chapter it is sayd, that when Tobie came to the place where Sara was, he sent from thence the Angell to Gabel in Rages: therefore Sara's house was not in Rages, as it was sayd in the third Chapter. Answere. In the third Chapter, not the Citty it selfe of Rages is there so called, but some place there neere vnto it, as he is sayd to dwell in Lō ­don, who dwelleth in Westminster, or other place neere adioyning.

Agaynst the Booke of Wisdome, CaluinInst. l 1. c. 12. §. 8. obiecteth, that it erreth in affirming that Idolatry begunne by supersti­tiously honouring the Images of the dead, seeing Labans I­dols and others more ancient, were before any Images of dead men were honoured. Answere. Caluin supposeth that which is false, to wit, that Labans Idol was not the Image of a man: for the Hebrew word Teraphim, so signifieth, and the English Bibles of 1552. and 1578. translate Images. But because they were Images of false Gods, and for that Laban [Page 137] called them his Gods, the Bible of 1603. translateth it bet­ter, Idolls, as the Latin and Greeke haue. It is also certaine, thatSee Eu­sebius initio Chron. Cy­ril. l. 3. in Iul. propè fin. Ninus king of the Assirians long before Laban, set vp the Image of his Father Belus (called Iupiter) to be pu­blickly honoured by the people for a God: which though it be the first that is recounted, to be publickly set vp to be a­dored, yet this doth not hinder, but that the first priuat Ido­latry, was the Image of the Sonne dead, made by his Father, and by him priuatly honoured, as the booke of Wisdome mentioneth,Cypr. l. de Idol. vanit. init. Chrisost. ho. 87. in Mat. Egesip. apud Hier. l. de viris il­lust. and seuerall good Authors teach.

Sundry things are vrged against the Bookes of Macha­bees, as first by D. Fulke, that,Against Purg pa. 208. the author commendeth one Razis for killing himselfe, which is contrary to the word of God. But S. Austine shall answere him, saying,l. 2. cont. Ep. Gaud. c. 23. & ep. 61 ad Dulcit. Touching this his death, the Scripture hath tould how it was done, (but) it hath not com­mended it as shough it were to be done: for though the Author re­porting the truth of the fact, say, that he ranne boldly, & threw downe himselfe manfully, yet doth he not commend it, as done vertuously. The Booke of Iudges C. 16.30. reporteth how Sam­pson killed himselfe and others, saying, Let me dye with the Philistines; and the Apostle yet numbrethHeb. 15.32. him among the faithfull, and S. AustineDe Ciu. Dei. l. 1. c. 21. affirmeth that he was com­manded hereto, by peculiar inspiration: therfore though Razis had been commended, yet had it hereby been suffi­ciently answered and explained.

FulkeAg Pur. pag. 209. and others further vrge, that the Author craueth pardon for his writing, a thing (thinke they) far from the Maiesty of Gods spirit. Also that his Booke is an Abridgement 2. Mach. 2.24 27. of the fyue Bookes of Iason the Cyrenean, wheras the holy Ghost maketh (as Fulke thinketh) no abridgment of other mens writing. And that he sheweth, what labour and sweat it was to him, in making this Abridgment, which sauoureth not of that spirit, by which the Scriptures were written. Answ. He doth insinuate for pardon, not of errors, but elocution, if he hath not spoken so worthily. In which sense S. Paul said,2. Cor. 11.6.17. Though rude in speach, yet not in knowledge. And,Rom. 15.14.15. I speake not according to God, but as it were in foolishnes. And he affirmeth the Romanes to beRo. 15.13. Replenished with all knowledge, insinuating therfore his [Page 138] owne excuse in writing to them, saying, I haue written to you more boldly in part, as it were putting you in remēbrance: he reque­steth also the Corinthians,2. Cor. 11.1. to beare some little of his folly.

D. Morton would further euade, by affirming, thatApol. part. 2. l. 1. c. 3. the Apostle speaketh vpon the aduersaries supposall, but this Author (of Machabees) [...], and vpon the knowledge of his owne weaknes: as also the holy Ghost neuer willeth what he cannot, neither doth he euer doubt that he cannot what he will. But it is vntrue, that the Apo­stle speaketh in the forsaid places, only vpon his Aduersa­ries supposall, for his words are much more absolute, then these other of the Author of the Machabees, If well, and as be­fitteh the History, this is that which I would: but if lesse worthily, I am to be pardoned. Wheras S. Paul acknowledged, that he was rude in speach; that he spoke not according to God, but as it were in foolishnes, and requested the Corinthians to beare some little of (his) folly: neither can the pretended doutfulnes of the Au­thor of the Machabees, be more imputed to the want of the holy Ghost directing, then the confessed rudenesse and folly of the Apostle; none of these arguing any want of truth in that which was written, but only want of Elocution in the writers.

As to the second, the Booke of Kings signifyeth in diuers places, that it abridgeth stories, telling where they be writ­ten more at large in other bookes not Canonicall. S. Marke is called the Aug. de consensu E­uang. l. 1. c. 23. Abridger of S. Mathew: and euery Sermon & Letter in the Actes of the Apostles, is but an Abridgment.

To the third, S. Luke writ his Ghospell,Luc. 1.3. Hauing di­ligently attained to all things from the beginning. And Whitaker ac­knowledgeth most cleerly, that anAgainst Reinolds. p. 393 And see cont. Du­raeum l. 4. p. 347. Endeauour to learne & write the certaine truth, (and) to enquire the truth with all diligence, detracteth nothing from the wisdome and maiesty of Gods spirit: And as for the labour taken in writing therof, it is nothing more preiudiciall to him, then to S. Paul, who in the inditing of his Epistles, did sometimesRom. 16.22. 2. Thess 3.15. for his ease, vse another mans handwriting.

Others obiect a contrariety through ignorance of the story, as that in some places it is said, Antiochus did dye in [Page 139] Babylon, and in others, that he dyed in Nanca, and yet a­gaine, that he dyed by the way, so that This one man (as Wil­letSynop. p. 11. vrgeth) dyed thrice. Answere. Thc Bookes of Macha­bees make mention of sundry Princes, Enemyes to the Iewes, who bore the name of Antiochus, as Antiochus1. Ma­chab. 1.11. & 8.9. the great, Antiochus1. Mach. 1.11. the noble, & Antiochus the sonne of Demetrius1. Mach. 15.1.. But though the before mentioned chāces should all of them concerne one & the same Antiochus, yet they may be wel taken to signify his one death in one place: For in the chāce at2. Mach. 1 13.14, 15. &c. Nanca, Antiochus and the Captaine there mētioned, were two seuerall persons, & the Captaine only is there said to be slaine. And as for the death of Antio­chus mentioned (1. Mach. 6.16.) & his death elswhere (2. Mach. 9.5.28.) mentioned to be by the way in a strange Coun­try, this last signifyeth one and the same death with that of 1. Mach. 6.13. where he likewise mentioneth that he must dye in a strange land, the presence of his friend Philip being alike also mentioned in1. Mach. 6.14. & 2. Mach. 9.29. both the sayd places. But to an­swere in generall, whereas Perkins professeth toReform. Cath. p. 304. reue­rence the Bookes of Macha [...]bes, and the rest of the Apocrypha, pre­ferring them before any other bookes of men, if Protestants did but reuerence them as Salust, or Liuy, they would neuer think them to be so grosly repugnant, as their foresayd obiection pretendeth.See here­tofore Cap. 3. sec. 5. And though some (25) examples of seeming in­congruity (which we could not thus easily auoyd) should appeare in any of the Scriptures, yet ought we religiously to impute the difficulty to our owne ignorance, rather then to charge the Scriptures with vntruth.

Others yet obiect, that those persons for whome Iudas Machabeus caused sacrifice to be offered, had2. Mach. 12.40. vnder their Coates &c. some of the Donaries of the Idols &c. from which the law forbiddeth the Iewes: and therefore Iudas might not lawfully pray for them. Answer. All may be prayed for, sauing such as are knowne to dye in finall impenitence, and therefore Iudas Machabeus (not knowing the contrary) might chari­tably hope, that many of those that were slaine, did repent them of that offence before their death, according as the Pro­phet sayth,Ps. 78.34. when he slew them, they sought him, and returned. [Page 140] And that Iudas had this opinion of them, is most playnely signifyed by these words,2. Mach. 12.45. Because he considered, that they which had taken their sleepe with goodlines, had very good grace layd vp for them. So childish and weake are these obiecti­ons, in regard of the greatest power and authority of the Church, decreeing the foresayd Bookes to be truly Cano­nicall.

Whether the Translation of the sacred Scriptures, ordina­rily called the Old Vulgar Latin Translation, be to be vsed, & preferred before all Translations made by Pro­testants. SECT. I.

SECT. II. It is proued by sundry Arguments, that the Vulgar La­tin Translation of the Bible, is to be preferred before all Translations made by Protestants.

TO make triall with M. Whitaker, and that by Iurors of his owne packe, whether our Vulgar Edition of the Bible, for purity and sincerity, be not much to be preferred before any Edition Protestant that euer was; first concer­ning the Translation of the Bible made by Luther, Swin­glius writing vnto him concerning the corruptions therof, sayth,Tom, 2, ad Luther. l. de Sacram. pag. 412. 413. Thou doest corrupt the word of God, thou art seene to be a manifest and common Corrupter, and peruerter of the holy Scriptu­res: how much are we ashamed of thee, who haue hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure, & now proue thee to be such a man. Kecke­manus affirmeth likewise, thatSystem. 8. Theol. l. 1. pa. 188. Luthers Dutch Translation of the old Testament, especially of Iob, and the Prophets, hath its ble­mishes, and those no small ones Some few of Luthers corrupti­ons I will only touch, as where it is sayd, [...]. Io. 5.7. There be three which giue Testimony in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost & these three be one: this being a most euident place in proofe of the B. Trinity, is wholy omitted, and left out by Luther in his Dutch Bible. In like manner where it is sayd,Rom. 3.28. We account a man to be iustifyed by Fayth, without the workes of the Law; Luther heer translateth iustified by Faith, a­lone, so adding to the text in maintenance of his errour, the word, alone; yea being admonished of this so foule a Cor­ruption, he persisted willfull, saying,Tom. 5. Germ fol. 141. 144. So I will, so I com­mand, let my will be insteed of reason &c. Luther will haue it so. And concludeth lastly, the word (alone) must remayne in my new Testament, although all the Papists go mad they shall not take it from thence: I am sorry that I did not also adde these two wordes, omni­bus & omnium, to wit sine omnibus operibus omnium legum, with­out all workes of all lawes. Also where it is sayd,2. Pet. 1.10. Wherefore Brethren, labour the more, that by good workes you may make sure [Page 145] your vocation and Election; Luther here omitteth those words (by good workes) which yet are acknowledged to be parcell of the Text by the ProtestantRedem­ption of Mankind. p. 382. Kinnedoncius, & by our English Translations.

Luther in some requitall to Swinglius, reiecteth the Translations of the Swinglians, terming them in matter of Diuinity,See Swinglius Tom. 2. ad Luther. l. de Sacram. f. 388. 389. Fooles, Asses, Antichrists, deceiuers, and of a like vn­derstanding: In so much, that when Froscheuerus the Swin­glian Printer of Zurick sent him a Bible translated by the Diuines there, Luther would not receiue the same, but sen­ding it back, reiected it, as witnesse HospinianHist Sa­cram. part. alt. fol. 183. Lauath. hist. Sacram. f. 32. and La­uatherus.

The Tigurine Translation was in like manner so di­stastfull to other Protestant Diuines, thatHospin. in Concord. Discord f. 238. The Elector of Saxony, in great anger reiected it &c. and placed Luthers Translation in roome therof, though you haue seene before how foule it was.

The Translation set forth by Oecolampadius, and the Diuines of Basill, is reproued by Beza, who affirmeth that,In Res­pons. ad De­fens. & Res­pons. Castal. The Basill Translation is in many places wicked, and altogea­ther differing from the mynd of the holy Ghost

The Translation of Castalio (which D. Humfrey af­firmeth to beDe Rat. Interpret. l. 2. p. 62. 63. 189. throughly conferred, examined, and polished, and which, as GesnerusIn biblio­th Seb. Castal. saith, doth far surpasse all the Translations of all men hitherto set forth, in like commenda­tion wherof other ProtestantsSee Ca­stal. Defence p. 236. & Hipperius & Melancton set before Castalios great Bible of 1573. do agree) is neuertheles condemned by Beza, as beingIn Test. 1556. in Praef. & in Annot. in Mat. 3. & in 1. Cor. 1. & Mat. 4. & Luc. 2. & in Act. 8. & 10. Sacrilegious, wicked, and Ethnicall. In so much as Castalio wrote a speciall Treatise in defence of his owne Translation, complaining there in his Preface, and saying, Some reiect our Latine and French Transla­tions of the Bible, not only as vnlearned, but also as wicked, and disse­ring in many places from the mynd of the holy Ghost.

As Concerning Caluins Translation, that famous Pro­testant Carolus Molinaeus affirmeth, thatIn sua Translat. Nou. Test. part. 12. fol. 110. Caluin in his Harmony, maketh the text of the Ghospell to leap vp and downe, he vseth violence to the letter of the Ghospell, & besides this, addeth to the Text.

Touching Beza's Translation, the same Molinaeus [Page 146] chargeth him, thatIn Te­stam. part. 20. 30 40 64. 65. 66. 74. 99. & part. 8 13. 14. 21. 23. He actually changeth the Text, and gi­ueth further sundry instances of his Corruptions. Castalio also, thatOsiand. cent. 16. p 753. learned Caluinist, and most skilfull in the tongues, reprehendeth Beza in a whole booke of this matter, and fur­ther saith,In. def. Translat. p. 170. I will not note all his Errors (in Translation) for that would require a volume ouer great. All which but confir­meth K. Iames his true and learned Censure inConfe­rence before the K Ma­iesty pa. 46 thinking the Geneua Translation to be worst of all: And his further affir­ming, That in theIbid. p. 47. Marginall notes annexed to the Geneua Translation, some are very partiall, vntrue, seditious &c. Agreably to this also saith M Parkes to D. Willet,Apolo­gy concer­ning Christs descending into hel. at Ddd. As for the Geneua Bibles, it is to be wished, that either they may be purged from those manifold errors, which are both in the Text, and in the Margent, or els vtterly prohibited. Thus far of the confessed corruptions in the foraine Protestants Translations.

But to come now to our English ones, the Puritanes complaine vnto his Maiesty, that,A Peti­tion dire­cted to his Maiesty. pa. 76. Our Translation of the Psalmes, comprised in our Booke of Common Prayer, doth in addi­tion, subtraction, and alteration, differ from the truth of the Hebrew in 200. places at the least. In so much, as they rest doubtfull,Ib p. 75. whether a man with a safe Conscience may subscribe therto. Yea they haue written and published a speciall Treatise en­tituled, A Defence of the Ministers reasons for refusall of subscri­bing; the whole Argument and scope wherof, is only con­cerning mistranslating, and the title vpon the frontispice of euery page throughout the Booke, is, concerning Translations: Yea wheras it containeth 26. Chapters, the Reader may see before the beginning of the Booke, the title of euery such Chapter pointing to the Mistranslatings there in particular handled.

M. Carlile auoucheth, that the English Translatours haueThat Christ des­cended into Hel p. 116. 117. 118. 121. 144. depraued the sense, obscured the truth, and deceiued the ig­norant; that in many places they do detort the Scriptures from the right Sense, and that they shew themselues to loue darknes more then light, filshood more then truth; wherun to D. Whitaker hath no better answere then to say,Answer to Rainolds p. 255. what M. Carlile with some others hath writtē, against some places translated in our Bibles, maketh nothing to the purpose; I haue not said otherwise, but that some things may be [Page 147] amended, which yet to this day, remaine not amended.

Yea sundry Ministers haue not forborne in their great Zeale, to signify vnto his Maiesty, that the English Transla­tion of the Bible, isThe Abridgment which the Ministers of Lincolne Diocesse de­liuered to his Maiesty p. 12. A Translation that taketh away from the Text: thatIb. p 11. 12. addeth to the text, and that sometymes to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the holy Ghost: Calling it yet further.Ib p. 13. A Translation which is absurd and senselesse, Ib p. 13. 14. peruerting in many places the meaning of the holy Ghost.

In regard of which peruerting the meaning of the holy Ghost, Protestants of tender Conscience make great scruple to subscribe vnto them: for so doth Burges excuse himselfe saying,Apology sec. 6. And in Couels Answere to Burges. p. 93. How shall I approue vnder my hand, a Translation which hath many omissions, many additions, which sometimes obscureth, sometimes peruerteth the sense, being sometimes senseles, sometimes contrary.

Now, in preuention of so great an euill, and scandall following, Broughton, one of the chiefest of the Puritani­call Linguists, wrote an Epistle to the Lords of the Coun­cell, desiring them to procure speedily a new Translation: because that (quoth he) which is now in England, is full of Errors. And in his Aduertisements of Corruptions, he telleth the Protestant Bishops, that, their publicke Translation of Scriptures in­to English is such, as that it peruerteth the text of the Old Testa­ment in 848 places, and that it causeth millions of millions to reiect the New Testament, and to runne to eternall flames. A dreadfull saying for all Protestant Professors.

Now these our Pro [...]estant English Translations, being thus confessedly corrupt, absurd, sensles, contrary, and peruerting the meaning of the holy Ghost had not his Maiesty iust cause to affirme, that heConf. before his Maiesty pa. 46. could neuer yet see a Bible well translated into English? From all which then it further ensueth, that our Protestant Bibles being thus falsely translated, they can be no certaine and infallible meanes, wherby to decyde Con­trouersies in matters of Faith; Translations (according to D. Whitaker)Answere to Rein p. 235. being so far forth only the word of God, as they faythfully expresse the meaning of the authenticall text. Which none of them do, but the direct cōtrary is cleerly heere made ma­nifest by no weaker proofes, then by their plaine Confes­sions, [Page 148] to their eternall shame, and like spirituall ruine to all that follow the said Translations.

Who can now expect, but that Prot. inueighing thus bitterly agaynst all their owne Translations, which yet they, and their simple followers, do daily read and follow; but that they will make most serpentine Satyres against the Vulgar Latin, which all Catholikes approue? But haue a litle patience, and you shall see, that as they do thus agree to disagree in their owne Translations, mutually condem­ning (as before) ech other: so also haue they vpon a second and more aduised Consideration, affoardedd honourable testimony euen of our Vulgar Latin Translation, had from Rome, andSee be­fore. sec 1. approued since by Generall Councell: for so Beza confesseth that,Annot. in Luc. 1.1. The Old Interpreter seemeth to haue interpreted the holy Bookes with greatest Religion. In Praef. nou. Test. And, I do imbrace, sayth he, for the most part, the Vulgar Edition, and pre­ferre it before all others. So that with Beza, all Protestants Translations, must come behind our Vulgar.

D. Humfrey confesseth that,De ratio­ne Interpret. l. 1. p. 74. The old Interpreter was much addicted to the propriety of words, and that ouer scrupulously, which yet, I interpret him to haue done vpon Religion (or Conscien­ce) not vpon ignorance. Heer is he free from malice and igno­rance in translating.

In regard of which integrity and learning, Molinaeus signifyeth his like speciall liking thereof saying,In Nou. Test. part. 30. I can very hardly depart from the Vulgar and accustomed reading, which al­so I am accustomed earnestly to defend: In Luc. 17. Yea I prefer the Vulgar Edition before Erasmus, Bucer, Bullinger, Brentius, the Tigurine Translation, also before Iohn Caluin, and all others. What could be spoken more honourably for our Vulgar?

And yet Conradus Pellican2. part. of the Def. of the Mi­nisters. pag. [...]6. (A man much commended by Bucer, Swinglius, Melancthon, and all famous men about Ba­sill, Tigure, Berne &c.) addeth a far higher Commendation, in these words,In Praef. in Psalter. Anno 1584 I fynd the Vulgar Edition of the Psalter, to agree for the sense, with such dexterity, learning, and fidelity of the Hebrew; that I doubt no [...] but the Greeke and latin Interpreter, was a man most learned, most Godly, and of a Propheticall Spirit. Which certaynly are the best properties of a good Transla­tour.

Now, in regard of these laudable premises, D. Doue giueth wholsome counsayle, saying,Persu [...] ­sion to Re­cusants. p. 16. We grant it fit, that for vniformity in quotations of places, in Schooles and Pulpits, one Latin Text should be vsed. And we can be contented for the antiquity there­of to preferre that (to wit the Vulgar) before all other Latin bookes.

And if the Antiquity therof may carry with it any good respect, D. Couell will tell you, thatAnsw. to Burges p. 94. It was vsed in the Church 1300. yeares agoe, and himselfe doubteth not toIbid. prefer that Translation before others: In so much that wheras the English Protestant Translations, be many and among themselues disagreeing; he concludeth, that of all those,Ibid pa. 91. The approued Translation authorized by the Church of England, is that which cometh neerest to the Vulgar, and is commonly called the Bishops Bible.

Add lastly hereunto, that S. Hierome by the appoint­ment of Pope Damasus, was author, or rather Reuiewer, of this our Common Edition: In so much, that in his Preface before the new Testament dedicated to Pope Damasus, he sayth thereof; You cause me to make a New Worke of an old, that I after so many Copies of the Scriptures, dispersed through the world, should sit, as a certayne Iudge, and determine which of them agree with the true Greeke. In Catal. fine See Heb. de verbo Dei. l. 3. c. 9. I haue restored the New Testament, to the truth of the Greeke, and haue translated the Old according to the Hebrew. Praef psalt. qua est ep. 134. & in Prologo ad lib Regum. Truly I will affirme it confidently, and will produce many witnesses of this worke, that I haue changed nothing from the truth of the Hebrew &c. aske any of the Hebricians, and you shall cleerly see it.

But peraduenture S. Hierome with some Protestants, wilbe thought partiall in his owne case, let vs therefore see S. Austines worthy testimony of S. Hierome and this Trā ­slation.De ciu. Dei. l. 18. c. 43. & ep 80. ad Hieron. c. 3. See Greg. l 20. Mor. c. 23. Isidor. l 6. Etym c. 5. 7. & de di­uin. officijs. l. 1. c. 12. Beda in Martyro­log. Cashod. 11 Instit. ca. 1 l. 21 Crispi­nus of t [...]e Estate of the Church. p. 137. Fulke. ag. Rhem. Iest. in 1. Cor. 14. sec. 14. pa. 548. There was not wanting (sayth S. Augustine) in these our dayes, Hierome the Priest, a man most learned, and skillfull in all the three tongues, who not from the Greeke, but from the He­brew translated the same Scriptures into latin: whose learned labour the lewes yet confesse to be true; yea the truth and due respect heerof is such, that D. Whitaker (vpon a more sober and stayed iudgement) doth alter the former vehemency of his style saying.Answere to Reinolds p. 241. S. Hierome I reuerence, Damasus I commend, [Page 150] and the worke I confesse to be godly & profitable to the Church.

From all this I may conclude, that the sacred Scriptu­res translated by Prot. cannot be to them any certaine Iudge in matters of fayth, seeing all the sayd Translations are con­fessedly false, corrupt and impious: and further, that in all their Disputes, Pulpits, and Writings, they are bound to follow our Vulgar Edition, seeing themselues prefer it for truth and sincerity, before all others.

SECT. III. Obiections agaynst the Vulgar Translation, answered.

IT is obiected, that we we are rather to haue recourse to the fountaynes of the Hebrew and Greeke, which were written by Prophets and Apostles, who could not erre, wheras the latin Translations are of diuers interpreters, who may erre. Answere. The fountayns or originalls are to be preferred before Translations, when it is certayne that the fountaynes are pure, and not troubled or corrupt; but it is most certayne, that they are in some places corrupted. And it may truly be thought, that as the Latin Church was euer more constant in keeping true fayth, then the Greeke: so it was alwaies more carefull in preseruing the Scriptures from corruption. And though it be true, that an Interpreter may erre, yet in that which the Church hath approued, he hath not erred in any matter of fayth or manners, though some smaller errours of Printers I do not deny.

Chemnitius obiecteth that these words (Ipsa Gen. 3. conteret caput tuum) are corrupted, that thereby we may proue the Intercession of the blessed Virgin Mary: And that insteed thereof, we should read, Ipsum conteret caput tuum, seeing it was spoken of the seed, which [...]as Christ, as all auncient writers doe teach. Answ. 1. Some bookes of the Vulgar Edi­tion haue Ipsa, and some others ipse. 2. Though many He­brew bookes haue ipse, yet there hath not wanted some which haue ipsa, and the points being taken away, the He­word may be translated ipsa. L. 2. de Gen. cont. Manich. c 18. & l. 51 de Genisi ad Li­teram c. 36. Amb. l. de fuga saeculi. c. 7. Chrysost. hom. 17. in Gen. Greg. l. 1. Mor c 38. Beda & alij in hunc lo­cum. And, ipsa, is read by S. Au­stine, [Page 151] S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, S. Gregory, Bede, and sundry others. And though the word, Conteret, in the He­brew be of the Masculine gender, and so should relate to Semen, which also in Hebrew is of the Masculine gender; yet it is not rare in theRuth. 1.8. Ester. 1.20. Eccles. 12.5. Scriptures to haue Pronounes and verbes of the Masculine gender, to be ioyned with Nownes of the feminine. He likewise vrgeth, that in these wordes,Gen. 14. Melchisdech Rex salem proferens panem & vinum, erat enim Sa­cerdos Dei altissimi, the word obtulit, and the Coniunction e­nim, are not in the Hebrew, but so translated, in proofe of the Sacrifice of the Masse. Answ. The Vulgar Edition hath not obtulit, but protulit, and the Cōiunction is in the Hebrew equiualently.

Lastly, he obiecteth, that in these wordesEccles. 16. Miseri­cordia faciet locum vnicuique secundum meritum operum suorum, that the word merit, is not in the Greeke, but added to proue the merit of workes. Answ. [...], doth signify in Latin most properly, pro meritis operum, for the merit of their wor­kes. Such poore stuffe do Hereticks fynd agaynst our Vul­gar Translation.

Whether, besides the sacred Scriptures, or written word of God, there be not another word of God, not written, which is called Traditions. And whether their authority be certayne and infallible, in deciding matters of Fayth. SECT. I.

SECT. II. It is proued by the Sacred Scriptures, that besides themsel­ues, or the written word, there are certayne Tradi­tions of the Church or word of God, not written, which we are bound likewise to belieue and obserue.

IT is euident, that Moyses,Exod. 24.4. Who wrote all the words of our Lord, was (asPerk. Re­form Cath. p. 133. Whitak. de sacra Scrip. p. 99. 583. 752. Zanch. de sa­cra Scrip. p. 133. Perkins, Whitaker, and Zanchius confesse) the first pen-man of holy Scripture: And yet before his tyme the Church continued two thousand yeares, onely by Tradition without Scripture: wherby it is euident that du­ring all that tyme before Moyses, the true belieuers were not instructed, nor their differences decyded by Scripture which was not then written, but otherwise by Tradition of the Church of those tymes.

ButReform. Cath. p. 133. Whitak de sacra Scrip. p. 752. Perkins and Whitaker do answere heerunto, that, God during all that tyme, supplyed the want of Scri­ptures by apparitions to the Patriarches. But this is only i­magined, for in the written apparitions, no such thing doth appeare: for the Patriarches vnto whome he so appeared before Moyses tyme, wereGen. 14.6. Cain, at what tyme Abel was so religious, that heGen. 4.4. offered of the first begotten of his flocke &c. and our Lord had respect to Abel and to his guifts. Also Noe, Gen. 6.13. & 7.1. & 8.15. & 9.1. who being likewise faythfull,Gen. 8.20. built an Aultar to our Lord &c. & offred holocausts vpon the Aultar. Abraham,Gen. 12.1. & 13.14. & 15.1. & 17.1. & 18.13. at what tyme God made or repeated the promise to him, not then instru­cting him in any point of faith which Abrahā had forgot­ten, for Abraham then belieued, andGen. 12.7. builded an Aultar to [Page 157] our Lord. Isaac,Gen. 26.2.24. to whom he also rehearsed the forsaid promise, Isaac being then so faithfull, as thatGen. 26.25. he builded an Aultar, and called vpon the name of our Lord. Lastly he appea­red to Iacob,Gen. 28.13. to whom he renewed the same promise, Iacob being at that tyme so faithfull, as that God then said to him,Gen. 28.15. I wilbe thy keeper whither soeuer thou goest. The Ap­paritions therfore of God vnto the Patriarches before Moy­ses tyme, were not to supply the Scriptures want, by instru­cting them in any Points of their Religion then formerly forgotten, for it appeareth fully by the Premises, that the Patriarches, to whom these Apparitions were made before Moyses tyme, were at the tyme of the said Apparitions, not forgetfull of Gods Law, but faithfull and Zealous therin: And therfore the Apparitions so made to them, were not to instruct them in Doctrine then forgotten, but to signify to them Gods other pleasure: which truth is yet more euident, in that aswell inExod. 3.4. & 4.1. & 6.1. Nu. 12.4. Moyses tyme, as also afterIos 1.2. & 4.1. & 7.10. Iudic. 6.39. & 7.2. & 10 10. & 20 23. & 1. Reg. 3 10.17. & 8 7. & 15.10. & 16. [...]. & 23.4. & 2. Reg. 2.1. & 7.4. & 3. Re. 3.5. & 9.2. the same, when the Scriptures were extant, God vsed Appari­tions, no lesse then before.

After the law was written, it was yet for many yeares lost, during which tyme, yet the Iewes continued true be­lieuers,4. Reg. 22.8. Helcias the high Priest, said to Saphan the scribe, I haue found the Booke of the law, in the howse of our Lord: Of which bookeMargi­nall notes of the English Bible of 1578. in the 2. Reg. 22.8. And Sparks in his Answ. to Albin. pa. 56. Protestants thus say, This was the Copy which Moy­ses left them, as appeareth 2. Chron. 34.14. which either by negli­gence of the Priests, had been lost, or else by the wickednes of Idola­trous kings, had bene abolished.

It is likewise certaine, that after the Captiuity,4. Esdras 14.22. See Irenaeus l. 3. c. 25. Tertul. l de habit. mul. Es­dras did either restore the Bookes of Scripture, as being be­fore time lost for many yeares, or else (as some ancientChrisost. ep. ad Heb. hom. 8. Theo­doret. Praef. in in Psalmos. Fathers thinke) did collect and gather the Scriptures, into certaine Volumes, as being then before dispersed, and disor­dered, or (as D. CowperChro­nicle fol. 50. thinketh) scattered and destroyed.

And it is no lesse certayne, that sundry parts of Scri­pture are yet to this day wanting, as the Booke Num. 21.14. of the wars of our Lord: Iosue 10.13. & 2. Reg. 1.18. The Booke of the Iust: 2. Paral. 20.34. The booke of Iehu the sonne of Hanani; 2. Paral 12.15. The Bookes of Semeias the Prophet, and of Addo: 1. Reg. 10.25. The Booke which Samuel wrote: 1. Paral. 9.29. & see 2. Par. 26.23. & 2. Par. 33.19. The words of Na­than [Page 158] the Prophet: the Bookes of Ahias the Silouite: the vision of Addo, besides many Parables and verses of Salomon, for he spake 3. Reg. 4.32. three thousand Parables; and his songs were a thousand and fyue. It is also certayne, thatCol. 4.16. S. Paul writ an epistle to the Laodiceans, and peraduenture another1. Co. 5.9. to the Corinthians. Whereof Caluin vpon these words,1. Co. 5.9. I wrote to you in an Epistle, saithIn 1. Cor. 5. This Epistle is not extant at this day, and no doubt, but that ma­ny others haue perished. But it suffi [...]eth, that there remayne to vs, those which the Lord foresaw to suffice And Luther vpon these words,Ose 10.14. As Salamana was destroyed by his house that tooke vengeance on Baal in the day of battell &c. teacheth that,In Ose. 10. This History is no where else extant in the Scriptures, and many such like things haue happened which are not written; as that which Iudas hath in his Epi­stle of Michael contending with Sathan for Moyses his body. Mention also is made in the Epistle of Iude,Ver. 14. of Enoch his Prophecy, which yet is not to be read in any other part of the Scrip­ture: as neither the names of Iannes & Mambres the Egyptian Magicians, but only in2. Tim. 3.8. S. Paul.

This losse and want of these Scriptures, Is a thing so euident, that Zanchius confesseth that,De sacra Script. p. 117. There were other Bookes inspired by God &c. of which we haue most certayne Testi­monies in the Scriptures, but they haue perished, especially at the burning of the Temple, and the destruction of the Citty, when the people were taken into Babilon: those that are wanting, are the Booke of the warres of our Lord, the Booke of the Iust, the Booke of Nathan the Prophet, the wordes of Ahias the Silonite, the visions of Addo, many Prouerbs and verses of Salomon. Agreably whereunto sayth Whitaker,De sacra Script. p. 593. we grant somethings now to be wanting, which long since were in the Canon of Scriptures. And according to Willet,Syno [...]. 1. Controu. q. 4. [...]. 21. 36. It is not to be doubted, but that some part of the Canonicall Scripture is lost. All this notwithstanding, such is the ignorant bouldnesse of D. Morton, that he denyethApol. pa [...]s 2. l. 1. e. [...]4. Any Canonicall Booke of the Old Testament, or that Epistle of the New Testament to the Laodiceans, to haue perished.

But now from these cleere and confessed Premisses, I may strongly argue, that if the Church and true fayth haue for many yeares be [...]n preserued, before any Scrip [...]ure was written, and after when it was lost, and yet to this day we [Page 159] haue nor the entyre and full Canon of the Bible, but still many bookes are wanting; then it euidently followeth, that by Tradition true fayth and Religion hath bene taught and preserued; and the written word, neyther is, or can be our sole and perfect Rule of fayth, seeing we haue not the whole Canon [...]hereof. And I will suppose for the present, that none wilbe so absurd as to affirme, that any one Booke, the Apocalyps for Example, is a sufficient square or Rule of all our fayth. And if any one should be so mad, as to affirme it, then must I demaund, what part that is, and why that, rather then another? To which demaund the best answere wilbe his deepest silence; and so the whole Canon of the Scripture cannot be the sole and perfect Rule of fayth, see­ing the whole Canon is not extant, neyther will any one parcell be assigned, which contayneth all matter of faith.

Perkins and Hospinian perceiuing how conuincing this was in proofe of Traditions, thought it still better, though ouer bouldly, yet plainly to deny, that any Scripture was lost: I take it to be a truth (saythReform. Cath p. 145. Hospinian Hist Sacram. p. 463.464. Perkins) though some thinke otherwise, that no part of the Canon is lost &c. Agayne to hould that any Bookes of Scr [...]pture should be lost, calls into question Gods proui­dence: But this being directly contrary to the former Scrip­tures, and to the Iudgement of other more learned Prote­stants, I omit all further Confutation thereof.

And will only adde, that so many bookes thus perished, being all of them diuine, and inspired by the holy Ghost, were not superfluous or lesse necessary, then these other par­cells which we haue, and therefore though these which are extant, be very profitable, yet they are not absolutely ne­cessary, no more then those that haue perished; wherefore it is the word which is placed in the mouthes of Bishops & Priests, which shall neuer perish.1. Pet. 1, 25. The word of our Lord remayneth for euer, and this is the word which is Euangelized among you. Agreable to this are the ancient Prophecies,Malach. 2.7. The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, and the law they shall require of his mouth, because he is the Angell of our Lord. Isa. 59.21. And, this is my Co­uenant with them▪ sayth our Lord: my Spirit that is in thee, and my words that I haue put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, [Page 160] and out of the mouth of thy seed, and out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, sayth our Lord, from this present and for euer; which certaynty of continuance, we no where find to be promised to the writ­ten word.

But to proceed yet further, though Moyses writ the Law, yet somethings did he deliuer by Tradition, where of not obscure mention is made in the fourth Booke of Esdras, where it is sayd in the person of God, touching Moyses,C. 14. 4. 6. 16. See O­rig ho. 5. in Numeros. Hilar in Psalm 2. Euseb. hist. l. 7. c. 28. & l. 4. c. 21. I brought him vpon Mount Sina, and held him with me many dayes, &c. And I commanded him saying, These words thou shalt publish a­broad, and these thou shalt hyde. And to omit, that these truths following, were not found written in the Old Testamēt, but continued by Tradition, the miraculous Pond vpon Proba­tica at Hierusalem, recorded by S. Iohn,C 5. 2. the prayer of Elias concerning rayne, whereofC. 5 17. S. Iames speaketh: The altercation betweene S. Michaell and the deuill about Moyses his body, whichVer. 9. S. Iude mentioneth: as also that Iannes & Mambres resisted Moyses, whereof2. Tim. 3.8. S. Paul writeth: But I say, to omit all these, we find it contayned in the Old Te­stament, that in remedy of Originall sinne, Circumcision was ordained, only for the Male Children of the Iewes, and that not before the eight day, whereof it is sayd,Gen. 17.22.14. An In­fant of eight dayes shalbe Circumcised among you, all malekind in your Generations &c. The male, whose flesh of his prepuce, shall not be cir­cised, that soule shalbe destroyed out of his people, because he hath bro­ken my Couenant: But what meanes or remedy God vsed her­in, eyther with male Children dying before the eight day, with women, or with the Gentile belieuers, we fynd it not expressed in the Scriptures, and yet the knowledge heereof was necessary to Saluation.

And whereas D. Whitaker would euade in behalfe of women, only by affirming that in respect of their remedy from Originall sinne, the De sacra Scrip. q. 6 fol. 598. vnmarryed (women) did pertayne to their Parents, and the marryed to their husbands, being as it were circumcised in them; this is barely affirmed, not pro­ued by any place of the Old Testament, and therefore in­deed it impugneth D. Whitaker himselfe, and other Pro­testants, who teach that all matters of Saluation are taught [Page 161] in Scripture. Secondly, this nothing helpeth the Male Chil­dren dying before the eight day, or the Gentile belieuers. And thirdly if the women vnmarryed had their remedy herein by their Circumcised Fathers, what need they fur­ther remedy, when afterwards they were marryed by their husbands? So impertinent, wanting, and absurd is this Eua­sion of D. Whitaker.

From Moyses tyme vntill Christ, when the Scriptures were extant, they were yet reserued only with the Iewes, & yet neuerthelesse there were many true belieuers in otherSee Aug. de Ci [...], l. 18. c. 47. de peccat Orig. l. 2. c. 24. l. 1. de Praedest. Sunct. c. 9. Nations, as with Iob his friends, and others. Yea the Iewes themselues who had the Scriptures did notwithstanding de­pend especially vpon the Tradition of their fore-Fathers, ac­cordingly as is said:Deut. 32.7. Remember the old dayes, thinke vpon euery Generation: Aske thy Father and he will declare to thee: the El­ders and they will tell thee: Iob. 8.8. Aske the old generation & search dili­gently the memory of the Fathers, for we are as but yesterday &c. and they shall teach thee &c. Ecclesia­stic. 8.11. Let not the narration of the Ancient es­cape thee, for they learned of their Fathers: because of them thou shalt learne vnderstanding &c. So euident it is, that during the Old Testament, both Iewes and Gentiles belieued many things only by Tradition.

To come now to the New Testament, we fynd that Christ our Sauiour intended to haue all things preach [...]d, & therin gaue speciall Commandemēt to his Apostles, saying,Mat. 28.19. Teach yee all Nations, baptizing them and teaching them to ob­serue all things whatsoeuer I haue commanded you. AndMar. 16.15. going into the whole world preach the Ghospell to all Creatures. But that he intended to haue all things written, we fynd not: for had his intention herein been the like, it would haue appeared in the Scriptures by his like Commandement, which it no where doth. Secondly had our Sauiour intended to haue all things written, & so, not the Church, but the Scriptures to be the only Rule of faith, then doubtles would he haue left certaine direction and knowledge which had bene the Scriptures, and not haue left it to the Tradition and Iudg­ment of his Church, as shalbeSee hereafter sec. 4. proued hereafter.

And though ChemnitiusExam. part. 2. f. 42. obiecteth against this, that [Page 162] Christ commanded S. Iohn to write a Booke: Yet this is ans­wered by these words in the same place,Apoc. 1.11. That which thou seest write in a booke, to wit, his Reuelations, which neyther do contayne all points of fayth, whereof the now Question is, as also are so obscure and mysticall, that according to Lu­ther,Prolog. in Apoc. no man can vnderstand them.

In like sort though the Apostles according to Christs cō ­mand preached all needfull points of fayth, yet they neuer intended to set downe in writing all such points; for wher­as they preached the Ghospell without expectation of any occasion, they did not yet vndertake to write, but when they were prouoked thereto by some vrgent cause, accor­dingly as M. Hooker affirmeth, that,Eccl. Pol. l. 1 sec. 15. p. 87. The seuerall Bookes of Scripture are written vpon some seuerall occasion, and particular purpose &c. So did S. Matthew at his departure from the He­brewes, write his Ghospell to them,Hist. l. 3. c. 18. prouoked thereunto (as Eusebius sayth) by certayne necessity. So likewise did S. Marke write his Ghospell vrged thereto by the earnestEuseb. Hist. l 2. c. 14. request of the Romans. And whereas many (as may be gathered fromLuc. 1.1. Eus. Hist. l. 3. c. 18. S. Luke and Eusebius) did presume to write of of our Sauiour, and his actions, not hauing perfect notice therof, vpon this occasion did S. Luke write his Ghospell, the which labour he did especiallyLuc. 1. [...].4. vndertake for Theo­philus. In like manner didEuseb. his. l. 3. c. 18. S. Iohn preach the Ghos­pell till his last age without Scripture; & did (as S.De Scri­ptoribus Ec­clesiast. Hie­rome affirmeth) take occasion to write, by reason of the Ebionites, whose heresy was then arysing. S. Paul also did write his Epistles vpon like speciall occasions, as that to the Romanes, and the other to the Galathians,See the Argument vpon the Epistle to the Gala­thians in the Engl. Bible of 1576. agaynst such as thought Circumcision needfull (that opinion being then an errour of thoseAct. 15.1. beginning tymes.) The other E­pistles of S. Peter, Iames, Iohn, and Iude, were written a­gaynst certayne Heretickes, who misvnderstanding S. Paul (as S. Peter2. Pet. 3.16. noteth of some) did thereupon teach, that fayth only without workes sufficed to saluation: Of which very point S. Austine sayth,De fide & operibus. c. 14. Because this opinion was then began, other Apostolicall Epistles of Peter, Iohn, Iames, Iude, do chiefly di­rect their intention agaynst it, that they might strongly confirme, Fayth [Page 163] without workes to profit nothing. And a little before, he like­wise writeth that, Euen in the Apostles tyme, certayne obscure say­ings of Paul the Apostle not being vnderstood, some thought, that he af­firmed the same. By all which it is euident, that the Apostles and Euangelistes, did write their bookes, not by any com­mand from Christ, but vpon some or other accidentall oc­casion vrging them thereto.

We do not read that the Apostles were sent to write, but to preach, and so accordingly all of them preached, wher­as the greater part of them writ nothing at all. And of those which did write, some testify, that their intent in writing, was not to set downe the Law,Rom. 15.14.15. 2. Pet. 1.13.15. 2. Pet. 3.1. but onely to exhort, comfort and admonish them, to whome they writ of such things, as they had formerly taught them. And S. Iohn ex­pressely denyeth, that he hath comprehended in writing all such things, as were worthy wryting, and that he will de­liuer the rest by word of mouth,2. Io. ver. 12.3. Io. ver. 13.14. Hauing more things to writ vnto you, I would not by paper and inke: for I hope that I shalbe with you, and speake mouth to mouth, that your ioy may be full. Now that these things which the Apostles did not write, but teach by word of mouth were matters also of waight and belon­ging to fayth, S. Paul assureth vs in these words,1. Thess. 3.10. Night and day more abundantly praying, that we may see your face, and may accomplish those things that want of your fayth. So euident it is, that the Apostles besides their writings, did preach other things which were wanting to their fayth.

This truth yet further appeareth by order of their wri­tings, for the Euangelists did not purposely set downe in their Ghospels principles of fayth, but penned only histori­cally, and by way of Narration, a briefe abstract of our Sa­uiours Acts, especially those wherin were fulfilled the Pro­phecies fortold of him. And so also did S. Luke according­ly set downe in his Actes, the Ecclesiasticall history of those tymes. In like manner the Apostles in their Epistles, do but treat obiter of matters of fayth, discoursing thereof, as also of other matters nothing pertayning to fayth, casually and as occasion is ministred, which occasion is for the most part but particular, concerning only but sometymes a speciall [Page 164] people, as the Romanes, Corinthians &c. sometimes but priuat persons, as Titus, Timothy &c. And (which is most worthy of obseruation) all their Epistles be written to such persons only as were then before conuerted to the fayth, which thing was done, as Swinglius acknowledgeth, not so much to instruct, as to confirme. His words are,Tom. 2. l. de Eccle­siast. fol. 43. In the tymes of the Apostles, there was not any of the new Testament written, but the Apostles as yet taught by word of mouth: Epistles were sent to and fro, not so much to instruct, as to confirme, in the fayth before receiued. Now had the Apostles intentiō in writing beene such, & so full as it was in their preaching, then like as they preached generally to all, so likewise their writings would haue been written indifferently for all.

Agayne, if the intention or occasion of the Apostles had beene to write all needfull points of faith, then doubtles like as our Sauiour did,Act. 13. after his passion appeare to them for fourty dayes speaking of the Kingdome of God, & as thenSee Clement. apud Euseb. l. 2. c. 1. & Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. Col. 581. Fulke against Rhem. Test. in Apoc. c. 1. fol. 463. instructing them in all needfull points of fayth; so also they all, or some one of them, would in like manner haue imployed his la­bour, to haue set downe the same specially in writing, and being assisted by the holy Ghost, would accordingly haue performed the same: Nay it followeth heerupon, that euery of them who did write (this being according to Protestants the occasion of his writing) should haue performed the same. And so by this reason S. Iudes Epistle, for example, onely should be sufficient.

And wheras D. Whitaker answereth heerto, that the Apo­stlesDe sacra Scrip. q. 6. p. 597. knew that God would so gouerne their wils and hands, that those whom it behoued should write, & should write so much as should suffice, and that in time they should do all things; & so, that they had a generall intētion or notice, that what was wanting in one mans writings, should be supplyed in another: this ney­ther doth satisfy, for the Apostles being dispersed into sun­dry Nations, did not for the most, especially at the tyme of their writing, so much as know one of others writings, much lesse then did or could they write, with intention to supply what was wanting in others writings: which appeareth yet more fully, in that one and the same wryter, as name­ly [Page 165] S. Paul, in sundry of his Epistles, doth handle for the most part, one and the same matter, as in his Epistle to the Ro­manes, and the other to the Galathians: and also the E­uangelists do in like manner, for the most part, discourse and make mention of sundry matters; which are in others of them fully set downe: which their doing were superflu­ous, had their occasion of writing beene to supply what was wanting in others. Vpon all which premises I do conclude, that the holy Ghost did not intend or command, that the Apostles and Euangelists should write all needfull points of fayth, seeing none, or all of them did euer performe the same.

But what more conuincing for Traditions, then those expresse words of S. Paul, Therfore 2. Th [...]ss. 2. .15 Brethren stand, and hould the Traditions which you haue learned, whether it he by word, or our Epistle; so plainly affirming that some things be taught by word, others by writing. This place is so powerfull, that it enforceth Protestants to very desperate shifts.

D. Reinolds answereth, that,Def. of the Posit. p. 335. by the word speach (or word) S. Paul comprehendeth other Scriptures, and so confoun­deth and maketh all one, speaking and writing, which is to make S. Paul to speake most absurdly. But these not sa­tisfying, D. ReinoldsConfe­rence fol. 456. 689. answereth further, that though the Apostle heere mentioneth Traditions, deliuered to the Thessaloniās by word, yet those Traditions also were (though vnwritten to them yet) contayned elswhere in the Scri­ptures: for it appeareth in theC. 17.3. Acts, where the history is written, and those Traditions set downe, that S. Paul preached to the Thessalonians, that, it behoued Christ to suffer, and to ryse againe, and that he is Iesus Christ whom the Apo­stle preached. Now, this Doctrine being the Tradition, which he meant in the place obiected, and which he deli­uered to them by word, is manifestly contayned, though not in his said Epistle to the Thessaloniās, yet in other Scri­ptures. But the weaknes of this Answere appeareth many wayes, for first it is without colour, vnlesse it could be pro­ued, that the Apostle by those Traditiōs deliuered by word, did vnderstand only that doctrine, which is here alleadged [Page 166] out of the Actes, which D. Reinolds neither doth, nor could proue. Secondly the Doctrine alleadged out of the Actes, was before written by him to the Thessalonians themselues in his first Epistle, wherin he instructeth them touching out Sauiour, that he is1. Thes. 2.15.19. Iesus Christ, and that Iesus was killled, and raysed vp from the dead, and therfore the Apostle speaking in the place by me obiected of Traditiōs deliuered by word, cānot be thought to meane therby this only doctrine which he deliuered to the same persons before by writing; his words implying so plaine diuersity of Traditions, which be taught them either by word or writing. Thirdly the for­said answere is without all probability, vnlesse it can be shewed that all the doctrine which S. Paul taught the Thes­salonians, is wholly expressed in that place of the Actes; for if all be not there written, how then can it from thence be knowne, what those Traditions deliuered by word are, wherof the Apostle speaketh in his said Epistle to the Thes­salonians. And that all such Doctrine as S. Paul did teach the Thessalonians, should be set downe in that place of the Actes, it cannot be shewed; yea the contrary is euident, for as he taught them by writing many things concerning An­tichrist, 2. Thess. 2.5. the Iudgment Ib. ver. 2.3. day, and other mattersIb. [...].3.9. not mentioned in that said place of the Actes: so doubtlesse he did preach by word no lesse to them, then he did to his o­ther hearers,Act. 20.27. all the Counsell of God, and concealed from them Act. 20. [...]0. nothing that was profitable, but preached it to them; all which cannot be found expressed in that place of the Actes. Four­thly the Apostle did by these Traditions of his, deliuered ei­ther by word or writing, vnderstand his vniuersall do­ctrine, concerning all needfull pointes of faith; but that all this was written in S. Pauls tyme, much lesse at the tyme of his writing this his Epistle to the Thessalonians, cannot be proued; but to the Contrary it is certaine, that many parts of the New Testament were written after this Epi­stle: from whence it followeth, that the Apostle by the fore­said words, did refer the Thessalonians to be instructed, not only by the Scriptures, because they were not all then ex­tant, but also by the Tradition of Doctrine, which was then [Page 167] vnwritten. This truth is so cleere, that it is confessed by D. Whitaker, saying;De sacra Script. q. 6. fol. 630. How is it like, if these things were so ful­ly written, that the Apostle should make any mention of Traditions: but because he perceiued that these things, were not yet written, he there­fore warneth the Thessalonians, that these Traditions were to be kept. And the same is acknowledged byReform. Cath. p. 142. M. Perkins: so many wayes, and so confessedly is this Euasion insufficient against so cleere a Text of Scripture.

Wherfore D. Whitaker and M. Perkins, perceiuing the insufficiency of Reinolds replye, do further answere, that though these Traditions deliuered them by word, were at that tyme vnwritten, that yet they were afterwarde written, and are now to be found in the Scriptures: But this they barely say without all proofe; and yet admitting so much, it therby is granted, that S. Paul did referre the Thessalo­nians, for that tyme, to Tradition, euen in things necessary, as D. WhitakerVbi su­pra. and M. Perkins are forced to confesse. But if in things necessary, then idle is that other Euasion re­lated by D. Whitaker, saying;Controu, 1. q. 6. c. 10. Others thinke Paul to speake of certaine externall things and Ceremonies, not of very great moment: But this neither can be proued, but is only nakedly affirmed.

I may also add hereunto that of S. Iohn,Ep. 2. ver. 12. Hauing, more things to write vnto you, I would not impart them by paper and inke. Also of S. Paul.1. Cor. 11.34. The rest I will dispose when I come. And speaking of Christes Priesthood, he sayth,Heb. 5.12. Of whom I haue great speach, and inexplieable to viter. And to Timo­thy, 1. Tim. c. 6.20. O Timothy keep the Depositum. To the Corinthians, 1. Cor. 11.2. I praise you Brethren, that in all things you be mindfull of me, and as I haue diliuered unto you, you keep my Precepts, or Traditions according to the Greeke. Yea he tearmeth the Corinthians. The Epistle of Christ written 2. Cor. 3.2. not with inke, but with the Spirit, if the liuing God, not in Table of stone, but in tht tables Carnall of the hart. According to which, the Holy Ghost prophecieth of the New Testament by Hieremy, saying,Hier, 31, 33. I will put my law into their bowels, and in their harts will I write it. So ma­nifest it is, that the Apostles deliuered many things by word and not by writing.

Protestants perceiuing the former Scriptures to be so [Page 168] playne, that none of the foresayd answers do any thing sa­tisfy, they wage a new warre against the Scriptures them­selues, tearing the same in peeces, by many and seuerall cor­ruptions. As first Beza (a man in this kind most expert & audacious) in hisOf An­no 1598. And see him in Whitaker. Controu 1. q 6 c. 10. Translation, changeth in S. Paules words, 2. Thess. 2.15. the disiunctiue particle, siue (Whether) into the Cōiunctiue, tum (both) in this manner; Hold the Tradi­tions which you are taught, both by word, as also by our Epistle. And in anotherApud Tremelium. Edition he likewise trāslateth the Text thus, Hold the Doctrine deliuered which you are taught, & per sermonem, & per Epistolam, both by speach and Epistle. Where for Traditions, he putteth Doctrine deliuered, which word Doctrine, is his own addition, which he maketh also in the singular number, whereas the true word Traditions, is both in Greeke and La­tin in the plurall: and he also changeth Whether, into and, whereas between those two wordes, there is no lesse dif­ference then between Beza, and an honest man. But such is the hatred of other Prot. besides Beza against Traditions, that wheresoeuer the Scripture speaketh agaynst certayne Tradi­tions of the Iewes, partly friuolous, partly repugnant to the Law of God; there all the English Translations follow the [...]. Greeke exactly, neuer omitting this word Tradition: but where it speaketh in commendatiō of Traditions, to wit such as the Apostles deliuered to the Church; there none follow the Greeke, which is the selfesame word. For exam­ple thus they translate,Mat. 15.2.3. [...]. Why do thy Disciples transgresse the Traditions of the Elders? And agayne, why do you also trans­gresse the Cōmandement of God by your Tradition? And againe, you haue made frustrate the Commandement of God, for your Traditions. Heeres stil the word Tradition. But now cōcerning good Tra­ditions, the Apostle by the selfesame word, both in Greeke & Latine, sayth thus, Therfore 2. Thess. 2.15. [...]. Brethren stand and hold fast the Traditions which you haue learned, either by word, or by our E­pistle. And againe, Withdraw 2. Thess 3.6. your selues from euery Brother walking inordinatly, and not according to the Traditions which they haue receyued of vs. And againe according to the Greeke,1. Cor. 11.2. I praise you Brethren that in all things you are mindfull of me, and as I haue deliuered vnto you, you keep my Traditions, [...] [Page 169] [...]. But in all these places insteed of Tradi­tions they translate either, ordinances, instructions, preachings, in­stitutions, or the like. And Beza as before,2. Thess. 2. & 3. traditam doctri­nam, putting the Singular number for the Plurall, and ad­ding, Doctrine, of his owne. Yea they vse the word Tradi­tion, when it may tend to the discredit therof, it not being in the Greeke Text,Col. 2.20. [...]. as, Why as though liuing in the world are yeeled with Traditions? Or as the Translation of Anno 1579. hath, Why, are yee burdened with Traditions? And yet a little before,Col. 2.14. & Epb. 2.15. they translate [...], ordinances, de­crees: and therfore why not now [...], quid decer­nitis, why do you ordayne or decree, or why are you led with decrees? their Translation cannot be iustifyed, either by Scriptures, Fathers, or Lexicon. But by this liberty any Heretike, though neuer so impious, may make the Scriptures speake what himselfe best pleaseth.

SECT. III. That the Ancient Fathers do expound the sacred Scri­ptures in Proofe of vnwritten Traditions.

IN the eight Generall Councell, it is taught thatAct. 10. The great Apostle Paul doth cleerly admonish vs, to keepe the Traditions which we haue receaued, whether by speach, or by the Epistles of holy men, who haue formerly shyned.

S. Chrisostome expounding the same words of S. Paul, affirmeth that,In 2. Thess. ho. 4. And see Ba­sil de Spir. Sant. c. 29. Theophil. in 2. Thess. 2. Damasc. c. 17. de Imag. Sanctorum. Hereby it appeareth, that the Apostles did not deliuer all things by Epistle, but many things without writing, and these are worthy of faith; wherfore also let vs esteeme the Tradition of the Church to be belieued. It is a Tradition, seeke no further. And the same exposition is giuen by S. Basil, Theophilact, and Damascene, as also by S. Epiphanius,Haer. 61. We must vse Tradi­tion (sayth he) for all things cannot be receaued from diuine Scri­pture, wherfore the holy Apostles haue deliuered some things by Tradi­tion: Euen as the holy Apostle sayth. As I haue deliuered to you, and elswhere, so I teach, and haue deliuered in Churches.

S. Austine labouring to proue that those who were baptized by heretikes should not be rebaptized, saith;De Bap. Conc. Dou. l. 5. c. 2 [...]. The Apostles commanded nothing hereof, but that Doctrine which was op­posed herein against Cyprian, is to be belieued to proceed from their Tradition; as many things be which the Church houldeth, and are ther­fore well belieued to be commanded of the Apostles, although they be not written. This saying is so cleere, that Cartwright spea­king therof, sayth,In Whit­gif. Def. p. 103. To allow S. Austines saying is to bring in Popery againe. AndIbid. And his 2. Reply ag. Whitg. part. 1. p 84. 85. 86. if S. Austines Iudgment, be a good Iudg­ment, then there be some things commanded of God, which are not in the Scriptures, and thereupon no sufficient doctrine contayned in the Scriptures.

But the Fathers Expositions and beliefe, are so cleere for our Doctrine of Traditions, that Chemnitius reproueth for the sameExam. part. 1. p. 87. 89. 90. Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen, also Epipha­nius, Ambrose, Hierome, Basile, Maximus, Theophilus, Damascene. AndAgainst Purg. p. 362. 303. 397. Against Martial. p. 170. 178. A­gainst Bri­stow. p. 35. 36. D. Fulke reiecteth herein, Chrysostome, Tertullian, Cyprian, Austine, Hierome, and a great many more. And the like is acknowledged byDe sacra Script. p. 678. 68 [...]. 683. 685. 686. 690. 695. 696. 670. Whitaker of S. Chrysostome, Epi­phanius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Austine, Innocentius, Leo, Basile, Eu­sebius, and Damascene. By the premisses then it appeareth, that S. Austine and all the forenamed Fathers, did confessedly teach and belieue our Doctrine of Traditions.

SECT. IV. That the learnedst Protestants are inforced to acknow­ledge, and belieue our Catholike Doctrine of Tra­ditions.

I Proued before that in the tyme of Nature, and much also in the tyme of the Law, the faithfull were instructed by Traditions not written: And accordingly the Protestant D. Westphailing affirmeth that there was a tyme whenSerm. 5. fol. 56. & Ser. 6. fol. 60. Tra­ditions not deliuered in writing, or taken out of Bookes, but deliuered from one to another by word of mouth, were Rules of faith and man­ners: [Page 171] And thus it was first in the tyme of nature, secondly in the tyme of the Law. And in those tymes Traditions might well be Rules of truth to such as knew they came from those, whom Gods spirit would not suffer to erre. So confessedly Traditions haue bene, and may be Rules of truth.

Concerning our learning the true sense of the Scri­ptures, the Protestant Author of Catholike Traditions pres­cribeth thus;In the preface fol. B. 35. when the Scriptures haue not sufficient light, to make the truth apparantly perceyued, yet may a man now a dayes vse that meanes, which S. Irenaeus counsaileth vs, which is to &c. learne the Apostolicall Tradition. And this with greatest reason, for M. Powell teacheth that,Of things Indiffer. c. 2. p. 7. Ecclesiasticall Traditions are not meer­ly humane, but also diuine, because the Church is directed and gouer­ned by the spirit of Christ. Now, if this be the confessed Priui­ledge of the Church, in things indifferent, and lesse concer­ning vs, it is much the rather to be acknowledged in such greater pointes of faith, as do more importantly concerne, euen our faith and Saluation.

But to giue particular instance of seuerall Traditions ac­knowledged by Protestants, the knowledge wherof is ne­cessary to faith and saluation: Concerning the question of discerning Canonicall Scriptures from Apocryphall, M. Hooker affirmeth that,Eccl. Pol. l. 1. sec 14. p. 86. of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what bookes we are bound to esteeme holy, which point is con­fessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach: for Ibid. l. 2. sec. 4. p. 102. sayth he very well) if any one booke of Scripture did giue testimony to all, yet still that Scripture which giueth credit to the rest, would require another Scripture to giue credit to it: Ibid. pa. 103. neither could we euer come to any pause wheron to rest, vnlesse besides Scripture there were some­thing else acknowledged. Neither is this something the testimony of the spirit, which (as WhitakerAduersus Stap. l. 2. c. 6. p 370. 357. & Hook. Eccl. Pol. sec. 8. p. 147. acknowledgeth) being priuate and secret, is not fit to teach and refell others: but it is euen accor­ding to him,Vbi supra. l. 2 c. 4. p. 300, 298. the Ecclesiasticall Tradition, an Argument (sayth he) wherby may be argued and conuinced, what Bookes be Canonicall, and what not. Which authority of the Churches Testimony in this behalfe, he further auoucheth and teacheth in fundryVbi supra. l. 1. c. 1. p. 14. & 25 And against Rei­nolds. p. 44. other places. And with him agree many others of his brethren, for M. Hooker supposeth that,Eccl. Pol. l. 3. p. 146. We all know, [Page 172] that the first outward motiue leading men so to esteeme of the Scri­pture is the authority of Gods Church. Yea, saith another,Treatise of the Script. and the Church c. 15. 16 p 72. 74. We would not belieue the Ghospell, were it not that the Church taught vs, and witnessed that this Doctrine was deliuered by the Apo­stles.

Zanchius (so much renowmed amongst Protestants) in plaine termes confessethDe sacra Script p. 281. the vnwritten Tradition of the Canonicall and Apocryphall bookes: and thatIb. pa 61. the Ecclesia­sticall Tradition is the first meane of our certaine knowledge herein. As also thatIb p 265. The Fathers thought that we haue this thing only by Tradition of the Apostles, and Apostolicall men. In which due respect sayth Chemnitius,Exam. part. 1. p. 69. We reuerently receaue this Tra­dition, wherby the Bookes of holy Scripture are to vs deliuered.

Luther like a dutifull Child ascribeth thus much to the Church his Mother, that,Tom. 2. de Captiu. Babyl fol. 89. This truely hath the Church, that it can discerne the word of God, from the words of men, as Austine confessed himselfe to haue belieued the Ghospell, being moued by the authority of the Church. Melancthon,Resp ad Act. Ratisb. T. 3. p. 732. We acknowledge in the Church this Authority of testifying of Apostolicall Scriptures, or of discerning the writings of the Apostles from counterfaite. Caluin,De vera Eccles. Refor. p. 323. I do not deny but that it is the proper office of the Church, to dis­cerne true Scriptures from fayned. Peter Martyr,In loc. class. 1 c. 6. We do ac­knowledge it to be the function of the Church, that seeing it is indued with the holy Ghost, it may discerne sincere and true Bookes of diuine Scriptures from adulterate and Apocryphall. Perkins,Tom. 2. of the Ser­mon of our Lord. col. 252. The Church hath the guift of iudging of things of greatest waight; she can iudge of the Bookes of Scripture, which are Canonicall, which not, of the Spirits of men, and their Doctrines, and therefore she can iudge which company of men are the true Church, and which not. What more for the authority of the Church and her Traditions, in this so important a question of discerning true Scriptures from false, could be sayd by any Catholike?

D. Whitaker, a man so renowned in this Kingdome for his supposed greatest learning, acknowledgeth this same truth, no lesse plainly then the rest,Controu. 1. q. 3. c. 1. pag. 315. We do not deny (saith he) that it belongeth to the Church, that she approue, acknowledge, receyue, promulge, commend the Scriptures to all hers, and we say that this testimony is true, and ought to be receyued by all. Ib. c. 2. p. 316. It is [Page 173] the office of the Church that she determine and discerne true, right, & proper Scriptures from false, counterfait, and Adulterate. Ib. c. 7. p. 324. We may truly be compelled by the authority of the Church, that we acknow­ledge the Canonicall Scripture. Ib c. 9. p. 326. We confesse with Irenaeus, the authority of the Church to be firme, and a compendious demonstration of Canonicall doctrine àposteriori. Yea he affirmeth, that the te­stimony of the Church concerning the Scriptures,De Script. l. 1. c 1 sect. 9. p. 19. Ought to be receaued, because it is true: and he that doth not receiue it, is guil­ty of sacriledge. Wherefore all Protestants that deny this Ec­clesiasticall Tradition, of the Churches discerning Canoni­call bookes from Apocryphall, in D. Whitaters Iudgement are sacrilegious.

If it were not to be thought tedious in so cleer a Case, I would shew the same to be taught byIn Zan­chius de Ser. p 123 124. Brentius,De prin­cipijs Christ. dog. l 1. c. 4 p. 18. Pet. Mar. com. plac. in Engl part. [...] 1. 6. sec. [...] p. 42. Iew. in Def p. 201. Fulke in answere to a Counterf. Cath. p. 5. Lubbertus, Peter Martyr, Iewell, and Fulke, most of them, and others affirming, that the Church is directed in her for­sayd Testimony, euen with the presence and assistance of the holy Whi­tak. aduers. Stapl. l. 1 c. 5. p. 69. The Treatise of the Scripture and the Church. c. 15. p. 71. Iew. Fulke and Pet. Mart. vbi supra. Spirit. So cleer it is that this so necessary knowledge of true Scripture from false, we haue not from the Scripture it selfe, nor from the Priuate Spirit, but from the Tradition of the Church. And if the Tradition of the Church be so forcible, in this Chiefe question of discerning true Scriptu­res, shall the same Scriptures make it of lesser Credit in other smaller questions?

Rogers in the name of the Church of England, sayth,Def of the Art. art. 20. p 108. All of vs do grant, that the Church as a faythfull witnesse may, yea of necessity must testify to the world, what hath beene the doctrine of God his people, from tyme to tyme; and as a trusty Recorder, is to keep, and make known what the word of God, which it hath receyued is, which truly hath beene performed afore the word was written, by the Patriarches, and after the same was committed to writing, be­fore Christ his incarnation, by the Iewes, Christ his lyfe tyme, in the Primitiue Church, from the Apostles tyme by the godly Christians throughout the world. Agayne,Ib. Art. 34. p. 196. The Church and euery mem­ber thereof in his place, is bound to the obseruation of all Traditions & Ceremonies, which are allowed by lawfull authority, and are not re­pugnant to the word of God; for he that violateth them, contemneth not man, but God, who hath giuen power to his Church, to establish [Page 174] whatsoeuer things shall make vnto comlines, order, and Edification. Heer then confessedly we haue one mayne poynt of fayth necessary to saluation, made knowne vnto vs, not by the Scriptures, nor by the Priuat Spirit, but only by the Tradi­tion of the Church.

To alledge yet further another example, and that of great importance, which is concerning the abrogating of Saturday the Iewish Saboth, and the establishing of Sunday for our Saboth, First it is granted, that the now obseruation of Sunday, is not a thing arbitrary, & of indisserency, but necessary and vnchangeable: for thus expressely teacheth D. Whitguift,Defence p. 89. I do not thinke it now arbitrary, or to be chan­ged: and surely there had been very litle Iudgment in me, if I had made it changeable. D. Fulke expresly teacheth, that this ob­serua [...]ion of SundayAgainst the Rhem. Test. in Re­uel. 1. sec. 6. fol. 463. Is not a matter of indifferency but a ne­cessary Prescription of Christ deliuered to vs by his Apostles. And that to change it, or keepe it on Munday, Twesday, or any other day the Church hath no Authority. And with him do [...]hSynop. Controu. 9. q. 8 p. 382. M. Willet agree, expressing his like Iudgement almost in the same wordes. But none more fully confi [...]me this truth, then the Diuines of Geneua, who in their Principles of diuini [...]y dis­puted in the Vniuersity of Geneua, and therePreface. discussed and determined euen byEpist. of the Transl. the whole consent of the lear­ned in the Church of Geneua, and especially by M. Theo­dore Beza, do conclude and teach that,C. 33 p. 80. sec. 12. 13. The Apostles by direction of the holy Ghost insteed of that seauenth day obserued vnder the Law, did appoint that day, which was first in Creation of the for­mer world: and that the Obseruation therefore of this Lords day, is not to be accompted as an indifferent thing, but as an Apostolicall Tra­dition to be perpetually obserued.

This then being supposed, that the obseruation of our now Sunday, is a matter obligatory, and of necessity; we will next examine whether the same be taught vs by the written word, or only by Tradition: and to omit what already heerin is granted by D. Fulke, Willet, and the Di­uines of Geneua; Bullinger auoucheth thatSerm. in Eng. Dec. 2. Serm. 4. p. 140. We do not in any part of the Apostles writings fynd any mention made that Sun­day was to be kept holy. And, we belieue saythCom­ment. Catech. in [...]olog. p. 36. Vrsinus, this A­postolicall [Page 175] Tradition, and see it to be profitable. According to Whitguift,Defence. p. 88. The Scripture hath not appointed what day in the weeke, should be most meet for the Saboth. And he vrgeth Cart­wright thus,Ib. p. 89. You should haue proued it to be appointed by the Scriptures, which no doubt you would haue done if you could, for that is it which I deny. And yet both he andIb. & p. 89. 10 [...]. Cartwright do cō ­fesse, that it was taught by the Apostles. And the same witnes­seth Fulke, saying, for Ag. Rhem. Test. in 1. Reuel. fol. 463. the Prescription of this day, the Apo­stles had eyther the expresse Commandement of Christ before his Ascen­sion, when he gaue them Precepts concerning the Kingdome of God. (Act. 1.2.) or else the certayne direction of his Spirit. So euident it is, and for such further confessed byDe Re­lig Christia­na. n. 12. pa. 7. & in Com­pend. doct. Christ. pag. 645. 646. Zanchius, that the obseruation of Sunday is an Apostolicall and vnwritten Tradition. And the same is maintayned at large bySuruey of Popery. l. 3. part. 4 c. 5. Bell. But D. MortonMorton Apol. par. 2. l. 1 c. 41. obiecteth, that S. Iohn maketh mention of theApoc. 1.10. Lords day; that in the Actes mention is made of the first of the Act. 20.7. Saboth, when S. Paul and others were assembled to breake bread. And that S. Paul likewise commandeth the Corinthians to make Collections for the poore, vpon1. Cor. 16.2. the first of the Saboth. But all these are imper­tinent, for S. Iohn calleth it the Lords day, not in regard that Saturday was then abrogated, or Sunday established (for neyther of these points doth he affirme) but only in res­pect it was the day of our Lords Resurrection. And as for the first of the Saboth, Caluin & the Centurists doIn Cate­na August. Marloreti. & Cent. 1. l. 2. Col 503. affir­me, that thereby is not meant Sunday, but Saturday; and in­deed the Greeke Text being the Originall, hath not, The first of the Saboth, but only [...]. Act. 20, 7.1. Cor. 16 2. one of the Saboth dayes, and so doEngl. Bi­ble of Anno 1566. Fulke ag. Rhem. Test. in Act. 20.7 & Cent. 1. l. 2. 495. 503. Protestants trāslate the same. But though the Text were that the Sacrament was vsually celebrated, and Collectiōs made for the Poore, vpon the first of the Saboth: yet this pro­ueth not eyther that Saturday (whereof no mention in these places is made) should be abrogated, or that Sunday should be to vs, not onely as a Holy day, but also as our Saboth, and day of rest. This answere is so cleere, as that it is like­wise made and allowed by sundry Protestāts, wherof sayth M. Bel,Suruey of Popery. No text of holy Scripture can be alleadged, which com­mandeth to keep our Christian Sabboth vpon the first day, or any o­ther [Page 176] determinate day. M. Caluin denieth flatly that, [...], doth signify the first day, or Sunday. And that the Reuela­tion proueth nothing, but that S. Iohn had his Reuelation vpon the day of our Lords Resurrection: but neither sayth, that Christians must ob­serue that day for their Sabboth, nor that the Apostles kept the same, which thing both Peter Martyr, and Erasmus do willingly graunt. So generally is it acknowledged by Protestants that the A­brogation of Saturday, and our Obseruation of Sunday, is no where prescribed or commanded in the written word, but only receiued by Tradition, and yet the same is a mat­ter of necessity: And so tryfling is M. Mortons Obiection.

D. Field acknowledgeth and summeth togeather ma­ny Traditions, saying,L 4. c. 20. We admit first the Bookes of Scri­pture Canonicall as deliuered by Tradition: Secondly the chiefe heads of Christian doctrine, contayned in the Creed: Thirdly the forme of Christian Doctrine, and distinct explication of many things, somewhat obscurely contayned in Scripture &c. Fourthly the continued practises of such things as are not expressed in Scripture: Fiftly such obserua­tions as are not particularly commanded in Scripture: Amongst which, and the former he numbreth the Fast of Lent, the Bap­tisme of Infants, and obseruation of our Lords day. And some few lynes after he confesseth that, Many other things there are, which the Apostles doubtles deliuered by Tradition.

We haue it heer then acknowledged most plentifully by the learnedst Protestants, that sundry Pointes of faith ne­cessary to saluation, are not made knowne to vs by the writ­ten word, or any Priuate spirit, but only by the Tradition of the Catholike Church.

SECT. V. Obiections against Traditions taken from Scriptures, an­swered.

IT is incredible, that men professing learning, should not be much ashamed to produce such poore and weake stuffe, against so cleere and confessed a Truth: for example, such [Page 177] Texts are obiectedRogers Def. of the Art. art. 6. p. 27. by M. Rogers, as seeme to forbid all Addition to the written word, as that of Moyses,Deut. 4.2. You shall not add to the word that I speake to you, neither shall you take away from it: As also that of S. Iohn,Apoc. 21.18. If any man shall add to these things, God shall add vpon him the Plagues &c. I answere to the first, It concerneth not the written word only, but the word deliuered by mouth; which (sayth he) I spake to you, & is therfore impertinent, for it proueth not that all the spoken doctrine was written. Secondly though it did concerne the written word only, yet the speach of adding or taking a­way, is (as Cartwright confesseth) to be referred only to the obseruing wholly of that which God commanded,In whit­gift. Defence p. 124. that is, to do no more nor lesse then he hath commanded: which sense is yet made more playne with conference of the premisses, with this other like saying in the same Booke,Deut. 12.32. What I command thee, that only do to our Lord, neither add any thing nor di­minish. Thirdly howsoeuer it be vnderstod, it can yet no more seclude the Apostles adding of their vnwritten Tra­ditions to that which Moyses spake, then it doth seclude their adding therto of their written Ghospell, and the Pro­phecies which were written after Moyses. Add further that S. Iohn (asExam. p. 202. Chemnitius confesseth) writ his Ghospell after the Apocalyps, and so addeth thereunto.

But CaluinInstit. c. 14. replyeth, that the Doctrine of the Pro­phets and of the new Testament, were not additions to the Law, but Explications therof (as being taught or contained in the Law, though not in particular, yet in generall.) But I suppose Caluinists will not deny, but that they belieue more then is written in the Law, and no otherwise doth the Law contayne them then in generall, and (as it were) virtually: but so likewise are Traditions conteyned therin, and so no Additions.

M. Rogers alsoDef. of the Art. art. 6. p. 28. obiecteth these words of S. Iohn,Io. 20.30.31. Many other signes also did Iesus in the sight of his Disciples, which are not written in this Booke. And these are written that you may be­lieue, that Iesus is Christ the sonne of God, and that belieuing, you may haue lyfe in his name, therfore all things are written that are necessary to faith. Answere. This so plainly concerneth [Page 178] only Christs Miracles, and not the Doctrine which he taught, that D. Whitaker saith therof,De Scrip. q. 5. p. 619. It is euident that the Euangelist speaketh of the signes and Miracles of Christ, not of his doctrine. and so is altogeather impertinent. Secondly, though it should concerne doctrine, yet it concerned not the whole Scripture, but the only doctrine (as the Text sayth) written in this Booke, and is therfore also impertinent, vnlesse we will thence also inferre, that S. Iohns Ghospell only is sufficient to instruct vs to Saluation. Which sequele D. Reinolds well perceiuing, affirmeth therupon that,Conclu­sions an­nexed to his Conference. p. 686. There is con­tayned in S. Iohns Ghospell, so much as is sufficient to fayth and sal­uation; and that S. Iohns Ghospell alone is sufficient: wherof it fur­ther followeth, that aswell the rest of the Scriptures, as also the institution of the Sacrament in formes of Bread and wyne, and all needfull doctrine concerning the same, which S. Iohns Ghospell doth not expresse, are not in his opinion necessary to Saluation: all which is most absurd & impious to affirme.

It is further vrged, that the Scriptures do condemne Traditions, as, You Mat. 15.6. haue made frustrate the Commandement of God for your owne Tradition. And, Beware Col. 2.8. least any man deceiue you, by Philosophy & vayne fallacy, according to the Tradition of men. Answ. Such Traditions are not reprehended, as the Iewes receaued from Moyses, and the Prophets; but only such as they had receiued of later tymes, wherof some were Idle, others cōtrary to the Scriptures themselues, as Why Mat. 15.3. do you transgresse the Commandement of God, for your Tradition? And as here are condemned certaine Traditions, so before we haue heard others to be commended: which plainly ar­gueth, that as some were forged, and contrary to Scripture, and so to be eschewed; so others were Apostolicall and to be obserued.

ManyRogers Def. of the Art. art. 21. p. 118. much insist vpon those words of S. Paul,Gal. 1.9. If any preach to you besydes that which you haue receyued, be he accursed. Answ. Here by the word, besydes, is meant, against, or contrary, for so do both S. AmbroseAmbr. in hunc lo­cum. Aug. l. 17. cont. Faust. c. 3. and S. Austine expound this place: Yea S. Austine sayth of this very text,In Ioan. [...]ract. 98. He doth not say more then you haue receyued, but besides that [Page 179] which you haue receyued: for if he should haue said so, he should haue wronged himselfe &c. And though D. Whitaker will not ac­knowledge so much of this place, yetDe Scrip. p. 718. I confesse (sayth he) that [...] is sometymes fitly translated, Contra, against. And so doth the same word signify in the same Apostle,Rom. 16.17. in which place Erasmus, and Fulke in their Translation ther­of, do translate it, Contra, against. Yea here the sense is so eui­dent, that Piscator doth affirme the Apostle to meane, Do­ctrinam In Gal. 2.9. Euangelio aduersam, doctrine contrary to the Ghospell; which exposition these other words of the Text, Another Ghospell, do fully confirme. Secondly howsoeuer we vnder­stand the same word, yet this place is meerly impertinent, as not concerning only the written word (which is the only thing wherof the question now is made) but such doctrine in general, as was preached. And that he did preach all need­full thingsAct. 2 [...].20.7. we stedfastly belieue, as a matter out of que­stion: but that he, and other Scribes of holy Writ, did write all needfull things, is the very point in question, and that which we deny. Thirdly this maketh no more against Tra­ditions, then it doth against sundry parts of the new Testa­ment, which were written after this Epistle, which would make the Apostle himselfe & others, in danger of his owne Curse. LastlyRogers Def. of the Art. art. 6. p. 28. Morton Apol par. 2. l. 1. c 44. it is made their chiefe and common obie­ction, that1. Tim. 3 16. All Scripture &c. is profitable to teach, to argue, to correct, to instruct in iustice, that the man of God may be perfect, in­structed to euery good worke. And, From 2. Tim. 3.15. thyne infancy thou hast knowne the holy Scriptures, which can instruct thee to Saluation. But the answere is easy and manifold, first, that wheras it is said, All Scripture &c. is profitable, the same prayse of being pro­fitable, is attributed to euery part of the Scripture, as to the whole body therof, for by the Iudgment of all that vnder­stand Latine, whatsoeuer is said of all Scripture, is vnder­stood of euery Booke therof; and so indeed euery part of Scripture, and euery good Sermon, or spirituall Booke is profitable, but not sufficient to saluation. Secondly these places do not concerne the Scriptures of the New Testa­ment, which were not then all written, but only the other of the Old Testament, which, sayth the Text, Timothy had [Page 180] knowne from his infancy, for these and not the other were they, which Timothy had to study from his Childhood. A truth so cleere, that M. Henoch Clapham confesseth with vs, say­ing,In the song of son­ges, lecture 15. Nor was it other Scripture then the old Testament, which is commended to Timothy for able to make the man of God perfect vnto all good workes. And the same vnderstanding heere only of the old Testament, is made by Aretius,Loc. com. de Tra­dit. loc. 82. p. 264. Swingl. Tom. 2. l. Ec­clesiast. fol. 43. Hook. Eccl. Pol. l. 1. sec. 14. p. 88. Ochinus l. 2. Dial. p. 198. Treatise against the Def. of the Censure. pa. 325. Chem­nit. Exam. part. 1 f. 38. Swinglius, M. Hooker and others: In so much as one of them percey­uing therby, that this foresaid place is impertinent, vnlesse we will withall thence affirme, that the Old Testament only is sufficient, doubted not therfore to acknowledge that sense, and so accordingly to vrge the same, maintayning thereupon contrary to M. Hookers CollectionVbi su­pra. vpon this place.In the Treatise a­gainst the Def. of the Cens. p. 325. that the Old Testament is sufficient to Christian men, for their Saluation, without any other writ: to such Iewish absurdities do these impertinent Obiections dryue our Pro­testants.

Whether Christ our Sauiour ordayned S. Peter Supreme Head or Pastour, not only of the Apostles, but of the Vniuersall Church. SECT. I.

SECT. II. It is proued by Scriptures, that S. Peter was appointed by Christ the Supreme Head, not only of the Apostles, but of the vniuersall Church.

THe oftenMat. 20.26. Mar. 9.34. Luc. 9.46. Contention had amongst the Apostles, who should be greatest, argueth that they had some notice, that some one of them was to haue Primacy. And though our Sauiour in sundry places doth forbid ambition in them, and amongst others, where he sayth,Luc. 22.26. Let the greatest amongst you, be as the least, and the chiefest, as he that ser­ueth; yet euen here he secludeth not Primacy, but affirmeth rather that one is greatest and Chiefest, whom he instructeth to be humble. And this he illustrateth by the different Go­uerment of the kings of the Gentils, who raigne ouer their Subiects, and of himselfe who wasLuc. 22.27. amongst them, as one that serued, and yet was their Superiour.

Now, that this greatest and chiefest was S. Peter, it is playne by Christs directing his speach to him presently af­ter, saying,Ib. ver. 13. Simon, Simon, behould Sathan hath desired you, to winnow you as wheat, but I haue prayed for thee, that thy fayth fayle not, and thou sometymes conuerted, confirme thy Brethren. Here though the danger was common to all, yet Christ prayeth only and particularly for Peter, that his fayth should not fayle, preferring him likewise to be the confirmer of the rest.

CaluinCalu. Inst. l. 4. c. 20. §. 7. replyeth that, Christ sayth,Mat. 20.25. Luc. 22.25. Mar. 10.42. but you not so, that is, you must not beare rule ouer the Church, which thing the Kings of the Gentiles do. But much more right­ly may I conclude, if not so, that is, after the manner of the Gentiles, then some of them were to Rule, but after ano­ther manner, to wit, that he that was greatest, should be as the least, and he that is the leader, as the wayter, to wit, by mild­nesse, humility &c. he doth not say, none shalbe greater, none shall beare rule, none shalbe leader, but only that he that is such, let him be as lesser; yea he declareth this by e­xample [Page 185] of himselfe, saying,Mat. 20.28. Euen as the Sonne of Man is not come to be ministred vnto, but to minister. Luc. 22.27. And, I am in the middest of you, as he that ministreth. And yet he sayth of him­selfe,Io. 23.13. You call me Maister and Lord, & you say well, for I am so. By which it appeareth, that nothing is heere said against Primacy in the Church, but only the best manner of vsing the same, is prescribed.

This forme of Gouerment S. Peter himselfe after pres­cribeth to Bishops,1. Pet. 5. Feed the flock, which is in you, prouiding for it, not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucres sake, but voluntarily: not as though you were Lords in the Clergy, but that yee may be ensamples to the flocke. So cleere it is, that one amongst the Apostles was to be Chiefest and greatest, and this, S. Peter, and other Bishops succeeding him.

And I verily persuade my selfe, that it is not vnwor­thy of obseruation, that though we search into all Scriptu­res, Councels, Fathers, and histories, we shall not find that any other of the Apostles but S. Peter, was thought or pre­tended by any to be the chiefest ouer the rest, and ouer the whole Church.

Another strong proofe of S. Peters Primacy, is taken from this promise of Christ made vnto him,Mat. 16.18.19. And I say also vnto thee, thou art Peter, and vpon this Rocke I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not preuayle agaynst it: And, I will giue vnto thee the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen, and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind vpon Earth, shalbe bound in heauen, and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on Earth, shal be loosed in heauen. Out of this place foure principall points may be proued; first, that Peter was that Rock or foundation vpon which Christ promised to build his Church. Secondly, that to be the foundation of the Church, is to be the Gouernour of the Church. Thirdly, that the sayd Peter it was, to whome Christ promised to giue the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen. And lastly that by those keyes is vnderstood the full power of gouerning the Church.

The first point is proued sundry wayes, as first by the pronowne (this) which demonstrateth some Rocke wherof Christ had spoken a little before: now, immediatly before [Page 186] Christ had called Peter a Rocke, for he spake in Siriacke, in which language Peter signifieth a Rocke, according to that in S. Iohn,C. 1.42. Thou art Simon the sonne of Iona; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter, or a Rocke, so that our Sauiour said, thou art a Rocke, and vpon this Rocke &c. Now the reason why the Latin Translatour saith, tu es Petrus, and not, tu es Petra, is because translating it out of Greeke, in which both [...], and [...], signity a Rocke, it was more con­uenient to translate it by a word of the Masculine gender, as more agreable to a man.

Secondly, as of the exchange of Abrams name to Abra­ham, God expressed the cause to beGen. 17.5 for that a Father of many nations he had made him: so our Sauiour hauing changedIo. 1.42. Simons name to Peter, which signifyeth a Rock, giueth this reason therof, becauseMat. 16.18. vpon this Rock I will build my Church: and so to that end Simons name was changed to Peter, ther­by to signify that Peter was the Rocke vpon which Christ promised to build his Church.

ButRey­nolds in his Conf. c. 2. diuis. 1. Bils. part. 1 pa. 63. D. Reinolds replyeth, that by Rocke is meant Christ himselfe, according to that of S. Paul,1. Cor. 3.11. For other foundation can no man lay, then that which is layd, which is Iesus Christ. But this is insufficient, for though Christ be the first and principall foundation, yet in a secondary manner, both the Prophets & Apostles are called foundations by S. PaulEph. 2.20. Apoc. 21.14. and S. Iohn. And the same is also cleered and answered by S. Basil, who excellently teacheth, that,Concione de Poeniten­tia. God imparteth his dignities, not depriuing himselfe of them, but en­ioying he bestoweth them; he is the light, and yet he sayth, you are the light of the world; he is a Priest, and he annoynteth Priests: he is the Lambe, and he sayth, Behould I send you like lambes amongst the middest of wolues: he is a Rocke, and he maketh a Rock. So plainly doth he teach that there is another Rocke besids Christ. And immediatly before refuting this obiection, he telleth who this other Rock is, saying; Though Peter be a Rock, yet he is not a Rock as Christ is: for Christ is the true Rock, vnmoueable of him­selfe, Peter vnmoueable by Christ the Rock. What more cleerly can be spoken to make Peter a Rock? And agreably D. Whit­guiftDe­fence. p. 300. teacheth that, names proper to God, are yet like in a se­condary [Page 187] sense, communicable to creatures. Agayn, the pronowne This, must relate to that which is nearer, which is Peter, not to the more remote, which is Christ: & what inconsequēce of speach would this be, Thou art Peter, or a Rock, & vpon my selfe will I build my Church? Lastly, the Church was already builded vpon Christ, and therefore if it had beene meant of himselfe, he would not haue sayd, I will build, which betokeneth a thing to come, but, I do build, himselfe being already a Rock.

Luther and othersDe pote­state Papae. & Cent. 1. l. 1. c. 4. Col. 175. yet reply, that by Rock is vnder­stood Peters fayth, or Peters confession, not Peter himselfe: But for the true vnderstanding heereof, we must note, that this fayth or Confession may be considered two wayes, first with reference to Peters person, as if our Sauiour had sayd, vpon thee Peter confessing, and belieuing me to be Christ the son of the liuing God, will I build my Church; so that neither Peters person alone, nor faith & Confessiō alone, but both ioyned togeather do make the forsaid Rock. And this is but agreable with that Catholike Doctrine, which teacheth that Peters fayth in two regards is called the Rocke of the Church: first because for the merit therof, Peter obtained that he was to be the Rock of the Church. Secōdly, in that Peter is therefore chiefly the Rocke of the Church, that seeing his faith could not fayle, he was to strengthen and confirme all others in fayth, for so our Sauiour sayd to him,Luc. 22.32. I haue prayed for thee, that thy fayth fayle not, and thou sometymes conuer­ted, confirme thy Brethren: Therefore, seeing that Peter by reason of this indefectible fayth, is a most strong Rock, sus­tayning the whole Church, it is all one then to say, vpon Peter, and vpon his fayth, the Church to be builded, and in those respects, may we truly say, the Church to be builded vpon Peters Faith, or Confession.

Now, the second way wherby Faith and Confession may be vnderstood, is barely of themselues without all refe­rence to Peters person, and in this sense Protestants vrge it: but it is false, for then our Sauiour would not haue said, v­pon this Rocke I will build, but, I do, and haue built my Church, for as then already many had belieued him to haue bene the [Page 188] sonne of the liuing God, as the Old Prophets, the B. Virgin Mary, Simeon, Zacharias, his Apostles and Disciples. Se­condly, Faith so taken is rightly said (according toSerm. 22. de verb. A­post. S. Austine) to be the foundation of our Iustification, and all vertues, not of the Church; for the foundation and the rest of the building must be both of the same kind. Now the Church is a Congregatiō of men, as it were1. Pet. 2.5. of liuely stones, therfore the stone which must be the foundation, must be some man, not any vertue. Thirdly, all words of the Text do plainly argue, that some Priuiledge or peculiar authority was giuen to Peter for that his Confession; all which were taken away, if that only fayth of Christ (which was common as then to others with him) were only the Rocke of the Church.

S. Peter then being the Rocke whereupon Christ pro­mised to build his Church, the next thing to be declared is, that to be the Rocke or foundation of the Church, is to be the chiefe Pastor or Gouernour therof; that the foundation in a building, is as the head in a Body, a gouernour in a Citty, and a king in his kingdome. For the prouing herof we must note, that in holy Scriptures the Church or com­pany of faithfull, is calledHeb. 3.6. the house of Christ, and 1. Cor. 3.9. Gods building; now as the rest of the building in a materiall house, dependeth of the foundation, as vpon that which wholy vphouldeth it; so in that spirituall building of the Church (which Christ promised to found vpon a Rock, & which Rock we haue proued to be Peter) the same depen­deth vpon that Rock wherupon it is founded. Now what other dependance can be imagined, betweene the rest of the Church, & Peter their foundation, then that vpon him, as a firme Rock, they should wholy rely in all matters of fayth and Religion, to be instructed, gouerned, and confirmed, & so euer vpholden and sustained in true fayth, against all the stormes of false Doctrines, and the Professours therof.

But some reply, that as Peter here, is called the founda­tion of the Church, so are likewise the Prophets & Apostles in otherEph. 2.20. Apoc. 21.14. places. Answ. They are called so indeed in three respects; first, in that they were the first, as well as Pe­ter, that planted Churches, and conuerted Countryes to [Page 189] Christ, in which sense they are so called in theApoc. 21.14. Apoca­lyps. Secondly, in that the faith of the Church dependeth vpon the Reuelarion which the Prophets and Apostles re­ceiued from God, and which they by their preaching and writing,, haue left to Posterity, and so they are called foun­dations by S. Paul; and in these two respects all the Apo­stles were equall. Thirdly in regard of Gouerment, for they were all Rectors and Pastors of the whole Church, but not in the same manner that S. Peter, he being as an Ordinary Pastor, from whom (as shalbe hereafterSee hereafter. proued) the or­derly succession of true Pastors, was to continue vntill the end of the world, they only but as Apostles, or Legates for the tyme. And in this respect (which pertayneth only to the present Controuersy) as also in that Peter was the head or chiefe amongst the Apostles themselues, the Church is said to be built vpon Peter, & not vpon the rest of the Apostles.

The third Principall point therfore remayning to be proued, is, That those words, To thee I will giue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, are meant of Peter. And in truth so many words of the Text it selfe do so plainly show it, as a man would more admire, that any should deny it, then much trouble himselfe in seeking to proue it: for who rea­ding, Blessed art thou Simon, the sonne of Ionas &c. And, I say al­so vnto thee, thou art Peter &c. And, I will giue vnto thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, would not say, that to Simon, who was afterwards called Peter, the said keyes were giuen?

But some conceite, that whatsoeuer is here said to Peter belongeth to the whole Church, which he only at that tyme did represent. But for answere hereto, we must ob­serue, that two wayes Peter may be said to beare the person of the Church; first historically, which is, when one hauing done a thing himselfe, doth also therin represent a thing to be done by another, as Abraham hauing indeed two sonnes, did therin also represent, that God was to haue two people, as S. PaulGal. 4.24. expoundeth. Secondly parabolically, when nothing truly done is proposed, but something alike is fey­gned, to signify another thing, as in the Ghospell, he that sowed good seed, signified Christ preaching. And in the first [Page 190] sense, it is true, that Peter as then represented the Church, in that to him were giuen the keyes, which after were to be Communicated to the Church: but this maketh not against, but with vs; vnlesse we will say, that Abraham had not two sonnes, because therein he represented God to haue two people. And that it is not to be vnderstood in the second sense, is plaine, aswell that euery circumstance doth (as it were) marke out the very particular person of Peter, as also in that to the same, it is said, To thee I will giue the keyes &c. to whom it is said immediatly after (verse 29.) Go after me Sa­than, for the name Peter is alike in both places; and that by Sathan, is meant Peters person is playne, and for suchHilar. de Trinit. l. 6. & 10. & in Ps. 131. Aug. l. 2. cont. duas ep. Gaud. c. 23. acknowledged by the ancient Fathers, and all Protestants (in their knowne loue to Peter) do easily belieue it.

Others obiect that Peter spake in the name of all the Disciples, when he said, Thou art Christ &c. And therfore he likewise heard in the name of all, To thee I will giue the keyes. Answer. Peter spake in the name of the rest, not as a Cryer, foreknowing what would be the answere of the rest, for neither had they giuen him that in charge, no norHilar. in hunc locum. & l. 6. de Trinit. Chry­sost. hom. 55. in Math. Cy­ril. l. 12. in Ioan. c. 64. Aug. Ser. 114. de Temp. Leo Ser. 11. de pass. Domini. & ser. 2. de SS. Petro & Paulo. con­sulted with him therof, as many ancient Fathers do obserue; he alone knowing it by reuelation from God, according to that which Christ presently therfore said, Flesh and bloud hath not reueyled it vnto thee, but my Father which is in heauen: he is therfore said to speake in the name of the rest, because to that, which he as chiefe and head had vttered, they by their silence, gaue their assent, which thing maketh wholly for Peters Primacy.