Synopsis papismi, that is, A generall viewe of papistry wherein the whole mysterie of iniquitie, and summe of antichristian doctrine is set downe, which is maintained this day by the Synagogue of Rome, against the Church of Christ, together with an antithesis of the true Christian faith, and an antidotum or counterpoyson out of the Scriptures, against the whore of Babylons filthy cuppe of abominations: deuided into three bookes or centuries, that is, so many hundreds of popish heresies and errors. Collected by Andrew Willet Bachelor of Diuinity.

THE FIRST GENERALL CONTROVER∣sie of the holie Scriptures.

ACcording to the methode, which we wil (God assisting vs by his spirite) obserue throughout this whole Trea∣tise of the controuersies, in the first place we are to en∣treat of such matters, as cōcerne the Propheticall office of Christ. He is our Prophet, our heauenly teacher, and Doctor. Math. 23. vers. 8. from him proceedeth all holy knowledge: we haue not seen God, nor the high things of God: but the onely begotten sonne, which is in the bosome of the father, he hath declared him. Iohn. 1.18. Wherefore all the true sheepe of Christ, will heare his voyce. Iohn. 10.3. His voyce is not els where heard but onely in the Scriptures: We must heare Moses and the Prophetes. Luke. 16.29. First of all therefore this great and most famous controuersie be∣tweene vs and our aduersaries concerning the Scriptures must be handled: which is distributed into seuen seuerall questions.

1 Concerning the Canonicall Scripture, what bookes are to be receiued into the sacred Canon, what books to be reiected and counted apocryphall.

2 Concerning the authenticall Edition of the holy Scriptures, whether the Hebrue Greeke or Latine translation is cheifly to be folowed.

3 Whether the Scriptures ought to be translated into the vulgar and English toung: and whether publique prayers and diuine seruice ought to be vsed in the same toung.

4 Whether the scriptures are authorized by the Church, and not rather so knowne to be of them selues.

5 Concerning the perspicuitie and playnnes of the Scripture, whether

it be so hard, that the common people may not safely be admitted to the rea∣ding thereof.

6 Concerning the interpretation of Scripture: which question is deuided into three parts: first whether the Scripture admit diuerse senses and expositi∣ons: secondly who hath the cheife authoritie to expound Scripture: thirdly what meanes ought to be vsed in expounding of it

7 Concerning the perfection of the Scripture, three parts of the questiō. First, whether the Scriptures be necessarie: secondly whether they be suffi∣cient to saluation: thirdly whether there be any traditions beside necessarie to saluation.

THE FIRST QVESTION CONCERNING the Canonicall Scripture.

Of the state of the first Question.

WE haue not any thing in this place to deale with those heretikes, which denie either the whole Scripture, or any part thereof: but one∣ly with our aduersaries the Papistes, that holding all those bookes to be Scrip∣ture, which we do acknowledge, doe adde vnto them other bookes which are not canonicall: so that they offend not as other heretikes, in denying any part of the Scripture, but, which is as bad in adding vnto it, for both these are accursed. Reuel. 22.18.

First of all breifly before we proceed, let vs see who they were that offend in the first kind. Some heretikes generally reiected the whole Scripture, some certaine partes thereof. The Sadducees receiued no Scripture, beside the fiue bookes of Moses, the Maniches condemned the whole old testament, and so did wicked Marcion.

The bookes of Moses the Ptolemaites refused, the booke of the Psalmes the Nicolaitanes, and the Anabaptistes in our dayes: there wanted not which condemned the booke of the Preacher and the Canticles as wanton and lasciuious bookes: and the Anabaptists are not here behind with their partes. The holy and excellent booke of Iob hath also found enimies, and some of the Rabbins which do thinke that the storie is but fained: which heresie is confuted Ezech 14.14. for there Noah, Iob, Daniel are named together: so that it is manifest, that such a man there was.

The new testament the Maniches most impiously affirmed to be full of lies. Cerdon the heretike condemned all but Lukes Gospel. The Valentinians could away with none but Iohns Gospell. The Alogians of all other hated Iohns writings. The Ebionites onely admitted Matthewes Gospell. The Acts of the Apostles the Seuerian heretikes contemned. The Marcionites the Epistles to Timothie, to Titus, to the Hebrues. The Ebionites could not away with any of S. Paules workes. ex Whitakero, cont. 1. de Script. cap. 3. Vnto these adde the Zwencfeldians and Libertines that refuse to be iudged by the Scripture, calling it a dead letter, and flie vnto the inward and secret reuelations of the spirite.

And by your leaue the Papists are not far from this heresie some of them: al∣though the Iesuite crie neuer so much with open mouth, that wee belye them, De verbo Dei lib. 1. cap. 1. Take but a litle paines to peruse that worthy learned mans and reuerent fathers defence of the Apologie p. 521. there you shall find how that Lodouicus a Canon Lateran in Rome, said in the Councell of Trent, that the Scripture is but mortuum atramentū, dead inke. The Bishop of Poitiers sayd, that it was, but res mammis & muta, a dead and dumbe thing. Albertus Pigghius, that the Scriptures were but muti Iudices, dumbe Iudges. Eckius calleth it Euangelium nigrum, & theologiam atramentariam, the blacke Gospell and inkie diuinitie: and it is nasus cereus, a nose of wax saith he. And now in cometh Hosius with his part: that it is but lost labor which is bestow∣ed in the Scripture: for the Scripture is a creature, and a certaine bare letter. But the Iesuit saith, that we abuse the name of that man, for those are not his owne words, but he reporteth them of Zuinckfeldius: Be it so for this time, though M. Iewell bestowe some paines to proue them to be according to his owne meaning. Though these be not Hosius owne wordes, yet these are not much better, yea far worse, who speaking of Dauids writing of the Psalmes, sayth thus, Quid ni scriberet, scribimus indocti docti{que} poemata passim, why might not he write (sayth he) being a temporall Prince, as Horace saith, we write bal∣lades euery body both learned and vnlearned. p. 522.

I pray you now how much do these Papists differ from the Libertines and Zuinkfeldians, vnlesse it be in this, that the Libertins cleaue to secret reuela∣tions, the Papistes are pinned vpon the Popes sleeue, affirming that it is no Scripture nor Gospel without the determination of the Church. Nay one of them saith, determinatio Ecclesiae appellatur Euāgelium, the determination of the Church is called the Gospell. Iohannes Maria! will you yet heare of greater impietie? Anno Domini .1240. or thereabout there was a booke set forth by the Friers, called Euangelium aeternum, full of their owne fables, and abominable errors: they taught that Christes Gospell was not to be compared vnto it, and that the Gospel of Christ should be preached but fifty years. This booke with much a do was condemned by the Pope, (but after long disputation) and it was burnt secretely, lest the fryers should haue bene discredited: and withall the booke of Guilielmus de S. amore, which he had written against the Friers, and disputed against their Gospell, was commanded to be burned with the other. Besides these heresies, their opinion also is to be reiected, that thynke that the holy writers might in some things be deceiued, as mistaking one thing for another, or fayling in their memorie. To this opinion Erasmus en∣clined, whom Bellarmine taketh paine to confute, lib. 1. cap. 6. He might as well haue turned his argument vpon Melchior Canus their owne champion, who thinketh that Stephen Act. 7. in telling so long a storie might forget him selfe in some things Cau. lib. 2. cap. 18. ex Whitakero, but now to the question.

The Papists Assertion.

THere are certaine bookes annexed to the old Testament, which the Pa∣pists [error 1] them selues do not acknowledge for canonicall, as the Prayer of Manasses, the two bookes of Esdras, commonly called the third and fourth of Esdras: also other which are not vsually in our English Bibles, as an appen∣dix to the booke of Iob, the 151. Psalme, a booke called the Pastor. All these by our aduersaries are reiected. The question betweene vs is concerning these books: first certaine peeces ioyned to canonicall bookes; as seuen Chapters of Esther, certaine stories annexed to Daniel, as of Bel & the Dragon, of Susanna, the Song of the three children: also the Epistle of Baruch ioyned to Ieremy. Thē folow certaine whole books, as Tobie, Iudith, the Wisedome of Salomon, Ecclesiasticus, two bookes of the Machabees: these six bookes with the other three appendices or peeces of books the Papists hold to be canonicall, and of as firme authority as any part of the Scripture. Arguments they haue none, beside cartaine testimonies of some fathers and Councels, which we purpose not to deale withall, leauing them to our learned country men who haue ta∣ken in hand to discusse these controuersies to the full.

The Protestants confession.

WE are agreed concerning the new testamēt, that all the books therof as they stand are to be receiued of all for Scripture: for as for those forged Gospels of Thomas, S. Andrew, of Nicodemus and the like, though the Church were troubled with them in times past, yet their memory being now worne out, there is no question of thē. Concerning the bookes on both sides acknowledged, if some one man seeme to doubt of some one part, as Luther doth of the Epistle of Iames and Iude, it ought no more to preiudice vs, then Catetanus opinion doth hurt them who called more bookes in question then Luther did, as the Epistle of Iames, of Iude, the second of Peter, the second and third of Iohn, the last Chapter of Marke.

We differ not then in the new Testament, vnlesse it be concerning the au∣thor of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which ouer aduersaries stoutly affirme to be S. Pauls, which we deny not, neither certainly can affirme it, seeing in some Greeke copies it is left out, and in the Syriacke translation. But it mattereth not who was the author, seeing we receiue it as canonicall: for the title is no part of the booke, and so neither of Scripture: and we receiue many bookes in the old Testament, the authors whereof are not perfectly knowne.

So then all the question is about the Apocrypha of the old Testamēt: they are called Apocrypha, because they are hid and obscure, not because their authours are vnknowne: for as I sayd, we knowe not by whom certaine Canonical bookes were written: neither are they so called because of some vntruthes conteined in them contrary to Scripture, as the most of them haue▪ for it foloweth not, that euerie booke which hath no vntruth or lye, should straight wayes be taken for Scripture, but they are therfore iudged and called Apocrypha, because they were not in former time receiued into publike and

authentick authoritie in the Church, neither to be alledged as grounds of our faith though they may be read for example of life, and may haue other profi∣table vse. But the Canonicall Scripture onely hath this priuiledge to geue rules of faith, and thereupon it hath the name, that we may be bold to beleeue and ground our faith vpon the canonicall & holy Scripture, which is the onely word of God. Wherefore out of this number of Canonicall Scripture we ex∣clude all the books afore named, & therfore let not the reader be deceiued, that although they be ioyned in one volume with the Scripture; to think that they are for that of the same authoritie and credit with the rest: first we will shew one reason in general, and afterward come vnto the particular books in order.

1 All canonical scripture in the old Testament was written by Prophets: we haue a sure word of the prophetes, saith S. Peter 2.1.19. and S. Paule, Rom. 16.26. calleth them the Scriptures of the Prophets. But none of those bookes aforenamed, of Tobias, Iudith and the rest, were written by the Prophets: for they were all written since Malachies time, who was the last Prophete, as the Church complaineth, Psal. 74.9. There is not one Prophete; nor any that can tell vs how long. Ergo none of these bookes are canonicall.

2 All the canonicall bookes of the old Testament, were acknowledged of the Iewes and Hebrues, for they were then onely the Church of God, and where should Scripture be found but in the Church? to them, sayth S. Paule, were committed the oracles of God, Rom. ▪3.2. But the Iewes receiued none of these books: for none of them are written in the Hebrue toung, neither did they receiue them with the like authoritie as other bookes of Scripture; and this some of the Papists can not denie. Ergo thy are not Canonicall.

3 There is no Scripture of the old Testament, but it hath approbation of the new: for as the Prophetes beare witnesse to Christ, so he againe doth witnesse for the Prophets, and therefore it is a true proposition of Caietane, though he be controlled and checked of Catharinus an other Papist for it, that there is no Scripture, which was not either written or approued by the Apostles: but in the whole new Testament you shall not find one testimony cited either in the Gospel or the Epistles out of any of the Apocrypha, as out of other bookes of Scripture: therefore hauing no approbation of the new Testament, we conclude they are none of the old.

4 It shall appeare in the seuerall discourse of the particular bookes, that there is somewhat euen in the bookes themselues to be found, that barreth them from being Canonicall.

OF THE BOOKE OF BARVCH.

The Papistes.

THis is their best reason for the authoritie of this booke, because Baruch was Ieremies scribe: and therfore Baruch can not be refused, vnlesse also we

doubt of Ieremie. Bellarm. lib. 1. de verbo. Dei. cap. 8.

The Protestantes.

THis booke was neither written by Ieremie nor Baruch: first because it is in Greeke: if either Ieremie or Baruch had written it, it is most like they would haue written in Hebrue. Secondly, the phrase and manner of speach sheweth that it was neuer written in Hebrue: for in the 6. Chapter in the Epi∣stle of Ieremie, it is said that the Israelites should be in captiuitie seuen genera∣tions, that is 70. yeares, but it can not be found in any Hebrue booke that ge∣neration is taken for the space of 70. yeares.

OF THE SEVEN APOCRYPHAL Chapters of Esther.

The Papistes.

ONe of their chief Arguments, besides testimonies and authorities, which would make to great a Volume, is this (which is common also to the rest of the Apocrypha) they are read in the Church, & haue bene of auncient time, Ergo they are Canonicall. I aunswere, that it is no good argument. Hierome saith plainly, Legit Ecclesia, sedeos inter Scripturas Canonicas non recipit, Praefat. in lib. Solomon. The Church indeede (saith he) readeth them, yet for all that they are not Canonicall. And Augustine was wōt to read vnto the people the Epist∣les of the Donatistes, and his aunsweres vnto them. Epist. 203.

The Protestantes.

THe most of our reasons against the authoritie of the 7. Chapters added to Esther (for of the 10 first Chapters, which are found in the Hebrue, we make no doubt at all) are drawen from the matter of the booke it selfe.

1 In the second of the Canonicall Esther. ver. 16. it is said that the conspi∣racie of the two Eunuches against the king, was in the 7. yeare of Assuerus: but in the 11. Chap. ver. 2. of the Apocryphall Esther, we read that Mardocheus did dreame of this conspiracie in the secōd yeare. Bellarmine aunswereth, that both are true, for the dreame was in the secōd yeare, & the conspiracie in the seuēth; so belike, there was fiue yeares betweene. But in the 11. Chapter, it is said that Mardocheus was much troubled about that dreame, and the next night after his dreame the conspiracie was enterprised.

2 The true history of Esther saith that Mardocheus had no reward at that time of the king. cap. 6.3. but the forged storie saith, that at the same time the king gaue him great gifts, which can not be meant, of that great honor which afterward was bestowed vpon Mardoche: for then Haman (being hanged the same day) could worke him no despite, wheras the forged story saith, that after the king had rewarded him, then Haman began to stomach him, because of those two Eunuches.

3 Againe the storie which is added, was written many yeares after Mar∣doches & Esthers death, vnder the raigne of Ptolomaeus & Cleopatra, as it appea∣reth. cap. 11.1. it is not like therefore to be a true storie: Bellarmins ridiculous cōiecture is this, that there were two stories writtē in Hebrue of Esther, the one cōpendious & short, which we now haue: the other more large, which might be translated by Lisimachus there spoken of cap. 11. whose translation we now onely haue, the originall being perished. What goodly gesses here be, to make Canonicall Scripture? what neede two bookes of one thing? If the first were written by the spirite of God and so were Canonicall, what neede a secōd? the spirite of God vseth not to correct his own writings: and this can not be that ample and large storie imagined, being shorter, and not so full as the first.

4 Besides the false storie saith, that Haman was a Macedonian. Cap. 16. v. 10. the true storie saith, he was an Agagite or Amalekite. cap. 8.3. how can these two agree? Nay the forged booke saith, that Haman would haue destroyed the king, & so cōueyed the kimgdome of the Persians to the Macedonians: which could in no wise be: for the kingdome of the Macedonians was not yet spo∣ken of: and so it continued in small or no reputation till Phillippus the father of Alexander, who was many yeares after. Vide plura▪ Whitach. quaest. 1. cap. 8. De Scripturis.

5 In the latter Chapters that is repeated, which was set downe in the for∣mer part, which argueth, that the story was not writtē by one mā: and it is not like he would write one part in Hebrue, another in Greeke. If any say (as the Iesuite saith) that this part was in Hebrue, and being translated into Greeke, was lost: why was one part rather lost then the other? and was it not as like to be preserued in Hebrue as in Greeke? These are verie bare and suspicious coniectures.

OF CERTAINE CHAPTERS annexed to Daniell.

THere are three parcels ioyned to Daniell, the song of the 3. childrē, the sto∣rie of Susanna, of Bel and the Dragon, in the vulgare Latin, which are not any part of Canonicall Scripture.

1 They are neither extant in Hebrue at this day, nor are like to haue bene translated out of Hebrue into Greeke: but compiled first in Greeke, and ther∣fore not written by Daniell: for v. 54.58. of the storie of Susanna, where one of the Elders saith, he saw her vnder a Lentiske tree, the other vnder a prime tree: he vseth a certaine paronomasie or allusion vnto the Greeke wordes, which cā not stand in the Hebrue, as of the tree 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he saith the Angell of the Lord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shall cut you in two: and so of the tree 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shall deuide thee in two. As if a mā should thus allude in English: thou wast vnder the prune tree: the Lord shall prime thee. This allusion is not in the Hebrue, as the learned haue verie well obserued, but onely in the Greeke.

2 The time is vncertaine whē this storie should be done. It was in the cap∣tiuitie: for Susanna dwelt in Babilon, but Daniell could not then be so young a child as the storie maketh, for he was carried away in the first captiuitie with Iehoiakim as it is Dan. 1. And Ezechiell, that liued about that time doth speake of the great prudence & sage wisedome of Daniel, Ezech. 28.3. and ioyneth him with Noah & Iob. cap. 14. All this proueth that Daniell could not bee so very a babe in the beginning of the captiuitie, as the storie maketh him.

3 In the story of Daniell it is said that he was 6. dayes in the Lyōs den, but the true storie saith he was there but one night. cap. 6. The Iesuite aunswereth, he was twise in the Lyons den, or rather he thinketh there were two Daniels, the one of the tribe of Iuda, which was that great Prophet: the other of Leui, which was the principall in those two stories of Susanna, and of Bel and the Dragon. But this is a poore shift, to inuent another Daniell, whom the Scrip∣ture neuer knew: and if it were so, why are all their actes ioyned together, as if one Daniell had done and write them all.

OF THE BOOKE OF TOBIE.

1 THis booke is not found in the Hebrue, in the which toung all the oracles of God were kept. Ergo it is worthelie doubted of.

2 Our aduersaries them selues confesse, that in Hieromes time it was not receiued for Canonicall. The Iesuite aunswereth: that it might be doubted of before it was determined in a Generall Councell: to whom (saith he) it apper∣taineth to define of Canonicall Scripture: As though this were not a greater doubt, whether a Coūcell hath any such authoritie, to determine which books ought to be receiued for Canonicall, for Canus a Papist maketh question of it. Lib. 2. cap. 8. And the Iesuite him selfe saith that the Church can not, Facere Canonicum de non Canonico, make a booke not canonicall, to be canonicall, but onely to declare those to be Canonicall, which are so in deed. Wherefore the Papistes take to much vpō them, to make this boke within the Canon, being of it selfe not Canonicall, and so adiudged by antiquitie.

3 He that readeth the booke it selfe shall finde that both the stile, and the matter is not such as beseemeth Canonicall Scripture: read Tremell. in cap. 3. ver. 8. cap. 13. ver. 15.

OF THE BOOKE OF IVDITH.

AN escpeciall Argument against this booke is, that the historie can not be assigned to any time.

1 It is pretie sport to see how the Papistes doe moyle them selues about this point: and can not agree amongest them selues. Some hold that this sto∣rie fell out after the captiuitie in Cambises time, as Lyranus, and Driedo: some in Darius Histaspis raigne, as Gerardus, Mercator: some would haue it before the captiuitie in Sedechias time, as Genebrard: some in Iosias time, as Iohan. Be∣nedictus:

but the Iesuite confuteth them all, and bringeth the storie to Manas∣ses raigne: but he hath also mist the cushin.

2 It appeareth that this story could not be after the captiuitie for we read not of any Nabuchadneser afterwards, for the kingdome was translated frō the Assirians to the Persians and Meedes. Againe it could not be before either in Iosias time, Sedechias, or Manasses, first because in the 5. Chap. v. 18. it is said that the temple had bene destroyed and cast downe, which could not be in any of those kings raignes. It is but a shift of Bellarmines, to say those words were foy∣sted into the text: it is rather to be thought, that the Iesuite is put to his trūps, not hauing els, what to answer. Secōdly Iudith being at this time in the flower of her age, and liuing afterward many yeares till she was 105. yeare old, all which time, and many yeares after her death, the booke saith in the last Chap∣ter, the land had rest: this can not agree with Manasses time: for within 40. yeares or not much aboue, the land fell into great trouble, straight after Iosias death. Where then is this long time of rest? And the Iesuite that still groūdeth vpon impossibilities and vnlikele-hoods, that Iudith was at this time 40. yeare old, which was (saith he) in the beginning of Manasses raigne, and so to dye a∣bout 7. yeares before Iosias: yet for all his scanning is driuē to this shift, that the many yeares peace after her death, must be vnderstood of poore 7. yeares. Thirdly, if all this happened in Manasses time, whom the Chaldeans tooke and carried away prisoner, and had much troubled and afflicted the country of Iudaea: what neede had Holofernes to enquire so curiously of Achior the Ammonite, of the country their Citie, people, kings, and such like:* 1.1 seeing they had knowen the country, to well before in spoyling and wasting of it, as the Iewes by wofull experience had felt.

OF THE BOOKE OF WISEDOME.

The Papistes.

OVr aduersaries reason thus: they say that S. Paul. Rom. 11.34. vsing this speach: who hath knowen the Lordes minde or bene his counseller? doth alledge it out of the 4. Chapter of this booke. v. 13. Ergo it is Canonicall. We aunswere. First the Apostle seemeth not in that place to cite any testimonie, though the wordes which he vseth▪ may els where be found. Secondly though the like wordes are read in the booke of Wisedome, yet is it not necessarie the Apostle should borrow them frō thēce, but rather they are alledged out of the 40. of Esay. 13. Where the Prophet saith, who hath instructed the spirit of God or was his counseller? And this also is the opiniō of the Rhemistes, that S. Paul in that place vseth the Prophets wordes.

The Protestantes.

OVr reasons against the authoritie of this booke are these and such like.

1 Because this booke is not found in the Hebrue, but written onely

in Greeke: wherefore it is not Canonicall seeing the Iewes had all the oracles of God.

2 Philo a Iew is thought by the Papistes them selues to be the author of this booke, who liued after Christ in the time of Caligula, neither him selfe was a Christian or beleeued in Christ: therefore an vnlike man to be a writer of Canonicall Scripture. Bellarmine saith, it was another Philo, who was more auncient. Indeed Iosephus maketh mention of a Philo before this time, but he was an Heathen and no Iew.

3 If this booke were written by Solomon, why is it not extant in Hebrue? for Solomon wrote in Hebrue & not in Greeke. Many of the Papists also do proue, that it was not written by Solomon: for though Solomon in the 2. Chap∣ter be brought in praying vnto God: that is no good argument to proue Solo∣mon the author, for the author might speake in the person of Solomon.

OF THE BOOKE CALLED Ecclesiasticus.

The Papistes.

THey haue none but common and generall arguments for the authoritie of this booke, as that it was of old read in the church, & diuerse of the fa∣thers alledged testimonies out of it. All this proueth not, as we haue shewed before, that it was Canonicall, but that it was well esteemed and thought of, because of many wholesome and good precepts which are conteined in it.

The Protestantes.

WE do thus improue the authoritie of this booke.

1 The author in the Preface saith, that he trāslateth in this booke such things, as before were collected by his grandfather in Hebrue, and excu∣seth him selfe, because that things translated out of the Hebrue do loose the grace, and haue not the same force: so then it appeareth that this booke can not be Canonicall being imperfect: neither was his grandfathers worke (which is now lost) to be thought any part of the Scripture, seeing he was no Prophet him selfe, but a compiler and a collector of certaine things out of the Prophetes.

2 He exhorteth his countrymen to take it in good worth, and so craueth pardon: but the spirit of God vseth not to make any such excuse, whose works are most perfect, and feare not the iudgement of men.

3 This booke saith. cap. 46. v. 20. that Samuell prophesied after his death, & from the earth lift vp his voyce. Whereas the Canonicall Scripture saith not that it was Samuell, but that Saul so imagined, and thought it to be Samuell. 1. Sam. 28. And Augustine thinketh it was, phantasma Samuelis, but a shew one∣ly and representation of Samuell, and an illusion of the deuill. Lib. ad Dulcitiū, quaest. 6. For it is not to be thought, that the deuill cā disease the soules of any

men, much lesse of Saints departed.

OF THE TWO BOOKES OF the Machabees.

OVr Argumentes against the authoritie of this booke are these ensuing, for our aduersaries bring nothing on their part, but such Argumentes drawen from testimonies & authorities, as do generally serue for all the Apo∣crypha, which are aunswered afore.

1 Iudas is commended. 2. booke. chap. 12. for offring sacrifice for the dead: which was not commanded by the law, neither is it the custome of the Iewes so to do to this day: & againe they were manifest Idolaters: for there were foūd iewels vnder their coates consecrate to the Idols of the Iamnites. And our ad∣uersaries graunt them selues, that prayer is not to be made, for open malefa∣ctors dying impenitently.

2 Lib. 2. cap. 2. many things are reported of the arke, the holy fire, the altar the tabernacle, which should be hid by Ieremie in a caue, and that the Lord would shew the people these things at their returne. Here are many things vnlikely and vntrue. First, it is found, saith the text in the writings of Ieremie: but no such storie is there found. Secondly Ieremie was in prison till the very taking of the Citie: and the Citie being taken the temple was spoyled, the ho∣ly things defaced and carried away, how could they then be conueyed by Iere∣mie? Thirdly in their returne, they found neither arke nor fire, nor any such thing: but saith the Iesuite, the Iewes in their conuersion to God in the end of the world, may haue them againe: as though, whē they shal beleeue in Christ, they will any more looke backe to the ceremonies or rites of the law, for what vse then I pray you shall they haue of altar or sacrifice or any such like.

3 There is a great disagreeing in the storie betweene the two bookes cō∣cerning the death of Antiochus. Lib. 1. cap. 6. v. 6.16. It is said that Antiochus dyed for grief in Babylon, hearing of the good successe of the Iewes. Lib. 2.1. ver. 16. Antiochus was with the rest of his souldiers slayne in the temple of Nanea, and his head cut of & throwen forth. Chap. 9. the same Antiochus falling sicke by the way dyed with a most filthie and stincking smell, cōsumed of wormes: How could this man dye thrise, in Babylon, in Nanea, and by the way in a straunge coūtrey. It is confessed by the Iesuite, that it was the same Antiochus, who saith he lost his armie in the temple, and sickned by the way and dyed at Babylon. But the storie saith that their heads were cut of: I thinke thē he could not liue, and that he dyed in a straunge country, therefore not at Babylon in his bed. These things hang not together.

4 Further the author of these bookes saith, that he abridgeth the story of one Iason a Syrenean. Lib. 2. cap. 2. v. 23. Who was an Heathen: but the spirite of God vseth not, neither needeth to borow of prophane writers. He saith that this worke was not easie but paineful to him, but required sweating and wat∣ching.

v. 26. But to the holy writers of Scripture, though their own labour and diligence was not wanting, yet was not the worke hard or molestious vnto them. Lastly the author faith he writeth for pleasure & recreation of the Rea∣der, and craueth pardon, if he haue not done well. Lib. 2.15.39. But to read for pleasure is no end of Scripture, neither doth the spirit of God vse any excuse either for matter or manner.

Our aduersaries say that S. Paule likewise confesseth, that he was rude in speaking. 1. Cor. 11.6. We aunswere, he so saith, because the false Apostles so gaue out of him, not that he was so indeed: and yet in that place S. Paule doth not excuse him selfe, for his not sufficiēt hādling of his matter, as this author doth: neither is that speach of S. Luke any thing like: for there the Euangelist doubteth not to say, that he had attained to an exact knowledge of all things. Vpon these premises we conclude, that these bookes of the Machabees are not Canonicall, nor to be taken for any part of holy Scripture, though we denie not, but that there may be some profitable vse of them for the storie.

AVGVSTINES IVDGEMENT OF the bookes called Apocrypha.

FIrst, generally of them all thus he writeth. Quas ita{que} Scripturas dicimus nisi Canonicas legis & Prophetarum, de vnit. Eccle. 16. We acknowledge no Ca∣nonicall Scripture of the old Testament, but the law and the Prophetes, but none of the Apocrypha were writtē by any of the Prophets. Againe he saith: Omnes literae, quib. Christus Prophetatus est, apud Iudaeos sunt Psal. 56. All the bookes, which do Prophesie of Christ, were kept amōgest the Iewes: but none of the Apocrypha were written in Hebrue. Ergo. Concerning the story of Bel and the Dragon he calleth it a fable, de mirabilib. lib. 2. cap. 32. Of the same cre∣dite is the storie of Susanna.

The booke of Iudith was not (saith he) receiued in the Canon of the Iewes. De Ciuit. Dei. 18.26.

The two bookes of Ecclesiasticus and the wisedome of Solomon are onely said to be Solomons, propter eloquij nonnullam similitudinem, because of some affi∣nitie and likenesse of the stile. De Ciuit. Dei. 17.20. So he thinketh that Solomon was not indeed the author of them: how then can that booke be Canonicall, which geueth it selfe a false title: being called the wisedome of Solomō, and was neuer compiled by Solomon.

THE SECOND QVESTION CONCER∣ning the authenticall and most approued Edition of the Scriptures.

The Papistes.

WHereas it is confessed that the Hebrue Edition of the old Testamēt [error 2] is the most auncient: in the which toung the Scriptures were com∣piled

by the Prophets: & that the new Testamēt was writtē in Greeke by the Apostles and the Euangelistes, yet our aduersaries do generally hold, as it was decreed in the Tridētine Chapter. Sess. 4. Decret. 2. That in all sermōs, readings, disputations, controuersies, the vulgare Latine trāslation should be taken for authentike before the Hebrue or Greeke, and that no man should presume vpon any occasion to reiect it, or appeale from it.

The Protestantes.

WE do truly affirme, that although there are diuerse Editiōs of the old Testament besides the Hebrue, and some of them verie auncient, as the translation of the Septuagints, compiled by 72. aunciēts of the Iewes, at the instigation of Ptolomeus Philadelphus king of Egypt, 300. yeares before Christ: and after Christ there were other translations in Greeke made by Aquila, Sy∣nomachus, Theodotion, and others: also a Chalde Paraphrase compiled by the Iewes, & last of all diuerse Latin translations, the which, as Augustine saith, in his time were so many, that they could not be nūbred: yet of al the rest the He∣brue being the most auncient and the mother of the rest, and freest from cor∣ruptions, ought to be receiued as most authentike. And for the new Testa∣ment, though there be a Syriacke translation verie auncient, yet the Greeke ought to be preferred (being the same toung, wherein the Apostles and the E∣uangelistes wrote) to be the onely authentike copie. As for the Latin transla∣tion of the Bible, we are able to proue it to be verie corrupt and faultie and therefore not authentike.

The Papistes Argumentes.

1 THe Latin Church hath vsed the vulgare Latin translation for the space of 800. or 900. yeares, and it is not like that the Church all this while was without the true Edition of the Scriptures. Ergo it is onely authen∣ticall. We aunswere. First, by this Argument it foloweth that this vulgar La∣tin being generally vsed, was preferred before other Latin translations, which were at the first in great number, not that therefore it is more authentike then the Hebrue in the old, and the Geeeke in the new Testaments. Second∣ly, there were other Churches besides the Latin all this while, as amongest the Greekes famous congregations and Churches: that be it in the Latin Church, the vulgar translation was reteined being erroneous, yet the whole Church continued not in that errour, which were not so tyed and bound to the Latin translation. Thirdly, if men all this while (knowledge decreasing, and a way being in preparing for Antichrist) were negligent in correcting and amen∣di•••• the common translation, this is no good Argument to make it authen∣ticall.

•• As the Hebrues had an authentike translation in their own toung, and 〈…〉〈…〉 in theirs, why should not the Latin Church haue it also authen∣ticall

in Latin. We aunswere. First, it is no good reason, because the Lord did consecrate the Hebrue and Greeke toung, and therein would haue his word written, that therefore he would or should also haue made the Latin as well authenticall, as they. Secondly, if the Latin Church must haue an authentike translation, why should not other countrys likewise haue their authenticals? The Armenians had the Scriptures of old translated by Chrisostome, the Scla∣uonians by Hierome, the Gothes by Vlphilas, why should not these also as well be authenticall? and so looke into how many toungs the Scriptures should be translated so many authenticall translations should there be.

3 They say that all other translations, which are come forth since are er∣ronious, and much differ amōgest them selues. Aunswere. First, this is no rea∣son to prefere it before the Hebrue and Greeke, though it were better thē all other trāslations. Secondly, they charge vs falsly, that our trāslations are disso∣nant and erronious: for their disagreement is not in such substantiall points, & where any of them do swarue from the originall, we allow them not: and yet there is not the meanest of them, but may iustly compare with theirs, yea and be preferred before it. Thirdly, if their trāslation were so pure, as they say Beza him selfe maketh it, he would not haue set forth a new Edition: and he prefer∣reth it in some places before other translations, but is farre of from making it authenticall, and so are we: these are the Iesuites arguments. De verb. Dei lib. 2. cap. 10. and some of our Rhemists in their Preface to the new Testament. Some of our Argumentes are these, for it is not necessarie to repeat all, and it were to long.

1 If the Latin translation be authenticall, as it was decreed in the Councel of Trent, then it must haue bene so from the beginning, so soone as there was any Latin translation: for the Councell had not authoritie to make that au∣thenticall, which was not, but onely to declare it so to be. But the Latin trans∣lation, for the space of 600. yeares after Christ was not receiued as authenticall: for we finde that the Latin writers as Lactantius, Hilarius, Ambrosius, Hieroni∣mus, Augustinus, and others did not vse the same Latin translation: Ergo, this vulgare Latin hauing not bene alwayes, since it was extant authenticall, why should it now begin?

2 That Edition, which was made, and framed, and first writtē by the Pro∣phets, Apostles, Euangelistes, is to be preferred before that, which was not cō∣piled by any Prophet or Apostle. But such are the Hebrue in the old Testa∣ment, and the Greeke Edition in the new, by the confession of our aduersaries, Bellarmin. cap. 7. lib. 2. Such is not the Latin, for it is vncertaine, by whom it was written: for the Iesuite confesseth, that it is not all of Hieromes Edition: as the booke of the Psalmes, Wisedome, Ecclesiasticus, the Machabees, which they thinke were not translated by Hierome: But let vs graunt that the whole was of Hieromes doing, yet was he no Prophet nor Apostle, saith he, Aliud est va∣tem esse, aliud interpretem, it is one thing to be a Prophet, another to be an inter∣preter. Wherefore it is no reason, that Hieromes, or whose translation els soe∣uer

should be receiued before the writings of Prophets and Apostles.

But say our aduersaries, if we had a perfect copie of the Hebrue & Greeke editions, we cōfesse they were to be preferred: but now they are full of faults, and greatly corrupted. We aunswere. First, the Iesuite him selfe disputing a∣gainst Canus and Lindanus two Archpapistes, that though there may be some scapes in the translations by the fault of some Libraries and imperfect copies, yet concerning the doctrine of faith and manners, saith, there is no corruption in them. Lib. 2. cap. 2. Secondly, though there may be and are some wordes falsly written, and by errour thrust into the text, yet they shall neuer proue that they are more corrupt, the Hebrue and Greeke, then the Latin: for it foloweth no more, that because of some scapes the Latin is to be preferred before them, thē that a cloake altogether patched and ragged is better then a cloake of veluet that hath but one peece.

3 The Iesuite him selfe, and other Papistes confesse, that in some cases it is very necessary to haue recourse to the originall: as when some word seemeth to be mistaken by the writer, as where cecinit is read for cecidit: dorix, for vo∣rax, cor for coram, or when the Latin copies do varie, or if the sentence in La∣tin be ambiguous, and lastly, the force and propertie of the wordes is better vnderstood in the originall. Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 11. Ergo by the Iesuites confessiō, the originall or fountaines are more certaine and sure without doubtfulnesse and ambiguitie, therefore more authenticall then the Latin.

4 There are many & great errors in the vulgare translation, and contra∣rie to the originall, Ergo it is not authētike. Some of the places we will quote, as Genes. 3. ipsa conteret, for ipsum, she shall breake the Serpents head, where we do read, that not the woman, but her seede shall breake his head. Genes. 6. ver. 6. for figmentum cordis malum: the thoughtes of mans hart are euill, they read, in∣tenta ad malum cogitatio, enclined to euill: and so extenuate originall sinne. Ge∣nes. 14.18. for protulit panem & vinum, Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine: they read, obtulit he offred, or made an oblation of bread and wine, and would hereby establish the sacrifice of their Masse. Ecclesiasticus. 16.14. for se∣cundum opera, a man shall receiue according to his workes: they read after the merite of his workes. In their Latin translatiōs of the Psalmes there are many corruptions. Psal. 67. v. 12. si dormiatis inter medios cleros, though ye sleepe be∣tween two lots, without any sēse: the Hebrue thus inter ollas, though you haue lyen amongest the pots, as being blacke with affliction. v. 22. they read conuer∣tam in profundum maris: I will turne them into the bottom of the sea, for reducā profundo maris, I will bring them frō the depth of the sea, cleane cōtrary. Psal. 132.15. viduā eius benedicam, I will blesse his widow, for victū, I will blesse his vi∣ctuails. So in the new Testamēt, are many false readings. Luc. 1.28. plena gratia, for gratis dilecta, hayle Marie full of grace, for freelie beloued. Luc. 15.8. euertit domū, for euerrit: she ouerthrew the house, for she swept the house. 1. Cor. 15. v. 51. non omnes immutabimur, we shall not all be chaunged, for omnes immutabi∣mur, we shall all be chaunged. Ephe. 2.10. creati in bonis operib. created in good

workes, for ad opera bona, created vnto good workes. An hundred more er∣rours and ouer, you may finde noted in the readings of our learned country mā D. Whitakers. 2. quaest. de Scrip. 10.11.12. cap. these I haue set down for a tast.

Lastly we will rehearse Augustines iudgement: Vtcun{que} est, ei linguae magis credatur, vnde est in aliam per interpres facta translatio: Howsoeuer the case stan∣deth (saith he) we ought to geue more credit to that toung, out of the which o∣ther are translated. Lib. 15. de Ciuit. cap. 13. Ergo the Hebrue in the old Testa∣ment, and the Greeke in the new, out of the which the Latin and all other trās∣lations haue issued, ought to haue the onely preheminence.

THE THIRD QVESTION: CONCERNING the vulgare translation of Scripture.

The Papistes.

THey do not absolutely condemne the translation of the Scriptures into the vulgare toung, what soeuer they haue thought in times past: neither would they generally haue euery mā permitted to read the Scripture, but such onely as haue especiall licence from their ordinarie, hauing the testimonie of their Curates that they be humble and deuout persons, Rhenens. praefat. sect. 6. So then they hold it daungerous for all men to read Scripture, and they would not willingly licence any, but their Pope holie deuout Catholikes; they are like to make a mad peece of worke, that go about to picke their faith out of Scripture, say the Rhemists, annot. 1. Cor. 1.5. This then is their opinion, that it is neither necessarie nor conuenient for all men to haue accesse to the Scrip∣tures: we will see some of their reasons.

1 From the time of Esdras till Christ, and in our Sauiours time, the Scrip∣tures were not in the vulgare toung, but onely in the Hebrue, which the Iewes vnderstood not after the captiuitie: Ergo it is not now necessary to haue them in the vulgare toūg. That the people vnderstood not Hebrue, the Iesuite pro∣ueth out of the 8. of Nehemiah: where it is said, that Esdras did expoūd the law to the people, because they vnderstood it not. We answere, that the text saith cleane contrary, that he read the law before the people that vnderstood it. v. 3. and they might geue the sense, though the people vnderstood the language. Concerning the places obiected out of the Gospell, to proue the Iewes spake another language thē Hebrue, as it appeareth by those speaches Marc. 5. Ta∣litha cumi, Math. 27. Golgotha, which sauour not of the Hebrue toung, we an∣swere, that although they spake not pure Hebrue, but many straunge wordes were vsed, yet they vnderstood the Hebrue, for why els doth Christ bid the people to search the Scriptures? And they were not the Iewes, but the Ro∣mane souldiers that vnderstood not the voyce of Christ vpon the Crosse, say∣ing, he called for Elias.

2 The Apostles (saith the Iesuite) wrote their Epistles onely in Hebrue or Greeke, and not in the vulgare tounges of the natiōs to whom they preached,

Ergo it is not necessary that the scriptures should be in the vulgare toung. We answere. First, it had bene an infinite labour for the Apostles, to haue left their writings in euery language, neither was it necessary, seeing out of the original they might be trāslated into euery language. Secōdly, they preached the same things vnto the Gētiles in their own toūgs, which they afterward left in wri∣ting. Thirdly, the Greeke toūg, wherein they wrote, was vniuersally knowen, and few countryes were ignorant of it, especially in the East parts.

3 There is no cause (say they) why the Scriptures should be translated: if it be for the vnderstanding of the people, they vnderstād them not being trans∣lated neither. We aunswere: many things they may easely vnderstand: and for the harder places, they are nearer the vnderstanding of them being translated, then before: for then they haue two great lets, the toung vnknowen, and the obscure and hid sense; now they need not to labour for the toung, but onely for the sense.

4 The Scriptures are occasion of offence and heresie, being not right vn∣derstood, Ergo. First▪ because many surfet of meats and drinkes, it is no reason that sober men should be forbidden the vse of them: no more for heretikes & wicked mens sakes ought the people of God to be barred from Scripture. Se∣condly, more haue perished by ignorance in Scripture, then by misunderstan∣ding it: and the Scripture, was ordained of God to meete with offences, and to confute heresies. 2. Tim. 3.15. Wherefore these men make them selues wiser then God, that thinke the Scripture is an occasion of those diseases, for the which it is apppointed a remedie.

The Protestantes.

WE do beleeue and hold that it is requisite, expedient and necessarie for the Scriptures to be vttered and set forth in the vulgare and commō speach, and that none vpon any occasion ought to be prohibited the reading thereof for knowledge and instructions sake: and that Christian Magistrates ought to prouide, that the people may haue the Scriptures in their mother & knowē toung. Wherefore great wrong was offered to the people of England that diuerse 100. yeares, till king Henrie the eight, could not be suffred to haue the Scriptures in English. And how I pray you did the Papistes storme, when as Tindals translatiō came forth? some affirming that it was impossible to haue the Scriptures trāslated into English, some that it would make the people he∣retikes: others that it would cause thē to rebell. Fox. pag. 117. col. 1. What fowle and shamefull slaunders were these? For the vulgare translations of Scripture we reason thus.

1 It is Gods commandement, that the Scriptures should be read before the people, that they may learne to feare God, Deut. 31. vers. 11.12. The people are commanded to write the law vpon their gates, and in their houses to conferre and talke with their children and teach them the law▪ Deut. 6.6.7.8. And our Sauiour biddeth the people search the Scripture, Iohn. 5. v. 39. Ergo what God hath commaunded, no man ought to prohibite or forbid: the people therfore

must not be kept from reading of Scripture.

2 Without Scripture there is no faith, faith is necessarie for all people, Ergo the knowledge of the Scripture: that faith cōmeth by the scriptures, read Iohn. 20.31. these things are written, that ye might beleeue Iesus Christ to be the sonne of God. Againe the weapons of Christiā men, are not denied to any, whereby they should fight against their spirituall enemies, but the word of God is a speciall part of our harnesse,* 1.2 and a principall weapon, euen the sword of the spirite Ergo.

3 The Gospell may be preached in the vulgare toung, as our blessed Sa∣uiour and the holy Apostles taught the people: Ergo the word of God may be read and writtē in the vulgare toung. The proposition our aduersaries graunt, that Sermōs may be made in the vulgare toung: but it foloweth not, say they, that therefore Scripture should be in the mother toung. Rhem. 1. Cor. 14.8. But I pray you how can the preacher alledge Scripture in his Sermō, vnlesse it be recited in the vulgare toung? or how should the people know they preach the word, vnlesse they may compare their doctrine, with Scripture as the Ber∣rheans did? Act. 17.

4 We haue the practise of the Church of God in times past for our war∣rant: for in Chrisostomes time the people had vulgare translations: whereupon he exhorteth them to get them Bibles, or at the least the new Testament, the Actes of the Apostles, the Gospels. Homil. 9. Epist. ad Coloss. We heard before that the Armenians, Sclauonians, Gothes had the Scripture in their own lan∣guage: so many hundred yeares ago in England king Alured translated the Psalter: a copie whereof was found in Crowland Abbey, called S. Guthlakes Psalter, as M. Lābert witnesseth: and Bede our learned country man, translated S. Iohns Gospell. Fox. pag. 1115. col. 2. The Rhemistes also confesse that more then 300. yeare ago the Italians had the Bible translated, and the French men aboue 200. yeares ago. Praefatan Testam. 4. sect. Why should not the people of God haue the same libertie now freely to read the Scriptures, as they haue had in times past?

5 Let vs heare Augustines opinion: Lectiones diuinas (saith he) & in Ecclesia, sicut consuestis, audite, & in domib. vestris relegite. I would haue you both to at∣tend vnto the publike readings in the Church, and in your house to read ouer againe the holy lessons: but how could the people read them at home, if they were not in their vulgare toung?

AN APPENDIX OR PART OF THIS question, concerning publike prayers and diuine seruice in the vulgare toung.

The Papistes.

[error 4] IT was decreed in the Tridētine Coūcell, that the seruice of the church which they cal the masse, should not be celebrated in the vulgare toūg. Sect. 22. cap. 8.

And it is the cōmon practise euery where of the Romish church to vse the La∣tin toung onely. We must be cōtent (say they) with those three toungs which God honored vpon the Crosse: namely the Hebrue, Greeke and Latin. This libertie onely they graunt, that their Priest may expound some things, as he readeth, and shew the meaning to the people

1 Thus they argue: the maiestie and grauitie of the sacred businesse, doe require also to be vttered in a sage, sanctified and graue language, Ergo not in the vulgare. We aunswere, the grauitie▪ reuerence, and holynesse consisteth not in words, phrases, and soundes, though neuer so eloquent, but in the things them selues: neither is any toung that is vnderstood, before the Lord counted barbarous: for S. Paule saith, that he is a barbariā, and speaketh barbarously in the Church, that can not be vnderstood. 1. Cor. 14.11. And Actes. 2.11. the verie straungers and barbarians heard the Apostles vtter in their languages the wonderfull things of God: they thought the toung no disgrace to those holy mysteries they vttered.

2 Leuit. 16. ver. 17. The people is commaunded to stand without, till the Priest went in and made attonemēt for them: they vnderstood not the Priest, for they heard him not, Ergo it is not necessarie the people should vnderstand the Minister. We answere. First, that was a type of our Sauiour Christ, who e∣uen so ascended into heauen, as the high Priest did into the holy place: but types and figures proue nothing. Secondly, they vnderstood not the priest, be∣cause they heard him not: but they can not proue that the Priest vttered any thing in their hearing at any time, which they vnderstood not.

3 We must onely vse those toungs in holy affaires, which were sancti∣fied in the Crosse: that is Hebrue, Greeke, Latin. We aunswere: those toungs were not then vsed for any such purpose, but that the death of Christ might by those cōmon and vniuersall toungs be the further spread abroad. And sure∣ly if they would proue that these toungs were hereby sanctified, me thinkes Pilate was no fit instrument of that sanctification, by whose appointment the title was written.

The Protestantes.

WE do affirme, that as it hath bene the commendable vse of all ancient Churches, to haue the seruice in the vulgare toung, that the people might vnderstand, and be better stirred vp to deuotion: so the same godlie vse ought for euer to remaine and be retained in the Church of God.

1 This is most agreable to S. Paules doctrine. 1. Cor 14. who would haue all things done to edifying: but by an vnknowen toung no man is edified: and he saith, he had rather speake fiue wordes to be vnderstood, then ten thousand otherwise. Some of the Papistes say, that S. Paule speaketh of preaching not of praying: but in the 14. ver. he speaketh namely of prayer, and in the 16. of the peoples saying Amē, which was not geuē at Sermons, but in the end of pray∣ers: this is but a weake aunswere. The Rhemistes and the Iesuite say he spea∣keth

of certaine extraordinarie Hymnes and giuing of thankes, whereof S. Paule speaketh, Ephe. 5.19. Answere S. Paule speaketh generally of all publike exercise in the Church, whether of prayer, preaching, singing, that it should all be done in a knowen toung: for he vseth the generall termes of speaking, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and of the voyce, as ver. 11. If I vnderstād not the power of the voyce (he saith not of the song, or preaching) I shalbe to him that speaketh, a barbarian: so he misliketh not onely preaching, or singing, but any kinde of speaking in the Church in a strange toung. This place of S. Paule is to euident and plaine, thē that it may be so easilie wrested and depraued by their hereticall and An∣tichristian gloses.

2 Who seeth not that prayers made with the vnderstanding are more cō∣fortable and fruitfull: the other nothing to profite at all, nor yet to be auayla∣ble before God? Howsoeuer our aduersaries say, that the hart and affectiō may pray, though the vnderstanding pray not, yet S. Paule saith, they speake in the ayre: their prayer is but wind 1. Cor. 14.9. Therefore not amisse did that godly Martir M. Wisehart, compare the ridiculous gestures of the Priest at Masse, being not vnderstood of the people, to the playing of an ape. Fox p. 1269. col. 2. And one Iohn Riburne was vniustly troubled of Longlād Bishop of Lincolne anno 1530. for saying, if we had our Pater noster in English, one should say it nine times, against once now. Fox. pag. 984. col. 2. And was not that ghostly & Bishoplike coūsaile thinke you of the Bishop of Cauaillon to the Merindoliās in Fraunce? that it was sufficiēt to know their Pater noster, & Creede in Latin: it was not necessary to saluatiō to vnderstand or expoūd the Articles of faith: for there were many Bishops, Curates, yea Doctors of Diuinitie, whō it would trouble to expound the Creede or Pater noster. Fox. Martirol. pag. 949. col. 2.

3 We will conclude with Augustine. Quare dicta sunt, nisi vt sciantur? quare sonuerunt, nisi vt audiantur? quare audita sunt, nisi vt intelligantur? tract. in Iohan. 21. Why are things spoken in the Church (saith he) but to be knowen? why are they pronoūced, but to be heard? why are they heard but to be vnder∣stood? Ergo, Lessons, and Scriptures, and publike prayers must be vsed in a knowen toung, and easie to be vnderstood.

THE FOVRTH QVESTION: OF THE authoritie of the Scriptures.

The Papistes.

[error 5] THe Papistes of former times doubted not to say, that the Scripture is not authenticall without the authoritie of the Church; so Eckius saith, so Pig∣ghius, that the authoritie of the Scripture dependeth of the authoritie of the Church necessarilie. Hermannus a Papist most impudently affirmeth, that the Scripture should be of no more credite then Aesopes Fables, without the ap∣probation of the Church: a fowle blasphemie. But our Papistes of later time, being ashamed of their forefathers ignoraunce, they say that the Scriptures in

them selues are perfect, sufficient, authenticall, but that to vs it appeareth not so, neither are we bound to take them for Scripture without the authoritie of the Church: so Canus, Bellarmin. Stapleton: so that, (say they) in respect of vs the Church hath absolute authoritie to determine, which is Scripture, which not. Ex Whitacher. quaest. 3. de Script. cap. 1.

1 There is no more certaine authoritie, thē of the Church, Ergo the church must determine of scripture, sic Stapleton. We answere. First, the maiestie of the Scriptures them selues is more certaine, and the inward testimonie of the spi∣rite, without the which we can not be perswaded of the truth and authoritie of the Scripture. Secōdly, if they meane by the church, the sinagogue of Rome, it hath nothing to do to iudge of Scripture, being the seate of Antichrist: nei∣ther is the authoritie of that Church to be credited, but rather suspected and mistrusted.

2 There are certaine writings of the Prophetes not canonicall, and other writings of some that were no Prophetes, made canonicall, Ergo the Church hath authoritie to iudge of Scripture, sic Stapleton. For the first, where he ob∣iecteth that there are many writings of the Prophetes as of Solomon, Nathan, Ahiia, Ieedo. 2. Chronic. 9.29. that are lost, and if they were extant, should not be receiued. We aunswere. First, it is not to be doubted of, but some part of the canonicall Scripture is lost. Secōdly, how proueth he that if they were extant, they were not to be acknowledged for Scripture.

To the second, that bookes not made by Prophets are iudged canonicall, as of Tobie, Iudith. We aunswere, that these bookes ought not to be canoni∣call, neither that euer they were so taken, till of late it was decreed by Coun∣cels of no great antiquitie: for in the Laodicene Councell and other auncient Councels, they were deemed not to be canonicall.

3 Certaine bookes of the new Testament before doubted of, as the Epi∣stle to the Hebrues, the Apocalipse, the 2. Epistle of Peter, the second of Iohn, are receiued into authoritie by the Church: and other bookes, as the Gospell of Thomas, Mathias, Andrew, Peter, were reiected by the authoritie of the Church. We answere. First, we deny not but that the Church is to discerne be∣tweene the true Scriptures & forged bookes, but this she doth not of her own authoritie, but folowing the direction of Gods spirite speaking in those wri∣tings: for the Church looking into the sacred and diuine matter of the Apo∣stles writings was moued to acknowledge them for the word of God, though of some they were doubted of: & finding the other to be fabulous bookes did by the direction of the same spirite reiect them. Secondly, Augustine and Hie∣rome thinke that the Canon of Scripture might be confirmed in the Apo∣stles time, Iohn being the suruiuer of thē all, who both acknowledged the true writings of the Apostles, and condemned the contrarie. If it be so (the spirite of God in the Apostles hauing determined this question already concerning the canonicall Scripture) the Church hath no authoritie to alter or chaunge that decree. Plura. apud Whitacher. quaest. 3. de Scriptur. cap. 5.

The Protestantes.

WE do not despise the sentence of the Church, as our aduersaries doe falsely charge vs: but we confesse that it is the duetie of the Church to geue testimony to the Scriptures, as the Goldsmith doth trie the gold: Fulk. annot. 2. Gal. 2. But the Church ought not to set the Lordes stampe vpon false coyne, as the Papistes do in making Apocryphall bookes canonicall. Neither doe we onely beleeue the Scripture, because of the Churches testimonie, nor chiefly, but because the spirit of God doth so teach vs▪ and the Scriptures them selues do testifie for them selues: so that euerie man is bound to acknowledge the Scripture, though there were no publike approbation of the Church: Fulk. 2. Galat. 6. Whitacher. quaest. 3. cap. 1. de Scripturis. We do reason thus.

1 The Iesuite doth reason strongly for vs: he bringeth fiue arguments to proue the Scripture to be the word of God: veritas vaticiniorum, the constant and perpetuall truth of the Prophecies: incredibilis scriptorum conspiratio, the wonderfull harmonie and consent of holy writers of the Scripture: testis est Deus ipse, the spirite of God is a principall witnesse vnto vs: testis est ipsa Scrip∣tura, the Scripture it selfe beareth witnesse, as 2. Tim. 3. all Scripture is geuen by inspiration: testis est diuinorum numerus infinitus miraculorum: lastly the many and great miracles wrought by the Prophetes and Apostles do testifie for the truth thereof. He maketh no mention at all of the testimonie of the Church, but saith the same that we hold▪ that the spirit of God inwardly wor∣king in our harts by the Scriptures them selues, which we find to be most per∣fect, consonant, true, of singular maiestie, doth teach vs which is the word of God. Bellarmin. de verbo Dei. lib. 1. cap. 2.

2 The Scripture geueth authoritie to the Church, Ergo the Church ge∣ueth not authoritie to the Scripture: the first we proue by our aduersaries own confession: for being asked, how they know that the Church erreth not, they alledge such places of Scripture, as Math. 28.20. I am with you to the end of the world, and the like: how then doth the Church geue authoritie to Scrip∣ture, seeing it taketh her warrant and authoritie from thence? the Iesuite him selfe saith, that nihil est certius vel notius Scripturis, nothing is more certaine or notoriously knowen then Scripture: and againe, sacra Scriptura est regula cre∣dendi certissima, the holy Scripture is the most certaine rule of faith. Bellarm. de verbo. 1.2. If the authoritie of Scripture then be most certaine, what reason is it, that they should depend vpon the iudgement of the Church which is no∣thing so certaine? the lesse certaine ought (rather and so doth indeed) depend of the more certaine, the Church vpon the Scripture, not contrariwise, for the Scriptures are the foundation of the Church. Ephe. 2.20.

3 To beleeue the Scripture is a worke of faith▪ the Church can not infuse faith into vs, but the spirite of God, Ergo the spirite of God not the Church teacheth vs to beleeue Scripture▪ argum. Whitach. 18.

4 If the Scriptures depend vpon the approbation of the Church, then the promises of saluation and eternall life conteined in the Scriptures do so like∣wise:

but it is absurde to thinke that the promises of God do stand vpō the al∣lowance of men, Ergo neither the Scriptures. argum. Caluini.

5 The Scripture is the chief iudge, and ought so to be in all cōtrouersies: we may appeale from the Church to the Scripture, not from the Scripture to the Church: the Church is subiect to the Scriptures, the rule of faith is in the scriptures, not in the Church: for the cōpanie of faithful which is the Church, are ruled by faith: they do not ouerrule faith, neither are a rule thereof: the Church is a point of beliefe, as in the Creede, not a rule or measure thereof: Ergo the Church is not the chief iudge of Scripture, but it selfe to be iudged by scripture. Whitach. argum. 16.

6 We haue euident places of scripture. Iohn. 5.34. saith Christ, I receiue no witnes of men: but the scripture is the voyce of Christ, and of the same autho∣ritie, Ergo. Ver. 36. I haue a greater testimonie thē of Iohn, the scriptures do te∣stifie of me. Ver. 39. The testimony of the scriptures is greater thē the record of Iohn, Ergo then of the Church. 1. Iohn. 5.6. the spirite beareth witnesse, that the spirite, that is, the doctrine of the spirit is the truth. And. ver. 9. if we receiue the witnesse of man, the witnesse of God is greater, Ergo, not the iudgement of the Church, but the witnesse of the spirite doth certifie and assure vs of the truth and authoritie of scripture.

7 I will adde one saying out of Augustine, Mihi certum est, nusquam a Chri∣sti authoritate discedere, non enim reperio valentiorem. Contra Academic. lib. 3. cap. 20▪ I am resolued for no cause to leaue the authoritie of Christ (speaking in the scriptures) for I finde none more forcible: Ergo the authoritie of scripture is aboue the Church, which is denied by the Rhemistes. annot. 2. Gal. sect. 2.

THE FIRST QVESTION CONCERNING the perspicuitie and playnnes of the Scripture.

The Papistes.

OVr aduersaries do hold that the scriptures are most hard, difficult, and ob∣scure. [error 6] Bellarmine saith, necessario fatendum est, Scripturas esse obscurissimas, it must needes be graunted that the scriptures are most obscure. de verbo Dei. lib. 3. cap. 1. They do not onely affirme that some things are obscure in the scrip∣tures: but that they are all hard, and doubtfull, and vncertaine, and compare thē therfore to a leaden rule, which may be turned euery way, Petrus a Soto. And to a nose of wax, Lindanus a Papist, ex Tilmanno, de verbo Dei error 5. Our Rhe∣mistes say, it is all one to affirme some things to be hard in a writer, and the writer to be hard: so they conclude, that the scriptures are both in respect of the matter and manner, very hard, and therfore daungerous for the ignoraunt to read them. Rhemens. annot. in. 2. Pet. 3. ver. 16.

1 They obiect that place. 2. Pet. 3.16. where the Apostle saith, speaking of S. Paules Epistles, that many things are hard. Ergo the Epistles of S. Paule are hard, and so the scriptures: this is Bellarmine and the Iesuites argument. We an∣swere.

First, he saith not that Paules Epistles are hard, but many things, which he entreateth of. Secondly, they are hard not to all▪ but the vnstable and vnlear∣ned do peruert them. Thirdly, We denie not, but that some places in the scrip∣ture are obscure, and haue neede of interpretation: but it foloweth not, that therefore the whole scripture is obscure: and because of some hard places, that the people should be forbidden the reading of all.

2 The scriptures are obscure both in the respect of the matter and man∣ner: first the matter is high and mysticall: as of the Trinitie, of the incarnatiō of the word, of the nature of Angels, & such like. We aunswere, these mysteries may be said to be obscure three diuerse wayes. First, in their owne nature: so are they hard indeed, for by humane reason, we can not attaine to the depth of thē. Secondly, in respect of their handling in the scripture: so are they not obscure, for all these things are plainly declared in the word, as the nature of such deepe mysteries will afoord. Thirdly, in respect of vs: so must they needs be obscure, if men be not cōtented with the knowledge in the word, but curiously search further. Luther therefore doth aptly distinguish of these things, he saith that, res Dei, the things of God are obscure, the very depth of his mysteries can not be comprehended of vs, but, res Scripturae, these things, as they are opened in scripture, are plaine, if we will content our selues with that knowledge.

Secondly (saith Bellarmine) the maner of handling is hard and obscure: there are many tropes, metaphores, allegories, Hebraismes, which can not easily be vnderstood. We aunswere. First, many of these are rather ornamentes of the scripture, as tropes, metaphores, then impediments to the reader. Secondly, though the phrase of scripture seeme hard at the first, yet by further trauell in the scriptures it may become easie and plaine: for all things are not vnder∣stood at the first. Thirdly, we denie not but that some places are obscure, and had neede to be opened.

3 If the scriptures be not hard, what need so many Commētaries, and ex∣positions. Rhemist. 2. Pet. 16. We aunswere. First, so many Commentaries are not requisite, some may be spared. Secondly, expositions are needfull for the vnderstanding of darke places: but many things are plaine inough without expositions, and may be vnderstood of the simple.

The Protestantes.

WE do not hold that the scripture is euery where so plaine and euident, that it need no interpretation, as our aduersaries do slaunder vs, and therefore here they do fight with their owne shadow. Bellarm. lib. 3. de verbo cap. 1. We confesse, that the Lord in the Scriptures hath tempered hard things and easie together, that we might be exercised in the Scriptures, and might knocke & labour by prayer and studie, for the opening of the sense: and that there might be order kept in the Church, some to be hearers, some teachers & expounders, by whose diligent search and trauell, the harder places may be o∣pened to the people. But this we affirme against our aduersaries: first that all

points of faith necessarie to saluation, are plainely set forth in the Scriptures: secondly that the Scriptures may with great profit be read of the simple and vnlearned, notwithstanding the hardnesse of some places, which in time also vsing the meanes they come to the vnderstanding of. Ex Fulk. annot. 2. Pet. 3.16. Whitacher. quaest. 4. cap. 1.

1 First, that which we maintaine is euident out of the scripture, Deut. 30.11. the commaundement, which I commaund thee, is not hid from thee, nor farre of. And as it foloweth, thou needest not ascend to the heauens, or go be∣yond the sea: the word is neare vnto thee, euen in thy mouth and hart, to do it. argum. Brentij. Ergo the scriptures are plaine. First the Iesuite aunswereth, that it is meant onely of the decalogue and the ten commandements, that they are easie, not of the whole Scripture. As though if the commandements be easie the rest of the scriptures be not likewise, as the Prophets and historicall books being but commētaries and expositions of the decalogues. S. Paule. Rom. 10.6. vnderstandeth this place of the whole doctrine of faith, who better knew the meaning of Moses then the Iesuite.

2 2. Cor. 4.3. If our Gospell be hid, it is to them onely that are lost, Ergo the Scriptures are plaine to the faithfull. The Iesuite aunswereth. S. Paule spea∣keth of the knowledge of Christ, not of the Scriptures. First it is manifest out of the 2. verse, that S. Paule speaketh of that Gospell, which he preached to the Corinthians, which is the same he wrote vnto them: wherefore if the Gos∣pell preached were easie and plaine, why is not the Gospell written by him, I meane the doctrine of faith being the same, which he preached? Secondly if they graunt that the knowledge of Christ is easie, we aske no more: for this is that we say, that the doctrine of faith and saluation is plainly expressed in Scripture.

3 This is the difference betweene the new Testament and the old: the old is compared to a clasped booke. Isay. 29.11. the new to a booke opened. Apoca. 5. the knowledge of Christians farre exceedeth the knowledge of the Iewes: it was lawfull for them to read the scriptures, much more for all Christians. The Iesuite aunswereth that our knowledge is greater then theirs, not in all scrip∣ture, but in the misteries for our redemption onely. We answere, this is all we desire: for if the misterie of saluation and redemption be plainly opened in the scripture, why should not the people be admitted to the reading of the word, to be confirmed in the knowledge of their redemption? who seeth not what sillie aunsweres these be?

4 Augustine thus writeth of this matter, In ijs (inquit) quae aperte in Scrip∣turis ••osita sunt, inueniuntur ea omnia, quae fidem continent mores{que} viuendi. De do∣ctrin. Christia. lib. 2. cap. 9. The plaine and easie places of scripture conteine all things necessarie vnto faith and good life, Ergo the doctrine of saluation in the scriptures is not hard and difficult, but easie of good Christians to be vnder∣stood.

THE SIXT QVESTION CONCERNING the interpretation of Scripture.

THis question doth diuide it selfe into three partes: First concerning the diuerse senses of the scripture. Secondly, to whō the chief authoritie to ex∣pound scripture is committed. Thidly, what meanes must be vsed in the in∣terpretation of scripture.

THE FIRST PART OF THE SIXTH QVE∣stion: of the diuerse senses of Scripture.

The Papistes.

[error 7] THere are two straunge Assertions of our aduersaries cōcerning this mat∣ter. First they affirme that the scripture may haue diuerse senses and mea∣nings in the same place. The sense of the scripture is either literall (say they) & historicall, which is the first & most proper sense; or spirituall, that is an higher sense deriued out of the other, and it is of three kinds, Allegoricall, Tropolo∣gicall, Anagogicall: they shew by particular instance and induction, that the scripture besides the literall sense may haue these also.

The Allegoricall sense is, when besides the plaine historicall and literall meaning, somewhat is signified which by an allegorie is referred vnto Christ or the Church, as Gal. 4. beside the truth of the storie of the bond and free wo∣man, S. Paule applieth it vnto the two Testaments, Ergo one place may haue more senses then one.

The Tropologicall sense is, when as there is somewhat signified appertai∣ning to manners, as Deut. 25. Thou shalt not mussell the mouth of the oxe that treadeth out the corne, this by S. Paule is applied to the Ministers of the Gospell, 1. Cor. 9. Ergo, the scripture hath diuerse senses.

The Anagogicall sense is, whē the place is applied to decipher & set forth the kingdome of heauen and eternall things, as Psal. 94. I sware vnto them, if they should enter into my rest: this is literally vnderstood of the rest in Ca∣naan, & spiritually of life eternall, Ergo many senses: thus reasoneth. Bellarmin. lib. 3. de Scriptur. cap. 3.

The Protestantes.

WE affirme that of one place of scripture there can be but one sense, which we call the literall sense, when as the wordes are either taken properly, or figuratiuely to expresse the thing which is meant: as in this place, the seede of the woman shall breake the Serpents head, the literall sense is of Christ, who should triumph ouer Sathan, though it be spoken in a borowed and figuratiue speach. There can be therefore but one sense, which is the lite∣rall: as for those three kinds, they are not diuerse senses, but diuerse applicatiōs onely and collections out of one and the same sense.

1 It shall appeare by a seuerall induction of all these kindes: In the first example of the Allegoricall sense Galathes 4, the Apostle saith not that there is a double sense, but that it may be allegorically applied, which is histo∣rically set downe. There is then but one sense of the place, part whereof consi∣steth in the storie, part in the allegorie: so that the whole sense is conteined in them both. Concerning the second exāple of the Tropologicall: there is not a twofold sense of that place, but one whole generall sense; that as the mouth of the oxe was not to be musled, so the Minister of the Gospell must be proui∣ded for. Likewise of the Anagogicall kind: it is not one sense to vnderstād the rest of Canaan, an other of the kingdome of God: but there is one whole sense, that as they for their Idolatrie were depriued of the land of promise, so we should take heede lest by our disobedience we lose the hope of the kingdome of heauē. So we cōclude that those are not diuerse senses, but one sense diuersly applied.

2 The literal sense is the onely sense of the place, because out of that sense onely may an argument strongly be framed: wherefore seeing allegories and tropes do not cōclude, they are not the senses of the place. An allegorie or type may be part of the literall sense, and then it concludeth: but when an allegorie is framed beside the literall sense, it concludeth not, and therefore is no part of the sense: as to reason thus, the oxes mouth must not be musled, Ergo the Mini∣ster must be maintained, it foloweth well, because it is part of the sense: but allegories deuised beside the sense proue not, though they may illustrate.

The Papistes.

THeir other assertion is this, that it is lawfull to allegorise scripture both in the old and new Testament. Bellarm. lib. 3. cap. 3. They reason thus. Rhe∣mens. [error 8] annot. Heb. 4. ver. 5. The Apostle applieth the rest of the Sabboth to the e∣ternall rest. Ergo, the like applications of the fathers are lawfull. See annot. Heb. 7.2. the Apostle (say they) findeth great misteries, euen in the very names: Ergo it is lawfull to make allegories.

The Protestantes.

WE say, it is daungerous to make allegories of Scripture without the warrant and direction of Gods spirite: this was the occasion that di∣uerse of the auncient fathers greatly erred: as the Iesuite him selfe reprehēdeth Papias, Iustinus, Lactantius, for allegorising that place Reuel. 20. which made them fall into the error of the Chiliastes, by false interpreting of the thousand yeares there mentioned.

To their argumēts our learned countryman D. Fulk answereth. First, it fo∣loweth not, because it was lawfull for the Apostles gouerned by the spirite to make allegories, that it is therfore lawfull for others. Secondly, whē the fathers or any other writers can be assured of the same spirite, which the holy writers had, and of the like dexteritie in vnderstanding and expounding Scripture,

they may likewise be bold to make allegories.

Let vs heare what Augustine saith of this matter. Sicut mihi multum errare videntur, qui nullas res gestas aliquid aliud praeter id, quod eo modo gesta sunt, signi∣ficare arbitrantur: ita multum audere, qui prorsus ibi omnia significationib. alle∣goricis inuoluta esse contendunt. As they are much deceiued, which thinke that the stories in the scripture do signifie no other thing, but that which was done: so they are to rash and bold, that would draw all things to allegories, which they read in scripture. Ergo, it is not lawfull for any to inuent allegories of scripture, as it seemeth good to them selues.

THE SECOND PART OF THE SIXTH QVE∣tion to whom the chief authoritie to expound Scripture is committed.

The Papistes.

[error 9] IT was decreed in the Councell of Trent, that scripture should be expoūded, as the Church expoundeth it, and according to the common and consonant cōsent of the fathers, Sect. 4. The Rhemistes say; that the sense of the scriptures must be learned of the fathers and pastors of the Church. Praefat. Sect. 18. If the fathers agree not, the matter is referred to a generall Councell: if there it be not determined, we must haue recourse to the Pope and his Cardinals. The Iesuite dare not referre the matter to the Pope alone to expound scripture, but ioy∣neth the Colledge of Cardinals with him. Bellarm. lib. 3. de script. cap. 3.

1 They obiect that place Deut. 17.9. where the people are commaunded to resorte vnto the Priest or Iudge in doubtfull matters. Ergo, there ought to be a chief and supreme iudge in Ecclesiasticall matters, Bellarm. We aunswere. First, here the ciuill Magistrate and the Iudge are ioyned together, as ver. 12. Wherefore if they will gather hereby, that the Pope must be supreme Iudge in all Ecclesiasticall matters, then the Emperour ought to be as well in ciuill. Secōdly, the text saith, they shal come to the Priests. ver. 9. assigning many, not to one onely Priest. Thirdly, they must iudge according to the law. v. 11. not as they list thē selues. Fourthly, here is no mentiō made of doubts in interpreting scripture, but of controuersies that may fall out betweene man and man, either Ecclesiasticall to be decided by the Priest, or ciuill by the Magistrate. Fiftly, we graunt that in euery country there ought be a supreme and high seate of iudgement for determining of controuersiall matters betweene men: but it foloweth not that there should be a supreme iudge ouer the whole Church es∣pecially in such matters as this concerning the sense of the scriptures, which i•• not commited to the iudgement of men, neither is any such controuersie na∣med in that palce. ver. 8.

2 Ecclesiastes 12.11. The wisemā cōpareth the wordes of the wise to nayles which are fastned, geuen by one pastor: Ergo the Pope is supreme iudge. We aunswere, the wise men are here vnderstood to be the Pastors and Ministers

of Gods word, but this one pastor signifieth neither the high Priest in the old law, nor the Pope in the new, but Iesus Christ, the high shepheard for our soules. What great boldnesse is this to attribute that to the Pope, which is onely proper to Christ?

3 They also picke out some places in the new Testament, as Math. 16.19. to thee will I geue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen. Christ saith so to Pe∣ter, Ergo the Pope hath authoritie to expound scripture. We aunswere. First, by the keyes here is meant commission to preach the Gospell, not onely to ex∣pound doubtes. Secōdly, they were geuen to all the Apostles, not to Peter one∣ly, Math. 28. v. 18.19. Thirdly, the Pope is not successor of Peter, no more then any other godly Bishop, nor so much vnlesse he folow Peters steps. So they abuse that place Math. 18.17. he that will not heare the Church &c. Ergo the Bishops and chief pastors must expound the doubt in scriptures. Aunswere. First, our Sauiour speaketh here of the discipline of the Church, of correctiōs and admonitions, not of interpreting scripture, which dependeth not vpō the will & fantacie of Pope, Cardinals, or Popish Councels, but must be tryed by the scriptures them selues. Secondly, we must geue eare to the Church, but with a double condition: we must be sure it is the Church of God, secōdly, we must not heare them, cōtrary to the scriptures, but so long as they do teach the doctrine of Christ.

The Protestants.

WE haue a more compendious way to come to the vnderstanding of the scripture: It were to lōg whē we doubt of any place to stay till we haue the generall consent of the pastors of the Church, or to expect a generall Councell, or go vp to Rome. And it were to much to trouble the Popes graui∣tie with euery questiō: The Lord hath shewed vs a more easie and ready way: see that we neede not ascend to heauen or cōpasse the earth or passe the Alpes: but the word of God is amongest vs, the scriptures them selues and the spirite of God opening our harts do teach vs how to vnderstand them: the interpre∣tation of Scripture is not assigned to any succession of pastors, or tryed to any place or persons. Our arguments folow, some few of them.

1 That onely hath power to geue the sense of Scripture, which doth be∣get vs faith: the spirite onely by the Scriptures begetteth faith. Rom. 10.17. faith commeth of hearing the word, Ergo the spirit of God is the onely inter∣preter of scripture. The proposition also is cleare: for seeing the Scripture is the true sense and meaning therof, if any should geue the sense of the scripture, but that which worketh faith, then vpon him should our faith be grounded. If the Pope therefore geue the sense of Scripture, and our faith ariseth of the Scripture vnderstood, then our faith is builded vpon the Popes sense. argum. Whitach. 2. & 9.

2 The Scriptures cā not be interpreted but by the same spirit, wherewith they were writtē, but that spirite is found no where but in the Scriptures, Ergo.

The first part the Papistes them selues graunt: the second is thus proued: the spirite of the Apostles is not geuen by secret inspiration, that sauoureth of A∣nabaptisme: where is it thē to be found? whether is it like that S. Peters spirite should be found in the Popes chaire, or in his Epistles? or if they haue S. Pe∣ters spirite, where is S. Paules found but in his writings? Yet it is all one spirite, & appeareth not els where but in the Scriptures: where euery man may finde it as wel as the Pope: the spirituall man iudgeth all things. 1. Cor. 2.15. you haue an oyntment from him that is holy, and you haue knowen all things: and ver. 27. you need not that any mā teach you. By these places it is euident, that eue∣ry faithfull man by the spirite of God may vnderstand the scriptures.

3 The doctrine of the Church must be examined by the Scriptures, Ergo the scriptures are not to stand to the iudgement of the Church. The former part is proued by the example of the Berrheans. Act. 17.11. If they did well in examining Paules doctrine, much more may the decrees of the Pope, Church, Coūcels be examined by the scriptures. But they knew not whether Paule was an Apostle or not▪ therefore they might examine his doctrine, saith the Iesuite. Answere, it is no matter for the person of Paule, they examined his doctrine, which dependeth not vpon the person. Secondly, they could not be ignoraunt of his Apostleship, who was famous throughout the Churches. Thirdly, they doubted onely whether Paul was an Apostle, but we are sure the Pope is none, neither successor of any Apostle, but very Antichrist, Ergo we haue more iust cause to examine his decrees.

4 Lastly, let Augustine speake: Nouit charitas vestra omnes nos vnum ma∣gistrum habere, & sub illo condiscipulos esse, nec ideo magistri sumus, quia de supe∣riore loco loquimur vobis, sed magister est omnium, qui habitat in nobis omnib. You know brethren (saith he) that we are all felow scholers vnder one maister, and though we speake to you out of an higher place, yet are we not your master, he is the teacher and master of vs all that dwelleth in our harts. Ergo the spirite of God speaking in the scriptures is the chief and best interpreter thereof.

THE THIRD PART OF THE SIXTH QVE∣stion: concerning the meanes or methode to be vsed in interpreting of Scripture.

The Papistes.

[error 10] OVr aduersaries prescribe this methode and course to be takē in expoun∣ding of scripture, which consisteth in foure rules: the generall peactise of the Church, the consonant interpretation of the fathers, the decrees of generall Councels, lastly the rule of faith, consisting partly of the scriptures, partly of traditions vnwrittē, Stapleton. Cōcerning the three first, we haue already tou∣ched them in part: they appeare to be insufficient. First, the Councels and fa∣thers he made chief interpreters of Scripture before, and now they are but meanes: what other chief iudge then is there to vse these meanes? surely none

but the scriptures. Secondly, these meanes are most vncertaine, the practise of the Church is often changed, fathers agree not in their expositiōs, and Coun∣cels can not alwayes be had.

Concerning the rule of faith consisting of vnwritten verities: he groundeth it falsely vpon that place. Rom. 12.6. let vs prophecie according to the rule of faith, and Gal. 6.16. as many as walke according to this rule. This rule was a certaine platforme of Religion, geuen by the Apostles before the Scriptures were written, according to the which (say they) the Scriptures were afterward compiled by the Apostles. Rhemens. in Rom. 12.6. Answere, S. Paul meaneth no other rule, but that which is set downe in his writings, no other forme of do∣ctrine but that conteined in his Epistles, as in the 6. to the Galathians, spea∣king of this rule, he alludeth to the former verse, where he saith he reioyced in nothing but in the Crosse of Christ: his rule therfore is to receiue Christ one∣ly without the ceremonies or workes of the law: against the which heresie he disputeth in the whole Epistle. But of all other it is a great blasphemie to say that the Apostles set downe the Scriptures by a rule, as though the spirite of God, by whom they spake, had neede of any such direction.

The Protestantes.

WHen we say that the scriptures must expound them selues, our mea∣ning is, that by certaine compendious and ready meanes, we should labour to vnderstand the scriptures by them selues: the meanes are especially these foure. First, to haue recourse to the originall toung, as in the old Testa∣ment to the Hebrue, in the new to the Greeke: as 1. Tim. 2.15. through bearing of children they shalbe saued, if they continue in faith and loue: In the English it is doubtfull, whether this clause, if they continue in faith, be referred to chil∣dren, or to those that beare them: but read the Greeke and the doubt is remo∣ued: for bearing of children is all one word in the originall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so that it must needes be vnderstood of the women: for this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ bearing of children is in the singular number, that which foloweth of the plurall, and it is but an action, not a person, so that it should be improperly sayd, if they continue▪ that is, in bearing of children.

Stapleton obiecteth against this meane: that it is not now needefull, seeing there is a perfect and absolute translatiō authorised by the Councell of Trent, he meaneth the vulgare Latin. We answere. First, it is no perfect but an erro∣nious translation, and verie corrupt. Secondly, if it were neuer so perfect, yet for more certaintie, it is profitable to search the originall: euery man will trust his owne skill, rather then another mans. Thirdly, the Councell did fondly in authorising an old blind translation, before the authenticall copies of the He∣brue and Greeke.

2 Secondly, the scope of the place, the circumstance of it, with that which goeth before, and commeth after must, be wayghed, which will bring great light to the place we haue in hand: an example we haue 1. Pet. 4.8. loue coue∣reth

multitude of sinnes: the Papistes gather out of these words, that loue doth iustifie vs before God and taketh away our sinnes: but by the circunstance of the place, the Apostole saying immediatly before: haue feruent loue among you, it is euident he vnderstandeth brotherly loue amōgest our selues, where∣by faultes are buried, forgeuen, and forgotten.

Stapleton obiecteth: that this is but an vncertaine way, and many times fay∣leth: for the scripture passeth many times from one matter and argument to another: how then can it helpe to consider the circumstance of the place be∣ing of a diuerse matter? We answere, we say not that any of these meanes ser∣ueth for euery place, but when one fayleth, to vse another: when the circum∣stance helpeth not, to runne to the originall, if there we find, no succour to cō∣pare places together, and when we may, to vse them all, or the most.

3 Thirdly the conference of places is very profitable, as Iames. 2.21. A∣braham was iustified by workes, compare it with that place Rom. 4.2. there S. Paule saith flatly that Abraham was not iustified by workes: Wherfore see∣ing one Apostle is not contrary to the other: we must needs gather, that this word iustified is diuersly taken, Paule saith that Abraham was not iustified that is, made righteous before God by his workes. Iames saith he was iusti∣fied, that is declared to be iust before men, and so Thom. Aquinas expoun∣deth it.

Stapleton obiecteth, that this meanes in cōparing of places is of it selfe ma∣ny times of smal force. Answere, as though we affirme that these meanes must be vsed asunder, and not rather ioyntly together, and where one fayleth, ano∣ther to helpe. Secondly, some things are found but once in the scriptures. Aun∣swere, they are then either very plaine, or not greatly necessarie. Thirdly, here∣tikes haue erred in comparing of Scripture. Answere, they compared them not diligently, nor with a syncere minde, but corruptly and negligently.

4 The fourth rule is the analogie and proportion of faith, which is no∣thing els but the summe & grounds of Religiō gathered out of scripture, such as are conteined in the Creede, the Lordes Prayer, the ten Commaundements, and in our whole Catechisme. We must take heede, that in the interpretation of Scripture we swarue not from this rule of faith, nor impugne any principle of Religion. Wherefore the Papistes interpretation of those wordes of Christ we do reiect. Hoc est corpus meum, this is my body: who would haue the verie flesh of Christ present in the Sacrament: for this is against the article of the Creede, that Christ is ascended into heauen, and there sitteth till his comming againe in iudgement.

Concerning these meanes, thus writeth Augustine. Rarissime inuenitur am∣biguitas in verbis proprijs, quam non aut circumstantia ipsa sermonis qua cognosci∣tur Scripturarum intentio, aut interpretum collatio, aut praecedentes soluat inspectio, de doctrin. Christ. lib. 3.4. There is almost no ambiguitie in any word proper∣ly vsed (that is not metaphoricall or borrowed) which may not either by the circumstance of the place, the conference and comparing of interpreters, or

by looking into the originals, easily be taken away. Augustine we see appro∣ueth this methode, though our aduersaries like it not.

Besides these, prayer must be vsed before we enterprise any thing, that the Lord would direct vs. And they which cā not so easily take this course, which is prescribed, shall do well to seeke helpe of learned and godly expositors, or to consult with their Pastors and Ministers. Ex Whitacher. quaest. 5. cap. 9.

THE SEVENTH QVESTION: CONCERNING the perfection and sufficiencie of Scripture.

THis question is deuided into three parts. First, whether the Scriptures be absolutely necessary. Secōdly, whether they be sufficient without vnwrit∣ten traditions. Thirdly, whether there be any traditions of faith and manners beside the Scriptures.

THE FIRST PART OF THE NE∣cessitie of the Scriptures.

The Papistes.

THe Iesuite laboureth to proue, that the Scriptures are not simply necessa∣rie: [error 11] which we denie not, for meate is not simply necessarie, for God may preserue man without: so in respect of God nothing is simply necessarie: God is not necessarily tyed to vse this or that meanes: but his argumentes do tend to this end, to shew that the scriptures are not necessarie at all, and may be spa∣red in the Church (so saith Petrus a Soto) the Scripture was not alway extant, and it is not necessarie vnto faith: And the Scripture it not now so necessarie since Christ, as it was afore. Tilman. de verbo Dei error. 17.

1 There was no Scripture from Adam to Moses, for the space of two thou∣sand yeares, and yet true Religion was kept and continued, and why might not true Religiō be as well preserued a 1500. yeare after Christ without scrip∣ture, as afore.

We answere: It foloweth not, because in times past God taught his church by a liuelie voyce, that the written word is not necessarie now: for the Lord saw it good, that his word should be left in writing, that we might haue a cer∣taine rule of our faith in this corrupt and sinfull age. And what els is this, but to cōtroll the wisedome of God, saying it is not necessarie or needfull for the Church, which the Lord saw to be needfull: for if the Lord had thought it as good for vs to be taught without Scripture, as in that simple and innocēt age of the world (I meane innocent in respect of vs) he would not haue moued and stirred vp his Apostles to write.

2 After the time of Moses, when the law was written, yet there were ma∣ny that feared God amongest the Gentiles, which had not the Scriptures, as Iob, and the other his friends, Ergo the scripture not necessarie. The Iewes also

them selues vsed traditions more then Scriptures, as Psal. 44. v. 1.2. the fathers did report the workes of God to their children: by the negligence also of the Priests the law was lost, as 2. King. 22. we read that the volume of the law was found, which had bene missing a long time.

We answere. First, euē the faithfull amōgest the Gētiles did read the scrip∣ture, as the Eunuke Act. 8. had the booke of the Prophet Isay. Secondly, the Iewes declared the workes of God vnto their children, but the same were also written, as how the heathen were cast out before them, and of their deliue∣rāce out of Egypt: those were the things they heard of their fathers, as we read Psal. 44. & 78. yet all these things are recorded in the bookes of Moses. Third∣ly, what though the Priests were negligent in preseruing the scriptures, it is no good argument to proue that therefore they are not necessarie, neither was the whole booke of the law lost, but either Moses owne manuscript, or the booke of Deuteronomie. Yet he hath proued nothing.

3 The Church after Christ wanted the Scriptures many yeares, Ergo they are not necessarie.

We aunswere, it is a great vntruth: for the old Testamēt the Church could not be without, and the new Testament was written not long after in the age of the Apostles: whose liuely voyce and preachings were vnto them, as their writings are now to vs. See now, what strong arguments they bring: the scrip∣tures were not necessary in the time of the Patriarkes, when God taught them by his owne voyce, they were not necessarie in the time of the Prophetes and Apostles, when they had mē inspired of God to teach them, Ergo they are not now necessarie, when neither God teacheth from heauen, neither haue we any Prophetes or Apostles to instruct vs by heauenly reuelations: nay rather be∣cause they were not necessarie then, when they had other effectuall meanes, notwithstanding they are necessarie now, seeing there is no other way of in∣struction left vnto vs.

The Protestantes.

THat the scriptures are necessarie for the people of God, the reading, prea∣ching, and vnderstanding whereof is the onely and ordinarie meanes to beget faith in vs, we thus proue out of the Scriptures them selues.

1 The scriptures conteine necessarie knowledge to saluation, which can not be learned but out of the scripture, Ergo they are necessarie. The know∣ledge of the law is necessarie, but that onely is deriued from the Scripture: as the Apostle witnesseth Rom. 7.7. he had not knowen lust to be sinne, vnlesse the law had said, thou shalt not lust. And if the right knowledge of the law is not learned, but out of the scripture: much more the knowledge of the Gospel, is more high and mysticall, and more straunge vnto our nature.

2 That whereby we are kept frō error and doubtfulnes in matters of faith is necessarie: but this is performed by the scripture, Ergo. First the Scripture keepeth vs from error. Math. 22.29. ye erre not knowing the scriptures (saith

our Sauiour). The ignoraunce of scripture was cause of their error. Secondly, if our knowledge were onely builded vpon tradition without scripture, we should be doubtfull and vncertaine of the truth, so S. Luke saith in his Preface to Theophilus: I haue written (saith he) that thou mightest be certaine of those things, whereof thou hast bene instructed: Hence we conclude, that although we might know the truth without scripture, as Theophilus did, yet we can not know it certainlie without.

3 If the scriptures be not necessarie, then we may be without them, but this can not be, Ergo the scriptures can not be spared: for then God had done a needlesse and superfluous worke in stirring vp the Prophets and Apostles to write. S. Paule saith, that what soeuer is writtē, is written for our learning, that through patience and cōsolation of the scriptures we might haue hope. Rom. 15.4. The Lord saw in wisedome that his people could not be without the Scriptures, which are necessarie for their learning, for their comfort, and to strengthen their hope: how then dare our aduersaries say, that the scriptures are not necessarie, seeing these things wrought in vs by the scriptures, know∣ledge, consolation, hope, are most necessarie.

4 Let Augustine now put in his verdict: Illud credo, quod etiā hinc diuinorū eloquiorum clarissima authoritas esset, si homo illud sine dispendio salutis ignorare non posset. de peccator. merit. & remiss. lib. 2.36. I thinke (saith he) that euen con∣cerning this matter (speaking of the originall or beginning of the soule) the Scriptures would not haue bene silent, if we might not safelie be ignoraunt of this matter, without daunger of saluation, Ergo whatsoeuer is necessarie to sal∣uatiō, is onely to be found in scripture (for other matters there not expressed, there in no daunger in not knowing them) therfore the Scriptures by this Fa∣thers iudgement are most necessary.

THE SECOND PART OF THE SEVENTH question, of the sufficiencie of Scripture.

The Papistes.

THey do straungely affirme, that the Scriptures conteine not all things ne∣cessarie [error 12] to be knowen cōcerning faith and manners, and that they are not sufficient without traditions. Bellarm. cap. 3.4. Lindanus a Papist saith, that the scriptures conteine not all things necessarie to saluation. Andradius, that their approued traditions are of equall authoritie with the Scripture▪ Ex Tilman. de verbo error. 2.

1 First, the Iesuite thus reasoneth against the sufficiencie of Scripture. There are diuerse bookes of canonicall Scripture lost and perished, Ergo that part of canonical scripture, which remaineth is not sufficiēt: that much is lost, he thus proueth: 1. Chron. cap. vlt. mention is made of the bookes of Nathan & Gad. 2. Chron. 9. of the bookes of Ahiiah & Ieedo: & in the new Testamēt. Col. 4. of the Epistle of S. Paule to the Laodiceans: all those bookes are lost.

We aunswere. First, we denie not, but that some bookes are now wanting, which were part of canonicall scripture, & yet that which remaineth is suffi∣ciēt: as some of Solomōs bookes are perished, which he wrote of herbes & plāts, and many of his Prouerbes: the Lord saw that they were not so greatly neces∣sarie for vs to saluation. Secondly, there is not so much wanting, as the Iesuite would beare vs in hād, for the books of the Prophets which he nameth, are the same with the bookes of the Chronicles & of the Kings, which no doubt were writtē by those Prophetes. And as for the Epistle of S. Paule to the Laodiceās, there was neuer any such: the text is, written from the Laodiceans, it was the Epistle rather of the Laodiceans to S. Paule, vnto the which he partly maketh aunswere in the Epistle to the Colossians, and therefore he would haue it read also in their Church.

2 If the Apostles had any such meaning to contriue in the scriptures the summe of faith and all necessarie knowledge, it is very like Christ would haue geuen them some expresse commaundement so to do: but we read not of any such strict commaundement, Ergo they had no such purpose. Bellarmine.

We aunswere. First, they them selues dare not denie, but that the Apostles wrote by the instinct of the spirite: what is that els, but the commaundement of God? Actes. 16.6. Paule was forbidden of the holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia: and ver. 10. when he had seene a vision of a man of Macedonia appearing vnto him: the Apostle concludeth that they were called of God: wherefore what they did by the secret mouing of the spirite, was done at the cōmaundement of God. Secondly, Apocal. 11.1.14.13. Iohn is biddē to write that which he saw: no doubt the other Apostles had the like cōmaundement.

3 There are many points, which we ought in no wise to be ignoraunt of, which the scriptures speake either obscurelie of, or not at all.

First, these things are obscurely and doubtfully set downe in Scripture, the equalitie of the persons in Trinitie, the proceeding of the holy Ghost, from the Father and the Sonne, the doctrine of originall sinne.

We aunswere. First, if these things be found at all in the Scriptures, it is suf∣ficient concerning the question we haue in hand. Secondly, the Scripture doth manifestly declare the truth in all those points, the equalitie of the persons is directly proued. 1. Iohn. 5.7. the procession of the spirite. Iohn. 15.26. the spirit is there said to be sent frō the Father & the Sonne. And Ioh. 14.26. Original sinne is described plainly by the Apostle. Rom. 5.12. though the name be not found in Scripture.

Secondly, there are diuerse things necessarie to be knowen, not at all decla∣red in Scripture. First, as that Marie continued a perpetuall Virgine. We answere, the Scripture saith euery where she was a Virgine, neither maketh mention of any children she had, and therefore out of the Scripture we ga∣ther, that she continued. Secondly, Basile saith that it is sufficient to know she was a Virgine before the birth of Christ. Secondly, to know that the Pasch or Easter must be kept vpon the Lordes day is necessarie. Aunswere, there is

no such necessiitie in it to saluation: neither needed the Church so much to haue contended about it in times past: these are the mightie weapons, which our aduersaries vse.

The Protestantes.

WE do not affirme, as our aduersaries charge vs, that all things necessa∣rie to saluation, are expressely conteined in scripture, that is, in so ma∣ny words: but this we hold, that all things, which are necessarily to be knowen of vs, are either expresly declared in Scripture, or necessarily concluded out of Scripture, and so conteined in them. We also graunt, that it was not Gospell onely which was written, but all that Christ and his Apostles taught by liue∣ly voyce: the whole summe whereof and substaunce is conteined in the writ∣ten word: and so we conclude, that nothing necessarie to saluation either con∣cerning faith or manners, is els where to be found but in the holy Scriptures.

1 S. Paule saith: if we, or an Aungell preach vnto you otherwise then that which we haue preached, let him be accursed, Ergo the Scripture conteineth all things necessarie.

First, the Iesuite aunswereth, that S. Paule speaketh not onely of his wri∣tings, but also of his preachings which were not written.

We aunswere, that the summe of all S. Paules preachings is conteined in his Epistles and other holy writings: for S. Paule confirmed his doctrine out of the scriptures, as Act. 17.10. the Berrheans examined his doctrine by the scrip∣tures, and found it to be consonant, and to agree in all things.

Secondly, he condēneth, those which preach any thing, not besides or other∣wise, but contrarie: and therefore not any other doctrine besides Scripture is forbidden, but that which is contrarie. We aunswere, whatsoeuer is imposed as necessarie to saluation beside the Scripture, praeter Scripturas, is also contra Scripturas, contrarie to Scripture, as are all Popish traditions, which they lay a necessitie vpon, both beside and contrarie to Scripture. Neither did those false Apostles against whom S. Paule writeth so much, bring in another or cōtrary Gospell, as the Apostle saith ver. 7. as they did labour to corrupt and peruert that Gospel, which S. Paul taught. Therfore all traditiōs whether praeter, or cō∣tra, beside or contrarie to Scripture, are notablie by this place ouerthrowen.

2 Iohn. 20.31. these things are written, that ye might beleeue that Iesus Christ is the sonne of God, & that in beleeuing ye might haue life through his name, Ergo the Scriptures conteine all things necessarie to saluation: for they suffise to worke in vs faith, and faith bringeth vs to eternall life.

First, Bellarmine aunswereth, that Iohn speaketh onely of that which he had written. Aunswere. If this one Apostles writings were able to worke faith, the whole body of Scripture much more: but he rather speaketh of all other holy writings, of the Apostles, for he was the suruiuer of them all, & acknow∣ledged their writings and approued them. Secōdly (saith he) the Apostle saith not that those writings onely suffise, but they are profitable, and referred to

this end to worke faith. Aunswere. The Scripture is not one of the meanes, but the sole, whole, and onely meanes: for if they perfectly worke faith, what neede any other helpes: but the first is true, for they doe beget in vs a perfect faith, which shall bring vs to eternall life, Ergo they are the onely meanes of faith.

3 The whole Scripture (saith S. Paule) is profitable to teach, to improue, to correct, and instruct in righteousnesse. 2. Tim. 3.16. Ergo it conteineth all things necessarie: for what els is requisite besides these foure, to teach the right faith, improue error, to instruct in righteousnes and vertue, & to correct vice?

First they aunswere, the Apostle meaneth as well euery booke of Scrip∣ture, as the whole, euery part therfore hath this perfection as well as the whole. But you will not say, that euery booke conteineth all things necessarie to sal∣uation: therefore this perfection is not so to be taken.

We aunswere. First, S. Paule vnderstandeth the body of Scripture as ver. 15. thou hast knowen the Scriptures, he speaketh of them all. Secondly, if euery part had these vtilities, you might as well conclude that euery word and silla∣ble hath them, for they are parts of Scripture. Thirdly, it appeareth by these foure great vtilities here set downe, that the Apostle meaneth not any part or partes of Scripture, but the whole, for euery part of Scripture is not profitable for all these endes, but the whole.

Secōdly, they say it foloweth not: the Scripture is profitable, therfore suffi∣cient, they also graunt it is profitable. Aunswere, but we conclude out of S. Paule, that the Scripture is not onely profitable, but sufficient, as it foloweth v. 17. that the man of God may be absolute, perfectly instructed to euery good worke. If then the scriptures are able perfectly to instruct vs, then are they suf∣ficient, then neede we no other helpes.

4 Lastly, Augustine thus writeth, in Psal. 66. Ne putetis (saith he) ex alijs Scripturis petendum, quod forte hic deest. Thinke not (saith he) that it is to be found in any other writings if it be not in Scripture. And in another place: In Euangelio quaeramus, nam si ibi non inuenimus, vbi inueniemus? Let vs (saith he) seeke to be resolued in the Gospell, if we finde not there, where shall we find it? Ergo by the iudgemēt of Augustine there is no truth necessary to be knowen, which is not to be found in the Scripture.

THE THIRD PART OF THE SEVENTH question: whether there be any traditions, beside Scripture concerning faith and manners.

The Papistes.

[error 13] THey vnderstand by this word tradition, doctrine, preceptes, and cere∣monies, with other vsages of the Church, which are not written in the scriptures. They do not say that all their traditiōs are necessary, but they make diuerse kindes of them: some are vniuersall, obserued in the whole Church,

some particular: some are free, some necessarie, some are Apostolicall, inuen∣ted by the Apostles, some Ecclesiasticall by the Church: so thus they conclude: all traditions decreed in Councels, and iudged Apostolicall: & whatsoeuer the Church of Rome receiueth as Apostolicall, are not to be doubted, but to be Apostolicall indeed. Secondly, all Apostolicall traditions are of equall autho∣ritie with the writings of the Apostles. Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 2. & 9. and they are that part of the word of God which is vnwritten, as well as the scriptures are that part which is written: Let vs see what arguments they bring for these tra∣ditions.

1 They geue an instance of certaine traditiōs, as the Baptisme of infants, and the not rebaptising of those, which were before Baptised by heretikes: We aunswere, these two customes of the Church are grounded vpon scrip∣ture: for as childrē were in the time of the law Circūcised, so are they now vn∣der the Gospell Baptised: and that promise Gene. 17. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seede, as it belonged to them and their children, so doth it apper∣taine to vs and our children.

Concerning the other point, that they whom heretikes haue once Baptised, ought not to be Baptised againe: S. Augustine doth proue it out of the scrip∣ture. Ephe. 4. there is one Faith, one Baptisme, Ergo not to be repeated.

But now they come in with other traditions, as the Lenton fast, which they vse most fondly and superstitiously: the eight Ecclesiasticall orders, Bishops, Prists, Deacōs, Subdeacons, Acolythistes, Readers, Exorcistes, Doore-keepers, the worshipping of Images, with many other: these they would face vs out to be Apostolical traditions, and to haue bene vniuersally obserued, which are but their vayne brags, and Thrasonicall crakes: they shall neuer proue them vniuersall, much lesse Apostolicall: And because they finde no scripture to e∣stablish these their superstitious fantasies by, they flye vnto tradition, which is their onely hauen, where they hope to finde succour: but all in vayne. Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 9. Consul. Whitacher. quaest. 6. cap. 4.

2 They proceede and alledge scripture for their traditions, as that place Iohn. 16.12. I haue many things to say, but you can not beare them now, Ergo say they, there are many traditions not written.

We aunswere. First, it foloweth not, because Christ declared not all things at that time, that therefore he kept them from his Apostles all together. Nay whatsoeuer afterwardes the Apostles learned of the spirite of God, they had heard before of Christ, for it was the office of the spirite, but to put them in remembrance of Christes sayings. Iohn. 14.26. which they had heard before, but vnderstood them not, and so forgat them. Wherefore these things, which Christ forbeareth to speake, are the same things, which are cōteined in the A∣postles writings. Secondly, if there were other matters, which Christ vttered not, how foloweth it, nay what great presumptiō is it to say, that those trifles and apish toyes, which the Papistes vse in their Idolatrous sacrifice, and their other beggarly ceremonies (which boyes may well laugh at) are those profoūd

matters, which the Apostles were not then able to conceiue.

3 That of all other, they take to be an inuincible place. 2. Thess. 2.15. keepe the instructions or traditions, which ye haue bene taught either by word, or by Epistle, Ergo there are traditions besides scripture.

We aunswere: when S. Paule wrote this Epistle, all the scriptures were not writtē: wherefore besides these two short Epistles, which do not conteine the summe of the Gospell, nor all necessarie preceptes, he by his preaching sup∣plied, what was wanting, and so declared vnto them the whole mysterie of the Gospell, as he saith. 1. Thess. 2.2. these he calleth his traditions, because yet he had not written his other Epistles, wherein those instructions and traditions are conteined. This then is but a weake argument: the Thessalonians had o∣ther instructiōs and traditions beside the two Epistles writtē vnto them, Ergo they had other traditiōs, beside all the writings of S. Paule and the other Apo∣stles: this is their mayne and waightie argument.

The Protestantes.

FIrst, we graunt, that all things are not written which our Sauiour Christ and the Apostles taught, and that it was the Gospell, which they preached, as well as this which is written: yet in substance they preached the same Gos∣pell, which now is expressed in the scripture: neither was there any necessarie precept deliuered in their Sermons, which is not now to be found in the scrip∣tures. Secondly, we denie not but there were certaine rites and orders ordai∣ned by the Apostles in diuerse churches, which were not cōmitted to writing, because they were not to continue and endure for euer in the Church: as that precept Act. 16. that the Gentiles should abstaine from strangled, and from bloud. Thirdly, we also graunt that the Church may vse externall rites and orders either left by tradition, or ordained by the Church for decencie and comelynesse, and tending to edification. But we constantly affirme, that there are no traditions in the Church of God necessarie to saluation beside scripture: wherein all things are conteined necessarie to saluation, both con∣cerning faith and manners.

1 It is not lawfull, as to take ought from the word of God, so to adde any thing vnto it. Deut. 12.32. Apocal. 22.18. But they which bring in traditiōs ne∣cessarie beside the scriptures, do adde vnto them, Ergo.

To the proposition the Iesuite aunswereth, that all addition to the word of God is not forbidden, for the Prophets did write after Moses, & the Apostles after the Euangelistes. We aunswere: that those holy men had authoritie from God to compile scripture, if the Papistes haue the like Apostolike authori∣tie for their traditions, let them shew it, and we will beleeue them. Secondly, the Prophetes did but explane Moses, and expound the law, and the Apo∣stles did as it were set forth their Commentaries vpon the Gospell: this there∣fore was no addition, because they did not derogate from the perfection of the scriptures any way.

To the assumptiō they aunswere, that their traditions are but expositiōs of

Scripture. We aunswere, their traditions are cleane contrarie to Scripture, as the worshipping of Images, and the sacrifice of their Masse: and they adde to Scripture, making it vnperfect, saying, it doth not conteine all things neces∣sarie to saluation. Wherefore they can not escape that curse, which they runne into that adde to the word of God.

2 All traditions among the Iewes besides the law were condemned Math. 15.3. Ergo all vnwritten traditions now must be abolished. The Iesuite aunswereth. First, Christ condemned not the auncient traditions of Moses, but those which were newly and lately inuented. Aunswere, first the Scrip∣ture maketh no mention of any such traditions of Moses: Christ biddeth them search the Scriptures, not runne vnto traditions. Secondly, these see∣med to be auncient traditions, bearing the name of Elders traditions, and they were in great authoritie amongest, the Iewes: most like because of some long continuance.

Secondly (saith he) Christ findeth fault with wicked and impious traditions. Aunswere. First, their traditions were not openly and plainly euill and perni∣cious, but had some shew of holynesse, as the washing of pots, and tables, and beds. I would the Papists did not here take thē selues by the nose, whose tradi∣tions come nearer to open impietie, and blasphemie, then theirs did. Secondly, Christ in opposing the Scripture against traditions, therein condemneth all traditions not written, besides the Scripture.

3 If Paule preaching the whole Gospell. Act. 20.27. did say none other things then Moses and the Prophetes, then all things necessarie to saluation are conteined in the Scriptures. For it can not be said to be a whole and perfite Gospell, if any thing necessarie to saluation be wanting. But Paule preached nothing, but out of Moses and the Prophetes. Act. 26.22. Ergo much more now is the Scripture a perfect rule of faith: we hauing beside Moses and the Pro∣phetes, the holy writings of the Euangelistes and Apostles.

4 Last of all, although we might multiplie many arguments, but these I trust, strongly concluding out of Scripture, may serue as a sufficient bulwarke against all Popish paper▪ bullets. Let vs heare in the knitting vp the iudge∣ment of Augustine. In his rebus inquit, in quib nihil certi statuit Scriptura, mos populi Dei, vel instituta maiorum, pro lege tenenda. Epist. 86. In all those things (saith he) speaking of externall rules, and ceremonies, of the which we haue no certaine rule out of Scripture, the custome of the people of God, and the godly constitutions of our forefathers must stand for a law: but concer∣ning matters of faith and good maners the Scriptures do giue certaine rules: as in another place: In ijs quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt, inueniuntur illa omnia, quae continent fidem, moresque viuendi, De doctrin. Christian. 2.9. all things appertaining to faith, and the rule of life, are plainlie expressed in the Scripture, Ergo by the sentence of Augustine, traditions besides scrip∣ture haue nothing to do with the doctrine of faith and manners, but do con∣sist onely in externall rites and customes of the Church.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Iudith ca. 5.
• * 1.2

  Ephe. 6.