The pseudo-scripturist. Or A treatise wherein is proued, that the wrytten Word of God (though most sacred, reuerend, and diuine) is not the sole iudge of controuersies, in fayth and religion. Agaynst the prime sectaries of these tymes, who contend to maintayne the contrary. Written by N.S. Priest, and Doctour of Diuinity. Deuided into two parts. And dedicated to the right honorable, and reuerned iudges of England, and the other graue sages of the law.

THE FIRST PART OF THE PSEVDOSCRIPTVRIST,

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

BEFORE we enter into any particuler redargution and reproual of the Prote∣stants doctrine touching the subiect of this Treatise, I must put them in mind with what slanderous calumniations (for detraction is euer accustomed to tread vpon the heeles of truth and in∣tegrity) they wrong vs Catholikes for our supposed contempt of the holy Scriptures; their chief reason thereof (besides others) being, because we deny to them that facility and easines, as that they ought to de∣termine all doubts of religion, before the true sense of

them (among so many, that are forced and adulterate) be deliuered by the Pastours of Gods Church. And heer∣upon they teach, that we in effect reiect the Scriptures, and do aduance mens doctrines and iudgements aboue them: So deep are their pens steeped in gaul against vs; and so deseruedly may they be ranged with those menti∣oned by the (a) 1.1 Prophet: Fraudulenti vasa pessima sunt, vs{que} ad perdendos mites in sermone mendacij. But how easy is it to dissipate and dissolue this cloud of suggesting malice? For we teach not, that the Church is to iudge, whether that which the Scripture sayth, be true or false (since the Scrip∣ture is Scripture, and most true, whether the Church should so iudge of it or not) but our doctrine is, that it being first acknowledged for an infallible principle, that the wordes of the Scripture are most true, the Church doth only teach (amongst many interpretations) which is the true sense and meaning of the sayd wordes. And in this sort it followeth not, that the Church is aboue Gods Word (for it is only a vigilant Depositary and Guardian thereof) but aboue the iudgement of particuler men in∣terpreting his Word; which men do commonly make their priuate and reuealing spirit, to become (as it were) their Mercuryes-rod, therewith to chase away all constru∣ction of Scripture, not sorting to their phantasyes. Nei∣ther doth the Scripture, receaue any strength and force (which afore it wanted) from this sentence and iudgment of the Church, but only our vnderstanding is strength∣ned & confirmed thereby: which sentence of the Church is not meerely the Word of man (which is lyable to er∣rour and vncertainty) but in some sort it may be tearmed the Word of God (as being deliuered by the assistance of the Holy Ghost) in regard of those infallible promises made in the Scriptures to the Church, that she (b) 1.2 should not erre. * 1.3

2. But to proceed further in acknowledging our due respect to the Scriptures, we graunt most freely, that they are the spirituall conduits, whereby are deriued to vs the highest misteryes of our fayth; that the blessed

penners of them were so directed by the holy Ghost, as that they neither did, nor could erre in any one letter; that they transcend in worth and dignity all humane wri∣tings, as farre as an infallibility of truth surpasseth a possi∣bility of errour. Lastly that the sense of them is a most powerfull and working phisicke against the poysonous receitps of all hereticall distillations, if so it be deliuered by the appointment of our spirituall Phisitian. So vene∣rable and reuerent respect (we see) the Catholiks do beare to the sacred Scripture, as to one chiefe meanes ordained by God for our eternall health and wellfare; yet withall they teach, that true fayth is to be found not in leaues of the wordes, but in the roole of the sense; thus making the true and indubious interpretation of Gods word to be a rule to the Protestants imaginary rule: since it is to ouerule & con∣troule the priuate spirit of euery particuler Sectary.

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

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

Secondly they teach, that it is norma infallibilis, an infallible rule or square of fayth, that is, that nothing con∣trary to the Scripture is to be admitted; but they say not, that it is the only rule of square, and therefore they affir∣me, that besids the Scripture there are Apostolical traditiōs and other definitions of the Church. Thus we grant, that the written word is, regula partialis, but not regula totalis, of fayth and Religion; and therefore we admitte some

thinges praeter Scripturam, but nothing contra Scripturam; that is, we approue some thinges not expresly sound in the Scripture, but not any thing contrary or repugnant to the Scripture.

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

6. Fourthly, and lastly, they deny not, but that the Scripture may in a restained sense be tearmed the Iudge of all Controuersies in faith; because it (c) 1.4 appointeth and setteth downe, who is that Iudge (to wit the Church,) as also they grant, that in the lyke reserued construction the Scripture may be said to deliuer all thinges sufficiently which belong to faith and religion: And this not only, because it deliuereth euidently al those articles of faith, which are simply and absolutely necessary for all men to know (as the Articles of our Creed, the Decalogue, and those Sacraments which are more necessary) but also in that all other poyntes whatsoeuer, concerning either the true exposition of the written word, or faith and religion in general, are warranted by the infallible authority of the Church. which infallible authority is proued & com∣mended to vs by the holy Scripture. And thus on the one syde, the Scripture warranting the Churches authority, and on the other, the Church setting downe and appro∣uing the true sense of the Scripture; it may hereupon be iustly sayd, that both these (I meane the Church and the Scripture) do interchangeably receaue their proofe, out of the proofe they giue. Therfore all impertinencyes layd aside, the touch of the question heere between our Ad∣uersaryes and vs resteth in this: Whether all thinges, which

necessarily belong to religion, are so fully and abundantly deliuered in the Scripture, as that they are either expresly contained therein, or els without the Churches authority interposed, they may particuler∣ly be necessarily deduced from the Scripture; and so in regard heerof, whether the Scripture is to become the only Iudge of such arti••les, or no. In which question we hould (as is sayd) the nega∣tiue parte, but our Aduersaryes the affirmatiue. So faire different in opinion are our Sectaryes from the iudgment of Vincentius Lyrinensis, touching the interposition of the Churches authority in the exposition of Scripture, who thus writeth (d) 1.5 heerof: Multum necesse est &c. It is very need∣full in regard of so many errours proceeding from the misinterpreta∣tion of Scripture, that the line of Propheticall and Apostolicall ex∣position, should be directed according to the rule of the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense.

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

8. Yet before I enter into any particuler dispute ther∣of, I intend to discouer and lay open the weaknes of one mayne retraite or sanctuary, whereunto our Aduersaryes are accustomed to fly in their maintayning the Scriptu∣re for Iudge; for when they are pressed with the abstruse difficultyes found in the Scripture in regard of the seueral obtruded interpretations of it, and doubtfulnes of the true meaning of the Holy Ghost therein, their common re∣fuge then they make to the priuate spirit, which spirit D. Whitaker (e) 1.6 thus speciously entitles: An inward perswasion of truth from the Holy Ghost, in the secret closets of the belieuers hart. This spirit (say they) infallibly instructeth them in the true vnderstanding of the Scripture, so as by the assistan∣ce heerof they are enabled to picke out (among so many

false constructions) the true and vndoubted construction, and according to the same to determine and iudge the point or Controuersy, for which such passages of Scrip∣ture are produced by them; and thus the end of all is, that the priuate spirit interpreting the Scripture, is to be the sole and supreme Iudge of al Controuersies of fayth. Now this their chiefe hold or strength (being indeed their last most despayring euasion, therby to decline the authority of the Church) I will ruinate, and ouerthrow in the next Chapter following, which Chapter may serue as certaine Prolegomena, to the ensuing Treatise; The force of this their refuge I will proue to be most vncertaine, yea false and erroneous, and this, first from Scripture, and secondly from force and weight of naturall reason.

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

IF we will take a view of what is sayd in Gods Word concerning this point, we shal find it most plentifull, in absolutly denying this power of iudging or interpreting to be∣long to the priuate spirit. And first, what can be more pregnantly sayd to conuince this phantasy, then those wordes of the (f) 1.7 Apostle? To one is giuen by the spirit the word of wisedome, to another the word of knowledge according to the same spirit &c. to another Prophesy, and to another inter∣pretation of tongues. Where we see, that the Apostle plain∣ly, and as it were of purpose, refelleth this doctrine, since he teacheth, that the guift of interpreting the Scripture is not giuen to all the faythfull; contrary to the practise and

experience of our English Puritanes, who, how ignorant soeuer they be, presuming that they are of the number of the faythfull and elect, do most confidently vaunt of the guift of expounding the Scriptures.

2. And that we may better heere obserue, how the two chiefe Apostles do second one the other in this que∣stion; I will alledge S. Peters owne words, as perspicu∣ous and cleare for our purpose as may be, who (g) 1.8 sayth No prophesy of the Scripture is made by any priuate interpretation; In both which places and texts, by the word (Prophesy) is meant (as our Aduersaries do acknowledge) the true vnderstanding and interpreting of the holy Scriptures.

3. Another place we will produce out of S. Iohn, (h) 1.9 who saith thus: Dearly beloued, belieue not euery spirit, but try the spirites, if they be of God. By which wordes we are taught, that the spirit of others are to be examined, if they pro∣ceed from God or not. This admonition cannot be vn∣derstood of the spirit of the whole Church, since then it should follow, that there should be none left to try the said spirit of the Church (euery particuler man being in∣cluded therin.) If then it is to be vnderstood of priuate mē (as of necessity it must) it followeth, that a priuate spirit cannot be this Iudge, since it selfe is to vndergoe (by the former text) the iudgement and examination of some other. If it be replyed, that the Scripture is to examine this spirit, this auayleth nothing, especially if the poynt, wherin the priuat spirit doth exercise it selfe, be of the sense and meaning of the Scripture. Therfore it remaineth, that the spirit be tryed by the cōformity, which it beareth to those, whom, it is certaine, to haue the true spirit in∣deed: and this is the whole Church of God it selfe, being the pillar (i) 1.10 and foundation of truth. A poynt so cleare, that Luther (k) 1.11 (conuinced by euidency of the truth) is forced to say: De nullo priuato homine certisumus &c. We are not cer∣taine of any priuat person, whether he hath the reuelation of the fa∣ther or no (meaning hereby the reuelation of the sense of the Scripture) but that the Church hath it, we ought not to doubt. What answeres now will our Aduersaries bring to the

former texts of Scripture? Will they seeke to auoyde all these by putting vs in mynd, that it is written: (l) 1.12 Pater vester dabit spiritum bonum petentibus se: and therfore euery priuate man, that will aske this spirit of God, may haue it? Let them remember that (besydes these words are not vnderstood of the spirit of interpreting, but of the spirit of faith, hope, and charity) it is also written (m) 1.13 Petitis & non accipitis, eò quòd malè petatis. And therfore many may implore of God the guift of this spirit, and yet not obtaine it; since they perhaps demande it not with that due dis∣position of mind, & in such sort, as God exacteth at their handes

4. This then being so, who in all likelyhood is fur∣ther of from fruitfully & effectually praying for the same (to the gayning wherof humility & resignation of iudg∣ment, euen by our Aduersaries (n) 1.14 acknowledment, is, among other thinges, necessarily required) then this al∣censuring spirit, which is euer drunke with a self lyking, and which is arriued to that height of pryde and elation of mind, as it houldeth it more reasonable, that all autho∣rityes should passe vnder the fyle & polishing of his own approbation? It cannot assure vs with (o) 1.15 Brentius, that it belongeth to euery priuate man to iudge of the doctrine of Religion, and to discerne the truth from falshood. It is in like sort of force to coyne and stampe this position with (p) 1.16 Caluin, and (q) 1.17 Kemnitius, as a receaued Axiome, to wit, that the definitions and sentences, euen of generall Councells, are to be poysed by the ballance of each mans priuate iudgment; though with such a one (especially if he be ignorant and vnlearned) guilded apparances of rea∣son do for the most part preponderate, and waigh downe reason it selfe: such is the Tarquinian and insupportable pryde of this spirit, since by such transcendent speaches & actions it warranteth, that the sheep is to guide or direct their Pastour; the subiect to determine the sentence of his Prince; and the delinquent most insolently and petulan∣tly to iudge his owne Iudges.

5. But to passe from the testimony of Gods word

written by the Apostles and Euangelistes, vnto the in∣ward testimony written by himselfe in the booke of each mans vnderstanding: we shall easely find, that euen Na∣turall reason is able to conuince of falshood our Aduersa∣ryes former assertion.

6. And first, what greater ouersight can be, then to acknowledge that for Iudge of Controuersyes (for thus our Aduersaryes do, when they giue an infallibility of in∣terpreting to the priuate spirit) which is not of power & ability to determine any Controuersie? And this insuf∣ficiency we find to be in such priuate spirits; for we see by experience, that in the explication of these foure wordes only, This (r) 1.18 is my body, as also for the texts (s) 1.19 vr∣ged for Christs descending into hell; wherein the Luthe∣rans, and Caluinists do so differ, as that their meere con∣trary & irreconciliable Constructions do not only ma∣nifest the vntruth and errour of the one of them; but also the doctrine, for which the sayd textes are vrged, is, after their long disputations and different sentences pronoun∣ced, as much doubted of (if not more) then it was in the beginning: And yet both the Lutherans and Caluinists do challeng alike to thēselues the guist of this expounding spirit, withal the necessary conditions attending the same, as Prayer, Humility, Skill in the tongues, Conferences of seuerall passages of Scripture, the one stil obiecting to the other the clearnes & perspicuity of Gods word in their own behalf.

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

8. Thirdly, seeing that the doubts of Religion do rise amongst men, who are visible and knowne one to ano∣ther; how can it be imagined, that the Iudge, who is to take vp and compound al these differences, should be such a one, as can neither be seene nor heard by any of the contending partyes? For the spirit, which is in this man, suppose it did infallibly interprete aright, yet can it not be seene, heard, or acknowledged for such, by another man, in that he cannot be vndoubtedly assured, that the same spirit is warranted from God, since false teachers do ordinarily maske themselues vnder the borrowed veile of Gods Ministers, and false (t) 1.20 Apostles (after they once haue ascended the Thabor of the reuealing spirit, vainely talking of Elias & Moyses) tranfiguring themselues into the Apostles of Christ: All who notwithstanding do equal∣ly vaunt of this spirit, and yet neuertheles doe cast in the mould thereof, most vncertaine, and oftentimes repug∣nant doctrines; seeing then the rule or iudge of Fayth & Religion ought to be both knowne and certaine; for if it be not knowne, it can be no Iudge (at least) to vs, and if it be vncertaine, it can be no Iudge at all; therefore it is euidently euicted, that the reauealing spirit (as being most vnknowne and vncertaine) can in no case be ere∣cted as Iudge amongst vs Christians.

9. Fourthly our Aduersaryes do teach, that this spirit is giuē not generally to all, but particularly to some, to wit, to the Elect & the faythfull, as Caluin (u) 1.21 affirmeth; from which doctrine it followeth. First, that God hath left no certaine and generall rule, or guide in his Church, wher∣by all men may arriue to the true knowledge of him, but only some few and particuler men. Secondly, since we cannot infallibly know, who is of the Elect & faith∣full, therefore we cannot be vndoubtedly assured (as is a∣boue touched) to whome this spirit is giuen, as D. Whi∣taker (x) 1.22 confesseth (and consequently it auayleth no man but him who only enioyeth it,) seeing euery one of our Aduersaryes do in like manner obtrude themselues into the number of the Elect. And therefore seeing that Lu∣ther

and Caluin did indifferently challenge to themselues the like illumination of this spirit, and yet taught con∣trary doctrines concerning Canonicall Scripture and the Reall presence: And seeing it is cortaine, that both were not inspired with the holy Ghost (for he teacheth not contradictions) and that the one had no greater illumina∣tion then the other; it therefore necessarily followeth, that we ought to giue no greater credit to the one, then to the other; & so since we cannot belieue both, we ought (according to all force of reason) to belieue neither.

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

11. Six••ly and lastly, the falshood of the Protestants doctrine heerein is euicted from the Protestants doctrine in another point (thus is heresy become the sword, which woundeth heresy) to wit, that Generall Councells may erre; for if such Synods (being aduantaged with many priuiledges aboue any one priuate man) may want the assistance of the holy Ghost in interpreting the Scripture or defining what is heresy; how can we probably assure our selues, that this or that particuler Protestant infallibly enioyeth the guift of expounding truly Gods sacred writ∣ten word? And because this inference is much preiudi∣ciall

to our Aduersaries, therfore I will dissect euery par∣ticular veyne and sinew of all such circumstances, which may afford aduantage to the one part aboue the other.

12. Thus then, if an Oecumenical and generall Coū∣cell indicted and confirmed by lawfull authority, repre∣senting the maiesty of Gods Church, as being the supreme (y) 1.23 Tribunal therof; assured by (z) 1.24 promise of Christ his assisting presence; warranted with the first exāple of that kind by the blessed (a) 1.25 Apostles; highly reuerenced and magnified by the (b) 1.26 ancient fathers; acknowledged and receaued by our learnedest (c) 1.27 aduersaries; consisting of seuerall hundreds of most venerable Prelates, conspicuous for vertue, readines in the Scriptures, varieties of tongues, and infinitenes of reading; gathered from the most remote and opposite regions of Christendome, and therfore the lesse probable vpon their such sudden meeting ioyntly to imbrace any one poynt of innouation; battering daily vpon their knees at the eares of Almighty God with most humble and feruerous prayer, seconded with most austere fastinges, and other corporall chastisements; and all this to the end, that it would vouchsase his diuine goodnes, so to guide and sterne this reuerend assembly with his ho∣ly spirit, as what expositions they giue of the Scripture, or what otherwise they determine for vndoubted faith, may be agreable to his sacred word and truth. Now, notwith∣standing this, if such a celebrious concourse and conflu∣ence (I say) of Pastours (being the Mart, or Rende-uous of vertue and learning) shall so faile therein, as that they may, and haue sundry tymes most fouly erred (as our su∣percilious (d) 1.28 Sectaryes auouch) in their Constructions of Scripture and resolutions of fayth, though all such their decrees be otherwise warranted with a iudiciall confe∣rence of Scripture, the generall practise of Gods Church, and the conspiring testimonyes of all antiquity: If this (I say) may happen (the best meanes thus producing the worst effects) what shall we then conceaue of an obscure

Syr Iohn (a man ingendred in the ••lyme of pryde and ig∣norance) who acknowledgeth no other Apostolical Sea, then his owne Parish Church, and who in some points euer subdeuideth himselfe from the rest of his (e) 1.29 brethren, so as he is truely condemned of heresy, euen by the lying mouth of heresy: A man for the most part depraued in manners, but competent for learning, not hauing any warrant from God for his proceeding, nor president from his holy Church: Yea one to whome God Hatly (f) 1.30 deny∣eth this presumed certainty of expounding Gods word; and (further) of whose spirit we are commaunded (g) 1.31 to doubt, and (which is more) of whose seducing (h) 1.32 we are most cautelously premonished.

13. Now, if this man being in his Pulpit vpon the Lords day, in the presence of his ignorant and psalming auditory (a fit Pathmos for his ensewing reuelations) and there opening the Bible (for thus falshood is forced to beg countenance from truth) & vndertaking to expound some text or other for the establishing of his late appearing fayth (though contrary to the iudgement of all auncient Councells) affirming himselfe to be secured by speciall Euthysiames and illuminations from God for the better iud∣ging the point controuerted, rysing from his owne ex∣plication of Scripture: which being don, what assurance may we haue of the truth of this his all-iudging spirit? And is there not great reason to expect more errours, then sentences to drop from this mans mouth? And what mad∣nes then is it, to allow to such an one (and but one) that infallibility of spirit in expounding Gods sacred Write, and answerable determining the articles of fayth, which himselfe denyeth to a generall Councell? Yet such is the forward blindnes of our enchanted Nouellistes heerin, who (for example) preferre in this case, vnder the pretext of the reuealing spirit, before the mature and graue resolu∣tions of all antiquity and Councells, the ignorant, rash, and sensuall positions and interpretations of an incestuous reuolted (i) 1.33 Monke, or stigmaticall (k) 1.34 fugitiue; intimating heereby, that many vertuous and learned men gathered

togeather for the disquisitiō of truth, must necessarily erre; one sole, obscure, lateborne, illiterate, irreligious Scrip∣turist cannot erre. O insensa••i (i) 1.35 Galatae, quis vos fascina••it &c?

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

The reasons of the Scriptures difficulty. CHAP. III.

WHY the Catholikes do absolutely deny the Scriptures to haue this inappeachable soue∣raignty of resoluing all doubts in religion, there is no reason (amongst others) more forcible, then that which is drawne from the difficulty of true vnderstanding the sayd writinges; for though our Aduersaryes do pretend the easines of them to be such, as that any how ignorant soeuer (if so he be of the number of the iustifyed) may withall readines picke out the true sense, for the approbation, and fortifying of any point of Fayth whatsoeuer: Yet he who looketh into this matter with a cleare-sighted iudgement, shall find them to be inuolued with so many ambiguityes, as that aforehand he shall haue need to repaire to some (m) 1.36 Ana∣nias or other, to remoue from his eyes the scales of parti∣ality, ignorance, and other imperfections.

2. Therefore let such, whose state (through want of learning or otherwise) is not to intermedle with those sacred writinges, remember the punishment inflicted to the (n) 1.37 Bethsamites, for curiously behoulding the Arke,

which belonged not to them; yet we see the considera∣tion of this danger, and of far greater, is not powerfull i∣nough, to controle the ignorant Sectary in his expoun∣ding the Scripture; who being once placed vpon the high pinacle of his reuealing spirit, vndertakes to view al ages and Countryes of the Church; and ouerlooking the iudgments of priuate Fathers, interpreting Gods written word (as low and humble vales) extends his sight to the summity and height of generall Councells therein, still behoulding with a feuere eye, whatsoeuer standeth not right in the line of his owne exposition.

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

Of the subiect of the Scriptures. CHAP. IIII.

TO begin with the subiect of the Scriptures; we are herein to obserue, that it as farpasseth in depth and prosundity the contents of mans wrytinges, as God (the authour therof) ouer∣goeth him in wisedome and power. For wheras the matter of all such humane labours, is euer such, as that the naturall wit of man is sutable and proportio∣nable

thereto, both for the deliuering or apprehending thereof: and the reason heereof is, because the vnderstan∣ding, being as it were the summe of our little world, euer keepeth it selfe within the Tropicks of naturall reason, and consequently is not of force to deliuer or apprehend any thing, which may not be confined within the same compasse; whereas if we looke into the subiect of these celestiall and diuine writinges, we shall find the height of many thinges intreated therein, to be such, as that they transcend all naturall reason.

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

3. But I will insist a little in those two incompre∣hensible and astonishing Articles of Christian faith, reuea∣led to vs out of those former diuine Scriptures, to wit, of the Trinity, and of the Incarnation; wherin, in the first (to omit diuers other stupendious difficulties) we are taught by ••he said Oracles of God, that one and the same Nature (to wit the Godhead) is in three persons really distinct; & the same Nature is really and formally identifyed with each of the three persons. In lyke sort, in the article of the

Incarnatiō, (where besydes that the Creatour of al things is become a Creature, and the father the daughters sonne) we receaue from the same fountaine, that in one Hypostasis or person (to wit in the person of Christ) are two perfect natures very far different, and that this Hypostasis is altoge∣ther really & formally identifyed with the diuyne Nature, & neuertheles is most in wardly vnited with the humane Nature, which humane nature doth really and formally differ from the diuine nature. And thus much, but to skim ouer superficially this poynt of the subiect and matter of the Scriptures; which if it were handled according to the fulnes & largnes of it selfe, would iustly require a Treatise of no small quantity.

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

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

2. The Allegoricall sense euer beares reference of a spi∣rituall and secret meaning to Christ, or his Church. So we read that Abraham hauing truly and really two sonnes, the one borne of the free-woman, the other of the bond-slaue, did figure out the two testamēts of God, euen by the

exposition of (a) 1.38 S. Paul.

3. The Tropologicall is directed to instruction of man∣ners or conuersation of lyfe. And answerably to this we fynd that text, (b) 1.39 Thou shalt not m••ss•••• the mou••h of the Oxe, that treadeth out the corne, to be interpreted S. Paul (c) 1.40 of Gods preachers, who are to be maintained at the charges of their ••lock.

4. The Anagogicall sense implyeth a construction to heauen or eternall felicity; and hereupon we fynd that verse of the (d) 1.41 prophet, I sware in my wrath, if they shall not enter into my rest; to be interpreted (besydes the literall meaning of the Land of promise) by the (e) 1.42 Apostle of e∣ternall life.

5. Now then there being, besides the literall sense, so many mysticall senses of Scripture, heere the difficulty ariseth, that seing some texts are to be vnderstood only l••terally, others both literally & mistically, how we may know which are the texts, that admit only a literall construction, and which both a literal and spirituall; and if a spirituall interpretation, which of the former three is to be asigned to them, since euery text is not capable of all the three spirituall senses. And which is yet more, there are some passages of Scripture, where in one and the same sentence, one and the same word (being twise repeated) is in the one place taken literally, in the other figuratiuely or mystically, as in those words of Christ, Let the dead bury the dead. Al this must be knowne, before we (f) 1.43 can d••aw any forcible argument from any such texts; in regard of which difficulty it may not seeme strange, if sundry of the a••ncient doctors did erre in their comments vpon the Scriptures, some of them affecting so much the literal sense, as that they did spoyl•• it of all mysticall con∣struction; others through their nyce and wholy spiritu∣allyzed imaginations, would so streyne the Scriptures, as that for the most part they neglected the letter, & would extract nothing els, but spirituall, and (as it were) certaine Chymicall senses through their own ••ue•• curious sub•• ma∣tion

of the said diuyne Scriptures, as it is ••u••dent out of the expositions of diuers passages of Scripture giuen by (g) 1.44 Tertulian and (h) 1.45 Origen.

6. In regard then of the impregnable truth of the Scriptures di••nculty, (both in re••pect of the many senses therof, as also of the phrase and style, as hereafter shall appeare) it is a wo••ld to obserue, how idly and im∣pertinently our Aduersaryes do obiect d••uers passages of it to proue its owne perspicuity. To this end where the Scripture doth of••en inculcate, that the Commandements and will of God (being once knowne) do become a light to the soule for the gu••ding of her selfe; these testimonyes (I say) our Sectaryes most violently force, to proue that the Scripture is, in regard of the vnderstanding of it selfe, of that light and perspicuity, that the true sense and mea∣ning of it, is most obuious and facile▪ Thus do they vrge those wordes of the (i) 1.46 Prophet: ••raeceptum Domini lucidum illuminaus oculos. The commandment of the Lord is cleare enlightning the eyes: As also that other (k) 1.47 Text: Lucerna pedibus meis verbum tuum. Thy word is a lanterne to my feet. And finally that of the (l) 1.48 Prouerbes: Mandatum lucer∣na est, & lex tu•• &c. Thy Commandment is a lampe, and thy Law a light. In like sort we find, that they strangely racke cer∣taine Texts, which only concerne the facility and easines of the D••••alog••e or ten Commandments to conuince the easines of the Scripture in general, as that place of (m) 1.49 Deu∣tronomy (to omit others) Mandatum, quod ego praecipio tibihodie, non supra te est &c. The Commandement which I command the•• this day, is not abou•• thee▪ neither is it farre of, interpreted of the easines only of fulfilling the Cōmandments of the De∣calogue by Tertullian, as also by Ambrose, Chrysostome, and others vpon the tenth to the Romans.

7. To conclude this point where the Apostle 2. Cor. 4. particulerly meaneth, that our belief in Christ (to wit that he was borne, suffered, and did ryse from death for mans saluation) is so euident and cleare, as that if it be hid from any, it is only from such, as doe perish, & whose eyes the God of th•••• world hath blinded; which interpre∣tation

is necessarily confirmed by comparing with this text the Chapter afore in the sayd Epistle, where the A∣postle teacheth, that all points touching Christ were seen in the law obscurely in shadowes and figures only: yet will our Aduersaryes haue that place to be meant of the euidency of clearnes and vnderstanding the Scripture; which passage notwithstanding is to be interpreted in the sense aboue mentioned, and whereunto those wordes of Tertullian may seeme to allude: Christo moriente nata est hae∣reditas nostra, Christo resurgente confirmata est, Christo ascenden∣te in Caelos permanet in eternum.

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

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

2. But besides these kind of figures common to euery

language, there are in the sayd heauenly writings diuers (n) 1.50 phrases peculiar only to the Hebrew tōgue (in which language the chiefest part of them was first written) and consequently with great difficulty they are to be vnder∣stood of those, which are ignorant of the same tongue. If those which are skillfull in the Greeke doe deseruedly at∣tribute a great hardnes therof to the diuersity of dialects, to wit, of Atticisme, Eolisme, Ionisme, Beotisme, and the like, all these being Idiomes proper to the Greeke tongue; what hardnes then must we imagine, that eare will find, when it shall read the Scriptures in some one tongue or other, and yet much therof in a phrase or speach altogeather dif∣ferent from that tongue, wherein he readeth them, and peculiar to another strange language, whereof he hath no knowledge at all?

3. To passe on further, the Scripture in diuers pas∣sages is deliuered in very ambiguous, imperfect, & bro∣ken sentences, which are such as must greatly increase the doubtfulnes of the meaning of the Holy Ghost; And to exemplify but one amongst many, where the (o) 1.51 Iewes demanded of our Sauiour: Tu quis es? And he answered: Principium, qui & loquor vobis. Which answere of his is so ob∣scure, as that it hardly standeth with good construction, especially in all Greek copyes, wherin we find the greek word signifying, principium (viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) to be of the accusatiue case; and therefore no maruaile if the Fathers, as we find in their commentaryes, did much labour in the exposition of these very wordes.

4. Lastly to conuince demonstratiuely the difficulty of the holy Scriptures concerning the Letter, the Holy Ghost (who is truth it selfe, and cannot leaue written contrary and repugnant thinges) hath neuerthelesse thought good, for our greater humility, in acknowled∣ging the abysmall obstrusenes of those writinges, to pen the same in such manner, as that there appeare diuers sen∣tences, which at the first sight and reading, seeme meere contradictory; in so much that if the one be true, it fol∣loweth, in the iudgment of the illiterate Scripturist, who

resteth, only in the naked word; that the other is false. Infinite examples might be alledged, but these few fol∣lowing shall suffice.

5. Dominus (p) 1.52 precaepit Semei, vt malediceret Dauid. Our Lord commanded Semei, that he would accurse Dauid. In like sort it is said: (q) 1.53 God deliuered them vp to a reprobate sense, to do those thinges which are not conuenient: both which actions no man will deny, but to haue beene sinnes. And yet weread elswhere: Nem••••i (r) 1.54 mandauit impiè agere: God hath commanded no man to do wickedly.

6. In l••ke sort in one place we read: Et ne nos inducas intentationem: And lead vs not into temptation; which prayer seemes to be superfluous, if God did not sometymes tempt men; and yet to confront (as it were) this text (s) 1.55 S. Iames sayth: Let no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God tempteth no man. Do we not read after the same manner, that the (t) 1.56 Euangelist giueth most honourable commendation of Zacharias and Elizabeth in these wordes: Both were iust before God, and walked in all the Commendements and iustifications of our Lord without blame. And yet we find it registred in (u) 1.57 Ecclesiasticus: Non est homo iustus in terra, qui faciat bonum & non peccet; There is not a iust man vpon earth, which doth good and sinneth not: as also in another (x) 1.58 place, In multis offendimus omnes; We all offend in many thinges. Which later sentences seeme plainely to recall that iustice and pi∣ety, which in the former words were attributed to those two vertuous persons.

7. Lastly, it is sayd in (y) 1.59 Exodus: Ego Deus Zelotes &c. I am a iealous God, risiting the sinnes of the parents vpon their sons vnto the third and fourth generation: and yet (z) 1.60 Ezechiel affir∣meth: Filius non portabit iniquitatem Patris, sed anima quae pec∣cauerit, ipsa morietur; The sonne shall not beare the iniquity of his Father, but that soule alone which hath sinned, shall dye. Now what greater diametrical contrariety can lye in sentences, then seemes to be in all these former, if nakedly we con∣sider the bare wordes (for the vnlearned can proceed no further) though in themselues they are reconciliable, and so declared to be by the Commentaryes of the learned,

since otherwise Scripture were to be alleadged against Scripture, and this were to make truth to lye. ••ut to end this point of the Scriptures obscurity, we do heerin see in what a sea of diff••cultyes that man is tossed, who attempteth to vnderstand the Scriptures by the sole help of his owne iudgment; whether he looketh into the sub∣iect or matter whereof they intreate, or into the variety of senses appearing therin, or finally into the style or phrase wherein they are written.

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

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

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

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

2. To come to the second poynt (I meane to the di∣rect sayinges of the fathers) I will content my selfe (for greater expedition) with the testimonies of those foure prime Fathers, and chiefe pillars of Gods Church in her purity, who are able to ouer ballance in authority so many thousands of our new Gospellers teaching the contrary, and to whom by a certaine prerogatiue, and as they say antonomasticôs, that title was giuen. S. Gregory (a) 1.61 then sayth: Magnae vtilitatis est ipsa obscuritas eloquiorum Dei &c.

The obscurity of Gods word is of great profit, because it doth exer∣cise the sense, that so by labour it may enlarge it selfe; and being exercised, may comprehend that, which the idle are not able to at∣taine vnto: besides it hath a greater benefit then this, which is; that if the sense of the holy Scripture should be cleare in all places, by this meanes it would be smally prized, and therfore the sense of the dif∣ficult passages thereof being once found, doth so much please the Reader with greater sweetnes, by how much the search thereof did afflict his mind with more labour. Thus farre S. Gregory.

3. S. Augustine (b) 1.62 speaking of those, who were a∣customed to read the Scriptures, affirmeth thus of them: Sed multis & multiplicibus obscuritatibus &c. But such men are de∣ceaued with many obscurityes and multiplicityes, who do rashly read the Scriptures, apprehending one thing for another, and not finding those thinges therein, which they falsly expected to haue found: In so thicke an obscurity and darknes are some thinges (there sayd) in∣uolued. But all this, I doubt not, proceeded from diuine prouidence, heereby to tame pryde with labour, and to withdraw our vnder∣standing from all fastidious misprisall, which often commeth tho∣rough an ouer easy, and facile search of thinges. The same lear∣ned Father is not ashamed (far different from the assuming Insolency of our Sectaryes) to acknowledge in another place his ignorance in these wordes: In (c) 1.63 ipsis sanctis Scrip∣turis multa nescio plura, quàmscio: I am ignorant of many more thinges in the holy Scriptures, then I know. And which is more he (d) 1.64 confesseth particulerly of that place to the Cor. Si (e) 1.65 quis autem superaedificat super fundamentum &c. That the sense thereof was euer most difficult vnto him: so pre∣termitting the true sense thereof in silence, like Painters, who veile that ouer, which they cannot delineate by Art.

4. S. Hierome in one of his (f) 1.66 Epistles, whereof the chiefe subiect is the difficulty of the Scriptures, teacheth that we are not able to vnderstand the Scripturs without some speciall instructour, and as presuming this ground he passeth on further in exemplifying seuerall difficultyes, which are found in each particuler booke of them. And in another (g) 1.67 place speaking of the Epistle to the Romans,

he sayth thus: Ep••st••la ad Romanos nin••••s obscurita••ibus innol••••ae est; The epistle to the Romanes is in ••olued with ouer many obscuri∣tyes.

5. To conclude, S. Ambrose (h) 1.68 blusheth not to say thus of the Scriptures: Mare est Scriptura diuina, habens in se sensus profundos; The holy Scripture is eue•• an Ocean or Sea, ha∣uing within it most deep and profound senses and meanings: If then in this learned Fathers iudgment, it be a Sea of obstruse profoundityes, what remaineth but that who∣soeuer would securely passe through this Sea, should im∣bark himselfe in S. Peters ship, taking his successour for his Pilot (who is stearned by God to stearne vs) through whose skill, auoyding al shelfs and sandes of priuate and new glosses (which often threatneth ship wracke of fayth) he at length may arriue to the safe Porte of the most true, ancient and ••uer receaued m••aning of the holy Ghost.

6. And heere now we may obserue the great mode∣sty of these and many other ancient Fathers in this point, since ech of them acknowledging his owne insufficien∣cy in vnderstanding exactly the Scriptures, could be cō∣tent to pray with the Prophet: Da (i) 1.69 m••hi intellectum, & scruta••or legem tuam: giue m••a•• vnderstanding, and I will search forth thy l••••: as also, Reuela (k) 1.70 oculos meos, & considerabo mi∣rabilia de lege tu••: Open myne eyes, and I will consider the won∣ders of thy Law▪ If any of them had been demanded, whe∣ther he did vnderstand all what he read, he would not haue beene ashamed to haue answered with the Eunuch: Q••omodo (l) 1.71 poss••nt, n••si al••quis ostenderit mihi? Briefly he would haue confessed with (m) 1.72 S. Peter, that not only in the Epistles of S. Paul, but in many other passages of Gods sacred write, there were, quaedam difficilia intellectu, quae indocti & instabiles deprauant; Certai••e thinges hard to be vnder∣stood, which the vnlearned and vnstable do wrest and depraue. So cleare it is, that notwithstanding the profoundnes of lear∣ning in these former tymes, deuout humility with a full acknowledgment of a selfe insufficiency, was (as I may t••arme it) the Genius of reuerend Antiquity.

7. Which point being so, who will not admire the

petulancy of an ignorant, & lateborne Sectary, who dare withstand and ouerballance in his priuate opinion tou∣ching the Scripturs difficulty, the euer reuerenced autho∣rityes: of whome? Of Ambrose, Hierome, Augustine, Grego∣ry and the like, those iudginge witnesses of an ••iquity. Where is humility? Where is the (n) 1.73 Apostles precept of captiuating our iudgment? But it is exi••ed, and in it room are stept in assuming Pride, and blushles ignorance: his assertions bewray his ignorance, his controle of the Fa∣thers his pride.

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

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

2. First, their meaning sometymes is, that certaine Articles only of our beliefe are most expresly set downe in the Scriptures, in this sort (a) 1.74 Tertullian prouing against Hermogenus, that God created all thinges of nothing, and not out of any presupposed matter, and with particuler reference to those wordes in Genesis: God made heauen and earth, thus wryteth: Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem &c. I do adore the fullnes of the Scripture, which manifesteth to me the ma∣ker of all thinges, and the thinges made. Let the shoppe of Her∣mogenus teach, that it is written; If it be not written, let him feare that (Vae) to such as do add or detract &c. Which sen∣tence of Tertullian, though deliuered only of one Article of our beliefe, our Sectaryes neuertheles do stretch out to al points & Controuersyes of faith whatsoeuer: Thus most inconsequently arguing affirmatiuely from the Particuler to the Vniuersall. Another like place to this they obiect out of (b) 1.75 Hilarius touching the doctrine of the Trinity.

3. Secondly, the Fathers sometymes ascrybing great honour and reuerence to the Scriptures (the which we Catholikes most willingly admit) do teach, that the Scripture is an infallible rule; not heerby intending, that it is the only square of our faith (as our Aduersaryes seeme fondly to suggest) but that whatsoeuer the Scripture pro∣ueth, is most infallibly and vndoubtedly proued by the same; and consequently, that nothing is to be admitted, as matter of fayth, which doth crosse and impugne the Scripture. And thus (besides that place of (c) 1.76 Irenaeus, where he calleth the Scripture in the former sense, Canc∣nem immobilem veritatis; as also the like of (d) 1.77 Ambrose, where he appealeth from the writings of particuler fathers to the Scripture, as also of (e) 1.78 Chrysostome, where he calleth the Scripture, Guomonem & regulam) we find that (f) 1.79 S. Hierom man taining, with all Catholikes, that nothing is to be receaued contrary to the Scripture, and that therefore ge∣nerall Councells are to be examined thereby, thus wry∣teth: Spiritus sancti doctrina &c. The doctrine of the holy Ghost is that, which is deliuered in the holy bookes, contra quam, against which doctrine if the Councels do ordaine any thing, let it be repu∣ted

as wicked. But what Catholike alloweth any thing a∣gainst Scripture? And how extrauagantly then is this te∣stimony obiected against vs by our Aduer saryes? Many such places of other Fathers are vrged against vs, and yet they only conuince, that nothing is to be accepted as an article of fayth, which impugneth the Scripture (such is their willfull misapplication of the Fathers wrytings:) It will be sufficient only to make reference of diuers such passages. See then Cyprian contra epistolas Stephani, Lactan∣tius Institut. diuin lib. 5. cap. 20. Basilius epist. 74. ad Epis∣copos Occidentales, Chrysostome hom. 49. in Psalm. 95. Epi∣phan. Haer. 63. and 76. Cyril. de recta fide ad Regin. besides many others.

4. Thirdly, the Fathers disputing with certaine heretikes, who denyed all authority of the Church and Councells in determyning of Controuersies (with whom the Nouelistes of our age do altogeather interleague and conspire) were forced in their disputes to prouoke those heretikes of the holy Scripture; not because the Fathers (but those heretikes) disclaymed from the Churches au∣thority in this point; and therefore the Churches au∣thority being reiected by them, the Fathers were driuen to insist only in the written word. In this sort Iustinus in Triphone disputing with a Iew, who admitted not the Church of Christ, appealed willingly to the Scripture only. Augustine (g) 1.80 contending with the Arian Maximinus (who admitted not the Councell of Nice) professed, that he did not expect to haue his doctrine tryed by that Coū∣cell, but only by the Scripture, and therefore sayd: Nec ego Nicaenum proferam &c. I will not produce the Nicen Councell &c. Let the matter be tryed by the authority of Scripture. Final∣ly S. Basil (h) 1.81 disputing with certaine Heretiks touching three Hypostases, and one Nature in God, and they contem∣ning the authority and custome of Christes vniuersall Church therein, was compelled to recall them only to the Scriptures, tearming the Scripture in this Controuer∣sy, Arbiter, and Index; but in what doth this testimony (much insisted vpon by our Aduersaryes) disaduantage

vs, since we heere see the reason, why Basil appealed to the Scripture? Againe, what ••••••ation is this? Basil thought that the doctrine of three Hypostase and ••ne Nature in God, was expresly proued out of the Scripture; Therefore he thought, that all other points of our fayth necessarily to be belieued, haue their ex∣presse proofe in the Scripture, without the Churches authority inter∣posed in the exposition thereof. Inconsequently and vnschol∣lerlikely concluded.

5. Fourthly, the Fathers teaching, that the proofe of the Churches authority is euicted from Scripture (as is elswhere shewed) and they also acknowledging, that the Church is to iudge of all Controuersyes of fayth and reli∣gion, do thereupon, and only by reason of this inference, sometymes in their writings affirme, that the Scripture iudgeth sufficiently of all Controuersyes, not meaning, that the Scripture immediatly of it selfe, is inappealably to determine of all articles and doubts of religion (as our Aduersaryes calumniously pretend) but that it may be said so to do, because the Scripture proueth to vs the infallible authority of that (to wit, the Church) and remitteth vs to the same, which hath power definitiuely to end all Controuersies. In this sense we find, that (i) 1.82 Augustine tea∣cheth, that euery Controuersy is in some sort sufficiently proued out of Scripture; meaning, Mediante authoritate Ecclesiae, Through the meanes of the authority of the Church: which authority for the last resolution of doubtes of fayth is most sufficiently and abundantly proued from the Scrip∣ture. Other like sentences of this nature concerning the fullnes of Scriptures (but euer to be vnderstood by the mediation of the Churches authority) are to be found in (k) 1.83 Cyrill (l) 1.84 Clemens the first Pope, and in some other Fa∣thers.

6. A second branch, whereunto other obscure testi∣monyes of the Fathers (vsually vrged by our Sectaryes for the patronizing of the Scriptures sole iudge) may be ad∣dressed, (m) 1.85 is drawne from the perfection, which the Fathers seeme to ascribe to the Scripture; in regard of which per∣fection they yield to it a great sufficiency for seuerall res∣pectes

and ends, though our aduersaryes most fraudulent∣ly omitting the scope and drift of such sayings, will needs wrest this sufficiency, as intended of the Scriptures suf∣ficiency for the immediate and finall determining of all Controuersyes in fayth whatsoeuer, without any restraint or exception. Sometymes therefore the Fathers meaning is to shew, that the Scripture is sufficient to proue expres∣ly the chiefest Articles of our beliefe, and of which euery man is bound to haue an explicite and cleare knowledge: such are the articles contained in the Creed, and those Sa∣craments, which are more necessary; which kind of suf∣ficiency we also admit. In this sense Augustine writeth (as the contexture of the passages there do shew) that, what points concerne our fayth are clearely to be found in the Scripture: another like saying of the sayd Father, and to be thus expounded, is found in Tract. 49. in Ioannem.

7. The Fathers at other tymes do teach, that the Scripture is of that perfection, that the certainty of the truth of it, in regard of it selfe alone (though not in respect of vs) is sufficiently proued from it selfe, without the help of any other probation, as being penned by them, who were immediatly assisted by the holy Ghost. In this sense Athanasius (n) 1.86 calleth the Scripture, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Scrip∣turas sufficientes. Iren••us (o) 1.87 in like sort sayth, that Scripturae perfectae sunt, The Scriptures are perfect; and then immediatly followeth this reason: Quippe à verbo Dei & spiritu eius dictae, Because they are indicted by the word of God and the holy Ghost: The Fathers also are in their writinges accustomed to as∣cribe a great perfection to the Scripture for recording such miracles of Christ, by the which he is sufficiently proued to be the sonne of God (which is the generall doctrine al∣so of the Catholikes) which testimonyes our Sectaryes are not ashamed to alleage in proofe of the Scriptures ful∣nes for warrant of any article of Religion whatsoeuer. Thus we find that (p) 1.88 Cyrill wryting of the miracles of our Lord sayth (with reference to the wordes of S. Iohn The number of our Lords miracles were great, yet those, which are related, Sufficiunt ad plenissimam fidem attente legentibus fa••iendā,

meaning that they were sufficient to proue, that Christ was the sonne of God and Sauiour of mankind.

9. Lastly the Fathers acknowledg in their writings mostfully, that the perfection of Scripture is such, as that it is sufficient to disswade man from vice, and perswade him to vertue; a point which we al willingly grant, both in regard of the ten Commaundments expresly set down (which euery one is obliged to obserue) as also by reason of many most eminent and remarkable examples of ver∣tue and vice, recorded in the Scripture, and the inestima∣ble rewardes promised to the vertuous, & the most dread∣full comminations and threats thundred against the wic∣ked. Now of this sufficiency Theophilact speaketh in c. 2. ad Tim. 3. where he sayth, that the Scripture is of force to make, Vt nihil bonorum desit homini Dei, That no vertue be wan∣ting in the man of God, & the same interpretatiō, a place Au∣thoris (q) 1.89 imperfecti, admitteth. And heere now by these short explications it appeareth, that none of these former passages of the Fathers (whether they concerne the perfe∣ction or sufficiency of the written word either in regard of exhortation to vertue, or of demonstrating Christ to be the Sonne of God, or of prouing the Scriptures cer∣tainty from it owne worth and dignity alone, or finally of expresly containing the chiefest Articles of our beliefe) can in any sort preiudice our Catholike doctrine handled in this discourse, and therefore the wrong of our Aduer∣saryes towardes their followers is the greater, in seeking to abuse their ignorance and credulity by such idle and trifling allegations.

9. The third and last head of those misapplyed sen∣tences of the Fathers in this question, doth concerne the perspicuity of the Scripture, which word is not heere to be taken in that sense, as if the Fathers taught, that the Scripture were in it selfe absolutely so easy, perspicuous, and cleare, as that (without the helpe of the Churches authority in the exposition thereof) euery illiterate and mechanicall fellow were able to iudge of the true sense thereof, and consequently by the only meanes of it to de∣termine

& end all Controuersies: for they fully acknow∣ledged it to be as (Ezechiel (r) 1.90 styled it) The enrolled volume written within and without, as also to be, that hidden booke, described by the Euangelist (s) 1.91 to be clapsed with seauen seales. But their meaning herein is, that the Scripture is perspicuous in two constructions.

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

11. Of this first manner S. Austin (t) 1.92 speaketh, when he sayth, that the Scripture is most perspicuous and cleare to proue (which no man denyeth) that Christ ordayned, that those who did preach the Ghospell, should be main∣tained by the Ghospell; and therupon shewing, that this is clearly and euidently set downe in the Scripture, he thus wryteth; Quid hoc apertiùs? quid clariùs? That the Fa∣thers do in like sort sometymes restraine this euidency & clearnes of the Scripture to some chiefe articles of Chri∣stian Religion, appeareth (as afore I haue shewed) that they in like sort attribute a perfection and sufficiency of the written word of God to the same end. Thus doth Irenaeus (u) 1.93 wryting against certaine Infidels (denying that there was one only God) affirme, that for the proofe of this verity: Vniuersae Scripturae & propheticae & Apostolicae &c. The whole Scriptures both Prophetical & Apostolical are euident, & without any ambiguity: Which wordes being spoken only of that particular point, hurteth vs nothing at all: Yet our Sectaries sleight in deprauing the Fathers wrytinges, is such, as what words are spoken for the perspicuity of the Scripture for one only article, they shame not to stretch them, as spoken in proofe of all.

12. The second sense or construction of the Fathers wordes touching the perspicuity of the written word, is, that the Scripture is cleare and euident, in that it doth

illuminate and enlighten the mynd of the reader, vnder∣standing the Scripture (a verity which we acknowledge, as elsewhere is shewed) as it is explained by the spirit of God, which spirit speaketh in the voyce of his Church. And in this sense (to omit the like sentences of diuers o∣ther Fathers) Epiphanius (x) 1.94 wryteth, that in the Scripture omnia lucida sunt, all things are cleare, in conceauing this clearnes (as I sayd before) only in respect of the mynd, which by truly vnderstāding the Scripture is enlightned, cleared, and much freed from all spirituall darknes and ignorance.

13. To the former two senses, wherein the Fathers do call the Scripture perspicuous, cleare, and facill, I wil add a third reason, which moued them sometymes so to call them. This is taken from a certaine abuse of the cō∣mon sort of people in those tymes, who framing to thē∣selues a greater difficulty in the Scripture then there is, altogether forbare the reading of it, and in place thereof gaue themselues (more then was conuenient) to the be∣houlding of prophane spectacles and sightes. Now, to be∣reaue the people of this abuse and negligence, and the sooner to inuite them to the reading and hearing of Gods word, the Fathers thought good, in an Oratory and am∣plifying manner to suggest to thē an easines of the Scrip∣ture. This course S. Chrysostome in diuers of his homilies and sermons tooke, the sooner therby (as is sayd) to win the people to the reading of Gods holy word, as in Ioan. homil. 1. in Thesal. 2. homil. 3. With the same intentiō doth Athanasius (y) 1.95 relate to the people the facility of the Scrip∣ture. And thus farre of the Fathers supposed defence and maintaining of our Sectaries Doctrine in this question of the Scriptures sole Iudge: where we see, that though the places vrged by our aduersaries out of their wrytings, at the first sight, seeme to carry a faire and specious glosse or graine, yet being after fully weighed and considered, they giue no satisfaction (for proofe of what they were alleadged) to a perfect and true iudgment, being like vnto those flowers, which best pleasing the eye, do commonly least please the smell.

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

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

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

3. Now to come to the second point, which is, how themselues do wryte therof expresly at vnawares, as if they had forgotten, what at other tymes they had taught with such feruorous obstinacy: Luther (a) 1.96 himselfe (alth∣ough

the Day-star of the Ghospels light) confesseth, that neyther he nor any other, is able to vnderstād the psalmes of Dauid in their true and propersense. Yea he speaketh more generally saying; (b) 1.97 Scio esse impudentissimae temeritatis &c. I acknowledge it to be a signe of most shamles temerity and rashnes, for any man to professe, that he truly vnderstandeth in all places, but any one booke of the Scriptures.

4. Chemnitius (c) 1.98 affirmes, that the Church is now in∣dued with the guift of interpreting the Scriptures, in such sort as in it first tymes, it enioyed the guift of doing mira∣cles, to wit, that neyther the one nor the other, was grā∣ted to euery particular man, but only to some persons e∣lected theerto by God. Brentius (d) 1.99 (who at other tymes freeth the Scriptures from all difficulties) is forced to dis∣maske himselfe, and to confesse thus in the end: Non est ob∣scurum &c. It is manifest, that the guift of interpreting the Scrip∣tures, is a guift of the holy Ghost, and not of humane wisedome, & that the holy Ghost therein is free, and not tyed to any certaine kind of men, but bestoweth this guift, as best seemeth vnto him. The Magdeburgenses (e) 1.100 do plainly grant, that the Apostles thē∣selues were of opinion, that the holy Scriptures could not be truly vnderstood without the help of the holy Ghost, as an interpreter. Neyther shall we find this Doctrine strange among our homeborne Sectaries, since D. Field (f) 1.101 (a late appearing Comet in our Protestants sky) doth thus say; There is no question, but that there are many difficulties of the holy Scriptures, proceeding partly from the high and excellent nature of thinges therein contayned, which are without the compasse of na∣turall vnderstanding, and so are hidden from naturall men &c. partly out of the ignorance of tongus, and of nature of such thinges, by the comparison whereof, the matters of diuine knowledge are manifested vnto vs.

5. And now, if after the voluntary acknowledg∣ment of so many markable Protestantes in this point, any of them would seeke to retyre back, and recall all what they haue sayd, by teaching, that though they grant some passages of Gods word to be hard and difficult, yet those places, being compared with other like sentences &

texts, receaue from thence a cleare and plaine explication. Yet this refuge of theirs is of no strength; the reason here∣of being, because as any one text in Controuersy is doubt∣full, and capable of diuers constructions, so likewise are the other places and testimonies of Scripture as ambigu∣ous in sense and interpretation, wherwith the sayd text is to be conferred, and by which conference it is to receaue it illustration. And thus we see by experience, that the doubt of any one place of Scripture is often more increa∣sed by that meanes (to wit by conference of texts) by the which it was first hoped to haue bene extinguished. And therfore the former English Doctour (g) 1.102 pronounceth of the weaknes of this answere in this sort: We confesse, that neyther conference of places, nor the consideration of the Antece∣dentia and consequentia, nor looking into the originalls, are of any force, vnles we find the thinges, which we conceaue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted, to be consonant to the rule of fayth.

6. And thus much concerning the difficulty of the Scriptures acknowledged by the plaine testimonies & cō∣fessions of our aduersaries thēselues (though at other times impugning the truth herein) which point we are the lesse to maruell at, if we remember that it proceedeth through his will and permissions, who commaunded (h) 1.103 the light to shine out of darknes, and can cause truth to be confirmed by the maintainers of falshood.

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

MANY argumēts might be produced from rea∣son, for the confirming of this verity, but I here content my selfe with some few of the chiefest. And first, if our aduersaries Position were true, concerning the Scriptures being

iudge of our fayth, then must they vnderstand hereby ey∣ther their whole Canon and body of Scriptures taken ioyntly togeather, or els euery particular booke therof, as it is considered by it selfe alone. Not this later, both be∣cause it would follow, that if any one booke alone were a competent Iudge of all articles of our fayth, that then al the other parcels of Scripture were superfluous and need∣les, which were most prophane to imagine; As also in that, euery particular Ghospell, or any such part thereof, doth omit many chiefe articles of our Fayth, without any mention had of them at all; And thus we find that the Annuntiation, the Natiuity, the Circumcision of our Lord (besides many other points) are not as much as once tou∣ched in S. Iohns Ghospell; in like sort neyther doth S. Mat∣thew mention the Circumcision, nor S. Marke the Presenta∣tion.

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

3. Now, that diuers parcels of both the Testaments haue perished, it is most cleare, and our Aduersaries can∣not deny it. And first touching the new Testament, it

appeareth out of the Epistle to the Colossians, (a) 1.104 that Saint Paul wrote an Epistle to them of Laodiced, which neyther we nor the auncient Fathers haue proued euer to haue bene extant since the Apostles tyme. In like sort S. Paul may seeme to intimate in his first Epistle to the Corinthians (b) 1.105 in these words; Scripsi vobis in epistola &c. that before the writing of the sayd Epistle, he had written to thē another E∣pistle; and yet we cannot find, that the Church euer had any such Epistle.

4. Now, it is no lesse cleare, that diuers parts of the old Testament haue bene, and are as yet lost, at least for the sayd former space of tyme. And to omit the testimo∣nies of S. Chrysostome (c) 1.106 affirming so much, we read in the books of Kings, (d) 1.107 that Salomon wrote many Parables and verses, which now we haue not; for thus there it is sayd: Locutus est Salomon tria millia Parabolarum, & fuerunt carmina eius quinque millia: After the same manner we find it also registred of Dauid (f) 1.108 in these words: Gesta autem Dauid priora & nouissima scripta sunt in libro Samuel Videntis, & in libro Nathan Prophetae, at{que} in volumine Caiad Videntis. All which wrytinges here mentioned are neyther at this pre∣sent, nor haue for many former ages bene extant in Gods Church: So cleare thus we see it is, by the force of this argument, that the Scripture neyther as it is wholy takē together, nor seuerally by particular books, can be the iudge for the determining of all doubts of fayth.

5. Another reason for the incompetency of the Scripture as Iudge, may be taken from the nature of a iudge (as is else where touched) constituted in euery well gouerned Common wealth. For it cleare, that euery Iudge first ought to be able of his owne authority to take notice of the Contentions and Controuersies rysing in the state. Secondly, he must haue power by interpreting the law to giue his censure against the party offending. Lastly, he is to compell and force the delinquents to obe∣dience vnder the paine of feuere punishments. None of which points can be effected, except there be (besides the wrytten law) a visible iudge. Seing then (by applica∣tion

of what is here sayd to our present purpose) that the Scripture cannot of it selfe take notice of Controuersies rysing in matters of religion, nor euidently declare to the Litigants the true meaning of such passages, of it self war∣ranting or condemning the points in question; nor final∣ly can constraine the aduerse party to relinquish his er∣rours impugned by the wrytten Word, (as we find by the dayly experience of Heretikes flying to the Scripture as Iudge;) Therfore it is most perspicuous, that the Scrip∣ture cannot be erected as a competent Iudge in the deci∣sion of articles of fayth among Christians.

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

7. And of the like feeblenes is that other answere of some hereto, who (courteously) do grant, that there may be acknowledged indeed an external publike iudge of all doubts in religion, meaning the generall voice of gods Church; but yet this iudge (teach they) is limited in it de∣finitions, and not absolutely infallible, but only so farre forth, as it treadeth the tract and path of Gods written

word, and which declining from thence, runneth head∣long into certaine deuiations, & by-wayes of most foul•• errours.

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

9. To the former reason may be adioyned this fol∣lowing (as is also afore touched;) That euen the light of reason teacheth vs, that euery Iudge in any Court of Cō∣trouersies ought to be such, as all contēding parties with∣out exception may for the appeasing of their debates, haue easy accesse vnto him. Which accesse is found to be in the Church, but not in the Scripture: from which it vn∣auoydably followeth, that the Scripture cannot be this iudge, whereunto ech mā is to repaire; but that the church

may be, and is the sayd Iudge. That euery man at his pleasure, may come to the Church for resolutiō of doubts, we see it is euident by the practise of all ages.

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

11. Another argument for the conuincing of this supposed Iudge, may be drawne from the Doctrine of Traditions, which haue euer bene maintayned by the auncient Fathers and the primitiue Church. Which Do∣ctrine if it be true, then may we most consequently de∣duce from thence, that the Scripture is not to iudge all questions of Fayth, since the Doctrine of vnwrytten Traditions teacheth vs, that all the articles and points of Christian Religion, haue not their expresse proofe out of the Scriptures; but that some of them are belieued only by force of Tradition, and of the continued and vn-inter∣rupted practise of Gods Church. To enter into any exact proofe of this point of Traditions is improper to this place, and would require a reasonable large Treatise alone; and

therfore I remit the Reader to such Catholike wryters (g) 1.109 as haue most learnedly handled this, subiect. Only I wil here set downe (and consequently proue the sayd Do∣ctrine à posteriori) certayne pointes of Christian Fayth, which haue no cleare and conuincing proofes out of Scriptures, and yet are belieued no lesse by the Protestāts themselues, then by vs Catholikes.

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

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

14. D. Whitguift (h) 1.110 acknowledgeth, that now, du∣ring the tyme of the new Testament, we are to celebrate Easter vpon Sunday (contrary to the custome of the Iewes) a point of such moment euen in the primitiue Church, that the maintainers of the cōtrary were then reputed for Heretikes, and styled (i) 1.111 Quartadecimani. And yet for this change of obseruing Easterday we haue no warrant from the holy Scriptures, but may say with Tertullian: (k) 1.112 quod non prohibetur, vltrò permissum est. D. Couel in his booke of ex∣amination

teacheth the word Archbishop to be a Tradition. M. Hooker in his Eccles. polic. sect. 7. p. 118. in generall defen∣deth the Doctrine of Traditions, and answereth diuers te∣stimonies out of the Fathers alledged by Carthwright, and others.

15. Againe both Catholikes and Protestantes doe belieue, that there are certaine diuine wrytinges, which are the true and vndoubted word of God, and first pen∣ned by the holy Prophets, Apostles, and Euangelistes: Yet we cannot conuincingly and demonstratiuely proue so much out of the Scriptures themselues; which point since it includeth within it selfe by necessary illation this question of the Scriptures being Iudge, it shalbe more fully discussed in the Chapter following. Now of this poynt, as also of the former, belieued without the wryt∣ten word warranting them, we may say: Harum (*) 1.113 dis∣cipl••narum Traditio tibi praetenditur auctrix, Consuetudo confirma∣trix, & Fides obseruatrix.

16. The last argument heere vrged for the refelling of our aduersaries Doctrine herein, may be taken from the practise of both the auncient & moderne heretickes, who euer for the warranting of their heresies (heresies I meane euen in the iudgment of our aduersaries) haue euer fled to the Scriptures, and haue most seriously taught, (therby to auoyde the authority of the Church) that the Scriptures a∣lone ought to Iudge & defyne al doubtes of Fayth what∣soeuer. And therfore to the end, that the reader may see, what wicked heresies haue bene proseminated, and haue sprung from this so false and hereticall a princi∣ple, I will exemplify this one point somewhat at large in a Chapter following, there shewing how many diuelish heresies haue bene countenanced by their Patrones, with the misapplyed testimonies and authorities of the holy Scriptures; which abuse of the Scriptures well sheweth, that the Doctrine hereof neuer proceeded from God; (l) 1.114 Quid diuinum non bonum? quid bonum non diuinum?

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

FOR the more particuler handling of this poynt, I am to demaund of our aduersaries these three things following, which are (as it were) the three steps, wherby we ryse to the graduall difficulties of this question heere intreated of. First, how they can proue out of Scripture the particuler Ghospell of S. Marke, or of any Euangelist, to be the same, without all corruption, which the sayd Marke, or the other did wryte? considering that it is gran∣ted, euen by our aduersaries, that diuers parcels of the Scriptures haue bene fouly corrupted and mangled by the Additions, Translations, and other such like depraua∣tions of the auncient heretikes. Secondly, if it be gran∣ted them, that any one Ghospell, or other part of Scrip∣ture, is the very same vntoucht and vndefiled, as the au∣thour therof did first wryte it; yet if we should demand of them, how the Scripture can assure and determine this poynt, to wit, that such a Ghospell (as for example that of S. Marke) is true and Canonicall Scripture, and yet that the obtruded Ghospell of S. Thomas is a false & prophane wryting, since both these Ghospells haue indifferently in the beginning their seuerall prefixed titles, the one but of an Euāgelist, & yet accepted, the other euen of an Apost∣le, but reiected; what could they say? Thirdly if it were a∣greed vpō, which were the particular books, which maks vp the Canō of Scripture, yet if any prophan Atheist should arriue to that height of impiety, as to deny flatly, that ther were any such diuine wrytinges at all, as to be counted Gods sacred word or Scripture; how could our Aduersa∣ries

conuince him herein by the Scripture it selfe? It were idle for them to reply, that the Scripture telleth him, that the bookes of the Prophets and the Apostles are diuine wrytinges, since the Atheist would not belieue the Scrip∣ture so saying, vntill it were proued to him (which can∣not be out of the Scripture) that this Scripture (affirming so much) is Scripture, that is, a diuine, supernaturall and sacred wryting; no more then at this present, we Chri∣stians belieue that the Iewes Thalmud is diuine Scripture, though it be countenāced with the title of Gods vndoub∣ted word.

2. This poynt so presseth our Aduersaries, that di∣uers of them (& such as are of no meane ranke) haue bene forced to confesse, that it cannot be proued out of Scrip∣ture, that there is any Scripture at all; neyther that this Ghospell is true, that forged; nor lastly that we now en∣ioy any one, or other parcell of Scripture, free from all manner of corruption, and as the Prophet, Euangelist, or Apostle, guided by the holy Ghost, did first pen it. Hence it is that Chemnitius (a) 1.115 & Brentius (b) 1.116 do teach, that this one sole vnwrytten Tradition remayneth in the Church of God: to wit, that there are certaine diuine wrytings or Scriptures. But Hooker (c) 1.117 in treating of this poynt, passeth on further, and iumpeth with vs in the reason thereof, for thus he sayth: Of thinges necessary, the ve∣ry chiefest is, to know what bookes we are bound to esteeme holy, which poynt is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach. And then afterwardes he warranteth his Doctrine with this reason: For if any bookes of Scripture did giue testimony vnto all, yet still that Scripture, which giueth credit vnto the rest, would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it: neyther could we euer come to any pause, wheron to rest our assurance this way; so that vnles besides Scripture, there were something, which might assure vs that we do well, we could not thinke we do well, no not in being assured, that Scripture is a sacred and holy rule of weldoing. So farre we see this learned Protestant (whose calamity is the more to be deplored, in that retayning diuers Catho∣like grounds, he forbare to build a fayth answere able

therto) was from making the Scripture to be the sole iudge and vmpier of all articles of Fayth, since by his Doctrine the Scripture could not determine out of itselfe, that there is any Scripture at all, which is the Basis, or foundation of the rest, by our aduersaryes owne assertions.

3. Others of our aduersaries, who will not ack∣nowledge the truth in this point, labour to salue the mat∣ter with diuers weake and insufficient answeres. And first we find that Caluin (d) 1.118 sayth: That the true and holy Scriptures are discerned from the false and prophane, with the same facility that light is discerned from darknes, and sweetnes from bit∣ternes. Which answere if it were true, how came it to passe then, that Luther reiecteth the Epistle of S. Iames, which Caluin himselfe reuerenceth as Apostolicall, both of them being able to discerne the materiall light from darknes & the sweet from sower?

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

books of Scripture, which they all ioyntly acknowledge for Canonicall, then in those others, which the Catho∣likes do receaue, and themselues reiect.

5. Others (among whome is also Caluin (e) 1.119 for he is most various and irresolute in saluing this difficulty) to answere the former doubt, come finally to this point (which indeed is the Center of all their answeres) to wit, that God giueth to the elect and faythfull that inspiration or illumination of spirit, as that therby, they are made able to discerne, which is the true word of God, & which is forged, & adulterated; & consequētly that they are as∣sured, that there are certaine diuine wrytings left to his Church: And thus they flye to the priuate spirit already refuted. To this ten our D. Field (f) 1.120 thus sayth: After we are enlightened by the spirit, we do no longer trust eyther our owne iudgment, or the iudgment of other men, that the Scriptures are of God, but aboue all certainty of humane iudgment we do cer∣tainly resolue, as if in them we saw the Maiesty and glory of God. Thus we see, how our aduersaries not resting themselues vpon any firme resolution, but replying now this, now that, and so running in and out, are most farre from sa∣tisfying the difficulty here propounded, with these their Meandrian, and wynding euasions.

6. Now, the weakenes of this last answere is dis∣couered seuerall wayes, and first (besides all those reasons and arguments aboue vrged in refutation of the priuate spirit) in that, if they be demanded to proue, how they are assured of this supernaturall illumination, they en∣deauour to proue it out of the Scriptures; since they can∣not say, it is beleeued for it selfe, seing it then would fol∣low (contrary to their owne ground) that something is to be belieued, which hath not his proofe in Scripture. And if againe they be required to proue, that there are Scriptures, they alledge for proof therof this their illumi∣nation: which kind of reasoning euery yong Logitian knoweth to be a vitious circulation; since both these se∣uerall pointes (to wit the certainty of the Scriptures, and the certainty of their illumination) may be questioned

doubted of alike by them, with whome they are to deale. Secondly, the former answere is insufficient, in that this their supernaturall inspiration (wherby they dis∣cerne the Scriptures) is nothing els but an Act of Fayth, and as it seemes, is so acknowledged to be by D. Field (g) 1.121, who calleth it: Apotentiall hability, the light of diuine vnder∣standing, and the light of grace; all which thinges are inclu∣ded in Fayth: and therfore our Aduersaries do generally teach, that the illumination of this spirit belongeth to all the faythfull. Now we know that it is their owne groūd and principle, that Fayth ryseth only out of the Scrip∣tures.

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

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

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

2. Now then it being thus, that we are able to glasse the Fathers look in the childes face, the premises in the cōclu∣sion, and the causes in the effectes; I doubt not, but who∣soeuer

will call to mynd some few of those blasphemous and wicked heresies, which haue bene ingendred, hat∣ched, and nourished by this Principle and ground: That the Scripture interpreted by the priuate spirit, is the true and sole iudge of Controuersies; will at length haue iust reason to pronounce, that the sayd heresies are the defor∣med and prodigious brood of so vgly and monstrous a parent, since there was neuer yet any heresy but it could support it selfe for the tyme, by misconstruction of Scrip∣ture. And therfore no maruel if euery Sectary did so much couet to make his refuge to Gods sacred word: Hoping that in this sort (by disclaiming from all other proofes whatsoeuer) he was able so to varnish ouer his heresies, with some misapplyed and forced texts therof, as that to a credulous and mistaking eye, the grayne of them should appeare most faire, specious and regardable.

3. But let vs particularize this point in some few ex∣amples: who knoweth not that the Arians (a) 1.122 who labou∣red to ouerthrow in effect the whole frame and Systema of Christian Religiō, by teaching that Christ was not God, did with this their blasphemy inuade, and ouerrunne whole countries, through the supposed warrant of ma∣ny texts of the holy Scriptures, themselues still peruer∣ting the sense therof? He that doubteth of this, let him consider the texs heere (b) 1.123 noted in the margent which they (among many other like places) alledged. So shal he grant that these heretikes pressed Scripture against him, who is the authour of Scripture. In like sort Eutiches (c) 1.124 who taught, that our Sauiour had but a phantasticall and imputatiue body, through the conuersion of his diuinity into his flesh, was not altogether depriued of all proofes through his misconstruction of Gods (d) 1.125 word. Nestorius (e) 1.126 the former heretikes diametricall enemy in Doctrine (so easy it is for this priuate spirit, by misconstruction, to extract both fire and water, from one and the same word

of God) so deuided Iesus from Christ, as that he affirmed Ie∣sus to be only pure man, and him who was borne of the blessed Virgin, and suffred death, but Christ to be the Son of God. This man neyther wanted diuers passages (f) 1.127 of holy Scripture interpreted by his owne spirit, for the en∣amiling of this his execrable blasphemy.

4. Wicliffe (g) 1.128 and Husse (h) 1.129 to the great preiudice of secular Princes, taught that temporal Magistrats commit∣ting any mortall sinne, did, ipso facto, cease to be Magi∣strates, and being in that state, might be deposed by their subiectes. Which false and wicked Doctrine they were not affraid to confirme with certaine vsurped testimonies of Gods word. The (i) 1.130 Waldenses (Luthers Prodromi, and pre∣cursors) & the Anabaptistes (k) 1.131 would not brooke, that chri∣stian Magistrates should make any lawes, eyther to pu∣nish the wicked, or to appeale to any court of iustice for redressing of wrongs; affirming, that such proceeding did take away all Christian liberty: and these fellowes made in like sort the holy Scriptures (l) 1.132 their sanctuary: So dā∣gerously they erred herein, through a vitious affectatiō of ouermuch patience and innocency. These (loe) & such like, are the adulterate ofspring (of which I spake afore) ingendred and brought forth by that former principle of the Scriptures sole Iudge; sucking from the same ground (tanquam ex traduce) all that falshood and impiery, which is found in them. In which poynt, we see, how sollici∣tous and carefull the chiefe Patrones thereof were (as it were) to legitimate them, with so many detorsions and

misapplyed testimonies of Gods sacred writ. Thus haue the Scriptures (through the want of the true sense) occa∣sioned heresies, as the Sunne through absence of it heat, may be sayd to be the cause of cold; which heresies, ac∣cording to Tertullian (m) 1.133 dum sunt, habent posse, & dum pos∣sunt, habent esse.

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

6. To conclude, will they reply, that notwith∣standing all this, they wanted true humility and prayer, which (they say) with the former conditions are (as it were) the Media wherin the Species of the high mysteries of fayth are multiplyed, before they can enter into the eye of our vnderstanding, and consequently enioyed not this reuealing spirit, wherof themselues are assured? they would, if in their life time, they had ben accused her∣in

haue laboured to haue quyt themselues (as well as our Sectaries do in these tymes) from that imputation, and would, as fully charge all other with the like wants, who should interpret the former alledged texts diuersly from their constructions, and did no doubt, as boldly, when they were liuing, vaunt of the certainty and infallibili∣ty of their spirit, as any of our Protestants can do at this present. Seing then, that our Aduersaries, as flying to the Scriptures alone, can alledge nothing in their owne behalfe, for the patronizing of their Caluinian fayth, but that the former recorded Heretiks actually did, & might, as well, and as truly apply vnto themselues, for the de∣fence of their impieties: It may therfore be de••••••••red as a most certaine and infallible Position, that it is impossible, and repugnant no lesse to the prouidence of God, then to naturall reason it selfe; that truth of fayth and religiō (the which the Protestants professe to mayntaine) should be seated vpon those grounds (and only those grounds) which euery heresy may with the like reason and proba∣bility indifferently assume to it selfe.

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

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

BVT to end this poynt touching the custome of Heretikes in flyeing only to Scripture, I hould two things worthy to be presented to the consideration of the discreet Rea∣der; both which shalbe proued from the frequent acknowledgmentes of our Aduersaries: first, that not only experience warranteth (as appeareth aboue from so many exemplifyed heretikes) but also that our Aduersaries themselues ingeniously acknowledge, that it is the custome of heretikes euer the flye to the Scripture, for the patronizing of their heresies. Secondly, that di∣uers of our learned Aduersaries do absolutly abandō this course of making sole refuge to the Scripture, as houlding it a course ful of vncertainty, and not able to affoard any secure and warrantable determining, or ending of Con∣trouersies. And touching the first (to omit the like cen∣sure of old Vincentius (a) 1.134 Lyrinensis (who liued 13. hundred yeares since) giuen against the custome of the heretikes of his tyme, and to restraine our selues to our English Aduersaries) we find, that D. Bancroft (b) 1.135 chargeth Cart∣wright to seeme to defend his errours by the supposed warrant of only Scripture, and within the same procee∣ding this Doctrine includeth euen Beza (c) 1.136.

2. M. Hooker speaking of the Anabaptistes, thus wrytes of them: The booke of God they (viz. the Anabaptists) for the most part so admired, that other disputation against their opinions, then only by allegation of Scripture, they would not heare. (d) 1.137

In like sort the Brownistes (e) 1.138 of Amsterdam, being confes∣sed heretikes, wryting against D. Bilson, professe to flye in their disputes only to Scripture. Finally the Authour of the Treatise intituled: A briefe answere to certaine obiections against the descension of Christ into hell, printed at Oxford by Ioseph Barnes, reprehendeth his Aduersary Protestant, in these words: Where you say, you must build your fayth on the word of faith, tying vs to Scripture only; you giue iust occasion to thinke, that you neyther haue the auncient Fathers of Christs Church, nor their sonnes succeeding them, agreeing with you in this point.

3. Now as touching the second poynt, it is euident, that Beza himselfe is produced by Hooker (f) 1.139 (as weary of the former course, begetting nothing but vncertainty) to abandon all tryall by Scripture only, and to submit him∣selfe to a lawfull assembly or Councell. D. Sutcliffe, (g) 1.140 as not allowing triall by Scripture only, thus wryteth: It is false, that we will admit no iudge, but Scripture, for we appeale still to a lawfull generall Councell.

4. M. Hooker in his foresayd preface of his former booke speaking of disputation and tryall by Scripture on∣ly, thus discourseth: What successe God may giue to any such conference or disputation, we cannot tell; but we are sure of this: that nature, Scripture, and experience haue all taught the world to seeke (for the ending of Contentions) to submit it selfe vnto some iudiciall and definitiue sentence. And the same learned Pro∣testant (as is else where alledged) shewing, that the Scrip∣ture (which one question potentially contayneth within it selfe all other questions) cannot iudge, which is Scrip∣ture, thus wryteth: (h) 1.141 It is not the word of God, which can assure vs, that we do well to thinke it is the word &c. This very poynt of acknowledging another Iudge, then the only Scripture, is taught by D. Bancroft in his sermon preached 8. Feb. anno 1588. The same also is maintained by D. Couel in his modest examination p. 108. and by D. Field in his treatise of the Church in the epistle Dedicatory to the Arcbishop, who, giuing a reason of this his Doctrine, thus wryteth: For seeing the Controuersies of religion in our tyme are growne so many in number, and in nature so intricate, that few haue

tyme and leasure, strength and vnderstanding to examine them: What remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in thinges of such consequence, but diligently to search out, which among all the So∣cieties of men in the world is that blessed company of holy ones, that houshould of fayth, that spouse of Christ, and Church of the liuing God, which is the pillar and ground of truth, that so they may im∣brace her communion, follow her directions, and rest in her iudg∣ments? So Catholike like we see this Doctour speaketh in this one Controuersy wheron all the rest depend, and so earnestly he defendeth it with strēgth of reason. But to end this point: if these acknowledgmēts of so many of our learned Aduersaries proceed from their setled iudgments therin, then haue we the poynt controuerted granted by them, who should oppugne it. Yf calumniously they ad∣mit this Doctrine of the Churches Soueraingty in mat∣ters of lesser moment, with intention to restrayne it only to such, and deny it in greater and more weighty Con∣trouersies; then are they truly interessed in the words of an auncient Father: (i) 1.142 Affectauit diabolus aliquando veri∣tatem defendendo concutere.

6. Now the reason, why the Scripture alone (though in it selfe it be most reuerend, certaine, and infallible) doth occasion such vncertainty in the decyding of Con∣trouersies, is no lesse fully acknowledged by our learned Aduersaries: For since it is not the shew, but the sense of the word, (as Doctour Reynolds (k) 1.143 acknowledgeth) that must decyde Controuersies; and seing the Scripture immediatly of it selfe performeth not the same; as not hauing viuam vocem (as D. Whitaker (l) 1.144 confesseth) wherwith it speaketh, but by the help of certaine meanes on our part to be obserued: And seing, that the meanes are these following, to wit: the reading of the Scriptures, the Conference of places, the weighing of Circumstances of the text, their skill in tongues, their diligence, prayer, and the like; furthermore seing as these are generally acknowledged by our Sectaries (m) 1.145 to be the ordinary meanes, so are they confessed by others of our most lear∣ned aduersaries, to be but humane, and most subiect to er∣rour and mistaking, as appeareth euen by the example of

many Protestants, who though vsing the former sayd meanes, haue yet most fouly erred (euen in the iudgment of their owne brethren) in the interpreting of Scripture: Therfore from hence it necessarily followeth, that all priuate interpretation of Scripture proceeding from these meanes, is most ambiguous and vncertaine. But to con∣clude this poynt, I will heere set downe D. Whitakers (n) 1.146 inference or collection in his owne words, drawne frō the former premises: thus then he argueth: Looke what the meanes (speaking of interpreting the Scripture) are, such of necessity must the interpretation be; but the meanes of interpreting obscure places of Scripture, are vncertaine, doubtfull and ambigu∣ous; therefore it cannot otherwise be, but the interpretation must be vncertaine: And if vncertaine, then may it be false. Thus far the former Doctour, which shall serue for the closure of this poynt, and likewise of the first part of this Treatise.

Notes

• (a) 1.1

  Isa. c. 32.
• (b) 1.2

  Luc. 21.
• * 1.3

  Act. 15.
• (c) 1.4

  Matth. 16. & 18. & 23. Ioā. vlt. Luc. 22. Act. 15.
• (d) 1.5

  In suo Commo∣nitorio.
• (e) 1.6

  Con∣trou. 1. q. 5. cap. 3. & ••1. & Controu. 1. q. 2. cap. 3.
• (f) 1.7

  1. Cor. 1.
• (g) 1.8

  2. Pet 1. Omnis propheti•• Scripturae, propri•• in∣terpretati∣one non fit.
• (h) 1.9

  ••▪ Io∣an 4.
• (i) 1.10

  Tim. c. 3.
• (k) 1.11

  Lib. de potestate Papae.
• (l) 1.12

  Luc. c. 11.
• (m) 1.13

  Iacob. 4.
• (n) 1.14

  Luth. praesat. as∣sertio••is 〈◊〉〈◊〉. à Le∣one Pontif damn••tor.
• (o) 1.15

  In pro∣legom. contra Pe∣••••ūà ••oto.
• (p) 1.16

  Lib. 4. Instit. c. ••. §. 8. 12.
• (q) 1.17

  Exam. 4. sess. Concil. Trident.
• (r) 1.18

  Matth. 26. Marc. 14. &c.
• (s) 1.19

  Matth. 12. Act. ••. Rom. 10. Ephes. 4. &c.
• (t) 1.20

  ••. Cor. cap. 11.
• (u) 1.21

  Instit. 1. c. 7. § 5.
• (x) 1.22

  Contro. 2. quest. 5.
• (y) 1.23

  So doth Augustin tearme a Generall Councell, epist. 162.
• (z) 1.24

  Wher two or three are gathered togeather in my na∣me. Matt. 18.
• (a) 1.25

  Act. 15.
• (b) 1.26

  Aug. vbi supra, & lib. de Baptis. c. 18 Anast. ep. ad Epicte∣tum. Basil. epist. 78. Amb. epist. 32. Leo ep. 53. Hier. lib. cont. Luci∣ferianos.
• (c) 1.27

  The Lutherans receaue the first six Councells, and most of the Pro∣testants the first foure.
• (d) 1.28

  Caluin. lib. 4. Instit. 9. §. 8. Luth. lib. de Concil. Kemnitius in exam. Concil. Trident.
• (e) 1.29

  As appeareth by their bookes written a∣gainst one another; of which point, See Co••eius, & Hospinta∣n••s,
• (f) 1.30

  No prophesy of Scriptur is of any pri∣uate inter∣pretation. 2. Pet. c. 1.
• (g) 1.31

  Dear∣ly beloued, belieue not euery spirit but try the spirits.
• (h) 1.32

  These thinges I haue writ∣ten vnto you concer∣ning those which de∣ceaue you. Ioan. 1. c. 2.
• (i) 1.33

  Luther.
• (k) 1.34

  Caluin.
• (i) 1.35

  Galat. cap. ••.
• (m) 1.36

  Act. 9.
• (n) 1.37

  1. Reg. 6, 6.
• (a) 1.38

  Salat. 4.
• (b) 1.39

  Deut. 25.
• (c) 1.40

  1. Cor. 9.
• (d) 1.41

  Psalm 94.
• (e) 1.42

  Heb. 4.
• (f) 1.43

  Matt. 8.
• (g) 1.44

  Vt te∣s••a••ur ••i∣e••••n. praf. lib. 18. in Isa. v•• in ••. 3••. Ezech. & Aug. lib. 20. de ••iuit. Dei cap. 7.
• (h) 1.45

  Hier. ep. ad ••••∣machium.
• (i) 1.46

  Psal. 19.
• (k) 1.47

  Psalm.
• (l) 1.48

  Cap. ••.
• (m) 1.49

  Lib. 4▪ contra Marcion••▪
• (n) 1.50

  Ani∣ma mea in manibus me••s sēper. Psa••m. 118. And a∣gaine, Thronus eius sicut dies caeli. Psa••m. 88. with in∣finite such others.
• (o) 1.51

  Ioan. 8.
• (p) 1.52

  ••. Reg. cap. 1••.
• (q) 1.53

  Rom. 1.
• (r) 1.54

  Eccl••s. 1••.
• (s) 1.55

  Cap. 1.
• (t) 1.56

  Luc. c. 1.
• (u) 1.57

  Cap. 7.
• (x) 1.58

  Iac. 3.
• (y) 1.59

  Cap. 20
• (z) 1.60

  Cap. 18.
• (a) 1.61

  Hom. ••. in E∣ze••h.
• (b) 1.62

  Lib. 2. doctrin. Christian. cap. 6.
• (c) 1.63

  Epist. 119. c. 21.
• (d) 1.64

  Lib. de fide & ope∣ribus cap. 1••. & 16.
• (e) 1.65

  1. Cor. c. 3.
• (f) 1.66

  Epist. ad Paulinū
• (g) 1.67

  Epist. ad Alga∣siam q. 8.
• (h) 1.68

  Epist. 44. ad Constanti∣um.
• (i) 1.69

  ••salm. 11••.
• (k) 1.70

  ••hidem
• (l) 1.71

  Act. ••.
• (m) 1.72

  ••. Pet. v. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• (n) 1.73

  2. Cor. c. 10.
• (a) 1.74

  Aduer∣sus Her∣mog. pag. 350.
• (b) 1.75

  Lib. 3. de Trinit.
• (c) 1.76

  Lib. 1. cap. 1. pag. 37.
• (d) 1.77

  De fide l. c. 4.
• (e) 1.78

  in Cor. 7. hom. 13.
• (f) 1.79

  in Epist ad Galat. cap. 5.
• (g) 1.80

  Contra Maximinū lib. 3. c. 14.
• (h) 1.81

  Epist. 88. ad Eu∣stochium.
• (i) 1.82

  Lib. cont. 2 ep. Pel••g. l. 3 c. 4.
• (k) 1.83

  Tom 3. contra Iu∣lianum.
• (l) 1.84

  Epist. 5. ad suos dis∣cipulos.
• (m) 1.85

  De doctrin•• Christ. l. 2 c. 9.
• (n) 1.86

  Contra Genti••es in exordio.
• (o) 1.87

  Lib. 2. c. 47.
• (p) 1.88

  In Io∣an. l 12. c. 68.
• (q) 1.89

  In Mat. 22. hom. 41.
• (r) 1.90

  Ezech. 2.
• (s) 1.91

  Apoc. 5.
• (t) 1.92

  lib. de operibus monac. c. 9.
• (u) 1.93

  lib. •• cap. 46.
• (x) 1.94

  Contra Aetium l. 3. tom. 2.
• (y) 1.95

  In E∣pist. ad E∣phes. c. 6.
• (a) 1.96

  In prae∣fat. in Psalm.
• (b) 1.97

  Ibidem infra.
• (c) 1.98

  Examē 4. sess Cō∣cil. Tridēt.
• (d) 1.99

  In Co∣fess. VVit∣tember.
• (e) 1.100

  Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. col. 52.
• (f) 1.101

  l. 4. c. 15.
• (g) 1.102

  l 19▪
• (h) 1.103

  2. Cor. 4.
• (a) 1.104

  c. vle.
• (b) 1.105

  cap. 5.
• (c) 1.106

  Hom. 9. in Matth. & hom. 7. in prior. ad Corinth.
• (d) 1.107

  3. Reg. 4.
• (f) 1.108

  Paralip. vlt.
• (g) 1.109

  Hofi••e in 4. l. ad∣uers. Pro∣legomena Brentij. Peresius initio ope∣ris sui do Traditio∣nib. Rof∣fensis, Ca∣nisius, Bel∣larmin, be∣sides many others.
• (h) 1.110

  In his defense. pag. 539.
• (i) 1.111

  Epiph. haeres. 50. Aug. hae∣res. 29. Tertul. de praescript.
• (k) 1.112

  De co∣rona mili∣tis.
• (*) 1.113

  Tertull. de corona ••ilitis.
• (l) 1.114

  Tertull. de fuga in persecut.
• (a) 1.115

  Examē Concil. Trident. intreating of Tradi∣tion.
• (b) 1.116

  In pro∣legomenis.
• (c) 1.117

  In his treatise of Ecclesiasti∣call policy.
• (d) 1.118

  l. 1. In∣stit. c. 7. §. 1. & 2.
• (e) 1.119

  Inst. 1. c. 7. §. 5.
• (f) 1.120

  l. 4. c. 8.
• (g) 1.121

  lib. 4. cap. 13.
• (a) 1.122

  Teste. Epiphan. haeres. 69.
• (b) 1.123

  Pater maior me est. Ioan. 14. & 18. Descendi de caelo, non vt faciam voluntatē meam, sed eius qui misit me. Ioan. 6. vt agnoscant te solum ve••ū Deū, & quem misisti Iesū Christum Ioan. 17. Nobis au∣tem vnus est Deus Pater. 1. Cor. 18. vi∣de etiam 1. Cor. c. 15. & 1. Tim. 2. & Act. 2.
• (c) 1.124

  Apud Leonem e∣pist. Fla∣uiani, & epist. Leo∣n•• 97.
• (d) 1.125

  Verbū caro factū est. Ioan 1. As after the same phrase we read, Aqua vinum facta est. Ioan. 2. wherin we find the water to be made wine by a true conuersion of the one into the other.
• (e) 1.126

  Eu••∣grius l. 1. c. 2. & Theodoret. l. 4. haeret. fabularum prope finem.
• (f) 1.127

  In simi∣litudinem hominum factus, & habitu in∣uentus vt homo. Phi. 2. Est sine matre, sine genealogia. Heb. 7. where Christ is thus descri∣bed. Deus meus vt quid de∣re••quisti me? Math. 27. And else where it is ••ayd: Pater cla∣rifica me hac hora. Ioan. 12. Both which sayings might be taught to be disagre∣able to the forme of God.
• (g) 1.128

  Thomas VValdens. l. 2. Doctrin. Fidei. c. 81.
• (h) 1.129

  as appeareth out of the Councell of Constance. sessione 15.
• (i) 1.130

  Ipsi regnauerunt & non ex me principes exti∣terunt, & non cognoui: argentum & aurum suum fecerunt sibi idola, vt interi∣merēt. Osee 8. Regnū à gente in gentem transfertur propter iniustitias. Eccles. 18.
• (k) 1.131

  They are charged here with euen by Caluin lib. 4. Institut. 2. 20.
• (l) 1.132

  Si quis voluerit te••um iudicio contendere, & tunicam tuam tollere, da ei & pallium. Math. 5. Delictum est in vobis, quod iudicia habebitis inter nos, cur non magis fraudem patimini? quare non magis iniuriam accipitis? 1. Cor. 6. Dictum est anti∣quis, oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente; ego autem dico vobis non resistere malo. Math. 5. Omnes qui acceperint gladium, gladio peribunt. Math. 26. Si quis te per∣cufferit in vn••m maxillam, praebe ei & alteram. Math. 5.
• (m) 1.133

  Ter∣tul. de Pu∣dicitia.
• (a) 1.134

  Lib. ad∣uers. haeres. printed Lugduni. 1572. For∣tassealiquis interroget an Haere∣tici diuinis Scripturae testimonijs vtantut? vtuntur planè & vehemēter quidem: ni∣hil vnquā pene de suo proferunt, quod non etiā Scrip∣turae ver∣bū adun∣brare co∣nentur, sed tanto ma∣gis cau••ndi & perti∣miscendi sunt.
• (b) 1.135

  In his suruey cap. 27.
• (c) 1.136

  Ibidem pag. 219.
• (d) 1.137

  In his Ecclesiast. policy in the preface.
• (e) 1.138

  In their Apology printed 1604. pag. 103.
• (f) 1.139

  In his preface to his booke of Eccle∣siast. policy.
• (g) 1.140

  In his reuiew of his exami∣nation of D. Kelli∣sons sur, uey printed 1606. pag. 42.
• (h) 1.141

  lib. 2. Eccles. ••o∣lic. sect. 4. p. 162.
• (i) 1.142

  Tertul. contra Praxeam.
• (k) 1.143

  In his conference with Hart. p. 63.
• (l) 1.144

  De sacra Scripturae p. 221.
• (m) 1.145

  So teacheth D. Rey∣nolds in his Crnfe∣rence p. 83. & sequen∣tibus. And D. VVhita∣ker Con∣trou. 1. q. 3. c. ••1. & q. 5. c. 10.
• (n) 1.146

  VVhi∣taker vbi supra.