A TREATISE OF THE JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES. WRITTEN In Latin, by the R. Father Martinus Becanus of the Society of jesus, Professor in Divinity. AND Englished by W. W. Gent. printer's device (?) containing Jesuit emblem (IHS with a cross resting on the crossbar of the H; three nails below) IHS' Permissu Superiorum. M. DC. XIX. THE PRINTER TO THE READER. GENTLE Reader, having perused this short Treatise, translated into English, and sent unto me by a friend; I was strait moved with earnest desire to set the same forth in Print, hoping that many would reap great benefit by reading it, & come to be resolved in the may nest of the controversies that now disturb the Christian world: yea such a Controversy, as the knowledge thereof is the beginning of all Truth, & contrariwise Error therein the fountain of all Contentions. For if both sides, Protestants as well as Catholics, would admit some visible judge, living on earth, endued with full authority to decide their controversies, about the sense of holy scripture, by sentence infallible & not obnoxious unto deceit, Contentions might be soon ended, and an universal peace throughout Christendom, for in matters of Religion, established. Now the contrary currant persuasion, That Scriptures are clear and perspicuous in all points of Controversy, and their true sense apparent & obvious to every simple man, that shall attentively peruse the Text; hath opened a wide gap for all heresies to enter into Christendom, rending in peeees the Peace & Unity thereof, and depriving the same of all means by which Contentions may be brought to some final end. For men being once persuaded, that they see the Truth in all points of Religion controverted, no lesie clearly shining in the Holy Scriptures, than the Sun doth at noon day; they must needs condemn, as erring, & wanting the light of God's spirit, all others that shall understand the Scriptures otherwise then they do. And this so peremptorily, as they will contemn the sentence of any Pastor or Pastors, that shall sit in judgement upon the Controversy. This presumption of light to understand the Scriptures above their Elders, so much proclaimed in Protestant's pulpits, makes our Adversaries disagree implacably, and without hope of reconcilement, not only from us, but also between themselves: Yea (as a Protestant of great name, well acquainted Hook. Eccles. folis. pag. 119. with the proceed of their Churches, complains) this conceit hath made thousands so headstrong, even in gross & palpable errors; that a man, whose capacity will scarce serve him to utter five words in sensible manner, blusheth not, in any doubt concerning matter of Scripture, to think his own bare Yea, as good as the Nay of all the wise, grave, and learned judgements that are in the whole world: which Insolency must be repressed, or it willbe the bane of Christian Religion. Thus he. This insolent doctrine is in this Treatise solidely, briefly, & perspicuously confuted, and the necessity of a living judge, assisted by God's special providence infailibly to decide the controversies of Religion, is so clearly demonstrated, that I conceive great hope, that many by the perusal thereof, will cast off the foresaid proud Heretical persuasion, which themselves are forced to confess to be the bane of Christianity. I pray God this my wish may take effect, and thou that art a Christian, reap as much comfort by the reading thereof, as I wish unto thee. OF THE JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES. HERE We treat of the judge of Controversies in matters concerning Faith & Religion: about which we Catholics, and our Adversaries do differ. Our Adversaries for the most part do hold, that Scripture alone is the Rule and judge of all Controversies in matters of faith and religion: And that out of it alone all controversies Whatsoever▪ may be decided and ended, without any other Traditions, or authority of the Church. This they prove three ways. First because God in the old Testament did send the jews to Scripture only, as unto their judge; for we read Isa. 8. 20 in the Prophet Isaias: To the law and testimony. The same also doth Christ in the joan. 5. 39 new, when he saith, Search the Scriptures. And the men of Beroea followed this counsel of Christ, of whom it is written, that they were daily searching the Act. 17. 11. Scriptures if these things were so. Secondly because God in the old Testament hath commanded that nothing should be added to the Scripture, Deut. 4. 2. you shall not add to the word (saith he) that I speak to you. And again, What I command Deut 12. 32. thee, that only do to our Lord: neither add any thing nor diminish. Likewise Christ himself and his Apostles, in the new Law do condemn all Traditions, & will have us to be satisfied with Scripture only; as in S. Matthew, You have Mat. 15. 6. made frustrate the commandment of God for your Tradition. And again. I persecuted the Galat. 1. 13. Church of God (saith S. Paul) being more abundantly an emulatour of the traditions of my sorefathers'. And also: Beware lest any Colloss. 2. 8. man seduce you by Philosophy, and vain fallacy according to the tradition of men. Thirdly, because S. Paul plainly doth confess, that only Scripture by itself is sufficient, when he saith, All 2. Tim. 3. 16. scripture inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to argue, to convert, to instruct in justice: that the man of God may be perfect, instructed to every good work. And the same Apostle accurseth them who think that any thing ought to be added to the Scripture. If any (saith he) evangelize to you besides that which you have received, be he anathema. The same also S. john doth witness. I testify (saith he) to every one hearing the words of the Prophecy of this book, if any man shall add to these things, God shall add upon him the plagues written in this book. So far our Adversaries. But Catholics make a distinction betwixt the judge and the Rule. They call that the judge which giveth sentence betwixt them that contend. And that the Rule according to the which sentence is given by the judge. They supposing this distinction teach three things. First that the Church is the judge of Controversies. Secondly that the Rule which the Church doth follow in giving of sentence, ought not to be the Scripture only, but scripture and tradition together. Thirdly that the Church according to this rule, may pronounce sentence two ways: either by the Pope▪ who is Head and Pastor of the Church: or else by general councils approved by him, the which do represent the Church. By both which means the sentence cannot but be infallible. For neither is it possible that the Pope should err in faith, to whom it is said in the person of S. Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not sail: Neither the councils lawfully assembled, by reason of the promise of Christ; Behold I am with you always, even to the consummation of the world. Now to the end I may the better confirm this opinion and convince the other, I purpose to use six arguments by the which I will manifestly prove that the scripture only is not sufficient to be the judge of all Controversies. The First shallbe taken from the office of a judge which cànot be given to the Scripture. The second from the Scripture itself, in the which two things are to be considered, the bare letter, and the meaning thereof. The bare letter doth kill, as the Apostle saith: the meaning or sense is obscure and hard to be understood, and therefore it necdeth some other judge or interpreter. The third shallbe drawn from the controversies themselves which are in question, for there are some controversies which cannot be decided by scripture seeing there is no mention at all made of them in the scripiture. The fourth shallbe taken out from the use and practise of the old testament, in the which not the scripture but the high Priest is acknowledged to be judge. The fift out of the like use and practise of the new testament. The sixth is gathered out of the Analogy or proportion of the Civil judge, concerning the questions and controversies which fall out in the civil government or Common Wealth. For the written law is not the judge of such controversies, but the Prince or some peculiar judge appointed by him or his Counsel. Moreover I will examine the testimonies of the Scripture, brought in against us in the beginning. By the examining of the which I will infer three things. First that some of them do rather make for the Catholics then for the Protestants, and especially that of the which most of all they brag and boast, Search the scriptures. Secondly that others of them belong nothing to the matter of which we speak. And lastly that the Protestants, who only seek to obtain the victory out of the scripture, are altogether ignorant of the sense or meaning of it. But now I will begin with our own arguments. The Scripture alone is not the judge of Controversies, concerning matters of Faith and Religion. I. ARGUMENT, Drawn from the Office of a judge. THE first argument which is drawn from the office of the judge thus I propound. He that is the judge betwixt two at variance, aught in such manner to pronounce the sentence that both of them may plainly perceive what the sentence of the judge is, so that the one may see it is for him, and the other that it is against him, otherwise the adversaries will never leave of their contentions, but both will still continue defending their cause. But the Scripture cannot do this, therefore the Scripture cannot be the judge of all controversies. The Maiot is clear. The Minor I prove; Because the Lutherans and the Caluinists for these many years have jarred and warred concerning all these articles. 1. The Baptism of Children. 2. The real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. 3. Predestination. 4. The person of Christ. 5. Exorcisms. 6. The number & Canon of books of the Scripture. And yet notwithstanding the scripture which they would have to be judge, could not hitherto, nor can decide or put an end to these controversies. Hitherto it hath never been heard that ever sentence was so pronounced by the scripture, that either the Lutherans or the Caluinists have confessed, that it was pronounced either against the one or the other of them. And this is plain. For as yet they both go forward, most bitterly striving & contending. Which doubtless they would never do, if they did perceive that the sentence were plainly given in their controversies; for then either the parties condemned would cease from contending any longer, and submit themselves to the sentence, or else they would appeal to some other judge, pretending themselves to be unjustly condemned. But neither of these do neither. Now therefore that the force of this argument may more plainly appear, two things are to be considered: The one is, that the Lutherans and Caluinists do openly confess, that they acknowledge no other judge than scripture only. Which they affirm to be plain, mainfest, evident, and sufficient by itself to decide all controversies whatsoever in matters of faith and religion, & that no falsity or error can be found in it. The other is, that although they have this judge, yet notwithstanding they obtain nothing by, it but that their contentions still grow greater, & greater, and they themselves become more hateful to each other. Out of which it follows, that either the scripture hath not hither to pronounced clearly, evidently, and sufficiently that sentence, or if it have, that either the Lutherans or the Caluinists are very stubborn and obstinate, who will not yield to so manifest and so evident a sentence, of which two let them make their choice. II. ARGUMENT, Drawn out of the Scripture itself. IN the Scripture two things are always to be considered, to wit the bare letter, and the sense, even as in a man, the soul and the body. Of these two, the holy Apostle as some interpret doth speak, when he saith, the letter killeth but the spirit quickeneth, as though 21 Cor. 3. 6. he had said, if thou follow the true meaning and sense of the Scripture, which is like the quickening soul and spirit, it will help thee to salvation. But if thou neglect the true and lawful sense thereof, and stick only to the plain, bare, and outward letter, and strive to make that the meaning and sense, which the bare letter only seemeth to import, without doubt very often thou wilt fall into error; This interpretation S. Augustine doth approve. Oftentimes (saith he) O my dearly beloved Aug ser. 7 de temp. brethren, I have admonished your Charity, that in the Lessons which these days are read in the Church, we ought not to attend only to that which we are taught by the bare letter, but that we must seek faithfully (removing away the veil of the letter) a true quickening spirit: for the Apostle saith, that the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth. For the unhappy jews, and the more unhappy Heretics whilst they regard the mere sound of the letter, as a body without the soul, so they remain dead, without the quickening spirit The like he hath in his third book of Christian doctrine in the 5. Chapter. This presupposed two things are to be proved. The one is that the scripture if we respect the bare letter cannot possibly be the judge of controversies. The other is, that albeit we mark also the sense and meaning of it, yet neither so it can be the judge. The former part is certain, for that which leadeth men into error and heresy, cannot be the infallible judge of all controversies, but the scripture if we respect the bare letter thereof leadeth men into error and heresy, therefore it cannot be the infallible judge of controversies. The Mayor is plain of itself, because we seek an infallible judge to the end we may not err: therefore that which leadeth us into error is not an infallible judge. The Minor is evident out of the Apostle: because the scripture according to the letter killeth, which is as much to say, it leadeth us into error. So it killed the jews who understood all those things which were foretold of Christ, according unto the bare letter, and did not perceive the inward sense thereof. Of whom the Apostle speaketh saying, for even until this 2. Cor. 3. 15. day when Moses is read, a veil is put upon their hearts: that is, yet the jews do not understand Moses whom daily they read, by reason that they do not search into the inward sense and meaning of him, but are satisfied with the bare letter. Or else more plainly: They do not acknowledge Christ, who is hidden in Moses from their sight under the external ceremonies and sacrifices even as under a covering veil. For even yet they stick in the veil, not considering what doth lie hid under it. And this is it that Christ reprehendeth in saying: Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting: And the joan. 5. 39 same are they that give testimony of me, and you will not come to me that you may have life. As though he had said, If you desire to know certainly that I am the Messiah promised of God (of whom Moses and the Prophets have written) you must not only content yourselves with reading of the scripture, but also search diligently into the inward sense & meaning, which lieth hidden under the outward letter as under a certain figure and shadow. But this hitherto you have not practised. For although you be persuaded that everlasting life is to be found in the Scriptures, yet in what particular manner you are to seek it there, that you may find it, hereof you are altogether ignorant. It is not placed in the outward letter, or in the external figures and ceremonies, as you imagine but in the spirit, sense and secret mysteries thereof: There seek me, and you shall find me. But the letter killeth not only the jews, but also the heretics. For many therefore have died in their own errors, because they having forsaken the true sense of scripture, which the holy & Catholic Church doth follow, took hold of another sense according to the outward bare letter. The which I will briefly make plain by setting down some few examples. The Sabellians held that there were not three divine persons of the B. Trinity but one only, to the which they gave three divers names in regard of three divers offices or operations. For they called the same person the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost but in a diverse respect. The Father for that he was the author of all creatures the Son because he took our humane nature of the B. Virgin, the holy Ghost for that he sanctified us, by his everlasting grace. Out of their own opinion therefore is necessarily inferred, that God the Father did die and suffer. For if there be but one person which is called the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, and that person did die & suffer, it followeth thereupon that God the father did die and suffer; For this Aug. lib. de h●r. cap. 41. opinion they are called by S. Augustine, Patropassians: but from whence proceedeth this so great an error? Truly from the letter that killeth. For according to the outward letter they understood that place of S. john, I and the Father am one, that joan. 10. 30. the Father and the Son (and consequently the holy Ghost) were one in person, and yet in the sense of the holy Church, although they be but one in nature, yet they are two in person. The Arians said that Christ was not God, but inferior to him. But from whom had they this error, but because they forsaking the sense of the Church expounded the words of Christ joan. 14. v. 28. according to the letter. The Father (saith he) is greater than I, as if he had meant, to wit the Father is absolutely and in every respect greater than he. But the sense of Vide Ath●. ora. 2. cont. Arian. Hila. lib. 5. de Trini. August. lib. 3. cont. Maxi. cap. 24. & 25. & lib. de Trin. c. 7. the Church is that Christ according to his humane nature only is less than God the Father, but equal according to his divine. In the former sense is that to be understood, The Father is greater than I: in the other this, I & the Father are one, and so all do agree very well together. The Macedonians did deny the holy Ghost to be God, but out of what ground? Out of the kill letter: for expounding that of the Apostle according to the law the spirit searcheth all things, yea even the profundities 1. Cor. 2. v. 10. of God. Wherhence they inferred▪ He that searcheth seeketh, he that seeketh doubteth, he that doubteth is ignorant, he that is ignorant is not God. See Theophilact. D. Thoman● & others▪ upon that place. 1. Paral. 28. v. 9 Psal. 7 10. jere. 17. 10. Therefore the holy Ghost is not God. But the Church interpreteth that place thus. The spirit searcheth all, that is, doth penetrate orpiere and comprehend all. In the which sense God the Father also is said to search all. God doth search the hearts of all. God searching the hearts and reins. I the Lord searching hearts. The Manichees did affirm that the old Testament was contrary to the new, and wherefore? Because they squared all according to the outward letter, into the which only if we look, the one may seem to disagree with the Gen 1. 1. joan. 1. 3. Gen 1. 27. joan. 8. v. 44. Gen. 2. 2. joan. 5. 17. August. lib. count Adamant. other. For the old saith that God created all things; the new, that the Word created all. Again the old saith, that God made man according to his image. But the new that man is of the devil. In like manner the old saith that God did rest the seventh day from all his work. The new, that God worketh until now. But S. Augustine showeth out of the sense of the Catholic Church how all these places agree well together, the which seem to be contrary according to the letter. For it doth not repugn that God made all, & notwithstanding that also all were made by the Word, as by the art and example of God. Neither doth it repugn, that man was made according to the image of God in respect of his nature, and nevertheless was of the devil in respect of his malice, and that God did cease the seventh day from the work of creating the world, yet now doth always work in governing, and conserving the world. The Pelagians did deny original sin, affirming that the sin of Adam did only hurt himself, but not his posterity. But from whence do they prove this? Out of the bare letter that killeth, because it is written, that the Ezech. 18. 20. child shall not carry the iniquity of his Father. But the true sense of this place, according to the exposition of the Catholic Vide Aug. in lib. post. collation. cap. 7. Church, is, that the son who is not partaker of the sin of his Father, shall not carry the iniquity of his Father. But if he be partaker of it he shall of necessity carry it. But now it is certain that all Adam's posterity were partakers of his sin, according to that of S. Paul, in whom all sinned. But in what manner Rom. 5. 12. all sinned in Adam, is to be taught in another place: yet here in the mean time I say that all sinned in Adam, because God conditioned with him as with the first origen, common roar & head of his whole posterity, that if the commandment which God had given him, to wit that he should not taste of the fruit forbidden, both he and his posterity should remain in Paradise, but if not, then both he and all his posterity being guilty & transgressors of God's law should be cast out of paradise, which afterwards so fell out. There were also some ancient Heretics, who altogether denied the resurrection of our flesh, because they found it written, It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. Which place joan: 6. 63 they understanding only according to the outward letter, not searching any Refert. Tertull. in lib deresur. car. c. 37. further into the inward sense and meaning thereof, argued in this manner: To what purpose should the flesh rise at all, sith it profiteth nothing? And out of the self same place the Caluinists conclude against another verity. To what purpose (say they) should Christ impart to us his flesh in the Eucharist, if the flesh profit nothing? But truly they both are deceived by looking only into the bare letter which killeth: Otherwise one might conclude in like manner, if the flesh doth profit nothing Vide Maldonatum in cap. 6. joan. at all, to what end did Christ take flesh to redeem man? To what end was the word made flesh? To what end did he suffer in it upon the Cross? Certainly he did not all this to no purpose. That the Scripture according to the sense and meaning thereof, cannot be judge. BUT this being sufficient about the former part, where it is manifest both by the authority of the Apostles and also by divers sundry examples, that the Scripture if we respect only the bare and outward letter thereof, cannot be the infallible judge in matters of Controversy, because that the bare letter killeth, and breedeth great errors and heresies: But now let us proceed to the latter part of this our argument, wherein I will declare, that if we regard the very sense and meaning of the Scripture, the same can be no competent judge of all Controversies in matters of faith and Religion. The which I prove in this manner: The Scriptures according unto the true sense thereof often times is obscure, and very hard to be understood, & oftentimes about discerning the true sense and meaning of it great Controversies do arise. But every Controversy doth require some judge to determine the same, it is therefore necessary that some judge be appointed who certainly may determine which is the true sense of the Scripture, which cannot be the Scripture itself, for of the sense and meaning thereof there is Controversy: and therefore it is necessary that some other be assigned besides the Scripture. In this discourse are certain principles grounded, which are to be explicated and proved in particular one after another. The first is. That the Scripture often times, according unto the sense, is obscure & hard to be understood. THIS S. Peter doth testify in his later Canonical Epistle, where speaking of the Epistles of S. Paul he 1. Pet. 3. 16. Luc. 24. 27. useth these words. In the which (saith he) there are some things hard to be understood. Also it may be confirmed divers ways. First by the example of the disciples going unto Emaus, who understanding not the Scriptures, were taught by Christ. Secondly by the Eunuch in the 8. Chapter of the Acts 13. verse, who being asked of S. Philip, whether he understood the Prophet Isay which he was then reading, answered in this manner, How can I (said he) unless some man show Act. 8. 31. me. Thirdly by the example of the Apostles, who understood not many Mat. 13. 36. things which Christ had taught them. For his Disciples coming to him said, Mat, 16. 11. expound us the Parable of the Cockle seed. Again, why do you not understand that I said not Luc. 18. 34. of bread to you? and they understood none of these things, and this word was hid from them, & they understood not the things th●t were said. Fourthly by the common consent of all the interpreters. For if the Scripture were easy, what need were there of so many interpreters? so many commentaries? so many questions and controversies. Fiftly by many particular places and books of Scripture I prove it hard: For who doth not perceive Ezechiels' prophecy about the vision of the four beasts to be most obscure? Moreover it plainly appeareth daniel's prophecy of the 70. weeks, and of the abomination of desolation to be most hard, sith that in the searching into it and in the explaining of it, it hath hitherto & even yet doth put many to their wit's end, as concerning the which Christ himself said, he that readeth let him understand. Mat. 24. 15. Furthermore even in the whole apocalypse of S. john many obscure places and full of secret mysteries may be found. And S. Hierom also affirmeth in a certain epistle of his to Paulinus, that in it there are as many Sacraments or secret mysteries as words. But that in the other books of Scripture also, many obscure and difficult places are to be found, is well known to such as read them: & to omit others let them speak who in times past, notwithstanding their daily reading of Scripture with great diligence, confessed themselves to have been very ignorant in many passages thereof, in which to be instructed and resolved they had recourse to S. Augustine, S. Hierome, and other most learned Fathers of the Church. Whereof the Epistles of the ancient Fathers themselves do give ample testimony, out of the which I will put down some. We read then, that Pope Damasus asked counsel of S. Hierome about these Questions. 1. What signified this, whosoever shall Gen. 4. 15. Epist. 124. 125. inter Epist. Hiero. Ibidem. kill Cain, shallbe punished seven fold. 2. If all things which God had made were very good, to what end did he command Noë to take into the Ark as well those beasts which were unclean, as those which were clean, sith that nothing can be good which is unclean. 3. Wherefore did Abraham receive Circumcision for a sign or seal of his faith? And wherefore did Isaac though Ibid. a just man, and dear to God, deceived by error, bless not whom he would, but whom he would not. 4. What was the interpretation of Isay Epist. 142. the Prophet's vision, concerning the Seraphim and Trisagio. Euagrius asked of the same S. Hierom, Epist. 126. Whether Melchisedech who blessed Abraham, were of a more divine nature, and not be taken for a man. Dardanus also inquired as concerning Epist. 124. this. What that Land of promise was from whence the jews returning out of Egypt are said to have possessed, seeing that it could not be Palestine, because that was possessed of their ancestors before, and might seem rather to be reserved then promised. Vital●● demanded of the same great Epist. 132. Doctor; Whether it were true which we find recorded in Scripture, that Solomon and Achaz begat children when they were but eleven years old. Epist. 39 Cyprian asked what was the true exposition of that most hard Psalm, which beginneth thus: Domine refugium factus es nobis. Marcelia a noble woman of Rome among others proposed these questions to him. 1. What Ephodbad, & Teraphim signified Epist. 130. in the Hebrew tongue? 2. What was the signification, of Epist. 137. Alleluia, Amen Maranatha? 3. What was Diapsalma. Epist. 138. Epist. 141. 4. Wha● was Panisdoloris? what filii excussorum, of the which is made mention in the 126. psalm. 5. What are those things which neither eye hath seen, nor ear hath heard, nor have ascended into the heart of man, which God hath prepared for them that love him. And how again Epist. 148. the Apostle doth infer: But God by the holy Ghost hath revealed unto us. And if it were revealed to the Apostle, whether he also did repeal it to others. 6. When the Apostle saith: Then 1. Thess. 4. 17. we that live, that are left, withal shallbe taken up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ into the air. Whether this is to be understood of some that went to heaven with Christ before they died, seeing that Henoch and Elias shall die, as it is said Ibid. in the apocalypse of S. john, lest that any may not be said to die. Principia a Virgin of Rome desired of Epist. 140. him the exposition of that psalm, Eructavit cor meum verbum bonum. Epist. 135. Sunia and Fretella requested by writing whether in that Contention in the which the Latins dissent from the Grecians concerning David's Psalter, the jews agree more with the Grecians than with the Latins. Hedibia a noble woman of France Epist. 150. sent to S. Hierom by a Pilgrim to propose these doubts. 1. How that place of Christ should Mat. 26. 29 be understood, to wit, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that Ibid. day when I shall drink it with you new in the Kingdom of my Father. 2. Wherefore S. Matthew said, that Christ rose in the evening, and S. Marck in the morning. 3. What that signified which was Ibidem. written in S. Matthew: the veil of the temple was rend into two pieces from the top even to the bottom? And that which followeth. 4. How it happened that Christ, in S. john, breathed the holy Ghost upon his Apostles, and yet we read in S. Luke that he promised to send them the holy Ghost after his Ascension. 5. How that of the Apostle is interpreted, what shall we say then? Is their Ibid. iniquity with God? God forbidden: and all to the other place, unless the Lord of Sabbath Rom. 9 14. had jest us seed, we had been made like Sodom. Algasia also another French woman by the same Pilgrim propounded these other doubts unto him. 1. Wherefore did S. john send his disciples to Christ to ask him: Are thou Epist. 151. he who art about to come, or do we expect another? Sith that he before that time, had spoken of Christ, saying: Behold the lamb of God, behold who taketh away the sins of the world. Ibid. Math. 12. 20. 2. What Christ did mean by these words. The reed bruised he shall not break, and smoking flax he shall not extinguish. 3. What also is the meaning of Ibid. Math. 16. 24. Ibid. Math. 24. 19 Ibid. our Saviour saying. If any will come after me, let him deny himself. 4. How is to be understood that he saith: Woe to them that are with child, and that give suck in those days. 5. In what sense that place of S. Luke is to be taken. And it came to pass whiles the days of his assumption were accomplishing, and he fixed his face to go into Jerusalem. And a little after where he speaketh of the Sacraments. And they received him, not because his face was to go to Jerusalem. 6. Who was the Bailiff of iniquity Ibid. Rom. 5. 7. whom our Lord praised. 7. What the Apostle meant when he said. For scarce for a just man doth any die: for perhaps for a good man durst some man did. Ibid. Rom. 7. 8. 8. What the sense was of that speech of S. Paul. But occasion being taken, sin by the commandment wrought in me all Concupiscence. But now omitting many and divers such like questions of Scripture, which were brought to S. Hierome to be resolved out of many parts of the Christian world, I come to S. Augustine, to whom no fewer were brought then to the other. Volusianus asked his counsel in this, Aug. Epist. 2. How the immortal God could be shut up in the womb of a virgin: And whether in the mean time he left of all ear of the world. Marcellinus asked him, wherefore Epist. 4. & 5. God did alter the Sacrifices of Moses, which he had once before ordained? sith that those things which are once ordained well cannot be altered but unjustly. The same Marcellinus propounded Epist. 7. unto him this other question also. How it came to pass, that the Magicians of Pharaoh could find any water to change into blood, sith that before that time all the water of Egypt was changed into blood by Moses. Bonifacius the Bishop also asked him this question, Wherefore the faith of parents is profitable for their children in baptism, seeing that their impiety after their Baptism is nothing hurtful to them? And how the God fathers, in Baptism could promise that the infants believe, sith they do not then believe, and it is uncertain whether ever they will believe or no. Dardanus. How it may be believed Epist. 23. that Christ is now in heaven, seeing he said to the thief upon the Cross: This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise: Epist. 57 And whether from hence do follow that Christ, God and man, is every where. Paulinus. What is that which is said Epist. 58. & 59 in the 15. Psalm, Sanctisqui sunt in terra eius mirific●u● omnes voluntates me as inter ills. To the Saints that are in his land he hath made all my wills marvelous in Psal. 67. 22. them. In like manner what is the meaning of that in the Psalm: Veruntamen etc. But yet God will break the heads of his enemies: the hairy crown of them that walk in their sins. Likewise when the Apostle saith: Epist. 4. 11. Ibid. He gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists and some Pastors & Doctors: His Question was how these names might be distinguished, and also what office and function was due to each one: What office for the Apostles, what for the Prophets, what for the Evangelists, and what for Pastors and Doctors. Moreover he asked him this, that Ibidem. 1. Tim. 2. 1. seeing the Apostle writeth, I desire therefore, first of all, that obsecrations prayers, postulations, thanksgivings be made for all men, what difference could be made in these words. Also what that signified, that the Ibid. Rom. 11. 28. Apostle saith of the jews: According to the Gospel indeed enemies for you, but according to the election most dear for the Fathers. Again. What that other place of S. Paul Ibid. Colo. 2. 18. meant: Let no man seduce you, willing in the humility and religion of Angels, walking in the things which he hath not seen, in vain puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the head. Euodius the Bishop asked of him, Epist. 98. & 99 1. Pet. 3. 19 what spirit it was of whom S. Peter spoke, in his first Canonical Epist. In the which spirit coming he preached to them also that were in prison. Epist. 120. Psal. 120. Honoratus also, what that speech of our Lord signified, Deus Deus meus, quare me dereliquisti. Moreover how that other place of Ibid. Eph. 3. 17. S. Paul was interpreted: Rooted and founded in Charity, that you may be able to comprehend withal the Saints, what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth. Who were also the five foolish Virgins, and who were the wise. Mat. 25. 2. Again, what was the outward Ibid. darkness Matth. 22. 13. And how that place of S. john was understood, the word was made flesh. joan. 1. 14. Simplicianus asked him, what that lib 1. ad Simpli. quaest. ● Rom. 7. 7. place of the Apostle meant, where he saith, What shall we say then? is the law sin? God forbidden: and to that, unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death. Ibid. quaest. ●● Rom. 9 10● lib. 2. quaest. ●. 1. Reg. 10. 10. 1. Reg. 16. 24. What was the meaning of that in S. Paul: But Rebecca conceiving of one copulation of Isaac our Father, and all the rest forward to that, Unless the Lord of Sabbath had left us seed. And how it is said in one place that, the spirit of our Lord seized upon Saul, seeing in another place it is written, that a wicked spirit vexed him. Ibid. quest. 2. 1 Reg. 15. 21. Ibid. quaest. 3. And in what sense it is said by God in the book of Kings, it repenteth me that I have made Saul King. And again. Whether that unclean spirit which was in Pythonissa could make Samuel who was dead before come to see Saul, and speak with him? Also he asked him as concerning Ibid. quaest. 5. 3. Reg. 17. 20. that speech of Elias, O my Lord, what even the Widow also by whom I am after a sort sustained hast thou afflicted, that thou wouldst kill her son. Now by these questions it appeareth manifestly that the Scripture in many places is obscure and hard to be understood. And that many most learned men of whom we have here made mention confessed themselves not to understand many things without being instructed by more learned than themselves. Now therefore let us go forward in explicating what may be the causes of so great obscurity. What are the causes why the Scripture is obscure? I find two causes especially. The one is drawn from the things themselves which are treated of in the Scripture. The other from the manner of treating of them. The things of the which the Scripture treateth, are of four kinds. 1. Histories, as in the book of Genesis, Exodus, Numeri, Deuteronomi, joshua, the books of judges, of Kings, Paralipomenon, Esdras, judith, Tobias, Hester, the Maccabees, & also the Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles. Secondly Prophecies, such as for the most part are contained in the psalms, in the greater and lesser Prophets, and in the apocalypse of S. john. Thirdly mysteries of our faith, especially about the blessed Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, about predestination, and reprobation, about the force and efficacy of the holy Sacraments, about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, about justifying faith, about the Resurrection of the dead, & such like other points. Fourthly Precepts and moral documents, as concerning virtues and vices. For albeit that neither in these, nor in histories, there is perchance any great obscurity in regard of the things treated of; yet notwithstanding there is great obscurity in the prophecies, and mysteries of faith. For these are above man's capacity and understanding, so that we 1. Cor. 13. 12. cannot perceive them but after a dark manner, as the Apostle saith. Now the manner of treating of these things oftentimes is obscure, for these causes. First because there be many improper speeches in the Scripture as figures, allegories and parables, under the whichly hidden many truths, the which are not presently understood of the reader. Also the obscurity thereof is increased by some word, which is taken sometimes in the same sentence, one while properly, and another while figuratively: as in this place for example. Every one that drinketh of this water shall joan. 4. 13. thirst again, but he that shall drink of the water that I will give him, shall not thirst for ever. Where to drink of water, and to thirst, in the former part of the sentence, is taken corporally, and in the latter part spiritually. And again in the very same Chapter. Do not you say, that yet there are Ibid. v. 35. four months, and harvest cometh? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes, and see the countries that they are white already to harvest. For hear in the first place, the word harvest is taken in it proper signification, but in the latter figuratively. And again in the same Apostle. joan. 9 39● For judgement came I into this word: that they that see not may see: and they that see may become blind: where the former part is taken for corporal sight, and the latter for spiritual. And in S. Paul: Him who knew no sin, 2. Cor. 5. 21. for us, he hath made sin. Where sin in one place is taken properly for sin, but in the other place figuratively for a sacrifice offered for sin: for the sense Vide. Orig 3. come. in. Epist. ad Rom. & Augu. lib. 2. de consen. Evangelist. cap. 30. of that place is, that it was God's will that Christ who never had sinned, should be a sacrifice for the sin of mankind. Secondly, not only figures are found in the words, as I have already showed, but also in the very things themselves. For one thing oftentimes is a figure & type of another signified by it: even as the Paschall Lamb was a figure of Christ, the red Sea of Baptism, Manna of the Eucharist, Mont Sion of the Church, and so of others. From hence doth proceed a triple obscurity. First it doth not strait appear of which thing another thing is a figure, for example sake: Agar Abraham his maid to have been a figure of the Synagogue, and Sara Abraham's wife to Galat. 4. 14. have been a figure of the Church, unless the Apostle by the instinct of the holy Ghost had explicated them so. Likewise how should it have been jerem. 1. 11. known, that the waking rod signified the speedy execution of God's divine sentence against the jews & Gentiles. And that the burning pot was a figure jerem. 13. jerem. 16. 2. of Nabuchodonosor. And that jeremy who was forbidden to marry a wife, was a figure of the spoils hanging over jewry. And that by the chalice of the fury of our Lord, the power and fury of jere. 15. 15. the King of Babylon was signified: and by arotten girdle the ruin of the people jere. 13. v. 1. in Captivity. And by the Flagon to be filled with wine, the inhabitants of Jerusalem to be made drunk with the Jere, 13. 12. wine of the fury of our Lord. And by the two baskets of the best and worst figs two kind of men, of whom some were happy who passed over with the King, some miserable and unhappy who remained behind in Jerusalem. jere. 24. v. 2. jere. 18. 6. And by the clay in the potter's hand, the people of the jews in the hand of God. And by the chains and fetters of jeremy jere. 27. 2. the captivity of divers nations. And by the breaking of the earthen pot, the crushing of the people and the City of jerusalem. And by the four beasts, four Kingdoms, and Empires. And by the jere. 19 10● Dan. 7. v. 3. Dan. 8. 20. Ram the king of the Medians & Persians. And by the Goat the king of the Grecians. These I say, and many such would never have been so understood unless they had been declared particularly by God, and after this declaration also without an interpreter they can be scarce understood. The other obscurity doth arise upon this, that one thing sometimes is a figure of divers things which are contrary and repugnant one to another. As jonas was the figure of Christ: For as jonas was in the belly of the Whale three days and three nights, so shall the son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. The same jonas was the figure of the people of Israel, who were contrary to Christ: For as Ion● did grieve at the Conversion jon. 4. 1●. August. Epist. 49. quaest. 6. ●. of the Nimuits, even so the jews in the Conversion of the Gentills. That which is said of jonas, may be said also of the deluge, of the Rock, and such like. For the Deluge was both the figure of Aug ep. 99 ad Euodium. the Baptism of the faithful, and together the type of the punishment of the unfaithful. And the Rock which 1. Pet. 2. 8. is Christ, was the stone of scandal and offence to them that perish, and to Rom. 9 v. ●2. them that believe the Cornerstone. The last obscurity ariseth upon this, that sometimes one certain thing which is the figure of another doth represent the same in one respect, and is altogether unlike unto it in another. As for example the fornicating woman whom the Prophet Oseas was commanded to marry, was a figure of the Synagogue, which she represented in this, to wit, that as she had committed carnal fornication, so the Synagogue had committed spiritual, which did consist in the worshipping of Idols. But in this it did disagree, that she after her marriage to Oseas did never return to her former carnal fornication, as many probably do affirm. But the Synagogue after she was reconciled to God fell again into Idolatry. Thirdly in the Scripture are to be found many apparent contradictions which cannot but breed great difficulty in the mind of the reader: of many I will relate some. 1. Moses saith, that God created Gen. 1. ●. heaven and earth in six days and rested the seventh; but in the eighteen of Eccles. cap. 18. ●. Ecclesiast. it is said, who liveth for ever did create altogether. 2. Moses tells us, that the children Gen. 15. 3. Acts 7. Galat. 3 17. of Israel were in Egypt four hundred years. But the Apostle saith, that they were there four hundred thirty years. 3. jacob the Patriarch saith: I have Gen. 32. 30. seen God face to face, and my soul was saved. But we have the contrary Exod. 33. 20. for God saith, man shall not see me and live. 4. In Exod. 20. v. 5. it is said, I am thy Lord God visiting the iniquity of the Fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them▪ But the contrary is found in Ezechiel: The son shall not carry the iniquity of his Father. 5. Honour thy Father, and thy Exod. 20. 12. Luc. 14. v. 26. Mother that thou mayst live long upon the earth: but contrary to this Christ saith, who doth not hate his Father, and his Mother, cannot be my Disciple. 6. Thou shalt fear thy Lord God Deut. 6. 3. Math. 5. 34. and swear by his name. Which is contrary to that: But I say to you, do not swear at all. 7. It repenteth me that I have made 1. Reg. 15. 11. Rom. 11. 29. Saul King: contrary to that, without repentance are the gifts and vocation of God. 8. In the Ark there was nothing 3. Reg. ●. 9 else but two tables of stone which Moses put in it in Horeb; contrary to that of Hebr. 9 4. S Paul: In the Ark there was a golden pot having Manna, and the rod of Aaron that had blossomed, and the tables of the Testament. 9 The impious shall not rise in Psal. 1. 5. judgement; contrary to that: we shall 1. Cor. 15. v. 51. all indeed rise again, but we shall not all be changed. 10. God hath spoken once; contrary Psal. 6. 12. Hebr. 1. 1. to that: diversly and many ways in times past God spoke to the Fathers in the Prophets, last of all in these days hath spoken to us in his son. 11. Every man is a liar: contrary Psal. 115. ●. Apoc. 14. 5. Prou. 6. 6. to that, and in their mouth was found no . Go to the emot, o sluggard and learn wisdom, the which doth prepare her meat in summer, and gather in the harvest that she may eat, contrary Math. 6. v. 34. to that: Be not careful therefore for the morrow. 12. Transgress not the ancient Pro. 22. 28. Ezec. 20. 18. bounds which thy Fathers have put; contrary to that, In the precepts of your Fathers walk not, neither keep you their judgements. 13. Answer not a fool according Pro. 26. 4. Ibid. Sap. 1. 13. to his folly lest thou be made like to him; contrary to that, Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he esteem himself to be wise. 14. God hath not made death; contrary Eccles. 11. 14. to that: Good things, and evil life, and death, poverty, and honesty, are of God. Sap. 11. 25. 15. Thou lovest all things that are, & hatest nothing of those which thou hast made; contrary to that, jacob I loved, Rom. 9 13. Eccl. 10. 15. 1. Tim. 6. but Esau I hated. 16. The beginning of all sin is prude: contrary to that, the root of all evil is covetousness. 17. Do good to the humble & give Eccl. 12. 6. Luc. 6. 30. not to the impious: prohibit to give him bread; contrary to that, give to every one that asketh thee. 18. They that eat me shall yet Eccl. 24. 28. joan. 4. 13. hunger, and they that drink me shall yet thirst; contrary to that, he who shall drink of the water which I will give him, shall not thirst for ever. 19 As yet forty days, and Ninive joan. 3 4. joan. 4. 11. shallbe subverted, contrary to that, shall not I spare Ninive the great City? 20. Gratis you have received, Gratis Mat. 10. 8. Luc. 10. 7. give you: contrary to that, the workman is worthy of his wages. 21. Take nothing in the way, neither skrip, shoes, nor rod; contrary to Math. 10. 10. Marc. 6. 8. that, and he hath commanded them that they should take nothing in the way, but a rod only. 22. After 6. days jesus took Peter, Mat. 17. 1. Luc. 9 28. james, and john; contrary to that: It came to pass after these words, almost eight days, and he took Peter etc. 23. But if thy brother shall offend Mat. 18. 15. against thee, go and rebuke him between thee and him alone; contrary to 1. Tim 5. 20. that: Them that sin rebuke before all, that the rest also may have fear. 24. None is good but one God; Mar. ●0. 19 Luc. 6. 45. contrary to that: The goodman of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good. 25. Go preach the Gospel to every Mar. 16. 15. Math. 10. 5. creature; contrary to that: Into the way of the Gentiles do not go, and into cities of the Samaritans enter ye not: But, go to the sheep that are perished of the house of Israel. 26. You are they that have remained Luc. 22. 28. Math. 26. 31. with me in my temptations, contrary to that, you shall all suffer scandal in me. 27. If I give testimony of myself joan. 5. 31. my testimony is not true; contrary to joan. 8. 14. this; Although I give testimony of myself, my testimony is true. 28. I do not receive testimony of joan. 5. 34. joan. 15. 27. man; contrary to this: And you shall give testimony of me. 29. He that eateth my flesh and joan. 6. 55. Ibidem. v. 63. drinketh my blood hath life everlasting; contrary to that, It is the spirit that quickneththe, flesh profitteth nothing. 30. All things whatsoever I have joan. 15. 15. joan. 16. 1●. heard of my Father, I have notified unto you; contrary to this; I have yet many things to tell you. 31. Marry Magdalen came early to joan. 20. 1. Mar. 16. 2. the monument when it was yet dark; contrary to that: she came to the monument the sun being now risen. 32. Circumcision indeed profiteth Rom. 2. 25. if thou observe the Law; contrary to that: Behold I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Galat. 5. 2. Christ will profit you nothing. 33. We account a man to be justified by Rom. 3. 28. james 2. 20. 24. Rom. ●. v. 19 Act. 7. v. 51. Rom. 11. v. 34● 1. Cor. 2. v. 16. 1. Cor. 13. v. 3. faith without works: Contrary to that of S. james: Faith if it have not works is dead in itself. And again: you see that man is justified by works, and not by faith alone. 34. For who resisteth his will; contrary to that; you always have resisted the holy Ghost as also your Fathers. 35. Who hath known the mind of our Lord; contrary to that; But we have the sense of Christ. 36. If I shall distribute all my goods to be meat for the poor, and have not charity, it doth Luc. 11. v. 41. profit me nothing; contrary to that: give alms and all things are clean to you. 37. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ 1. Cor. 13. v. 32. joan. 5. v. 21. Galat. 1. v. 10. 1 Cor. 10. v. 33. all shallbe made alive; contrary to that: The Son quickeneth whom he will. 38. Do I seek to please men? If I yet did please men, I should not be the servant of Christ; contrary to that, be without offence, even as I in all things do please all men. 39 Bear ye one another's burden; Galat. 6. 2. Ibid. v. 5. contrary to this: Every one shall bear his own burden. 40. God inhabiteth light not accessible; contrary to that: Come to him, 1. Tim. 6. 16. Psal. 33. 6. 1. john. 1. 8. 1. joan. 3. 9 and you may be illuminated. 41. If we shall say that we have no sin we seduce ourselves; contrary to that: Every one that is borne of God, committeth not sin. These and such like apparent contradictions, which are found in many places of the Scripture, oftentimes do trouble the reader, and cause excessive pains and labour even to the most learned of all. The ancient Fathers do give testimony of this, who spent much time in the according of these and such like contradictions, as S. Augustine for example wrote certain books of the agreement amongst the Evangelists: and divers others also who took great pains in interpreting the Scripture, whose labours if we had not been partaker of, we should have yet been ignorant and blind in many matters of great importance. And thus far about the third cause of obscurity in Scripture. The fourth ariseth upon this, that often times the words of Scripture make a doubtful sense, by reason of the want of some distinction. For sometimes where a distinction is needful there is none at all. Which most commonly happeneth in these cases. 1. When it maketh mention of God. 2. When of Christ. 3. When it insinuateth the coming of Christ. 4. When it speaketh of the Church. For there belongeth unto God, either Unity of essence, or Trinity of persons. To Christ either the human nature or divine. Moreover Christ's coming is twofould, the one in his nativity, the other in the day of judgement. Also the Church is either militant upon earth, or triumphant in heaven▪ Therefore when the Scripture maketh mention either of God, or of Christ, or of the Church, it is doubtful and obscure, in what sense there they are to be taken: as if it speak of God, whether it mean thereby as he is one in essence, or as he is three in person: if of Christ, whether it be understood as he is God, or as he is man: or when mention is made of his coming, whether it be of his first or of his last: or when the Church is named whether the militant or triumphant thereby is signified it is hard to understand. But to explain it the better I will give an example of every one. The Scripture maketh mention of Mar. 6. v. 9 God, in saying: Our Father which art in heaven. Now it is doubtful whether it be spoken of God according to the unity of his essence, or according to the distinction of his persons, or, as the Divines do propound it, whether the name of Father be taken there essentially as it is common to three persons, or personally as applied to the first person only? There are authors of both parts: yet it is more likely to be taken in that place essentially as it is to be gathered out of these words of Christ, joan. 2. 17. I ascend to my Father and your Father. Where the word Father is taken both ways. For the Father of Christ according to his eternal generation, is the first divine person, as he is distinguished from the son, and the holy Ghost. But our Father according to our creation, governing and adoption, is the whole Trinity, as he is one God. Therefore when he saith: I ascend to my Father, he speaketh only of the first person, but when he addeth, and your Father, he speaketh of three persons as they are one in essence and nature. S. Paul maketh mention of Christ, Who is the Image of the invisible God, the first Colos▪ 1. 15. borne of all creatures, because in him were created all things, and he is the head of the body the Church, first borne of the dead. Hear also it is doubtful, whether this be to be understood of Christ in respect of his divinity or humanity. Many think that some part of the senteuce is to be understood one way, some part another; with whom I agree. For Christ according to his divinity is the Image of God the Father, and also by him and in him all things are made: but according to his humanity he is the head of the Church and first borne of the dead. And in both senses he may be called the first borne of every creature, according to the sundry expositions of the interpreters, as may be seen in their comments upon that same place. There is also a certain speech of the coming of Christ. And when again Heb. 1. ●. he bringeth in the first begotten into the world he saith: And let all the Angels of God adore him. Wherein consists a question, whether this was spoken of his first coming at his nativity, or of his last coming in the day of judgement. If were spect that word, again, it seemeth rather to be of his later coming. But taking all the circumstances together, it may appear to be of his former▪ So the interpreters of this place. Of the Church also the Apostle writeth: But that Ilierusalem which is above, is free, which is our mother. Gal. 4. ●6. For it is written, Rejoice thou barren that bearest not, break forth and cry that travailest not, because many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband. Hear therefore is a difficulty to know whether it be meant, of the Church militant or triumphant? Which difficulty is in another place of S. Paul. But you are Heb. 12, 22. come to mount Zion, and the City of the living God heavenly Jerusalem, and the Church of the first borne. And in the same Apostle, Eph. 5. 25. Christ loved the Church and delivered himself for it, that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life, that he might present to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle. To this kind of obscurity, may also be reduced, that some things which are spoken of Christ in Scripture, are to be understood of the head of the Church, which is Christ, sometimes of both as S. Augustine noteth. For the head of the Church Christ is taken in that place of the Apostle: lib. 3. de doctrina Chri. c. 31. Math. 28. ●0. Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. Where Christ as the head of the Church, promiseth to the body and members thereof his perpetual assistance, protection, and government. For of the body and members of the Church is that place of the acts to be understood. Saul, Saul why dost thou persecute Act. 9 4. me? For Saul did not persecute the person of Christ (seeing that he was in heaven where he could not be persecuted) but his Apostles who were the members of his Church. Also that of Zachary; After glory he sent me to the nations. Zach. ●. 8. Where Christ speaketh in person of the Apostles. As though he had said, my heavenly Father will send me (to wit my Apostles) to the conversion of the Gentills. But when will he send me? after glory (that is) after I have showed my glory and divinity in my Resurrection and Ascension. After the same manner also S. Austin in the exposition of the 147. Psalm, doth interpret that place of S. Matth. Then if any man shall say Math. 24. 23. unto you, lo here is Christ or there, do not believe him. For he thinketh that there by Christ is signified his Church whose words are these. There shall rise false Christ's, and false Prophets, and shall say, lo here and lo there but they shall not speak of the head himself, behold here & behold there (for it is certain that Christ is in heaven) but of the Church. And out of this place he confuteth the Donatists who said: Behold here in Africa is the Church, and in no other place beside. And that of the Prophet Isay of Isay 61. 10. both. He hath clothed me with the garment of salvation, and with the garment of justice: he hath compassed me as a bridegroom decked with a Crown, and as a bride adorned with her jewels. Where Christ is called the bride and the bridegroom, that is, the head and the body: and that of the Psalm, Psal. 2. The kings of the earth have stood up and the Princes have gathered together against our Lord and against his Christ. Which was fulfiled in the head, and daily is fulfiled in the members. The first cause of the obscurity of scripture ariseth from this, that oftentimes, when we think least, passage is made from the literal sense to the mystical, from carnal things to spiritual, from temporal to eternal, from the Kings of Israel, to Christ the king himself, and contrariwise. This especially is performed in the Psalms and the Prophets, as is to be seen in the 7. Chapter of Isay, where from the History of two kings (of the which one was Rasin King of Syria, and the other Phacee King of Israel) passage is made presently to the B. Virgin: Behold (saith he) a virgin shall conceive, and shall bring forth a son, and his name shallbe called Emanuel. And in the 14. Chapter, where the Prophet passeth from the king of Babylon unto Lucifer: and in the 71. Psalm passage is made from Solomon unto Christ; All the kings of earth shall adore him: Vide D. Hieron. l. 5. in psal. cap. 16. and in the sixth Chapter of S. john, the Evangelist passeth from barley loaves to the Eucharistical or Sacramental bread. And so often times in other places. The sixth obscurity ariseth from this, that in the Histories of Scripture things are not set down in that order in which they were done. In like manner that the computation of years doth not appear plain and manifest. Lastly that certain books often times are cited, which if they were extant, they would help the reader very much, but seeing they are not to be found, they leave him doubtful & in suspense, as are these which follow. 1. The book of the wars of our Numer. 21. v. 14. joshua 10. v. 13. 3. Reg. 11. v. 41. 3. Reg. 14. etc. Lord. 2. The book of the Just. 3. The book of the words, concerning the days of Solomon. 4. The book of the speeches concerning the days of the kings of juda, and the kings of Israel. 5. The book of Samuel the Prophet 1. Paral. 29. v. 29. Ibidem. concerning the acts of David. 6. The book of Nathan the Prophet concerning the same things. 7. The volume of Gad the Prophet. Ibid. 2. Paral. 9 v. 19 Ibid. Ibid. 8. The book of Nathan the Prophet concerning the acts of Solomon. 9 The book of Achias the Silonite of the same. 10. The vision of Addo the Prophet 2. Paral. 20. v. ●4. against jeroboam the son of Nabat. 11. The history of the kings of Israel written by jehu the son of Hanan. ●. Paral. 26. v. 22. 12. The history of king Ozias, written by Isay the son of Amos. 13. The sermons of Ose, concerning 2. Paral 33. v. 19 2. Paral. 35. v. 25 jere. ●6. v. 6. the deeds of Manasses. 14. The lamentation of jeremy in the funeral of king josias. 15. The volume of jeremy concerning the ruin of the City, and the captivity of the people. 16. The book of jeremy concerning jere. 51. v. 61. 1. Machab. 16. v. 24. 2. Macha. 2. 1. the destruction of Babylon. 17. The book of the time of the priesthood of john Hircanus. 18. Descriptions of jeremy the Prophet. 19 The book of Henoch. Epist. I●d● Apostoli. Besides these causes, there are many others the which I will touch in passing. For first sometimes there are many sentences couched together between the which, either there is no connexion, or at least the connexion doth not appear. 2. Hebrew words occur the which of few are understood. 3 Oftentimes the answer which is made seemeth not to be so fit, & to the purpose of the question propounded. 4. Very often words are doubtful, so that it cannot be discerned in what sense they are to be taken, as in this place of the first to the Corinthians. For other foundation no 1. Cor. ●. v 11. man can lay, besides that which is laid which is Christ jesus. And if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones wood, hay stubble, the work of every one shallbe manifest: for the day of our Lord will declare, because it shallbe revealed in fire: and the work of every one of what kind it is, the fire shall try. If any man's work abide which he built thereupon: he shall receive reward, if any man's work he shall suffer detriment, but himself shallbe saved, yet so as by fire. This place without doubt is most hard. 1. Because it is hard to understand what is meant, by gold, silver, hay, and stubble. 2. What is meant by the day of our Lord. 3. What by fire. 4. What it is to burn, and to suffer detriment. Lastly what it is to be saved so as by fire. Whereupon S. Augustine writeth Aug. in l. d●●i●e & oper. c. 15 plainly, that this is one of these places of which S. Peter spoke in his last epistle, when he said, there are some things in the epistles of S. Paul hard to be understood. Petr. ●ost. epist 3. 16. That other place of S. Paul is as hard. What shall they do that are baptised 1. Cor. 15. ●●. for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why also are they baptised for them? for it is not easy to explicate what to be baptised signifieth in this place; and what to be baptised for the dead. As concerning the which, six divers opinions are extant in Bellarmine. Bel. lib. 1. d● Purg. c. 4. Likewise in the same Apostle this sentence is found. It is impossible for them that were once illuminated, have tasted also of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the holy Ghost: have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, and are fallen to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the son of God. Which words are most obscure, and by the ill understanding of them, the heresy of the Novatians arose in S. Cyprians time, who said, that neither penance, nor pardon was to be given to them that fell; and therefore they called themselves Catharos, that is pure and clean. And this is sufficient about the causes whereby the Scripture according to the true and lawful sense thereof is very hard and obscure. There remaineth yet another question, which shallbe briefly examined. Wherefore is it Gods will, that the Scripture should be obscure? THIS truly is a great question and worthy to be sought out, wherefore the Scripture being by reason of the things themselves, and the mysteries therein contained very obscure, is made yet more obscure by reason of the manner of treating thereof, and this according unto the will and disposition of God. And wherefore rather by his will and disposition are not those mysteries which seem obscure by themselves, so clearly propounded, that there may be no difficulty to any in the understanding of them? Truly there be divers reasons of this, of the which I will here set down some few. The first reason is. Because God as he is willing that an order be kept in all other things, even so also in his Church to wit, that there should be some who might teach, and some who might be taught, which order could not be kept, if the Scripture were so plain that it might easily be understood of all, to the which that place of S. Paul doth belong. He gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and Eph 4. 11. other some Evangelists, and other some pastors and Doctors, to the consummation of the Saints unto the work of the ministry, unto the edifying of the body of Christ, that is of the Church. And also that to the Corinthians: Are all Apostles? are all, Prophets? are all doctors? do 1. Cor. 12▪ 29. all interpret? as though he had said in no wise. For it is the office of some to teach and interpret, of others to learn and give ear, which in the same place is declared with a noble example taken from man's body. For even as in a man's body there be many members, yet not all of them are exercised about the same office: even so in the Church which is Christ's body there be many faithful, yet all are not partakers of the same grace proceeding from God. For to one 1 Cor. 12. 8. & 9 is given the work of wisdom, to another the working of miracles, to another the discerning of spirits, to another the interpretation of languages. And as the same Apostle speaketh in another place. To every one as God hath Rom. 12. 5. divided the measure of his faith, where he addeth in the same place: I say to all that Rom. 12. 3. are among you not to be more wise than behoveth to be wise. Which is as much to say: even as the eyes have not the office of hearing, nor the ears of seeing, nor the arms of walking, nor the feet of eating, because it is not granted them so by nature: even so in the Church, not all aught to use the office of teaching, not all of interpreting the scripture, not all of working miracles (for that were to be more wise than behoveth to be wise) but every one doth that which he ought to do even as it is given him from God, in division of graces. But our adversaries do err exceedingly against this divine ordination, who permit the liberty of reading and interpreting of Scripture to all; as to all mere lay men, yea to poor and silly women. For seeing that they be not called of God to the office, they do appear most unfit to thrust themselves into it. For now it is come to that pass, that there is not one, whether he be Tapster, Tailor, or Tinker (Lutheran or Caluinist) who doth not think himself skilful enough in understanding and interpreting the Scripture, only by his own labour, without the help and instruction of any other. But let them hear what the Apostle saith, the eye cannot say to the 1. Cor. 1●. 21. hand, I need not thy help: or again, the head to the feet, you are not necessary for me. Let them hear that of the first to 1. Tim. 2. 11. 1. Cor. 14. v. 34. Timothy. Let the women learn in silence withal subjection: But to teach I permit not the woman, nor to have dominion over the man, but to be in silence. And to the Corinthians. Let women hold their peace in the Church, for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject. But if they list to learn any thing let them ask their own husbands at home. But to what end all this? Truly to this, that the order set down of God in his Church ought to be observed. Are all Doctors? do all interpret? No, For there are divisions of graces: from hence followeth that those silly women who prattle much out of the Scriptures, and blush not to blab out their own private opinions concerning controversies of faith, do most foolishly arrogate unto themselves that which neither they have on or belongs unto them. But in this they imitate their Mother Eva, who could not hold her peace in paradise, but her husband being silent she begun to dispute with the serpent, and presently was overcome by him and deceived, as her husband also by her, and many such eves are found in this age which do the same. The second reason, if the Scripture were easy, it would be understood not only of the faithful who are in the Church, but also of those who are Infidels & no members of the Church: and so by little and little the Majesty & authority of it would be overthrown. To this purpose is that which is said in S. Math. Give not that which is holy to dogs, Math. 7. 6. neither cast ye your pearls before swine lest perhaps they tread them which their feet. As D. Thomas 1. p. q. 1. art. 9 ad 2. & S. Aug. (aut quisquis aut hoc ille est) hom. 7 in Apocalip. It is understood by S. Augustine, and S. Thomas. If the Scripture were plain and easy, doubtless it would be less esteemed both of the infidels & Christians then is fitting. Moreover to many it would be an occasion of pride and arogancy. For if they ●hould perceive that these things which treat of profound mysteries were plain and apparent, they would brag of themselves excessively, & imagine nothing to be so hard which they could not by their own wit and learning conceive and understand. But now contrariwise they see the obscurity of the Scripture to be so great, that by no means they are able to overcome it, and therefore finding themselves ignorant and wanting the instruction of others, they fly seriously to God, to the end that he may open their eyes and illuminate their understanding, that his divine mysteries may be laid open unto them. As David did who said: Open my eyes and I will consider Psal. 118. vers. 18. 34. the wonders of thy law. And a little after. Give me understanding and I will search the law. And again in the same Psalm. Illumimate thy face upon thy servant and teach me thy justifications. And very well: for the sense of the Scripture can proceed from none but from the Author of the Scripture: But the author of the Scripture is the holy Ghost, and therefore it is called the word of God: the sense therefore of the scripture can come from none but from the holy Ghost, to which that place of S. Peter doth belong, no prophecy 2. Petr. 1. 20. of Scripture is made by private interpretation. The cause headdeth: For not by man's will was prophecy brought at any time, but the holy men of God spoke, inspired with the holy Ghost. And thus it cometh to pass, that proud and arogant men who are wise in their own judgements, and attribute much to their own wits, do never obtain the true sense, because God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. And Math. 11. 25. this is it that Christ spoke of in the Gospel: I confess to the O Father, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and the prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones. And also the Apostle, saying themselves wise, they become foolish. It follows necessarily out of the obscurity of the Scripture, that many Controversies arise amongst Christians. THIS is another principle of those which I set down before. And truly it needeth no other confirmation then daily experience. For it is generally well known that in all ages even from the Apostles time unto this our present age, that there hath sprung out always new controversies about the true and lawful sense of Scripture. But now letting pass all those which have been set abroach in the time of Arius, Macedonius, Donatus, and other ancient heretics; Infinite they are that occur in this present time, of which I will set down some: as for example, there is a controversy. 1. In what sense those words of Christ are to be understood: This is my body. The Lutherans understand it so, this bread is my body. The Caluinists, this bread signifieth my body. The Catholics agree with neither of them. 2. How that of S. john is to be understood: joan. 3. 5● Unless a man be borne again of the water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The Catholics and the Lutherans do understand thereby the necessity of baptism with water; and also out of it do gather that infants without baptism can in no wise be saved. The Caluinists deny all this. 3. What Christ's meaning was when he spoke these words to the young man of whom mention is made in S. Matthew: If thou will enter into life, keep the comaundments. Caluin interpreteth it to be spoken in jest; the Catholics hold it to have been said in earnest. 4. Whether out of these words: jesus came the doors being shut, and stood in the joan. 20. 26. midst of them, may be gathered that Christ pierced the doors shut. The Catholics affirm it. Others deny it And surely, Oecolampadius he thinketh, that whilst the doors were shut, Christ crept in at the window: others imagine I know not what chinks by the which they say he entered in. 5. Whether Christ spoke of the Sacrament of the Eucharist when he said: Unless you eat the flesh of the son of joan. 6. 53. man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. The Catholics affirm it: the Lutherans deny it. 6. Whether Christ bindeth all lay men to receive the Chalice, when he saith: Drink yea all of this. Caluin Cal. lib. 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 47. §. 48. holdeth he doth. There is a decree (saith he) from the eternal God, that all drink. And a little after. They are words of him commanding: Drink ye all of this Chalice. But the Catholics teach, that these words only belonged to the Apostles, as S. Marck declareth, when he saith, Mark. 14. 24. and they all drank of it. 7. Whether sin he taken properly Rom. 6. 12. of the Apostle: Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body. The Lutherans and the Caluinists hold that it is: and from thence they gather that concupiscence (of the which the Apostle there speaketh) is original sin: but the Catholics teach, that the word sin is there improperly taken, to wit for the cause of sin; because concupiscence though it be not properly a sin, yet it doth provoke to sin. 8. Whether out of that place of S. Paul: we account a man to be justified by Rom. 3 28. faith without the works of the law; may be gathered that only faith justifieth. The Lutherans affirm it. The Catholics deny it. 9 Whether that place of the Apostle: But he shallbe saved, yet so as by fire; be understood of Purgatory fire? The Catholics do affirm it with S. Aug. upon the 37. Psalm, and other more ancient Fathers. The Lutherans and the Caluinists deny it. 10. Whether it may be gathered out of S. Paul, that the Apostles had wives, where he saith: Have we not 1. Cor. 9 5. power to lead about a woman a sister, as also the rest of the Apostles? The Lutherans affirm it out of Luther's Gloss which is this, of leading about a woman wi●e. But truly the Catholics will not admit this gloss. 11. Of what faith Christ speaketh when he saith: believe only, and she Luc. 8. 50. shallbe safe. The Lutherans interpret it to be justifying faith, whose effect is the remission of sin. But the Catholics understand it of that faith which jarus Prince of the Synagogue did believe that his daughter then dead could be raised again by Christ. 12. And what the sense of that place is: Do good or evil if you can: Out of Isay. 41. 23. which Luther proveth that men have not free will; because they cannot do good and ill as they list. The Catholics laugh at this their argument, because those words are not spoken to men, but to the Idols of the Gentills, which although they be worshipped of the Gentills as Gods, yet they be not Gods, because they can neither profit their worshippers, nor hurt their contemners. 13. Whether out of that which is written of S. john Baptist: The infant in Luc. 1. 44. my womb did leap for joy, may be gathered that all infants when they are baptised have actual faith? The Lutherans say yea, the Catholics no. 14. Whether God commanded all to be married, when he said, Increase Gen. 1. 28 and multiply. The Lutherans hold that in those words are implied a precept to marry. But the Catholics take it as Gen. 9 1. a blessing, given to marriage already contracted, as appeareth in the text itself. 15. Whether this place of S. Paul: 1. Tim. 2. 5. There is one mediator of God and men, man Christ jesus, doth exclude the invocation and intercession of Saints, as the adversaries affirm. Or do not as we Catholics maintain, and prove, because it doth not exclude the invocation of Saints upon earth: otherwise the Apostle world not have said, Brethren pray for us. 1. Thess. 3. 25. 16. Who are these two witnesses of whom is made mention in the 11. of the apocalypse: And I will give to my two witnesses, and they shall prophecy a thousand two hundred sixty days, clothed with sack-clothes. Some of our adversaries say, that Luther and Caluin are meant thereby. Others the old and the new testament: but the Catholics say Henoch, and Helias, or Moses, and Helias. 17. What that signifieth which is written of Antichrist in the apocalypse. And he did great signs, so that he also made fire to come down from heaven. Our advesaries do understand by fire descending Pow. lib. 1. de. Ant. cap. 26. Bald. in dispu. de Anti●h. cap. 6. from heaven, the Pope his excommunication, as powel the Caluinist, and Balduinus the Lutheran do hold, and hereby they prove that the Pope is Antichrist. The Catholics contemn these follies. The Scripture cannot be the judge of these, and the like Controversies. IT is certain that in these and such like Controversies which are about the sense of the Scripture, some certain judge is needful, who may decide the same, and plainly pronounce that this is true, and not the other. But now I will prove with two arguments that the Scripture itself cannot be this judge. The first is drawn out of that which I said before in this manner: The judge so ought to pronounce sentence that both parties at variance may well understand it, otherwise he should pronounce it to no purpose; But the Scripture when the sense thereof is obscure, and doubtful (which falleth out often as I have showed above) cannot so plainly pronounce sentence, that it may be understood of both parties at variance. For if it should clearly pronounce sentence in any such case, the sense of the Scripture should not be obscure, but plain and manifest, which is contrary to our supposition. Therefore in such a case the Scripture cannot be judge. Perchance you will say, that although the sense of the Scripture in one place be obscure, yet notwithstanding in some other place it is very plain, and therefore the Scripture by that place which is clear, may pronounce sentence of that place which is obscure. I answer. The heretics harp on this string but in vain. For first, if it be so, wherefore by that means do they not end all controversies between them? wherefore I say, do not the Lutherans and the Caluinists, seeing they so long contend about some obscure place, run presently to another which is plain? or if they do so, why make they not an end of all their strife? Here they are at a nonplus, and know not what to say. Furthermore that the words of the Scripture are plain, is one thing, but that the sense is plain is another. For the plainness of the words dependeth upon the knowledge of grammar. but the sense upon the intention and counsel of the holy Ghost. And doubtless oftentimes it may happen that one may be perfect in the knowledge of his grammar, and yet very ignorant of the meaning of the holy Ghost. So that it may fall out very well, that the words of the Scripture may be plain, yet the sense of the words as they be intended of the holy Ghost may be obscure. To show this to the eye I will declare it with this example. The words of Christ in the scripture be these: This is my body: This is my blood. Which words if they be taken according to their proper signification, are so manifest and plain that they may be well understood of all men, whether they be Christians, jews, Turks, or Ethnics. But about the sense of them intended by the holy Ghost almost infinite controversies are amongst Christians. The like is to be found in those words of S. john. Marry Magdalen cometh early to the monument when it was yet dark. And in those of S. Mark. She came to the monument the sun being risen. Then the which words nothing could be spoken more plainly, yet because the first do seem to be contrary to the second, it may be doubted, and that with great reason, what the proper sense of them is, and how they may agree one with another. Moreover I say that oftentimes it happeneth that the one party thinketh that place clear and manifest which the other holdeth to be obscure and intricate. Now than what is to be done in such a case? or what judge is to be admitted? doubtless the scripture cannot be the judge, seeing the controversy is about the sense of it, when some think it plain, others obscure, and of some it is construed in this sense, of others in another. What counsel shall we take therefore? must not then another judge be sought out. For example. There is contention betwixt us and the Caluinists, as concerning the true descending of Christ into hell which they deny, we maintain, and do for our belief bring a double testimony. The one is out of the Creed: He descended into hell, the other out of the acts: Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell. We say that both of these be clear and evident; The Caluinists deny both, and with their obscure interpretation they make both places most obscure. For they interpret the first in this sense: He descended into hell, that is (say they) he suffered upon the Cross most cruel and horrible torments of a damned & forlorn man, that pressed with anguish he was forced to cry out, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? So Caluin. But Cal. lib. 2. inst. c. 16. §. 10. 11. &. catechisms Hidelberg● quaest. 44. they take the latter in this sense: Thou shalt not leave my Carcase in the grave. What is to be done here? To what judge shall we appeal? If we ask counsel of the Scripture, it will say the same that it said before. It will not add so much as any one jot to that set down. Now of that which is said before is the controversy, which can never be ended by that which is said before. If then after the Controversy begun, the Scripture say no new thing at all, but remain still in the same ancient terms, truly by it the contention cannot be decided, but of necessity we must either go to some other judge, or one of the parties contending must yield voluntarily, or else they are forced still to continue in their endless strife and contention. The other argument is this. There are many testimonies of the Scripture which can by no means be interpreted according to the true sense, but by the authority and tradition of the Church: Therefore if a Controversy should arise about these testimonies, the Scripture only cannot be judge, but we ought to fly to the tradition & authority of the Church: as for example Christ saith, Teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the holy Ghost. The true and lawful sense is, that in baptism we are to pronounce these words. I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. And that baptism without such a verbal and express pronunciation of those words is no true baptism. We and our adversaries agree in this. But if one should deny this to be the sense, and should say, that these words were not needful: In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost, but that an inward will and intention of baptizing him, in the name of the holy Trinity were sufficient; how should he be confuted? only out of the words of the Scripture? Nothing less, seeing the words be these baptizing them in the name of the Father etc. where there is not any vocal invocation of the blessed Trinity insinuated, to be of necessity? From whence have we then that it ought to be verily from the practice and tradition of the Church? If thou dost reject this, thou shalt not have help against the adversary, who shall deny the pronouncing of these words to be necessary. Another example is this. Christ saith, Unless a man be borne again of water and spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. This place according to the true and lawful sense is understood of the necessity of baptism with water, as the Lutherans themselves do confess, yet the Caluinists notwithstanding deny it. How therefore can they be confuted of the Lutherans? Truly not out of the Word alleged. For although water be named there, yet it is not so expressly named, as though it ought to be understood of true and natural water. For in another place it is called fire as in S. Luke: He shall baptise Lue. 3. v. 1●. you in spirit and fire, and yet it is not understood of true fire. Therefore how can it appear that in the former place true water is to be understood? or how will the Lutherans prove it against the Caluinists? Not by any other means, then by the practice, order, and tradition of the Church. Another. Christ in his last supper did not only institute the blessed Sacrament, but also he adjoined the washing of feet, and in the institution of the blessed Sacrament he said, Eat and drink: but in the washing of eete, and you ought one to wash the feet of another. Here the Adversaries say, that in the first words there is a precept, but not in the last. And so the faithful by God's commandment are obliged to receive the blessed Sacrament in both kinds, but not so to the washing of feet. Now I ask, how they are certain of this? or by what pretence do they think themselves bound to the receiving of both kinds, and yet free from the washing of feet? Certainly they cannot pretend the words of Scripture: For they seem rather to show the contrary. For these words, Eat and drink, seem to signify no more of themselves, then if a housekeeper should say to his guests, eat and drink, and be merry. And if the housekeeper should say so, it would not be thought that be meant thereby to bind them by a precept. Therefore seeing Christ spoke in the same manner, how is it certain that he intended by that manner of speaking to oblige all the faithful to the receiving of both kinds? But these words; You ought to wash the feet of one another, seem to signify a precept no less, then if the master should say to the servant: Thou must cover the table. How therefore know they that by these words they are not obliged to wash the feet of one another, seeing the words themselves do show plainly an obligation? Only by the practice, and Tradition of the Church. For the Church never hath used this washing as necessary, which notwithstanding she would have done if she had thought that she had been obliged to it, and that by Christ's commandment. I omit many like examples which are easy to be found. And out of these I conclude thus: The Scripture may be considered two ways. 1. According to the bare and outward letter. 2. According to the inward sense which is intended of the holy Ghost. But neither of these two ways can it be judge of Controversies. Not the former way as we have proved in the first part of this second argument. Neither as it is taken in the second way, because the sense of the Scripture often times is so obscure and doubtful, that there is need of some other judge who may define this to be the true meaning, which is intended of the holy Ghost, and not any other contrary. And this is sufficient about the second Argument drawn from the Scripture. THE III. ARGUMENT. Which is drawn out of the Controversies themselves. THIS argument, thus I propound. There are many controversies about faith and Religion, of the which in the Scripture there is no mention made at all, or at least not so much as is sufficient, so that the Scripture may give sentence of them: therefore in deciding of them, some other judge is to be sought. Such controversies be these. The first, whether the Books of Toby, judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, & the Maccabees be Canonical land divine? The Lutherans, and the Caluinists say no. But the Catholics say the contrary. Now who must be judge to decide this contention? The Scripture cannot be. Neither the Lutherans nor the Caluinists (which is well to be noted) do appeal to the Scripture, but to the Canon and tradition of the jews. They say therefore that those Books cannot be found in the Canon of the jews, which is extant in S. Hierome, and therefore they are not to be accounted Canonical and Divine. Hence they confess, that in this case there ought to be some other judge besides the Scripture. And who is that? The tradition of the jews say they. But is not this strange, to see our Adversaries make more reckoning of jews, then of Christians? For although they be desirous to be accounted Christians they are deadly enemies to the traditions of Christ, and his Apostles, and yet notwithstanding make great account of the jews traditions. Wherefore say they not rather with S. Augustine: Not August. l. ●8. de civit. Dei c. 36. the jews, but the Church holdeth the Books of the Maccabees for Canonical? or with Isidorus: The jews do not receive the books of Toby, judith, and the Maccabees, but the Church doth number them among the Canonical Scriptures? Ifidor. in l. Proem. de lib. vet. & no●. Test. And in the same place: The Book of Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus are known to have the like authority that other Canonical Books have? The second is, how many Sacraments there be of the new Law? Our adversaries say but two, Baptism, and the Lords supper: The catholics believe seven. But what saith the Scripture? Nothing as concerning any certain number, and therefore it cannot be the judge in this Controversy. From whence therefore receive the Catholics the number of seven, if not out of Scripture? From the tradition and consent of the Church. From whence the adversaries the number of 2.? Let them look from whence. Truly they have it not from the Scripture: but if they think they have, let them perform these three things. First let them show out of Scripture, that the name of a Sacrament is attributed to Baptism, and to the Eucharist, and not as well to Confirmation, Order, Pennance, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction. Secondly out of Scripture let them define a Sacrament. Thirdly let them show, that the definition agreeth fitly with Baptism, and the Eucharist, and not as well to the rest. If they can do this they do something: but that they neither will, nor ever can do this I am most certain. For first where will they find in Scripture, that the name of a Sacrament is attributed to Baptism, and the Eucharist. Truly in no place. But I will find where it is applied to Matrimony. For so writeth the Apostle. For this cause shall man leave his Father and Mother, & Eph. 5. 31. shall cleave to his wife and they shallbe two in one flesh. This is a great Sacrament: But I speak in Christ, & in the Church. As though he had said, That a man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife. This is a great Sacrament, because it is a sign of the union of Christ with his Church that is, the marriage of Christ, and his Church. Secondly where will they find Luth. in l. de captiu Bab ●. vlt Melan. in ep. Conf. August. art. 13. Mel. in locis▪ ommun●●us tit. d● numero Sacramentorum. in the Scripture the definition of a Sacrament? Luther indeed doth thus define it: A Sacrament is a promise annexed to an external sign. Melancthon thus: A Sacrament is a rite which hath the commandment of God, to which is adjoined a promise of grace, that is to say, of free reconciliation, or remission of sins, as he explicateth himself. Caluin in this manner: A Sacrament is an outward sign by the which Calu. l. 4. Instit cap. 14. §. ●. our Lord doth seal to our consciences the promise of his good will to underprop the weakness of our faith. But verily none of all these definitions are in the Scripture. Nay one of them doth not agree with another. For Luther in his definition saith, that the promise is of the essence of a Sacrament. Melancthon holdeth, that it is annexed to the Sacrament. But Caluin insinuateth in his, that the promise is not annexed to the Sacrament, but rather that the Sacrament is annexed and added to the promise; and not that the promise is of the effect of God's good will towards us. Therefore according to Melancthon thus the promise were to be expressed if any shall receive the sacrament of Baptism, or of the Eucharist; Him I promise the remission of his sins. But according to Caluin in this manner; God hath promised to you remission of sins and life everlasting, and this promise he declares and seals by the Sacraments. Thirdly, whatsoever is to be thought of these definitions, which our Adversaries have newly invented, how will they show out of the Scripture, that they agree to Baptism, and the Eucharist? I for my part see not. But let us try. One definition is this▪ A Sacrament is a rite which hath a Commandment of God, to which is annexed a promise of remission of sins. Let our adversaries prove out of scripture, that this definition is agreeable to the Eucharist. Let them prove I say this out of Scripture, that the Eucharist hath a promise of remission of sins annexed unto it. Or, that which is all one, That God in the Scripture doth promise us remission of our sins if we receive this Sacrament. They can never prove it. For this Sacrament is not ordained of God to remit a man his sins, or to make of a wicked man, or a sinner a just & holy man, but rather it is instituted to the end, that it may nourish, confirm, and increase that justice, grace and sanctity, which was in him before he received this Sacrament. Nay rather it is so far off from remitting of sins, as it is pernicious to a sinner if he come to it, knowing himself guilty of deadly sin. Hence it is of the Apostle to the Corinthians. But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that chalice, for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth & drinketh judgement to himself. And Christ in his last supper would not give the Eucharist to his Apostles before he had washed their feet, to the end that he might give us to understand that none unless they be washed pure, and free from all mortal sin are to be admitted to the holy table of our Lord. And the reason is plain out of the nature of this Sacrament. For what is the Eucharist, but a kind of spiritual meat, and drink by the which our soul is refreshed and made strong? For my flesh, saith Christ, is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink. And therefore as corporal meat and drink doth not profit the body, unless it be alive: even so neither the Eucharist doth help the soul, unless it be void of sin, which is the death of the soul. The third Controversy is, whether exorcisms, and other ceremonies used in the Catholic Church may be admitted in Baptism? That Lutherans admit them, the Caluinists reject them. Yet neither of them both can confirm their opinion out Scripture. Not the Lutherans, because the Scripture in no place maketh mention, that such ceremonies ought to be used: but only we receive them from the tradition of the Church. Of the which thus S. Augustine writeth. By the most ancient tradition of the Church (saith he) children are exercised Aug l. 2. de nupt. & concup. cap. 29. and breathed upon, that they may be translated to the kingdom of Christ, from the power of darkness. Not the Caluinists, without it be in this manner. No ceremonies are to be used in the Church, but those of the which there is express command in the Scripture: But there is no command of the ceremonies, which the Catholics use in Baptism: Therefore such Ceremonies are not to be used. But the Mayor is both false and contrary to the Caluinists themselves. For the Caluinists do use many ceremonies in Baptism, of the which there is no command in the whole Suripture, such are these. 1. That the infant must be baptised before all the people, and that it should be on a Sunday, or some other day when the people is wont to come together. 2. That they who bring the infant to be baptised should be asked whether they will promise to instruct the child in faith and manners, after he shall grow to perfect age. 3. That a name should be imposed upon the infant, who is baptised 4. That the form of Baptism should be pronounced in their country language. 5. That the Creed, our Lord's prayer & others also should be recited. Which ceremonies Caluin prescribeth in a little book treating of the form of ministering the Sacraments. But where I pray you, is commanded in Scripture Baptism ought to be ministered? Certainly in no place. Hence therefore followeth, that either they must reject all those their ceremonies, or else grant, that all those which we use are not therefore to be condemned, because they are not expressly commanded in Scripture. The fourth Controversy. Whether those who are baptised of heretics, are to be baptised again? S. Crprian in times past who was Bishop of Carthage did affirm it with some others. But S. Augustine did deny it, and followed that doctrine which was more true, the which he did defend by no other means then by the Apostolical tradition, & practise of the Church. For so he writes against the Donatists. Which custom (saith he) to wit that baptism may not be iterated, I believe to have proceeded Aug. l. 2. cont. Donat. c. 7. out of the Apostolical tradition. And again. That custom which was opposed against Cyprian, is to be believed to have received it beginning from the Apostolical tradition, to the which Cyprian did not yield, because it seemed to him utterly destitute of any authority from the Scripture. There are many other such like controversies which cannot be decided out of Scripture alone, but they must of necessity have some other judge which here I will briefly point to. 1. Whether Baptism may be given by one dipping. 2. Whether Christians may worship Sunday in place of the Sabboath. 3. Whether our Lady remained a Virgin after her Childbirth. 4. Whether S. Peter the Apostle was Bishop of the Roman Church. 5. Whether the Creed be Canonical and Apostolical. 6. Whether in the old Testament there was some outward remedy for women against original sin. THE FOUR ARGUMENT. Which is taken out of the use and practise of the old Testament, where not the Scripture, but the Bishop was acknowledged for the judge. IT is certain, that in the old Testament all legal controversies which were of great moment were to be ended and decided by the High Priest, as by the supreme judge upon earth, and not by the Scripture only. Witness of this is joseph in these words. The high Priest doth offer up sacrifice to God before all other Priests, he keepeth the laws, he is judge of controversies, he punisheth offenders, whosever is disobedient to him is punished as impious against God. And this is plainly deduced out of that place of Deuteronomy. If thou perceive Deut. 17. 8. that the judgement with thee be hard and doubtful between blood and blood, cause and cause, leprosy and not leprosy, and thou see that the words of the judges within thy gates do vary: arise and go up to the place which thy Lord thy God shall choose, and thou shalt come to the Priests of the Levitical stock, and to the judge that shallbe at that time, and thou shalt ask of them, who shall show thee the truth of the judgement, neither shalt thou decline to the right hand, nor to the left hand: but he that shallbe proud refusing to obey the Commandment of the Priest which at that time ministereth to our Lord thy God, and the decree of the judge, that man shall die. About this passage we must note, first that amongst the jews there were divers controversies: in this two especially are recorded. The one concerning broud. The other concerning leprosy: but in other places we find four as in the second of Paral p. in these words. Wheresoever there is question of the 2. Paral. 19 v. 10. Law, of the Commandment, of Ceremonies, of justification. Where Lyranus tells us, that some did arise out of the Law of the Decalogue, some out of the moral Commandments, which are not in the Law of the Decalogue: some out of the Ceremonial Precepts belonging to the worship of God. Some lastly out of those which were judicial, and very convenient for the preserving of outward peace and justice. Again we must note, that in every City there were placed inferior judges, who according to their office were bound to decide such controversies, as is set down in the 16. of Deuteronomy. Deut. 16. 18. judges and Masters shalt thou appoint in all thy gates which our Lord thy God shall given thee in every of thy Tribs, that they may judge the people with just judgement, and not decline to either part. And again, he appointed judges of the Land in all the fenced Cities 2. Paral. 19 5. of juda in every place. Moreover we must observe, that when inferior judges could not agree amongst themselves, nor decide those conferences, which were presented to them for some peculiar difficulty, than they were forced to repair to Jerusalem to those who were superior judges, over whom the high Priest was Precedent or supreme judge, to whose sentence all were bound to obey under pain of death. This is plain out of the words, which are set down before Duet. 17. 8. From hence we gather that there was a double Tabernacle seat or Council amongst the jews; the one was greater, the other less. Between them there was great difference. First because the greater was only at Jerusalem, the lesser in every City 2. In the greater were decided matters of greater moment, in the lesser those which were easy. 3. In greater the high Priest was Precedent, not so in the lesser. 4. It was lawful to appeal from the less to the greater, not so from the greater to the lesser. 5. In the greater there was 70. persons besides the high Priest, in the lesser 23. 6. The greater was called Mark. 14. ●5. Luc. 9 22. Act. 4. 5. Sanedrin, or Synedrion or the Council of the Elders, the lesser not so. Of the greater is often made mention in the Gospel. Both these councils had their beginning under Moses. The lesser was ordained according to the Counsel of jethro, but the greater according to the Commandment of God. The occasion of ordaining the lesser is described in Exodus, in these words: And the next day Exod. 18. 13. Moses sat to judge the people, who stood by Moses from morning until night, which thing when his Allied had seen, to wit all things that he did in the people, he saith; What is this thou dost in the people? Why sittest thou alone, and all the people attendeth from morning until night? To whom Moses answered: The people cometh to me seeking the sentence of God, and when any Controversy chanceth among them, they come unto me to judge between them, and to show the Precepts of God, and his laws. But he said, Thou dost not well, thou art tired with foolish labour, both thou, and this people that is with thee, the business is above thy strength, thou alone canst not sustain it. But hear my words and counsels, & God shallbe with thee. Be thou to the people in these things that pertain to God, to report their words unto him, and to show to the people the ceremonies, and rite of worshipping, and the way wherein they ought to walk, and the work that they ought to do, and provide out of all the people men that are wise, and do fear God, in whom there is truth, and that do hate avarice, and appoint of the Tribunes and Centurions, and Quinquagenarians, & Decanes which may judge the people at all times, and what great matter soever shall fall out. let them refer it to thee, and let them judge the less matters only. Of the Institution of the greater Council, thus we read. And our Lord Num. 11. 16. said to Moses; Gather me scutcheon men of the ancients of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the ancients of the people▪ and Masters, and thou shalt bring them to the door of the Tabernacle of Covenant, and thalt make them to stand there with thee, that I may descend, and speak to thee: and I will take off thy spirit and will deliver it to them that they may sustain with thee the burden of the people, and thou only be not Ibid. v. 24 burdened. And in another place. Moses' therefore came and told the people the words of our Lord assembling scutcheon men of the ancients of Israel, whom he caused to stand about the Tabernacle: and our Lord descended in a cloud▪ and spoke to him, taking away off the spirit that was in Moses & giving it to the scutcheon men. And when the spirit had rested on them, they prophesied, neither ceased they any more. But when the Council was almost overthrown, it was restored again by josaphat King of juda, as is related in these words. josaphat therefore dwelled in Jerusalem, and went forth to the people again from Bersabee unto mount Ephraim, and recouciled them to our Lord the God of their Fathers. And he appointed judges of the Land in all the fenced Cities of juda in every place: & commanding the judges he said: Take heed what you do, for you exercise not the judgement of man but of our Lord, and whatsoever you shall judge, it shall redound to you. All these words are understood of the lesser Council. But now of the greater. In Jerusalem also josaphat appointed levites, & Priests, and Princes Ibid. v. ●. of families of Israel, that they should judge the judgement and cause of our Lord to the inhabitants thereof. And he commanded them saying: Thus shall you do in the fear of our Lord faithfully, and with a perfect heart. Every cause that shall come to you of your brethren, that dwell in their Cities, between kindred and kindred, wheresoever there is question of the Law, of the Commandment, of Ceremonies, of justifications, show it them that they sin not against our Lord, and lest there come wrath upon you, and your Brethren, so long therefore you shall not sin. And Amarias' the Priest, and your Bishop shallbe chief in these things, which pertain to God. Moreover Zabidias the son of Isinahell who is the Prince in the house of juda, shallbe over those works which pertain to the King's office. Now therefore that I may repeat in a word, that which is said. The matter was thus done by Moses in the desert. First Moses alone (who was an extraordinary high Priest) did judge all controversies amongst the people. Then a while after, that he might be released a little from his burden, there were added to him Tribunes, & Centurions about the number of fifty, and also Decanes, who judged of the lesser causes, and passed over the greater only unto him: lastly to his greater comfort 70. Seniors were elected, who might also assist him in greater causes. After the death of Moses, when the children of Israel were come into the Land of Promise, there was a double Tribunal and judgement constituted. The one at Jerusalem, to judge of more hard causes, and the other in every City was placed, for those which were more easy. This last was given from the Council of Decanes, and Tribunes, but the first from the Council of the scutcheon Seniors. Hither may be adjoined, that it was done other wise in the desert under Moses, than it was under the other high Priests in the Land of promise; for there was a double difference, the one by reason of the high Priest, the other by reason of the Council of the Seniors. For the high Priest after his entrance into the Land of promise did not decide controversies, but only out of the written Law. But Moses did decide many out of the lively voice, and oracle of God before the law was yet written. Among other were these three. Num. 9 ●. First what was to be done with them who for their Legal uncleanness, could Num. 15. 32. not celebrate the Pasch with the rest? Secondly what punishment was to be laid upon him, who was found gathering Num. 27. 1. wood upon the Sabaoth? Thirdly whether the daughters of Salphaad could have inheritance amongst the kindred of their Father? Of all which there was nothing at all written in the Law. Therefore Moses asked Counsel of God by a lively voice, and receiving an answer did follow the will of God. And then first all these were translated into the Law. Of the part of the Council of the Seninors, there was this difference. The scutcheon Seniors, who were elected of Moses, received the spirit of prophecy even at their election. But whether the rest who succeeded them, by course of time did receive the same it is uncertain. But this is very credible, that whensoever they consulted of hard matters, they were helped by the singular assistance of God. And that this assistance was granted especially to the Bishop, who was chief of them, when he did perform the office of a judge in giving of sentence. As concerning the which I will say something heereafer. AN OBJECTION. IT may be you will say, that all this is to be understood of Legal controversies, in the which the High Priest was the supreme judge, as it is sufficiently proved: but not of controversies in matters of faith, in the which the Scripture alone was to be the judge. I answer. This truly is said without any ground at all. For all controversies, whether they were of faith, or of other matters were called Legal, for two causes. First they did rise out of the Law itself not well understood. Secondly, because they we●e to be decided by the true interpre●●●● of the Law. Moreover all of them, without any exception did belong to the Bishop, even as to the supreme Deut. 17. 10. judge, even those which were of faith and Religion. This is manifest out of these words cited a little before: Amarias' your Bishop shall be chief in these things, which appertain to God. But controversies of faith and religion do belong especially to God, therefore the Bishop was chief in those controversies. But what is it to be chief in controversies, but to play the part of a judge? Also out of the precedent words, Wheresoever question is made of the Law, of the Commandment of ceremonies, of justifications, all these questions were brought to the Bishop, and beside these there were no other, therefore there were none exempted from the jurisdiction of the Bishop. And it is confirmed by an example. For among the controversies of Faith, of which we now especially treat, a principal one was concerning the Messiah. But even this Controversy ●as referred to the Council of Priests, ●●ether that the Messiah was borne yet or no, in which the High Priest was the chief. Which to be so appeareth by the Gospel: And Herod the King hearing this, was troubled, & Jerusalem with Matt. 2. 3. him. And gathering together all the High Priests and Scribes of the people, he inquired of them, where Christ should be borne. But they said to him. In Bethleem of juda; for so it is written by the Prophet: And thou Bethleem the Land of juda art not the least among the Princes of juda, for out of thee shall come forth the Captain that shall rule my people Israel. In which place, three things are to be noted. First that King Herod was doubtful of the place where the Messiah was to be borne. Secondly that he referred the resolution of this doubt to the Council of Priests. Thirdly that the Priests according to their office resolved this doubt out of the Scripture, as the rule to the which they conformed themselves. Moreover that the Scripture, neither was, nor could be by itself a judge of these controversies may easily be proved. For the Scripture which then was extant, especially in some of the first ages, was no other but the law of Moses, or a volume of the Covenant, & Deuteronomy. But of this volume, there are three things certain. The Autographum or first copy thereof, was written by Moses, and placed of the Priests Deut. 31. 14. in the Ark of the covenant of our Lord and there kept, that it should be an authentical instrument, of the which it might be manifest what the will and Deut. 17. 8. & Aggaei. 2. 12. & Malach. 2. 7. disposition of God was. Secondly that the interpretation thereof in doubtful cases was committed unto Priests, and especially to the high Priest. Thirdly that this authentical copy was to be read of the Priests unto all the people, in the Solemnity of the Tabernacles, but once in seven years when it was the year of remission. Deut. 31. 10. herehence it followeth first, that the people had not the first & authentical copy of the law of Moses, but only the Priests. If therefore out of the solemnity of the Tabernacles, in any time of the seven year any legal Controversy had risen, the people could not ask Council of the authentical copy, which then they had not, but were to go to the Priest, and ask the final sentence of him as of the ordinary judge. Secondly it followeth, that although the people had the copy, yet out of it they could not decide any Controversy. For it was not the office of the people, but of the Priest, and especially of the High Priest, to interpret the law of Moses, from the which those controversies had their beginning. But perchance you may ask, wherefore the interpretation of the law and consequently the deciding of legal controversies belonged rather unto the high Priest then to others? Seeing that well it might be that the other Priests were as skilful, yea and more skilful in the law then the high Priest himself? I answer. If we respect human industry it is certain that others might have been as killfull in understanding and interpreting of the law, as the high Priest. But if we respect the assistance of the holy Ghost, which is especially to be regarded in this business, the same was communicated rather to the high Priest then to others, as we have an example in Moses. For God grounted greater assistance to ●oyses then to 70. Seniors who all were ministers to him in his office. This is gathered Num. 11. 7. out of that our Lord saith to Moses: I will take from thy spirit and deliver unto them, that they may support with thee the burden of the people. Where by the spirit we are to understand a certain gift of grace which is necessary in them, who will rightly govern others and end their controversies. This therefore is the sense. I will take from thy spirit, and deliver unto them, that is, I will give to them a gift of grace, but yet inferior to that gift which thou hast. To thee who art the chief judge it is behovable that more be given, then to them who are subject to thee. THE V ARGUMENT. Drawn from the custom, use, and practise of the new Testament. EVEN as in the old Testament (as I have already showed) the Scripture was not the judge of Controversies but ●●e high Priest and Council of the Seniors: so also in the new it hath hitherto been; yet I will briefly show it, that it may appear plainly. And first in the time of the Apostles there was a controversy arose about Circumcision, to wit, whether that the new Christians, who did receive the faith of the Gospel could not be saved, unless they were circumcised and kept their legal ceremonies? which controversy was especially understood of the Gentills converted unto faith. But there was a double opinion about this. The one of some who of Iewes were made Christians, who held that the Gentiles could not be saved by the faith of Christ, unless they were circumcised, and observed the ceremonies of the law. The other was of S. Paul, and Barnabas, who affirmed that there was no need of circumcision, and the observation of legal ceremonies. But now how was this controversy decided and ended? was it brought to the Scripture alone, even as to the common judge? Nothing less. But rather by the common consent of both parties, some were elected who might go to Jerusalem, unto the Apostles, that they in solemn Council being informed in the whole matter, might pronounce there final sentence. Which was so done. For of the one side S. Paul and Barnabas were appointed, and of the other some other men. Who going together to Jerusalem, went to the Apostles and Seniors of the City. These after there was a council gathered and the holy Ghost called upon, answered in these words. It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to us▪ to lay no further burden upon Act. 15. 28. you then these necessary things. That you abstain from the things immolated to Idols, and blood and that which is strangled▪ and fornication. Which words were sent in manner of an Epistle to the Christians converted from Gentility whom they especially concerned. And the sense is this. We will not put upon you the burden of circumcision or other legal ceremonies which is troublesome, but to abstain from those things, which were named before, and this will not be troublesome to you. Here two things are to be noted which are much to our purpose. The Act. 13. 1. first is that this controversy of circumcision and legal rites could sufficiently Act. 13. 2. have been decided by S. Paul and Barnabas, who both were Apostles, Prophets and Doctors: Who also were chosen especially of the holy Ghost that they might preach the Gospel to all Act. 14. ●●. nations: And also had preached it in many places and provinces, yet neither of them would take that office, to the end that they might teach by their example, that such controversies which concern matters of faith and religion ought to be brought to the ordinary Prelates of the Church, or to the Council consisting of them. The other is that the Council of the Apostles in the which that controversy was determined, there was no testimony of scripture brought, which belonged directly to Circumcision, though there be many for both parts, if it had been fitting one of them only to have ended the contention. For this place might have been brought for circumcision: This is my Covenant which you shall observe between me and you, and thy Gen. 17. 10. seed after th●●. All the male Kind of you shallbe circumcised, and you shall circumcise the flesh of your prepuce, that it may be for a sign of the Covenant between me and you etc. as well the homebred, as the bought servant of whom soever he is, not of your stock, and my covenant shallbe in your flesh for a perpetual covenant. But if it be an external covenant as here it is said, it is of necessity to be always kept, even in the evangelical law: And not only of the jews but of others also who are not of the stock of the jews. On the other side might be alleged that of Deuteronomy. Our Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the Deut. 30. 6. heart of thy seed. Where it is insinuated, that Circumcision of flesh is not to remain in the new Testament, but that the circumcision of the heart is to succeed in the place thereof. As also that of jeremy: Be circumcised to our Lord, and take away the prepuce of your hearts, as if he should say, I do not require the circumcision of flesh, but of the heart, which consisteth in the inward contrition and grief for sins. These and such like might be taken out of the Scripture for both parts. But it was not so done. For the Apostles being gathered together in Council gave sentence, by the direction and assistance of God, the which God had promised to them and their successors for ever. After the time of the Apostles there arose other new controvesies in divers places and ages, which is certain out of the Ecclesiastical histories to have been decided either by the Roman bishops, or by some approved councils. And those who would not yield to their sentence, were accounted always and condemned for heretics. I will bring forth some plain examples even of those which do first occur. The first controversy was: whether the Pasch ought to be celebrated with the jews, on the fourteenth day of the first month, as many did hold Vide Euseb. l. 5. hist. Eccles. cap. 23. & sequent. in Asia, who for that cause were called Quartadecimani, or only upon Sunday as now it is. This truly after many councils and assemblies of divers Bishops was decided and ended by Victor the Pope, Anno Domini 198. The second was, whether the Church might absolve them from sins, Vide Baron. circa eundem annum. who were fallen after baptism. Novatian did deny it. But he was condemned of error in the Roman Council by Pope Cornelius, Anno Christi 255. The third was, whether in God there was three persons really distinct. Sabellius denied it, affirming that there was but one person which had three offices, of creation, redemption, and Sanctification. But he also was condemned juxta Baron. in the Council of Alexandria, in the time of Pope Silvester, Anno Christi 319▪ The fourth, whether Christ be a pure man, as other who be mortal, & hath nothing more in nature and person than we have? Paulus Samosatenus did affirm it: But he also was condemned in the council of Antioch in the time of Pope Dionysius, Anno Christi 266▪ juxta Baron. vide Euseb. l 7. cap. 27. The first was. Whether Christ were the eternal word of his Father, and of the same substance with him? Arius denied it, affirming that the word of the word not to have been from eternity, but created of God in time of Vide duas epist. Alexan. E. pics Alex. quarum una extat apud Socra. lib. 1. c. ●. altera apud Theod. l. 2. cap. 4. nothing, and of another substance from God. And therefore that God was not always a Father, but that there was some time, when he was not Father. But he was condemned in the first general Council of Nice in the time of Pope Silvester, and Constantine the Emperor, Anno 325. The fixed was, whether in Christ there be two Persons, as there are two natures, divine and human? Nestorius' Bishop of Constantinople did affirm it, but he was likewise condemned in the General Council of Ephesus, in the time of Pope Celestine, and Theodosiu● ●he Emperor Anno 434. and before by Cyrill in the Council of Alexandria Anno 431. The seaveth was, whether in Christ there be two natures? Eutiches, and Dioscorus said, that before the hypostatical union, there was two natures Vide Ga●. Vasq. tom. 1. in 3. par. D. Thom. in disp. 14. divine and humane: But after the union that both two came into one, and were made one. But they both were condemned in the general Council of Chalcedon, in the time of Pope Leo▪ and Marcian the Emperor Anno 454. The eight, whether there was one will only in Christ? Macarius' Patriarch of Antioch, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius of Constantinople, and some others although they acknowledged two natures to be in Christ, yet they said that there was in him but one will, to wit the divine, In 3. p. 1. 18. art. 1. as is recorded by S. Thomas, and therefore they were called Monothelites: this their opinion was condemned in the third general Council of Constantinople under Pope Agatho, and the Emperor Constantine the 4. in the year 679. But whether these understood by Vide Baro. the name of will, the power or the operation, is to be seen in Gabriel Vasquez. The 9 Whether the holy Ghost be God, The Macedonians deny it, of Tom. 1. dis. 73. cap. 1. whom thus writes S. Augustine. The Macedonians came from one Macedonius who was bishop of Constantinople: these of the Greeks' are called also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because they contended about the holy Ghost. For as concerning the Father and the Son, they believe aright, that they are of one & the same substance nature and essence, but they deny this of the holy Ghost, saying that he is but a creature. These were condemned in the first general Council of Constantinople under Pope Damasus and the Emperor Theodosius. The tenth is: Whether baptism may be reiterated, or one may be baptised twice? Which controversy may be two ways understood. First whether baptism if it be once given well, may be reiterated again. Martion Epiph. haer. 42. paulo post princip. affirmed it, as Epiphanius is witness; for he writeth thus of Martion: After he had deflowered (saith he) a certain Virgin in the City, and was fled away, but yet afterwards found in that great fault, the cozener invented a second laver to himself, affirming that three were lawful, to wit, three Baptisms for the remission of sins, to the end that if any shall sin after the first doing penance, he might take the second, and also the third, if he should be found in fault after the second. Again it may be understood, whether Baptism given of Heretics may be reiterated? The Donatists affirmed it, who did baptise again all those who were baptised of Catholics, as S. Augustin doth witness, because they Aug. in l. de haer. cap. 69. accounted Catholics for Heretics, and so thought that Baptism given of Heretics was of no value, as is to be seen in Vasquez. These were condemned V●sq. disp. 146. c. 2. in the Roman Council under Melchiades the Pope, Anno Domini 313. The eleventh is, whether a man Apud Baron. without the grace of God can fulfil the Law only by the force of nature, if he be willing. Pelagius and Celestius affirmed it, but they were both condemned in the councils of Carthage and Milevitane in the time of Pope Innocentius the first, Anno 416. juxta computum. The twelft, whether Children are borne in original sin, and to wash away the same do need Baptism? The same Authors denied it Pelagius and Celestius, as S. Augustine doth affirm: They deny (saith he) that children borne carnally of Adam, do contract the infection of the old death in their first nativity. For so they affirm, that they are borne without any bond of original sin, as though there were not any thing to be remitted in their second nativity. But that therefore they are baptised, to the end, that being adopted by regeneration, they maybe admitted to the kingdom of God, as translated from good to better, not being absolved by this renovation from any evil of the old obligation. But this error was condemned in the Milevitane Council cap. 2. and afterwards of Pope Zosinus, as S. Augustine also Aug. in l. de pecc. orig. cap. 6. & sequen. is witness. In these and such like controversies, which now for brevity I omit, three things are to be considered. First that one part of them who contended is clearly and manifestly condemned. Secondly that this condemnation was uttered & pronounced by the Catholic Church, as judge: which sometimes gave sentence by the Pope, who is the head and pastor of the same Church, and sometimes by councils which represent the whole Church. Thirdly, that the Lutherans, and the Caluinists do confess that this condemnation was lawfully pronounced. For they confess, that Novatian, Sabellius, Samosatenus, Arius, Nestorius, Eutiches, & Dioscorus, and the Monothelits, the Macedonians, the Donatists, and the Pelagians to have been justly condemned, & that they are and aught to be accounted for Heretics. And that by no other means then by the sentence of the Catholic Church. For if the Scripture only should have been judge, & the Church should not have given sentence at all, these controversies would have continued even to this present day: nor yet would it ever have been clear & manifest to all, that those Authors aforenamed were to be had, and accounted for Heretics. Now seeing that they were condemned by the Church, the matter is plain, & without all doubt. Perchance you will say, what if the Church herself should have erred in giving sentence? I answer. This to be just as much, as though one should say. What if Christ his Apostles and Prophets should lie? For they tell us, that the Church cannot err, because, as Christ himself saith, his Church is founded upon a rock, and Math. 16. 18. 1. Tim. 5. ●5. Is●. 54. Ibid. v. 12. Ibid. v. 17. the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. She is the pillar and firmament of truth to S. Paul. And Isaias saith she shall never blush, nor be confounded. And in another place: A lasper-stone is in the defence thereof. And a little after: Every tongue resisting in judgement, shall be condemned. THE VI ARGUMENT, Drawn from the Analogy and proportion of the Civil judge concerning matters belonging to the common wealth. THIS argument, which may best illustrate the matter, may well be propounded in this manner. A manifold Analogy, or proportion may be seen between things apertaining to faith and Religion on the one side, & things merely Politic, and Civil on the other. First, for even as in politic, & Civil affairs oftentimes controversies, and contentions do arise, which require some judge, who may give sentence between the contending parties; so falleth it out in matters of faith, and religion. 2. As in Civil controversies, these three things are distinguished, The judge, the written law, and the custom: so also in controversies of faith, these three, the judge, the whole Scripture of both testaments and tradition. 3. As a secular Prince or Magistrate doth exercise the office of a judge in deciding of Civil controversies: so also the Prince of the Church or Ecclesiastical Synod doth exercise the like office in deciding controversies of faith. 4. As the written law is a certain rule which the secular judge doth follow in deciding of Civil contentions, so also the Scripture of both Testaments, is a certain line or rule which the Ecclesiastical judge doth follow in deciding controversies of faith. 5. As only the written law is not a sufficient rule for all Civil causes but the written law and custom withal: so also the Scripture only of both Testaments, is not a sufficient and entire rule of all controversies of faith, unless tradition be adjoined. These hitherto are manifest. Yet lest that there be any doubt therein, I will expound them all briefly. And first that the secular Prince or Magistrate may use the office of a judge in Civil causes, needeth no long proof. For daily experience doth witness this in all Provinces and Kingdoms. For in every place, Civil causes and contentions are brought to the secular Prince or Magistrate, whom the parties at variance do acknowledge to be their lawful judge, which is well known by the Civil and Canon law: for in each of them there are titles concerning the ordinary judge, and him who is the judge delegate. Neither is there any so ignorant and foolish that by the ordinary or delegate judge understandeth the written law, when it is certain that he is the ordinary, who hath the ordinary jurisdiction and power, and him to be a judge delegate who receiving power of the ordinary supplies his office and place. Moreover that the written law cannot be judge may easily be proved, and most plainly in these three cases. First when it is obscure and doubtful; for then there is need of some other judge or interpreter who may expound the meaning of it. Secondly when one law seemeth to repugn another which happenth very often: For then a judge is needful who may reconcile them together. Thirdly when the words of the law which are general, aught to be restrained in some particular case, yet they are in no wise limited. Which then happeneth, when some particular case doth occur, which the law did not foresee might happen. And yet perchance if he had known would not have comprehended it in the law: therefore in such a case one must judge against the words of the law. But than who shallbe judge? Not the law itself, for it never giveth sentence against itself. Therefore there must be some other judge besides the law. Now lastly, that only the written law cannot be a sufficient rule for the deciding of all Civil controversies whatsoever, but besides it, also custom is to be admitted, is most certain amongst the Lawyers▪ And especially in two cases. First when some controversy doth arise, of the which Leg. 3●. ff. de legibus. there is no written law; for then custom is to be taken for law, and aught to be no less observed, according to that: Those things which are approved by long custom, and observed for many years as a secret agreement of the Citizens, are to be kept no less than those things which are written. Secondly, when there is extant indeed a written law, yet there is some doubt about the sense or meaning thereof, which cannot be known but by custom or tradition that taketh place of which is said in the law: For then the best interpreter of the Laws is Custom: and that our Emperor Severus hath written, how that in doubts Leg. ●7. ff. de legibus. which proceed from Laws, either custom or the authority of things judged always in the same manner ought to have the force of a law. Perchance you will say: what if some controversy occur which neither Ibid. leg. 38. can be defined out of the written law, nor out of any custom: what than shallbe the rule that the judge ought to follow? I answer: Then the matter must be taken up according to that equity which doth proceed out of the law of nature But this especially happeneth, when some certain Case doth occur, which is understood according to the words of the law, but not to the meaning of the lawgiver, as before was said. For then the judge is to give sentence according to that which he thinketh to be just and right. The very same may happen in Controversies of faith. For if any controversy should arise which cannot manifestly be decided neither by Scripture nor tradition, recourse presently were to be made to the help of the holy Ghost, who although he assist the Church in all occasions, yet in this especially he doth teach her all truth, as Christ himself hath promised. And this remedy also the Apostles have used in that Council of Jerusalem, where they were assembled about circumcision and the observation of legal rites and ceremonies. Now these be the arguments by which hitherto hath been proved, that the Scripture cannot be judge of controversies in faith, but that the Church may. Now it remaineth that we diligently weigh and consider the testimonies of Scripture which were propounded in the beginning, and which are objected and often repeated by our adversaries against this doctrine, but not in that order as they were propounded, but as they are placed in the Scripture of the old and new testament one after another. And truly by the examining of these, as I did before insinuate, it willbe manifest that some of them are nothing to the purpose, and the rest rather make for us then for them. But to conclude and speak freely as the matter is indeed, I affirm, that our adversaries who always so much boast & brag of Scripture, understand nothing less than the true sense & meaning of the Scripture. The Testimonies of Scripture brought against us here are examined. THE I. TESTIMONY. YOU shall not add to the word that I speak to you. And this also. What I command Deut. 4. 2. Deut. 12. 32. thee, that only do to our Lord, neither add any thing nor diminish. Out of which the adversaries generally gather these two points. First that all Traditions which Catholics admit aught to be utterly rejected. But what is their reason? Because forsooth nothing is to be added to the written word of God. Secondly that no human precepts (such as are the commandments of fasting lent, abstinence from flesh on Friday and Saturday, of the single life of Priests & such like) ought to be observed. But wherefore? Because say they, that only is to be done which Christ hath commanded: whatsoever men command is not to be done. Thus they, but very foolishly▪ as I will show two ways. First by disproving their false interpretation. And again by showing the true sense and meaning of these places of Scripture. Now first that their interpretation is false, they themselves cannot deny unless they will altogether be accounted foolish and impudent. For if all traditions ought to be refused, the Apostle himself must be rejected, who saith, Hold the Traditions which you 2. Thes. 2. 14. have learned, whether it be by words, or by our Epistle. Likewise if all human precepts should be contemned, and that only should be done, which God commandeth; What should we say of the Rechabits, who most diligently observed the precept of their Father jonadab? did they amiss therein? This tru●y were to be said according to our Adversaries; but it is far otherwise, seeing that for so doing they are commended by God himself. If our Adversaries know not this, let them here Hieremy the Prophet speaking in these words: The word that I●e. 35. 1. was made to▪ jeremy from our Lord in the days of joakim, the Son of josias, the King of juda, saying, Go to the house of the Rechabits, & speak to them, and thou shalt bring them into the house of our Lord, into one chamber of the treasuries, and thou shalt give them wine to drink. And I took ●ezonias the son of jeremias, the Son of Habsamias and his brethren, and all his sons and the whole house of the Rechabites. And I brought them into the house of our Lord etc. And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabits goblets full of wine, and cups, and I said to them, drink wine: who answered we will not drink wine, because jonadab the son of Recab our Father commanded us saying: you shall not drink wine, you and your Children for ever: And you shall not build houses & you shall not sow seed, and you shall not plant vineyards nor have any, but you shall dwell in tabernacles all your days, that you may live many days upon the face of the land wherein you are strangers: we therefore have obeyed the voice of jonadab the son of Rechab our Father in all things that he commanded us: so that we drink not any wine all our days, we and our wives, our sons and our Daughters: And we build not houses to inhabit, and vineyard, and seld, and seed we have not had: but we have dwelled in tabernacles, and we have been obedient according to all things that jonadab our Father commanded us etc. And the word of our Lord was to jeremy saying: Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel; go and say to the men of juda and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Why will you not receive discipline, to obey my words, saith our Lord; The words of jonadab the son of Rechab have prevailed, which he commanded his sons not to drink wine, and they have not drunk until this day, because they have obeyed the commandment of their Father: but I have spoken to you early rising, and speaking and you have not obeyed me. And I have sent to you all my servants the Prophets rising early, and sending and saying: Return ye every one from his most wicked way, and make your studies good▪ etc. And you have not inclined your ear nor heard me. The Children therefore of jonadab the son of Rechab, have firmly kept the precepts of their Father which he commanded them: But this people have not obeyed me. Therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: behold I will bring upon juda, and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the affliction, which I have spoken against them, because I have spoken to them and they have not heard: I have called them and they have not answered me: but to the house of the Rechabits jeremy said: Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel: For that you have obeyed the commandment of jonadab your Father, and have kept all his commandments, and have done all things that he commanded you. Therefore thus saith the Lord of Hosts the God of Israel: There shall not want a man of the stock of jonadab the son of Rechab standing in my sight all days. In this example three things are to be noted. First that the precept which was given to the Rechabites was most hard. For what is harder than that husbands and wives, young men, and young maids, not only for a short time, as the Nazareans did, but as long as ever they lived should abstain from all kind of wine, and never should dwell in houses, nor sow their grounds, nor plant any vineyards? Secondly that this precept was not divine but human, it appeareth by the opposition which God made. For thus he argueth. The Rechabits did observe the precept which they received from man; how much more ought the jews to keep the precept which they received from God? Thirdly that the Rechabits not only did well and commendably in observing the precept of their Father jonadab, but also thereby deserved a peculiar blessing from God: whereas contrary wise the jews deserved nothing but great punishment. For it is said to the Rechabits. There shall not want a man of the stock of jonadab the son of Rechab standing in my sight all days. But to the jews: I will bring upon you affliction. Now from hence let our adversaries if they be wise infer these few verities. First that the Catholics observing the precepts of the Church, do no less well and laudably then did theRechabites, by keeping the precept of their Father jonadab. For doubtless it is no less commendable to obey the Church our common mother than it was for them to obey a private man their Father. And even as the Rechabites did not sin against that aforesaid place, what I command you that only do to our Lord: even so neither the Catholics sin against it. Secondly the cause why Catholics have continued and do continue still, is because they keep diligently the commandments of the Church: and how much more diligently one doth observe them so many more benefits he shall receive from God, and that some others do not prosper, because of the one side they contemn the precepts of the Church, in the which they are not so perfect as the Rechabits were. And on the other they do not observe the ten commandments, in the which they are like the jews. But that they may pretend some kind of excuse for this their damnable laziness, they hold that the ten commandment are impossible to be kept: In the which they make God a tyrant, as though he would command man that which is not in his power to fulfil. But this may suffice to overthrow their false interpretation. The true interpretation therefore is this: You shall not Deut. 4. 1. add to the word that I speak to you▪ neither shall you take away from it. Which is generally to be understood of ceremonial and judicial precepts, which were given of God by Moses. And this is the sense: I have given ceremonial precepts to you which prescribe the rites of worshipping God, and judicial which prescribe the rites of keeping justice in Civil matters and those which belong to the Common wealth. Both of which you ought perfectly and entirely to observe: for this is the signification of that, You shall not add, nor take away. Which truly in other words, but in the same sense is explicated in another place, where it is said, do not decline either from the right Deut. 2●. 14. Deut. 17. 20. hand or the jest. And again. That he may learn to fear our Lord his God and keep his words and ceremonies, nor decline to the right side nor to the left. And a little after. For I Deut. 31. 29. know that after my death you will do wickedly▪ and will decline quickly from the way that I have commanded you; and like wise in the joshua. 7. book of joshua, Take courage and be strong, that thou keep and do all the Law which Moses my Servant hath commanded thee: decline not from it to the right hand or to the left. Therefore our of that place so understood, as truly it ought to be understood, the adversaries cannot argue otherwise then thus. The jews ought to observe the precepts of God wholly and entirely, not declining from them neither to the right hand nor to the left, therefore we Christians, besides the Scripture, ought not to admit any tradition which we have received from the Apostles, Spectatum admissi etc. But that place in Deuteronomy. Deut. 11. 32. What I command thee, this only do to our Lord, neither add any thing nor diminish, is especially understood of one ceremonial precept, to wit of the precept of sacrificing as appeareth. Of which this is the sense and meaning. When thou comest into the land of Palestine in the which thou goest, and thou shalt offer a sacrifice to thy Lord thy God, thou shalt not imitate the Gentills, who offer their sons and daughters to false Gods by fire. But this only thou shalt offer, the which I command thee, as of Beasts, Sheep, Goats, Kids, Oxen, Calves, Pigeons, sparrows, and Turtle-doves: of fruits of the Earth, Bread, Meal, Salt, Frankincense, a bundle of green ears of Corn, and wheat: of Liquors, Blood, Wine, Oily, and Water. Do this only, that is, offer to our Lord: Neither add any thing, of the sacrifices of the Gentills, nor diminish any thing of them which were now particularly set down. Now out of this place the adversaries can no otherwise conclude then in this manner. The jews ought only to offer those things in sacrifice, which were prescribed of God: therefore we Christians may not keep the precepts of the Church: which is even as foolish as the former. THE II. TESTIMONY. ISAY 8. 20. Rather to the law, and to the testimony. From hence the adversaries gather that the jews in the old Testament, when any controversy did arise, were sent presently to the law and testimony, that is to the Scripture even as to their judge. But they err grossly. First because it hath been showed before, that the judge of controversies in the old Testament was not the Scripture, but the High Priest. Secondly, because those words, to the law and testimony much other ways are to be understood then our adversaries suppose, as appeareth by the precedent words which are these: And when they shall say to you: Ask of Pytho●s and of Deviners, which whisper in their 1. cap. 8. 19 enchantments: shall not the people ask vision of their God for the living of the dead? To the law rather, and to the testimony. And if they speak not according to this word, they shall not have the morning light. Where it is plainly spoken against them who ask counsel of the Pythones and Deviners, about future events, and are remitted plainly to the law which forbiddeth it. When thou art entered the land which our Deut. 1●. ●. Lord thy God shall give then, beware thou be not willing to imitate the abominations of those nations. Neither let there be sound in thee any that consulteth with Pytho●s or Deviners, and seeketh the truth of the dead, partly to the testimony of the Prophets, who where placed of God, to foretell future things, as in the third of Kings we may see. And josaphat said: is their not here some Prophet R●g ●. ●ap. 22. v. 7. of our Lord, that we may ask by him? Therefore the sense of the words to the law and testimony, is this: If you will be certified of future events, you ought not to ask Counsel of the Python's as 1 Reg. 28. 7. Saul did, because God hath forbidden this to be done by his law, unto the which I remit you: but ask Counsel of the Prophets of our Lord, whose office is to pronounce of future events. But what is this to the judge of the Controversies? Verily nothing at a●l: Unless our adversaries will argue in this manner: As concerning future events, it is not lawful to ask Counsel of the Pythones: therefore only the Scripture is the judge of Controversies. Truly most foolishly, and yet which is to be admired their very chief Rabbins of all are not ashamed to use such manner of arguing, of whom Christ himself hath forewarned us saying: Let such follows alone, for they are blind themselves, and leaders of them that are blind. THE III. TESTIMONY. YOU have made frustrate the commandment Math. 15. ●. Colos. 2. ●. 1. ●et. 1. 18. of God for your own tradition. And the other place in S. Paul: Beware lest any man deceive you by Philosophy, and vain fallacy, according to the tradition of men. And that in S. Peter: You are redeemed from your vain conversation of your Father's tradition. From hence our adversaries gather that all traditions are condemned of Christ and his Apostles, and that Scripture alone is sufficient. But it is not so. For these cited places are understood of the jews traditions, which were observed of the pharisees: but not of the traditions of Christ and his Apostles, which our adversaries oppugn, and we defend. But that there were divers traditions of the jews, appeareth out of the Scripture. The first was, that their hands were to be washed before taking of meat, as in this place: Then came to him from Jerusalem Math 15. Scribes and Pharisees saying, why do thy disciples transgress the traditions of the ancients? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. The second is, that this washing was often to be used whilst they were eating, as in S. Mark: The Pharisees and all the jews, unless they often wash their hands, Mark. 7. 3. eat not, holding the traditions of the ancients. Also at the marriage in Cana in Galilee six water pots were put according to the purification of the jews. In the which water pots there was water wherewith they washed their hands at dinner. The third was, that unless they ware washed they could not take meat coming from the market, as S. Marck recordeth: And from the market unless they Mar. 7. 4. be washed they eat not: and many other things there be that were delivered unto them to observe, as the washing of Cups, and Cruses, and of brazen vessels, and Beds. The fourth is, that meat was not to be taken with sinners, as is written in S. Matth: And the pharisees seeing this said Math. 9 11. to his Disciples, why doth your master eat with Publicans and sinners? And in S. Luke: Luk. 5. 30. The pharisees and Scribes murmured, saying to his Disciples, why do you eat and drink with Publicans and sinners? The fifth was that none should be permitted to be touched of sinners as S. Luke recordeth: And the Pharisee that Luk. 7. 39 had bid him seeing it, spoke within himself, saying: this man if were a Prophet would know certes, who and what manner of woman she is which toucheth him, that she is a sinner. Where it manifestly appeareth, that the Pharisee wondered, that Christ should suffer himself to be touched of a woman that was a sinner, because it was contrary to the custom and tradition of the Pharisees, whose speech was this: Depart from me, thou shalt not came near me because Isa. 65. 5. thou art unclean. The sixth was, that upon the Sabaoth it was not lawful to cure the sick as S. Luke saith: The Scribes and Pharisees Luk. 6. 7. watched if he would cure on the Saboth, that they might find how to accuse him. And likewise S. john writeth, that certain of the Pharisees john. 9 16. said: This man is not of God, that keepeth not the Sabbath. Where they spoke of Christ, who on the Sabbath restored sight to a man that was blind from his nativity. The seventh was, that those who were hungry, might not gather and eat ears of Corn on the Sabbath, as it is said in S. Matth. jesus went through Math. 12. 1. the Corn on the Sabbath, and his disciples being hungry began to pluck the ears and eat. And the pharisees seeing them said to him. Lo thy Disciples do that which is not lawful for them to do on the Sabbath day. The eight was, that they should fast and pray often, as is recorded in S. Math. Why do we and the Pharisees fast often Math. 9 15. but thy Disciples do not fast? And in S. Luke. Why do the Disciples of john fast often and make Luk 5. 35. observations; but thine do eat and drink. The ninth was, that the tithes of all things even of the very lest should be offered to God, as we read in S. Math. that Christ said. Wo to you Scribes Math. 23. ●●. and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you tith mint and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law, judgement and mercy and faith, these things you ought to have done and not omitted those. Hear to tithe is taken for to give tithes, and this is the true sense: You Pharisees give tithes of all things whatsoever, even of the very lest of all, which you do not as by a precept in the law of Moses, but by your one tradition which is not written, and in the mean time you omit those things which are commanded in the law, these things you should do, and not omit the other. Where it is to be noted, that there was no precept in the law of Moses, about giving of tithes of the least things of which mention is here made, but only of the tithes of wine, wheat, and oil. Notwithstanding Deut. 14. 2●. the Pharisees in this had a peculiar custom and tradition beyond others of the jews, because they gave the tithes of all kind of herbs which Luk. 11. 42. others did not. For the which cause one of the Pharisees did boast saying, I Luk. 18. 11. am not as the rest of men etc. I fast twice a week, and I give tithes of all that I possess. The tenth was, that whosoever Vide jansen. in concord evan. cap. 84. should swear by the Temple or by the Altar, he was not guilty of any fault? But he that should swear by gold of the temple, or sacrifices which were made on the Altar, was guilty, as in S. Matth▪ is written. Wo to you blind guides that say, whosoever shall swear by the Math. ●●. 16. Temple, it is nothing, but he that shall swear by the gold of the temple, is bound. Ye foolish and blind, for whether is greater, the gold or the temple which sanctifieth the gold? And whosoever shall swear by the Altar it is nothing, but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it, is bound. You foolish and blind, for whether is greater the gift, or the Altar that sanctifieth the gift? The eleventh was, that Children were not bound to honour their parents, or to be beneficial unto them, but that it would suffice abundantly to offer some gift unto God as we read in S. Matthew, Why do you transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said, honour Father and Mother, & he that shall curse Father or Mother, dying let him die. But you say, whosoever shall say to the Father or Mother, the gift whatsoever proceedeth from me shall profit thee, and shall not honour his Father or his Mother, and you have made frustrate the Commandment of God for your own tradition. These were the chief traditions of the Pharisees. For as much as we can gather out of the Gospel. And although some of them were good in their kind, others ill, certain doubtful or unprofitable: Yet notwithstanding the Pharisees were reprehended in them all for these chief causes. First because they by the observation of then sought vain glory and to be esteemed holy amongst men when they were nothing less than holy and godly as S. Matth. speaketh of them: Math. 23. 5 But they do all their works, for to be seen of of men. And very often, yea and almost every where in the Gospel they are called Hypocrites, and whited Scpulchers. Secondly because, out of the observing of them, they gaped after wealth and riches, especially out of long prayers which they recited to that end, as is said of Christ in S. Matth. Math. 23. 14. Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, because you devour widows houses, praying long prayers. And likewise in S. Mark. Take heed of the Scribes, who denoure widows houses under the pretence of long prayer. Where to eat and devour widows houses is nothing else but to spoil and exhaust them. For the Widows came to the Pharisees, even as unto holy men (for they feigned sanctity) and bought their prayers with money. Thirdly, because they superstitiously did observe some things which were to little purpose, and did neglect those which were of greater moment, as we showed a little before. For they gave tithes of those things which were least of all, and did neglect mercy and judgement, in judging of those causes which were brought unto them. And that of S. Matth. may be taken in this sense: They strain a gnat and swallow a Camel. Now out of these it appeareth that all the traditions of the jews were not reprehended by Christ, although the Pharisees were blamed deservedly because they made all use of them. For one of their traditions was, to tithe mint, rue, and every herb. Which doubtless was good of itself, for it is very good to give tithes to God not only of some things which we have, but of all things we possess. And this is confirmed by Christ himself, who saith: these things you ought to have done, and not to have omitted those: that is, you ought to have kept the precept of justice and mercy, and not omit the tradition of tithing mint, and all kind of herbs. From whence it directly followeth that the Lutherans and the Caluinists seeing they condemn all Traditions, do condemn the very judgement of Christ who approved some of them. For in the judgement of Christ there be some traditions which are not to be omitted. But in their opinion all are to be rejected, and the Scripture only to be admitted. These two opinions are contrary one to the other. But which of them must we embrace? Christ's doubtless if we be wise. Out of which I infer again, that the Lutherans and the Caluinists can conclude out of this no otherwise then this. Some traditions of the jews were evil, therefore all the traditions of the Christians are evil. Which is no consequence at all. But this is much better. The jews had some traditions, besides the Scripture, which ought not be omitted, therefore also the Christians may have some, although there be great difference betwixt them both. For the traditions of the Christians which we now defend were received from Christ and his Apostles: but so were not these of the jews. THE FOUR TESTIMONY. SEARCH the Scriptures. Lo, say our adversaries Christ remitteth joan. ●. ●●. us to the Scripture, even as to the judge of Controversies. This truly they would not say, if they understood the meaning of Christ, for Christ in that Chapter disputeth with the jews who denied him to be the Son of God, and therefore he proved by four kind of testimonies that he was. First by the testimony of S. john Baptist. You have, saith he, sent to john, and he gave testimony to the truth. But this was his testimony. Behold the Lamb of God, behold john. 1. 34. who taketh away▪ the sins of the world. And again, I have given testimony, that this is the Son of God. Secondly by the testimony of those Miracles which he wrought. I have saith he, testimony greater than john's For the joan. 3. 36. works which my Father hath given me to perfect them, the very works themselves which I do give testimony of me, that the Father hath sent me. Thirdly by the testimony of God the Father. And the Father that sent me himself joan. 5 ●7. hath given testimony of me. As also when he spoke out of heaven. This is my well-beloved Math 3. 17. son in whom I am well pleased hear him. Fourthly by the testimony of the old testament. Search the Scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting, and the same are they that give testimony of me, and you will not come to me, that you may have life. As if he should say. If you will not receive the three former testimonies, which are most forcible (otherwise I would not have made mention of them) at least you cannot reject the testimonies of Scriptures, of the which you brag so much. And those if you search diligently, give testimony of me, that I am the true Messiah promised of God: Wherefore then do ye not believe? Hear hence I conclude that our adversaries oppugn themselves more than us. For they contend that Scripture only is the judge of Controversies and that Christ remitteth us to the Scripture alone. But the quite contrary is true. For Christ in the Controversy which he had with the jews, to wit, whether he were the Son of God, sent them not only to the Scripture but first to the testimony of S. john Baptist. Secondly to the testimony of Miracles, which show him to be God. Thirdly to the testimony of God the Father, who confirmed the same with a voice from heaven. And after all these at least he sends them to the Scriptures. We Catholics do follow Christ in this matter. For in these controversies which we have with our adversaries, not only we use the testimony of Scripture, but also that of the holy Fathers, that of the Church our Mother, and likewise that of Miracles, which oftentimes are wrought for the confirmation of our faith. But our adversaries, as though they were wiser than Christ, will hear nothing but that which is contained in the Scripture. In the which they resemble not a l●t●le those jews with whom Christ had to do. For these rejecting all other testimonies did only admit the scripture, the which they neither then understood, nor do yet if we may believe S. Paul, for their senses are dulled 1. Cor. 3. 1●. saith he: & a little after: until this present day when Moses is read a veil is put upon their heart. All this in this case may be not unsittly applied to these our modern adversaries, as to faithful scholars, and just cousin-germans to those most ignorant blind & obstinate jews. THE V TESTIMONY. DAILY searching the Scriptures, if th●se Acts. 1●. ●●. things were so. But here again our adversaries cry out that the men of Beroea did not hastily and rashly believe those things with the Apostles told them, but examined all things according to the rule of the Scripture, and therefore say they it is also fitting that we should follow their example, and acknowledge the Scripture only to be the rule & judge. But all this is in vain, which will easily be seen if we consider the matter itself, whereof they spoke▪ For thus it was. S. Paul the Apostle as it is expressly showed in the same Chapter, first at Thessalonica, and after with them of Beroea did discourse out of the Scriptures▪ declaring and insinuating that it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise again from the dead, and that this is jesus Christ whom I preach to you. But now what did those of Beroea? in the self same place it followeth, they received the word with all greediness, daily searching the Scriptures if these things were so▪ This therefore is the true sense of that place. The men of Beroea when they heard S. Paul cite certain testimonies of the Scripture in the old Testament, by the which he affirmed Christ's death and resuriection, they searched whether the doctrine of S. Paul were agreeable to those testimonies. Not truly, as though they doubted of the death and resurrection of Christ, for it was sufficiently confirmed by the force of many Miracles wrought by 1 Thes. 1▪ 5. the Apostle: But that they might be more steadfastly confirmed in faith, if they should see those things which S. Paul had preached to have been told and signified long before by the Prophets. Now what think you can our adversaries conclude by this? Nothing doubtless to the purpose. Unless peradventure they conclude in this manner. The men of Beroea searched the testimonies of the Scripture cited of S. Paul therefore the Scripture only is the judge of controversies: which is even like unto this the: Lutherans search out the testimonies of S. August. cited by Bellar. therefore S. Aug. only is the judge of controversies. Or thus. The Clowns search out the testimonies of Luther cited by the ministers, therefore Luther only is the judge of all Controversies. Or thus. Kemnitius in the examen of the Council of Trent searcheth out the traditions alleged of catholics, therefore traditions are the only judge of Controversies. Or Lastly Scholars search out the testimonies of Cicero cited of their master: therefore Cicero only is the author of the Latin tongue. Away with such consequences which are not all worth a rush. And yet our adversaries make great account of them because they have no better. THE VI TESTIMONY. IT any evangelize to you besides that which you Galat. 19 have received, be he anathema. Therefore, say our adversaries besides the Gospel we must not admit any traditions: but infer the quite contrary in this manner. If any shall evangelize to you any thing besides that which S. Paul hath evangelized, be he anathema: But the Lutherans and the Caluinists do evangelize something besides that which S. Paul evangelized, because they oppugn traditions, which he hath commanded when he said, keep 2. Thes. 2. 14. the traditions, therefore the Lutherans and the Caluinists are anathema. But now let us see the drift of the Apostle, for thence it will appear whether traditions are altogether to be condemned or no. Truly the drift of the Apostle is this. The Galathians were taught of S. Paul that the ceremonies Gal. 2. 15. of the law of Moses were abrogated, & that none could be justified by those ceremonies but by faith in Christ: but afterward they were brought from this doctrine by certain false Apostles who taught them that they could not be saved by faith in Christ, unless they were also circumcised, and observed the other ceremonies of Moses' law, as is manifest by the course of the whole Epistle, but especially in these chapters 1. v. ●. etc. 3. v. 1. &. 4 v. 9 &. ●. v. 1. cited in the margin. And against these false Apostles doth S. Paul here dispute, when he saith. If any evangelize to you, besides that which you have recaved, be he anathema. As though he had said: You have received of me, that a man is justified by faith in Christ, and not by the observation of the law of Moses. If any do teach you otherwise, affirming that faith in Christ doth profit nothing unless circumcision, and other legal ceremonies be adjoined, be he anathema. But from hence it doth not follow that the Apostolical traditions are to be rejected, but rather that they are to be retained, because they are not contrary to that which S. Paul hath evangelized to the Galathians of justification, but rather they are the same which he hath evangelized to the Thessalonians, when he said, keep the traditions with you have learned THE VII. TESTIMONY. ALL Scripture inspired of God is profitable 2. Tim. 3▪ 16. to teach, to argue, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, instructed to every good work. Out of which place our adversaries argue two ways: Some of them thus. All scripture is profitable to teach and to argue: Therefore traditions are superfluous, which is much like unto this: All meat is profitable to nourish: Luc. 11. 41. & Dan. 4. 24. Therefore drink is needless: or else thus: All alsmedeedes are profitable to Salvation, therefore prayer is needless, and the Sacraments are needless. Alas who will not pity such follies. Or thus. All scripture is profitable that is sufficient: therefore traditions are needless. But what an exposition is this? Is it the same to be profitable, and to be sufficient? if it be so, one may also interpret that place of S. Paul in the 1. Tim. 4. 8. same place: Piety is profitable to all things, that is, Piety is sufficient for all things, therefore all other things are needless. And likewise that: Take 2. Tim. 4. ●1. Mark, and bring him with thee, for he is profitable to me for the ministry, that is, sufficient: Therefore Timothy Titus, and Onesimus and all the rest were needless. But who doth not now evidently perceive, that if this licence of interpreting the Scripture were once permitted, how easy it were to corrupt it all. But that the matter may appear more plainly, the text of the Apostles is well to be considered. For the Apostle in the cited Chapter doth exhort Timothy the Bishop, that he should instruct his subjects in faith and good works; and that he should reprehend his adversaries who being corrupted in mind, and reprobate concerning faith 1. Tim. 3. 16. did resist the truth. And that he might show that he was able to perform it, he addeth. But thou continue in those things which Ibid. paulo post. thou hast learned, and are commtted to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned. And because from thine infancy thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which can instruct thee to Salvation, by the faith that is in Christ jesus. For all Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach etc. Where by the holy Scriptures which he saith Timothy to have known, he meaneth the Scripture of the old Testament. For at that time when Timothy was a Child, the Scripture of the new Testament was not extant. Therefore the Apostle in that text thus doth argue. All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach subjects, & reprehend adversaries. But the Scripture of the old Testament which thou hast known from thy infancy, is inspired of God. Therefore it is profitable to teach thy subjects, and to reprehend thy adversaries. And when thou art well instructed with the knowledge of that Scripture, thou wilt obtain great aid thereby to perform that which I have told thee. And from the same head, one may conclude in this manner: All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach and argue. And whosoever is instructed with the knowledge of this Scripture, shall obtain great aid thereby to perform them both. Now out of both these arguments it followeth, that these three propositions are true according to the Apostle. 1. All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach and argue. 2. That the Scripture of the old Testament is profitable to teach and to argue. 3. That the Scripture of the new testament is profitable to teach, and to argue. As therefore it doth not follow, the Scripture of the old Testament is profitable, therefore the Scripture of the new Testament is needless & superfluous. Nor the contrary: The Scripture of the New Testament is profitable, therefore the Scripture of the old Testament is superfluous. So also it doth not follow, that tradition is superfluous, because the old and the new Testament are profitable. THE VIII. TESTIMONY. FOR I testify to every one hearing the words ●po. 22. 18. of the Prophecy of this book. If any man shall add to these things, God shall add upon him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall diminish of the word of the book of this Prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life. Hereby our adversaries conclude in this manner. If any man shall add to the words of this apocalyptical Prophecy, he shallbe punished of God. But the Catholics add traditions: Therefore the Catholics shallbe punished of God. They may also conclude in this manner. If any man shall add to the words of this Apocalipticall prophecy he shall be punished of God. But the Caluinists add gospels, Epistles of the Apostles, the institutions of Caluin, the catechism of Hidelberge, Athanasius Creed, and also the first four general councils. Therefore the Caluinists shallbe punished of God. Or in this manner: If any man shall diminish of the words of this Apocalipticall prophecy, he shallbe taken out of the book of life: But the Lutherans do not only diminish of the words of this Apocalipticall prophecy, but also bring it into question whether it be true or no; and not acknowledging it to be divine and Canonical, tell us in plain terms that it is counterfeit & Apocalipticall: Therefore they shallbe taken out of the book of life. But now to the purpose. S. john forbiddeth nothing else, but only that the words of the Apocryphal prophecy be not corrupted of any: Which he insinuateth to be done two ways, first by addition, as if one should add any thing to the Apocalipticall prophecy, to be as a part of it, which is not. Secondly by diminishing, as if one should take something from it, although it did not belong to it, which certainly doth. The Catholics do neither. But with an example I will declare it better. S. john foretelleth, that in a certain time two Prophets shall come, clothed with sackcloth, who shall prophecy a thousand two hundred sixty days, and shall have power to shut heaven that it rain not in the days of their prophecy, and to turn the water into blood etc. To which prophecy the catholics add nothing at all, which doth not belong unto it, nor take any thing away which is added thereto: but leave it whole, as it was prophesied of S. john. But our adversaries do the contrary, especially those who say that Luther and Caluin were the two Prophets. For these, who say this must of necessity diminish of the words of this prophecy; seeing that it is certain that Luther and Caluin were not clothed in sackcloathes, nor had any power of shutting heaven, nor also had those properties which follow. The Conclusion of all that is contained in this Book. TWo things I have hitherto endeavoured to perform. The one is to show that the Scriptures cannot be the judge of Controversies, but the Church. And this I have declared six ways. First, by the office of the judge, which is not fitting for the Scripture because the Scripture cannot pronounce sentence in that manner between two at variance so that the one party may see it is for him, and the other perceive it is against him. Secondly out of the scripture itself, in the which two things are to be considered, the letter and the sense; The letter killeth as the Apostle saith, and is cause of many heresies, as was showed by divers examples. The sense oftentimes is obscure and doubtful, both for the apparent contradictions which are found in every place, & also for many other causes which before were numbered, and therefore there is need of some judge who may manifestly desine, that this is the lawful sense, and that the unlawful. Thirdly out of the Controversies themselves, because there are many controversies, of the which no mention is made in the Scripture, and so consequently can neither be defined out of Scripture. Fourthly out of the use and custom of the old Testament, where the Scripture did not use the office of a judge, but high Priest, who was Prince of the Synagogue whose precept was to be obeyed under pain of death. Fiftly by the use and practise of the new Testament, wherein all Controversies hitherto have been decided by the Prelates of the Church. Sixtly out of the proportion of Civil causes, which are not decided by the written law, but by the Prince of the Common wealth, nor according to the rule of the written law only, but also according to the ancient customs not written. The other is to show that the testimonies of Scripture, which are objected against us, either to be nothing to the purpose or to be rather for us than Isa. 8. 20. against us, and not to be expounded truly by them, as for example. To the law & testimony, is nothing to the purpose, because it is not understood of I●an. 5. 39 Controversies of faith, but of the future events of casual things. And also that other place, Search the Scriptures doth rather help us then our adversaries. For Christ when he said this to the jews did not dispute with them out of Scripture only (as our adversaries would have us believe) but also out of the testimony of S. john Baptist, to the which he added the testimony of Miracles, and also the voice of God the Father speaking down from heaven, therefore he never dreamt that Scripture only was the judge of Controversies. The rest as I have showed are no better expounded by our adversaries, as out of our confutation the Reader if he b● but indifferent may easily perceive himself. An Objection of the vulgar people against all that hath been hitherto said. MANY that be of the more simple 〈◊〉 thus object against us. The judge of Controversies in matters of faith ought to be so infallible that he cannot err. Because if he err all others following him should be deceived in embracing his opinion. But now it is most plain & manifest of the one part, that the scripture is infallible, seeing it is the very word of God, which can by no means err, and of the otherside that no man can be infallible is no less certain, seeing that every man is a liar and not any one can be found who is Rom. 3. 4. not subject to error. According to that of S. Paul. God is true, but every man a liar. Therefore the Scripture may be an infallible judge. Men seeing they be liars cannot: But the Pope is a man, & the Church is nothing but a congregation of men. Therefore the Pope & the Church are liars and may err. And so consequently none is safe and secure in matters of faith who followeth their doctrine. This objection if there be any force in it, is no lessle against our adversaries then against us. For if every man be a liar and may err, it followeth also that Moses, all the Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists▪ Luther also and Caluin & all the Lutherans and Calvinistical preachers are liars and subject to error, because they are men, therefore they are not to be believed or trusted in any thing whatsoever, and they ought to be doubted of, & accounted as uncertain. Where then is faith? Neither doth it help them to say, that they preach the word of God and not of man▪ for if they be liars, even in so saying they may lie. Nothing therefore is certain. But God forbidden that we should either say so, or think so. For it is far otherwise. And first we confess that the scripture is certain and infallible, because it is the word of God. But this we add, that seeing it is obscure, the lawful sense thereof is not manifest to every one. And therefore that there is need of some other judge who may infallibly deliver which is the true and lawful sense of scripture. But every private man cannot be this judge, because otherwise, there would be as many divers judges as there be divers heads and opinions. And so no controversy could ever be composed. For every one would say that he understood it rightly, and all other falsely. Therefore it is necessary that there be some public judge, who with authority may have power to decide, and end the matter betwixt the parties at contention. Moreover we affirm that men may Gen. A 1. ● psal. ●●. 6. be considered two ways. First as they are the Children of Adam subject to divers corruptions of nature. And so by that means may be prone to lying and falsity. Secondly as they are directed & governed by the holy Ghost for the instruction of others, and so they may be infallible and void of all error. Such an one in the old Testament was Moses and the whole Senate of the Seniors. Such also were the high Priests who followed them. Such were the Prophets Isaias, jeremy, Ezechiel, Daniel, and Num. 11. 7. Deut. ●●. ●. Agga. ●. 1●. 〈◊〉 ●0. 7. jerem. r. 7. joan. 15. 16. joan. 16. 1●. others. Such in the new Testament were the Apostles, to whom it was said of Christ: I will send you from my father the spirit of truth. And also this: When that spirit of truth shall come, he will teach you all truth. But where there is all truth, certainly there cannot be any falsehood or error. To conclude such hath been and at this day is the Church, which by reason of the perpetual assistance and direction of the holy Ghost, never hitherto hath erred, nor ever can err hereafter. Matth. 1●. ●8. 1. Tim. 3. 1●. Isa 54. 4. Ibid. v. ●2. Ibid. v. 17. For it is built upon a firm rock and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is the pillar and ground of truth. It shall never be confounded nor blush. The jasper stone is the munition of it. And it shall judge every tongue resisting it in judgement. Therefore it is the infallible judge which we seek. But now there is a question, whether all who are in the Church, have so much assistance and direction of the holy Ghost that they cannot ere, or no. Which truly is very easy to be resolved. For all certainly have it, but with a certain kind of dependence from the Church. Therefore as long as they remain united to the Church, they cannot err, but if they once departed from it then they begin to err, which may be declared with two similitudes: the one is taken from the proportion of a man's body. For if you should ask whether all the members which are in a man's body have vital and sensible spirits in them, by the which life in them is preserved. I answer that indeed all have, but with a certain kind of dependence from the head and the heart, for these spirits are derived from the head and the heart, as from a double origen, spring or fountain into the other members. From whence it comes that if those pores and passages be stopped & intercepted, through the which that distribution of spirits is made, it followeth also that the other members are destitute of their spirits and cannot exercise their office at all, but if they be patent and open, all is well. Even so in the Church all the faithful who are as members of the Church have the assistance and direction of the holy Ghost, but which a certain kind of dependence of the Pope who is as the head of the Church: and from the councils which are as the heart of the Church. As long therefore as they remain united to the doctrine of the Pope & councils, they are partakers of the assistance and government of the holy Ghost, & cannot err in faith. But if they once departed by obstinacy and stubborness than they begin to shut up all their passages that the divine assistance and direction cannot be distributed unto them. And so they begin to serve from the truth, and become subject to error which happened to Arius, Nestorius, Macedonius, Pelagius and six hundred others▪ And truly lest the same happen unto us, let us hear the Counsel of the Apostle, who in every place doth exhort us, to the agreement and unity of doctrine. As when he writeth thus to the Romans. And I desire you brethren (saith he) Rom. 16. 17. to mark them that make dissensions & scandals contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. And to the Corinthians. I beseech you brethren by the name of our Lord 1. Cor. 1. 10. jesus Christ, that you all say one thing, and that there be no schism among you. And to the Ephesians. Becarefull to use the spirit of truth in the bond of peace. One body and one spirit, as Eph. 4. 3. you are called in one hope of your Salvation: One Lord, one faith, one Baptism. And likewise to the Hebrews With variances & strange Heb. 13. 9 doctrines be not led away. Another similitude may be borrowed from a flock of sheep, which very well doth represent the Church. For as a whole flock being gathered together in one fold, or one place, hath the continual assistance of their shepherd who doth defend them all with his hook & his dog from the cruelty of wolves: eue● so the whole Church of the faithful being collected in one faith and in one spirit, hath the perpetual assistance of that divine shepherd. joan. 10. 14. Matth. 28. 20. who said, I am the good Pastor and I know my sheep. And again: Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world. Also, even as the sheep as long as they remain together with the flock and their Pastor, they are safe from the biting of wolves: even so all Christians, as long as they remain united with the Church, that is, agreeing with the doctrine of the Church, they are safe and secure from all dangers of error and infidelity: And finally, as sheep which stray from the flock are destitute of the protection of their Pastor, and so subject to be devoured of the ravening wolves: even so Christians who disagree from the common sense and doctrine of the Church, are quite destitute of the assistance of the holy Ghost, and so in danger to fall certainly into pestiferous & damnable errors. From the which Christ free us all. FINIS. THE CONTENTS OF THIS BOOK OF the judge of Controversies the Preface. Pag. 1. The Scripture alone is not the judge of Controversies, concerning matters of Faith and Religion. I. ARGUMENT, Drawn from the Office of a judge. Pag. 6. II. ARGUMENT, Drawn out of the Scripture itself. Pag. 9 That the Scripture according▪ to the sense and meaning thereof, cannot be judge. Pag. 19 That the Scripture often times, according unto the sense, is obscure and hard to be understood. Pag. 20. What are the causes why the Scripture is obscure? Pag. 33. Wherefore is it Gods will, that the Scripture should be obscure? Pag. 58. It follows necessarily out of the obscurity of the Scripture, that many Controversies arise amongst Christians. Pag. 64. The Scripture cannot be the judge of these, and the like Controversies. Pag. 71. THE III. ARGUMENT. Which is drawn out of the Controversies themselves. Pag. 81. THE FOUR ARGUMENT. Which is taken out of the use and practise of the old Testament, where not the Scripture, but the Bishop was acknowledged for the judge. Pag. 91. THE V ARGUMENT. Drawn from the custom, use, and practise of the new Testament. Pag. 106. THE VI ARGUMENT. Drawn from the Analogy, and proportion of the Civil judge, concerning matters belonging to the common Wealth. Pag. 118. The Testimonies of Scripture brought against us here are examined. THE I. TESTIMONY. Pag. 125. THE II. TESTIMONY. Pag. 134. THE III. TESTIMONY. Pag. 136. THE FOUR TESTIMONY. Pag. 145. THE V TESTIMONY. Pag. 149. THE VI TESTIMONY. Pag. 151. THE VII. TESTIMONY. Pag. 153. THE VIII. TESTIMONY. Pag. 157. The Conclusion of all that is contained in this Book. Pag. 160. An Objection of the vulgar people against all that hath been hitherto said. Pag. 162. FINIS.