THE PSEUDO-SCRIPTURIST. OR A TREATISE WHEREIN IS PROVED, That the Wrytten Word of God (though most Sacred, Reverend, and Divine) is not the sole judge of Controversies, in Faith and Religion. Against the prime Sectaries of these Time's, who contend to maintain the Contrary.  
Written by N. S. Priest, and Doctor of Divinity. DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS.  
And dedicated to the Right Honourable, and Reverend judges of England, and the other grave Sages of the Law.  
An Haeretici divinis Scripturae testimonijs utantur? Vtuntur planè, & vehementer quidem: Sed tantò magis cavendi sunt Vincent. Lyrinens. lib. adverse. Haer.  
Do Heretics cite the divine testimonies of Scripture? They do indeed, and that most vehemently: But therefore are they so much the more to be taken heed of.  

Permissu Superiorum. M. DC. XXIII.    

THE CONTENTS OF THE several parts of this Treatise.  
IN the first part (besides a brief refutation of the private spirit first prefixed thereto) it is disputed Categoricè, and absolutely, that the Scripture is not the judge of Controversies. And this evicted from the difficulty of the Scripture, in regard of its Subject, several senses, and phrase of the style; as also from Reason, testimony of the Fathers, Doctrine of Traditions etc.  
In the second Part it is disputed Hypotheticè, that supposing for the time, that the Scripture (as it is simply considered in itself) were the judge of Controversies; yet it is proved, that of all the different kinds of Sectaries, that ever were, the Protestants can with the least reason insist in it, as judge. And this is made evident by three several ways.  
First, because the Protestants cannot agree among themselves, what Books are true Scripture, and consequently do not agree in assigning, which books do concur to the making up of this judge; some allotting more books to it, some fewer; and so they make it of greater or lesser extent, than (even according to their several opinions) it should be.  
Secondly, because even of those Books, which the Protestants jointly embrace for Canonical Scripture, there is not (in their judgements) any one entire true Original, either Hebrew or Greek now to be found, neither are there any traslations of them now extant, but such as are (by the Ptotestants assertions) false, corrupt, and impure: And so by obtruding the Scripture for judge, they obtrude (at least by their own Doctrine) a false, corrupt, and impure judge.  
Thirdly, & lastly, because even of those particular books only, or parts of Canonical Scripture, whose Originals in them yet extant are true, and whose translations in those passages are admitted by the Protestants for true and uncorrupted, the texts and testimonies do make against the Protestants, and in behalf of the Catholic Roman Religion, if we insist either in the perspicuity of the letter and words, or in the judgement of the ancient Father's interpreting the said texts, or finally in the implicit & tacit censure & acknowledgement of the Protestants themselues. And thus the Protestants by appealing to Scripture, do wound themselves.   

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE, AND REVEREND JUDGES OF England: and to the other grave Professors of the Law.  
THERE is no kind of learning (right Honourable and Learned) which more conduceth to man's benefit (as instructing him in the way towards heaven) than the sacred knowledge of Divinity. There is no part of Divinity more expedient in these our contentions and misbelieving Times, which threaten shipwreck of our ancient Christian Faith, than the study of Controversies. There is no Controversy more to be insisted upon, than the question concerning the judge of these Controversies; since the proof of it involves within itself, by force of necessary illations, the proof of all other controversial points. For whereas most of the doubts between the Protestants and us, being convincingly demonstrated for certain & infallible; yet such proofs do but force the judgement of the Reader only in those particulars. But it being here once concluded & acknowledged on both sides, what, or who is this judge, it then inevitably followeth, that all those articles of faith are most true and Orthodoxal, which are found to be decreed, and defined by the said judge. Besides daily experience telleth us, that the particular discourse of any dogmatic point in Religion, being fortified and confirmed either by us, or our Adversaries (according to the state thereof differently maintained) with several authorities of God's word, doth finally resolve into this point, to wit, who is to judge of the sense and true meaning of the foresaid alleged testimonies. In so much as that we may justly pronounce the question of this judge to be both the Centre & Circumference of all other questions; since no less the lines and deductions of all controversies do (for their last resolution) meet and concur in this one common point; then that itself being cleared and made evident, doth include & contain by demonstrable inferences, the proof of all the rest, within the capacity and largnes of its own Orb.  
The difference between us and our Adversaries herein is this. That we do jointly 
(a) Council. Trident. sess. 4.  teach, that the whole Church of God by the mouth of the chief pastor alone, or otherwise seconded with a lawful general Council, is ordained inappealably to define either from Scripture, or from the ancient practice of God's Church, what is the undoubted and Orthodoxal faith of Christians, what is Schism and Heresy. But our Adversaries 
(b) Luth. praefat. assertionis suae. Melancthlocis de Ecclesia Caluin. l. 4. Instit. c. 9 Chemnitius in exam. Concil. Trident. sess. 4.  do with one consent maintain, that all Controversies of faith are to be tried by the touchstone of the holy Scripture; so as the Scripture itself is to become the sole judge, since nothing (they say) is to be received, as an article of faith, but what hath it express warrant from the written Word of God.  
The sentence of the Catholics in his Controversy I forbear to handle in this Treatise, since it is already discussed very painfully by diverse Catholic writers, and particularly in several 
(c) Tract. 1. sect. 4. subd 14. & tract 3. sect. 7.  passages of that most learned work of the Protestants Apology of the Roman Church; the very store-house of reading, or the Armoury, wherein are laid up the weapons used by us, and taken from our Adversaries own sides. Therefore I will spend these ensuing leaves in refutation of our Adversary's Doctrine, which consisteth in making the Scripture the sole judge of Controversies; a subject not so frequently written off in particular, though otherwise the reprovall thereof be potentially and implicitly included in the confirmation of the Catholic contrary Doctrine.  
Now (Grave & learned Sages) the reason emboldening me to dedicate this Treatise (otherwise unworthy your judicial view) to yourselves, though of a different religion from me is the consideration of the subject here discussed, which is indeed of that nature, as that you may justly seem to challenge a particular interest therein: for since you are worthily placed in the rank of those, who (to speak in the Psalmists 
(d) Psal. 8.  phrase) In seven institiae ambulant, & in medio semitarum iudicij; And since a true apprehension of temporal Laws maketh way for the better understanding of God's eternal and immutable law; those being but as branches derived out of this, and as it were certain adumbrations of the same, according to those words, Vnus 
(e) jac. 2.  est Leg slator & index; And since the question discussed in this treatise consisteth in the unchangeable law of God, which principally consisteth in this sacred writ, and disputeth who is to judge thereof, & to determine difficulties according to the square of the same: Therefore who can better judge of this point (speaking of the Laity) than you, who are judges? Or who can with a more clear & impartial eye discern the may ne absurdities attending on our Adversary's Doctrine, than you, if you will but vouchsafe to glass the same, or like (by supposal only) in the speculation of your own laws?  
1. You (for example) acknowledge, and therefore for your particular worthiness are deputed to the honour and dignity of judicature, that in regard of the ambiguity of your own law, there must be an external judge or Interpreter distinct from the law itself, for the manifesting of it true sense: Our Adversaries 
(f) Luth. Caluin. Chemnit. etc. ut supra dicitur  do constitute the Scripture, not only as the law, according to which all controversial points of faith are to be decided, but withal as judge; so confounding the law, and the judge.  
2. You not only grant, that there ought to be a judge or interpreter of the law, but also you maintain, that this prerogative of judging, doth not belong to every private man, but only to certain selected and public persons, appointed to the same end: Yea you (no doubt) are assured, that if liberty were given to each man to interpret the national laws of England, that suits and contentions would never be determined by the said laws, every one interpreting them in favour of this own cause. Our Adversaries teach, that every private Man 
(g) Whitak. Controu. 1. q. 5. c. 3. & q. ●. c. 11. Caluin. Instit. Brent. in Prologue. , which they style the revealing spirit, and with whom we may well expostulate in the words used to Moses 
(h) Exod. 2. , Quis constituit te judicem? enjoyeth the privilege of having the undoubted sense of the Scripture infallibly revealed unto him, and so is to become his own expositor; from whence it followeth (as being warranted by all experience and reason) that different spirits (by this their Assertion) differently interpreting the Scriptures, can never come to any final atonement or reconciliation.  
3. You deliver, that in a well ordained Commonwealth, the judge ought to be such, as every Man may have free access unto him, as also to have power not only to interpret the law, but also to have a coactive authority to force the delinquent to subscribe and obey under pain of severe chastisement: and (which is more) you would hold it ridiculous, to constitute that as judge or law, to the which all delinquents (still continuing delinquents) would chief covet to repair, as to their best refuge, fort, and sanctuary: Our Adversaries constitute the Scripture for judge, to which many cannot have resort, since many cannot read; It cannot impose any obedience to the erroneous party, since it is the proper scene of all Heretics to maintain their errors, after their appeal to the Scripture, more pertinaciously, then ever afore: finally it is that, wherein (as hereafter shallbe proved in this treatise) all Heretics 
(i) This is confessed even by Tertul. de prescript. Hierom epist. ad Pauliwm. Vincent. Lyrinens. adverse. haer.  have accustomed to repose their chiefest confidence & refuge, according to that of Tertullian 
(*) ubi supra. : Obtendunt Haeret●ci etc. Heretics do pretend Scripture, and by their boldness, in the conflicts of their disputes, they weary the strong in faith, the weak they overcome, and the wavering they dismiss with scruples.  
4. You, I know, cannot be persuaded, that the laws of this Realm are able to prove themselves, from themselues alone, to be the laws of the Realm, without any further warrant or attestation of history or other authority. Our Adversaries avouch, contrary to the Fathers, 
(k) Aug. Tom. 6. contra ep. Fund. Vincent. Lyrinens. adversus haer. & Aug. tom. 7. contra Croscon.  that the Scripture (wherein is contained the law, of God) can prove itself, out of itself alone, to be true & undoubted word of God (among so many other obtruded and counterfeited wrytinges) without the explication of the Church of God.  
5. You hold it most dissonant to reason to justify, that when you unfold and deliver the meaning and sense of the law, you in so doing, are above the law, but you do willingly acknowledge, that the law is law, whether your sentence be given of it or no; only by your learned Demurs, you pronounce your judgement, not that thereby, that which afore was not law, should by your sentence given become the law, but only that others not learned in the law, should by such your Reports, take notice and distinguish the true meaning of the Law, from all obtruded and mistaken senses thereof: Our Adversaries 
(l) Luther. l. de Concilijs, Illyricus l. de norma & prax. Concil. Trident. Chemnit. in exam. Concil. Trident.  do idly charge us in great estuation and heat of speech, that we do advance the universal Pastor of God's Church, or a lawful general Council above the Scripture, because to them both we ascribe a definitive authority, for setting down which is Scripture, and which is the true and undoubted sense of it. And hereupon they aver, that the Pope, or a general Council by assuming this prerogative, presumes to make that Scripture by such their declaration, which afore was not Scripture; and to disauthorize that for not Scripture, which afore was Scripture; and lastly to impose that sense of Scripture for the meaning of the holy Ghost, which before such their imposition was not his meaning: whereas indeed all that the supreme Bishop or general Council performs (both which reverently submit themselves to the Scripture) is, to declare Canonical Scripture from Apocryphal and forged wrytinges; and among many adulterate and false senses of confessed Scripture, to manifest which is the genuine and true sense of it; all which prerogatives that the Church and her Head do enjoy, is evident both from the words of our Saviour 
(m) Math. 18. , and from his great Apostle S. Paul 
(n) 1. Timoth. 3. .  
6. You voluntarily confess, that besides your laws left in writing, our Realm enjoys (as all other good States and Commonwealths do) certain unwritten and customary laws (as I may term them) which receive their force from an undiscontinued practice and long hand of tyme. And you cannot be induced to think, that the customs not crossing your written laws, do by their being, in any sort indignify the same laws: Our Adversaries 
(o) Caluin. Instit. 4. Chemnit. in exam. Concil. Trident. beside almost all others.  do so admire the written Word of God, as that they reject and betrample all Apostolical Traditions whatsoever, though they in no sort impugn the sacred Scripture, boldly pronouncing that all such traditions do mightily wrong and dishonour the said Scripture. So forgetful they are of those words of an ancient Father 
(p) Tertul. ubi supra.  touching traditions: Id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio, id ab initio quod ab Apostolis.  
7. To conclude you would repute it most strange, to find any man, that should affirm the present laws of England to be the only square, according to which all suits ought to be decided, and yet the same person withal to aver, that at this time we enjoy no true Original, or Translations of those laws, all of them being by his censure depraved with many falsifications and alterations; since from this it would follow, that not the true ancient laws of the Realm, but certain falsifyed laws & constitutions should adjudge all depending causes: Our Adversary's maintaining the Scripture for sole judge of Controversies (as often we have said) do withal maintain (so wonderfully doth innovation and novelty in Religion darken the very light of reason) that at this day, there is neither Original of the holy Scriptures, 
(q) See hereof Beza in resp. Castal. Carolus Molinaeus in sua transl. part. 12. fol. 110. Castalio in defensio. transl. p. 117. Whitaker against Reynolds p. 2●5. The ministers of Lincoln diocese in their book. p. 11.  or translations of them into the Greek, Latin, or our own vulgar Tongue, which are not by their express assertions and writings fraught with diverse corruptions and depravations, as most largely we will demonstrate in this ensuing discourse.  
Now the matter standing thus, as that you are able even out of the grounds of your own profession (in regard of the great resemblance found between it, and the question here disputed) particularly to discern the absurdities and gross inconveniences attending the Doctrine here impugned, to whom may this discourse more justly seem to be presented, then to the mature and grave judgements of yourselves? And thus much concerning the peculiar inducements of this my dedication And yet before I remit you to the perusal of this small work, I will make bold (a boldness humbly undertaken for your own spiritual good) to put you in mind to have a reserved eye, and intense circumspection over our modern Pseudoscripturists (so to call them) that is to say, Men who falsely abuse the holy Scriptures, and who as familiarly and peculiarly interest themselves in the Scriptures, as if they had begotten them on their own brain (as the Poets do feign that jupiter did Pallas): And yet when these men understand the Scripture in it true sense (as the devil sometimes hath d●●e) seeing they give credit thereto, not by reason of the Church's authority, but of their own private conceit, (which ever stands obnoxious to error) what other thing else do they, then believe a truth falsely? But when they interpret Gods written Word in a different construction from the universal and Catholic Church of God, I see not how they can avoid that Dilemma of an ancient Father 
(r) Tertul. l. de prescript. : Si alium Deum praedicant, quomodo eiusdem rebus & literis, & nominibus utuntur adversus quem praedicant? Si eumdem, quomodo aliter? So truly and deservedly are such men included within the sentence of Saint Austin (a Father whom of all the Ancients, the Protestants (not liking) yet lest dislike) Omnes 
(s) Aug epist. 221. ad Consentium.  qui Scripturas in authoritate etc. All those speaking of the heretical Scripturists of his time who allege Scripture, for authority make show to affect the Scripture, when indeed they affect their own errors.  
And thus (Grave judges) in all humility I take my leave, beseeching you, even for your own soul's health, that in your seats and tribunals of judicature, you do so judge, as that hereafter yourselves be not judged; especially I mean when Gods anointed Priests or poor distressed Catholics (guilty only of treason (if so it must needs be termed) committed in professing the ancient faith of Christ & his Apostles) shall become the subject of your judgements: but even then remember, that yourselves as being herein deputyes to God's deputyes, are to give a strict account to that supreme judge of all: Qui 
(t) Gen. 18.  iudicat omnem terram; or (with peculiar reference to terrene judges) to use the words of the Prophet David, 
(u) Psalm. 81.  Qui inter D●os dijudicat.  
Yours, in all Christian love and charity. N. S.   


THE CHAPTERS OF THE FIRST PART.  

THE Catholics reverence towards the Scripture, with the state of the question touching the Scripture not being judge. Chap. 1.  
That the Private Spirit is not infallibly assured of truly interpreting the Scripture. Chap. 2.  
The reasons of the Scriptures difficulty. Chap. 3.  
The difficulty of the Scripture by reason of its subject. Chap. 4.  
The like difficulty in regard of its several spiritual senses. Chap. 5.  
The like difficulty in regard of its phrase or style. Chap. 6.  
The difficulty of the Scriptures, acknowledged by the Fathers. Chap. 7.  
The testimonies alleged by our Adversaries out of the Fathers, for the Scriptures sole judge, are answered. Chap. 8.  
The same difficulty acknowledged by our Adversaries. Chap. 9  
The insufficiency of Scripture for determining doubts in Religion, proved by arguments drawn from Reason. Chap. 10.  
That it cannot be determined by Scripture, that there is any Scripture, or word of God at all. Chap. 11.  
That Heresies in all ages have been maintained by the supposed warrant of Scripture. Chap. 12.  
That our Adversaries do confess it to be the custom of Heretics, to fly to the Scripture alone; and that diverse of them therefore do appeal to the Church, as judge. Chap. 13.    

THE CHAPTERS OF THE Second Part.  

THAT the Protestants cannot agree, which books are Scripture, and which not. Chap. 1.  
That the Protestants allow not the Original Hebrew of the old Testament now extant, for authentical and uncorrupted. Chap. 2.  
That the Protestants allow no Original Greek Copy of the new Testament now extant, as uncorrupted. Chap. 3.  
That that Protestants reject the Septuagints translation of the old Testament, as erroneous. Chap. 4.  
That the Protestants reject the vulgar Latin Translation, commonly called S. Hieroms translation. Chap. 5.  
That the Protestants do condemn all the chief translations made by their own brethren. Chap. 6.  
That the English Translations are corrupt, and therefore not sufficient to determine doubts in Religion. Chap. 7  
That supposing the Scripture for judge of Controversies, yet the letter thereof is more clear and perspicuous for the Catholics, then for the Protestants. Chap. 8.  
That the Texts of Scripture are expounded by the Fathers in the same sense, in the which they are alleged by Catholics, for proof of their faith. Chap. 9  
That the Texts of Scripture objected by the Protestants in disprovall of our Religion, are otherwise expounded by the Fathers, then in that sense, wherein our Adversaries do urge them, and that such their expositions do agree with ours. Chap. 10.  
That the Scripture is clear for proof of our Catholic Faith, ever in the implicit and  judgements of our Adversaries themselves. Chap 11.  
The Conclusion. Chap. 12.     


THE FIRST PART OF THE PSEUDOSCRIPTURIST,  

The Catholics Reverence towards the Scriptures: with the state of the Question, touching the Scriptures not being judge. CHAP. I.  
BEFORE we enter into any particular redargution and reproval of the Protestants doctrine touching the subject of this Treatise, I must put them in mind with what slanderous calumniations (for detraction is ever accustomed to tread upon the heels of truth and integrity) they wrong us Catholics for our supposed contempt of the holy Scriptures; their chief reason thereof (besides others) being, because we deny to them that facility and easiness, as that they ought to determine all doubts of religion, before the true sense of them (among so many, that are forced and adulterate) be delivered by the Pastors of God's Church. And heerupon they teach, that we in effect reject the Scriptures, and do advance men's doctrines and judgements above them: So deep are their pens steeped in gall against us; and so deservedly may they be ranged with those mentioned by the 
(a) Isa. c. 32.  Prophet: Fraudulenti vasa pessima sunt, usque ad perdendos mites in sermone mendacij. But how easy is it to dissipate and dissolve this cloud of suggesting malice? For we teach not, that the Church is to judge, whether that which the Scripture saith, be true or false (since the Scripture is Scripture, and most true, whether the Church should so judge of it or not) but our doctrine is, that it being first acknowledged for an infallible principle, that the words of the Scripture are most true, the Church doth only teach (amongst many interpretations) which is the true sense and meaning of the said words. And in this sort it followeth not, that the Church is above God's Word (for it is only a vigilant Depositary and Guardian thereof) but above the judgement of particular men interpreting his Word; which men do commonly make their private and revealing spirit, to become (as it were) their Mercuryes-rod, therewith to chase away all construction of Scripture, not sorting to their fantasies. Neither doth the Scripture, receive any strength and force (which afore it wanted) from this sentence and judgement of the Church, but only our understanding is strengthened & confirmed thereby: which sentence of the Church is not merely the Word of man (which is liable to error and uncertainty) but in some sort it may be termed the Word of God (as being delivered by the assistance of the Holy Ghost) in regard of those infallible promises made in the Scriptures to the Church, that she 
(b) Luc. 21.  should not err. 
Act. 15.   
2. But to proceed further in acknowledging our due respect to the Scriptures, we grant most freely, that they are the spiritual conduits, whereby are derived to us the highest misteryes of our faith; that the blessed penners of them were so directed by the holy Ghost, as that they neither did, nor could err in any one letter; that they transcend in worth and dignity all humane writings, as fare as an infallibility of truth surpasseth a possibility of error. Lastly that the sense of them is a most powerful and working physic against the poisonous receitps of all heretical distillations, if so it be delivered by the appointment of our spiritual Physician. So venerable and reverend respect (we see) the Catholics do bear to the sacred Scripture, as to one chief means ordained by God for our eternal health and welfare; yet withal they teach, that true faith is to be found not in leaves of the words, but in the roole of the sense; thus making the true and indubious interpretation of God's word to be a rule to the Protestants imaginary rule: since it is to overule & control the private spirit of every particular Sectary.  
3. But now in the next place, to enter more particularly into the state of this point, touching the Scriptures supposed judge of faith, we are to conceive, that whereas our Sectaryes do generally maintain, that the written Word of God is the sole and infallible judge, as also the only rule and square of the articles of Christian Religion, thereby rejecting not only any other judge, but also all other points touching faith, which have not their express proof or necessary inference in the said holy Scriptures; The Catholics on the other side (running one and the same line of faith with all antiquity) teach as followeth.  
4. First that the holy Scripture is not the judge of all Controversyes of faith.  
Secondly they teach, that it is norma infallibilis, an infallible rule or square of faith, that is, that nothing contrary to the Scripture is to be admitted; but they say not, that it is the only rule of square, and therefore they affirm, that besides the Scripture there are Apostolical traditions and other definitions of the Church. Thus we grant, that the written word is, regula partialis, but not regula totalis, of faith and Religion; and therefore we admit some things praeter Scripturam, but nothing contra Scripturam; that is, we approve some things not expressly sound in the Scripture, but not any thing contrary or repugnant to the Scripture.  
5. Thirdly, they hold, that granting the Scripture to be the rule or square of most articles of religion, yet it followeth not, that it is the judge of the said articles, since Regula, and Iudex are in nature things different; for even in civil matters the law is the rule and square, according to which, suits and contentions are determined; and yet the law is not the judge of them, but the Magistrate himself expounding the law, though sometimes the Law is called improperly and Metaphorically the judge.  
6. Fourthly, and lastly, they deny not, but that the Scripture may in a restained sense be termed the judge of all Controversies in faith; because it 
(c) Matth. 16. & 18. & 23. joan. vlt. Luc. 22. Act. 15.  appointeth and setteth down, who is that judge (to wit the Church,) as also they grant, that in the like reserved construction the Scripture may be said to deliver all things sufficiently which belong to faith and religion: And this not only, because it delivereth evidently all those articles of faith, which are simply and absolutely necessary for all men to know (as the Articles of our Creed, the Decalogue, and those Sacraments which are more necessary) but also in that all other points whatsoever, concerning either the true exposition of the written word, or faith and religion in general, are warranted by the infallible authority of the Church. which infallible authority is proved & commended to us by the holy Scripture. And thus on the one side, the Scripture warranting the Church's authority, and on the other, the Church setting down and approving the true sense of the Scripture; it may hereupon be justly said, that both these (I mean the Church and the Scripture) do interchangeably receive their proof, out of the proof they give. Therefore all impertinencies laid aside, the touch of the question here between our Adversaries and us resteth in this: Whether all things, which necessarily belong to religion, are so fully and abundantly delivered in the Scripture, as that they are either expressly contained therein, or else without the Church's authority interposed, they may particularly be necessarily deduced from the Scripture; and so in regard hereof, whether the Scripture is to become the only judge of such articles, or no. In which question we hold (as is said) the negative part, but our Adversaries the affirmative. So fair different in opinion are our Sectaryes from the judgement of Vincentius Lyrinensis, touching the interposition of the Church's authority in the exposition of Scripture, who thus writeth 
(d) In suo Commonitorio.  hereof: Multum necesse est etc. It is very needful in regard of so many errors proceeding from the misinterpretation of Scripture, that the line of Prophetical and Apostolical exposition, should be directed according to the rule of the Ecclesiastical and Catholic sense.  
7. Now that the Scripture is not the judge of Controversyes in the sense above set down, shallbe proved two ways. First Categoricè, and absolutely, that so it is not, nor cannot be; which shall appear in the first part of this Treatise. Secondly Hypthetice, and of a supposal, that though the Scripture (as considered in itself) were this judge, yet cannot our Protestant Adversaries justly urge it, or pretend it for the same, which shallbe the subject demonstrated and made good in the second part hereof.  
8. Yet before I enter into any particular dispute thereof, I intent to discover and lay open the weakness of one main retreat or sanctuary, whereunto our Adversaries are accustomed to fly in their maintaining the Scripture for judge; for when they are pressed with the abstruse difficultyes found in the Scripture in regard of the several obtruded interpretations of it, and doubtfulness of the true meaning of the Holy Ghost therein, their common refuge than they make to the private spirit, which spirit D. Whitaker 
(e) Controu. 1. q. 5. cap. 3. & ●1. & Controu. 1. q. 2. cap. 3.  thus speciously entitles: An inward persuasion of truth from the Holy Ghost, in the secret closerts of the believers heart. This spirit (say they) infallibly instructeth them in the true understanding of the Scripture, so as by the assistance hereof they are enabled to pick out (among so many false constructions) the true and undoubted construction, and according to the same to determine and judge the point or Controversy, for which such passages of Scripture are produced by them; and thus the end of all is, that the private spirit interpreting the Scripture, is to be the sole and supreme judge of all Controversies of faith. Now this their chief hold or strength (being indeed their last most despairing evasion, thereby to decline the authority of the Church) I will ruinated, and overthrew in the next Chapter following, which Chapter may serve as certain Prolegomena, to the ensuing Treatise; The force of this their refuge I will prove to be most uncertain, yea false and erroneous, and this, first from Scripture, and secondly from force and weight of natural reason.   

That the private spirit is not infallibly assured of truly interpreting the Scripture: proved out of the Scripture, and from natural reason. CHAP. II.  
IF we will take a view of what is said in God's Word concerning this point, we shall find it most plentiful, in absolutely denying this power of judging or interpreting to belong to the private spirit. And first, what can be more pregnantly said to convince this fantasy, than those words of the 
(f) 1. Cor. 1.  Apostle? To one is given by the spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge according to the same spirit etc. to another Prophecy, and to another interpretation of tongues. Where we see, that the Apostle plainly, and as it were of purpose, refelleth this doctrine, since he teacheth, that the gift of interpreting the Scripture is not given to all the faithful; contrary to the practice and experience of our English Puritans, who, how ignorant soever they be, presuming that they are of the number of the faithful and elect, do most confidently vaunt of the gift of expounding the Scriptures.  
2. And that we may better here observe, how the two chief Apostles do second one the other in this question; I will allege S. Peter's own words, as perspicuous and clear for our purpose as may be, who 
(g) 2. Pet 1. Omnis propheti● Scripturae, propri● interpretatione non fit.  saith No prophecy of the Scripture is made by any private interpretation; In both which places and texts, by the word (Prophecy) is meant (as our Adversaries do acknowledge) the true understanding and interpreting of the holy Scriptures.  
3. Another place we will produce out of S. john, 
(h) ●▪ joan 4.  who saith thus: Dear beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, if they be of God. By which words we are taught, that the spirit of others are to be examined, if they proceed from God or not. This admonition cannot be understood of the spirit of the whole Church, since than it should follow, that there should be none left to try the said spirit of the Church (every particular man being included therein.) If then it is to be understood of private men (as of necessity it must) it followeth, that a private spirit cannot be this judge, since itself is to undergo (by the former text) the judgement and examination of some other. If it be replied, that the Scripture is to examine this spirit, this availeth nothing, especially if the point, wherein the private spirit doth exercise itself, be of the sense and meaning of the Scripture. Therefore it remaineth, that the spirit be tried by the comformity, which it beareth to those, whom, it is certain, to have the true spirit indeed: and this is the whole Church of God itself, being the pillar 
(i) Tim. c. 3.  and foundation of truth. A point so clear, that Luther 
(k) Lib. de potestate Papae.  (convinced by evidency of the truth) is forced to say: De nullo privato homine certisumus etc. We are not certain of any private person, whether he hath the revelation of the father or no (meaning hereby the revelation of the sense of the Scripture) but that the Church hath it, we ought not to doubt. What answers now will our Adversaries bring to the former texts of Scripture? Will they seek to avoid all these by putting us in mind, that it is written: 
(l) Luc. c. 11.  Pater vester dabit spiritum bonum petentibus se: and therefore every private man, that will ask this spirit of God, may have it? Let them remember that (besides these words are not understood of the spirit of interpreting, but of the spirit of faith, hope, and charity) it is also written 
(m) jacob. 4.  Petitis & non accipitis, eò quòd malè petatis. And therefore many may implore of God the gift of this spirit, and yet not obtain it; since they perhaps demand it not with that due disposition of mind, & in such sort, as God exacteth at their hands  
4. This then being so, who in all likelihood is further of from fruitfully & effectually praying for the same (to the gaining whereof humility & resignation of judgement, even by our Adversary's 
(n) Luth. praesat. assertio●is 〈◊〉. à Leone Pontif damn●tor.  acknowledgement, is, among other things, necessarily required) then this alcensuring spirit, which is ever drunk with a self liking, and which is arrived to that height of pride and elation of mind, as it holdeth it more reasonable, that all authorities should pass under the file & polishing of his own approbation? It cannot assure us with 
(o) In prolegom. contra Pe●●ūà ●oto.  Brentius, that it belongeth to every private man to judge of the doctrine of Religion, and to discern the truth from falsehood. It is in like sort of force to coin and stamp this position with 
(p) Lib. 4. Instit. c. ●. §. 8. 12.  Caluin, and 
(q) Exam. 4. sess. Concil. Trident.  Kemnitius, as a received Axiom, to wit, that the definitions and sentences, even of general Counsels, are to be poised by the balance of each man's private judgement; though with such a one (especially if he be ignorant and unlearned) guilded appearances of reason do for the most part preponderate, and weigh down reason itself: such is the Tarquinian and insupportable pride of this spirit, since by such transcendent speeches & actions it warranteth, that the sheep is to guide or direct their Pastor; the subject to determine the sentence of his Prince; and the delinquent most insolently and petulantly to judge his own judges.  
5. But to pass from the testimony of God's word written by the Apostles and Evangelists, unto the inward testimony written by himself in the book of each man's understanding: we shall easily find, that even Natural reason is able to convince of falsehood our Adversaries former assertion.  
6. And first, what greater oversight can be, then to acknowledge that for judge of Controversyes (for thus our Adversaries do, when they give an infallibility of interpreting to the private spirit) which is not of power & ability to determine any Controversy? And this insufficiency we find to be in such private spirits; for we see by experience, that in the explication of these four words only, This 
(r) Matth. 26. Marc. 14. etc.  is my body, as also for the texts 
(s) Matth. 12. Act. ●. Rom. 10. Ephes. 4. etc.  urged for Christ's descending into hell; wherein the Lutherans, and Caluinists do so differ, as that their mere contrary & irreconciliable Constructions do not only manifest the untruth and error of the one of them; but also the doctrine, for which the said texts are urged, is, after their long disputations and different sentences pronounced, as much doubted of (if not more) than it was in the beginning: And yet both the Lutherans and Caluinists do challenge alike to themselues the gift of this expounding spirit, withal the necessary conditions attending the same, as Prayer, Humility, Skill in the tongues, Conferences of several passages of Scripture, the one still objecting to the other the clearness & perspicuity of God's word in their own behalf.  
7. Secondly it necessarily conduceth to the being and perfect nature of a judge (as we find in the practice of all Controversyes whatsoever) to have power and authority, thereby to force (even upon coercion and constraint, if need require) both the different parties to subscribe to his sentence once pronounced (since otherwise his judgement and definition would prove both bootless and in available.) But we cannot find, that a private man's spirit can justly assume to itself any such coactive power; since it cannot threaten any Ecclesiastical and spiritual censure to one for not admitting his judgement, determination, and exposition of Scripture.  
8. Thirdly, seeing that the doubts of Religion do rise amongst men, who are visible and known one to another; how can it be imagined, that the judge, who is to take up and compound all these differences, should be such a one, as can neither be seen nor heard by any of the contending parties? For the spirit, which is in this man, suppose it did infallibly interpret aright, yet can it not be seen, heard, or acknowledged for such, by another man, in that he cannot be undoubtedly assured, that the same spirit is warranted from God, since false teachers do ordinarily mask themselves under the borrowed veil of God's Ministers, and false 
(t) ●. Cor. cap. 11.  Apostles (after they once have ascended the Thabor of the revealing spirit, vainly talking of Elias & Moses) tranfiguring themselves into the Apostles of Christ: All who notwithstanding do equally vaunt of this spirit, and yet nevertheless do cast in the mould thereof, most uncertain, and oftentimes repugnant doctrines; seeing then the rule or judge of Faith & Religion ought to be both known and certain; for if it be not known, it can be no judge (at least) to us, and if it be uncertain, it can be no judge at all; therefore it is evidently evicted, that the reavealing spirit (as being most unknown and uncertain) can in no case be erected as judge amongst us Christians.  
9 Fourthly our Adversaries do teach, that this spirit is given not generally to all, but particularly to some, to wit, to the Elect & the faithful, as Caluin 
(u) Instit. 1. c. 7. § 5.  affirmeth; from which doctrine it followeth. First, that God hath left no certain and general rule, or guide in his Church, whereby all men may arrive to the true knowledge of him, but only some few and particular men. Secondly, since we cannot infallibly know, who is of the Elect & faithful, therefore we cannot be undoubtedly assured (as is above touched) to whom this spirit is given, as D. Whitaker 
(x) Contro. 2. quest. 5.  confesseth (and consequently it availeth no man but him who only enjoyeth it,) seeing every one of our Adversaries do in like manner obtrude themselves into the number of the Elect. And therefore seeing that Luther and Caluin did indifferently challenge to themselves the like illumination of this spirit, and yet taught contrary doctrines concerning Canonical Scripture and the Real presence: And seeing it is curtain, that both were not inspired with the holy Ghost (for he teacheth not contradictions) and that the one had no greater illumination than the other; it therefore necessarily followeth, that we ought to give no greater credit to the one, then to the other; & so since we cannot believe both, we ought (according to all force of reason) to believe neither.  
10. Fifthly, this spirit (whereof they make such ventitation, as that we ought not to entertain any other sense of God's word, than what the influence of the said spirit may seem to exhale) either is absolutely infallible, or else at some times, and in some things fallible and subject to error; if the later, than it proceedeth from the Devil, since the spirit of God never erreth: if the first, then how can there be any contention or Controversy amongst the faithful, enjoying this spirit? And yet diverse both have been and are amongst the Caluinists, & Lutherans. It may be, they will reply hereto, that this spirit is ever infallible, when it speaketh according to the sense of the holy Scripture. A goodly privilege; for so the spirit of the Devil is infallible, as long as it followeth Gods sacred word; furthermore who must judge, when it speaketh according to the sense of the holy Scripture? And thus is the difficulty made as intricate as before.  
11. Sixthly and lastly, the falsehood of the Protestants doctrine herein is evicted from the Protestants doctrine in another point (thus is heresy become the sword, which woundeth heresy) to wit, that General Counsels may err; for if such Synods (being advantaged with many privileges above any one private man) may want the assistance of the holy Ghost in interpreting the Scripture or defining what is heresy; how can we probably assure ourselves, that this or that particular Protestant infallibly enjoyeth the gift of expounding truly Gods sacred written word? And because this inference is much prejudicial to our Adversaries, therefore I will dissect every particular vein and sinew of all such circumstances, which may afford advantage to the one part above the other.  
12. Thus then, if an Ecumenical and general Council indicted and confirmed by lawful authority, representing the majesty of God's Church, as being the supreme 
(y) So doth Augustin term a General Council, epist. 162.  Tribunal thereof; assured by 
(z) Where two or three are gathered together in my name. Matt. 18.  promise of Christ his assisting presence; warranted with the first example of that kind by the blessed 
(a) Act. 15.  Apostles; highly reverenced and magnified by the 
(b) Aug. ubi supra, & lib. de Baptis. c. 18 Anast. ep. ad Epictetum. Basil. epist. 78. Amb. epist. 32. Leo ep. 53. Hier. lib. cont. Luciferianos.  ancient fathers; acknowledged and received by our learnedest 
(c) The Lutherans receive the first six Counsels, and most of the Protestants the first four.  adversaries; consisting of several hundreds of most venerable Prelates, conspicuous for virtue, readiness in the Scriptures, varieties of tongues, and infiniteness of reading; gathered from the most remote and opposite regions of Christendom, and therefore the less probable upon their such sudden meeting jointly to embrace any one point of innovation; battering daily upon their knees at the ears of Almighty God with most humble and fervorous prayer, seconded with most austere fastings, and other corporal chastisements; and all this to the end, that it would vouchsafe his divine goodness, so to guide and stern this reverend assembly with his holy spirit, as what expositions they give of the Scripture, or what otherwise they determine for undoubted faith, may be agreeable to his sacred word and truth. Now, notwithstanding this, if such a celebrious concourse and confluence (I say) of Pastors (being the Mart, or Rendezvous of virtue and learning) shall so fail therein, as that they may, and have sundry times most foully erred (as our supercilious 
(d) Caluin. lib. 4. Instit. 9 §. 8. Luth. lib. de Concil. Kemnitius in exam. Concil. Trident.  Sectaryes avouch) in their Constructions of Scripture and resolutions of faith, though all such their decrees be otherwise warranted with a judicial conference of Scripture, the general practice of God's Church, and the conspiring testimonies of all antiquity: If this (I say) may happen (the best means thus producing the worst effects) what shall we then conceive of an obscure Sir john (a man engendered in the climb of pride and ignorance) who acknowledgeth no other Apostolical Sea, than his own Parish Church, and who in some points ever subdevideth himself from the rest of his 
(e) As appeareth by their books written against one another; of which point, See Co●eius, & Hospintan●s,  brethren, so as he is truly condemned of heresy, even by the lying mouth of heresy: A man for the most part depraved in manners, but competent for learning, not having any warrant from God for his proceeding, nor precedent from his holy Church: Yea one to whom God Hatly 
(f) No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. 2. Pet. c. 1.  denyeth this presumed certainty of expounding God's word; and (further) of whose spirit we are commanded 
(g) Dear beloved, believe not every spirit but try the spirits.  to doubt, and (which is more) of whose seducing 
(h) These things I have written unto you concerning those which deceive you. joan. 1. c. 2.  we are most cautelously premonished.  
13. Now, if this man being in his Pulpit upon the Lord's day, in the presence of his ignorant and psalming auditory (a fit Pathmos for his ensewing revelations) and there opening the Bible (for thus falsehood is forced to beg countenance from truth) & undertaking to expound some text or other for the establishing of his late appearing faith (though contrary to the judgement of all ancient Counsels) affirming himself to be secured by special Euthysiames and illuminations from God for the better judging the point controverted, rising from his own explication of Scripture: which being done, what assurance may we have of the truth of this his all-iudging spirit? And is there not great reason to expect more errors, than sentences to drop from this man's mouth? And what madness then is it, to allow to such an one (and but one) that infallibility of spirit in expounding Gods sacred Writ, and answerable determining the articles of faith, which himself denyeth to a general Council? Yet such is the forward blindness of our enchanted Novellistes' heerin, who (for example) prefer in this case, under the pretext of the revealing spirit, before the mature and grave resolutions of all antiquity and Counsels, the ignorant, rash, and sensual positions and interpretations of an incestuous revolted 
(i) Luther.  Monk, or stigmatical 
(k) Caluin.  fugitive; intimating hereby, that many virtuous and learned men gathered together for the disquisition of truth, must necessarily err; one sole, obscure, lateborne, illiterate, irreligious Scripturist cannot err. O insensa●i 
(i) Galat. cap. ●.  Galatae, quis vos fascina●it & c?  
14. But at this present I will stay my pen, proceeding no further in the demolishing and battering down of the weak fortress of this private spirit. That which is already delivered, may serve as a preparative to the Reader, the better to apprehend the force and weight of the ensewing arguments and reasons. I will now hasten to the main subject, and will first begin with the reasons of the Scriptures difficulty.   

The reasons of the Scriptures difficulty. CHAP. III.  
WHY the Catholics do absolutely deny the Scriptures to have this inappeachable sovereignty of resolving all doubts in religion, there is no reason (amongst others) more forcible, then that which is drawn from the difficulty of true understanding the said writings; for though our Adversaries do pretend the easiness of them to be such, as that any how ignorant soever (if so he be of the number of the justified) may withal readiness pick out the true sense, for the approbation, and fortifying of any point of Faith whatsoever: Yet he who looketh into this matter with a clear-sighted judgement, shall find them to be involved with so many ambiguities, as that aforehand he shall have need to repair to some 
(m) Act. 9  Ananias or other, to remove from his eyes the scales of partiality, ignorance, and other imperfections.  
2. Therefore let such, whose state (through want of learning or otherwise) is not to intermeddle with those sacred writings, remember the punishment inflicted to the 
(n) 1. Reg. 6, 6.  Bethsamites, for curiously beholding the Ark, which belonged not to them; yet we see the consideration of this danger, and of far greater, is not powerful enough, to control the ignorant Sectary in his expounding the Scripture; who being once placed upon the high pinnacle of his revealing spirit, undertakes to view all ages and Countries of the Church; and overlooking the judgements of private Fathers, interpreting Gods written word (as low and humble vales) extends his sight to the summity and height of general Counsels therein, still beholding with a fevere eye, whatsoever standeth not right in the line of his own exposition.  
3. The chief and primitive reasons of their abstruse hardness are three, to wit: The Subject, handled in those writings: The multiplicity of the senses, contained in the words: And the Method, or manner of the phrase, and style. And if but any one of these three do happen, though in an inferior degree of intricateness, in human writings, yet we see by experience, that it doth so entangle the Reader in such a labyrinth of mistake, as that he will freely acknowledge this ignorance in not apprehending aright in all places the authors mind; what shall we then think, when all these three do meet together in God's sacred Book, and that in the highest degree of any writings ever extant; as it shall appear in the subsequent Chapters.   

Of the subject of the Scriptures. CHAP. FOUR  
TO begin with the subject of the Scriptures; we are herein to observe, that it as farpasseth in depth and prosundity the contents of man's wrytinges, as God (the author thereof) overgoeth him in wisdom and power. For whereas the matter of all such humane labours, is ever such, as that the natural wit of man is suitable and proportionable thereto, both for the delivering or apprehending thereof: and the reason hereof is, because the understanding, being as it were the sum of our little world, ever keepeth itself within the Tropics of natural reason, and consequently is not of force to deliver or apprehend any thing, which may not be confined within the same compass; whereas if we look into the subject of these celestial and divine writings, we shall find the height of many things entreated therein, to be such, as that they transcend all natural reason.  
2. I could here insist in the Creation of the world of nothing, whereof these holy Scriptures assure us, though contrary (in outward show) to all Philosophy, which teacheth, ex nihilo nihil sit: I will pass over the infinite prophecies recorded therein, which ever of their own nature are hardly to be understood: I will in like sort pretermit to speak of the nature of the Angels, entreated of in the said book of Life, whose essence being merely spiritual, and endued with diverse great privileges above man, can but imperfectly be comprehended with our fleshly understandings: finally I will forbear to speak of the eternal predestination and reprobation of man (how and by what means they are wrought) of the external working of God within our souls, with his grace or otherwise: of the Sacraments, the Conduits of his grace; points whereof we are instructed in the holy Scripture, and such, wherein we may truly glass the weakness of man's understanding, and the depth of God's wisdom and power.  
3. But I will insist a little in those two incomprehensible and astonishing Articles of Christian faith, revealed to us out of those former divine Scriptures, to wit, of the Trinity, and of the Incarnation; wherein, in the first (to omit diverse other stupendious difficulties) we are taught by ●he said Oracles of God, that one and the same Nature (to wit the Godhead) is in three persons really distinct; & the same Nature is really and formally identified with each of the three persons. In like sort, in the article of the Incarnation, (where besides that the Creator of all things is become a Creature, and the father the daughter's son) we receive from the same fountain, that in one Hypostasis or person (to wit in the person of Christ) are two perfect natures very far different, and that this Hypostasis is altogether really & formally identified with the divine Nature, & nevertheless is most in wardly united with the humane Nature, which humane nature doth really and formally differ from the divine nature. And thus much, but to skim over superficially this point of the subject and matter of the Scriptures; which if it were handled according to the fullness & largnes of itself, would justly require a Treatise of no small quantity.   

Of the diverse senses of the Scripture intended by the Holy Ghost. CHAP. V.  
IN speaking of the multiplicity of the senses in the Scriptures, we are to call to remembrance, that God's sacred written word differeth from all humane writings (beside in many other points) especially in this; that whereas all such have but one sense or meaning properly intended by the author, this is so fertile therein, as that (like a shell (if it were possible) containing within it several kernels of different tastes) it carrieth in many places (besides the immediate literal sense) three diverse spiritual senses, and all warranted by the holy Ghost. These three are the Allegorical, Tropological, and Anagogical.  
2. The Allegorical sense ever bears reference of a spiritual and secret meaning to Christ, or his Church. So we read that Abraham having truly and really two sons, the one borne of the freewoman, the other of the bondslave, did figure out the two testaments of God, even by the exposition of 
(a) Salat. 4.  S. Paul.  
3. The Tropological is directed to instruction of manners or conversation of life. And answerably to this we find that text, 
(b) Deut. 25.  Thou shalt not m●ss●● the mou●h of the Ox, that treadeth out the corn, to be interpreted S. Paul 
(c) 1. Cor. 9  of God's preachers, who are to be maintained at the charges of their ●lock.  
4. The Anagogical sense implieth a construction to heaven or eternal felicity; and hereupon we find that verse of the 
(d) Psalm 94.  prophet, I swore in my wrath, if they shall not enter into my rest; to be interpreted (besides the literal meaning of the Land of promise) by the 
(e) Heb. 4.  Apostle of eternal life.  
5. Now then there being, besides the literal sense, so many mystical senses of Scripture, here the difficulty ariseth, that seeing some texts are to be understood only l●terally, others both literally & mystically, how we may know which are the texts, that admit only a literal construction, and which both a literal and spiritual; and if a spiritual interpretation, which of the former three is to be asigned to them, since every text is not capable of all the three spiritual senses. And which is yet more, there are some passages of Scripture, where in one and the same sentence, one and the same word (being twice repeated) is in the one place taken literally, in the other figuratively or mystically, as in those words of Christ, Let the dead bury the dead. All this must be known, before we 
(f) Matt. 8.  can d●aw any forcible argument from any such texts; in regard of which difficulty it may not seem strange, if sundry of the ancient doctors did err in their comments upon the Scriptures, some of them affecting so much the literal sense, as that they did spoyl● it of all mystical construction; others through their nice and wholly spirituallyzed imaginations, would so strain the Scriptures, as that for the most part they neglected the letter, & would extract nothing else, but spiritual, and (as it were) certain Chemical senses through their own ●ue● curious sublimation of the said divine Scriptures, as it is evident out of the expositions of diverse passages of Scripture given by 
(g)  tes●a●ur ●ie●●n. praf. lib. 18. in Isa. v● in ●. 3●. Ezech. & Aug. lib. 20. de civet. Dei cap. 7.  Tertulian and 
(h) Hier. ep. ad ●●machium.  Origen.  
6. In regard then of the impregnable truth of the Scriptures di●nculty, (both in respect of the many senses thereof, as also of the phrase and style, as hereafter shall appear) it is a wo●ld to observe, how idly and impertinently our Adversaries do object divers passages of it to prove its own perspicuity. To this end where the Scripture doth of●en inculcate, that the Commandments and will of God (being once known) do become a light to the soul for the gu●ding of herself; these testimonies (I say) our Sectaryes most violently force, to prove that the Scripture is, in regard of the understanding of itself, of that light and perspicuity, that the true sense and meaning of it, is most obvious and facile▪ Thus do they urge those words of the 
(i) Psal. 19  Prophet: ●raeceptum Domini lucidum illuminaus oculos. The commandment of the Lord is clear enlightening the eyes: As also that other 
(k) Psalm.  Text: Lucerna pedibus meis verbum tuum. Thy word is a lantern to my feet. And finally that of the 
(l) Cap. ●.  Proverbes: Mandatum lucerna est, & lex tu● etc. Thy Commandment is a lamp, and thy Law a light. In like sort we find, that they strangely rack certain Texts, which only concern the facility and easiness of the Decalogue or ten Commandments to convince the easiness of the Scripture in general, as that place of 
(m) Lib. 4▪ contra Marcion●▪  Deutronomy (to omit others) Mandatum, quod ego praecipio tibihodie, non supra te est &c. The Commandment which I command the● this day, is not abou● thee▪ neither is it fare of, interpreted of the easiness only of fulfilling the Commandments of the Decalogue by Tertullian, as also by Ambrose, Chrysostome, and others upon the tenth to the Romans.  
7. To conclude this point where the Apostle 2. Cor. 4. particularly meaneth, that our belief in Christ (to wit that he was borne, suffered, and did rise from death for man's salvation) is so evident and clear, as that if it be hid from any, it is only from such, as do perish, & whose eyes the God of th●● world hath blinded; which interpretation is necessarily confirmed by comparing with this text the Chapter afore in the said Epistle, where the Apostle teacheth, that all points touching Christ were seen in the law obscurely in shadows and figures only: yet will our Adversaries have that place to be meant of the evidency of clearness and understanding the Scripture; which passage notwithstanding is to be interpreted in the sense above mentioned, and whereunto those words of Tertullian may seem to allude: Christo moriente nata est haereditas nostra, Christo resurgente confirmata est, Christo ascendente in Caelos permanet in eternum.   

Of the Phrase, and Style of the Scripture. CHAP. VI  
NOW to come to the third point, to wit the phrase and manner of writing; which doth (as it were) apparel or  those hidden and divine Mysteries: We are first in general to consider, that the style thereof is fare different from the writings of any man that ever lived, as appeareth by the judgement of all learned men. It is also in that respect unimitable unto man; which circumstance must of necessity import an unusual strangeness of the phrase thereof in man's ears, and consequently a great difficulty in perfectly understanding the same. Secondly (and more particularly) we are to observe, that there are to be found not many humane writings, which do flow with greater store of figures and schemes, than the holy Scriptures do, in so much, that it were an infinite labour to set down all the Metaphors, Allegories, Hyperboles, Ironies, and other such Tropes, which do occur almost in every other text thereof; which kind of speech being unaccustomed to an ignorant ear, cannot but occasion diverse misconstructions.  
2. But besides these kind of figures common to every language, there are in the said heavenly writings diverse 
(n) Anima mea in manibus me●s semper. Psa●m. 118. And again, Thronus eius sicut dies caeli. Psa●m. 88 with infinite such others.  phrases peculiar only to the Hebrew tongue (in which language the chiefest part of them was first written) and consequently with great difficulty they are to be understood of those, which are ignorant of the same tongue. If those which are skilful in the Greek do deservedly attribute a great hardness thereof to the diversity of dialects, to wit, of Atticisme, Eolisme, jonisme, Beotisme, and the like, all these being Idioms proper to the Greek tongue; what hardness then must we imagine, that ear will find, when it shall read the Scriptures in some one tongue or other, and yet much thereof in a phrase or speech altogether different from that tongue, wherein he readeth them, and peculiar to another strange language, whereof he hath no knowledge at all?  
3. To pass on further, the Scripture in diverse passages is delivered in very ambiguous, imperfect, & broken sentences, which are such as must greatly increase the doubtfulness of the meaning of the Holy Ghost; And to exemplify but one amongst many, where the 
(o) joan. 8.  jews demanded of our Saviour: Tu quis es? And he answered: Principium, qui & loquor vobis. Which answer of his is so obscure, as that it hardly standeth with good construction, especially in all Greek copies, wherein we find the greek word signifying, principium (viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to be of the accusative case; and therefore no marvel if the Fathers, as we find in their commentaries, did much labour in the exposition of these very words.  
4. Lastly to convince demonstratively the difficulty of the holy Scriptures concerning the Letter, the Holy Ghost (who is truth itself, and cannot leave written contrary and repugnant things) hath nevertheless thought good, for our greater humility, in acknowledging the abysmall obstrusenes of those writings, to pen the same in such manner, as that there appear diverse sentences, which at the first sight and reading, seem mere contradictory; in so much that if the one be true, it followeth, in the judgement of the illiterate Scripturist, who resteth, only in the naked word; that the other is false. Infinite examples might be alleged, but these few following shall suffice.  
5. Dominus 
(p) ●. Reg. cap. 1●.  precaepit Semei, ut malediceret David. Our Lord commanded Semei, that he would accurse David. In like sort it is said: 
(q) Rom. 1.  God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient: both which actions no man will deny, but to have been sins. And yet weread elsewhere: Nem●●i 
(r) Eccl●s. 1●.  mandavit impiè agere: God hath commanded no man to do wickedly.  
6. In l●ke sort in one place we read: Et ne nos inducas intentationem: And lead us not into temptation; which prayer seems to be superfluous, if God did not sometimes tempt men; and yet to confront (as it were) this text 
(s) Cap. 1.  S. james saith: Let no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God tempteth no man. Do we not read after the same manner, that the 
(t) Luc. c. 1.  Evangelist giveth most honourable commendation of Zacharias and Elizabeth in these words: Both were just before God, and walked in all the Commendements and iustifications of our Lord without blame. And yet we find it registered in 
(u) Cap. 7.  Ecclesiasticus: Non est homo iustus in terra, qui faciat bonum & non peccet; There is not a just man upon earth, which doth good and sinneth not: as also in another 
(x) jac. 3.  place, In multis offendimus omnes; We all offend in many things. Which later sentences seem plainly to recall that justice and piety, which in the former words were attributed to those two virtuous persons.  
7. Lastly, it is said in 
(y) Cap. 20  Exodus: Ego Deus Zelotes etc. I am a jealous God, risiting the sins of the parents upon their sons unto the third and fourth generation: and yet 
(z) Cap. 18.  Ezechiel affirmeth: Filius non portabit iniquitatem Patris, sed anima quae peccaverit, ipsa morietur; The son shall not bear the iniquity of his Father, but that soul alone which hath sinned, shall dye. Now what greater diametrical contrariety can lie in sentences, then seems to be in all these former, if nakedly we consider the bare words (for the unlearned can proceed no further) though in themselves they are reconciliable, and so declared to be by the Commentaries of the learned, since otherwise Scripture were to be alleged against Scripture, and this were to make truth to lie. ●ut to end this point of the Scriptures obscurity, we do heerin see in what a sea of diff●cultyes that man is tossed, who attempteth to understand the Scriptures by the sole help of his own judgement; whether he looketh into the subject or matter whereof they entreat, or into the variety of senses appearing therein, or finally into the style or phrase wherein they are written.  
8. Now let our verse and lyne-cunning Scripturist, or other Sectary, who so striketh his adversary with the scabbard of the Scriptures (as one Doctor speaketh) as that he never woundeth him with the blade; let such a one I say, (skilful chief in yelling out a Geneva Psalm) venditate the Scriptures facility, affirming that they are more illustrious for proof of any controversial point, than the Sun beams. Let him insult over the Catholics, in maintaining that Paul and Peter with the rest, as they commonly speak (for it were overmuch to style them Saints) are out of his own knowledge, and reading, so clear in such and such places against the Papists, as that they need no explication or comment whatsoever, and that he laments the blindness of such, who wilfully do charge God's word with supposed obscurities. Let him go on in this sort, since the grave and learned may justly smile, to see how comically such a naturalised Heretic doth lay open to the world his pride, ignorance, and foolery; especially when they read of such men, as Origen and Tertullian were, to have lain drowned perhaps to the eternal ship wrack and perdition of their souls) in the vast Ocean of the Scriptures profundity.  
9 Thus we see the bare letter of the Scripture being only stood upon doth often seem to maintain an error, which is mainly impugned by the true sense once drawns from the said Scripture; like as the Physicians observe, that the gross substance of some drugs or Minerals being taken, doth occasion some diseases, which are after cured by the spirits extracted from the former drugs.   

CHAP. VII. The difficulty of the Scriptures acknowledged by the Fathers.  
IT is a strange thing to observe the inconsiderate pride of our Adversaries in justifying the Scriptures perspicuity, when as the ancient Fathers (to whom our Men are infinitely inferior in all good parts of literature) are not ashamed to acknowledge their wonderful depth and obscurity; which sentence of theirs is manifest two several ways: First by their own Commentaries written upon the Scriptures: Secondly, by their express and plain words directly confessing so much. And concerning the first, what greater proof can be thereof, then to see so many, and such as they were, to spend the greatest part of their lyues in illustrating & explaining diverse parcels of the said Scriptures, and in digging through the most stony and hardest passages thereof, with their written Scholies? wherein they have most elaborately dissected (as it were) and anatomised text after text, to the great ease and perspicuity of the reader; whose most commendable and painful labours in that kind, had been no doubt but needles, if the true exposition and sense of the Scriptures were so obvious and facile, as our Adversaries seem to pretend.  
2. To come to the second point (I mean to the direct sayings of the fathers) I will content myself (for greater expedition) with the testimonies of those four prime Fathers, and chief pillars of God's Church in her purity, who are able to over balance in authority so many thousands of our new Gospelers teaching the contrary, and to whom by a certain prerogative, and as they say antonomasticôs, that title was given. S. Gregory 
(a) Hom. ●. in Eze●h.  then saith: Magnae utilitatis est ipsa obscuritas eloquiorum Dei etc. The obscurity of God's word is of great profit, because it doth exercise the sense, that so by labour it may enlarge itself; and being exercised, may comprehend that, which the idle are not able to attain unto: beside it hath a greater benefit than this, which is; that if the sense of the holy Scripture should be clear in all places, by this means it would be smally prized, and therefore the sense of the difficult passages thereof being once found, doth so much please the Reader with greater sweetness, by how much the search thereof did afflict his mind with more labour. Thus fare S. Gregory.  
3. S. Augustine 
(b) Lib. 2. doctrine. Christian. cap. 6.  speaking of those, who were accustomed to read the Scriptures, affirmeth thus of them: Sed multis & multiplicibus obscuritatibus etc. But such men are deceived with many obscurities and multiplicities, who do rashly read the Scriptures, apprehending one thing for another, and not finding those things therein, which they falsely expected to have found: In so thick an obscurity and darkness are some things (there said) involved. But all this, I doubt not, proceeded from divine providence, hereby to tame pride with labour, and to withdraw our understanding from all fastidious misprisall, which often cometh through an over easy, and facile search of things. The same learned Father is not ashamed (far different from the assuming Insolency of our Sectaryes) to acknowledge in another place his ignorance in these words: In 
(c) Epist. 119. c. 21.  ipsis sanctis Scripturis multa nescio plura, quàmscio: I am ignorant of many more things in the holy Scriptures, than I know. And which is more he 
(d) Lib. de fide & operibus cap. 1●. & 16.  confesseth particularly of that place to the Cor. Si 
(e) 1. Cor. c. 3.  quis autem superaedificat super fundamentum etc. That the sense thereof was ever most difficult unto him: so pretermitting the true sense thereof in silence, like Painters, who veil that over, which they cannot delineate by Art.  
4. S. Hierome in one of his 
(f) Epist. ad Paulinun  Epistles, whereof the chief subject is the difficulty of the Scriptures, teacheth that we are not able to understand the Scriptures without some special instructor, and as presuming this ground he passeth on further in exemplifying several difficultyes, which are found in each particular book of them. And in another 
(g) Epist. ad Algasiam q. 8.  place speaking of the Epistle to the Romans, he saith thus: Ep●st●la ad Romanos nin●●s obscurita●ibus innol●●ae est; The epistle to the Romans is in ●olued with over many obscurities.  
5. To conclude, S. Ambrose 
(h) Epist. 44. ad Constantium.  blusheth not to say thus of the Scriptures: Mare est Scriptura divina, habens in se sensus profundos; The holy Scripture is eue● an Ocean or Sea, having within it most deep and profound senses and meanings: If then in this learned Father's judgement, it be a Sea of obstruse profoundityes, what remaineth but that whosoever would securely pass through this Sea, should embark himself in S. Peter's ship, taking his successor for his Pilot (who is stearned by God to stern us) through whose skill, avoiding all shelves and sands of private and new glosses (which often threatneth ship wrack of faith) he at length may arrive to the safe Porte of the most true, ancient and ●uer received m●aning of the holy Ghost.  
6. And here now we may observe the great modesty of these and many other ancient Fathers in this point, since each of them acknowledging his own insufficiency in understanding exactly the Scriptures, could be content to pray with the Prophet: Da 
(i) psalm. 11●.  m●hi intellectum, & scruta●or legem tuam: give m●a● understanding, and I will search forth thy l●●: as also, Revela 
(k) ●hidem  oculos meos, & considerabo mirabilia de lege tu●: Open mine eyes, and I will consider the wonders of thy Law▪ If any of them had been demanded, whether he did understand all what he read, he would not have been ashamed to have answered with the Eunuch: Q●omodo 
(l) Act. ●.  poss●nt, n●si al●quis ostenderit mihi? Briefly he would have confessed with 
(m) ●. Pet. v. 〈◊〉.  S. Peter, that not only in the Epistles of S. Paul, but in many other passages of Gods sacred write, there were, quaedam difficilia intellectu, quae indocti & instabiles depravant; Certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable do wrest and deprave. So clear it is, that notwithstanding the profoundness of learning in these former times, devout humility with a full acknowledgement of a self insufficiency, was (as I may term it) the Genius of reverend Antiquity.  
7. Which point being so, who will not admire the petulancy of an ignorant, & lateborne Sectary, who dare withstand and overbalance in his private opinion touching the Scriptures difficulty, the ever reverenced authorities: of whom? Of Ambrose, Hierome, Augustine, Gregory and the like, those judging witnesses of an ●iquity. Where is humility? Where is the 
(n) 2. Cor. c. 10.  Apostles precept of captivating our judgement? But it is exiled, and in it room are stepped in assuming Pride, and blushless ignorance: his assertions bewray his ignorance, his control of the Fathers his pride.   

The testimonies alleged by our Adversaries out of the Fathers, for the Scriptures sole judge, answered. CHAP. VIII.  
Though it ●orteth not to my intended brevity, to answer at large all such waste testimonies, as our Adversaries by most strange detortions of the Father's writings are not ashamed to produce; notwithstanding I hold it convenient here to set down certain animadversions and cautions discovering in general the Father's true minds and drifts in such thei● passages (diverse of which ca●tions are implicitly included in the state of the question already set down in the first Chapter.) So may the observant Reader take notice how rovingly all such authorities (wherein our Adversaries touching the judge of Controversyes do chief insist) do aim at their designed mark. And for the greater perspicuity, I will range these their sentences under three peculiar heads. One sort then of them are those, which may seem to insinuate, that the Scripture is the judge and rule of Controversies; which sense of the Fathers is bounded with some of these ensewing restrictions.  
2. First, their meaning sometimes is, that certain Articles only of our belief are most expressly set down in the Scriptures, in this sort 
(a) Aduersus Hermog. pag. 350.  Tertullian proving against Hermogenus, that God created all things of nothing, and not out of any presupposed matter, and with particular reference to those words in Genesis: God made heaven and earth, thus writeth: Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem etc. I do adore the fullness of the Scripture, which manifesteth to me the maker of all things, and the things made. Let the shop of Hermogenus teach, that it is written; If it be not written, let him fear that (Vae) to such as do add or detract etc. Which sentence of Tertullian, though delivered only of one Article of our belief, our Sectaryes nevertheless do stretch out to all points & Controversyes of faith whatsoever: Thus most inconsequently arguing affirmatively from the Particular to the Universal. Another like place to this they object out of 
(b) Lib. 3. de Trinit.  Hilarius touching the doctrine of the Trinity.  
3. Secondly, the Fathers sometimes ascribing great honour and reverence to the Scriptures (the which we Catholics most willingly admit) do teach, that the Scripture is an infallible rule; not hereby intending, that it is the only square of our faith (as our Adversaries seem fond to suggest) but that whatsoever the Scripture proveth, is most infallibly and undoubtedly proved by the same; and consequently, that nothing is to be admitted, as matter of faith, which doth cross and impugn the Scripture. And thus (besides that place of 
(c) Lib. 1. cap. 1. pag. 37.  Irenaeus, where he calleth the Scripture in the former sense, Cancnem immobilem veritatis; as also the like of 
(d) De fide l. c. 4.  Ambrose, where he appealeth from the writings of particular fathers to the Scripture, as also of 
(e) in Cor. 7. hom. 13.  Chrysostome, where he calleth the Scripture, Guomonem & regulam) we find that 
(f) in Epist ad Galat. cap. 5.  S. Hierom mantaining, with all Catholics, that nothing is to be received contrary to the Scripture, and that therefore general Counsels are to be examined thereby, thus writeth: Spiritus sancti doctrina etc. The doctrine of the holy Ghost is that, which is delivered in the holy books, contra quam, against which doctrine if the Counsels do ordain any thing, let it be reputed as wicked. But what Catholic alloweth any thing against Scripture? And how extravagantly then is this testimony objected against us by our Adversaries? Many such places of other Fathers are urged against us, and yet they only convince, that nothing is to be accepted as an article of faith, which impugneth the Scripture (such is their wilful misapplication of the Father's writings:) It will be sufficient only to make reference of diverse such passages. See then Cyprian contra epistolas Stephani, Lactantius Institut. diuin lib. 5. cap. 20. Basilius epist. 74. ad Episcopos Occidentales, Chrysostome hom. 49. in Psalm. 95. Epiphan. Haer. 63. and 76. Cyril. de recta fide ad Regin. beside many others.  
4. Thirdly, the Father's disputing with certain heretics, who denied all authority of the Church and Counsels in determining of Controversies (with whom the Novelistes of our age do altogether interleague and conspire) were forced in their disputes to provoke those heretics of the holy Scripture; not because the Fathers (but those heretics) disclaimed from the Church's authority in this point; and therefore the Church's authority being rejected by them, the Fathers were driven to insist only in the written word. In this sort justinus in Triphone disputing with a jew, who admitted not the Church of Christ, appealed willingly to the Scripture only. Augustine 
(g) Contra Maximinun lib. 3. c. 14.  contending with the Arian Maximinus (who admitted not the Council of Nice) professed, that he did not expect to have his doctrine tried by that Council, but only by the Scripture, and therefore said: Nec ego Nicaenum proferam etc. I will not produce the Nicen Council etc. Let the matter be tried by the authority of Scripture. Finally S. Basil 
(h) Epist. 88 ad Eustochium.  disputing with certain Heretics touching three Hypostases, and one Nature in God, and they contemning the authority and custom of Christ's universal Church therein, was compelled to recall them only to the Scriptures, terming the Scripture in this Controversy, Arbiter, and Index; but in what doth this testimony (much insisted upon by our Adversaries) disadvantage us, since we here see the reason, why Basil appealed to the Scripture? Again, what ●●●ation is this? Basil thought that the doctrine of three Hypostase and ●ne Nature in God, was expressly proved out of the Scripture; Therefore he thought, that all other points of our faith necessarily to be believed, have their express proof in the Scripture, without the Church's authority interposed in the exposition thereof. Inconsequently and unschollerlikely concluded.  
5. Fourthly, the Father's teaching, that the proof of the Church's authority is evicted from Scripture (as is elsewhere showed) and they also acknowledging, that the Church is to judge of all Controversyes of faith and religion, do thereupon, and only by reason of this inference, sometimes in their writings affirm, that the Scripture judgeth sufficiently of all Controversyes, not meaning, that the Scripture immediately of itself, is inappealably to determine of all articles and doubts of religion (as our Adversaries calumniously pretend) but that it may be said so to do, because the Scripture proveth to us the infallible authority of that (to wit, the Church) and remitteth us to the same, which hath power definitively to end all Controversies. In this sense we find, that 
(i) Lib. count 2 ep. Pel●g. l. 3 c. 4.  Augustine teacheth, that every Controversy is in some sort sufficiently proved out of Scripture; meaning, Mediante authoritate Ecclesiae, Through the means of the authority of the Church: which authority for the last resolution of doubts of faith is most sufficiently and abundantly proved from the Scripture. Other like sentences of this nature concerning the fullness of Scriptures (but ever to be understood by the mediation of the Church's authority) are to be found in 
(k) Tom 3. contra julianum.  Cyrill 
(l) Epist. 5. ad suos discipulos.  Clemens the first Pope, and in some other Fathers.  
6. A second branch, whereunto other obscure testimonies of the Fathers (usually urged by our Sectaryes for the patronising of the Scriptures sole judge) may be addressed, 
(m) De doctrine Christ. l. 2 c. 9  is drawn from the perfection, which the Fathers seem to ascribe to the Scripture; in regard of which perfection they yield to it a great sufficiency for several respects and ends, though our adversary's most fraudulently omitting the scope and drift of such sayings, will needs wrest this sufficiency, as intended of the Scriptures sufficiency for the immediate and final determining of all Controversyes in faith whatsoever, without any restraint or exception. Sometimes therefore the Father's meaning is to show, that the Scripture is sufficient to prove expressly the chiefest Articles of our belief, and of which every man is bound to have an explicit and clear knowledge: such are the articles contained in the Creed, and those Sacraments, which are more necessary; which kind of sufficiency we also admit. In this sense Augustine writeth (as the contexture of the passages there do show) that, what points concern our faith are clearly to be found in the Scripture: another like saying of the said Father, and to be thus expounded, is found in Tract. 49. in joannem.  
7. The Fathers at other times do teach, that the Scripture is of that perfection, that the certainty of the truth of it, in regard of itself alone (though not in respect of us) is sufficiently proved from itself, without the help of any other probation, as being penned by them, who were immediately assisted by the holy Ghost. In this sense Athanasius 
(n) Contra Gentiles in exordio.  calleth the Scripture, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Scripturas sufficientes. Iren●us 
(o) Lib. 2. c. 47.  in like sort saith, that Scripturae perfectae sunt, The Scriptures are perfect; and then immediately followeth this reason: Quip à verbo Dei & spiritu eius dictae, Because they are indicted by the word of God and the holy Ghost: The Fathers also are in their writings accustomed to ascribe a great perfection to the Scripture for recording such miracles of Christ, by the which he is sufficiently proved to be the son of God (which is the general doctrine also of the Catholics) which testimonies our Sectaryes are not ashamed to allege in proof of the Scriptures fullness for warrant of any article of Religion whatsoever. Thus we find that 
(p) In joan. l 12. c. 68  Cyrill writing of the miracles of our Lord saith (with reference to the words of S. john The number of our Lords miracles were great, yet those, which are related, Sufficiunt ad plenissimam fidem attente legentibus faciendam, meaning that they were sufficient to prove, that Christ was the son of God and Saviour of mankind.  
9 Lastly the Fathers acknowledge in their writings mostfully, that the perfection of Scripture is such, as that it is sufficient to dissuade man from vice, and persuade him to virtue; a point which we all willingly grant, both in regard of the ten Commaundments expressly set down (which every one is obliged to observe) as also by reason of many most eminent and remarkable examples of virtue and vice, recorded in the Scripture, and the inestimable rewards promised to the virtuous, & the most dreadful comminations and threats thundered against the wicked. Now of this sufficiency Theophilact speaketh in c. 2. ad Tim. 3. where he saith, that the Scripture is of force to make,  nihil bonorum desit homini Dei, That no virtue be wanting in the man of God, & the same interpretation, a place Authoris 
(q) In Mat. 22. hom. 41.  imperfecti, admitteth. And here now by these short explications it appeareth, that none of these former passages of the Fathers (whether they concern the perfection or sufficiency of the written word either in regard of exhortation to virtue, or of demonstrating Christ to be the Son of God, or of proving the Scriptures certainty from it own worth and dignity alone, or finally of expressly containing the chiefest Articles of our belief) can in any sort prejudice our Catholic doctrine handled in this discourse, and therefore the wrong of our Adversaries towards their followers is the greater, in seeking to abuse their ignorance and credulity by such idle and trifling allegations.  
9 The third and last head of those misapplyed sentences of the Fathers in this question, doth concern the perspicuity of the Scripture, which word is not here to be taken in that sense, as if the Fathers taught, that the Scripture were in itself absolutely so easy, perspicuous, and clear, as that (without the help of the Church's authority in the exposition thereof) every illiterate and mechanical fellow were able to judge of the true sense thereof, and consequently by the only means of it to determine & end all Controversies: for they fully acknowledged it to be as (Ezechiel 
(r) Ezech. 2.  styled it) The enroled volume written within and without, as also to be, that hidden book, described by the Evangelist 
(s) Apoc. 5.  to be clapsed with seven seals. But their meaning herein is, that the Scripture is perspicuous in two constructions.  
10. First that the histories, similitudes, & other matters of fact recorded in the Scripture, as also some principle Articles of our belief are there clearly and perspicuously set down: But what is this to convince that the Scripture is in general easy for the truth of any abstruse, speculative and dogmatic point, or article of Faith whatsoever.  
11. Of this first manner S. Austin 
(t) lib. de operibus monac. c. 9  speaketh, when he saith, that the Scripture is most perspicuous and clear to prove (which no man denyeth) that Christ ordained, that those who did preach the Gospel, should be maintained by the Gospel; and thereupon showing, that this is clearly and evidently set down in the Scripture, he thus writeth; Quid hoc apertiùs? quid clariùs? That the Fathers do in like sort sometimes restrain this evidency & clearness of the Scripture to some chief articles of Christian Religion, appeareth (as afore I have showed) that they in like sort attribute a perfection and sufficiency of the written word of God to the same end. Thus doth Irenaeus 
(u) lib. ● cap. 46.  writing against certain Infidels (denying that there was one only God) affirm, that for the proof of this verity: Vniversae Scripturae & propheticae & Apostolicae &c. The whole Scriptures both Prophetical & Apostolical are evident, & without any ambiguity: Which words being spoken only of that particular point, hurteth us nothing at all: Yet our Sectaries slight in depraving the Father's wrytinges, is such, as what words are spoken for the perspicuity of the Scripture for one only article, they shame not to stretch them, as spoken in proof of all.  
12. The second sense or construction of the Father's words touching the perspicuity of the written word, is, that the Scripture is clear and evident, in that it doth illuminate and enlighten the mind of the reader, understanding the Scripture (a verity which we acknowledge, as elsewhere is showed) as it is explained by the spirit of God, which spirit speaketh in the voice of his Church. And in this sense (to omit the like sentences of diverse other Fathers) Epiphanius 
(x) Contra Aetium l. 3. tom. 2.  writeth, that in the Scripture omnia lucida sunt, all things are clear, in conceiving this clearness (as I said before) only in respect of the mind, which by truly understanding the Scripture is enlightened, cleared, and much freed from all spiritual darkness and ignorance.  
13. To the former two senses, wherein the Fathers do call the Scripture perspicuous, clear, and facile, I will add a third reason, which moved them sometimes so to call them. This is taken from a certain abuse of the common sort of people in those times, who framing to themselues a greater difficulty in the Scripture then there is, altogether forbore the reading of it, and in place thereof gave themselves (more than was convenient) to the beholding of profane spectacles and sights. Now, to bereave the people of this abuse and negligence, and the sooner to invite them to the reading and hearing of God's word, the Fathers thought good, in an Oratory and amplifying manner to suggest to them an easiness of the Scripture. This course S. Chrysostome in diverse of his homilies and sermons took, the sooner thereby (as is said) to win the people to the reading of God's holy word, as in joan. homil. 1. in Thesal. 2. homil. 3. With the same intention doth Athanasius 
(y) In Epist. ad Ephes. c. 6.  relate to the people the facility of the Scripture. And thus fare of the Father's supposed defence and maintaining of our Sectaries Doctrine in this question of the Scriptures sole judge: where we see, that though the places urged by our adversaries out of their writings, at the first sight, seem to carry a fair and specious gloss or grain, yet being after fully weighed and considered, they give no satisfaction (for proof of what they were alleged) to a perfect and true judgement, being like unto those flowers, which best pleasing the eye, do commonly lest please the smell.   

The like difficulty of the Scriptures, confessed by our Adversaries. CAAP. IX.  
ALTHOUGH our Adversaries do usually pretend the easiness of the Scriptures (and therefore do obtrude it as sole judge and Umpire) thereby to avoid the grave and pressing authorities of the Counsels, Fathers, and the practice of God's universal Church, urged in any controversial point between us and them; yet sometimes diverse of them can be content, both in their actions and words (so forcible is Truth, as that she can extort sufficient testimony even from her own enemies) to acknowledge the Scriptures obscurity, as containing in itself a janus of construction, the sense looking one way, the letter another.  
2. And first concerning their actions crossing this their Assertion; if there were such perspicuity in them, as the Protestants do bear their followers in hand, why have our adversaries themselves laboured so much in explaining the said Scriptures? Why hath Luther, Caluin, Beza, and others written several books in paraphrazing & illustrating of them? Or why have they made so many different translations of them? And if the Scriptures be hard and difficult, why do they with such obstinate pertinacity maintain the contrary? So illustrious this verity is, concerning the Scriptures intricate hardness, as that our adversaries own labours and actions do convince their own error therein.  
3. Now to come to the second point, which is, how themselves do write thereof expressly at unawares, as if they had forgotten, what at other times they had taught with such fervorous obstinacy: Luther 
(a) In praefat. in Psalm.  himself (although the Daystar of the Ghospels' light) confesseth, that neither he nor any other, is able to understand the psalms of David in their true and propersense. Yea he speaketh more generally saying; 
(b) Ibidem infra.  Scio esse impudentissimae temeritatis etc. I acknowledge it to be a sign of most shameless temerity and rashness, for any man to profess, that he truly understandeth in all places, but any one book of the Scriptures.  
4. Chemnitius 
(c) Examen 4. sess Concil. Trident.  affirms, that the Church is now endued with the gift of interpreting the Scriptures, in such sort as in it first times, it enjoyed the gift of doing miracles, to wit, that neither the one nor the other, was granted to every particular man, but only to some persons elected theerto by God. Brentius 
(d) In Cofess. Wittember.  (who at other times freeth the Scriptures from all difficulties) is forced to dismaske himself, and to confess thus in the end: Non est obscurum etc. It is manifest, that the gift of interpreting the Scriptures, is a gift of the holy Ghost, and not of humane wisdom, & that the holy Ghost therein is free, and not tied to any certain kind of men, but bestoweth this gift, as best seemeth unto him. The Magdeburgenses 
(e) Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. col. 52.  do plainly grant, that the Apostles themselues were of opinion, that the holy Scriptures could not be truly understood without the help of the holy Ghost, as an interpreter. Neither shall we find this Doctrine strange among our home-born Sectaries, since D. Field 
(f) l. 4. c. 15.  (a late appearing Comet in our Protestants sky) doth thus say; There is no question, but that there are many difficulties of the holy Scriptures, proceeding partly from the high and excellent nature of things therein contained, which are without the compass of natural understanding, and so are hidden from natural men etc. partly out of the ignorance of tongues, and of nature of such things, by the comparison whereof, the matters of divine knowledge are manifested unto us.  
5. And now, if after the voluntary acknowledgement of so many markable Protestants in this point, any of them would seek to retire back, and recall all what they have said, by teaching, that though they grant some passages of God's word to be hard and difficult, yet those places, being compared with other like sentences & texts, receive from thence a clear and plain explication. Yet this refuge of theirs is of no strength; the reason hereof being, because as any one text in Controversy is doubtful, and capable of diverse constructions, so likewise are the other places and testimonies of Scripture as ambiguous in sense and interpretation, wherewith the said text is to be conferred, and by which conference it is to receive it illustration. And thus we see by experience, that the doubt of any one place of Scripture is often more increased by that means (to wit by conference of texts) by the which it was first hoped to have been extinguished. And therefore the former English Doctor 
(g) l 19▪  pronounceth of the weakness of this answer in this sort: We confess, that neither conference of places, nor the consideration of the Antecedentia and consequentia, nor looking into the originals, are of any force, unless we find the things, which we conceive to be understood and meant in the places interpreted, to be consonant to the rule of faith.  
6. And thus much concerning the difficulty of the Scriptures acknowledged by the plain testimonies & confessions of our adversary's themselues (though at other times impugning the truth herein) which point we are the less to marvel at, if we remember that it proceedeth through his will and permissions, who commanded 
(h) 2. Cor. 4.  the light to shine out of darkness, and can cause truth to be confirmed by the maintainers of falsehood.   

The insufficiency of the Scripture, for the determining of points of faith, discovered by force of Reason. CHAP. X.  
MANY arguments might be produced from reason, for the confirming of this verity, but I here content myself with some few of the chiefest. And first, if our adversary's Position were true, concerning the Scriptures being judge of our faith, then must they understand hereby either their whole Canon and body of Scriptures taken jointly together, or else every particular book thereof, as it is considered by itself alone. Not this later, both because it would follow, that if any one book alone were a competent judge of all articles of our faith, that then all the other parcels of Scripture were superfluous and needles, which were most profane to imagine; As also in that, every particular Gospel, or any such part thereof, doth omit many chief articles of our Faith, without any mention had of them at all; And thus we find that the Annunciation, the Nativity, the Circumcision of our Lord (besides many other points) are not as much as once touched in S. john's Gospel; in like sort neither doth S. Matthew mention the Circumcision, nor S. Mark the Presentation.  
2. Now, our Adversary's Doctrine herein is no more iustisiable, if they will here understand the whole body of all the Canonical books of Scripture, jointly considered together, to be this judge (which assertion they for the most part maintain;) And the reason thereof is this; In that diverse Canonical and undoubted parcels (even by the Protestants acknowledgement) of both the old and the new testament, have been lost for the space of 1500. years, and never yet found again: And therefore it inevitably followeth, that if all the sacred books of Scripture taken together should be this judge, and that diverse of them for so many Centuries and ages have been, and still are lost; that then during so long a time, we never enjoyed a sufficient and competent judge, and such a one, as was proportionable to that faith left to us by the Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists; but in lieu thereof we have had a maimed, imperfect, and defective judge. Which to affirm, were to impugn God's care and providence, which he beareth towards his Church.  
3. Now, that diverse parcels of both the Testaments have perished, it is most clear, and our Adversaries cannot deny it. And first touching the new Testament, it appeareth out of the Epistle to the Colossians, 
(a) c. ule.  that Saint Paul wrote an Epistle to them of Laodiced, which neither we nor the ancient Fathers have proved ever to have been extant since the Apostles tyme. In like sort S. Paul may seem to intimate in his first Epistle to the Corinthians 
(b) cap. 5.  in these words; Scripsi vobis in epistola etc. that before the writing of the said Epistle, he had written to them another Epistle; and yet we cannot find, that the Church ever had any such Epistle.  
4. Now, it is no less clear, that diverse parts of the old Testament have been, and are as yet lost, at least for the said former space of tyme. And to omit the testimonies of S. Chrysostome 
(c) Hom. 9 in Matth. & hom. 7. in prior. ad Corinth.  affirming so much, we read in the books of Kings, 
(d) 3. Reg. 4.  that Solomon wrote many Parables and verses, which now we have not; for thus there it is said: Locutus est Salomon tria millia Parabolarum, & fuerunt carmina eius quinque millia: After the same manner we find it also registered of David 
(f) Paralip. vlt.  in these words: Gesta autem Dauid priora & novissima scripta sunt in libro Samuel Videntis, & in libro Nathan Prophetae, atque in volumine Caiad Videntis. All which wrytinges hear mentioned are neither at this present, nor have for many former ages been extant in God's Church: So clear thus we see it is, by the force of this argument, that the Scripture neither as it is wholly taken together, nor severally by particular books, can be the judge for the determining of all doubts of faith.  
5. Another reason for the incompetency of the Scripture as judge, may be taken from the nature of a judge (as is else where touched) constituted in every well governed Common wealth. For it clear, that every judge first ought to be able of his own authority to take notice of the Contentions and Controversies rising in the state. Secondly, he must have power by interpreting the law to give his censure against the party offending. Lastly, he is to compel and force the delinquents to obedience under the pain of fevere punishments. None of which points can be effected, except there be (besides the written law) a visible judge. Seeing then (by application of what is here said to our present purpose) that the Scripture cannot of itself take notice of Controversies rising in matters of religion, nor evidently declare to the Litigants the true meaning of such passages, of itself warranting or condemning the points in question; nor finally can constrain the adverse party to relinquish his errors impugned by the written Word, (as we find by the daily experience of Heretics flying to the Scripture as judge;) Therefore it is most perspicuous, that the Scripture cannot be erected as a competent judge in the decision of articles of faith among Christians.  
6. Neither is it any satisfiable answer to reply, that God himself seethe all Contentions in doubts of faith, and in some sort by means of the Scripture pronounceth his sentence in condemnation of the heresies impugned. This (I say) is not sufficient, and the reason hereof is, because God doth not so evidently deliver his sentence by the mediation of the Scripture, as the party convinced thereby will acknowledge it for his sentence; And consequently if the question should be, whether the Scripture be the word of God or not, God could not clearly give his judgement only by the help of Scripture. Therefore it followeth, that we must have a visible judge, and such as his final decrees being once manifested, the party maintaining his errors, will acknowledge them (as they proceed from the judge, whether justly or injustly) to be clearly and evidently condemned by the said judge, which we see falleth not out in obtruding the Scripture; for it is observed, that the Anabaptist or any other acknowledged heretic, will never confess his heresies to be impugned by the Scripture, or himself condemned thereby.  
7. And of the like feebleness is that other answer of some hereto, who (courteously) do grant, that there may be acknowledged indeed an external public judge of all doubts in religion, meaning the general voice of god's Church; but yet this judge (teach they) is limited in it definitions, and not absolutely infallible, but only so fare forth, as it treadeth the tract and path of Gods written word, and which declining from thence, runneth headlong into certain deviations, & byways of most foul● errors.  
8. This answer salueth not the doubt: for once granting a true judge, it followeth, that this judge (though depending of God) is to have authority in compounding of Controversies absolutely infallible. And the reason hereof is this: for if his authority were not infallible, then might it be inferred, (an absurditity little sorting to the sweet providence of God) that the whole Church by force of such a delegated authority to it by God himself, might be led into a general error; since even moral Philosophy and the light of reason assure us, that granting a Magistrate (who may err) to have public authority in his censures and decrees, then are the subjects or inferior persons (who are interressed in the said definitions) bond to embrace those errors. Which if they were not obliged to do, than should it follow, that the Magistrates state were no better in defining, than the subjects, since they were not bound to stand to the censure of their judge, but only when they did know his sentence to be evidently most true; and consequently it might be likewise inferred, that the Magistrate hath no power at all in defining; and yet all Philosophy instructeth us, that even in a point doubtful, where it is not evident the opinion of the judge to be clearly false, the persons acknowledging obedience to the judge are (in regard of the former reasons) obliged to follow his doubtful definition, though perhaps erroneous.  
9 To the former reason may be adjoined this following (as is also afore touched;) That even the light of reason teacheth us, that every judge in any Court of Controversies ought to be such, as all contending parties without exception may for the appeasing of their debates, have easy access unto him. Which access is found to be in the Church, but not in the Scripture: from which it avoidable followeth, that the Scripture cannot be this judge, whereunto each man is to repair; but that the church may be, and is the said judge. That every man at his pleasure, may come to the Church for resolution of doubts, we see it is evident by the practice of all ages.  
10. But on the contrary part, every man that maintaineth different points of faith, hath not this freedom of coming to the Scripture for decision of his doubts: for first there are diverse Christians, who cannot as much as read the Scripture, much less understand it; how can such men than expect to have their Controversies touching religion to be determined by the written word alone? And as touching those others who can read, yet is their cause little bettered thereby, seeing many by their reading of the Scripture, do strangely detort the true sense thereof. Yea we may observe, that diverse Novellistes of different religions, who are daily conversant in the Scriptures, endeavour even from the self same passages of it, by their false constructions, to fortify their repugnant Doctrines. And thus though the voice of the holy Ghost in the written word, and the letter there read be but one, yet through each man's selfelike expositions, it seemeth to speak, as every man would have it; by this means making the Scripture to be like unto the tongue of S. Peter & other the Apostles, which being but one, was notwithstanding heard in every man's several language.  
11. Another argument for the convincing of this supposed judge, may be drawn from the Doctrine of Traditions, which have ever been maintained by the ancient Fathers and the primitive Church. Which Doctrine if it be true, then may we most consequently deduce from thence, that the Scripture is not to judge all questions of Faith, since the Doctrine of unwritten Traditions teacheth us, that all the articles and points of Christian Religion, have not their express proof out of the Scriptures; but that some of them are believed only by force of Tradition, and of the continued and uninterrupted practise of God's Church. To enter into any exact proof of this point of Traditions is improper to this place, and would require a reasonable large Treatise alone; and therefore I remit the Reader to such Catholic writers 
(g) Hofi●e in 4. l. adversely. Prolegomena Brentij. Peresius initio operis sui do Traditionib. Roffensis, Canisius, Bellarmin, besides many others.  as have most learnedly handled this, subject. Only I will here set down (and consequently prove the said Doctrine à posteriori) certain points of Christian Faith, which have no clear and convincing proofs out of Scriptures, and yet are believed no less by the Protestant's themselves, then by us Catholics.  
12. And first against the anabaptists, both the Catholics, Lutherans and Caluinistes do believe, that the baptism of Infants is lawful, and that they are not to be rebaptised after they come to ripeness of age, which point (as D. Field acknowledgeth, terming it a Tradition) can never be sufficiently and clearly proved by the Scriptures alone, without the testimony of the practice of the church, and force of Tradition, as appeareth by the testimonies of the ancient Fathers; for we find, that Origen thus speaketh hereof in c. 6. epist. ad Rom. Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem accepit, etiam paruulis baptismum dare. In like sort Austin l. 10. de Genesi ad literam, c. 23. Consuetudo matris Ecclesiae in baptizandis paruulis nequaquam spernenda, & nec omnino credenda est, nisi Apostolica esset Traditio.  
13. D. Bancroft teacheth, that Confirmation is an Apostolical Tradition, as appeareth in his conference before the King. All we, do believe that our blessed Lady died a Virgin, & do account Heluidius an Heretic for holding the contrary; and yet no text of Scripture doth confirm it to us, but rather through misconstruction may seem to insinuate the contrary in regard of those words: Non cognovit virum, donec peperit filium suum.  
14. D. Whitguift 
(h) In his defence. pag. 539.  acknowledgeth, that now, during the time of the new Testament, we are to celebrate Easter upon Sunday (contrary to the custom of the jews) a point of such moment even in the primitive Church, that the maintainers of the contrary were then reputed for Heretics, and styled 
(i) Epiph. haeres. 50. Aug. haeres. 29. Tertul. de prescript.  Quartadecimani. And yet for this change of observing Easterday we have no warrant from the holy Scriptures, but may say with Tertullian: 
(k) De corona militis.  quod non prohibetur, ultrò permissum est. D. Covel in his book of examination teacheth the word Archbishop to be a Tradition. M. Hooker in his Eccles. polic. sect. 7. p. 118. in general defendeth the Doctrine of Traditions, and answereth diverse testimonies out of the Fathers alleged by Carthwright, and others.  
15. Again both Catholics and Protestants do believe, that there are certain divine wrytinges, which are the true and undoubted word of God, and first penned by the holy Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists: Yet we cannot convincingly and demonstratively prove so much out of the Scriptures themselves; which point since it includeth within itself by necessary illation this question of the Scriptures being judge, it shallbe more fully discussed in the Chapter following. Now of this point, as also of the former, believed without the written word warranting them, we may say: Harum 
(*) Tertull. de corona ●ilitis.  discipl●narum Traditio tibi praetenditur auctrix, Consuetudo confirmatrix, & Fides obseruatrix.  
16. The last argument here urged for the refelling of our adversary's Doctrine herein, may be taken from the practice of both the ancient & modern heretics, who ever for the warranting of their heresies (heresies I mean even in the judgement of our adversaries) have ever fled to the Scriptures, and have most seriously taught, (thereby to avoid the authority of the Church) that the Scriptures alone aught to judge & define all doubts of Faith whatsoever. And therefore to the end, that the reader may see, what wicked heresies have been proseminated, and have sprung from this so false and heretical a principle, I will exemplify this one point somewhat at large in a Chapter following, there showing how many devilish heresies have been countenanced by their Patroness, with the misapplyed testimonies and authorities of the holy Scriptures; which abuse of the Scriptures well showeth, that the Doctrine hereof never proceeded from God; 
(l) Tertull. de fuga in persecut.  Quid divinum non bonum? quid bonum non divinum?   

That it cannot be determined to us by Scripture, that there is any Scripture, or God's word at all. CAAP. XI.  
FOR the more particular handling of this point, I am to demand of our adversaries these three things following, which are (as it were) the three steps, whereby we rise to the gradual difficulties of this question here entreated of. First, how they can prove out of Scripture the particular Gospel of S. Mark, or of any Evangelist, to be the same, without all corruption, which the said Mark, or the other did write? considering that it is granted, even by our adversaries, that diverse parcels of the Scriptures have been foully corrupted and mangled by the Additions, Translations, and other such like depravations of the ancient heretics. Secondly, if it be granted them, that any one Gospel, or other part of Scripture, is the very same untouched and undefiled, as the author thereof did first write it; yet if we should demand of them, how the Scripture can assure and determine this point, to wit, that such a Gospel (as for example that of S. Mark) is true and Canonical Scripture, and yet that the obtruded Gospel of S. Thomas is a false & profane writing, since both these gospels have indifferently in the beginning their several prefixed titles, the one but of an Evangelist, & yet accepted, the other even of an Apostle, but rejected; what could they say? Thirdly if it were agreed upon, which were the particular books, which makes up the Canon of Scripture, yet if any profane Atheist should arrive to that height of impiety, as to deny flatly, that there were any such divine wrytinges at all, as to be counted Gods sacred word or Scripture; how could our Adversaries convince him herein by the Scripture itself? It were idle for them to reply, that the Scripture telleth him, that the books of the Prophets and the Apostles are divine wrytinges, since the Atheist would not believe the Scripture so saying, until it were proved to him (which cannot be out of the Scripture) that this Scripture (affirming so much) is Scripture, that is, a divine, supernatural and sacred writing; no more than at this present, we Christians believe that the jews Thalmud is divine Scripture, though it be countenanced with the title of God's undoubted word.  
2. This point so presseth our Adversaries, that diverse of them (& such as are of no mean rank) have been forced to confess, that it cannot be proved out of Scripture, that there is any Scripture at all; neither that this Gospel is true, that forged; nor lastly that we now enjoy any one, or other parcel of Scripture, free from all manner of corruption, and as the Prophet, Evangelist, or Apostle, guided by the holy Ghost, did first pen it. Hence it is that Chemnitius 
(a) Examen Concil. Trident. entreating of Tradition.  & Brentius 
(b) In prolegomenis.  do teach, that this one sole unwritten Tradition remaineth in the Church of God: to wit, that there are certain divine writings or Scriptures. But Hooker 
(c) In his treatise of Ecclesiastical policy.  in treating of this point, passeth on further, and jumpeth with us in the reason thereof, for thus he saith: Of things necessary, the very chiefest is, to know what books we are bound to esteem holy, which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture itself to teach. And then afterwards he warranteth his Doctrine with this reason: For if any books of Scripture did give testimony unto all, yet still that Scripture, which giveth credit unto the rest, would require another Scripture to give credit unto it: neither could we ever come to any pause, whereon to rest our assurance this way; so that unless besides Scripture, there were something, which might assure us that we do well, we could not think we do well, no not in being assured, that Scripture is a sacred and holy rule of welldoing. So fare we see this learned Protestant (whose calamity is the more to be deplored, in that retaining diverse Catholic grounds, he forbore to build a faith answer able thereto) was from making the Scripture to be the sole judge and umpire of all articles of Faith, since by his Doctrine the Scripture could not determine out of itself, that there is any Scripture at all, which is the Basis, or foundation of the rest, by our adversary's own assertions.  
3. Others of our adversaries, who will not acknowledge the truth in this point, labour to salve the matter with diverse weak and insufficient answers. And first we find that Caluin 
(d) l. 1. Instit. c. 7. §. 1. & 2.  saith: That the true and holy Scriptures are discerned from the false and profane, with the same facility that light is discerned from darkness, and sweetness from bitterness. Which answer if it were true, how came it to pass then, that Luther rejecteth the Epistle of S. james, which Caluin himself reverenceth as Apostolical, both of them being able to discern the material light from darkness & the sweet from sour?  
4. The same Caluin, whom our more modern Sectaries in most points do follow, as beasts follow the first of their herd, affirmeth also: That the majesty & voice of God doth so present itself to us in the sacred Scriptures, as that it secureth us of the infallible truth thereof. Against which, first I urge, that the Majesty & voice of God speaking in the Scripture is not distinguished from the Scripture itself, but is the same; even as the Commandment of a Prince expressed in his law, is the same which his law is. Secondly, that we cannot be assured, whether this representation of the Majesty, voice, or authority of God speaking in the Scriptures, be but a mere illusion of the devil, or some vehement apprehension of our own fancy; which may well be doubted of, considering that all our adversaries will avouch (no doubt) the Majesty of God in those books, which they acknowledge for divine Scripture; and yet we see by the example above, that one of them seems to find the authority and Majesty of God in such a book, which himself acknowledgeth, the which another of his brethren for want of the same Majesty utterly rejecteth. Again, let our adversaries yield some sufficient reason (if they can) to assure us, that there appeareth a greater Majesty of God in those books of Scripture, which they all jointly acknowledge for Canonical, then in those others, which the Catholics do receive, and themselves reject.  
5. Others (among whom is also Caluin 
(e) Inst. 1. c. 7. §. 5.  for he is most various and irresolute in saluing this difficulty) to answer the former doubt, come finally to this point (which indeed is the Centre of all their answers) to wit, that God giveth to the elect and faithful that inspiration or illumination of spirit, as that thereby, they are made able to discern, which is the true word of God, & which is forged, & adulterated; & consequently that they are assured, that there are certain divine writings left to his Church: And thus they fly to the private spirit already refuted. To this ten our D. Field 
(f) l. 4. c. 8.  thus saith: After we are enlightened by the spirit, we do no longer trust either our own judgement, or the judgement of other men, that the Scriptures are of God, but above all certainty of humane judgement we do certainly resolve, as if in them we saw the Majesty and glory of God. Thus we see, how our adversaries not resting themselves upon any firm resolution, but replying now this, now that, and so running in and out, are most fare from satisfying the difficulty here propounded, with these their Meandrian, and winding evasions.  
6. Now, the weakness of this last answer is discovered several ways, and first (besides all those reasons and arguments above urged in refutation of the private spirit) in that, if they be demanded to prove, how they are assured of this supernatural illumination, they endeavour to prove it out of the Scriptures; since they cannot say, it is believed for itself, seeing it then would follow (contrary to their own ground) that something is to be believed, which hath not his proof in Scripture. And if again they be required to prove, that there are Scriptures, they allege for proof thereof this their illumination: which kind of reasoning every young Logician knoweth to be a vicious circulation; since both these several points (to wit the certainty of the Scriptures, and the certainty of their illumination) may be questioned doubted of alike by them, with whom they are to deal. Secondly, the former answer is insufficient, in that this their supernatural inspiration (whereby they discern the Scriptures) is nothing else but an Act of Faith, and as it seems, is so acknowledged to be by D. Field 
(g) lib. 4. cap. 13. , who calleth it: Apotentiall hability, the light of divine understanding, and the light of grace; all which things are included in Faith: and therefore our Adversaries do generally teach, that the illumination of this spirit belongeth to all the faithful. Now we know that it is their own ground and principle, that Faith riseth only out of the Scriptures.  
7. These two things then being thus, by the Protestants assertions (to wit, that this illumination is an act of Faith, and that Faith proceedeth only from the Scriptures) I see not, that it can be possibly conceived, how this their illumination of Faith, which is later, both tempore & naturâ, than the Scriptures, as proceeding (by their Doctrine) from reading and giving credit to the said Scriptures, should be the means and guide to direct them in discerning, that there is any Scripture at all, or which is the true word of God, and which Apocryphal, and profane; since they ought to have this illumination, before they begin to censure & judge of the Scriptures. And thus far concerning this question, whether the Scripture is able to prove, that there is Scripture. And since it cannot, it consequently followeth, that it cannot be the judge of our faith, in that (besides it is an Article of our Faith, that there is Scripture) it is not able to prove that from which (by our Adversary's Doctrine) all the rest is derived.   

That Heresies in all ages have been maintained by the supposed warrant of Scripture. CHAP. XII.  
NATURE (the seal of Almighty God impressed in these Elementary bodies) is not only endued with a generative power, thereby to eternize or perpetuate herself; but hath withal this annexed privilege; to wit, that every individual body which is produced, beareth a great resemblance, as we see both in man, and other creatures (if so the secondary causes be not found defective) to that body, by the which it was begotten. And this secret or mystery of producing the like to itself, is extended even to arts and sciences; hence it proceedeth, that in Logic (the artificial refiner of reason) true Propositions ever beget true Conclusions, and out of false premises result false and erroneous illations. Neither doth this ground rest here, but passeth further, it being in like sort justifiable in all general Axioms and principles, which are the Basis, or foundation of any Doctrine; which Principles being true, good, and expedient, then must all that, which as necessary effects are engendered thereby, be of the same nature. But if they be false, wicked and pernicious, the rest then, which is builded thereupon, participateth of the same quality. So as to take a Synopsis, or view in general of the state or nature of such grounds and principles, it shallbe sufficient (without recurring particularly to them) only to rest in the speculation of such propositions & other points of Doctrine, which thence do deseend, and are (as it were) propagated by them.  
2. Now than it being thus, that we are able to glass the Fathers look in the child's face, the premises in the conclusion, and the causes in the effects; I doubt not, but whosoever will call to mind some few of those blasphemous and wicked heresies, which have been engendered, hatched, and nourished by this Principle and ground: That the Scripture interpreted by the private spirit, is the true and sole judge of Controversies; will at length have just reason to pronounce, that the said heresies are the deformed and prodigious brood of so ugly and monstrous a parent, since there was never yet any heresy but it could support itself for the time, by misconstruction of Scripture. And therefore no marvel if every Sectary did so much covet to make his refuge to God's sacred word: Hoping that in this sort (by disclaiming from all other proofs whatsoever) he was able so to varnish over his heresies, with some misapplyed and forced texts thereof, as that to a credulous and mistaking eye, the grain of them should appear most fair, specious and regardable.  
3. But let us particularise this point in some few examples: who knoweth not that the Arians 
(a) Teste. Epiphan. haeres. 69.  who laboured to overthrew in effect the whole frame and Systema of Christian Religion, by teaching that Christ was not God, did with this their blasphemy invade, and overrun whole countries, through the supposed warrant of many texts of the holy Scriptures, themselves still perverting the sense thereof? He that doubteth of this, let him consider the texts here 
(b) Pater maior me est. joan. 14. & 18. Descendi de caelo, non ut faciam voluntatem meam, sed eius qui misit me. joan. 6. ut agnoscant te solum ve●um Deum, & quem misisti Iesum Christum joan. 17. Nobis autem unus est Deus Pater. 1. Cor. 18. vide etiam 1. Cor. c. 15. & 1. Tim. 2. & Act. 2.  noted in the margin which they (among many other like places) alleged. So shall he grant that these heretics pressed Scripture against him, who is the author of Scripture. In like sort Eutiches 
(c) Apud Leonem epist. Flaviani, & epist. Leon● 97.  who taught, that our Saviour had but a fantastical and imputative body, through the conversion of his divinity into his flesh, was not altogether deprived of all proofs through his misconstruction of God's 
(d) Verbun caro factum est. joan 1. As after the same phrase we read, Aqua vinum facta est. joan. 2. wherein we find the water to be made wine by a true conversion of the one into the other.  word. Nestorius' 
(e) Eu●grius l. 1. c. 2. & Theodoret. l. 4. haeret. fabularum prope finem.  the former heretics diametrical enemy in Doctrine (so easy it is for this private spirit, by misconstruction, to extract both fire and water, from one and the same word of God) so divided jesus from Christ, as that he affirmed jesus to be only pure man, and him who was borne of the blessed Virgin, and suffered death, but Christ to be the Son of God. This man neither wanted diverse passages 
(f) In similitudinem hominum factus, & habitu inventus ut homo. Phi. 2. Est sine matre, sine genealogia. Heb. 7. where Christ is thus described. Deus meus ut quid dere●quisti me? Math. 27. And else where it is ●ayd: Pater clarifica me hac hora. joan. 12. Both which sayings might be taught to be disagreeable to the form of God.  of holy Scripture interpreted by his own spirit, for the enamiling of this his execrable blasphemy.  
4. Wicliffe 
(g) Thomas Waldens. l. 2. Doctrine. Fidei. c. 81.  and Husse 
(h) as appeareth out of the Council of Constance. sessione 15.  to the great prejudice of secular Princes, taught that temporal Magistrates committing any mortal sin, did, ipso facto, cease to be Magistrates, and being in that state, might be deposed by their subjects. Which false and wicked Doctrine they were not afraid to confirm with certain usurped testimonies of God's word. The 
(i) Ipsi regnaverunt & non ex me principes extiterunt, & non cognovi: argentum & aurum suum fecerunt sibi idola, ut interimerent. Osee 8. Regnum à gente in gentem transfertur propter iniustitias. Eccles. 18.  Waldenses (Luther's Prodromi, and precursors) & the anabaptists 
(k) They are charged here with even by Caluin lib. 4. Institut. 2. 20.  would not brook, that christian Magistrates should make any laws, either to punish the wicked, or to appeal to any court of justice for redressing of wrongs; affirming, that such proceeding did take away all Christian liberty: and these fellows made in like sort the holy Scriptures 
(l) Si quis voluerit te●um iudicio contendere, & tunicam tuam tollere, da ei & pallium. Math. 5. Delictum est in vobis, quod iudicia habebitis inter nos, cur non magis fraudem patimini? quare non magis iniuriam accipitis? 1. Cor. 6. Dictum est antiquis, oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente; ego autem dico vobis non resistere malo. Math. 5. Omnes qui acceperint gladium, gladio peribunt. Math. 26. Si quis te percufferit in vn●m maxillam, praebe ei & alteram. Math. 5.  their sanctuary: So dangerously they erred herein, through a vicious affectation of overmuch patience and innocency. These (lo) & such like, are the adulterate offspring (of which I spoke afore) engendered and brought forth by that former principle of the Scriptures sole judge; sucking from the same ground (tanquam ex traduce) all that falsehood and impiery, which is found in them. In which point, we see, how solicitous and careful the chief Patroness thereof were (as it were) to legitimate them, with so many detorsions and misapplyed testimonies of Gods sacred writ. Thus have the Scriptures (through the want of the true sense) occasioned heresies, as the Sun through absence of it heat, may be said to be the cause of cold; which heresies, according to Tertullian 
(m) Tertul. de Pudicitia.  dum sunt, habent posse, & dum possunt, habent esse.  
6. And here now I would demand of our Adversaries, who acknowledge (at least in words) all the former opinions for damnable heresies, what prerogative and privilege themselves may take, whiles they make their sole recourse to the Scriptures, as the supreme judge, in defence of their late appearing faith, which the former Here●●kes may not with the like freedom, and with as just she● of reason challenge to themselves? Will they object to the former heretics want of Scripture for proof of their Doctrine? We have seen, how luxuriant and riotous (as it were) they shown to be in alleging the same for the better dogmatizing of their errors; in so much, that for justifying of some of their heresies (if we respect not the sense, but the number) they were able ●uen to vie text for text against the orthodoxal Doctrine. Will they say, they were ignorant in the primitive tongues, and used not conference of Scripture; the two acknowledged means conducing to the true understanding thereof? Concerning the first, diverse of them had some of the tongues even from their cradle; and as for the other, they were so studious and painful therein, as that they spent a great part of their life in diligent searching, comparing, and applying of several passages of the Scripture.  
6. To conclude, will they reply, that notwithstanding all this, they wanted true humility and prayer, which (they say) with the former conditions are (as it were) the Media wherein the Species of the high mysteries of faith are multiplied, before they can enter into the eye of our understanding, and consequently enjoyed not this revealing spirit, whereof themselves are assured? they would, if in their life time, they had been accused herein have laboured to have quit themselves (as well as our Sectaries do in these times) from that imputation, and would, as fully charge all other with the like wants, who should interpret the former alleged texts diversely from their constructions, and did no doubt, as boldly, when they were living, vaunt of the certainty and infallibility of their spirit, as any of our Protestants can do at this present. Seeing then, that our Adversaries, as flying to the Scriptures alone, can allege nothing in their own behalf, for the patronising of their Caluinian faith, but that the former recorded Heretics actually did, & might, as well, and as truly apply unto themselves, for the defence of their impieties: It may therefore be de●●●●red as a most certain and infallible Position, that it is impossible, and repugnant no less to the providence of God, then to natural reason itself; that truth of faith and religion (the which the Protestants profess to maintain) should be seated upon those grounds (and only those grounds) which every heresy may with the like reason and probability indifferently assume to itself.  
7. Add hereto, as a resultancy out of the whole contents of this Chapter, that seeing (as we have showed) it is the proper Scene of the Heretics, ever to fly to the Scripture (under the wings thereof to shroud their wicked Doctrines) that therefore by the Scripture they are not sufficiently condemned, and consequently that the Scripture is not the proper judge of Controversies: since no man, that this guilty of any fault, doth willingly appeal to that judge, still remaining in his former sentence, by whom he was afore clearly and evidently convicted.   

That our Adversaries do confess it to be the custom of Heretics to fly to the Scripture alone: and that therefore diverse of them do appeal to the Church, as judge. CAAP. XIII.  
BUT to end this point touching the custom of Heretics in flyeing only to Scripture, I hold two things worthy to be presented to the consideration of the discreet Reader; both which shallbe proved from the frequent acknowledgements of our Adversaries: first, that not only experience warranteth (as appeareth above from so many exemplifyed heretics) but also that our Adversaries themselves ingeniously acknowledge, that it is the custom of heretics ever the fly to the Scripture, for the patronising of their heresies. Secondly, that diverse of our learned Adversaries do absolutely abandon this course of making sole refuge to the Scripture, as holding it a course full of uncertainty, and not able to afford any secure and warrantable determining, or ending of Controversies. And touching the first (to omit the like censure of old Vincentius 
(a) Lib. adverse. haeres. printed Lugduni. 1572. Fortassealiquis interroget an Haeretici divinis Scripturae testimonijs utantut? utuntur planè & vehementer quidem: nihil unquam pene de suo proferunt, quod non etiam Scripturae verbum adunbrare conentur, sed tanto magis cau●ndi & pertimiscendi sunt.  Lyrinensis (who lived 13. hundred years since) given against the custom of the heretics of his time, and to restrain ourselves to our English Adversaries) we find, that D. Bancroft 
(b) In his survey cap. 27.  chargeth Cartwright to seem to defend his errors by the supposed warrant of only Scripture, and within the same proceeding this Doctrine includeth even Beza 
(c) Ibidem pag. 219. .  
2. M. Hooker speaking of the anabaptists, thus writeth of them: The book of God they (viz. the Anabaptists) for the most part so admired, that other disputation against their opinions, then only by allegation of Scripture, they would not hear. 
(d) In his Ecclesiast. policy in the preface.  In like sort the Brownistes 
(e) In their Apology printed 1604. pag. 103.  of Amsterdam, being confessed heretics, writing against D. Bilson, profess to fly in their disputes only to Scripture. Finally the Author of the Treatise entitled: A brief answer to certain objections against the descension of Christ into hell, printed at Oxford by joseph Barnes, reprehendeth his Adversary Protestant, in these words: Where you say, you must build your faith on the word of faith, tying us to Scripture only; you give just occasion to think, that you neither have the ancient Fathers of Christ's Church, nor their sons succeeding them, agreeing with you in this point.  
3. Now as touching the second point, it is evident, that Beza himself is produced by Hooker 
(f) In his preface to his book of Ecclesiast. policy.  (as weary of the former course, begetting nothing but uncertainty) to abandon all trial by Scripture only, and to submit himself to a lawful assembly or Council. D. Sutcliffe, 
(g) In his review of his examination of D. kellison's sur, vey printed 1606. pag. 42.  as not allowing trial by Scripture only, thus writeth: It is false, that we will admit no judge, but Scripture, for we appeal still to a lawful general Council.  
4. M. Hooker in his foresaid preface of his former book speaking of disputation and trial by Scripture only, thus discourseth: What success God may give to any such conference or disputation, we cannot tell; but we are sure of this: that nature, Scripture, and experience have all taught the world to seek (for the ending of Contentions) to submit itself unto some judicial and definitive sentence. And the same learned Protestant (as is else where alleged) showing, that the Scripture (which one question potentially containeth within itself all other questions) cannot judge, which is Scripture, thus writeth: 
(h) lib. 2. Eccles. ●olic. sect. 4. p. 162.  It is not the word of God, which can assure us, that we do well to think it is the word etc. This very point of acknowledging another judge, than the only Scripture, is taught by D. Bancroft in his sermon preached 8. Feb. anno 1588. The same also is maintained by D. Covel in his modest examination p. 108. and by D. Field in his treatise of the Church in the epistle Dedicatory to the Arcbishop, who, giving a reason of this his Doctrine, thus writeth: For seeing the Controversies of religion in our time are grown so many in number, and in nature so intricate, that few have time and leisure, strength and understanding to examine them: What remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out, which among all the Societies of men in the world is that blessed company of holy ones, that household of faith, that spouse of Christ, and Church of the living God, which is the pillar and ground of truth, that so they may embrace her communion, follow her directions, and rest in her judgements? So Catholic like we see this Doctor speaketh in this one Controversy whereon all the rest depend, and so earnestly he defendeth it with strength of reason. But to end this point: if these acknowledgements of so many of our learned Adversaries proceed from their settled judgements therein, then have we the point controverted granted by them, who should oppugn it. If calumniously they admit this Doctrine of the Church's Soveraingty in matters of lesser moment, with intention to restrain it only to such, and deny it in greater and more weighty Controversies; then are they truly interessed in the words of an ancient Father: 
(i) Tertul. contra Praxeam.  Affectavit diabolus aliquando veritatem defendendo concutere.  
6. Now the reason, why the Scripture alone (though in itself it be most reverend, certain, and infallible) doth occasion such uncertainty in the deciding of Controversies, is no less fully acknowledged by our learned Adversaries: For since it is not the show, but the sense of the word, (as Doctor Reynolds 
(k) In his conference with Hart. p. 63.  acknowledgeth) that must decide Controversies; and seeing the Scripture immediately of itself performeth not the same; as not having vivam vocem (as D. Whitaker 
(l) De sacra Scripturae p. 221.  confesseth) wherewith it speaketh, but by the help of certain means on our part to be observed: And seeing, that the means are these following, to wit: the reading of the Scriptures, the Conference of places, the weighing of Circumstances of the text, their skill in tongues, their diligence, prayer, and the like; furthermore seeing as these are generally acknowledged by our Sectaries 
(m) So teacheth D. Reynolds in his Crnference p. 83. & sequentibus. And D. Whitaker Controu. 1. q. 3. c. ●1. & q. 5. c. 10.  to be the ordinary means, so are they confessed by others of our most learned adversaries, to be but humane, and most subject to error and mistaking, as appeareth even by the example of many Protestants, who though using the former said means, have yet most foully erred (even in the judgement of their own brethren) in the interpreting of Scripture: Therefore from hence it necessarily followeth, that all private interpretation of Scripture proceeding from these means, is most ambiguous and uncertain. But to conclude this point, I will here set down D. whitaker's 
(n) Whitaker ubi supra.  inference or collection in his own words, drawn from the former premises: thus than he argueth: Look what the means (speaking of interpreting the Scripture) are, such of necessity must the interpretation be; but the means of interpreting obscure places of Scripture, are uncertain, doubtful and ambiguous; therefore it cannot otherwise be, but the interpretation must be uncertain: And if uncertain, then may it be false. Thus far the former Doctor, which shall serve for the closure of this point, and likewise of the first part of this Treatise.    

THE SECOND PART.  

That Protestants cannot agree, which Books be Scripture, and which are not. CHAP. I.  
IN the former part it being proved, that the Scripture is not the judge of Controversies, by reason of the diverse arguments there alleged: It now followeth here to be declared, that if for the time we should grant ex hypothesi, that the Scripture (as it is absolutely considered in itself) were this only and true judge, yet our Adversaries, of all sorts of Christians ever being, are most exempted from pretending it for judge, and this for three special considerations.  
2. First, because they do not agree among themselues which several books ordinarily contained within the printed volume of the Bible, are Scripture, and which are not. Secondly, in that they do not acknowledge any original copy now extant to be true and incorrupted only of such books, as they all jointly receive for Scripture; as also in that they condemn all Translations of confessed Scripture (as false and erroneous) either into Greek, Latin, or English. Thirdly, because the confessed and incorrupted Scripture more clearly maketh for the Catholics, then for our Adversaries, if we insist either in the perspicuity of the letter, or in the expositions of the Fathers, or in the implicit judgements of our Adversaries themselves. Which three points, being justified and made good (the proof whereof shall be the subject of this Part) it cannot be conceived, how they should defend (with any advantage to themselves) the Scripture to be this judge.  
3. And intending to begin with their dissensions in acknowledging or rejecting certain books of Scripture; we are first particularly and attentively to observe, that whereas all Controversies of faith are to be determined (as our Adversary's hold) by the Canonical Scripture, which is the only written word of God: And seeing they are at endless strife one with another, which is this Scripture; one acknowledging such and such books to be this sacred word, which another discanoneth as apocryphal and profane: Therefore they in no sort can pretend the Scripture to be the judge of Controversies, as not being yet resolved amongst themselves, which those books be that are to be counted within the body and Canon of holy Scripture; and consequently not agreed with themselues, which is this judge. For except this last point be first acknowledged on all sides, it followeth, that if a Lutheran against a Caluinist, or one Caluinist against another, do urge a place or text of such a book, which the one acknowledgeth to be Scripture, the other condemning it; the urging of such a place can be of no force for the judging of the question controverted; since it willbe replied, that the Canonical and true Scripture alone is to define all doubts of faith; but that book, out of which such places and texts are alleged, is no part of Gods written word, and therefore is not of authority for proof of any point.  
4. Now that our Adversaries cannot agree hitherto what books are true Scripture, and what are not, it will appear most evidently even out of their own wrytinges. And first to begin with their disagrements in opinion touching the books of the old Testament; in which point I will speak nothing of certain parts of Daniel, & of Ester, neither of the books of Toby, judith, of the book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Maccabees; since our Adversaries with a full and joint consent have thrust all these out of the Canon of the Bible (though if they be to deal with Catholics, and will needs have the Scripture only to judge of all questions, they ought to acknowledge all those books to be parcel of Scripture, which the Catholics do take for Scripture:) But I will restrain myself only to such, the which some of them do reverence as Canonical, and others reject as Apocryphal; from whence it followeth (as I said before) that, they disagreeing among themselves, what books are parts of the holy Scripture, and consequently of their supposed judge, cannot with any show of reason, maintain, that the Scripture ought to determine (at least among them) all doubts of Religion whatsoever.  
5. First then the book of job, though it be acknowledged and received by most of the Caluinistes both here in England and other Countries, yet Luther 
(a) In Conuivialibus ser. titul. de Patriarchis & Prophetis.  saith plainly, that he doth not believe all those things, which are reported therein. Nay he proceedeth so far, as that he is not ashamed to affirm: 
(b) Ibidem titul. de libris veter is & novi Testam.  That the argument thereof is a mere fiction, invented only for the setting down of a true and lively example of patience.  
6. In like sort (or rather a more scoffing manner) he saith 
(c) Ibidem titul de lib. veteris & novi Testam. , (to debase thereby the authority of the writer) that the book entitled Ecclesiastes, seems to him, to ride without spurs or boots, only with bare stockings, though the said book is generally acknowledged by the Caluinistes: With such scurrilous insolency Heresy is ever accustomed to vent itself forth, against God's saered word and truth.  
7. The book of the Canticles, which is the true portraiture or delineation of the church, or according to some, of our blessed Lady, or after others, of a perfect soul not contaminated or defiled with the pitch of mortal sin: This book Castalio 
(d) Castal. in translat. Latin. suorum bibliorum.  defends to contain only matter of sensual or wanton love; and for the same he is deeply charged and reprehended, even by Beza 
(e) Beza praefatione in joshua.  himself.  
8. The book of Baruch is in like manner condemned as Apocryphal by Caluin and Chemnitius, 
(g) In Exam. 4. sess. Concil. Trident.  though acknowledged for Canonical by most of our other Adversaries; which to be true, appeareth in that we do not find in their wrytinges (and the same may be said for the acknowledgement 
(f) l. 3. Instit. c. 20. §. 8.  of the former books condemned by some others of their brethren) that it was rejected by them. And thus much concerning the parcels of the old Testament. Now if we will cast our eyes upon our Adversary's behaviour towards the new Testament, we shall find their disagreements therein no less (if not greater) than they were in their approbation or condemnation of the books of the old Testament.  
9 And first touching the Evangelists, we read that Luther, 
(h) Praefat. in nou. Testamen. & lib. de Scripturae & Ecclesiae authorit. c. 3. & in septicipite. c. 5. ut Cocleus notat.  as soon as became a Protestant (so instantly doth the forsaking of God's holy word accompany the forsaking of his holy Church) of our four gospels would at one blow cut away three; affirming that the Gospel of S. john is the only fair and true Gospel, and by infinite degrees to be preferred before the other three; adding withal, that the general opinion of the being of the four Gospels is to be abolished; potesting further, that himself giveth more reverence and respect to the Epistles of Saint Paul and Peter, then to the other three Evangelists. Whereby we may clearly see, that he condemneth the exposition of all Antiquity, interpreting that the four Evangelists were figured in the four beasts showed to 
(i) Apoc. cap. 4.  S. john. Luther 
(k) Prolego. epist. ad Hebr.  also rejecteth the Epistle to the Hebrews, affirming it, neither to be Saint Paul's, nor any of the Apostles, since it containeth (saith he) certain things contrary to the Apostolical Doctrine. With Luther in condemning this Epistle do agree Brentius, 
(l) Confess. Wittenberg. c. de sacra Scriptura.  Chemnitius, 
(m) Exam. 4 sess. Concil. Trident.  and the Magdeburgenses 
(n) Cent. l. ●. c. 4. col. 55. : Yet Caluin, 
(o) Instit. impressa anno 1554. c. 8. § 216.  acknowledgeth it to be a true Apostolical Epistle, and condemneth the Lutherans for rejecting of it. In like sort it is received by the Caluinist Ministers 
(p) Confess. Pissiacens. artic. 3.  for Canonical in one of their public Confessions, as also by the present Church of England.  
10. The epistle of S. james is denied to be Canonical by Luther, 
(q) In prolego. huius epist.  who saith, that it is straminea epistola, an epistle of straw, and unworthy altogether an Apostolical spirit. In like sort it is condemned by Brentius, Chemnitius, and the Magdeburgenses, as appeareth out of the places of their writings alleged afore. For the disproof of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Erasmus (for the Catholics do disclaim from him, as any of theirs) saith of this Epistle, that it doth not taste of any Apostolical gravity. Yet Caluin, and the Church of England acknowledge it as a parcel of Canonical Scripture.  
11. Doth not 
(r) Annotat. in hanc epist.  Luther, Brentius, Chemnitius, and the Centurists in the places above alleged condemn in like manner the Epistle of jude, and the second Epistle of Peter? and of the second and third of john, rested they not doubtful? And Erasmus 
(s) Prolego. ad hanc epist.  saith plainly, that the second and third Epistle of john are not be taken, as his Epistles, but as written by some other man. Nevertheless Caluin receiveth all the said Epistles, and the Caluinist ministers, as appeareth in their foresaid Confession 
(t) Confession. Pissiacens. art. 3. . So doth also the Church of England: Of whose acknowledgement of all the former books condemned by Luther, see the Bible printed anno 1595. and also the last edition.  
12. To conclude, to come to the Apocalips (which Dionysius 
(u) Eccles. Hierarch. cap 3.  doth call arcanam & mysticam visionem dilecti discipuli: The secret and mystical vision of the beloved disciple of our Lord, Luther 
(x) ●n prolego. huius lib.  professeth openly, that he doth not acknowledge this book to be either Prophetical or Apostolical: Brentius 
(y) Locis ubi supra.  and Chemnitus subscribe to Luther therein, (whose condemnation of this Book we do less marvel at, since it is not strange, if the Eagle in his high to wring flight therein, did so lessen his shape, as that he could not be discerned by their fleshly and sensual eyes) notwithstanding Caluin 
(z) Vbi supra.  the Magdeburgenses, and the Church of England maintain it to be Apostolical, and written by S. john himself. Neither here can it be replied, that though the Lutherans do dissent from the Caluinistes or Sacramentaries in rejecting or allowing of Scripture, yet the Sacramentaries (which are the pillars of the true reformed Churches, and with whose Doctrine the church of England doth principally conspire) do jointly with one accord agree of the books of Scripture, & consequently that at least among them so agreeing, the said books are to judge and determine doubts of faith. This refuge availeth nothing, since their assertion therein is most false. For who knoweth not (to instance only in some few) that Musculus 
(a) Muscul. locis communibus c. de justificat.  a Sacramentary rejecteth the Epistle of S. james, and Beza 
(b) Beza.  the history of the adulterous woman recorded in the Gospel of S. john. c. 8. In like sort Bullinger 
(c) So charged by Laurentius Valla.  a Sacramentary rejecteth that addition to our Lord's prayer, uz. For thine is the kingdom, the power, & the glory etc. though all these parcels be acknowledged and received for Scripture by other Sacramentaries.  
13. And thus much may serve for our Adversary's open and great contention concerning the approving or rejecting of several books of both the Testaments. Fron whence it most necessarily followeth, that though it might be dreamt for the time (as I said above) that the Scripture might be judge of Controversies among them which acknowledge with one consent such and such books only to be Scripture (since all they agree, what books those be, which are to be this judge:) Yet our Adversaries wherewith we now deal, cannot possibly maintain the same for judge; for they disagreeing with themselves of the books which are Scripture, must needs disagree, which is this judge, and how fare it reacheth; every one of them either extending it beyond it limits, or straightening it within to narrow a compass. Therefore it is no more possible, that the Scripture should decide all Controversies with the Protestants (so long as they continue in their contrary sentences about the authority of diverse books thereof) than it can be conceived, how a suit depending between two, is to be decided by a certain limited company of men (as there is a limited number of the Canonical books of Scripture) or else not to be tried at all, and yet the one of these Litigants should disclaim from diverse of the said deputed judges, as altogether imcompetent and insufficient, and the other in like sort from sundry of the other judges. Can it be conceived (I say) how this matter should be ended, both the parties still persevering without change in their several aversions, against the several persons of the intended judges; especially if the judgement of the matter were not to be undertaken, but with this condition, that both the Litigant parties should freely and voluntarily agree aforehand in the number and in the particular persons of those judges, by whom they would have their question and Controversy determined? And thus it just fareth with our Protestants, as long as they disagree what books are the Canonical Scripture, and yet will they have this Scripture alone to determine and resolve all points of faith and religion.  
14. To this argument drawn from their uncertainty of acknowledging what books are the word of God; Our Adversaries can only reply, that though there be some particular books (as these above mentioned) of which they are not absolutely resolved, whether they are to be accounted as parcels of God's word or no: yet since they all agree in acknowledging the rest of the books to be Canonical; all those other books so jointly acknowledged by them for Scripture ought to be taken for this judge of Controversies. Which answer of theirs is most weak and relieves them nothing at all, and this for several reasons.  
15. And first, seeing there are many books both of the old Testament and of the new (not speaking of those books in the old, which are jointly condemned by them all, and acknowledged by Catholics) which are impugned by some of our Adversaries and defended by others: And that by all probability, yea moral certainty, some one or other of those books so impugned by some of them is (though not so acknowledged) Gods sacred word; which being so, it must needs then follow, that the Protestants teaching the Scripture to be the judge and square of all doubts and Controversies, and attributing this prerogative not to any one book a part, (since any one book or other is not able to decide all doubts, which may arise, in that it intreateth not of all points which may come in question) but to the whole body and Canon of the Scripture:) It must follow (I say) that this supposed judge of theirs is maimed and imperfect, as wanting some one book or other, which (being rejected by some of our adversaries) should concur to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and full perfection or accomplishment of itself. And therefore I conclude, that if any such one book of sacred Scripture be exempted from the number of those, which should make up this judge (as in all likelihood some one or other is, since there are greater proofs for the authority of them all, then for condemnation of any one) it demonstratively may be inferred, that our Adversaries cannot pretend (as long as they thus contend, which books be Scripture) the Scripture to be this their judge; it being taught by our Adversaries, that fides is not obiectum adaequatum, to any one book or parcel of Scripture, but to the whole Canon itself.  
16. Secondly, if only such books, which are jointly received by all our Adversaries, are to make up this judge, and no others; then would it follow, that there are diverse points of Faith, which by their own acknowledgement are necessary to be believed, and yet cannot be proved at all, or at least clearly enough, out of such parcels of Scripture, as they all acknowledge to be Scripture, though most evidently proved out of those parts, which are rejected by some of them. As for example if the three first Gospels are to be rejected (as Luther teacheth) we shall find, that there are diverse points touching our Saviour's Incarnation (and particularly that he was borne of a Virgin) as also his life, & conversation hereupon earth, which are to be believed, and are found in some of these three Gospels; and yet the Gospel of S. john (only which is acknowledged by Luther) maketh no mention of them, neither are they at all touched in any other acknowledged book of Scripture.  
17. Thirdly, though it were supposed, that only those books of Scripture, which all our Adversaries do jointly acknowledge for Canonical were to decide and judge all points of Faith, yet could not those books perform so much, except it were first agreed among them, that there were some certain original copies or some translations now extant of them, which our Adversaries would acknowledge for true and uncorrupted (since otherwise not the true word of God, but the word of God as it is corrupted, should become the judge of our Faith.) But there are no Originals nor Translations of the Scripiure (speaking even of those books which themselves do jointly acknowledge) that are now extant, which they do not charge with sundry corruptions and falsifications, as it shall appear most evidently in these Chapters following: So manifest it is, that even those books only, as are acknowledged by all our Adversaries, cannot become the judge of Controversies.  
18. But before we come to the Translations, it followeth, that as we have showed above, that our Adversaries do reject many books of undoubted and Canonical Scripture; and consequently, that they cannot pretend the Scripture as judge: So we will in this place observe the carriage and comportment of the Protestants towards the Evangelists and the Apostles; whom diverse of our Sectaries have not been afraid to charge with foul errors in manner and practice or exercise of their faith. And first, it is clear, that D. Whitaker 
(d) De Eccles. contra Bellarm. controu. 2. quaest. 4. pag. 223.  thus writeth: It is manifest, that even after Christ his Ascension, and the holy Ghosts descending upon the Apostles, not only the common sort, but even the Apostles themselves erred in the vocation of the gentiles etc. Yea Peter also erred concerning the abrogation of the Ceremonial law etc. and this was a matter of faith etc. he furthermore erred in manners, and these were great errors.  
19 Answerably hereto Brentius 
(e) In Apolog. Confess. c. de Concilijs. p. 900.  (an eminent Protestant) writeth, that S. Peter (chief of the Apostles) and Barnabas after the holy Ghost received, together with the Church of Jerusalem, erred. D. Fulke 
(f) Against the Rhemish Testam. in Galat. 2.  speaking upon the said point. saith; Peter erred in ignorance against the Gospel. jewill 
(g) In his defence of the Apology. pag. 361.  affirmeth, that S. Mark did erroneously allege Abiather for abimelech; and S. Matthew with the like oversight did write jeremy for Zachary. Conradus 
(h) In Theolog. Calumist. l. 2. fol. 40.  Schlusselburg (a famous Protestant) chargeth Caluin to maintain, that the Apostles alleged the Prophets in other sense, than was meant. Zuinglius 
(i) Tom. 2. Elench. contra Anabap. f. 10.  most wonderfully abaseth the writings of the Apostles and the Evangelists in these words: This is your ignorance, that you think the Commentaries of the Evangelists, and the Epistles of the Apostles to have been then in authority, when Paul did write these things; as though Paul did attribute then so much to his Epistles, that whatsoever was contained in them, was sacred etc. which thing (he saith) were to impute immoderate arrogancy to the Apostle.  
20. D. Bancroft 
(k) In his survey of the pretended discipline. pag. 373.  allegeth out of Zanchius his Epistles, that one of Caluins' Scholars said: If Paul should come to Geneva, and preach the same hour that Caluin did, I would leave Paul and hear Caluin. Caluin 
(l) In his Commentar. in omnes Pauli Epistol. p. 510.  himself chargeth S. Peter with error, to the Schism (as he saith) of the Church, to the endangering of Christian liberty, and the overthrow of the grace of Christ. The Century writers 
(m) Cent. 2. l. 2. c. 10. ●ol. 580.  thus reprehend S. Paul: Paul doth turn to james the Apostle, and a Synod of the Presbyters being called together, he is persuaded by james and the rest, that for the offended jews he should purify himself in the Temple, whereunto Paul yieldeth, which certainly is no small sliding of so great a doctor. In which one testimony, we see that not only Paul, but the rest of the Apostles are charged by the Centurists with error in faith. And to close this point with that incestuous and revolted monk (I mean Luther) we read, that, besides the several books of the new Testament (as it above showed) denied by him, as also besides the reprehending of Peter, of whom he thus saith: Peter 
(n) In epist ad Galat. c. 1. after the English transl. fol. 33. & 34. & Tom. 5. Wittenberg. of anno 1554. fol. 290.  the chief of the Apostles, did live and teach extra verbum Dei, besides the word of God: he thus inveigheth most scurrilously against Moses' himself: Moses 
(o) Luther. tom. 3. Wittenberg. in psal. 45. f. 423. & tom. 3. german. f. 40. & 41. & in colloq. mensalib. german. f. 152. & 153.  had his lips unpleasant, stopped, angry etc. do you collect all the wisdom of Moses, and of the heathen Philosophers, and you shall find them to be before God, either Idolatry or hypocritical wisdom, or (if it be Politic) the wisdom of wrath etc. Moses' had his lips full of gall and anger etc. away therefore with Moses.  
21. And thus fare of this point, from whence we conclude, that the Protestants in charging the Evangelists and the Apostles with errors of faith in their words and actions, do withal labour to take away the infallible authority due to their writings and books (for grant they erred in the first way, how can we be secured, they erred not in the second, seeing their pens had no greater privilege from God of not erring, than their tongues and other their actions had) and consequently they cannot allege their writings (as being subject to error by necessary inferences drawn from their own grounds) for the final deciding and determining of all doubts, arising in matters of faith and religion.   

That the Protestants allow not the Original Hebrew of the old Testament now extant, for authentical and uncorrupted. CHAP. II.  
ALTHOUGTH our Adversaries do give it out in their writings and sermons, that the Hebrew Original, which now they have, and as it is at this present pointed with pricks, is pure and free from all corruption, and therefore that we ought in any text of the old Testament to recurre to the Hebrew, as to the touch stone of truth, and to a clear and untroubled fountain: Yet that this is but a mere gloss and false vaunt of them (invented only to quit themselves from that reading of the text, altogether favouring the Catholic Doctrine, whereunto both the Greek and Latin Fathers, and the whole Church of God for so many ages have been accustomed) it is most evident. For it is most certain that in diverse places, themselves do forsake the present Hebrew, and do read, as the Septuagint, or as the Latin Interpreter doth read, both who differ much from the present Hebrew. Some few texts for example I will here set down.  
2. First then, that prophecy of David 
(a) Psal. 8.  concerning the Apostles, the Septuagint, S. Paul, 
(b) Rom. 10.  and the Protestants themselves do read thus: In omnem terram exivit sonus eorum: Their sound went out through all the earth: and yet the present Hebrew hath instead of these words: (sonus eorum) linea, or perpendiculum eorum, so insutable with the other words, as that it is hard to collect any good and perfect sense thereof.  
3. The Psalm 22. affoards a most notorious prophecy of the particular manner of our Saviour's death in these words: They have pierced my hands and feet: for so the Septuagint, the Catholics, and the Protestants in their Translations do read, and yet the present Hebrew (so much magnified by them) hath instead thereof these words: as a Lion my hands and my feet; frustrating thereby so remarkable a prophecy of our Saviour's particular suffering & death.  
4. The Hebrew saith in one 
(c) Reg. 24.  place: Zedechias his brother, meaning thereby the brother of joachim; and yet the English Bible translated anno 1579. readeth thus: Zedechias his father's brother, according to the Greek and Latin translation therein.  
5. Likewise in another place, 
(d) Par●lip. 2.  the present Hebrew saith Achaz King of Israel, and yet our Adversaries reject this reading, and translate Achaz King of juda; following therein the Septuagingts translation, and the Latin interpreter.  
6. I let pass the eight verses alleged out of the psalms 
(e) Psal. 11.  by S. Paul, 
(f) Rom. 3. & Sepulchrum patens est guttur eorum. Linguis suis dolosè agebant etc.  and translated by the Protestant's, and yet all the said verses are not to be found in any Hebrew text now extant, as now they lie in S. Paul. And thus much (passing over diverse other places) to show, that the present Hebrew is not even in the opinion of our Adversaries that same pure fountain, of which they at other times so much boast of, (and consequently not of that absolute truth in itself, as to become the judge of Controversies) but that the cristaline stream thereof is troubled with some mud of corruption; rising either from the negligence of the Printers in regard of the great likeness and resemblance of many Hebrew letters, which might easily occasion a mistaking of one another; or partly through the ignorance of the Rabbins, who have added pricks, since the Hebrew first wanting pricks might be read several ways; or lastly partly from the malice of the jews, as being desirous to read the Hebrew, in that sense, which might seem least to favour Christian religion.   

That the Protestants allow no Original of the new Testament now extant, as uncorrupted. CAAP. III.  
IN the next place here comes to be examined the Greek Original of the new Tement: of which either all, or the chiefest part was first written in Greek by the Apostles and Evangelists: This hath been since in diverse places so corrupted even by the acknowledgement of the Protestants, as that we cannot appeal securely thereunto, as to account it (such as now it is) the pure and uncorrupted word of God. All such places to note is not needful, therefore some few shall suffice.  
2. And first we will exemplify that place of the Apostle, 
(a) Rom. 12. for in the Greek it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is tempore sernientes.  where we read: Be fervent in the spirit serving the Lord; for so do the Catholics and Protestants even in their later editions translate; and yet in all Greek copies it is: Be fervent in spirit serving the time: Which first manner of reading, that it is the more true, appeareth out of Origen, Chrysostome, Theophilact, and other Greek Fathers, who ever read and explicated this place in their writings and Commentaries, as the Catholics and Protestants do at this present.  
3. Again the Greek text readeth in the first to the Corinthians: 
(b) 1. Cor. cap. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that is; Secundus homo Dominus de caelo.  The first man is of the earth, earthly: the second man is the Lord from heaven; But the Latin tanslation hath, Secundus homo de caelo, caelestis, which translation even Caluin 
(c) C. 7. Instit. §. 21.  acknowledgeth, & condemneth the other, since it is clear, that the first reading proceeded from the corruption of Martion, as Tertullian 
(d) l. 5. in Marcionem.  witnesseth.  
4. I pass over the words adjoined in all Greek copies to the end of our Lord's prayer (since they are acknowledged by our Adversaries, as part of the true Greek) the words be these: For thine is the kingdom, the power, and glory etc. though it is manifest, that this sentence was added by the Grecians to the text; both because the Crecians in their Liturgies do recite the said words, but not as continuing them with the Lords prayer: as also in that Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Jerome, and Austin (all who understood the Greek tongue) do not make any mention at all of the former sentence, which doubtlessly they would not have omitted, if they had found it joined with the said prayer in any authentical Greek copy.  
5. And thus much concerning our Adversary's rejecting of the Greek Original in such places, where it is certain, that it is erroneous. Now we will add a place or two, wherein our Adversaries do disclaim from the Greek, though most pure and uncorrupted. In the genealogy of our Saviour, Beza leaveth out one descent in his translation, which we find in S. Luke 
(e) cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui fuit Cainan.  in all Greek copies; speaking thereof after this accustomed Lordly manner: Non dubitamus expungere, that is; we make no scruple to put it out.  
In like sort, where S. Matthew giveth a prerogative to S. Peter, in saying, 
(f) Cap. 10. it being in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The first Peter; though it be thus in all Greek copies, yet Beza 
(g) In his Annotations upon the new Testament, set forth anno 1556.  affirmeth, that the Greek text is here corrupted by some one, who taught that Peter was the chief of the Apostles: and the corruption (saith he) consisteth in adding the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the text. Lastly to avoid prolixity, I will end with that unswerable place of S. Luke: 
(h) c. 22.  It being, in all Greek copies without exception: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hic calix nowm testamentum in sanguine meo, qui (uz. calix) pro vobis funditur: that is, This Cup being the new Testament in my blood, which (uz. Cup) is shed for you; This is the true translation in that the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must of necessity agree in all Greek construction, with the Greek substantive, signifying the 
(i) ubi supra.  Cup, and not with the Greek substantive the blood, it being of a different case from it. Now Beza seeing, that by the construction of the Greek, it followeth, that the Cup was shed for us (meaning thereby the thing contained in the Cup) but wine was not shed for us, but the blood of our Saviour: Therefore his blood was in the Cup, when he said these words of consecration. Beza, 
(i) ubi supra.  (I say) foreseeing this inevitable illation, pronounceth plainly that the Greek text is corrupted (meaning thereby all Greek Editions, that ever were in his time) and the Greek word forcing this construction, crept out of the margin into the text, so making these words mere surreptitious. And this now may suffice to show, that the Greek Original is neither so absolutely authentical in itself, nor at least so acknowledged by our Adversaries, as that all other translations, or doubts rising in points of faith, may infallibly be tried thereby.  
7. Now to reflect somewhat upon our argument, drawn from the acknowledged corruptions of the Originals of both the Testaments: How can our Adversaries with any show of common understanding, pretend the Scriptures to be the only judge with them, when by their own confessions, they have no true and authentical Original of such books only as themselves jointly acknowledge for Scripture? What can our Adversary's reply hereto? Will they answer that such corruptions, wherewith the Originals are stained do happen only in such places, as are not controversial, (and therefore the less material) but that all those passages & texts of Scripture, which do precisely touch any point of Chrystian religion, are most free from all such escapes? This answer faileth several ways.  
8. First, because we are bound by the Protestants own principles to believe nothing, with is not expressed in the Scriptures: But we read not in any place or text of them, that God will ever preserve his written word, free from all corruptions in essential points of Christian faith, and yet suffer it to be generally depraved in matters of lesser moment; Neither can it be replied, that God▪ sweet providence and care over his Church requireth, that the Scripture be free from all such main corruptions; This (I say) cannot satisfy us Catholics, who do teach, that God's povidence and care towards his Church doth not chief consist in preserving his written word, since faith (for which end the Scripture was first written) may be preserved in the Church only by external preaching and force of tradition: and answerably hereunto we read, that the church of God in the time of Nature for the space of 2000 years enjoyed no Scripture or written word at all: in like sort Irenaeus (l. 3. c. 4.) writeth that there were some Christian countries, which believed and lived well, only by help of Traditions, without any written word.  
9 Secondly it is false, that the said corruptions do chance only in such places of indifferency, as concern not doubts of faith; since the contrary is manifest (to omit diverse others which might be alleged) by the two former produced examples out of S. Matthew 
(k) cap. 10.  and S. Luke 
(l) cap. 22.  where we see, that the corruptions wherewith our Adversaries do charge these two texts, do fall just upon the touch and point of two chiefest Controversies of this time, to wit the Supremacy of Peter, and the Real Presence.  
10. Thirdly if by our Adversary's acknowledgement all the Originals now extant are corrupted in places not pertaining to matters of faith, how can we be infallibly assured, that they are not in like sort corrupted in texts of Controversies of this time, or of such doubts, as hereafter may rise? Since a certainty of an error in one place doth imply a possibility of error in any other place? And yet this infallibility we ought to have for otherwise we build our faith upon such passages of Scripture, which we do but think only to be the true and uncorrupted word of God, and consequently it is not faith, that is builded only upon a bare moral persuasion of the Scriptures integrity; And if this be not so, let our Adversaries show some privilege & warrant, which the Scritpture hath to be freed from the corruptions of one kind more than of another: If they say, that the Analogy of faith expressed therein doth demonstrate, that it is not corrupted in any such fundamental places; this is ridiculous: for seeing that faith (by our Adversary's grounds) riseth only out of the Scripture, and in that respect is quiddam posterius & tempore & naturâ, (as the Philosophers say) that is, later both in time and nature then the Scriptures, as afore is showed; therefore it followeth, that the Analogy of faith cannot be the square or rule to measure the integrity & incorruption of the Scriptures thereby, but itself is measured by the Scriptures, even by their own principles.  
11. And thus much to discover the weakness of their first answer made to our Argument drawn from their acknowledged corruptions of the Originals of both the Testaments. Or will they frame a second answer to the said argument saying, that though the Originals be corrupted, yet there are certain translations (allowed by them) which are most pure and agreeable to the first Originals, before they were corrupted, & by these all doubts and Controversies of faith and religion are to be determined? This shift is more feeble than the former: first because it was impossible, how the corrupted Originals should be corrected in their translations, there not being in the Protestants judgements in the universal world any one true copy, by the which their translations might be amended, since all translations now remaining were long after any true Original was to be found, the vulgar Latin, and the 70. only excepted. Secondly this answer satisfyeth not, in that there is no one translation made in Greek, Latin, or our vulgar tongue, but our Adversaries do tax it with errors and corruptions; Which point shall most evidently and particularly be made manifest in the Chapters following.  
12. Thus we see how forcible and unanswerable is our reason drawn from their confessed corruptions of their Originals for the convincing of this their imaginary judge of Controversies. One thing only here is to be remembered, that where, in the former Chapters, not only the Protestants, but also the Catholics do hold th● present Originals of both the Testaments for corrupted; that this assertion, though proceeding alike from them both, doth mightily prejudice the Protestants, but the Catholics nothing at all. Not us, in that we acknowledge the vulgar Latin translation (which is altogether rejected by our adversaries) to be most sincere and agreeable to the true Originals afore their corruption; And hereby we maintain, that we have, and enjoy the true Scriptures. But the Protestants are disadvantaged by their former assertion, because they refuse not only all Originals (now to be had) as impure and contaminated, but also all translations, and consequently having in their judgements no true Scripture at all, they cannot prostitute the Scripture for their judge of Controversies.   

That the Protestants reject the Septuagint Translations, as erroneous. CHAP. IU.  
NOw followeth here to set down the dislike which our Adversaries do bear to all the Translations of the holy Scripture; And first we are to begin with the famous translation of the Septuagint, who being Hebrews borne, translated the old Testament out of Hebrew into Greek; This translation was so generally applauded by the ancient Fathers, 
(a) Irenaeus, Euseb. Clemens Alexandrinus, Epiphan. Chrysost. Tertull. Aug. and the rest.  as that they did jointly pronounce the said 70. to be guided particularly by the Holy Ghost in that their translation; And yet our Adversaries do reject it in many places as false and erroneous: and even there where they cannot pretend the least suspicion of any corruption. And intending to show some few places thereof disallowed by them (for to particularise all were over laboursome) I will restrain myself only to such texts, as do belong to some particular Controversy of this time, (which course I will also hold for the most part in the other translations here following:) That thereby it may the more clearly appear, how insufficient all translations are for the deciding of Controversies, when their presumed corruptions are found to rest principally in the texts urged for the confirming or disproof of the questions controverted at this present.  
2. And first concerning that text, which toucheth our Saviour's descending into Hell, the Septuagint do translate: Thou 
(b) Psal. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: aximam in inferno.  shalt not leave my soul in hell: The Protestant's do read: Thou shalt not leave my soul in the grave, they meaning here, by the word Soul, Life, or Person, teaching hereby that Christ was not at all in hell (and consequently, that he did not deliver the patriarchs from thence) but only in the grave. Now that this translation doth differ from the translation of the 70. it is most manifest, & chief by the signification of the two Greek words used by the 70. in this translation, to wit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying anima, the soul: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infernus, hell: a thing so clear, that Beza, first translating this text, as the Protestants do now read, did after through the apparent falsehood thereof leave the said translation, and instead thereof read with the Septuagint: Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell. I will not much dwell upon in showing the falsehood of the Protestants translation therein (neither in the other texts following) my meaning only being to show, how they tax the 70. translation for erroneous, and consequently that they cannot pretend to examine and define by it all doubts arising in faith and religion.  
3. The Septuagint do in like sort translate: I have 
(c) Psal. 118.  inclined my heart to keep thy iustifications, or commandments for reward; The Greek words used by them for the words (for reward) being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying even by the acknowledgement of all Grecians, propter retributionem, for reward; Yet because this place (so translated by the 70.) might seem to imply merit of works, therefore our Adversaries in regard of the Hebrews ambiguity herein, do translate thus, I have inclined my heart to fulfil the statutes always even to the end, the Hebrew words signifying indifferently either for reward, or otherwise, to the end.  
4. The famous place out of Daniel 
(d) Dan. cap. 4.  to the King, uz. Redeem thy sins with Alms, being so truly & literally out 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. El●emosynis redime.  of the Septuagint translated; Yet our Adversary's controlling them herein do translate thus: Break of thy sins by righteousness; for seeing the Hebrew doth afford both significations, they for the avoiding the Doctrine of Satisfaction, have made choice of this other construction.  
5. Again, where the Septuagint do read: 
(e) Psalm. 138. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪  Thy friends (o God) are become exceeding honourable, their princedom is exceedingly strengthened. Yet because this place seems in their opinion to countenance overmuch the blessed souls in heaven, (whose honours our Sectaries can hardly brook) therefore they leaving the 70. translation herein, do pick out of the Hebrew another translation, reading thus in their bibles: How dear are thy Counsels (or thoughts) to me, o God, o how great is the sum of them?  
6. Now here it is to be remembered that our Adversaries in these and many other places (which to avoid tediousness I omit) do not condemn the present Greek of the old Testament, as corrupted, & much differing from the Greek translation thereof made by the Septuagint themselves, (though to the scope and end of our alleging of the translations it is all one:) but they acknowledge this present Greek translation to be that translation made by the said Septuagint, without any change or alteration; And yet we see, they charge it as false in such places, where the ambiguity of the Hebrew may minister any other reading more suitable to their faith and Doctrine. So far then are our Adversaries of from granting that all differences of faith and religion ought to be decided by the Scripture of the old Testament (speaking of such points, only as may receive their proofs from thence) as now we find it translated in Greek by the Septuagint.   

That the Protestants reject the vulgar Latin Translation. CHAP. V.  
Though the vulgar Translation of the whole Bible hath been reverenced above all other Translations, for the space of more than a thousand years, since the Church during so many ages used it only; the great respect had ever thereto also appearing from the testimonies of S. Austin 
(a) l. 18. Ciuit. Dei. c. 42. & epist. 10. ad Hieronym. , S. Gregory 
(b) lib. 20. moral. c. 24. , S. Isidore 
(c) lib. 6. Etymol. cap. 5. , and diverse other ancient Fathers: Notwithstanding our Adversaries do altogether and jointly disclaim from it, because (they say) it favours to much the Papists; And therefore we find it absolutely condemned and written against by Caluin, 
(d) l. adverse. Concil. Trident.  Chemnitius 
(e) Exam. Concil. Trident. , Titelmanus Heshusius, as also generally rejected by our English Protestants, in so much, as I hold it but lost labour to insist in further proof hereof.  
2. Now than the Translation of S. Hierome being by them discarded, and no other ancient and authentical translation now extant, which they allow for the defining thereby of matters in religion, what course will they take herein? No doubt they will follow some one translation of their own men, which they with general consent acknowledge to be most true, sincere, and answerable to the meaning of the holy Ghost. Nothing less. For here gins the Egyptian 
(g) Isa. 19  to fight against the Egyptian; 
(f) De sexcentis errorib. Pontific.  And here is now figured out the Confusion of Babylon, since among so many translations of the holy Scripture being made by our Adversaries, they shall not be able to show any one, which their own men do not traduce as false, erroneous, and heretical; Which thing shall evidently appear in the Chapters following. Thus our Adversaries (like lines meeting in a point, and then instantly breaking of) have no sooner jumped together to condemn all former Translations, but that presently they descent among themselves in appruoing or rejecting their own Translations.   

That the Protestants do condemn all the chief Translations of their own brethren, as false and erroneous. CAAP. VI.  
TO undertake the setting down of all such places, as in our Adversary's several translations, are charged with corruption by some of their own brethren, were over laboursome, and not much needful, and therefore in this Ocean and sea of their own dissensions (wherein we find drowned the credit of every particular translation made by any of them) I will sail by a more narrow Cut; to wit, I will deliver only the judgements of their own brethren passed upon every such translation of theirs (our English translations only excepted) whereupon I will stay the longer, and enlarge my discourse more particularly for some peculiar reasons.  
2. To begin then with Luther, who translated the holy Scripture: would all the Protestants (think you) rely upon that translation? you shall therefore hear Zuinglius 
(a) lib. de Sacram. f. 412. See him also respon ad Confess. Tugurinorum.  his Encomion and praise both of him and his translation, styling him: A foul corrupter, and horrible falsisier of God's word, one that followed the Marcionites and Arians, that razed out such places of holy writ, as were against them. Neither is Bucer 
(b) dialog, contra Melancthon. See Lindan. dub. 84. 96. 98.  dumb in censuring Luther's said translation as erroneous: Besides both which censures of him, you find (to touch only one particular) that he inserteth words of his own into the text itself, as though they were written by the holy Ghost; as for example, translating that text, A man is justified by faith without the works of the law: he inserteth in (contrary both to the Greek and Latin) the words (only) to explicate, as himself saith, more plainly the Apostles meaning, against the justification of works done in the time of grace.  
3. The same task of translation was undertaken and performed by Caluin, but with what dexterity he carried himself therein it appeareth (to say nothing of Illyricus condemning thereof) by the testimony of Carolus 
(c) Tract. Testamnovi part. 11. fol. 110.  Molineus, a younger brother of his own house, who writeth of Caluins' translations in this sort: He made the text of the gospel to leap up and down at his pleasure, and he used violence to the same, and added of his own to the very sacred letter, for drawing it to his own purpose.  
4. Oecolampadius (so truly entitled per Antiphrasin, as infecting God's house and church with the darkness of heresy) by the help of his brethren of Basil, would needs busy himself with the like labour: Yet was their translation so distasteful to Beza 
(d) In respon ad defence. Castalion. vide etiam praefat. Testam. novi anno 155●. , as that he chargeth them all, with great sacrilege & impiety, in corrupting of the sacred word itself.  
5. Neither will Beza pass over (as uncontrolled) the translation of Castalio, terming his proceeding with God's word to be bold, pestilent, sacrilegious, and Ethenicall, & speaking else where 
(e) Annot in act. 10.  of Castalio in this point, he saith, It cometh to pass, that whiles every man will rather freely follow his own judgement, then be a religious interpreter of the holy ghost, he doth rather pervert many things, then translate them. Beza himself translated the new Testament, but with what applause his work was entertained you shall hear, for (besides Castalio his reciprocal testimony of condemning the same) Illyricus much impugneth it, and Molineus 
(f) In t●āslat. novi Testament. part. 64. 65. 66.  plainly chargeth Beza, Quòd de facto textum mutat: that actually he changeth the very text of God's word itself, for the patronising of his Doctrine.  
6. Good God, would any think (if their own writings were not as yet extant to charge them therewith) that such men as these, being indeed the Antesignani, the most choice and eminent Doctors, and as it were, so many Oracles or Suns of their new Gospel, should no sooner divide themselves by open Apostasy from the unity of the Catholic Church, but that they begin to inveigh one against another in great acerbity and bitterness of speech, concerning their different translations? Plainly discovering by their mutual reprovalls and recriminations herein, that though they all conspire to make head against the Catholic Faith, yet do they presently thereupon broach forth different Doctrines among themselves, and each one glad to fortify their opinions by impugning all other translations, which are not made suitable to their new stamped Doctrine.  
7. Wherefore a company of men falling from the body of the Catholic Church, may be well resembled to some mighty fall of earth from the body of a huge mountain, (and this mountain even by Esay himself figureth out Christ's Church) which great clod is no sooner disparted from the rest, but it crimbleth itself into innumerable small parcels. But herein we are to admire God's providence, who is able to use the actions of the Church's enemies, as handmaids to the Church's preservation; no otherwise then the betraying of 
(g) Gen. ●▪ 45. & 50.  joseph by his brethren to the safety of the Israelites. For seeing the division of heresy is not mathematical and infinite, but determinate & limitable, therefore every heresy, though at it first appearance, it draws men's eyes upon it (like blazing stars, which seem high but are low, shine no longer, than their matter endures) yet at the length consumes & wastes away by subdividing itself, and striving to make it own part good against all others; so as it falleth out, that the Catastrophe and Conclusion of all such proceeding is this, that it may be truly pronounced: The war of Heretics to be the peace of the Church, and their divisions her union.  
8. But to return, for I had almost lost myself in our Adversary's former disagrements touching their translations; where we are to observe, that though some of their translations came nearer to the vulgar Latin translation than others; yet each of them (as is said) mainly dissents one from another; like two faces, which bearing some resemblance to a third face, have notwithstanding no likeness between themselves.   

That the English Translations are corrupted, & therefore not sufficient to determine doubts in Religion. CHAP. VII.  
THE Hebrew and Greek Originals of the holy Scriptures, as also the Greek and Latin translations of the same being examined, and found defective by our Adversary's assertions, we are to descend to our English translations, and to show that they are fraughted with many corruptions, and that our Adversaries cannot justify the said translations to be true and exact only according to the Originals, out of which they are made; and consequently, that the said translations cannot with any show of judgement or reason, be exposed for the infallible judge of Controversies. That these translations are most corrupt and erroneous, may be proved two ways: first from the translations themselves; Secondly from the Confession of our English Protestants.  
2. And concerning the translations themselves, three things are found in them, which may assure all men of their impurity; first the adding of diverse words unto the text, which words are not to be found neither in the Hebrew nor in the Greek Originals, and the words added are of such nature, as they make only for the better maintaining of the Protestants religion.  
3. I could instance this in many texts of their translations, but one or two shallbe sufficient at this time: as for example in the first Chapter of the Acts, our English translations speaking of the election of Mathias the Apostle read thus: He was by a common consent counted with the eleven Apostles, to prove out of this place, that all Ecclesiastical functions ought, or at least may be made by a popular election, which diverse reformed Churches of the Caluinists do hold at this day: Here these former words to wit, with a common consent, are plainly added by our Adversaries, since the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used, signify only: He was reckoned, numbered, or accounted: neither is there any other Greek words in the text, which they can, or do pretend to signify any such kind of election.  
4. In like sort in their Bible printed anno 1577. in the ninth of the Acts, we read thus: Paul confounded the jews, proving by conferring one Scripture with another, that this is very Christ, to which text our Adversaries did add this sentence uz. by conferring one Scripture with another, since no one word hereof is in the Greek, which might be thus translated through any mistaking or supposed ignorance: But this was done to make the ignorant reader believe, that S. Luke said, that conference of Scriptures is the only mean to understand them, rejecting thereby all commentaries and expositions of Fathers and Counsels.  
5. The second point, which manifesteth the corruptions of our English Bibles, is taken from the conferring together of several texts of Scripture translated in them, in which several texts one and the same Greek word (for here I speak chief of the new Testament) is diversely translated. My meaning here is this, that in texts concerning points of faith between us and the Protestants, the Greek word is translated by them in a forced or secondary sense, preiudicing our Catholic faith; the which same word being found in other texts, which touch not any Controversiall point, they are content to translate in it true, immediate, and ordinary signification, since they see, that in such places they cannot disadvantage us at all by any false translation.  
6. Two examples (instead of many scores which I could produce) shall illustrate my meaning herein The first shallbe touching the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is very notorious, for whereas it signifieth to be made worthy indeed, they translate it only, to be counted worthy, in such texts wherein is included the worth & merit of good works, meaning thereby, that we are not made worthy indeed, but only so reputed by God. Thus for example they translate in the Gospel of S. Luke. c. 21. Watch therefore at all times, praying that you may be counted worthy to stand before the son of God, the same translation (to wit, to be accounted worthy) they give of the former Greek verb in the said Gospel of S. Luke c. 20. and in the second to the Thessalonians c. 1. & in diverse other places, in all which the merits of works are signified. Now in other passages of Scripture, which do not concern merit of works, and wherein the foresaid Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in the Original, they can be content to translate it with us Catholics in it true and proper signification, to wit, to be worthy indeed, and not only to be counted worthy: for example (to omit other places) they thus truly translate in the tenth to the Hebrews: O how much sorer punishment shall he be worthy of, which treadeth under foot the son of God.  
7. Another example of this second kind of discovering the falsehood of the English translations shallbe specified touching Traditions. For the better apprehending of which sleight the reader is to conceive, that in the new Testament there is mention made of two sorts of Traditions; the one being judaical, profane, and dissenting from the word of God: The other godly and such, as the Apostles themselves did leave to the Church; both which sorts of Traditions are expressed by the Apostles and Evangelists in one and the same Greek word uz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which (coming of the Greek Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Latin Trado) signifieth as properly Traditio, as domus in Latin signifieth a house. Nowhere I say our Adversary's falsehood intranslation doth lie, in that in their Translations they suppress the word Tradition, in all such texts, where mention is made of godly and Apostolical Traditions, using instead thereof the words, Ordinances, or instructions; And accordingly thereto we find that thus they translate the first to the Corinthians c. 11. I pray you brethren, that you be mindful of me, and as I have delivered unto you, you keep my ordinances, being notwithstanding in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: You keep my traditions. Again in like sort thus they translate in the second to the Thessalonians: Therefore brethren stand, and hold fast the instructions (in Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, traditions) which you have learned either by word, or by our Epistle. To be short the same translation of the said Greek word they use in the foresaid epistle to the Thessalonians c. 3. where it is spoken of Traditions in a good sense.  
8. But now on the contrary side (which point convinceth our Adversaries of an unanswerable corruption and iniustifiable fraud in their Translations) in those texts, where traditions are mentioned in a bad & wicked sense, they ever translate the foresaid Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in it true and natural signification, to wit Traditio, Tradition. As for instance sake in Math. c. 15. Why do you transgress the Commaudements of God by your traditions? in which very Chapter mention is made three several times of jewish & wicked, traditions, in all which texts they can be courteously content to translate the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (being found in them all) with us Catholics, Traditions, and not Ordinances, or Instructions; And though the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may in a secondary and strained signification be extended sometimes to signify Ordinances or Instructions; yet the sleight & subtlety of our Adversaries herein is this, because they would have the ignorant reader to find the word Tradition in Scripture ever in a bad sense, and never in a good sense, thereby the more to alicnate and withdraw his mind from the Doctrine of Traditions maintained by the Catholics.  
9 A third Consideration of displaying the false translations of our English Bibles may be taken from the multiplicity of their translations made heretofore in several years, and yet one of them crossing another in many controversial points of faith between the Protestants and us. Now from this contrariety in translation (and especially in points of Controversies) is necessarily evicted a falsehood of their translations: for supposing one translation for true, it avoidable followeth, that all other translations, which are made absolutely contrary to that one must needs be false and erroneous. This contrariety they use in infinite texts of Scripture, but I will instance it for great brevity only in two. Well then, their Bible's printed anno 1562. do thus read in 2. Cor. c. 6. How agreeth the temple of God with Images? Again in 1. Cor. c. 10. Be not worshippers of Images, as some of them are. In like sort 1. john c. 5. the same Bible thus readeth: Babes keep yourselves from Images: All which translations being supposed as true, prohibit and forbid all religious use and reverence to Images whatsoever. But now in all their later translations made since that time, in the former three places and texts instead of the word, Images, they translate and read. Idols: restraining the former prohibition to those Images only, which are made Idols, and worshipped instead of God. In like sort touching Christ's descending into hell, the Bible's printed anno 1562. & 1577. do read thus: Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell: which translations prove Christ's descending into hell contrary to the Doctrine of the present Church of England. But the later translation, to wit made in the year 1579. 1595. and 1600. do read, Thou shalt not leave my soul in the grave; understanding the former text of the grave only, and not of hell.  
10. Now here I say that, in regard of this multiplicity and variety of English translations (one mainly impugning & crossing another) we may most strongly conclude, that some of these translations must needs be false: and which of them is true, an ignorant judgement (since it hath no more reason to approve one than another) cannot well censure. And thus fare touching the three several kinds of discovering the English translations as false and corrupted, the Consideration whereof doth afford an unanswerable argument, that our English translations in regard of their impurity, cannot, nor ought not to be pretended as judge for the final determining of doctrinal points in faith and religion.  
11. There resteth a second way (as I said) for the greater manifestation of the falsehood and corruption used in the translation of our English Bibles, and this is taken from the frequent Confessions of the Protestants themselves in this point, whose acknowledgements herein are so full, as they take away all means of evading. And first answerably to this my assertion, we find that diverse Puritan 
(a) In a treatise entitled, A treatise directed to her excellent Majesty.  ministers with one consent, speaking only of the translation of one part of the Bible (to wit, the Psalms) pronounce in this sharp manner: Our translation of the psalms compared in our book of Common prayer, doth in addition, substraction, and alteration differ from the truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at least. But other of our Adversaries do not rest in censuring only one part of the Bible, as falsely and corruptedly translated, but absolutely do give the like censure of the whole. Thus we read, that the Ministers 
(b) In the abridgement of a book delivered to the king by the said ministers. p. 11. & 11.  of the Lincoln Diocese do speak of the English translation in this sort: A translation that taketh away from the text, that addeth to the text, and this sometimes to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the holy Ghost. They 
(c) ubi supra.  further saying of it, A translation which is absurd and senseless, perverting in many places the meaning of the holy Ghost.  
12. In like manner M. Burges 
(d) In his Apology Sect. 6.  (one of our English Protestant's) speaks in this sort of our English translation: How shall I approve under my hand a translation, which hath many Omissions, many additions, which sometimes obscureth, sometimes perverteth the sense, being sometimes senseless, sometimes contrary? Another of our English 
(e) Carliel his book, that Christ descended into hell. p. 116. etc.  Sectaries doth in these words wound their own translations saying: The translators thereof have depraved the sense, obscured the truth, and deceived the ignorant, in many places they detort the Scriptures from 
(f) In his answer to M. Reynoldes. p. 225.  their right sense: and finally they show themselves to love darkness more than light, falsehood more than truth. Thus he: This matter touching the corrupt translations of the Bibles in English is so evident, that D. Whitaker (though willing for the credit of his Church to extenuate & lessen the depravations of their English translations) is forced notwithstanding thus to speak of them: I have not said otherwise, but that some things (uz. in the English translations) might be amended. Again 
(g) Parks in his Apology concerning Christ's descending into hell.  another of them speaking of the English Bibles with the notes of Geneva thus saith: As for those Bible's it is to be wished, that either they may be purged from those manifold errors, which are both in the text and margin, or else utterly prohibited.  
13. To conclude this point, and to relate the like reprehension and dislike given by Broughton, the great Protestant Hebritian against the English translations, who in his advertisement to the Bishops thus writeth: The public translation of the Scriptures in English is such, as it perverteth the text of the old testament in 848. and it causeth millions of millions to reject the new Testament, and to run into eternal flames. Thus Broughton. In like sort we find that at the Conference at Hampton Court, before the King D. Reinoldes with the rest of the ministers following his part and side, there openly avouched: That they would not subscribe to the Communion book, because (said they) it warranted a corrupt & false translation of the Bible. So evident it is, that the English translations (both in regard of the impurity of themselves (being above several ways discovered) as also of the like voluntarily acknowledgements of our English Sectaries) are full of many soul depravations and errors; and therefore are not competent and sufficient in themselves for the trial of all doubts and questions arising between the Catholics and Protestants, or between one Protestant and another; for how can those translations of Scripture, which are corrupt, absurd, senseless, differing from the Hebrew, and perverting the meaning of the holy Ghost (as we see the English translations are styled and confessed to be) be a rule, square, or judge, to measure or pronounce, what is the meaning and sense of the holy Ghost, concerning the abstruse mysteries and articles of Christian Religion? Thus it is brought to pass that our English Sectaries by their translating of the Bible in some places truly, but in diverse places, most corruptly & falsely, do make the Scripture (though in itself most pure, divine, and in contaminate) by this their abusing of it, to seem like to the Statue of Nabuchodonasor, of which part was gold, part silver, and part brass, so consisting of more or less precious matter.  
14. Now here it is to be observed, that what hath heretofore been delivered of our English translations, are chief to be understood of such translations, whose years of Editions are particularly set down, or at lest which have been published before the death of the late Queen. Yet that the reader may see, that our Adversary's Doctrine touching the judge of Controversies, is nothing furthered (but rather much disaduanted) by the last translation made & set forth lately since the King came to the crown; I have thought good (omitting many other texts of the present Controversies between the Protestants and us, wherein for the most part they jump with the former corrupt English translations for the impugning of our Catholic Faith) to set down the several courses observed by the translators thereof in some chief texts only, in the displaying whereof I will somewhat enlarge myself,  
15. First then sometimes (though but seldom) the authors of the last translation are content (as convinced with the evidency of the truth, whereby withal they acknowledge the former contrary translations therein to be heretical) to translate truly and simply with us Catholics without any fraudulent marginal annotations. Thus in the Acts c. 1. touching the Election of Mathias, they leave out the words: By common consent, fraudulently inserted in some of the more ancient English translations, In like sort Acts 9 where it is said, that Paul confounded the jews, in proof of the Messiah already then come, they leave out these words: by conferring one Scripture with another, added herefore to the text in some of the former translations. So again Rom. 8. touching the certainty or uncertainty of our salvation, they translate the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I am persuaded, and not, I am assured, or I am certain. The like course (I mean to translate as we Catholics do) they are content to take in some other few texts, where either they can have no colour of truth to translate otherwise, or else where by their true translating, they think they do not much endanger, in an ignorant ear, their new Doctrine thereby.  
16. Secondly, when the translators think, that by their true translating, they might greatly prejudice their Caluinian Doctrine, they are not ashamed (leaving the true Catholic translation) to translate according to the former heretical translations. Thus we find (for instance sake) Hebrews c. 13. they add the word: is, for the advantage of Priest's marriage, though in the said translation, both the texts going before and coming after (wherein one and the said verb is understood) are translated by them in the Imperative mood. Again Cor. 2. c. 5. they falsely translate these two words: justitia Dei, the righteousness of God, which is in him, thereby to intimate to the ignorant reader, that not inherent righteousness is in man. In like sort Col. c. 1. they translate (according to their former brethren) the Greek adjective 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, meet, and not worthy, (as every young Grecian knoweth the signification to be) thereby to enervate the Doctrine of the merit of works. With the like fraud and intention they translate Luke 21. and 2. Thessaly. c. 1. the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be accounted worthy, which word signifieth to be worthy indeed. Finally Genes. 4. they translate (touching Cain and Abel) his desire, instead of it desire, & thou shalt rule over him, in place of over it, thereby to take away free will in man.  
17. Thirdly, where they translate falsely, that they may the better answer for such their translations being expostulated thereof, they are sometimes content in another place to translate the said words truly, though both the several texts (so contrarily translated) do alike and indifferently concern the Doctrine to be proved or disproved thereby. Thus (that one instance may serve for many) we find, that where our Saviour said to the persons which he cured of their corporal infirmities: Thy faith hath made thee whole, they in like manner so translate with us, in Luke 8. and Mark 5. Yet Luke 18. where the same Greek word is, to wit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and used upon the same occasion they translate (in favour of justification by faith only) Thy faith hath saved thee, and not, hath made thee whole. This they do (as is to be presumed) that if they be charged with false translating of some texts, that they may reply, that such texts are not purposely and determinately so translated against the truth, seeing in other texts and places they translate the said words (and used upon the like occasion) as we do: So subtle is Heresy for the more cautelous patronising of herself. And yet they must needs grant, that if they translate one place truly, the other (seeing the intention of the holy Ghost in the Scripture, notwithstanding the several significations of words, is not capable of contrary and repugnant senses) must needs be translated by them falsely.  
18. Fourthly, where they translate diverse of the former texts falsely and corruptly, yet that they may in some sort (not much unlike to the former manner) plaster the matter, they are content to set down the true translation also in the margin. Thus 1. Cor. 9 they translate the Apostles words in defence of Priest's marriage: Have we not power to lead about a sister a wife? And then in the margin in lieu of the word Wife, they set down the word Woman, as we read. So again 1. Cor. 11. where they falsely translate the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (there taken in a good sense) Ordinances, they annex in the margin (the better to salve their credit, being expostulated thereof) these words, or Traditions.  
19 Fiftly, and lastly (more contrary to this former course) when they are forced even for very shame to translate truly with us, yet for fear (as it should seem) that the reader should give over much credit thereto, they add in the margin another heretical translation agreeable to some former corrupt translation (and consequently to the upholding of some one heretical point or other) that so by this means, the reader may take that, which best sorteth to his humour. Thus agreably hereto (to specify this in one or two instances) where they translate truly that text in john 1. He gave them power to be made the sons of God, implying herein a liberty of will, they thus paraphrase the margin, He gave them right or privilege &c Which second translation is nothing so forcible for the proof of free will, as the first is. After the same manner in Math. 26. touching Christ's Consecration of bread and wine, they truly translate the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: when he had blessed: Yet for fear, that the reader should ascribe over much virtue to this significant words of the Evangelist, they thus write in the margin: Many Greek Copies, have Gavethankes.  
20. And thus fare now for some taste of our new translators several sleights and collusions in these few texts, the which sleights (though for brevity omitted) might be instanced in many other passages of Scripture concerning the Controversies of this time, from all which we may justly infer, first, that seeing this their last translation (so much prized and applauded) is found most corrupt and deceitful, and indeed for the most part (as themselues confess in their epistle dedicatory) more agreeing with some one or other former false English translation in points of Controversies, then with the Catholic translation: that therefore it cannot with any show of reason be urged as judge, for the deciding of doubts in religion. Secondly, we may from hence also collect, that all these different subtle comportments of our Adversaries in this their new translation tend but to delude their ignorant followers, obtruding to them by this means a false construction of Gods written word for the true sense thereof. And so by these devices and collusions we see the intended sense of the holy Ghost in the Scripture is concealed from the Protestant by the Protestant, like as the Sun is hid from the earth, by the earth.  
21. But to proceed a little further touching this last translation: first how can our translations thereof assure any man of the truth of their translation, since they acknowledge no Original, or any translation of the Bible (out of which they did make their translation) for pure & uncorrupt? Secondly, admit for the time, that this translation is perfect according to the true Originals; yet seeing it differeth in diverse controversial texts and passages from all former English translations, it therefore from hence followeth, that till now we here in England never enjoyed the true and uncorrupted Scripture in English, and consequently that till these days the Scripture in English could not be justly urged to determine and judge Controversies in faith: But a true and perfect judge is ready, not at one time only, but at all times & seasons to perform the function of true judicature.   

That supposing the Scripture as judge; yet the Letter thereof is more clear and perspicuous for the Catholics, then for the Protestants CHAP. VIII.  
NOW after we have proved the incompetency of the Scriptures for resolving all doubts of faith, and this from the disagrements of our Adversaries either in approving or discanonizing such, or such parcels of the Bible, as also from the confessed corruptions and falsifications, as well of the Originals as translations even of those books, which are jointly acknowledged by them for God's undoubted word: for as they do grant that others corrupted the fountains, so it is most evident, that (among others) themselves have empoisoned the streams: It will much conduce to our designed project, if we continued our dream for the time with our Adversaries, that the Scripture is solely and finally to decide all Controversies; since supposing this principle as true, we shall notwithstanding be able to prove, that the passages of Scripture even of such parts, as are confessed by our Adversaries to be authentical and uncorrupted, which the Catholics do allege in defence of their faith, are more clear and perspicuous for the proof of their Doctrine, than any counter texts are, which our Adversaries do produce out of the said Scripture, to impugn the same, in regard of which difference a Catholic may commiserate a Protestant in the phrase of Tertullian to Martion: Misereor tui, Christus enim jesu in Euangelio tuo, meus est. The reason hereof is double; first, because the Catholics do ordinarily insist in the literal and immediate sense of the words, which sense is ever more natural and obvious, than any figurative acception of them can be; whereas our Adversaries in answer thereto, as also in alleging other texts, are forced to interpret the said places either figuratively, or at least, not in that usual & immediate sense, which the words do import: Which manner of literally expounding the Scripture, is warranted by the authority of all learned divines, who do jointly teach, that we never ought to departed from the proper sense of words, except we be driven thereto, either by some other manifest place of Scripture, or by some undoubled article of our faith, impugning the literal sense thereof, or lastly by the usual explication of the whole Church.  
2. The second reason of the greater perspicuity in our proofs, then in those of our Adversaries is this, in that most of the texts of Scripture (for I do not say all) which we allege, do fall directly, and (as it were) in a strait line upon the question controverted, so as after the sense and meaning of the words is once acknowledged, they irrefragably and directly prove that, for which they were urged; whereas our Adversary's testimonies do not (for the most part) touch immediately, and (as I may term it) primariously the point in question, but only by way of a secondary collection or illation; which illations being often inconsequent, and at the most but probable, and not necessary, it followeth that though we should grant to them their own expositions of such texts; yet do they but prove the thing questioned by a second hand, I mean, only by probable and conjectural inferences. And this oftentimes, after their illation is granted, doth not light upon the heart of the question itself, but only upon the flank or skirts of the same, I mean, upon the manner, or some other circumstance thereof which being not defined, may be holden several ways as probable by the Catholics. But now for justifying, what I have here set down, let us look into some chief texts urged by us and our Adversaries concerning some principal Controversies (for to go through all, were over laboursome) where I doubt not but we shall find in each of them, at least one, or the two former disparities, between us and our Adversaries in alleging the same.  
3. And first touching Peter's Primacy, the Catholics do allege in proof thereof those words of Christ to him out of S. Matthew 
(a) cap. 16. : Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, And I will give to thee the keys of heaven etc. Which words being taken literally and plainly (as the Catholics do expound them) do directly prove this Controversy, seeing they fall perpendicularly upon the conclusion of the question itself; for to say, that Peter is the rock of the Church, is all one in sense, as to say the head of the Church; And therefore our Adversaries to avoid this pressing authority, are forced to answer that by the word Rock, is understood figuratively Christ according to Caluin 
(b) lib. 4. Instit. c. 6. §. 6. , or every one of the faithful with Erasmus 
(c) Erasm. in hunc locum. , or the confession of our Faith with Luther 
(d) lib. do Potestate Papae. . So distracted they are among themselves in answering thereto.  
4. But let us view what places our Adversaries do allege to countermand Peter's supreme authority. First because our Saviour said to Peter (as it is recorded in the said Chapter of S. Matthew:) Go after me Satan, thou art a scandal unto me etc. As also in that S. Paul 
(e) Galat. cap. 2.  saith of himself, that he resisted Peter in the face. Neither which places (we see) do directly touch Peter's authority, but only by way of weak inferences, and such as are not as much as probable, seeing that Peter was not then the head of the Church, when those words were said to him by Christ: and concerning this other, we grant that the inferior may and aught to withstand his superior, for the truth's sake, so that he doth it with due respect and regard.  
5. To convince that Paradox, that the Pope is Antichrist, the Catholics do urge the continuance of Antichrists reign set down in the Scripture diversely, both by years 
(f) Apoe. 12. , months 
(g) Ibidem. c. 11. & 13. , and days 
(h) Ibidem. c. 11. ; all which several descriptions thereof, being taken literally (as they expound them) do precisely make up three years and a half, and consequently cannot be applied to the Pope. And therefore our Adversaries in answer to the said places are glad to say, that in all those texts an uncertain time is figuratively to be understood, though it be expressed diversely by one and the same continuance of tyme. To prove, that the Pope is Antichrist, they commonly urge that of the Apocalyps 
(i) cap. 17. , where it is said, that the whore of Babylon doth sit upon that City which hath seven hills, meaning Rome. Which words do not directly touch Antichrist, but only by their supposed inference, that by the whore of Babylon is meant Antichrist: which they are never able to prove, since thereby is understood Rome in the time of the heathen Emperors, who then worshipped Idols, and was drunk with the blood of God's Saints. In confirmation of the Real Presence, we urge the sentence of our Saviour, recorded by all the Evangelists, to wit, This is my body etc. Which text being literally taken, doth contain expressly the very conclusion maintained by us, not by circuitions, or ambages, but directly, plainly, & immediately. So as it cannot be conceived, how our Saviour could speak more perspicuously in this point.  
6. Now against the Real presence our Sacramentaries do chief object that saying of Christ 
(k) joan. 6. : It is the spirit, which quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. Which words do not fall directly upon the question of Christ his Real Presence in the Sacrament; Neither is so much as Christ his flesh understood hereby, as they would seem to infer (since then it would follow, that his Incarnation and death availed us nothing) but only the carnal conceit of the jews is cheked hereby, who thought that Christ would deliver his body to be eaten fleshly, corporally, and carnally, as other common meats are eaten.  
7. To the same end, they o●●●ct those words of Christ: Do this in remembrance of me: which place by no necessary or probable illation can include the true absence of himself (which is the point in question) since they have a reference only to a circumstance of himself, to wit of his death & passion (which as being past, is absent) in remembrance whereof, he commandeth us in the former words to receive his sacred body and blood in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, conformably to that speech of S. Paul 
(l) 1. Cor. 11. : mortem Domini annunciabitis do nec veniat: You shall show the death of our Lord, until he come▪ the Apostle so interpreting Christ's former words.  
8. To prove that Priests in the Sacrament of Penance, (where by putting God in remembrance of our sins, he soon forgetteth them, and in acknowledging ourselves to be sinners, we cease to be sinners:) have power to remit or retain sins, we allege the plain words of our Saviour to them, 
(m) Math. 18.  whatsoever you shall lose upon earth, shallbe loosed in heaven, as also those words recorded by S. john 
(n) 20. : Whose sins you forgine they are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain, they are retained. Both which places, in plain, direct, & immediate construction contain in themselves the very touch and point of this controversy without any inference or circuition at all; since they give a direct and straight proof of the conclusion itself, to wit, that Priests have power to remit or retain sins. For denial of Priest's authority in remitting or retaining of sins, our sectaries are accustomed to produce that text of the Psalmist 
(2) Psalm. 50. : Tibi soli peccavimus, we have sinned only against thee; inferring hereby, that because we sinne only against God, therefore only God can remit sin: which inference if it were true, then should it by the same reason, take away the virtue of Baptism for remitting of Original sin. They likewise object certain places of 
(3) Psalm. 18. & 37.  Scripture, which show, that we are not able to number all our sins, and consequently not able to confess them to the Priest; which illation is most weak, since it maketh as must against the Confession of our sins to God, as to the Priest.  
9 For confirming the Doctrine of Freewill, the Catholics do allege (among other authorities) these following. In arbitrio 
(p) Num. 30.  viri erit, sive faciat, sive non faciat: that is, It is in the choice or will of a man whether he will do or not do: As also, Optio 
(q) joshua 24.  vobis datur, eligite hodie quod vobis places; Choice is given to you, choose that to day which pleaseth you. And again: Quoties 
(r) Math. 23.  volui congregare etc. How often would I gather together thy children, as the hen gathereth her chickens, and thou wouldst not? All which places directly and flatly teach, that we have free-will to do, and not to do. Now our Adversaries for denial of this Doctrine are accustomed to allege chief such places, where it is said, that all things are done according to the will and counsel of God; As for example that of Christ (as if the eternal Word of the Father came down to destroy that former written word of God) Vnus passer 
(s) Math. 9  etc. Not one sparrow shall fall upon the ground without your Fathers will. And again, Qui 
(t) Ephes. 8.  operatur omnia etc. Who worketh all things according to the Counsel of his will. Both which texts (besides diverse others of the same nature) conclude nothing, except first they be able to prove, that the Will, Counsel, and Foreknowledge of God cannot stand with man's freewill. The contrary whereof is most clear; as appeareth by the example of Adam, who by our Adversary's 
(u) Caluin. 1. l. Instit. c. 15. §. 8. Luther in comment. in Gen.  acknowledgement had freewill to stand or fall, and yet his fall was neither merely contrary to Gods will, since he permitted the same, nor to his foreknowledge and providence, since he forseeth all things.  
10. Concerning justification by works, the Catholics Conclusion and Position is found literally, and even in those words, wherein they usually express this their Doctrine; since we read in S. 
(x) c. 2.  james: That, ex operibus iustificatur homo etc. A man is justified by works, and not by faith only. In like sort, where our Adversaries do object any place against us, the very distinction sometimes (such is their scarcity and dearth of pertinent texts) which the Catholics do use to avoid their argument, is literally & expressly set down in the words of those texts: Thus we find; that they urge to this end, those words of the Apostle: Arbitramur 
(y) Rom. 3.  hominem etc. we account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law, as also that other uz. Scientes 
(z) Galat. 2.  etc. Knowing, that man is not justified by the works of the law: In both which places, the very answer is expressed, which the Catholics are accustomed to make to such arguments; since in the said testimonies it is set down (& so we Catholics do teach) that the works of the law of Moses (and consequently all others done merely by nature and freewill, without the faith, spirit and grace of Christ) can in no sort justify a man; upon which express distinction of works in the Scripture itself, it followeth, that all other places, which through a naked resemblance of words may seem to make more literally for the Protestants in this point, than these alleged, are to be expounded by these former texts, since the holy Ghost cannot set down contrary and repugnant Doctrines.  
11. For defence of Traditions, we usually allege that place of the Thessalonians 
(a) 2. c. 2. : Brethren hold the traditions, which you have received, whether it be by word, or by Epistle. Where we see that the Apostles words do immediately and necessarily (without any help of strained consequences) imply a division, or partition of his Doctrine, which (no doubt) was God's word. And that part thereof was delivered to the Thessalonians, by his Epistle, the rest by word of mouth only: Which Text contains the very conclusion of the Catholics Doctrine, to wit, that the Evangelists and Apostles did not write all things touching Christian faith, but delivered part thereof only by preaching or by some other such like instruction. Now our Adversaries (to confront this text, and the Doctrine derived thence) are acccustomed to object the words of S. Paul 
(b) Galat. 1. : Sed licet nos etc. But if we, or an Angel from heaven evangelise to you, besides that we have evangelized, be he anathema: In which words they suppose two things (and both false) before they can square this text to their purpose.  
12. First, that the word, Euangelizare, doth include only the written word, and not verbum traditum, the word left by Tradition, which is implicitly the matter in question, and as the Sophisters call it, Petitio principij. Secondly, that the Latin word (praeter) being in this text, hath reference to every thing, which is not expressly set down in Scripture, since indeed it here signifieth as much as contra: meaning thereby all Doctrine contrary to the Doctrine already delivered by the Apostles: for otherwise S. john should have had the Anathema pronounced against him, for writing of the Apocalips, after this Epistle of S. Paul was written: So fare distant is this text from falling directly and plainly upon the impugning of Traditions, since from such false supposals as granted, they draw their Illation against the Catholic Doctrine thereof.  
13. In like sort they allege that saying of the Apostle to Timothy: All Scripture 
(c) 2. c. 3.  inspired of God is profitable to teach, to argue, to correct, to instruct in justice, tha● the man of God may be perfect, instructed to every good work. Where we see, that this text (as well as the former) is so fare from pressing the Doctrine of Traditions immediately, and without any help of a secondary inference, as that it doth not so much as once make mention of Traditions at all either in word or sense; neither can any thing be racked against us from thence, until it be first proved (which never shallbe) that the word utilis, signifieth sufficient; and because a thing is profitable and conduceth to another thing or end, it therefore is sufficient alone of itself, for the obtaining thereof.  
14. Lastly, they bring forth certain places 
(d) Math. 15. Galat. 1. Coloss. 2.  which do particularly condemn certain pernicious and frivolous Traditions of the jews, and the Traditions, which the Catholics do teach to have been derived from our Saviour and his Apostles be all one: So impertinently do our Adversaries allege these and such like places against our Doctrine of Traditions.  
15. Concerning prayer for the dead, what can be more clear & perspicuous for proof thereof then those words alleged out of the Maccabees 
(e) 2. c. 1.  (a testimony so evident, as that I cannot forbear it, though it impugn my former method:) Sancta ergo & salubris est cogitatio etc. It is therefore a holy and heathfull cogitation to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins. Which place we see, doth literally & expressly contain the very conclusion of the Catholic Doctrine therein, and which words proceeded upon the practice of judas Machabeus, who sent a sum of money unto jerusalem to procure sacrifices to be performed for the spiritual relief and ease of his dead soldiers. I know that our Sectaries do expunge out of the Canon of Scripture this book as Apocryphal, yet they are to remember, that it is reckoned among other divine and undoubted books of Scripture by the third Council of Carthage 
(f) Can. 47.  by Innocentius 
(g) Epist. ad Exuperium.  the first, and by S. Austin himself, who thus 
(h) l 18. de Civit. Dei c. 36.  saith: Libros Machabeorum etc. The books of the Maccabees are acknowledged by the Christians, for Canonical, not by the jews.  
16. Now the chiefest places, which our Adversaries do object herein, are (among others) such as being intended of the general resurrection of the Just, are calumniously wrested by them, to the particular time of each virtuous man's death. Thus they allege that saying of the Psalmist: 
(i) Psalm. 126.  Cùm dederit dilectis suis somnum, ecce haereditas Domini, as also that place of the Apocalips 
(k) 14. : Beatiqui in Domino moriuntur etc. Blessed are they which die in the Lord, from henceforth now saith the spirit, that they rest from their labours, for their works follow them▪ And as concerning this later place Saint john throughout his whole Chapter speaketh of the later judgement, and therefore, except the Protestants do first confounded the particular times of men's deaths with the time of the general judgement, they can draw nothing from hence in denial of purgatory; add to this, that some of the Fathers (as shallbe showed hereafter) do interpret this text of martyrs only, who never suffer any pains in Purgatory.  
17. They also produce to the same end the place in Ecclesiastes 
(l) ●1.  Si occiderit lignum ad Austrum etc. If the tree shall fall towards the Souht, or towards the North, it shallbe in that place, where it did fall. The meaning of which passage being delivered in Metaphors or Allegories, doth the more hardly convince any thing, since the sense in regard thereof appears the more doubtful: Notwithstanding the common exposition of this place is, that every man either dies in state of grace (under which state, are also understood those, which come to Purgatory) and so falleth towards the South, whereby is meant Heaven: or in the state of mortal sin, and then falleth towards the North, to wit, into hell. And whosoever dyeth in either of these states, shall for ever remain in the same. And thus we see how fare of, the texts objected by our Adversaries are from convincing plainly, literally, and without any strained deductions, the Doctrine of Purgatory or Prayer for the dead.  
18. Lastly to omit the like examples of diverse other Controversies, the Catholics do produce for proof of Evangelicall Counsels, that plain saying of our Saviour 
(m) Math. 19 : Sunt Eunuchi etc. There are Eunuches, who have gelded themselves for the kingdom of heaven. Which words containing no precept, are so clear and direct in proof of those Counsels, as that our Adversaries 
(n) Peter Martyr l. de caelib. & votis.  (thereby to avoid the force of them) are constrained to say, that by the words: For the kingdom of heaven, is figuratively meant for the more speedy preaching of the Gospel. So ridiculous & far fetched is this their answer.  
19 As clear also are those other words of Christ spoken to the young man for confirmation of the said Doctrine, being taken literally & plainly uz. Simo 
(o) Math. 19  vis perfectus esse etc. If thou wilt be perfect, Go and sell all, and follow me. and thou shalt have a treasure in heaven. Which text (as also the former) doth immediately and primatively without any secondary deductions, touch and prove the Doctrine itself of Evangelicall Counsels.  
20. Now against the said Doctrine, they usually object diverse passages 
(p) Math- 22. Marc. 12. Luc. 10.  of Scripture, where we are commanded to love God with all our soul, and withal our strength, where we find, that what is collected is by this supposition, to wit, that the phrases, Toto cord, & tota anima, do signify all our endeavour possibly in the highest degree: which being false, they heerupon infer, that there is nothing, which is good, left vncommanded to be done, & then they conclude there is no place for Euamgelical Counsels, which are distinguished against precepts: Now what toto cord, & tota anima, or totis viribus, do signify, shall appear in the Chapter following.  
21. To the same purpose they detort those words of our Saviour 
(g) Luc. 17. : Cùm feceritis haec omina etc. When you have done all these things which are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants, we have done that which we ought to do. Which place, (as it is manifest) in it immediate sense doth not touch the Doctrine of Evangelicall Counsels; besides the very words themselves do expressly show, that it cannot be applied to our Adversary's sense and meaning; since our Saviour speaketh precisely of those things, which are commanded to be done; where the Catholics do teach, that nothing which is particularly commanded in God's word, is an Evangelicall Counsel.  
22. Now, by these few example, set down of the places alleged out of God's holy word both by the Catholics and Protestants, we may make a conjecture of the rest, wherein (as I said before) we see the great disparity between the several kinds of those texts. Seeing that if we grant the literal, ordinary, facile, and most natural sense, of the testimonies urged by Catholics, we necessarily grant the conclusion itself of that Doctrine, for which they are urged; since they do touch immediately without any ambages, or borrowed supposals, the primary and radical point or question controverted between us and the Protestants: whereas our Adversary's testimonies out of the said Scriptures, though they were granted them in their own sense & construction, yet they presently force not the proofs of their assertions: and the reason her of is, because they fall not directly upon the question itself, but only by means of their supposed inferences and deductions, and then sometimes they but concern the manner, or some other circumstance thereof, which (being only accessary and subsequent) even among Catholic Divines is holden indifferent and disputable.  
23. Thus we see, that these men, though they be much verbally conversant with the Scripture, yet for any convincing proofs deduced by them from thence, they are most needy therein; not much unlike unto those, who have the stamping or coining of silver and gold, who, though great store thereof come through their hands, yet commonly are poor, as having no true interest in any part of the same.   

That the texts of Scripture are expounded by the Fathers in the same sense, in the which they are alleged by Catholics, for proof of their Doctrine and faith. CHAP. IX.  
IT being made clear in the precedent chapter, that the texts of holy Scripture alleged by the Catholics for proof of their faith are more literal & perspicuous, as also do touch more directly and punctually the doubts for which they are urged, than any contrary passages or places thereof objected by our Adversaries: It now remaineth, that we show two things, first that the ancient Fathers have in their writings and commentaries ever interpreted the said former texts, and others of like nature urged by us, even in the same sense and meaning, which we do for the justifying of our Catholic Doctrine. Secondly that they have delivered a different construction from our Adversaries of those principal texts, which they now produce against us; so as, according to the Father's expositions of the said places (which agree with the Catholics construction thereof) they do nothing at all impugn our Religion. Both which points being once made good, do mightily prejudice our Sectaries. For what probability (I might say possibility) can there be conceived to the contrary, but that the Fathers did interpret both the said sorts of texts (I mean of such as are produced either by us or our Adversaries) according to the intendment of the holy Ghost, or at least were much advantaged above the Novellistes of these days for the true construction thereof? When we consider, that they were men of admirable virtue and piety, of great and extraordinary learning, such as were not interessed our in Controversies, as neither having then enemies to cross their present Doctrine (except it were some one or other confessed Heretic) nor yet knowing what doubts in faith might arise in after ages; but especially, when we call to mind the times wherein they lived, to with even then, when by our Adversary's confessions, the Church of God (of which they were the grave and reverend Pastors and Doctors) had in no one point departed from the Doctrine delivered by our Saviour, and his Apostles. So little reason we find, hath our Novellist to make his sole refuge, to Gods sacred word, were it not thereby to avoid the ordinary and usual trial drawn from all other proofs or testimonies whatsoever, and finally to make himself sole judge of the said word.  
2. But to begin with some chiefest of those testimonies of Scripture, which the Catholics are accustomed to allege, (reserving the texts objected by our Adversaries to the next Chapter) where I intent to restrain myself only to some few texts of every main Controversy; both because to examine all the places of every Controversy, according to the exposition of Fathers given thereof, would not be answerable to my designed brevity, as also, in that by the examples here set down, it willbe easy to make a true conjecture of their interpretation of the rest; for since they did not contradict themselves in their own faith & Doctrine, it cannot be imagined, that they did contradict themselves in the exposition of such texts, as conduced to the maintaining and justifying of their faith and Doctrine.  
3. And first concerning S. Peter's Primacy, that place of S. Matthew 
(a) c. 16. , uz. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church etc. is interpreted jointly by the Fathers, that Christ even in those words did promise to him that supreme authority over his Church, which the Catholics do teach that after he received, and which the Bishop of Rome at this day enjoyeth. This text I say, is thus expounded by Origen 
(b) Hom. 5. in Exod. Athan. ep. ad faelicem , Basil 
(c) l. 2. in Eunom. , Chrysostome 
(d) Hom. 55. in Math. vide Cyril l. 2. c. 12. in joan. , Tertullian 
(e) lib. de Prescript. , Cyprian 
(f) Ep ad Quintum. , Jerome 
(g) In c. 16. Math. , Austin 
(h) In psal. contra par. ten Donati. , and others, all whose direct words were over laboursome to set down, and therefore it shallbe sufficient to refer the Reader only to the places, where thus they write.  
4. In like sort that place of 
(i) cap. 11.  john: feed my sheep, is expounded by the Fathers in the same sense, as we do expound it, who in their writings do plainly teach, that Christ even in these words did institute Peter the head over his Church, giving him that authority which in the above alleged place of Matthew he had only promised: Chrysostome saith upon this place: Alijs omissis Petrum dumtaxat affatur, fratrum ei curam committit: that is, The rest of the Apostles being omitted, our Lord doth in this place speak only to Peter, to whom he committeth the charge of his brethren. Ambrose 
(k) In cap. vlt. Luc.  expounding the same words, saith of Peter: Quia solus profitetur ex omnibus, omnibus antefertur: Because Peter alone of all the rest, did only profess Christ, (meaning at that time, when Christ did ask his Apostles who he was) therefore he is preferred before them all. Gregory 
(l) 4. epist. 32  teaching that the care of the Church was delivered to Peter, sheweth the reason thereof, in these words: Ipsi quippe dicitur, pasceoves meas, that is, because to Peter it was said, feed my sheep: See also the clear and pregnant expositions of the former words in Epiphan. 
(m) In anchorat. , Leo 
(n) Serm. de Assump. ad Pontif. , Theophilact 
(o) In cap. uls. joan.  etc.  
5. The Catholics to prove, that Antichrist is to reign but three years and a half, do urge diverse places of the Scripture, where his continuance is described by years 
(p) Apoc. 12. , months 
(q) Ibid. c. 11. & 13. , & 
(r) Ibidem ●. 11.  days (as is above touched) which places if they be expounded literally, do make up just three years and a half, and then it followeth, that the Pope cannot be Antichrist, as having reigned by our Adversary's confessions many hundred of years. And yet we find, that the said places are expounded literally by the Fathers: Austin 
(s) l. 20. de Civit. Dei cap. 23.  thus writeth of this point: Antichristi adversus Ecclesiam saevissimum regnum etc. Though the kingdom of Antichrist shallbe most severe and cruel, yet shall it continued but for a small time, and he which half sleeping readeth the Scripture herein, cannot doubt: for the words, a time, two times, & half a time, do signify, a year, two years, and half a year, & consequently three years & a half: besides the same appeareth by the number of the days, and months, set down in the Scriptures: Thus far S. Austin.  
6. S. Hierome 
(t) In c. 7. Daniel.  thus also wryreth: Tempus annum significat etc. A time doth signify a year, 2. times, two years, half a time, six months, during which period, the Saints of God shallbe subject to the tyranny of Antichrist. See also the like literal expositions of the former places, in Hippolytus 
(u) Orat. de consummate. mundi.  Martyr, Cyril, 
(x) Catech. 15. , Ireneus 
(y) lib. 5. in fine. , Theodoret 
(z) In c. 7. Daniel.  etc.  
7. Whereas to the like end, we produce certain places of Scripture 
(a) Malach. 4. Eccles 44. Apoc 11. , proving that Enoch & Elias are to return personally, and truly in their own natural bodies into the world at the coming of Antichrist; and therefore the Pope cannot be Antichrist, in that those two are not yet come, for the avoiding of which argument the Protestants are forced to expound the said places figuratively of other men, to wit of their own ministers and gospellers; yet the Fathers do interpret the said texts literally of Enoch and Elias. Thus we find, that Damascene 
(b) l. 4. c. 28. , Hypolytus 
(c) De mundi consummate.  Martyr, Gregory 
(d) l. 4. c. 11. & 12. , and Austin 
(e) l 9 c. 6.  commenting upon these places do write literally the personal coming of them in the time of Antichrist. In like sort doth Hierom, and Origen, and Chrysostome all writing upon the 17. Chapter of Matthew, as also Lactantius 
(f) l. 7. c. 17. , Theodoret 
(g) In vlt. c. Malach. , and Austin 
(h) Tract. 4. in joan.  do prove out of the former passages of Scripture the coming of Elias in his own true and natural body.  
8. As concerning these words of our Saviour touching his true and real being in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. uz. This is my body, Two things are to be observed in the Fathers: first that our Adversaries cannot produce any one father (among so many as have commented upon the said words) which doth interpret the said text figuratively. Secondly, that diverse of them have taught most expressly, that the said words are not to be taken figuratively, but properly and literally: Thus we read, that Theophilact 
(i) In hunc loeum. , Chrysostome 
(k) In hunc locum. , both the Cyrils' 
(l) Alexand. epist. ad Calofirium Hierosolym cateches. 4. mystag. , Ambrose 
(m) l. 4. de Sacram. cap. 5. , Eusebius Emissenus 
(n) hom. 5. de Paschat. , Epiphanius 
(o) In Ancorat. , and others do jointly teach, that in this point we have need of faith thereby to declare that, which seems most absurd to our senses. But to understand the words figuratively, (to wit, that the body of Christ is to be signified by bread) is neither absurd in sense, neither is there any great difficulty of faith required thereto.  
9 In likesort for the proving of the said mystery & Article of our belief, we usually allege those words of the Apostle 
(p) 1. Cor. c. 11. : Qui manducat & bibit indignè etc. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself, not discerning the body of our Lord: Out of which words we gather, that some are here reprehended, in that they receive the body of Christ unworthily, but these do not receive it in spirit and faith, for in so doing they should receive it with profit and worthily; therefore they receive his body only in body, and not in spirit, and consequently his body is there really and truly present. And in this sort is this text expounded by the fathers, uz. Ambrose 
(q) In c. 11. prioris ad ad Corinth. & Theodor. , Jerome 
(r) In c. 1. Malach. , Chrysostome 
(s) Hom. 24. in prior. ad Corinth. & hom. 83 in Matth. , Origen 
(t) Hom. 2. in psal. 37. , Basil 
(u) l. 2. de baptisae. 3. , & others, which exposition of the father's being true, depriveth our Adversaries of all sufficient answer to the said text.  
10. That those three places, which the Catholics do commonly urge for proof of Priest's authority in remitting sins, uz. Math. 16. To thee I will give the keys of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shallbe bound in heaven etc. Math. 18. What things you shall bind upon earth shallbe bound in heaven, and what things you shall lose etc. Lastly john. 20. Whose sins you shall remit, are remitted unto them, and whose sins you shall retain, are retained: That these places (I say) do prove, that Priests have authority given them truly and really to remit sins in the Sacrament of Penance, & not only by declaring and pronouncing their sins to be remitted (as our Sectaries do teach) it appeareth out of the father's expositions of the foresaid places, who expounding them literally with the Catbolikes, do prove thereby the true authority of the Priests therein. S. Gregory 
(x) Hom. 26. in Euang.  expounding the words: Whose sins you shall remit, thus saith: Principatum superni iudicij etc. The Apostles do obtain a principality of supreme judgement, that in the place of God, they may retain the sins of some, and lose the sins of others. S. Chrysostome 
(y) l. 3. de sacerd. the scope of which book is to prove this point.  expounding the former texts, and comparing the authority of the Priests of the old law over the leprous people, with the Priests of the new law, thus concludeth: At nostris Sacerdotibus non corporis lepram etc. It is granted to our Priests, I say not to try them which are purged, but absolutely to purge and cure, not the leper of the body, but the filth and foulness of the soul. See also S. Austin 
(z) l. 20. de Civit. Dei expounding those words of the Apoc. Et vidi sedes, & sedentes &c. , Jerome 
(a) Ep. ad Heliodorun, de vita solitaria. , Ambrose 
(b) l. 1. de poenit. c. 2 & sequent. , Gregory 
(c) Oratione ad ciues timore perculsos  Naziazene, all which do interpret the former texts literally, and ackknowledge from thence the said authority in Priests for remitting of sins, which the Catholics at this day do teach.  
11. That place of S. john 
(d) c. 3.  uz. Except a man be borne again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God: doth prove, that the Sacrament of Baptism doth ex opere operato confer grace, and justify a man; which perspicuous and clear testimony to pervert, our Adversaries are forced to say, that the words are not spoken of the Sacrament of Baptism, but only of regeneration caused by the holy Ghost, whose property is to wash the soul, as the water doth wash the body. And yet against this fantastical exposition we are able to produce the fathers, who do literally understand the former words as spoken of the Sacrament of Baptism; which exposition of theirs granted as true, doth necessarily force the Catholic Doctrine therein. See Cyrill, Austin, Chrysostome and Origen, all interpreting this place, as also Ambrose 
(l) l. 3. de spirit. sanct. c. 11. , Cyprian 
(m) l. 3. ad Quirinum. , Jerome 
(n) In c. 16. Ezech. , and the rest.  
12. In proof of Freewill ('mong other places) we allege those words of God spoken to Cain: Nun 
(o) Genes. 4.  si bene egeris, recipies etc. If thou dost well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou dost not well, sin lieth at thy door. Sub te erit appetitus eius, & tu dominaberis illius, that is, And unto thee it desire (uz. of sin) shallbe subject, and thou shalt rule over it. uz. over sin.  
13. Now our Adversaries in answer hereto do say, that the words, Sub te erit appetitus eius, & tu dominaberis illius, aught to have reference to Abel; meaning hereby, that Abel should be subject to Cain, and that as being the elder he should rule over Abel. Which construction being most forced, & indirect, is generally impugned by the Fathers, who in the exposition of the former words do in both places understand sin, and not Abel. Thus we find that S. Austin 
(p) l. 15. de Civit. Dei c. 7.  saith of this place as interpreting it: Quiesce, ad te enim conversio eius, & tu dominaberis illius, numquid fratris? absit: cuius igitur, nisi peccati? that this: Content thyself (Cain) for it shall turn itself to thee, and thou shalt rule over it: over what? over thy brother? God forbidden: over what then, but over sin? S. Jerome in like sort writeth thus, 
(q) Inquaestion. Hebraicis.  Quia liberi arbitrij es, mone● ut non tibi peccatum, sed tu peccato domineris, (alluding to the words in Genes.) Because thou art of freewill, I do counsel thee, that sin may not rule over thee, but thou over sin. See also Ambrose 
(r) lib. 2. de Cain c. 7. , Gregory 
(s) lib. 4. moral. cap. 22.  and Prosper 
(t) l. 2. de vocat. gē●ium. c. 13. , expounding those former words of sin, and not of Abel; all which fathers do even derive the Doctrine of free-will from their foresaid exposition thereof.  
14. For maintenance of justification by works (for we allow that saying of the Historiographer, Faith, that is seen is better, than faith that is heard) we do urge that place of james 
(u) cap. 2.  (above touched) Do you see, because of works a man is justified, and not of faythonly? which text is so plain & direct for justification by works, as that S. Austin 
(x) lib. de side & operibus c. 14.  is not afraid to say, that the very scope and drift of this Epistle of S. james, as also that of Peter, john, and jude, was chief to repress the heresy then begun about justification by faith only: so great an impugner was this ancient Father of our Adversary's sole and melancholy faith; for so I may well term it, since it will be ever alone, and cannot brook the company of good works.  
15. In like manner, for proof of merit of works (among other testimonies) is alleged that saying recorded in Matthew 
(y) c. 20. : Voca operarios, & red illis mercedem: Call the workmen, and pay them their hire, or wages: in which place by the word, hire, is understood their daily wages, as appeareth by the parable itself. Now by this daily wages is signified eternal life even by the common exposition of the Fathers upon this place. See also S. Austin 
(z) lib. de sancta virginit. c. 26. , S. Jerome 
(a) l. 2. in jovinian.  & S. Gregory 
(b) lib. 4. moral. c. 42. , all of them so interpreting the former words.  
16. For proof of Evangelicall Counsels, which make a difference between a Stoics dulness, and a Christian and religious contempt, is (as I said before) that place of Saint Matthew alleged 
(c) Math. 19 : There are Eunuches, which have gelded themselves for the kingdom of heaven: where the words, for the kingdom of heaven, do not signify (as the Protestant's would have it) for the better and more easy preaching of the gospel, meaning that some are to abstain from marriage only to that end: but the former words do truly import so much, as literally they signify, that is, that some forbear marriage and live in perpetual chastity for the gaining of the joys of heaven: and thus is this place expounded by Cyprian 
(d) lib. de habitu virginum. , Chrysostome 
(e) In hunc locum. , Jerome 
(f) l. 1. contra jovin. , Austin 
(g) De sancta virginit. c. 24. , who thus writeth thereof: Christo laudante eos, qui se castraverum etc. Christ praising them, who have gelded themselues, not for this world but for the kingdom of heaven, shall any Christian gainsay the same, in affirming that this kind of gelding is profitable only for this life, & not for the life to come? For proof of the said Doctrine, we synd that the Fathers do interpret those words of our Saviour: Si vis 
(h) Math. ibidem.  perfectus etc. If thou wilt be perfect, Go and sell all that that thou hast, etc. ●nd follow me &c. only as a Counsel, and not as a Precept, as our Adversaries do teach. See upon this text Ambrose 
(i) l. de viduis ultra med. , Jerome 
(k) Contra Vigil. , Austin 
(l) Epist. 8● q. 4. , Chrysostome 
(m) ●n hunc locum. , who do jointly teach, that our Saviour exhorted and counselled only to Poverty in his former words, but imposed no commandment and precept thereof; whose exposition being true, it followeth, that who voweth perpetual poverty, performeth an Evangelicall Counsel. And of such an one is verified that saying of one Father: Omnia invenit in Deo, qui propter Deum omnia reliquit.  
17. Concerning the visibility of the Church, we urge those words of the Psalmist 
(n) Psalm. 18. , to wit, In sole posuit tabernaculum suum: He placed his tabernacle in the sun: Which place Saint Austin 
(o) Tract. 2. in epist. joan. , doth thus expoudd: In manifesto posuit Ecclesiam suam: He placed his Church in an open and conspicuous place. In like sort according to the expositions of S. Jerome and S. Austin, the Church of Christ is compared to a mighty huge mountain, which is ever in sight. See their expositions given upon Isa. 2. Dan. 2. and Micheas 4. S. Austin 
(p) l. de unitat. Eccles. c. 14.  also doth expound those words of S. Matthew urged by us of Christ's Church, uz. A city placed upon a mountain cannot be hid: So clearly did those fathers think, that the said text did confirm the visibility of the church.  
18. For proof of Traditions we usually allege that place of the 
(q) 1. Cor. 11.  Apostle: Laudo Laudo vos, quòd per omnia etc. I praise you, that in all things you are mindful of me, and that, as I have delivered to you, you keep my precepts: Which text the Father's expounding do constantly teach, that the Apostle did here speak of unwritten precepts and Traditions: so doth Damascene 
(r) l. 4. c. 17. , Basil 
(s) l. de spirit. sanct. c. 29. , Chrysostome 
(t) In hunc locum. , Epiphanius 
(u) Haeres. ●1. , & Theophilact 
(x) In hunc locum.  interpret this place.  
19 In like sort the Fathers do interpret that other place of S. Paul (above mentioned) of unwritten traditions, to wit that of the Thessalonians: It aque fratres tenete etc. Therefore brethren, hold the Traditions, which you have received either by speech or by Epistle. So doth Theophilact 
(y) hoc loco. , Damascene 
(z) l. 4. de si●e c. 17. , Oecumenius 
(a) In hunc locum. , Basil 
(b) De spivit. sanct. c. 29.  expound it; And Chrysostome 
(c) In hunc locum.  thus briefly writeth of the former words: Hinc patet, quod non omnia per epistolas tradiderint etc. Hence it appears, that the Apostles did not deliver all things by their Epistles, but many things also even without writing, which do deserve and are worthy of as much credit & authority, as the former things delivered by writing.  
20. Touching Lymbus Patrum, or the place where the souls of the just were before Christ his Incarnation and death, we are accustomed to allege that place of the book of the 
(d) 1. Reg. cap. 28.  Kings, where the soul of Samuel appearing to Saul, was seen to rise out of the earth. And that it was the true soul of Samuel, appeareth by the testimonies of the fathers, so expounding that place, See S. Austin 
(e) De cure pro mortuis c. 15. , Ambrose 
(f) In 1. c. Luca. , Jerome 
(g) In 7. Isa. , Basil 
(h) Epist. 80. ad Eustachium. , and josephus 
(i) l. 6. antiquit. c. 156 .  
21. That Christ after his death and Passion did truly descend into hell, that 
(*) Hebr. c. 2.  so he might destroy through death him, who had power over death, we produce that plain place of S. Matthew, where it is said 
(k) c. 12. : Sicut fuit jonas etc. Even as jonas was three days & three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the son of man be in the heart of the earth. Which place that it is not understood of the grave (as our Adversaries do answer) but of hell itself according to the Catholics exposition, appeareth from the testimonies of Jerome 
(l) In c. 2. jonae. , who thus writeth: Sicut cor est in medio animalis, ita infernus in medio terrae esse perhibetur; that is, Even as the heart is in the midst of the living creature, so is hell in the midst of the earth: of Irenaeus 
(m) l. 5 circa finem. , of Tertullian 
(n) l. de anima c. 31. , of Gregory Nissenus 
(o) ●n ora●. 1. de resurrect. , and of Ambrose 
(p) In c. 4. ad Ephes. , all which Fathers do understand by those words of Matthew, in cord terrae, Hell.  
22. We also allege for proof of the same article, that saying of the Apostles: Qui ascendit, ipse est etc. He that ascendeth, is the same, which descended into the lower parts of the earth; where the Latin words, inferiores partes terrae, do not signify the grave (as our Adversaries do interpret) but hell, and thus we find this place expounded by S. Jerome 
(q) Omnes high in hunc locum. , Ambrose, Chrysostome, and Theophilact, they proving Christ his descending into hell out of this, and the former alleged text.  
23. For confirmation of Purgatory and Prayer for the dead (besides that place of the Maccabees, which is so plain, as that it needeth no illustration of the Fathers) we allege that place of Matthew 
(*) c. 12.  where it is said, that there are some sins, which neither are remitted in this world, nor in the world to come: Whereby we Catholics, & the Fathers afore us, do gather that some sins are remitted in the world to come by prayers and suffrages of the Church, and this Illation is deduced from this text, by S. Austin 
(r) l. 21. de Civit. Dei. c. 24. & l. 6. in julian. cap. 5. , S. Jerome 
(s) lib. 4. dialog. c. 39 , Bede 
(t) In c. ●. Marci. , and others.  
24. Another authority for proof of Purgatory is usually alleged out of S. Matthew 
(u) Math. 5. Lu●. 12.  and S. Luke, where it is said: Esto consentiens adversario tuo etc. Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whiles thou art in the way with him, lest perhaps thy adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison: verily I say to thee, thou shalt not go from thence, till thou repay the last farthing. Now by the last farthing, is here mystically and figuratively understood small sins, which shallbe paid for, that is, shallbe punished in the fire of Purgatory, and thus is this place expounded by Tertullian 
(x) l. de anima c. 17. , Cyprian 
(y) lib. 4. epist. 2. , Origen 
(z) Hom. 35. in Luc. , Ambrose 
(a) In c. 12. Luc. , and Jerome 
(b) In c. 5. Math. , who thus plainly interpreteth the former words: Hoc est, quod dicit, non egredieris de carcere, donec minuta peccata persoluas, that is: This he saith, Thou shalt not get out of prison, till thou hast discharged even thy little sins.  
25. Touching Prayer to Saintes. And first that Saintes do intercede and pray for us, we prove out of jeremy 
(*) cap. 15.  where it is said: Dixit Dominus ad me, si steterint Moses & Samuelcoram me, non est anima mea ad populum istum: that is, If Moses and Samuel stood afore me, my mind is not to this people: Meaning that if Moses and Samuel should then pray to God for the people of the jews, yet God would not hear them: out of which place we gather, that Moses and Samuel (then being dead) were accustomed at other times, to pray to God for them, since otherwise this speech of God had been indirect and to no purpose. Now whereas our Adversaries to avoid this argument, do say, that the meaning of this place it not, that if Moses and Samuel in their own persons, but if any other godly men, (such as Moses & Samuel were) should pray to God, he would not hear them. Yet notwithstanding we find this place expounded literally. personally, and truly (and so consequently against our Adversaries their answer) of Moses and Samuel, by Chrysostome 
(c) Hom. 1. in epist. 1. ad Thes. shall. , Jerome 
(d) In hune locum. , & Gregory 
(e) l 9 moral. c. 12. .  
26. To the same end we produce out of the Maccabees 
(f) 2. Mac. cap. vlt. , how judas did see in a vision Onias the Priest, and jeremy the Prophet (both which were then dead) praying for the jews. Now seeing that this book of the Maccabees is accounted true and undoubted Scripture by S. Austin 
(g) l. 18. de Civit. Dei. cap. 36.  Cypryan 
(h) l 1. ep. 3. ad Cornelium. , Ambrose 
(i) l. 2. de jacob. c. 10. 11. & 12. , Gregroy 
(k) Inorat. de Mach.  Nazianzen, and others, it therefore followeth, that these Fathers acknowledging the Maccabees for Scripture, and never making any other construction of this vision, then literal, & such as the words import, do also acknowledge that this place doth infallibly prove, that the Saints do pray for us.  
27: Now more particularly that Saintes are to be prayed unto, we prove by the words in job 
(l) job. c. 5. , where it is said: Voca, si quis est, qui tibi respondeat, & ad aliquem Sanctorum convertere. That is, Call if any there be, which may answer thee, and turn thyself to any of the Saints. Where by the name of the Saints are understood the Angels according to the exposition of S. Austin 
(m) In annot. in job. . But if Angels do pray for us, then do Saints the like, since there is one and the same reason of both.  
28. Now to make an end of this Chapter, I will finally rest in bringing a place or two out of the Scripture to prove that the Eucharist is a true and proper (though unbloudly) Sacrifice, contrary to our Adversary's wicked Doctrine herein. And first we are accustomed to allege in proof hereof the priesthood of Melchisedech, of whom it is thus said: Melchisedech 
(n) Genes. 14.  rex Salem protuli● etc. that is, Melchisedech being King of Salem, did offer bread and wine, for he was a priest of the high God. Now not only David 
(o) Psalm. 109. , but also S. Paul 
(p) Hebr. 7.  do so refer this place to Christ, as that S. Paul doth plainly say, that Christ was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, & not according to the order of Aaron. Now if Christ be a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech; then the reason hereof is, in that Christ is to institute an unbloody sacrifice under the form of bread and wine, and so we Catholics do hold, that this he did, when he first instituted the blessed Eucharist. And answerably hereto, the Fathers do interpret those words of the Psalmist 
(q) l. 4. stormat. : Thou art a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech: and the like words of S. Paul, to wit, that Christ is therefore properly and truly called a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, because he instituted at his last supper, a Sacrifice under the forms of bread and wine: Thus are those former places expounded by Clemens 
(r) lib. 5. demonstr. Euang. c. 3.  Alexandrinus, Eusebius 
(s) l. ●. ep. 3. ad Caecil.  Caesariensis, Cyprian 
(t) Haeres. ●9. , Epiphanius 
(u) lib. 5. de Sacram. c. 1. , Ambrose 
(x) Hom. 35. in Gen. , Chrysostome 
(y) Epist. ad Marcel. , Jerome 
(z) Epist. 95. ad Innocent. Pap. , Austin 
(a) Dialog. cum Tripho.  and others.  
29. A second convincing testimony in proof of the sacrifice of the Mass, is taken out of Malachy in these words: Non est mihi voluntas in vobis, dicit Dominus Exercituum etc. I have not a mind or will in you, saith the Lord of hosts; and I will not take any gift from your hand, for from the rising of the sun unto the setting thereof, my name is great among the Gentles, and in every place is sacrified and offered to my name a clean oblation, because my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts. Which text containeth a prophecy of the sacrifice, which shallbe offered to God, by the Gentiles, after their conversion to Christian religion. And because thus far the Protestants do acknowledge, they therefore interpret this 
(b) l. 4. c. 32.  place of spiritual sacrifices (to wit prayers, thanksgivings and such like) which the elect and faithful offer up to God. But the Catholics do expound this said place of Malachy of a Sacrifice, as it is truly and properly taken, to wit of the sacrifice of the Eucharist. And in this particular sense, they find this prophecy expounded by justinus 
(c) l. 3. contra Marc.  Martyr, who thus plainly saith: De nostris gentium etc. Of our sacrifices of Gentiles, that is of the bread and Cup of the Eucharist. Malachias did then speak etc. By Ireneus 
(d) l. cont. judaeos c. c. 16. , by Tertullian 
(e) In Comment. Psal. 95. , by Cyprian, by Chrysostome by Jerome 
(h) In Comment. Malach. , & finally by S. Austin 
(i) l. 1. contra adverse. leg. & prophet. c. 20. & l. 18. de Civit. Dei c. 36. , all which Fathers do directly & in plain words expound this prophecy of Malachy, of the sacrifice of the mass.  
30. I could exemplify, in many more texts, both of these articles and of others, the Fathers like agreement with the Catholics, in expounding such passages of Scripture, as we at this day do allege in warrant of our religion. But the seformer examples, being of the chiefest controversies, and of the most markable texts objected by us, may seem as a scantling, whereby to measure the Father's mind and inclination in interpreting of all such others. And now by this, which hath been already set down, we may gather, how much our Adversaries are en dangered, by seeking to determine all controversies between us and them, only by the written Word, if therein they would stand to the iugdgment of the ancient Fathers, whose great distance of a thousand years at least is the reason (belike) why they appear so little in the eyes of these our Sectaries, who (we see) do not only believe the Doctrine answerable to the Catholics expositions of the former texts, but themselues do expound the said texts & authorities, as we do, and from their own such constructions do derive and justify their faith and Doctrine equally maintained by us both, so as those words of Tertullian 
(p) lib. de pudicitia.  do rightly concern the Fathers and us: Concorporavit nos scriptura divina, literae ipsae glutina nostra sunt: So hard (indeed so impossible) it is to divide the thread evenly between the Fathers and us, but that we both must jointly participate, either of interpreting the Scripture, according to the intended sense of the holy Ghost, or else of most foully depraving and adulterating the same, since if we Catholics err therein, we see, how justly we may insimulate the Fathers within our said error. And yet our Adversaries (see the subtlety of Heresy) do peremptory call the said points of faith and Doctrine deduced out of the former constructions of Scripture, Antichristian and damnable heresies (as they are maintained by us Catholics) which in the Fathers they allievate and gentle, by terming them but Naevos and Naevia: idle and inconsiderate, either heresies in both, or but spots and blemishes in both, for it is the Doctrine which denominates the person, not the person the Doctrine: Yet neither dare they justify; since the one, would discover their open & dangerous breach with the Fathers; the other an over favourable extenuation of our religion; both an acknowledgement of their over sight in retracting that in the end, which hitherto they have so pertinaciously averred. But to recall myself and to haston to the next Chapter.   

That the texts of Scripture objected by the Protestants in disprovall of our Religion, are otherwise expounded by the Fathers, then in that sense, wherein our Adversaries do urge them. And that their expositions of them do commonly agree with ours. CHAP. X.  
NOw after we have showed, that the Fathers do join with us Catholics in their expositions of the chiefest and most convincing texts, which we are accustomed to allege for warrant of our Doctrine; it followeth (according to our former design) that we in like sort do demonstrate, that the Fathers do deliver fare different constructions (and for the most part the same with us Catholics) of the principal and main passages of Scripture, objected against us, from that sense and meaning, wherein our Adversaries do urge them; so as it is most evident, that in the said Father's judgement (which in all reason is to overbalance the private spirit of any Sectary whatsoever) no one such text doth prejudice our Catholic faith at all.  
2. And to begin: The Protestants greatest argument against the Supremacy of S. Peter is taken from S. Paul's contradicting of him (as we read in the Epistle to the Galathians 
(a) cap. 2.  and as it is above touched) yet we find that the Fathers in the exposition of this place, do so praise the humility of S. Peter therein, as that they take occasion thereby to intimate his superiority over all the other Apostles▪ See S. Cyprian 
(b) Epist. ad Quintum. , S. Gregory 
(c) Hom. 18. in Ezech. , S. Austin 
(d) Epist. 19 ad Hieronym. , who thus writeth of this point: Rarius & sanctius exemplum Petrus etc. Peter hath left a more rare and holy example to his successors, than Paul hath done; since by that of Peter's, they are taught not to disdain to be corrected by their inferiors; whereas by the other of Paul's, the inferiors are emboldened to resist their superiors in a charitable manner for the defence of truth. Thus fare S. Austin: who (we see) by the commenting of this place doth strengthen and fortify the Doctrine of Peter's Primacy.  
3. To prove that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist, they object those words in the Apocalips, where it is said, that the whore of Babylon shall sit on that City, which hath seven hills, to wit Rome. Now we find, that such Fathers as do interpret this place of Rome, do mean thereby Rome in the time of the heathen Emperors, then worshipping Idols, & persecuting the Church of Christ. In this sort this place is expounded by Tertullian 
(f) l. contra judaeos & l. 3. contra Marcionem , and Jerome 
(g) Epist. 17. ad Marcellan. . But others of them, to wit, S. Austin (h), and S. Bede 
(i) In cap. 17. Apoc. , do understand, by the Whore, in the Apocalips sitting upon the seven hills, the general all and universal City of the devil, which in the Scripture is often called Babylon, & by the seven hills is understood the number of the proud, and chief of the earthly kings. So thus we find, that according to either of the constructions delivered by the ancient Fathers, this former objected text doth nothing at all touch Antichrist.  
4. In like manner our Adversaries do urge those words in the second to the 
(k) cap 2.  Thessalonians: Ita ut in templo Dei sedeat etc. So as he is to sit in the temple of God. Where the Apostle speaking of Antichrist, the Protestants will needs have him to mean, that Antichrist shall sit in the Church of us Christians, forsooth, because the Pope sits therein, as head thereof: whereas the Fathers do interpret the former words of the temple of the jews, which once was the temple of God, and where according to the judgements both of the Fathers and us Catholics, Antichrist is to sit: & thus is this place expounded by Chrysostome 
(l) In hunc locum. , Ambrose 
(m) In c. 21. Luc.  Hilary 
(n) Can 25. in Math. , Cyril 
(o) Catech. 15.  Hierosolym. Hippolytus 
(p) Orat. de mundi. consummate. , Ireneus 
(q) lib. 5.  and others.  
5. Against the Real Presence, they urge the words of our Saviour recorded by S. john (as is afore touched) uz. The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the spirit, which quickeneth. Now that this place is understood only of the carnal apprehension of the jews of eating grossly and carnally Christ's body, appeareth out of Chrysostome 
(r) In hunc lo●um. , Theophilact 
(s) ibidem. , Cyprian 
(t) In ser. de coena Domini , and Origen 
(u) l. 3. in epist. ad Rom. . To the same end they produce those words: Non (y) bibam ex hoc sanguine vitis &c I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of this wine, until that day as I shall drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom: Drawing from these words, which do term the cup wine (as if our Saviour had spoken of the Cup consecrated) that there was no real change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ; whereas we find, that S. Luke 
(y) cap. 22.  doth 
(x) Math. 26.  make mention of two cups, the one at supper (whereof the former words were spoken) the other after supper, which our Saviour consecrated, and to which the former words had no reference. And thus we find this place explicated (answerably to S. Luke's relation) by Jerome 
(z) in c. 26. Math. , Bede 
(a) In c. 22. Luc. , & Theophilact 
(b) In cap. 22. Luc. .  
6. In denial of auricular Confession, and of Priests their authority for remitting of sins thereby, they produce the words of Christ recorded by S. john 
(c) cap. 20.  uz. Sicut misit me pater etc. Even as my Father sent me, so I do send you; But Christ (say they) when he remitted and forgave sin, exacted not any particular enumeration of them, as appeareth out of S. Luke 
(d) cap. 7. , & S. Matthew 
(e) cap. 9 : Therefore we are not bound to any secret confession of our sins. To which argument we answer, that the former place of S. john is not so to be understood, that the Apostles, & their successors were precisely bound to do all things after the same manner, as they were done by Christ (since by that rule then, the Apostles ought not to baptise in 
(f) Act. 2.  remission of sins, because Christ without Baptism did remit the sins of Mary Magdalen, neither to give the holy Ghost by imposition of hands, since Christ gave it by breathing 
(g) joan. 20.  upon the Apostles:) Therefore the former text alleged (according to the exposition of S. Chrysostome) 
(h) In hunc locum.  doth import, that our Saviour said, that he did send the Apostles, as himself was sent, because he gave to them the power of remitting or retaining of sins, as himself had received of his Father, or according to the interpretation of S. Gregory 
(i) Hom. 2●. in Euang. , because he did send the Apostles to suffer persecution and death, as himself was sent to undergo. Lastly because (according to 
(k) In hunc locum.  Cyril) he did sand them to perform the said office, which himself was sent to accomplish; to wit, to reclaim men from sin, to propagate the Church, to preach the Gospel. And thus (we see) that though the Fathers do sometimes differ in literal exposition of certain texts, yet they all agree in this (in which point we here chief insist) that they do not afford any such sense, wherein the Protestants do urge them against the Catholic faith.  
7. To take away auricular Confession they allege those words of Ezechiel 
(l) c. 33. : Quotiescunque ingemuerit peccator etc. As often as a sinner shall grieve and lament, I will not remember his iniquities: Out of which words, they labour to prove that God only exacteth this repentance & grief of a sinner, for the remission of his sins, and not any auricular confession of them, or absolution of the Priest. To which we answer, that neither of them is excluded by the said words, since no man can grieve and lament for his sins in any available manner, but that he must desire all those means (as confession thereof and absolution) which God hath instituted in his Church. And in this sort we find that S. 
(m) Epist. 91. ad Theodorum.  Leo doth object this very place against himself in this point, and then thus answereth it. Which exposition of his must needs be true, since the former text, if it should exclude confession and absolution, by the same reason it should also exclude Baptism, yea faith, & charity, as necessary for the remission of our sins; since a man may grieve for his sins only by reason of the temporal loss coming thereby.  
8. Whereas against Freewill, they usually object that text of Isay 
(n) c. 22. : uz. Omnia opera nostra etc. O Lord thou hast wrought all our works in us: yet we find, that Jerome 
(o) In comment. eiusdem loci.  doth 
(p) In hunc locum.  understand those words of God's chastisements of that people, and Cyril 
(p) In hunc locum.  of God's miracles and benefits showed to them. So as neither of them, nor any other do understand them in our Adversary's sense.  
9 For proof of justification by faith only, they urge that saying of the 
(q) Rom. c. 3.  Apostle: Arbitramur hominem iustificari etc. We account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law. Where besides that the very text itself doth expressly speak of the works of the law (which kind of works no Catholic doth teach to justify) S. Austin 
(r) l. de gratia & liber. arbit. c. 17.  doth even in the same sense expound this place saying thus: Homines non intelligen●es etc. Men not understanding what the Apostle here saith, did think that he said faith would suffice a man, though he lived evilly, and had no works: which God forbidden, that a Vessel of Election should so think, who in a certain place after he had said: In Christ jesus neither Circumcision nor prepuce availeth any whit, strait added, but Faith which worketh by love. Thus S. Austin. In like sort they urge another saying of the said Apostle: uz. Simo Abraham 
(s) Rom. 4.  ex operibus etc. If Abraham be justified by works, he hath glory, but not with God: As also that other: Gratia estis saluati etc. By 
(t) Ephes. ●.  grace you are saved through faith etc. and not of works. In both which places are understood works done by the force of nature, before our vocation and calling in Christ, as appeareth out of S. Austin 
(u) Supra. & praefat. in psal. ●1. , and S. Jerome 
(x) E●ist. ad ●thesiphontem.  expounding the said places. See also Austin expounding the former and other such like places, in l. de praedest. Sanct. c. 7. & epist. 105. ad Sixtum, & l. de hono perseueren●iae c. 2.  
10. Against the merit of good works, they allege diverse places, which may seem to intimate, that God doth crown men only in mercy, and consequently not by force of their own works; as where it is said: Beati misericordes, quia etc. Blessed are they which be merciful, for they shall obtain mercy: which place both S. Austin 
(z) Epist. 105. & l. de correp. & gratia cap. 13.  and S. Gregory 
(a) In psal. 7. paenitential.  expound thus, to wit, that blessedness and eternal felicity is attributed to mercy, not because there is not a true reward of merit, but because the merit itself is given to man by the mercy of God: For a man cannot do any meritorious work, before he be justified, but he is justified by the grace & mercy of God.  
11. They also urge that place above mentioned, of S. Luke: Cùm feceritis haec omnia etc. When you have done all these things, which are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants, for we have but done what we ought to have done: which text may seem to make against the merit of works, and against works of supererogation; yet in the Father's judgements it nothing impugneth the same, who though they do give several expositions thereof, yet not any one of them maketh against the Catholic Doctrine in this point. S. Chrysostome 
(c) Hom. in illud, Illatum est cor Oziae.  saith, that our Saviour did not mean, that we were unprofitable servants, but that we should so say and think of ourselves, thereby to humble ourselves, lest a selfeliking & pride might corrupt our good works. S. Austin 
(d) Serm. ●. de verbis Domini.  saith, that we may be called unprofitable servants, because when we have kept all God's commandments, we have done nothing, but what we ought to have done, and therefore in rigour and justice, we can expect no reward, but only from the liberal promise and bargain of God with us.  
12. S. Ambrose 
(e) l. 8. in Lucam.  expoundeth the former words in this sense, to wit, that we should acknowledge how weak and imperfect we are of ourselves, to do any good work, and that we are made profitable servants thereto, only by the assistance and grace of God. Now no one of these expositions (as I said before) doth agree with our Adversary's exposition of the said place, or prejudice the Doctrine of merit.  
13. Against actual and inherent justice, they usually prostitute that saying of Isay 
(f) cap. 64. : Facti sumus immundi omnes nos, & tanquam pannus menstruatae omnes iustitiae nostrae: that is: We are all made unclean, and all our justice is like unto the cloth of a menstruous woman. Out of which words they endeavour to prove all our actions to be bad and sinful: whereas it is certain, that the Prophet did speak these words, not in the person of himself, or of the just, but only of the wicked jews, by reason of whose sins, both their City and the people were to be delivered into the hands of the King of Babylon. And this appeareth out of the word, which a little before he had spoken, uz. Ecce iratus es, & peccavimus: behold thou art angry, because we have sinned. And thus we find this place expounded by Cyril 
(g) In hunc locum. . The truth of which exposition appeareth more clearly out of the words following the former texts, uz. Non est qui invocet nomen tuum. There is not any, which calleth upon thy name, which saying must have reference only to the wicked, and not to the just.  
14. To the said end they object David saying: Non intres 
(h) c. 142.  in iudicium cum seruo tuo etc. do not enter into judgement with thy servant, because no living creature shallbe justified in thy sight. Of which place the Fathers do deliver several expositions, but all different from our Adversary's meaning & intention. S. Jerome 
(i) In hunc psalm. , Hilary 
(k) Ibidem. , Arnobius 
(l) Ibidem.  do say, that the meaning of David was, that man cannot be sayd to be justified, if he be compared with the purity and sublimity of the justice of God, in respect whereof the justice not only of men, but even of Angels may be accounted to be but Injustice and impurity. Lastly S. Gregory 
(m) In comment. huius psalm. , as also S. Austin 
(n) l de perfect iustitiae.  do refer the said words of David to venial sins, without committing of which our life cannot be passed over.  
15. Concerning Evangelicall Counsels, of which our Adversaries are professed enemies, they therefore do allege those sayings, 
(o) Math. 22. Marc. 12. & Luc. 10.  where we are commanded to love God with all our forc●, strength, and will (as is above rehearsed) whereas indeed those words are put down only for greater efficacy; understanding thereby, that we are to love God sincerely, truly, and above all other things, & thus doth S. Jerome 
(p) In comment, ad c. 22. Math. , Chrysostome 
(q) Chrysostom. ibid. , and Ambrose 
(r) ad c. 10. Luc.  expound this place. They also object that saying of Christ, where he 
(s) Luc. 14.  teacheth: That except a man renounceth all the things he possesseth, he cannot be Christ his disciple; concluding from thence, that there are no Evangelicall Counsels: which place notwithstanding S. Austin 
(t) Epist. 5. & epist 59 q. 4.  doth expound with us Catholics, to wit, that our Lord spoke only of our readiness and preparation of mind for the renouncing of all, which he requireth at our hands, when just occasion is given thereof; which exposition no doubt is true, because a little before in the said Chapter our Saviour did reckon our wives, and our own bodies among those things, which we are to renounce.  
16. To justify the Inuisibility of the Church, they rack and tenter those words of our Saviour: Venit 
(u) ●ohn. 4.  horae & nunc est etc. The hour cometh and now is, when the true worshipper shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: Where they labour to prove the words, in spiritu, in spirit, to imply the Inuisibility of the Church, because such cannot be certainly known and seen, who serve God only in spirit; whereas Cyril 
(x) In hunc locum. , Chrysostome 
(y) Ibid. , and Euthymius 
(z) Ibid.  do oppose the words, In spirit, to the ceremonies of the jews, as they were corporal & external; & the words, in Truth, to the same ceremonies, as they were figures of things to come.  
17. They in like sort do object (to justify the said Heresy) the words of the Apostle, who saith: Non 
(a) Hebr. 12.  accessistis ad tractabilem montem etc. You are not come unto the mount, that may be touched etc. but unto the mount Zion, and unto the City of the living God, the celestial jerusalem etc. Where, by the words, Mount Zion, and the City of God, they teach that the militant Church is understood, which because it is spiritual, is opposed in this text, to the mount Sinai, which is visible. But S. Chrysostome 
(e) ●n hunc locum. , Theophilact 
(f) ibidem.  and others do expound (with the Catholics) that by spiritual Zion, and the City of God in this place, is not understood the Church militant, but triumphant, which doth consist of the blessed spirits, and therefore it followeth immediately 
(g) c 9  after: But you are come to the company of many thousand Angels, and to the spirits of the just: Which words cannot have a direct reference to the militant Church.  
18. To prove in like manner that the Church of God may utterly fail and decay, they usually object that prophecy of Daniel: Deficiet hostia & sacrificium, the sacrifice shall cease; whereas those words are not understood of the time of Antichrist, but of the overthrow of jerusalem, and of the ceasing of the jewish sacrifices, and thus is this prophecy expounded by Chrysostome 
(h) in cap. 24. Math. , Jerome 
(i) ibidem. , Austin 
(k) Epist. 80. ad Hesichium. , Eusebius 
(l) l. 8. Euang. demonst. c. 2. , Clemens 
(m) lib. 1. stromat.  Alexandrinns', and Tertullian 
(n) l. contra judaeos cap. 5. .  
19 They also object to the same purpose those words of Christ: Cùm 
(o) Luc. 28  venerit etc. When the son of man shall come, dost thou think he shall find faith upon the earth. Which is not understood, that at Christ his coming the Church of God shallbe extinct, but only that markable and eximious faith, which is so much commended, shallbe found but in few at those later days. And thus doth S. Jerome 
(p) Dialog. contra Lucifer. , & S. Austin 
(q) de Vnitat. Eccles. cap. 1●.  expound this text. To the short, they among other texts do bring forth the words of the Apostle 
(r) 2. Thessal. 2. : Nisi venerit discessio primùm etc. Except there come a departing first, & that man of sin be disclosed etc. Out of which words they labour to prove, that there must be a general departure from the true faith at the coming of Antichrist. And the contrary to this sense and meaning diverse of the Fathers, to wit, Chrysostome 
(s) In hunc locum. , Theodoret 
(t) Ibidem. , Theophilact 
(u) Ibidem. , and Austin 
(x) l 20. de Civit. Dei cap. 19  do by the word discessio, or departure, in this place understand Antichrist himself, by the figure Metonymia, as being the cause, that diverse shall departed from the faith. Others of them, to wit, Ambrose 
(y) In hunc loum. , & Sedulius 
(z) Ibidem. , do understand thereby a departure from the Roman Empire; neither of which expositions do favour our Adversaries at all.  
20. To obscure the Doctrine of Traditions they pervert the sense and meaning of the Apostle 
(a) Galat. 1 , who saith: Sed licetnos, vel Angelus decaelo evamgelizat vobis, praeterquam quod evangelizavimus etc. But though we, or a Angel from heaven preach unto you contrary to that which hath been preached, let him be accursed. Where they deduce, that all Traditions are hereby condemned. But notwithstanding the Fathers, do expound this place only of such Doctrines, as are contrary and opposite to the Doctrine there already preached. And therefore S. Ambrose 
(b) In hunc locum.  doth expound this place by these words, si contra: in like sort S. Austin 
(c) l. 17. contra Eaustum. c. 3.  si contra, S. Jerome 
(d) In hunc locum. , si aliter, meaning thereby, if not agreeable, but repugnant to the former Doctrine. In like sort they produce certain places 
(e) Math. 1●. Col. 2▪  (above touched) where our Saviour and his Apostles do disprove and reprehend Traditions in general. Which words being spoken only of certain frivolous and wicked traditions of the jews, do nothing at all impugn the Traditions of the Catholic Church: & thus we find those texts expounded by Ireneus 
(f) l. 4. cap. 25. , Epiphanius 
(g) In haeres. Ptolome●. , & S. Jerome 
(h) In c. 8. Isa. & in c. 3. ad Titum. .  
21. Whereas we hold the unlawfulness of marriage in some persons, and of meats at some times: our Adversaries to impugn our Doctrine herein, do usually allege that place of the Apostle, where he saith 
(i) 1. Timoth. c. 4. : In novissimis diebus discedent quidam à fide etc. prohibentes nubere, & abstinere à cibis: In the later days certain shall departed from the faith &c forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats. Whereas the Apostle in this place speaketh of such who absolutely forbear marriage and meats, as things altogether unlawful (which cannot in any sort be applied to the Catholics;) And these were the Tatians, Marcionites, and the Manichees. Thus is this text expounded by Austin 
(k) l. 30. contra Faustum. , Jerome 
(l) l. 1. in jovinian. , Ambrose 
(m) In hunc locum. , and Chrysostome 
(n) In hunc locum. .  
22. Concerning our Saviour they teach several errors; first that he increased in wisdom and knowledge, 
(o) cap. 2.  as other men do, and that he was not filled with grace and knowledge from his mother's womb. To prove this their Heresy they bring those words of S. Luke: jesus proficiebat sapientia, aerate, & gratia; jesus did profit and increase in wisdom, and grace. But the common exposition of the Fathers is that he profited in wisdom & grace only in the opinion of men, to whom he daily discovered his wisdom, and grace more and more. Thus doth Gregory 
(p) In Basinum.  Nazianzene, Cyril 
(q) l. 20. Thesauri. c. 7. , Damascene 
(r) l. 3. c. 22. , Theophilact, and others expound this place. In like sort to prove Christ's ignorance, they produce that place where it is said: De illo die nemo 
(s) Mar. 13.  scit: That day no man knoweth, neither the Angels, nor the son, but only the Father. Whereby is not meant, that Christ did not know, when that day should be, (as our Adversaries do infer) but that he did not know it to tell it to others. And thus Ambrose 
(t) l. 5. de fide cap. 8. , Gregory 
(u) l. 4. Epist. 42. , Jerome 
(x) ●n c. 24. Math. , Basil 
(y) l. 4. in Eunomium. , and Austin 
(z) l. 1. de Gens. contra Manich. c. 22.  expound these words.  
23. To maintain that blasphemy, that Christ suffered throughout his Passion the pains of hell, they are not ashamed to urge his fear & sweeting in the Garden, most differently from the judgement of the ancient Fathers; for S. Hilary 
(a) Can. 31. in Math.  saith, that Christ then feared in regard of his disciples, whom he saw would forsak him: Jerome 
(b) in 26. Math.  writeth that he then grieved for the jews, in sinning so much by crucifying him. Ambr. 
(c) In c. 22. Luc.  & Chrysost. 
(d) In c. 26. Math.  attribute his fear, to his natural affection, as fearing the death of his body.  
24. To the vphoulding of the same impiety, they wrist those words of the Apostle, US. Indiebus 
(e) Hebr. 5.  carnis preces etc. Who in the days of his flesh did offer up prayers and supplications with strong crying, and tears unto him, that was able to save him from death, and was also heard, in that which he feared: Our Adversary's meaning hereby, that Christ did not pray, that he should not dye, but that he might not be eternally damned; and through this fear he was heard of his Father. Whereas the true, both reading (according to the 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propter reverentiam eius.  Greek) and meaning is, that Christ was heard of his Father, either because himself was worthy of all honour and reverence; or in that, he did affect his Father withal due honour and reverence. And thus do we find this place expounded by Chrysostome, and Oecumenius, all of them so writing upon this text.  
25. To impugn Purgatory and prayer for the dead, they allege the saying of David: Cum 
(g) Psalm. 126.  dederit dilectis suis somnum, ecce haereditas Domini. When he shall give sleep & rest to his beloved, then behold the inheritance of the Lord. They inferring hereby, that all the godly presently upon their death do come to heaven; whereas indeed this text is menat of the general resurrection of all: & this is so expounded by S. Austin 
(h) In hunc locum.  In like sort they produce that place of Ecclesiasticus 
(i) c. 9 : Quodcunque facere potest manus tua, instanter operare: Whatsoever thy hand can do, do it instantly, because neither any work, nor reason, nor knowledge, nor wisdom is beneath, whither thou hastest: they meaning hereby, that the dead have no feeling, knowledge nor help of the living. Which place (according to the exposition of the Fathers) makes nothing against Purgatory; for S. Jerome 
(k) In Comment. huius loci.  doth interpret these words, either of such, as believe neither heaven nor hell, nor any thing else to follow after this life; or else of those, who living wickedly, and so dying, do descend directly into hell, where there is no remedy nor hope of solace. S. Gregory 
(l) l. 4. Dialog. c. 39  applieth this place, even to those which come to Purgatory, interpreting, that a man after he is dead, by himself can make no means of ease and relief, but if he be helped with the prayers of the living, it is because he hath deserved so to be relieved, when he was alive by his good works and life.  
26. Lastly they allege that passage of Ecclesiastes 
(m) c. 11.  (above touched) the answer whereof, is in the former Chapter but one set down; to wit, that those which are in Purgatory, belong to the South, that is to heaven, from whence there is no passage to hell, nor from hell thither. And thus is that text expounded by S. Jerome 
(n) In Comment huius loci. .  
27. Against prayer to Saintes. They urge that, which the Apostle saith: Vnus 
(o) 1. Timoth. 2.  est mediator Dei & hominum &c. One mediator between God and man, which is the man Christ jesus. Which place indeed is understood of a mediator only in respect of our Redemption, but not in regard of Intercession. In which sense Cyril 
(p) l. 12. Thesau. c. 10.  was not afraid to call the Prophets & Apostles Mediators between God & US, & Gregory 
(q) Orat. ad Gregorium. Nyss.  Nazianzene the martyrs. To the same end, they wrist those words to the Colossians 
(r) Coloss. 2. : Nemo vos seducat, volens in humilitate & religione Angelorum etc. Let no man seduce you by humbleness of mind and worshipping of Angels etc. In which place the Apostle doth condemn the heresy of Simon Magus, who following the Platonics, did teach, that certain Angels were to be worshipped, as inferior Gods, & which made the world, and through whose mediation only the wrath of the great & invisible God was to be appeased, as appeareth (besides out of the text itself) from the expositions of Chrysostome 
(s) Hom. 7. in epist. ad Coloss. , Occumenius 
(t) In hunc locum. , and Theophilact 
(u) Ibidem.  of this place. S. Jerome 
(x) q. 10. ad ●●gasiam.  teacheth, that in that former place of the Apostle, those are reprehended, who did sacrifice to the Angels. They also allege some places, which do seem to intimate, that the Saints, & such as be dead, do know nothing of the actions of the living, as for example, Tues 
(y) Isa. 63.  enim Pater noster, Abraham nescivit nos etc. Thou art our father, Abraham hath not known us, & Israel hath been ignorant of us. To which place is answered, that Abraham, and others of the old Testament did not know, what their children & successors being alive, did here upon earth, because themselves were not as yet blessed. And we grant, that the dead naturally do not know, what the living do. And thus S. Austin 
(z) l. de cura promort. c. 13.  expoundeth this text.  
28. Lastly (to conclude this point of producing the Father's expositions of Scripture against our Adversaries) whereas they do allege to prove, that there is now no sacrifice in the Church, the words of our Saviour, 
(a) joan. 29.  Consummatum est, It is consummated or finished. As if our Saviour testified hereby, that whatsoever was requisite for our health and salvation was accomplished and consummated by his only sacrifice upon the Cross: whereas his meaning only was, that all his afflictions and punishments, which he suffered in flesh, were consummated and ended by his death upon the Cross: & thus do Austin, Cyril, Theophilact, & Chrysostome teach in their expositions of this place.  
29. This now (among many other like passages of Scripture, objected by our Adversaries) may serve to discover the Father's judgements, in the explicating of all such texts; and how far distant (at least in those learned Doctors censures) they are from contradicting any one point of our Catholic Faith; & consequently how prejudicial it were to the Protestants in the Father's judgements, to make the holy Scripture, the sole and last resort and Tribunal of Controversies. And here we are to advertise the Reader, that he is not to expect, that the Fathers should prevent in their books & Commentaries, by way of explication, the objections, and arguments drawn from all such places of Scripture, as are urged by our Adversaries; both because they could not foresee the Heresies of our times; as also if they had, yet could they not be induced to believe, that any one of learning, professing Christian Faith and Religion would so pertinaciously, and impertinently rack and force Gods sacred word for the vphoulding of their Heresies, as the Sectaries of our age have done.  
30. Neither is the Reader to look, that our Catholic Expositions of every text, which our Adversaries do urge against us, should be warranted with the authorities of many Fathers, (though most of them have been so fortified) in that, some such passages of Scripture there are, of which few Fathers did undertake to make any peculiar Comment or exposition at all. Only it sufficeth, that we can have our expositions of every such sentence of Scripture strengthened with the authorities of some few of them. And that the Protestants are not able to allege so much as one Father interpreting in the Protestants construction against our Catholic Doctrine, any one of the former alleged places of Scripture, or any one other text which our Adversaries allege though here it be not set down. And now having thus dislodged our Adversaries of their best coverts and places of Retire, for patronage of their strange and exorbitant Positions and Doctrine; as also, having in the precedent Chapter fortified and strengthened with the Father's explications the sense and meaning of such texts, as we produce against them, I will herein proceed no further, referring one point to their own considerations and judgements; to wit, whether themselves receive greater hurt and damage, by the Father's erecting their impregnable Forts of God's word, from whence they make their issues & sallies out in pursuit and profligation of these men's Heresies; then by the said Fathers raising and battering down, the weak holds and fortresses of such misapplyed texts of holy Scripture, wherein our Sectaries are wont to place their greatest strength and confidence; since by the first, their Heresies receive most deadly and incurable wounds; by the second, the Catholic Faith is secured & freed from all dangerous assaults and encounters.  
31. But to end this point, (to wit that the Fathes interpreted the Scripture in general, in one & the same sense with us Catholics) the evidency of it is such, as that therefore the Fathers are charged by our Adversaries (through their supposed misconstruction of Scripture) as maintainers of Popish Religion. The consideration of which assertion of theirs, being for several respects not to be neglected, and as particularly conducing to our present purpose, induceth me a little to insist in setting down the several reprovalls and criminations of the Protestants boldly delivered against the Fathers for their defending of our Catholic Articles and Doctrine. Which point being made manifest, it then inevitably followeth, that even in our Adversary's judgements, the Fathers did deliver the said constructions of Scripture, which we Catholik● do, seeing the Fathers maintained no Doctrines, but such as were in their own opinions warranted with the authority of God's sacred written word, or at least not any way impugned by the same.  
32. And first we find D. Whitaker 
(a) Contra Duraeum. l. 6. p. 423.  (scornfully traducing the Fathers in a general) to write, thus the Popish Religion (to use his own words) is a patched Coverlet of the Father's errors sowed together.  
33. D. Whitguift 
(b) In his defence of the answer to the admonition pag. 472. & 473.  (the once pretended Archbishop of Canterbury) in like manner thus chargeth the Fathers: How greatly were almost all the Bishops and learned writers of the Greek Church, and Latin also for the most part, spotted with Doctrines of freewill, of merits, of Invocation of Saintes, and such like? meaning such like points of our Religion.  
34. Peter 
(c) De votis p. 476.  Martyr speaking of the supposed Popish Errors, thus insimulates the Fathers within the said errors, saying: As long as we insist in Counsels and Fathers, so long we shallbe conversant in the said errors. Malancthon 
(d) In 1. Cor. c. 3.  in like sort inveighing against the Fathers, thus averreth: Presently from the beginning of the Church, the anncient Fathers obscured the Doctrine concerning the justice of faith, increased Ceremonies, and devised peculiar worships.  
35. M. jewel 
(e) l. de vita jewelli printed at London. pag. 212.  most Hypocritically appealing to the Fathers at Paul's Cross, as challenging them for Protestants, is sharply reprehended for such his idle vaunting by D. Humphrey himself in these words: He gave the Papists too large a scope, was injurious to himself, and after a manner spoiled himself and his Church.  
36. Beza thus 
(f) In his preface upon the new Testament dedicated do the Prince of Condy anno 2587.  confidently writeth upon the said point: Even in the best times (meaning the times of the Fathers of the Primitive Church) the ambition, ignorance, and lewdness of the Bishops was such, that the very blind may easily perceive, that Satan was precedent in their assemblies or Counsels.  
37. But I will conclude this point with the testimony of Luther, who, as he was the first in our age; that broached a religion unknown to the Fathers of the Primitive Church: So he shown himself most insolent in controlling them for their maintaining of our Catholic Religion, he thus speaking of them 
(g) Luther Tom. 2. Wittenberg. anno 1551. deseruo arbitrio pag. 434. : The Fathers for so many ages have been plainly blind, and most ignorant in the Scriptures, they have erred all their life time, and unless they were amended before their deaths, they were never Saints, nor pertaining to the Church.  
38. Now from all these assertions of our Sectaries it is necessarily gathered, that their disclaiming from the ancient Fathers, as patroness of our religion, doth implicitly involve in itself (as above I have touched) that even in our adversary's acknowledgements, the Fathers interpreted the Scriptures in one and the same sense with us Catholics, (for if they had made one and the same construction of the Scripture with the Protestant's, they had then taught the same Doctrine, which the Protestants now teach) and consequently it appeareth, how dangerous it is to our Adversaries to appeal to the Scripture alone, as judge of all Controversies, if for the true construction and sense thereof, they would rest in the judgements of the anncient Fathers.   

That the Scripture doth make for the Catholics, even by the  acknowledgement of our Adversaries, rising from their maintaining of our Catholic articles. CHAP. XI.  
IN this last place we are to undertake to show, that even by our Adversary's Confessions, the holy Scripture is most clear for justifying our Catholic Faith: which point might be proved at large by producing their own words and expositions of many of the chief passages of Scripture, whereby we are able to demonstrate out of their own books and writings, that they are interpreted by them in the same sense and meaning, wherein we Catholics do usually expound them. But this course I will purposely forbear, partly to avoid the distasteful iteration of the former texts so often already repeated, but chief in regard of the tedious prolixity, which would necessarily attend the delivering (in their own words) of our Adversary's expositions of all such places; and in supply thereof, I will take a more brief (and yet no less convincing) method. That is, I will set down ten of our main Controversies (for example of all the rest) acknowledged, taught, and justified by our Adversaries, and such who for wit and learning may seem to equal any others of their own side. Which thing being once performed, it then inevitably followeth (even from their own Principles) that they acknowledge the Scriptureto make for the Catholics in the said Doctrines confessed by them, since their own general and constant axiom 
(*) Luther i● Comment. c. 1. ad Galat. Caluin. l. 4. Instit. c. 8. §. 8. Chemnit. in Exam. Conc. Trident. sess. 4. & in libro quem inseripsit, Theologiae jesuit. praecip. capit. Brentius in suis Prologeminis c. de Traditionibus. Hammelmanus in suo volumine contra Traditiones, & alij permulti.  is, that they are not to believe any thing, as matter of faith, but what hath it warrant in Gods written word. And to proceed yet more particularly, seeing that for justifying of such Catholic articles, no passages of Scripture can be alleged more forcibly and pressingly by our Adversaries own censure, than the texts alleged in the former Chapters, it therefore may be concluded, that those very particular texts (even by the acknowledgement of the Protestants) do receive that sense and construction, which the Fathers, and we Catholics have delivered of them for proof and warranting of our faith. Again, whereas our Adversaries (which maintain any such Catholic Positions) will (no doubt) confidently avouch, that they teach nothing which may be contradicted by the Scripture; It in like sort followeth, that all such texts of Scripture mentioned above, and others of like nature (which are urged by other protestāns to impugn the said Catholic points) are, at least in these men's judgements, to be taken in a construction far different from overthrowing the said articles. So as the conclusion of all is this, that in these men's censures, we implicity do show, that such authorities of Scripture urged by us, do confirm our Catholic Faith, and objected by them do prejudice it nothing at all. But to begin.  
1. And first concerning the Primacy of one in the Church of God; we find that Caluin 
(a) Alleged by Whitg. p. 137.  thus saith: The twelve Apostles had one among them to govern the rest. D. Whitguift 
(b) ubi suprap. 375.  saith: Among the Apostles themselves there was one chief. etc. In like sort Musculus 
(c) Alleged by Whitguift ubi supra. p. 66.  saith: Peter is found in many places to have been chief among the rest. Melancthon 
(d) In his book entitled Centur. epist. theolog. epist 74.  thus writeth: as certain Bishops are Precedent over many Churches, so the Bishop of Rome is Precedent over all Bishops, and this Canonical policy no wise man (I hope) will, or aught to disallow. To maintain this said Doctrine jacobus Andraeas is alleged by Hospinianus 
(e) Historia sacramentaria part. 2. fol. 589.   
2. That the Pope is not Antichrist appeareth from the testimonies of diverse Protestants, which teach, that Antichrist is not yet come. So doth Zanchius 
(f) In epist. Pauli ad Philippens.  teach: the like doth Franciscus 
(g) In his book entitled Antichristus sive progno sti●● mundi  Lambertus affirm: And Done in one of his sermons 
(h) Of the s●●ond coming of Christ.  confesseth: That some Protestants do make a doubt, whether Antichrist be yet revealed or no. And here we are to observe, that some other Protestants, who do teach him to be come, do make the Turk to be him; thus doth Melancthon (so urged by Harvey, in his Theological discourse, pag. 102.) Bucer, and Fox teach, uz. Act. Mon. of anno. 1577. pag. 539.  
3. Touching the Real Presence, who knoweth not, that Luther, and the Lutherans defend it. And therefore it is needles to set down the particular names of any of them, since the maintainers of this Doctrine (which are not Catholics) are termed Lutherans, especially because they chief descent from the Caluinistes in this point.  
4. That Priests do truly remit sins by Absolution, and not only pronounce them to be remitted, appeareth from the testimony of the English Communion book, where the Priest saith: And by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins. Which book is therefore reprehended by the book called, the Survey 
(i) p. 145.  of the book of common prayer. As also the same is proved by Lobechius 
(k) Disput. Theologic. pag. 301. , who saith: That God remits sin immediately by himself, but mediately by his ministers. And that the Caluinistes do therefore err in withdrawing this efficacy from the absolution given by the minister of the word. Thus fare Lobechius. And answerably hereto we find, that Melancthon 
(l) In Apolog. confess. Aug. art. 13.  did teach, that Absolution is properly a Sacrament. The like did Spandeburge 
(m) In margarit. Theologic. pag. 116. , Andraeas 
(n) In concilat. locorum seript. pugnant. loc. 191.  Althamerus, and Sarcerius 
(o) Loc. come. hom. 1. de potest. Eccles. fol. 305.  affirm.  
5. That the Sacraments of the new Testament, confer grace, ex opere operato, appeareth from the judgement of D. Bilson in his true difference, part. 4. pag. 539 D. Whitaker contra Duraeum. l. 8. p. 662. M. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical policy lib. 5. sect. 57 Melancthon in cap. 4. epist. ad Roman. jacobus Andraeas, in Epitome. colloq. Montisbelgar. pag. 58. Luc. Osiander in Enchirid. controuers. etc. p. 272.  
6. The Doctrine of Freewill in like sort is maintained by Osiander, Cent. 16. p. 814. by Siccanus & Hemingius, as Willet doth witness in his Sinopsis printed 1600. p. 808. By Perkins, in his revelat. p. 326.  
7. The Doctrine of merit of works, to wit, that in regard of Christ his Passion and promise, and as proceeding from faith (all which points the Catholics do acknowledge as necessary) they are meritorious, is warranted by the testimonies of Melancthon 
(p) loc. come. de bonis operib. , of the Confessions (q) in the Harmony, of Hooker 
(r) l. 5. Ecclesiast. polic. sect. 72. pag. 208. , and of the disputation holden at Ratisbone 
(s) p. 509. .  
8. The forbearance of certain meats at set times, and this not for a politic respect, but in regard of spiritual ends, is justified by Hooker 
(t) In his Ecclesiast. polic. l. 5. sect. 72. p. 204. , who not only condemneth Aerius and Montanus for teaching the contrary, but doth also answer the place urged out of S. Paul by our Adversaries, in disproof of our Catholic fastings. The said Doctrine is also approved by a book (written by a Protestant author) entitled, Querimonia 
(u) p. 31. & 94.  Ecclesiae, printed in London anno 1592.  
9 The Doctrine of Evangelicall Counsels is maintained by Luther, 
(x) assertionib. art. 30.  by Hooker in his Ecclesiastical policy. lib. 3. sect. 8. pag. 140. and by D. Covel in his defence of Hooker art. 8. p. 49. 50. etc.  
10. Lastly that the true Church is ever to be Visible, is proved from the testimonies of Melancthon, who alleging sundry texts out of Scripture in proof thereof, thus 
(y) loc. come. de Eccles. p. 354.  concludeth: Hi & similes loci non de Idea Platonica, sed de Ecclesiae visibili loquuntur. D. Field 
(z) l. 1. of the Church p. 19 & 21.  doth affirm the same, and thereupon reprehendeth Bellarmine for proving needlessly the Visibility of the Church, as if the same were denied by the Protestants. D. Humphrey in like sort justifieth the Church's Visibility: and entreating at large and proving this point, in the end directeth his words to the Catholics in this manner: Cur 
(a) In jesuitismo part. 2. rat. 3. p. 240.  ergo anxiè & curiosè probant, quod ànobis nunquam est negatum: that is, why do our Adversaries so painfully prove that (to wit the Church's Visibility) which we never denied? Thus teacheth the said Doctor.  
11. The same Doctrine of the Church's Visibility, is in like sort maintained by Henoch Clappam 
(b) In his sovereign remedy against schism p. 18. , who thus saith: Not only all Ancients did hold the Church's Visibility, but also all learned men of our age.  
12. These now ten articles among many other such like Catholic points, acknowledged by our Adversaries, (as the Reader may fully see in that most elaborate, learned, convincing, and unanswerable book, styled, The Protestants Apology of the Roman Church) may be sufficient to prove, that the Scripture maketh most clear and evident for the justifying of our Catholic Faith in the former points, at least in the judgements of these (as I may term them) Agrippian, and half Christians; I mean, in the judgements of the aforealledged Protestants teaching and acknowledging these Catholic Positions. And the reason hereof is, in that those who maintain and defend the said former articles, do nevertheless (as I touched before) confidently teach & avouch, that, that only (and nothing else) is to be believed in matters of faith, which is manifestly and expressly warranted, or necessarily deduced out of the written word. Now this being thus, I see not how our former Protestants can avoid and divert the danger of this their present Doctrine, which broacheth, that the written word alone is solely & definitively to determine all Ecclesiastical doubts & Controversies of Religion.   

The Conclusion. CHAP. XII.  
IT is recorded of a certain Heathen Poet, who endeavouring to discounsell his Prince and Maecenas from waging of war (to the which he had been overmuch inclined) composed a Tragedy, representing therein all those aggrevances and terrors commonly attending upon wars; as sacking of towns, depopulation of countries, slaughter of soldiers, murdering of the innocent, and other such lamentable effects. But instead of his Catastrophe, or last Act thereof, he caused the Chorus, without any speech at all, to bring forth in a vessel, certain dead bones of his Prince's predecessors, with a paper therein bearing this (or the like) inscription, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is: Behold here (mighty Prince) the bonesof such thy ancestors, which were slain and died in the wars. Which deadlively spectacle being set in the sight of his Lord, spoke (no doubt) more feelingly and persuadingly) as forcing or invading his Understanding by the  assault of the Eye) than the deliverance of words, or any other external representation could import.  
2. The like in the closure of this treatise I think good to observe, for having laboured to withdraw our Sectaries from erecting the Scripture as sole judge of Controversies; in the patronising whereof they war & fight against God's sacred word, against the practice of the church in her first purity, against the uniform judgement of the ancient Fathers, and finally against Reason itself. And having refuted this their Doctrine, first by discovering the difficulty of the Scriptures, in regard whereof, every private spirit (though of such as are predestinated and elected) cannot assure himself indubiously of their true sense & meaning. Secondly by laying down the incompetency & insufficiency of the Scriptures in this point, proceeding both from the Protestants disagrements, which is Scripture, from the corruptions of all Originals and Translations thereof now extant, at least by the judgement of our new gospellers; and lastly by showing, that supposing the Scripture to be this judge, yet it maketh in behalf of us Catholics, and not for our Adversaries, if we insist either in the perspicuity of the letter thereof, or in the judgement of the Fathers and Protestants passed thereon. The proof of which passages necessarily forcing, that the Scripture cannot be this determining judge. Which being accomplished, it now remaineth (by allusion to the former Poet) that in place of an exact & ceremonious Conclusion, I only present to the view of the Protestants, the yet extant, and (as it were) the un-entombed sentences & judgements of their own ancestors, (I mean of Luther, Caluin, Zuinglius, and their followers) wherein with great bitterness of speech, they do anathematise and damn one another for their different opinions rising out of their supposed revealing spirit, & out of their private interpreting the Scriptures, as each one doth truly charge another; though they all indifferently maintained with the like fervour this Doctrine, promising infallibly to themselues in particular the certainty of this spirit, and justifying in like sort the Scripture for judge.  
3. These censures (I say) I will present to the eye of their judgements, as so many unburied parcels of their forefathers dead memories, still remaining to witness to their children, that their said Predecessors in this Doctrine, did perish in the justifying of this their quarrel, not only by the hands of their professed Adversaries the Catholics; but also by the bloody wounds, which their credit and estimation reciprocally received from their severe sentencing of one another, as often as any of them attempted to practise in their particular works and labours, touching the making the Scripture sole judge of Controversies, which afore they all had jointly taught by speculation. And here it is to be observed, that their interchangeable condennations are in several manners & sorts. 1. The Lutherans with the Sacramentaries (I mean with the Swinglians and Caluinists.) 2. The Sacramentaries, with the Lutherans. 3. The Lutherans among themselves. 4. The Sacramentaries among themselves, under whom are comprehended the Protestants and Puritans here in England. All which parties notwithstanding equally maintained the Scripture for judge, and the infallibility of the private spirit, and therefore upon this ground and principle (if so it were true) their own spirits (each one challenging the like privilege therein) should have necessarily conspired and agreed together in their Doctrine & expositions of the said Scriptures, since the spirit of God is one, not many. 
(b) Epist. ad joannem Heruagium Typographum Argentinum.  And first I will begin with the judgements of the Lutherans passed upon the Sacramentaries.  
4. Luther 
(a) Thes. 2. cont. Lovaniens.  himself saith: We seriously judge the Zwinglians and Sacramentaries to be Heretics, and Aliens from the Church of God. And in another place he saith: The Sacramentaries began their opinion of the Sacrament with lies, and with lies they defend it. As also in third 
(c) Tom. ●. in def verbor. caenae Domini f. 389.  place he thus writeth against them: We will reprove and condemn them (to wit the Sacramentaries) for Idolaters, corrupters of God's word, blasphemers and deceavers, and of them as of the enemies of the Gospel, we will sustain persecution, and spoil of our goods, and whatsoever they shall do unto us, as long as God will permit.  
5. Neither are Luther's Posthum, or his after-broode (I mean the Lutherans, whom by the testimony of Doct. Whitaker 
(d) In his answer to F. Campian the eight reason.  the English Protestant's embrace as their dear brethren in Christ) more mild in censuring the Sacramentaries, than their Father was: for Luke 
(e) Enchirid. count. Caluinian. c. 7.  Osiander (a Lutheran) speaking of certain wicked assertions of them touching Christ saith thus: But here gentle Reader) behind & above those blasphemous things, which in the discourse, afore, we have heard against the Son of God, out of the opinion of our Adversaries the Caluinistes, there openeth itself a gulf or hell of Caluinian Doctrine, in which, if thou diligently weigh the matter, God is said to be the author of sin etc. and hence of necessity must arise in the hearts of men manifest blasphemies against God. The said author 
(e) Ibid. in Conclus. p. 267.  in the same book saith also thus: Let any godly or friendly Reader whatsoever think, what deadly poison doth pour itself into men under the Caluinian Doctrine, by which all Christianisme almost is overthrown.  
6. Brentius 
(f) In recognit. prophetar.  saith: All the Zwinglians works are full of depravations, cunninges, deceits, and slanders. Westphalus 
(g) Apolog cont. Caluin p. 430. c. 19  reporteth: That all the Caluinian works are stuffed with taunts, curses, and lies. And he further affirmeth, that he is able to show certain pages of Caluins' works, of which every one containeth above 30. notable lies and taunts. Conradus Schlusselb. 
(h) In praefat. theo. Caluinist.  protesteth; that the Caluinistes do nourish Arian and Turkish impieties in their hearts, which doth not seldom at fit times openly disclose itself.  
7. Stankarus 
(i) Contra Caluin. k. 4.  thus writeth to Caluin: What devil (o Caluin hath seduced thee, to speak with Arius against the son of God &c And after the said Lutheran concludeth: Beware (o Christian Readers) and especially all you Ministers, beware of the books of Caluin, and principally in the articles of the Trinity. Incarnation, Mediator, the Sacrament of baptism etc.  
Hunnius 
(k) In ●his epist. dedicatory of the Confut. of Caluins' depravations.  chargeth Caluin: That he wresteth the Scripture horribly, from the true sense to the overthrow of himself and others. And thus passing over the censures, which the books Caluinus judaizans, & Calvino-papismus afford against him, as also omitting many other Lutherans writings against Caluin and his sect, and leaving out of the former Lutherans (for brevity sake) infinite other most notorious passages directed to the same purpose; this already set down shall suffice concerning their condemnation of him, & the Sacramentaries.  
9 Now let us see on the contrary side, how the Sacramentaries do bear themselves towards Luther and the Lutherans, contenting ourselves with the same few places only of their censures, which may serve for a taste of the rest.  
10. And first Zuinglius 
(l) Tom. 2. in respon ad Luther. confess. fol. 458. & 459.  calleth Luther, Martion; & further saith, that he is guilty of high blasphemy against the nature & essence of God, in that he taught that Christ died according to his divinity. He further thus speaketh of Luther, touching the same point: This can be by no reason explained or excused, for (Luther) clearly and manifestly confesseth, that he will not acknowledge Christ to be his Saviour, if only his humanity had suffered. Zuinglius 
(m) In respon ad Luther. l. de Sacram. fol. 401.  also writing in another place against Luther's Doctrine thus saith: Thou (Luther) shalt be forced either to deny the whole Scriptures of the new Testament, or to acknowledge Marcions heresy.  
11. Caluin 
(n) Instit. l. 4. c. 17. §. 16.  speaking of Luther's heresies saith: By the Lutherans, Martion is raised out of hell: and in another place 
(o) Admonit. 3. ad Westphalum.  Caluin saith: The Lutherans are forgers and liars.  
12. joannes Campanus 
(p) In Colloq. lat. Luther. Tom. 2. c. de Aduersar.  a Sacramentary saith: as certain as God is God, so certain it is, that Luther was a devilish liar.  
13. Lastly (for greater contraction of this point) Oecolampadius affirmeth that the Lutherans bring forth only a colour or shadow (as Heretics commonly are accustomed to do) of the word of God. They bring not the word of God, and yet will seem to 
(q) Dialog. count. Me. lancthonen.  build upon the word of God. See with what full & intemperate terms they do interchange one another. Now as we have seen the Lutherans condemning the Sacramentaries for their interpretation of Scripture, and these them again: So neither of these two sects do absolutely approve such, as are even of their own faction.  
14. And first we find that Conradus 
(*) In Catalogue. nostri temporis l. 1.  the foresaid Lutheran placeth six sorts of his own Lutherans in the Catalogue of Heretics. So (through the disallowing of one another's Doctrine) did first rise the distinction of Molles & Rigidi Lutherani; so as it is manifest, even out of their own books and invectives, that they hold one another for Heretics.  
15. Now touching the Sacramentaries among themselves: Doth not Caluin 
(r) lib. de coena Domini & l. 4. Instit. c. 15. §. 1.  condemn Zuinglius, for teaching that the Sacraments are bare external signs? And is not Caluin reciprocally condemned by Zuinglius 
(s) Zuinglius epist. ad quandam Germaniae civitatem fol. 196. & in Commentar. de vera & falsa relig. c. de Sacra.  again, because he attributed more to the Sacraments then external signs?  
16. Castalio 
(t) In l. ad Caluin. de praedest.  a Sacramentary, charging Caluin for teaching God to be the author of sin, maketh a distinction of the true God, and of Caluins God, and giveth a different description of them both, and among other things he there thus concludeth: By this means not the devil, but the God of Caluin is the Father of lies: but that God which the holy Scripture teacheth, is altogether contrary to this God of Caluin etc. And then after: The true God came to destroy the works of the Caluinian God, and these two Gods, as they are by nature contrary one to another, so they beget and bring forth children of contrary disposition; to wit, that God of Caluin children without mercy, proud, etc. Thus Castilio. And thus much of our foreign new gospellers for some taste of the bitter sentences delivered against one another; in which point I acknowledge not to have set down the hundred part of their mutual accusations.  
17. Now if we look here at home, it is easy to show that the Protestants and Puritans do as little favour one another for their several Doctrines rising from making the Scripture sole judge of Religion, as the fore named Sectaries have done. Hence it is, that the Puritans will not acknowledge the Protestants to be true and sincere professors of the Gospel, as appeareth by their diverse admonitions exhibited to the Parliamentes, every lea●e almost therein inveighing against them, as against the gospels enemies. So we see that in one of their books 
(u) A Christian and modest offer etc. pag. 11.  they say: That if themselves be in error, and the Prelates on the contrary have the truth, they protest to all the world, that the Pope and the Church of Rome (and in them God and Christ jesus himself) have great wrong and indignity offered unto them, in that they are rejected etc.  
18. Touching the Protestants recrimination of the Puritans; we find, that the Protestants 
(x) Powel in his Considerations.  do censure them to be notorious and manifest Schismatics, and members cut of from the Church of God. They are said by another Protestant 
(y) The Survey of the pretended discipline 1. 5. etc. 24. etc. 35.  To have perverted the true meaning of certain places, both of Scriptures and Fathers, to serve their own turns. And again the said Author saith of them: The word of God is troubled with such choppers and changers of it etc. And to conclude he further affirmeth (to leave out infinite other places) That the later brawls, pitiful distractions and confusions among the Puritans, proceed of such intolerable presumption, as is used by perverting and false interpretation of holy Scripture. Which severe and bitter condemnations of one another cannot be understood to be spoken of things indifferent, and touching ceremonies only, as they are wont to salve the matter, when they be charged therewith by Catholics.  
19 These (lo) are the yet living-remembrances of our Sectaries progenitors overthrew, occasioned through their waging of war in the defence of so erroneous a Doctrine; which alone are of force (if all other former proofs and arguments were defective) to convince our Novellists of their foul error therein. But since all these alleged authors were Protestants, and (for the greater part) acknowledged for men of Piety, and as professing the Gospel, by the present Church of England; since they all disclaimed from the Church's authority in defining of Controversies; all ventilated alike the facility of the holy Scripture, & acknowledged it as sole judge, and warranted their different Doctrines, from Scripture alone; finally all actually impatronized themselves of the interpreting spirit: since (I say) they all proceeded thus far, and were warranted therein with as much reason, as any Protestant maintaining the same Doctrine at this present, can justly apply to himself: yet seeing not one of those would afford any approbation of an others man's revealing spirit, in the exposition of Scripture, but openly traduced each others spirit, as erroneous and heretical, and upon their contrary expositions of Scripture they did beget contrary Doctrines: What then remaineth, but that every sober and discreet Christian do reject this Paradox, to wit, that the Scripture is the sole and only judge of Controversies, since it hath engendered in the propugners thereof such a Babylon of confused and tumultuous accusations? & that with all resignation of judgement he humbly acknowledge, that Christ his Vicar (assisted with competency of means from the whole Church) is apppointed by Christ himself to be here upon Earth, the sole, supreme, and inappealable judge in all matters of faith and religion; often recalling to his memory, that it is 
(z) Math. 18.  written: Dic Ecclesiae, & si Ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi veluti Ethnicus & Publicanus.  
FINIS.