A Trial of the Romish Clergys Title to the Church, Text and commentary · Quoted chapter 7

A Trial of the Romish Clergys Title to the Church · Text and commentary · Quoted chapter 7

p. 65A. D.

CHAP. VII. That Scripture alone cannot be this rule of Faith.

A. W.

The title of this chapter, as it ſhall appeare by and by, agreeth not with the diſcourſe in the chapter; and beſides, propoundeth very craftily a matter, which is no way in queſtion betwixt vsus and the Papiſts. For there is no Proteſtant diuine, that thinks the Scripture alone, that is, without the miniſterie of man, a ſufficient meanes for the ſaluation or inſtruction of all men, to which the fond example of this Author tendeth, where he talketh of locking vp an vnlearned man that cannot read, alone, without any helpe but a Bible.

p. 66A. D. §. 1.

Out of theſe former grounds foure concluſions.

The firſt concluſion is, that Scripture alone, eſpecially as it is by Proteſtants tranſlated into the Engliſh tongue; cannot be this rule of faith.

This I prooue.

Firſt, for that theſe tranſlations faile in the firſt condition; that is to ſay, they are not infallible (as the rule of faith muſt be); for neither were the Scriptures written in this language, immediately by the holy Ghoſt: neither were the tranſlators aſſiſted by the ſame holy Ghoſt infallibly. Infallibly (I ſay) that is, in ſuch ſort, as it were vnpoſſible that they ſhould erre in any point. Sith, therefore, the tranſlators, as being but men, may erre. (To ſay nothing of that which by Gregory Martin is prooued: and by the often changes of new and variable tranſlations is ſhewed that ſome hauehave erred) how can a man, (and eſpecially an vnlearned man, who hath not ſufficient meanes, learning, nor leiſure to compare the tranſlations with the prime authenticall originall) how can (I ſay) ſuch a man be infallibly ſure, that this particular tranſlation, which he hath, doth not erre? And if in ſome places it erre; how can he be infallibly ſure, that in thoſe places, which do ſeeme to fauour that ſect, which he followeth, it doth not erre? vnleſſe he wil admit an vnfallible authoritie in the Church, to aſſure vsus, that ſuch, or ſuch a tranſlation doth not erre, in any point; of which authoritie, I ſhall ſpeake more hereafter.

A. W.

The Scripture is, in it ſelfe, ſuch a rule or meanes, and (no doubt) ſo made effectuall to ſome by reading, without any other outward helpe of man: but this is not the ordinarie courſe, that God hath appointed, for the inſtruction of the people, in the knowledge of his truth. Therefore, if at any time we ſay, that the Scripture alone, is the rule of faith, by Alone, we ſeuer it from the traditions and authoritie of men, not from their miniſterie: and aſcribe vntounto it ſufficiencie in reſpect of the matter to be beleeued, not ſimply of the meanes to bring men to beleefe.

The aſſumption, which you ſhould prooue (as alſo the title of your chapter profeſſeth) is this, That the ſcripture alone, cannot be the rule of faith. By what reaſon do you prooue it? Truly p. 67by none at all: but leauing the queſtion, you diſpute againſt the Engliſh tranſlation. Wherefore I take it for granted, that, in your conſcience, you acknowledge the ſufficiency of the Scripture, to direct vsus in all matters and queſtions of faith. And thereupon I inferre, that the infallible authoritie, which you would tie to the Church, is needleſſe; becauſe, without it, there is a ſufficient rule of faith prouided by Almightie God, whereby euerie man, learned and vnlearned, may be inſtructed in all points of faith, what is to be holden for true. Hence it followeth, that the firſt of your maine points, ſet downe in the preface is falſe, and ſo your whole Treatiſe void & vntrue. You tell vsus indeed afterward, that ſome of your reaſons againſt the Engliſh tranſlation hauehave alſo force to prooue, that the Scripture alone, in what language ſoeuer, is no ſufficient meanes: but you neither ſhew vsus, which thoſe reaſons are, nor are there any of ſufficient weight to that purpoſe. Let them iudge, that will read my anſwer. But firſt I will propound certaine teſtimonies of the Fathers concerning the infallibility & ſufficiency of the Scriptures. VVhen hereſie (ſaith aaOpus imperf. in Mat. 24. hom. 49.Matt 24one) hath once gotten footing in the Church, there can be no refuge for Christians, which deſire to know the true faith, but onelyonly to the Scriptures. And afterward, Chriſt commaunds, that they, that deſire to hauehave certaintie of faith, flie to no other thing but to the Scriptures. In the ſame place, three ſeuerall times in one halfe page, he aſſureth all men, that in the moſt dangerous daies of Antichriſt, there will be no way to know the true Church of Chriſt, bbNiſi tantū modo per ſcripturas.but onelyonly by the Scriptures. If certaintie of faith, & knowledge of the true Church may be had from the Scriptures, & in time of hereſie, cannot elſe where be had: out of doubt the Scripture is certaine and infallible, and ſo conſequently the rule of faith. ccIrenaeus li. 3. cap 1.Irenaeus tels vsus, that the Goſpell is left to vsus in the Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. ddTertul. cont. Hermog. cap. 22.Tertullian cals to Hermogenes for proofe of that he ſaid, out of the Scriptures, and warneth him and his complices to beware of the woe, that is threatned againſt them, which adde to, or take from the Scriptures, If they bring any doctrine, that is not written therein. eeOrigen. ad Ierem. hom. 1. ad Rom. lib. 3. ad cap. 3.Origen is ours eueryevery where in this queſtion, allowing not any expoſitions or ſenſes, but thoſe that are warranted p. 68by the Scriptures: requiring of vsus, to bring not our owne, but the ſayings of the holy Ghoſt, when we teach. This was the rule, which ffTheodoret. hiſt. eccle. lib. 1. ca 7Conſtantine the Emperour enioyned the Fathers of that firſt famous Councell of Nice to follow, and which they accordingly followed. The bookes of the Euangeliſts and Apoſtles, and the Oracles of the old prophets, plainly inſtruct vsus (quoth that worthie Emperour) what we are to iudge of matters ggforeign. de diuina voluntate vel lege, ut Caſſiodorus. Triport.concerning God. Therefore laying aſide all enemie-like diſcord, let vsus debate ad determine the points in queſtion, by the teſtimonies of the Scriptures inſpired by God. Theſe, as we heard before, hhHieron. ad Mich. li. 1. ca: 1.Ierome makes the bounds of the Church, within which ſhe muſt keepe her ſelfe; and iiProclus. de Fide ad Armen. Anno. 430.Proclus Archbiſhop of Conſtantinople confineth faith to the ſame place. Faith (ſaith he) muſt abide within the Euangelicall, and Apoſtolicall bounds. kkPaſchaſius cō tra Macedon. lib. 1. cap. 1. Anno. 500.Paſchaſius a Cardinall of your Church (as you ſay) many yeares ſince, tied Macedonius the hereticke to the Scriptures equiring him, either to ſhew by euident teſtimonies of the word of God, that we muſt beleeue in the Church, or elſe to vrge the point no further. For (as llChryſoſt. ad 2. Tim. homil. 9.Chryſoſtome truly affirmeth) If there be any thing needfull to be knowen, we ſhall learne it in the Scriptures. I mightfil whole ſides with teſtimonies out of the Fathers, to this purpoſe, but I let them paſſe as needleſſe: eſpecially ſince your ſelfe before confeſſed, that the word of God is infallible, and therefore, in that reſpect, ſufficient to be the rule of faith. Now to your concluſion.

The firſt part of this firſt concluſion is falſe, in regard of the infallibilitie of Scripture: which it ſhould ſeeme you ſaw well enough, and therefore balkt that matter, and deuiſed an other point, concerning our tranſlation, to play withall. For what is it but trifling, when a man leaues the thing in queſtion, and buſies him ſelfe about the refuting of that, which beſides himſelfe, no man euer dreamed of? What Engliſh proteſtant euer affirmed, that our tranſlation was infallible, that is, ſuch as had no error in it, or might not be doubted of? Or who euer tooke it for the rule of faith? You make babies, which you beate as you liſt. Againſt the Scriptures being the rule of faith, which we affirme, you ſay nothing. Againſt p. 69the infallibilitie of our tranſlation, which we grant not to be the rule of faith, you diſcourſe at large; wherein I intreate the Reader to conſider theſe few things with me. That which he ſpeakes in diſgrace of our tranſlation, makes no more againſt it, then againſt all other whatſoeuer. For neither is any tranſlation the language in which the Scripture was written; and no tranſlators euer had any ſuch infallible aſſiſtance by the holy Ghoſt. mmRemember the 8000. places Chap. 4. ſect. 10.Sure the author of the vulgar Latin tranſlation had not ſuch help as the Hebrew and Greek originals, which the tranſlations of all the learned Papiſts themſelues declare; nnPegnm, Vatablus, Iſidorus, Clarius.Pagnin, Vatablus, Iſidorus, Clarius, &c.

As for ooMartin was ſet out 1582. Fulks anſwer 1583.Gregory Martins cauils, they were anſwered long ſince by D. Fulke: and I maruell that you can name them without bluſhing, ſeeing neuer a one of you durſt vndertake the defence of them, for the ſpace of theſe 23. yeares. Nay, which is worſe, you were not aſhamed, in ppPrinted at Antwerp. 1600.the ſecond edition of your Rhemiſh Teſtament, to bleare your blind followers eyes, with a table of hereticall corruptions in tranſlating the Scriptures, as if you had propounded ſome new matter, whereas they were all taken out of that booke of Martins, and had long before bene iuſtified by D. Fulke, without any reply on your parts.

You demaund, how any vnlearned man can be infallibly ſure, that in thoſe places which do ſeeme to fauour our ſect, our tranſlation doth not erre. I anſwer, that there are better meanes of aſſurance for vnlearned Proteſtants, concerning the truth of our tranſlation, then any Papiſt can hauehave by your imagined authoritie, for your vulgar Latin. Firſt, it is no ſlender perſwaſion to any reaſonable man, that thoſe places you ſpeake of, if not wholy, yet for the moſt part are tranſlated with the ſame ſenſe in other toungs which they hauehave in ours; as in Spaniſh, French, Italian, Flemiſh, Dutch. Secondly, it is a great confirmation of the truth, that many of thoſe texts which ſeeme moſt to fauor vsus, are the ſame in your vulgar and Rhemiſh editions, that they are in ours. Thirdly, the truth of ours is yet more cleare, becauſe eueryevery man may ſee, that in bookes of controuerſie betwixt vsus, our tranſlations are ſeldome denied by the learned of your ſide, though you condemne our expoſitions. Fourthly, who may not eaſily p. 70diſcerne how much more faithfull our tranſlation of thoſe places, & all others is, then yours; ſeeing we are readie to make triall of it by the originals, the learned on your ſides being iudges: you are afraid of nothing more, then to hauehave yours examined by the Hebrew and Greeke? Fiftly, in the places you ſpeake of, our tranſlations deſerue the more credit, becauſe we labour to make them plaine for eueryevery mans vnderſtanding, and ſhew how they agree with the reſt of the booke and chapter: wheras your Rhemiſh Teſtament is ſo handled, that an Engliſh man of good vnderſtanding can hardly tell what to make of it, for the very words themſelues in many places, as if you auoided nothing more then plainneſſe. Sixtly, we perſwade all men, as much as we can, to labour for the knowledge of the originall tongues, that ſo they may be able to iudge of our tranſlation: you do all you can to keepe men in the miſt of ignorance, becauſe you are afraid to hauehave your corruptions diſcouered. Seuenthly, though we allow not our miniſters ſuch an infinite authoritie as you giuegive your Cleargie: yet we teach, that it becoms Chriſtian charitie and modeſtie, neither to ſuſpect a tranſlation where the analogie of faith is kept, and the plaine meaning of the holy Ghoſt not manifeſtly altered; nor to reſt vponupon priuate conceit, againſt the generall iudgement of the learned, without very euident proofe of error. Theſe, amongſt other, are reaſonable grounds for a Chriſtian to build vponupon, that he may hauehave ſome good aſſurance of the truth of our tranſlation. Now let vsus examine yours.

We muſt (ſay you) admit an infallible authoritie in the Church, to aſſure vsus that ſuch or ſuch a tranſlation doth not erre in any point. Firſt, this is more then neeeds. For if that authoritie can aſſure vsus, that the tranſlation erreth not in any point needfull to ſaluation in regard of the ſenſe, it may be a ſufficient ground for vsus to build our faith vponupon, though it ſhould miſtake ſome words in many points, and the ſenſe too, in matters of leſſe importance. Secondly, though we do admit ſuch an authoritie in the Church, yet may we be farre enough from any ſuch aſſurance. For how ſhall I be ſure, that the Church hath ſo affirmed of this, or that tranſlation? How ſhal I know, what the p. 71Church is? A company (you ſay) of men vponupon earth, infallibly taught by the holy Ghoſt, what is the true faith in al points. Is this teaching cōmon to eueryevery one of this company ſeuerally, or only annexed to them all ioyntly when they are together? What if all, what if the greater part aſſemble not? Is this companie of Clergie men onelyonly, or of Lay men alſo? If of them, then belike theſe are none of the Church. But let vsus grant that, which (as it ſhal appeare in due place) is neither true nor probable, that the Clergie onelyonly is the church, howſoeuer they may be ſo repreſentatiuely. What aſſurance can any man hauehave, who liueth not in the time of this aſſembly (I might ſay, in the place too, where it is) that there was any ſuch aſſembly? that the greateſt part agreed to the approouing of ſuch a tranſlation? that this is the tranſlation they agreed to? Eſpecially ſeeing two qqBellū PapatePopes, ſince the laſt Conuenticle of Trent, hauehave ſet out your authentical tranſlation diuerſly. Whether of theſe two was agreed on? How ſhall I be infallibly aſſured, that theſe Popes altered nothing in the tranſlation allowed by the Councel? Shall I ſay more? What if this Councell vſed not the meanes of examining this tranſlation by the originals? What if moſt of them (as it is moſt certaine) had no skil in the originals? and ſo did but leape after ſome few, like ſheepe, not vnderſtanding what they did? yet the ſhoot Anchor holds: the Pope allowed of their iudgement. What if his skil were but indifferent? He could not erre, you will ſay. What was the reaſon, why he allowed that tranſlation? becauſe the Councel examined and approued it. But without him, al they might erre, eſpecially if they did not vſe all good meanes to find out the truth. VVho aſſured him they did? Shall we hauehave the holy Ghoſt like Mahomets doue, to come and certifie the Pope of this doubt? This is a matter of fact; and in things of ſuch nature the Pope may erre, euen iudicially. Well, I will deale bountifully with you. Put caſe all this be true. How ſhal I attaine to infallible aſſurance hereof? Forſooth ſome Prieſt or Frier, Ieſuite or other, telleth me, that things ſo paſſed, and therefore I am bound to beleeue it. Then my faith reſteth not vponupon the authority of the Church, but vpō the credit of him that ſaith, he is ſent by the Church to make ſuch report. Thus it cometh to paſſe, that the beleefe of vnlearned p. 72Papiſts is nothing elſe but a perſwaſion they hauehave, that ſuch a prieſt knoweth what is true, and will not deceiue them with any falſe informations. Tell me not of other Prieſts and Ieſuits conſenting with him, that was thy ſpirituall father: for all theſe together, if there were ten times as many of them, are not the Church, in which onelyonly this infallible authoritie is to be found. And ſo there can be no ſuch aſſurance in any vnlearned Papiſt of the truth of your vulgar, or any other tranſlation. I confeſſe it is againſt both Charitie and Ciuilitie to ſuſpect a man of vntruth, without iuſt cauſe of ſuſpition: but ſuch fruites grow vponupon ſuch rootes of Poperie, that a man muſt needs be either vnciuill in giuing credit to nothing, though vponupon neuer ſo good reaſon; or elſe ridiculouſly credulous in beleeuing eueryevery thing that ſhal be told him, though neuer ſo much againſt reaſon. But the ſpirit of God teacheth and perſwadeth men to beleeue the Church. Are you they that mocke at priuate ſpirits, and yet are glad to flie to that helpe? Is it not as likely the ſpirit ſhould teach men which is the Scripture, as which is the Church? And aſſure them of a tranſlation, as of this or that mans ordination and prieſthood? If ſuch proofes, as I hauehave ſpoken of before, will ſerue, wee are nothing inferiour to you, but as well for weight as number, ſuperiour. If you ſay, the Scriptures enioyne vsus to beleeue the church: How ſhall I be aſſured that they are not in thoſe places that ſeeme to enioyne ſuch a beleefe falſly tranſlated? Becauſe the Church ſaith, they are true in all points. What if the Church be deceiued? It cannot be. Who ſaith ſo? The Scripture. Who tels you the Scripture ſaith ſo? The Church. What is to be ridiculous, if this be not? It might ſeeme exceeding ſtrange, that euer any reaſonable man ſhould be ledde away with ſuch fopperies: if the holy Ghoſt had not foretold vsus of it, that rr2. Theſſ. 2. 11, 12.2 Thess 2:112 Thess 2:12God would ſend men ſtrong deluſions, that they ſhould beleeue lies, that all they might be damned vvhichwhich beleeued not the truth, but had pleaſure in vnrighteouſneſſe. Theſe deluſions poore ignorant Papiſts truſt to, and to none more then to thoſe which are the mayneſt of all, the authoritie of the Church, and impoſſibilitie of the Popes erring: to which whoſoeuer firmely cleaueth, can neuer be good Chriſtian or faithfull ſubiect in any Church or ſtate whatſoeuer.

p. 73A. D. §. 2.

Secondly, they faile in the ſecond condition or propertie, which the rule of faith ſhould hauehave. For the Scriptures themſelues alone, in what language ſoeuer, be obſcure, and hard to be vnderstood, at least to vnlearned men, who cannot reade them; and therefore the Scriptures alone cannot be vntounto vnlearned men, a ſufficient rule to instruct them in all points of faith; as is plaine. For locke vp an vnlettered man, and an Engliſh Bible, for a time in a ſtudie, and hee will come forth (I warrant you) as ignorant in matters of faith as he went in, if wee adde no other meanes to instruct him but the bare written word, which hee cannot reade. And yet vnlearned men may be ſaued; and ſaued they cannot be, without an entire and vnfallible faith: and this they cannot hauehave, vnleſſe there be ſome certaine rule and vnfallible meanes prouided by Almightie God, meet for their capacitie, to teach them this faith: and Scripture alone (as is now proued) is not a rule meete for the capacitie of vnlearned men, or apt to instruct them ſufficiently in all points of faith. But what ſpeake I onelyonly of vnlearned men? ſith alſo learned men cannot by onelyonly reading the Scriptures, be vnfallibly ſure, that they doe rightly vnderstand them. For while they vnderſtand one way, perhaps they ought to vnderstand another way: that which they vnderstand plainly and literally, ought perhaps to be vnderſtood figuratiuely and myſtically; and contrarie, that which they vnderſtand figuratiuely, ought perhaps to be vnderſtood properly. And ſeeing that it is most certaine, that all doe not expound right, ſith the expoſition of one, is contrarie to the expoſition of another; (as right is neuer contrarie to right) how ſhould one be vnfallibly ſure, that hee onelyonly expoundeth right; hauing nothing to aſſure him, but the ſeeming of his owne ſenſe and reaſon, which is as vncertaine and fallible, as the iudgements and perſwaſions of other men, who ſeeme to themſelues to hauehave attained as wel as he, the right interpretation or ſenſe. Moreouer there be many things required to the perfect vnderſtanding of Scripture, which are found but in very few: and thoſe alſo in whom thoſe gifts are, are not vnfallibly ſure, that they are ſo guided by thoſe gifts, but that both they and others may prudently doubt, lest ſometimes p. 74in their priuate expoſitions, as men, they erre. And conſequently, their priuate expoſitions cannot be that rule of faith, which we ſeeke for; which muſt on the one ſide be determinately and plainly vnderstood: and on the other ſide it muſt be vnfallible, certaine, and ſuch as cannot erre.

A. W.

That ſecond condition of eaſineſſe to be vnderſtood, is no propertie neceſſarily belonging to the rule of faith: vnleſſe perhaps you imagine that God failes in his prouidence, if a man may not come to the knowledge of the truth, and euerlaſting life, without any paines. Is it not enough that the rule is ſuch, as may be vnderſtood of eueryevery one, vnleſſe a man may know it by dreaming of it? Is not the knowledge of the meanes of ſaluatiō worthy of ſome care and labour?

Are the Scriptures obſcure and hard, that they cannot be vnderſtood? How then ſaith the holy Ghoſt, that ſſPſal. 19. 8.Ps 19:8they giuegive wiſedome vntounto the ſimple, and light to the eyes: that tt& 119. 105. ver. 13.they are a lanterne to our feet, and a light to our paths: that the entrance into them ſheweth light, and giueth vnderſtanding to the ſimple? Why doth the Apoſtle call them uu2. Pet. 1. 19.2 Pet 1:19a light ſhining in a darke place? And yet all this is ſpoken of the Scriptures of the old Teſtament, which, in compariſon of the new, are indeed obſcure. Your Gloſſe expounds that place, xxGloſſa ad Pſal. 119.Ps 119Thy word is a lanterne, of all the holy Scriptures. Your Cardinall yyJoan. de Turrecrem. ad Pſa. 18. & ad Pſal. 118. verſ. 130.Ps 18Ps 118:130Turrecremata ſeeing the plainneſſe and clearneſſe of the word of God, ſo directly and expreſly commended, applieth thoſe places to the new Teſtament, which (as he ſaid) is bright and cleere, which enlightens our darkneſſe, and giues vnderſtanding to the humble. And who can doubt that the Scriptures are ſuch, as may be vnderſtood by all men, ſeeing the Lord writ them for the inſtruction of all men: and our Sauiour Chriſt in the Goſpell commendeth the Iewes for ſearching the Scriptures, affirming that zzIoan. 5. 39.John 5:39in them there is proofe of his nature and office? But to what purpoſe were this ſearch, if nothing could be found by it? So cleare is this truth, that the auncient writers auow it without any doubting.

aaClem. Alexā. orat. ad gentes.Hearken ye that be farre off, hearken ye that be neare: The word of God is hid from no man, it ſhineth to all men; there is no great darkneſſe in the word. The Scriptures (ſaith bbJren. lib. 1. cap. 31.Irenaeus) are plaine, p. 75and without doubtfulneſſe: and may be heard alike of all men. GiueGive heed (ſaith ccIuſtin. contra Tryph.Iuſtin the martyr) to thoſe things that I wil rehearſe out of the Scriptures, which are ſuch as need hearing onelyonly, and not any expounding. This, as the Greek ſheweth, is to be vnderſtood not onelyonly of thoſe places which he was then to deliuer, but generally of the Scriptures: foreign. ddCyrill. Alex. contra Iulian, lib. 7.That the Scriptures might be knowne to all men great and litle, they are profitably commended to vsus in a familiar ſpeech, ſo that they are not aboue any mans capacitie. Yea there is nothing in them hard (ſaith eeLib. 9.the ſame author) to them that are conuerſant in them, as they ought to be, though eueryevery ſentence be obſcure to Iulian and his complices. The like hath ffEpiph. haereſ. 79.Epiphanius: All things are cleare in the Scriptures to them who will bring to the vnderſtanding of the word of God, a religious kind of diſcourſe. Where that ſame foreign, which Epiphanius requireth, ſeemeth to be nothing els but a reuerend examining of the Scripture, according to the holy Ghoſts manner of ſpeaking and reaſoning in the Scripture. ggHaereſ. 69.In another place he ſaith, that Al things are cleare & plaine in the holy Scriptures. So alſo ſaith hhChryſoſt. ad 2. Theſs. hom. 3.Chryſoſtom. And a litle after, he teacheth vsus how to reſtraine thoſe All things. All things (ſaith he) that are neceſſary, are open and manifeſt. iiChryſoſt. hom. 3. de Lazaro.In another place comparing the Apoſtles with the Philoſophers, he ſaith, that the Philoſophers indeed writ obſcurely, that they might be had in admiration for their eloquence and learning; but the Apoſtles and Prophets take a contrary courſe, deliuering all things plainly and cleerly to all men, as being the common teachers of al the world; that eueryevery one by himſelfe might be able to learne thoſe things that were taught, euen by the onelyonly reading of them. He ſaith yet further, that kkIn Mat. hom. 1.the Scriptures are eaſie to be vnderſtood, of ſeruants, of countrey people, of widowes, of children, yea and of him that is very vnskilful. I could be large in this matter: a few more teſtimonies ſhall ſuffice. God (ſaith llAuguſt. ad Pſal. 8.Ps 8Auſtin) hath applied the Scriptures to the vnderſtanding of infants and ſucklings. Therefore mmContra Iulian. lib. 1. cap. 5. Auguſt. de peccat. mer. & remiſſ. lib. 2. cap. 36.he iuſtly reproueth Iulian, who (as you Papiſts do now) layd out with many words the hardneſſe of the Scripture: yet is it not to be denied, that the Scriptures are hard: but as hard as they are, enough may be learned out of them, euen by the ſimpleſt, for his ſaluation. There is p. 76meate for ſtrong men (ſaith nnFulgent. in ſerm. de Confeſſor.Fulgentius) and milke for babes. There hath God altogether prouided for the ſaluation of all, whō he vouchſafeth to ſaue. EueryEvery man (ſaith ooAuguſt. de vtil. eredendi. cap. 6.Auſtin) may draw from thence as much as is ſufficient for him. But is this knowledge to be had with idleneſſe and careleſneſſe? Nothing leſſe. If you wil perſwade your ſelues (ſaith ppChryſoſt. in Prologad Roman.Chryſoſtome) to beſtow paines and diligence in reading, ſurely nothing ſhal be wanting for your vnderſtanding of the Scriptures. There are indeed (as qqAuguſt. de doct. Chriſt. lib. 2. cap. 6. 9.Auſtin ſaith) hard places in the Scripture: yet no other, then are other where in plaine termes expounded. There is great obſcuritie (ſaith rrAmbroſ. ad Pſal. 118. ſer. 8.Ps 118Ambroſe) in the writings of the Prophets: but if thou knocke at the gate of the Scriptures with a certain hand of thy mind, and diligently examine thoſe things which are hidden, by little and little thou ſhalt begin to gather the ſenſe of that which is ſpoker, and it ſhal be opened to thee by no other but by the word of God. For it is the order of the Scriptures (ſaith ſſHieron. ad Eſai. cap. 9.Isa 9Ierome) to hard things, to ioyne other that are plaine. The circumſtance of the Scripture (ſaith ttAuguſt. qq. 83 q. 69.Auſtin) doth giuegive light to the ſenſe of it. The fewer (ſaith uuTertull. cont. Praxeam.Tertullian) muſt be vnderſtood by the more. That rule of xxAuguſt. de vtil. cred. cap. 6.Auſtins muſt alwayes be remembred, that we come with deuout and religious affection to the reading of the Scriptures, as true religion requireth. And (as yyChryſoſt. in. Prolog. ad Roman.Chryſoſtome ſaith) we must ſeeke, namely by prayer, if we wil find the ſenſe of the Scripture. For (as zzOrigen. in Exod. hom. 9.Origen ſaith vponupon the like occaſion) it is hidden from them that are negligent, but opened to them that knock, and found of them that ſeeke. The reaſon why God hath ſo tempered all things in ſcripture, writing ſome where plainly, ſome where obſcurely, is giuen by aaAuguſt. de doct. Chriſt. lib. 2. cap. 6.Auſtin: That it is done by Gods prouident care, that by labour he might beate downe our pride, and draw away our minds from lothing: things eaſily attained to ſeem of litle worth. Gloriouſly therefore (as bbCap. 9.he ſaith) and wholſomly hath the holy Ghoſt ſo tempered the Scriptures, that by plaine and eaſie places he might prouide for the ſatisfying of our hunger, and by hard and darke, take away lothing. But (as ccCap. 9.he addeth) in thoſe places which are plaine in the Scriptures, all thoſe matters are found which containe faith and good manners: that is, hope and charitie. This is that which ddMarſil. Patauin. de fenſ. pacis. part. 1. cap. 9.Marſilius of Padua, aboue 800 years ſince, diſputed againſt the Pope, That the Goſpel was very ſufficient, perfect & cleare of it ſelf, that p. 77by it we may be directed immediatly, concerning, and in all things, which belong to a mans obteyning of euerlaſting life, and auoiding miſerie.

As in the former propertie, hauing propounded your matter againſt the Scripture, you reaſon only againſt the Engliſh tranſlation; ſo in this, that one may be ſome what ſutable to the other, being to ſpeake of the obſcuritie of the Scripture, you ſhew that it is hard to one kinde onelyonly, viz vnlearned men: though you helpe the matter a little, afterward, by auouching the hardneſſe of it, euen to the learned alſo. The Scriptures (ſay you) are not the rule of faith. Why ſo? Becauſe they are hard to be vnderſtood of thoſe vnlearned mē, that cannot reade them. Is not the teaching of the Church, whereto you aſcribe ſo much, vnpoſſible to be vnderſtood by them, that cannot heare? Is it therefore no ſufficient rule? But the Scripture is not ſo hard, as you imagine: no not to them that cannot reade, as long as they may heare it read, and hauehave care to vnderſtand, and remember what they heare. Yea there are many in England, that know neuer a letter on the booke, who notwithſtanding are able to giuegive a better ſenſe of many places of Scripture, then ſome of your Maſſe-prieſts, that can read their whole Portuiſe & Seruice booke. Idle therefore and ridiculous is your example of a man lockt vp with a Bible: ſince by hearing it read, though himſelfe cannot read, he may attaine to more knowledge, then many of your blinde guides hauehave: who for all their skill in reading, vnderſtand neuer a word of their Epiſtles & Goſpels, which they daily ſay at Maſſe, like prating parrots.

Now for your concluſions inferred hereupon; the firſt, as I hauehave ſhewed, is falſe, that any ſuch entire and infallible faith is neceſſarie, ſo that without it a man cannot be ſaued: the ſecond, of the meanes without which, ſuch a faith cannot be had, is ordinarily true; the third, which denies the Scripture alone to be ſuch a meanes, is either falſe, and not prooued by you, or nothing to the purpoſe. Can any man truely ſay, that God hath not prouided ſufficient meanes for euerie mans ſaluation, becauſe ſome men are vnable to reade the Scriptures, which are thoſe meanes? Hath not God done his part, in making all men capable p. 78to reade, though many neglect to learne? Therefore if the Scripture be ſufficient for all mens inſtruction, as I hauehave prooued it to be, for all your ſuppoſed obſcurity: God cannot be charged with want of care, becauſe men are careleſſe to vſe the meanes of their owne ſaluation. But if by Scripture alone, you meane Scripture without any helpe of man; all you ſay is beſides the matter. For no man euer was ſo fooliſh, as to make Scripture alone, in that ſenſe, either the rule of faith, or a meanes of any good whatſoeuer: vnleſſe perhaps you Papiſts, according to the reſt of your ſuperſtition in Agnus Deis, hallowed Granes, and ſuch like, may hauehave a conceit, as thoſe prieſts (of whom eeOpus imperf. in Math. hom. 43.an ancient writer ſpeaketh) had, that a part of the Goſpell hung about ones necke, may be a preſeruatiue againſt I know not what bodily or ghoſtly danger.

You hauehave vndertaken to prooue, that the ſcriptures are not the rule of faith, becauſe they are hard to be vnderſtood. Their hardneſſe, in reſpect of the ignorant, was auowed by you onelyonly againſt thoſe, that cannot reade. Now for the learned you tel vsus, that they cannot, by onelyonly reading the Scriptures, be infallibly ſure, that they rightly vnderſtand them. What then? Therefore can they not at all be ſure? Becauſe reading onelyonly will not aſſure them: therefore is there no meanes, whereby they may be aſſured? Call to minde what I alledged before, out of Ambroſe, Origen, Chryſoſtome, and Auſtin: who doubt not to aſſure men, that they may come to the vnderſtanding of the Scripture, if they will vſe the meanes of praier and diligence. Whom ſhall we beleeue? Theſe worthies of the Church, ſpeaking alſo vponupon manifold experience; or you, whom we know not ſo much as by ſight or name? If you can ſo farre bewitch any of your owne poore ignorant ſoules, yet ſure ther is no man of any indifferent good iudgment, that will be carried away with this your ſimple authoritie, againſt the ioynt conſent of thoſe famous Diuines.

But you will adde reaſon to your authoritie: let vsus heare it. It may be (ſay you) they ought to be vnderſtood otherwiſe. Therefore they cannot be ſure, they rightly vnderſtand. Tell me, I pray you, for my better inſtruction, whether you make this doubt of p. 79all places of ſcripture, or of ſome onelyonly. It will not ſinke into my head, that you doe ſo much condemne the ſcripture of obſcuritie, that you thinke no one place of it, can be certainely vnderſtood. Nay it is vnpoſſible you ſhould ſo deſpiſe the iudgment of thoſe, I named er while, or condemne your owne capacitie, as to denie, that ffCanus loc. Thcol. lib. 3. c. 2many texts of ſcripture are ſo euident, that a childe cannot miſtake the meaning of them. Then, that antecedent, It may be they ought to vnderſtand otherwiſe, in ſome places of ſcripture can hauehave no place. Let vsus limit it, that the truth may appeare. Some places of ſcripture are ſo hard, that a man may vnderſtand them otherwiſe, then, in truth, they are to be vnderſtood. This propoſition is out of all queſtion: what wil you conclude hereupon? That men cannot be ſure they rightly vnderſtand theſe places. I grant this too. Therefore theſe doubtfull places are not to be made the foundation of our faith: but (as ggAuguſt. ad Marcel. de Baptiſ. paruulo.Auſtin ſaith) We muſt reſt vponupon thoſe places of ſcripture, which are verie manifeſt, that by them the harder may be expounded. But admit there were diuers texts of ſcripture, which can by no meanes be certainly vnderſtood (which yet for my part, ſauing other mens better iudgement, I do not thinke to be true, becauſe God hath appointed euerie ſyllable of the ſcripture for our inſtruction in this life) but admit (I ſay) there were ſuch places; yet would it not follow hereupon, that becauſe thoſe texts cannot be vnderſtood, therefore the ſcripture is ſo obſcure, that it cannot be the rule of faith. For there may be ſufficient means of ſaluation plainly diſcouered in the ſcriptures, though theſe places be not vnderſtood: yea it may be, and it is verie likely, that the verie ſame things which in theſe places are ſignified, are otherwhere in ſcripture apparently ſet downe. You will ſay, this prooueth that the ſcripture is obſcure in ſome places. VVho euer denied it? But this doth not prooue, that it is hard to be vnderſtood in thoſe points; that are neceſſary to ſaluation. Remember, I denied that ſecond property of your rule, when I anſwered to your propoſition. A man may be ſaued, though he vnderſtand not the true ſenſe of eueryevery verſe in the Bible; ſo he do not acknowledge it to be the word of God, and withall denie it to be true. But if it be ſo hard to vnderſtand p. 80the Scripture aright, is it good dealing in you to vrge the expoſitions of men, with ſuch perē ptorineſſe, as if it were an hainous ſinne not to giuegive credit to eueryevery interpretation of the Fathers? We hhSee my anſwer to 12. art. part 1. art. 5.acknowledge their learning and pietie: but we remember they are men, and therefore may be deceiued. Where they bring reaſon for their expoſitions, we conſider of it with reuerence to them: where they bring none, we trie whether we can bring any proofe of their interpretation. If we finde none, we labour to expound the text ſo, as true reaſon (ſo farre as we can iudge) ſhewes that we ought to doe. Where our weakeneſſe affoords no proofe for our interpretation, nor againſt theirs, we are willing and readie to giuegive more credit to them, then to our ſelues. But it is no diſgrace to them, that proceſſe of time, by Gods bleſſing vponupon mens endeauours, ſhould bring ſomewhat to light now, which in former ages hath not bene vnderſtood. It cannot be hidden from any man (ſaith your iiIoan. Roffenſ. cont. Luth. art. 18.Biſhop of Rocheſter) that many things are now more cleerely beaten out and vnderſtood, as well in other things, as in the Goſpell, then heretofore; becauſe the ancient writers had not the Ice broken before them, neither did their time ſuffice to ſound the deepth of Scripture in all places. VVe may adde hereunto another reaſon, obſerued by kkStella in Luc. 10. confiteor tibi pater.Luke 10Stella, that, though of our ſelues we were but Pigmees or dwarfes, yet being carried vponupon the ſhoulders of them, as it were vponupon Giants, we may ſee farther then they could. VVhichWhich is the reaſon, why llSalmero ad Rom. 5. diſp. 51Rom 5an other of your writers doubts not to affirme, that the latter doctrines or expoſitions are the quicker ſighted.

But diuers men (you ſay) expound diuerſly: and thereupon you demaund, how any man can be ſure he expounds truly, hauing nothing to aſſure him, but the ſeeming of his owne ſenſe and reaſon. VVhen I read this obiection, me thought I ſaw one of mmCicero in Acad.the old Academicks or Scepticks, ſweating to prooue, that there is no truth in any thing to be knowen, but that we muſt be content to reſt vponupon likelihood. I pray you anſwer me, in good earneſt: Are you perſwaded of your ſelfe (I ſpeake to a Scholler) that you vnderſtand not the true meaning of any one place in Ariſtotles Phyſicks, with the commentaries vponupon p. 81him expounding diuerſly? Surely if your ignorance had bene ſo great, I preſume neither Rome, Rhemes, Doway, nor any other Vniuerſitie or Colledge would hauehave vouchſafed you the degree of a Batcheler in Arts. And yet nnAriſt. in Epiſt. ad Alexan.Ariſtotle himſelfe profeſſeth of that booke, that he ſet it out, as if he had not ſet it out; becauſe no bodie (for ſooth) could vnderſtand it, but he, that had, or ſhould heare him teach by word of mouth; as you ſpeake of the preaching of the Church. If then it be poſſible to vnderſtand Ariſtotles meaning, and that certainly, for all the diuers interpretations of his expoſitors, and his owne intended obſcuritie: giuegive vsus leaue to thinke, that the Lord God purpoſing to reueale his will by the ſcriptures, hath written in ſuch ſort, that man his creature, to whom (as ooGregor. 1. Epistola. 84.Gregorie ſaith) he writ them, may without any iuſt cauſe of doubting, vnderſtand ſo much at the leaſt, as is neceſſarie for his ſaluation; ppIoan. 20. 31:John 20:31which was Gods end in writing. But euerie interpreter thinks that himſelfe hath attained to the right ſenſe. What of that? Therefore, is there no meanes to diſcerne, which interpretation is true, which falſe? Doth not this doubt accompanie the writings of the Philoſophers, as well as the ſcriptures? Neuer go about to perſwade vsus to ſuch an iniurious and vnthankfull conceit towards God, as to imagine, that he hath vouchſafed vsus the vſe of reaſon, and the treaſure of his word, to ſo little purpoſe. If it be vnpoſſible to know, whē we hauehave the true ſenſe of the ſcripture it had bene farre better, that no ſcripture had bene written, but all left to the direction of your Pope, frō time to time. Such blaſphemies, as I hauehave ſhewed, ſome of your ſide vtter: but a true Chriſtiā is ſo throughly perſwaded of Gods wiſdom, that by his giuing the ſcripture, he ſeeth al theſe your cauils & ſhifts refuted.

Now in the laſt place you tell vsus, that there be many things required to the perfect vnderſtanding of ſcripture, which are found in very few; If by perfect vnderſtanding you meane an exact knowledge of all places: that you ſay is true, but not much to the purpoſe. For there is no ſuch knowledge neceſſary, but that the ſcripture may be the rule of faith, though eueryevery text in it cannot be certainly vnderſtood. But conſider a little, that if there be means of attaining to a perfect vnderſtāding of ſcripture, thogh p. 82they be many, yet by your confeſſion they may be had: elſe are they in vaine, if neither any man, nor all men can attaine vntounto them: ſome to one, ſome to more, as it pleaſeth God to beſtow his gifts ſeuerally. If you meane, that many things are required to a perfect vnderſtanding of points neceſſarie to ſaluation: ſee how much you differ from the iudgement of the ancient Fathers. The truth is not hid (ſaith qqChryſoſt. in Math. hom. 24.Chryſoſtom) but from thē, that will not ſeeke it. And in rrIn Gen. hom. 3an other place; The Scripture expoundeth it ſelfe, & ſuffereth no man to erre. Let him that hath an heart (ſaith ſſAuguſt. de doctr. Chriſt. lib. 2. cap. 6.Auſtin) read thoſe things, that go before, and thoſe that follow, and he ſhall finde the ſenſe. For (as ttHieron. in Pſal. 86:Ps 86Ierome truly ſaith) the Lord hath ſpoken by his Goſpell, not that a few ſhould vnderſtand him, but that all ſhould. uuAuguſt. de doctr. Chriſt. lib. 2. cap. 6.Auſtin gaue vsus the reaſon before, why he ſpeakes plaine in ſome places and not in all; To feed our hunger, and to keepe our queaſie ſtomacks from loathing our meate.

But you require I know not what infallible aſſurance, that they which hauehave theſe gifts, may be ſure, they neuer erre, in any of their priuate expoſitions. What aſſurance looke you for? No reuelation I hope. They may be ſure not to erre, if they deliuer no expoſitions, but ſuch, as they can euidently prooue to be true. For other places, where the ſenſe is hard, let them vſe all the diligence they can, and if it prooue not verie plaine and certaine, let thē leaue it ^y vncertain, til it pleaſe God ſome other man may finde the true meaning of it, and ſo make it knowen to men for the rule of faith, in that point it concerneth, as it is alwaies in it ſelfe. Are youe afraid, leſt it ſhould come to paſſe hereby, that many matters of faith ſhould be vnknowen? The ignorance of theſe things, cannot hinder a mans ſaluation, and this inconuenience followeth the preaching of your Church, as well as the reading of the ſcripture: For how many points of doctrine are there, not yet decreed of by your Church? How many thouſand places of ſcripture, not yet expounded by it? If then it be no hindrance to ſaluation, for a man to be ignorant of the truth, in many points and places of ſcripture, may not the written word of God be the rule of faith, though diuers things in it be not certainly vnderſtood?

A. D. §. 3.

Thirdly, they faile in the third condition. For the Scriptures are p. 83not ſo vniuerſall, as the rule of faith had need to be. For this rule ought to be ſo vniuerſall, that it may be able, abſolutely to reſolue and determine all doubts and queſtions of faith, which eyther hauehave bene, or may hereafter be in controuerſie; for otherwiſe there were not ſufficient meanes prouided, by which, ſchiſme and hereſies might be auoided: vnitie of faith, (ſo neceſſarie to ſaluation) might be conſerued among Chriſtian men.

A. W.

The laſt imperfection, you note in the Scripture, whereby you would make it inſufficient to be the rule of faith, is the ſcantneſſe of it, that it conteineth not all things neceſſarie to be beleeued: which you go about to prooue thus.

The rule of faith muſt be able abſolutely to reſolue all doubts of faith, that hauehave bene, or may be.

The Scripture is not able abſolutely to reſolue all ſuch doubts.

Therefore the Scripture is not the rule of faith.

I ſhould hauehave let your propoſition paſſe, without any queſtion, To the propoſition.but that I am ſo vſed to your craft in ſpeaking doubtfully. For feare whereof I would faine vnderſtand, what the reaſon is, why you put in abſolutely. If your intent be to ſignifie, that the reſolution muſt be certainly true, you might hauehave ſpoken plainly, as you meant. But it may be you vnderſtand by reſoluing abſolutely, ſuch a kinde of reſolution, as ſhall take away all outward contention, which ſometimes is indeed brought to paſſe by the Decrees of your Popes, no man daring, for feare of his life, once to open his mouth againſt them: Such a reſolution the ſcripture cannot giuegive, neither is it to be looked for, that the rule of faith ſhould be of that nature. It is enough that it ſhew plainly and certainly, what is true in all matters of faith. Secondly, the controuerſies of faith, you ſpeake of, muſt be indeed matters, that require beleefe, otherwiſe the rule of faith is not to meddle with them. To ſpeake more plaine; It is not to be held as a duetie of the rule of faith, that it ſhould be able to determine of euerie idle queſtion, that curious and contentious heads can deuiſe. For example, if any man will make queſtion of the Virgin Marie, whether ſhe were (as xxLadie Hungerfords meditations vpō the Beades,you teach) fifteene yeare old, or, perhaps eighteene or nineteen when our Sauiour Chriſt her Sonne was borne; whether ſhe p. 84were threeſcore & three whē ſhe died, or more or leſſe. In theſe, & a thouſād ſuch matters, deliuered as points of faith by your Prieſts and Ieſuits, it is not to be expected that the rule of faith ſhould affoord any reſolution. We grant that infinite queſtions of your ſchoolemen, & poſitiōs of your Diuines, cannot be determined by the rule of faith: but only thus, that they may be cōuinced to be no matters of beleefe, that a Chriſtian muſt needs think thus or thus of thē; becauſe they cannot be prooued, either one way, or other by ſcripture: your propoſition therefore is true onelyonly of thoſe things, that are needfull to be beleeued, all which may be certainly reſolued by it. What cannot, is not of neceſſitie to be held by faith.

Your propoſition you prooue, as you thinke, by this reaſon.

If there be no ſufficient meanes prouided, by which ſchiſmes and Proofe of the propoſition.hereſies may be auoided, and vnitie among Chriſtians conſerued, vnleſſe the rule of faith be able to reſolue all ſuch doubts, then it muſt be able to reſolue them.

But there is no ſufficient meanes prouided, whereby ſchiſmes and hereſies may be auoided, and vnitic conſerued, vnleſſe the rule be able to reſolue all ſuch doubts.

Therefore the rule of faith muſt be able to reſolue them.

If the propoſition be taken in that ſenſe, which the former may ſeeme to hauehave, as I ſhewed, then I denie the conſequence To the propoſition.therof; that is, I ſay it doth not follow, that if there be no ſufficiēt means prouided, whereby ſchiſmes and hereſies ſhall de facto, and in euēt be auoided, vnleſſe the rule of faith be able to ſhew what is true, what falſe in all queſtions, that any man will mooue, then the rule muſt be able ſo to doe. The reaſon of my deniall is, that, as before I anſwered, it is ſufficient for the rule to ſhew what is true, in matters of faith; and let vsus know, that thoſe are not needfull to be beleeued, of the truth whereof it ſaith nothing anie way.

The aſſumption alſo is falſe, though you ſpeak not of actuall To the aſſumption.auoiding of hereſie and ſchiſme. For there is ſufficient meanes prouided for the auoiding of ſchiſme; becauſe nothing muſt be held for certain truth, which cannot be prooued to be according to the rule, which is the onelyonly meaſure of true vnitie among Chriſtians.

p. 85A. D. §. 4.

But the Scriptures be not thus vniuerſall. For there be diuers queſtions or doubts moued now a dayes, and thoſe alſo touching very ſubſtantiall matters, which are not expreſly ſet downe, nor determined by onelyonly Scripture. For where hauehave we any expreſſe Scripture, to proue, that all thoſe, and onelyonly thoſe bookes which Catholickes or Proteſtants hold for Scripture, are indeed Gods word, and true Scripure? This we ſhall not find expreſly ſet downe in a part of Scripture. This point therefore, whereupon dependeth the certaintie of eueryevery point, proued out of Scripture, cannot be made certaine to our knowledge or beliefe, vnleſſe we admit ſome other infallible rule or authoritie, wherupon we may ground an vnfallible beleefe: which infallible rule if we admit, to aſſure vsus, that there is at all any Scripture; and that thoſe bookes and no other be Canonicall Scripture; why ſhould we not admit the ſame to aſſure vsus vnfallibly, which is the true ſenſe and meaning of the ſame Scripture? Hereupon S. Auſtin Lib. de vtilit. credend. cap. 4.ſaith very well, Cur non apud eos diligentiſſimè requiram, quid Chriſtus praeceperit, quorum auctoritate commotus, Chriſtum aliquid praecepiſſe iam credidi? Tune mihi meliùs expoſiturus es, quid ille dixerit? &c. Why ſhold I not moſt diligently ask or learne of thoſe (he meaneth of the Catholicke Church) what Chriſt hath commanded, by whoſe authoritie I was moued to beleeue, that Chriſt commanded any thing at all? What, wilt thou expound vntounto me better, what he hath ſaid? that is to ſay, the meaning of his words: Quae Ibidem.(ſaith he) iſta tanta dementia eſt, illis crede Chriſto eſſe credendum, & à nobis diſce quid ille dixerit? multo facilius mihi perſuaderem, Chriſto non eſſe credendum: quàm de illo quidquam, niſi ab ijs, per quos ei credidiſſem, diſcendum. What a madneſſe is this in thee, to ſay, beleeue them (to wit the Catholickes) that we muſt beleeue Chriſt (and the Scriptures to be his word), yet learne of vsus what Chriſt ſaid? that is to ſay, what is the meaning of his word. I ſhould (ſaith S. Auſtin) much more eaſily perſwade my ſelf that I ought not to beleeue Chriſt at all, then that I muſt learne any thing concerning him of any, except of thoſe of whom I hauehave already learned to beleeue in him.

A. W.

I denie your principall Aſſumption, wherein you denie the ſufficiencie of the Scripture for the determining of all matters of To the principal aſſumptiō.faith. For if the Scripture were not ſufficient to this purpoſe, it p. 86might be lawfull for men to adde to the word of God, that which is wanting: but yyDeut. 4. 2.Deut 4:2that God hath preciſely forbiddē all mē; Ye ſhall put nothing to the word which I command you, neither ſhall you take any thing from it: out of which, Cardinall zzCaietan. ad Deut. 4.Deut 4Caietane ſaith, we may gather that the law of God is perfect. But of this place I hauehave ſaid more aaDefence of the Reform. Cath. pa. 405. &c.other where; and our Diuines are large and plentifull in this argument. bbAct. 26. 12.Acts 26:12The Apoſtle Paul affirmeth of him ſelfe, that he preached nothing but that which had bin ſpoken by Moſes and the Prophets: yea our Sauiour eueryevery where auoucheth his doctrine by the writings of the old Teſtament. Indeed of whom ſhould we know the will of God, but of God himſelfe? who doubtleſſe hath not deliuered it ſo ſparingly, in ſo many ſeuerall bookes, but that it containeth whatſoeuer is needfull to ſaluation. All things indeed that our Lord did, are not written, but thoſe (ſaith ccCyril. Alexā. in Joan. lib. 12 cap. 68.Cyril) that the writers thought to be ſufficient for manners and doctrine. I could ouerwhelme you with teſtimonies of the Fathers in this matter. A few ſhall ſerue. The Canonicall Scripture (ſaith ddAuguſt. de peccat. mer. lib. 3. cap. 7.Auſtin) is the rule of all. The letters of Bb. are reprehended by ſome other of grauer authoritie. eePlenaria.Generall Councels correct prouinciall, and the former are amended by the latter. Let the Scripture be iudge (ſaith ffBaſil. epiſt. 8.another) and let thoſe doctrines be held for true that agree with it. For the law of God or Scripture (as ggChryſoſt. ad 2 Cor. hom. 13.Chryſoſtom ſaith) is a moſt exact ballance, ſquare, and rule. Therefore let vsus paſſe by that which he or he thinkes, and let vsus enquire all things of the Scriptures. hhAthanaſ. con. gentes, vel idola.The holy Scriptures inſpired by God, are ſufficient to ſhew the truth. And therfore (as iiHilar. de Trin. lib. 3.Hilary ſaith wiſely and religiouſly) It were well we would content our ſelues with thoſe things that are written. If we will not, this is kkBaſil. de vera ac pia fide.Baſils cenſure of vsus, that we are without faith, and proud. It is a manifeſt argument of infidelitie (ſaith Baſil) and a certaine ſigne of pride, if any man reiect ought that is written, or attempt to bring in any thing that is not written. Therefore llIoan. Damaſ. orth. fid. lib. 1. cap. 1.Damaſcen ſaith, that the Church receiueth, acknowledgeth and reuerenceth all things that are deliuered by the law, the Prophets, the Apoſtles and Euangeliſts, and further ſeeketh not for any thing. I pray you ſhew me ſome reaſon, if you can, why the Lord that doth not omit neceſſary matters, & repeateth thoſe that are leſſe needful to be known, ſhould fil ſo p. 87many bookes of Scripture with the ſame hiſtories and points of doctrine oftentimes rehearſed, and quite leaue out many things of farre greater importance, then ſome of thoſe are which he hath cauſed to be written. Without the knowledge of many things recorded in the Scriptures, a man may be ſaued; but you denie ſaluation to all men that beleeue not whatſoeuer you teach them (and there is no end of your deuices) though it hauehave no warrant in any part of Scripture. Is it not better then to reſt only vponupon that which both you and we acknowledge to be the word of God, then to giuegive an infinite libertie to men of deuiſing what they wil; & to lay a grieuous burthē vponupon our ſelues, to beleeue vnderunder pain of damnation, whatſoeuer they wil father vpō, I know not what impoſſibilitie of erring? Let him that hath eyes ſee, though the blind delight in blindneſſe.

The weakneſſe of your principall Aſſumption, concerning the inſufficiencie of the Scriptures, you ſtriue to fortifie with this ſlender reaſon.

If there be diuers queſtions moued now a dayes, touching ſubſtantiall Proofe of the principall aſſumption.matters, which are not expreſly ſet downe, nor determined by onelyonly expreſſe Scripture, then the Scripture is not able to reſolue all ſuch doubts.

But there are diuers ſuch queſtions.

Therefore the Scripture is not able to reſolue all ſuch doubts.

Ere I anſwer directly to your ſyllogiſme, I muſt note two To the Propoſition.things in the propounding of it. Firſt, by whom the queſtions you ſpeake of, are moued. If by Papiſts, it is the ſhame and ſinne of your Church, to ſuffer idle and needleſſe queſtions to be moued, of which there can be no determination but by a Councel, to be held, no man knoweth how many yeares hence, euer or neuer. If you ſay, theſe queſtions are ſet on foote by vsus; all the world may diſcerne your vntruth. For we are certainly perſwaded, that it is not lawfull to accept any doctrine, as a point of faith, which cannot be proued by the Scriptures. But you will ſay, We thinke they are determinable by Scripture, though indeed they be not. At the leaſt then, anſwer the proofes we bring out of Scripture, and on our part the controuerſie is ended. You wil reply, that we will not be anſwered, but interprete Scripture as we p. 88liſt. Who ſees not that this is a meere ſlander, ſince we ſtand not vponupon any priuate reuelations, but on thoſe rules of interpretation, which the fathers, according to the light of true reaſon, hauehave left vsus, as it were by legacy? But this reply is alſo otherwiſe inſufficient. For whereas you yeeld, as appeares by this reaſon, that ſome things may be determined by Scripture; this obiection denies that any point of doctrine whatſoeuer can be reſolued of by it; becauſe if that you ſay, be true, we wil in all caſes interprete Scripture as we pleaſe. Secondly, I obſerue another point, in reſpect of the time. If the queſtions you meane be ſuch, as were neuer moued till now, and the Scripture neuer failed in any former doubts, which ſeems to be implied in that ſpeech Now a dayes: me thinkes there is no ſhew of reaſon to imagine, that ſo many and ſo capitall hereſies, for the ſpace of 1500 years ſhould be refuted and ouerthrowne by Scriptures; and now at the laſt, matters of leſſe importance, and yet as you ſay, very ſubſtantiall, ſhould hauehave no meanes of ſatisfaction by the like courſe. Doubtleſſe if the Scripture hath hitherto bene ſufficient, it is no ſmall wrong to ſuſpect and accuſe it now of inſufficiencie, eſpecially in very ſubſtantiall matters, neceſſary to be beleeued.

Now concerning your ſyllogiſme, I denie the conſequence To the propoſition.of your propoſitiō. What? is the Scripture ſo poore and weake, that it can determine nothing which is not expreſly ſet downe therein? What art, what writing of any man is ſo bare? Are the Scriptures onelyonly, that come immediatly from the author of true reaſon, to be barred of that priuiledge, which all other writings iuſtly challenge? Is not a neceſſary conſequence, according to the rules of logicke and reaſon, to be allowed of in Diuinitie as well as in the Mathematicks, where conſectaries are as certainly true, as the theoremes, out of which they are drawne? Is it not as certaine by Scripture, that there are three perſons diſtinct each from other, and all three but one God, as if theſe verie words had bin expreſly ſet downe? But we muſt beare with you in this matter, who learned this ſhift of your great Cardinal Bellarmine. We ſay (quoth mmBellarm. de verb Dei non ſcript. lib. 4. c. 3 in princip.Bellarmine, where he deliuereth the opinion of your Church) that the whole doctrine of faith and p. 89manners, is not expreſly contained in the Scriptures. Expreſly contained? To be expreſſed, and to be contained, are (at the leaſt) diuers, if not contrary. But I pray you, who ſaith otherwiſe? Not the Proteſtants doubtleſſe: whoſe opinion he propoundeth preſently, after this ſort. They preach (ſaith nnVbiſuprae.Bellarmine, ſpeaking of vsus) that all things neceſſary to faith and manners, are contained in the Scriptures. What is become now of expreſly? For pure ſhame he was glad to leaue out that word, though he had craftily ſtolen it in before. Well, this may ſerue to make good my deniall of your propoſition. A thing may be determinable by Scripture, though the determination be not expreſly ſet downe therein. Take not aduantage of my words, becauſe I ſay determinable, and you determined. For the queſtion is not what is determined, that is, ſet downe in plaine words; but it is ſufficient if the Scripture affoord vsus the determination of matters by certain conſequēce, vponupon truth therein deliuered. Therefore whereas you adde, by onelyonly expreſſe Scripture: onelyonly and expreſſe are but meere ſhifts, nothing at all againſt that we affirme: who require beſides onelyonly expreſſe words of Scripture, the miniſtery and induſtry of man, to gather and conclude points of doctrine out of that which is written in the Scripture.

Your aſſumption is true, that there are diuers queſtions not determinable To the proof of the aſſumption.by expreſſe Scripture, and yet (as I hauehave ſhewed) the Scripture is ſufficient for the determining of all points of faith neceſſary to ſaluation. Concerning the particular queſtion, you bring for the proofe of your aſſumption. Firſt you ſeeme to grant (and that grant is as much as we require) that it may be gathered out of the Scripture by conſequence, that thoſe books which we and you acknowledge to be the word of God, are ſo indeed: otherwiſe, why ſay you, that we ſhall not find it expreſly ſet downe in a part of Scripture? Secondly, I demaund, as before, who moueth this queſtion? Not the Proteſtants, who account it a kind of blaſphemie to denie it, and of infidelitie to doubt of it. Your holy Church of Rome is ſhe that hath buzzed this matter into Chriſtian mens eares, ſo that religion is thereby become a ſcorne to Atheiſts, while you make no conſcience of diſcrediting the word of God, ſo you may by any meanes increaſe p. 90the reputation of your Apoſtaticall ſea. The truth is, that this opinion is not a matter now a dayes firſt ſet abroach: for Atheiſts (ſuch as ooAuguſt. cont. Fauſt. lib. 32. cap. 21.Iulian) hauehave from time to time obiected it; therefore might you hauehave ſpared to mention it, as a queſtion now a dayes moued. But it is new and ſtrange, yea almoſt incredible, that Chriſtians, and thoſe Diuines, yea ſuch as thinke religion reſteth on their ſhoulders, as the Poets faine heauen doth vponupon Atlas, ſhould make a queſtion whether the Scriptures be the word of God or no, and ſo giuegive men occaſion to doubt thereof.

Thirdly, if this matter cannot be reſolued of by the Scripture, we ſhall be little the nearer for the infallible authoritie you hauehave deuiſed. Chriſtians need it not, who are already perſwaded, that the bookes of the old and new Teſtament are the vndoubted word of God: and with Chriſtians onelyonly, to ſpeake truly and properly, hath the Church to do, ordinarily. But it falleth out ſometimes, that amongſt thoſe which make profeſſion of Chriſtianitie, there are ſome found who are in doubt of this point. If this doubt ariſe in the heart of a man that maketh conſcience of religion, he is to be taught, that it is but a tentation of Satan, and therefore not to be hearkened to. Further, we muſt demaund the reaſons of his doubting, ppAuguſt. confeſſ. lib. 6. ca. 5. De morib. Eccleſ. Cathol. cap 29.ſhewing him how abſurd and vnreaſonable a matter it is, to make queſtion of that, which generally both Proteſtants and Papiſts hold, and which hath bene held by the ſpace of 1500. yeares, vnleſſe he be able to giuegive very ſufficient cauſe why he may doubt. His arguments, if he bring any, muſt be anſwered, and the Scriptures auowed by the matter and manner of writing; which is ſuch, as will certainly, if not conuert, yet qqAgrippa de vanit. ſcient, cap. 100.conuince any man in the world, that man is not the deuiſer of thoſe bookes. If he be an Atheiſt, that derideth religion, and withall ſo vnreaſonable, that the former and many other important proofes will not perſwade him, what remaines, but that the magiſtrate whom God hath appointed to ſee true religion eſtabliſhed, cut off ſo corrupt a member by lawfull authoritie? Where this courſe is not taken, what meanes hauehave you to helpe the matter? Will you tell him of an infallible authoritie in the Church? He will laugh p. 91at your folly, who inſtead of prouing beg the queſtion. I doe not beleeue (ſaith he) there is any ſuch Church or authoritie. If I doubt of the Scripture, you proue it by the Church: if I beleeue there is not any ſuch Church, or authoritie in the Church, you will perſwade me by Scripture. To ſay the truth, who can be ſo patient, or fooliſh rather, as to ſuffer himſelfe to be led vp & downe in a ring, as it were a doore turning vponupon hinges, ſtill in the ſame place? The authoritie of the Church is an argument of ſuch waight, as that he is not to be counted either a Chriſtiā, or a man of reaſon, that is not much moued therewithall: yea ſo much, as that he will not diſſent from the continuall iudgement of it, vnleſſe he be driuen to it by certaine reaſon: but yet this authoritie is not infallible. Chriſt euermore iudgeth truly (ſaith rrAuguſt. cont. Creſc. lib. 2. cap. 21.Auſtin) but the Eccleſiasticall iudges, as being men, are very often deceiued. And therefore he ſaith ſſDe nat. & grat. cap. 61.in another place, that he is not bound to giuegive his conſent, without libertie to refuſe, to any thing but the Canonicall Scriptures. And in ttEpiſt. 19. ad Hier. & ad Paulin. epist. 112. cap. 1.an Epiſtle to Ierome, I hauehave learned (ſaith he) to giuegive this reuerence and honour onelyonly to thoſe bookes that are called Canonicall, that I conſtantly beleeue that no writer of any of them hath erred.

But to make an end of this needleſſe queſtion, where both ſides are agreed, let vsus heare Saint Auſtin ſpeake to the Manichees: If you aske vsus (ſaith uuAuguſt. cont. Fauſt. lib. 32. cap. 21.he) how we know that theſe be the Apoſtles writings, we make you this ſhort anſwer, Thence we know theſe to be the Apoſtles, whence you know that Manicheus was the author of yours. And xxConfeſs. lib. 6 cap. 5.in his Confeſſions he ſetteth out the matter more at large, that when he conſidered how many things we are faine to beleeue, for which we hauehave no certaine proofe, it pleaſed God, at the laſt to perſwade him, that they were worthy of iust reproofe, which would not giuegive credit to thoſe bookes of God, which he had eſtabliſhed almoſt in all countries with ſuch authoritie: and that they were (at no hand) to be hearkened vntounto, who would aske him how he knew that thoſe bookes were vouchſafed to mankind by the ſpirit of the onelyonly true God. This (as yyGreg. de Valent. Analyſ. fid. lib. 1. c. 15.Valentia ſaith) may be knowne by the admirable effect theſe bookes worke in the hearts of men, in ſtirring them vp to vertue, without any ſuch eloquence and perſwaſions, as other writers ſtuffe their books withall, p. 92and yet neuer moue vsus as theſe do. The like hath zzStaple. de autorit. ſcript. lib. 2. cap. 5.Stapleton, where he ſpeakes of the meanes which the Church vſeth to diſcerne of the Scriptures. It is not our meaning to ſhut out the holy Ghoſt, who is the teacher of the children of God, as in other points, ſo alſo in this, but to ſtop the mouthes of Atheiſts and importunate men, who obiect ſo vnreaſonably againſt the iudgement of the whole Chriſtian world, without authoritie or reaſon. But of the ſpirit, and teaching thereof, hereafter.

Whatſoeuer you gather vponupon the former point, it muſt needs be of ſmal ſtrength, becauſe that hath need of better proof. But let vsus grant that it is true: doth it therefore ſeeme neceſſary or reaſonable to you, that we ſhould admit the interpretatiō of the Church, as you ſpeake, without any triall; becauſe by the authoritie thereof we beleeue that the Scriptures are the word of God? What if God gaue the Church no further authoritie, but onelyonly to aſſure vsus of the Scripture? It doth not follow that we muſt giuegive credit to whatſoeuer a man will ſay, becauſe in ſome one point he muſt be beleeued. We may not in reaſon doubt, but that the records which we find in an office, are true, becauſe they are auouched ſo to be by the clearke and maiſter of the office. But what of that? may we therefore take them for competent iudges, ſo that we muſt of neceſſitie hold that to be the meaning of the record, which they deliuer to vsus as ſuch? I am perſwaded no man of any vnderſtanding will ſay ſo.

Yet do we acknowledge that aaAuguſt. ad Honor. de vtil. creden. contra Manich.Auſtin ſpeaketh with verie great reaſon. For where ſhould an ignorant man enquire of the ſenſe of the Scripture, rather then there, where be learned it was ſcripture? He ſhall not deale either kindly or reaſonably, if he refuſe their iudgement, other things being alike, for any mans elſe whatſoeuer; and therefore I pray you be not offended, if we, that liued not in the times of Popiſh ignorance, doe giuegive credit to our owne Church, by which we hauehave bene perſwaded, that theſe are the ſcriptures of God, rather then to your Prieſts and Cleargie, from whom we hauehave not receiued this perſwaſion. But the caſe, in Saint Auſtins time, was farre otherwiſe. The Manichees againſt whom he wrote that Treatiſe, p. 93would not ſuffer a man to beleeue any thing, though it were writtē in ſcripture, vnleſſe it were proued true by reaſon: and yet themſelues, as bbCap. 14.Auſtin ſheweth in the chapter you alledge, were driuen to allow faith without reaſon: and to lay this for a ground, that a man muſt beleeue Chriſt, that is, he muſt beleeue that there was ſuch a man, though he hauehave no proofe for it, but report generally continued a long time: which Auſtin confeſſeth to hauehave bene the authoritie, that firſt moued him to beleeue. Now the Manichees acknowledging thus much of Chriſt, and that onelyonly vponupon beleefe, without reaſon, brought in monſtrous opinions of their owne: which could in no ſort agree with the ſcriptures. Therefore being preſſed hard by the Diuines of that age, with ſcripture, they denied all authoritie thereunto; farther then they in their ignorance and hereſie, could make it ſerue for their vnreaſonable conceits. Yea ccAuguſt. contra epiſt. fundament. Manich.they made ſmall or no reckoning of the ſcriptures, in compariſon of their fundamentall Epiſtle, and ſuch other blaſphemies written by Manes their founder, and ſome of his followers. Had not Auſtin great reaſon then, to anſwer as he doth? not concerning the ſenſe of ſcripture, to which you falſely apply his words, but touching thoſe bookes of theirs, ddAuguſt. de haer. cap. 46.wherein they had written horrible and ſenſeleſſe abſurdities againſt religion and reaſon. Surely (ſaith eeAuguſt. contra epiſt. fund.Auſtin) ſince by their authoritie I hauehave bene brought to beleeue, that there was ſuch an one as Chriſt, becauſe it was ſo generally held, time out of minde; I will neuer runne to a few of yours, who learned of them, that Chriſt was, to know what I muſt beleeue of him. Why ſhould I not rather beleeue them, that the ſcriptures teach, what is to be held of Chriſt, then you, that, in your writings onelyonly is the truth: ſince in this matter you can bring no reaſon, why I ſhould beleeue you rather then them? For ſince by them (ſaith Auſtin) I hauehave beleeued, being mooued, by the authoritie of their generall conſent: if they ſhould faile, and could teach nothing (which words you craftily leaue out) I ſhould eaſlier perſwade my ſelfe, not to beleeue Chriſt, then to beleeue any thing of him, by any mans report but by theirs, who firſt made me beleeue in him. Your gloſſe, of beleeuing the ſcriptures to be his word, and what is the meaning of his word, agree not eyther with the place p. 94you alleadge (as may appeare euidently to him that will reade it) or ffAuguſt. de haereſ. cap. 46. Epiphan. lib. 2. hareſ. 66.with their hereſie; but of both I hauehave ſpoken ſufficiently.

A. D. §. 5.

Thus I hauehave prooued, that thoſe Engliſh tranſlations, whereupon Proteſtants commonly build their faith, cannot be a ſufficient rule of true Chriſtian faith. Firſt becauſe they are not infallibly free from error. Secondly, for that all men cannot reade them; neither can any by onelyonly reading, be ſure to attaine the right ſenſe, without which to hauehave the words of Scripture, is to hauehave them, as Auſtin ſaith, ad ſpeciem, non ad ſalutem, for a ſhew, but not to ſaluation. Laſtly, for that all points of doctrine, which appertaine to true Chriſtian faith, are not expreſly ſet downe in ſcripture, as, beſide my proofe Saint Auſtin, Saint Baſil, and Epiphanius do affirme. Some of Aug. l. 5. de bap. con. donat. c. 23 Baſil. lib. de Sp. cap. 29. Epiph. haer. 61.which reaſons hauehave alſo force to prooue, that ſcripture alone, in what language ſoeuer, is not a fit meanes, to inſtruct ſufficiently, all ſorts of men in all matters of faith. Wherefore I may abſolutely conclude, that Scripture alone cannot be that rule of faith, which we ſeeke for.

A. W.

Thus in ſteed of diſputing againſt the ſcriptures being the rule of faith, which was the matter you propounded, you hauehave made a diſcourſe againſt our tranſlations, hauing fancied to your ſelfe a conceit, which beſides your ſelfe, I thinke no man euer dreamed of; viz. that we commonly build our faith vponupon our Engliſh tranſlation. So that the Scripture may well be the rule of faith, for ought that you hauehave ſaid againſt it, concerning the firſt propertie of certaine truth, which it were blaſphemie to denie of the ſcripture. For the ſecond, that the rule muſt be eaſie to vnderſtand: I hauehave ſhewed, that there is no neceſſitie of that condition, and that the ſcripture is eaſie in matters neceſſary to ſaluation. In the laſt point, of the ſcriptures defect, touching many things, that muſt needs be beleeued, you do both wrong God, in making his word writtē ſo vnperfect, and by a fooliſh craft, inſteed of proouing, that the ſcripture containeth not all matters of faith needfull to ſaluation, vndertake to ſhew (that which no man denieth) that all points of beleefe are not expreſly ſet down and determined by ſcripture. And leſt we ſhould forget your ſhuffling, in this point, you offer new proofe of a needleſſe matter, p. 95from the authoritie of Auſtin, Baſil, and Epiphanius: whoſe teſtimonies I alledged before, to prooue the ſufficiencie of the ſcripture, in all matters neceſſarie to ſaluation. The places by you alledged are not of ſuch matters, neither ſpeake of things not expreſly contained, but onelyonly ſhew, that for matters of fact & ceremonie, the Apoſtles hauehave not determined al particulars. The Apoſtles (ſaith ggAug. de baptiſ. contra Donat. lib. 5. ca. 23Auſtin) hauehave commaunded nothing, touching not rebaptiſing them, which hauehave bene baptiſed by hereticks, but the cuſtome which was pleaded againſt Cyprian, is to be beleeued to hauehave had beginning from their tradition: as there are many things, which the Church eueryevery where holdeth, that we wel beleeue therefore to hauehave beene enioyned by the Apoſtles, though they are not found written. What is this to prooue, that there are matters neceſſarie to be beleeued to ſaluation, which are not expreſt in the ſcriptures? hhBaſil. de ſpirſancto.Baſil was not the the author of that Treatiſe, at the leaſt of the latter part of it, from about the 17. chapter, and ſo forward. That appeareth firſt, by obſeruing the difference of ſtyle, being neither like Baſils writing, nor in one place like an other, as iiEraſm. in praef ad illum librūEraſmus hath truly obſerued, who tranſlated it. Secondly, by the fond diſcourſe he maketh, propounding one thing, handling an other, and concluding a third, which not onelyonly Baſil would neuer hauehave done, but no man of any diſcretion. Laſt of all, he kkCap. 27. 29.bewraieth himſelfe to be a counterfeit, by ſpeaking of Meletius, as one dead long before, who liued in his time, & ouerliued him, as it is manifeſt by llSocrat. lib. 4. cap. 26. & lib. 5. cap. 8.the Eccleſiaſticall hiſtorie. But admit the booke were Baſils: what is there in it to proue, that all points of doctrine, which appertaine to true Chriſtian faith, are not expreſly ſet downe in Scripture? This Author ſaith, that we muſt beleeue oraditions. VVhat? In matters of doctrine? There is no ſuch word in him. He ſpeaketh of outward carriage in ceremonies and phraſes of ſpeech. The queſtion, mmCap. 25. 27. 29.in that part of his Treatiſe, is of the prepoſition with, that is (to ſpeake that eueryevery man may vnderſtand) whether it be lawfull to ſay in the Church ſeruice, and otherwiſe, Glorie be to the Father, and to the Sonne, with the holy Ghoſt; or whether we muſt needs ſay, and to the holy Ghoſt, not with. For this ſpeech that author pleades tradition. Do we denie any ſuch matter? p. 96Or do we not acknowledge the libertie and authoritie of the Churches, in ſuch matters? Who ſees not, that our cuſtome now is to ſay, Glory be to the Father, to the Sonne, and to the holy Ghoſt? Not that thereby we condemne the other kind of ſpeech, but becauſe in matters left to our libertie, we take that which ſeemeth fitteſt. nnEpiphan. li. 2 cap. 61.Epiphanius ſpeaking of praier for the dead, which hath no warrant of Scripture, is glad to helpe himſelfe with the authoritie of tradition: telling vsus, that ſome things muſt be held by tradition, and not all taken out of the ſcriptures. But Epiphanius doth not ſay, that this is a doctrine, or action neceſſarie to ſaluation.

A. D. §. 6.

Some obiect againſt this concluſion, that place of S. Paul. Omnis Scriptura diuinitùs inſpirata, vtilis eſt ad docendum &c. vt perfectus ſit homo, &c. But this place prooueth nothing againſt that which I hauehave ſaid. For it ſaith not, that ſcripture alone is ſufficient to inſtruct a man to perfection, but that it is profitable for this purpoſe, as it is indeed; and the rather, becauſe, it commendeth vntounto vsus the authoritie of the Church, which (as I ſhall afterwards proue) is ſufficient. Now it is certaine, that to be profitable, and to be of it ſelfe alone ſufficient, be farre different things. Stones and Timber be profitable to the building of an houſe: yet they alone, without a worke-man to ſquare them, and ſet them in order, be not ſufficient for this purpoſe.

A. W.

oo2. Tim. 3. 16 17.2 Tim 3:16Of this place I hauehave ſpoken ſufficiently ppDefence of the reformed Catholicke. page. 416.otherwhere, and ſhewed that the Scriptures are able to make vsus wiſe to ſaluation, and therefore ſufficient to that purpoſe, Now the Apoſtle hauing giuen that commendation to the ſcripture, verſ. 15. proceedeth in the next to exemplifie that in particular, which he had before ſaid in generall, It is able to make thee wiſe to ſaluation, it is able to fit thee to teaching, reproouing, correcting, inſtructing. Can any reaſonable man thinke, that the Apoſtle, deliuering (by way of amplification) his former commendation of the ſcripture, that he might the rather ſtirre vp Timothie to the ſtudie of it, would ſay leſſe, then he had done before? But it is a great deale leſſe, to ſay no more, but the ſcripture is profitable to ſuch purpoſes, then to commend it, as able to make a man wiſe to ſaluation. Therefore, though the word indeed doe not expreſly p. 97ſignifie ſufficiencie: yet it cannot be doubted, but the profit Hugo Cardinalis ad 2. Tim. 32 Tim 3mentioned implieth ſuch a ſufficiencie; eſpecially ſince he addeth perfection, which muſt ariſe from this word of God. And ſo (as qqDefence of the reformed Cathol. pag. 416.I hauehave ſhewed elſewhere) do rrChryſoſt. & Theophyl. ad 2. Tim. 3. 16.2 Tim 3:16Chryſoſtome and Theophylact vnderſtand it, who make the Apoſtle ſpeake to Timothie to this effect, that he being now to be offred vp, leaueth the ſcriptures in his ſteed of which he may in all things take aduiſe, and counſell, as if the Apostle himſelfe were preſent with him.

But you forſooth would make vsus beleeue, that the ſcripture is indeed profitable to this end, but not ſufficient. Is not the knowledge of arts & tongues, philoſophy and hiſtory, of verie good vſe alſo to this purpoſe? Slender then, & too ſlender is the commendation our Apoſtle giueth the ſcriptures, if it be of no greater excellēcy then theſe humane furtherances, but only in a certain degree of profit. To helpe the matter you propound one particular, for which the ſcripture is profitable: namely to commend vntounto vsus the authority of the Church. But neither doth it cōmend to vsus any ſuch authority, as you imagin, &, if that be the rule of the ſcripture, one ſentēce had bin as good & better then the whole volume of the Bible: which to ſay, were no leſſe thē blaſphemy. But I am afraid the ſcriptures, that Paul there ſpeaks of, which were the books of the old Teſtamēt, are rather vnprofitable, thē profitable to that purpoſe. For they often amplify & magnify the word of God written, in ſo plaine termes, that eueuery man may vnderſtand them: as for the authority, you fancy to your ſelfe, they ſpeake either nothing, or little, and that very obſcurely thereof. But we ſhall ſee, in the reſt of your Treatiſe, what proofe you can finde of this authoritie in Moſes and the Prophets, and the writers of the olde Teſtament.

Now at the laſt, you remember your ſelfe againe, and returne to your old ſhift of Scripture alone. Which you deuiſed of your owne head, that you might hauehave ſomewhat to confute. It is not all one (ſay you) to be profitable, and to be of it ſelfe alone ſufficient. And you tel vsus, This is certaine. Who euer denied it? Or who but he, that wanted matter to replie againſt, would caſt ſuch doubts? Eſpecially who would hauehave waſted time and paper to prooue or declare a thing ſo certaine and cleare, by a needleſſe p. 98compariſon? The ſcripture without any doctrines of men (call them what you will, & imagine what aſſiſtance of the ſpirit you liſt) is ſufficient to teach all men the true & certaine way to ſaluation. This is that we affirme, not as you ridiculouſly ſlander vsus, that there needs no miniſterie of man, for the inſtructing of any one in the vnderſtanding of any place of ſcripture, or knowledge of any point of religion. Theſe are your owne fancies, or mōſters rather, with which like bugbeares, you ſcare your poore ſeduced followers, and bleare the eies of the ignorant, that they may not enquire, what we teach indeed, but hate our doctrine, before they any way vnderſtand it. But they that hauehave any care of their owne ſaluation, will not ſuffer themſelues to be led by you hoodwinkt to deſtruction: if any man will needs be wilfully ignorant, the Lord ſhall require his blood at his owne hands: we hauehave done our duetie in teaching and proouing the truth.