diminished much lesse tooke away the liberty of other inferiour Sees but that they might resist and gainesay till they were satisfied and made to see the equity of the iudgement of the first See accordingly as we finde they did in the Councell of Chalcedon reiecting him as an Heretique whom the Bishop of Rome had receiued till vpon more full particular examination they found him to be catholicke and acquited him in their owne iudgement So that here we see there is nothing to proue the Pope to bee an absolute supreme iudge of all as Bellarmine vntruly alledgeth But happily hee will say that Theodoret intreateth Renatus to perswade Leo to vse his authority and to require the Bishoppes that had proceeded against him to come to his Synode in the West seeing the See of Rome hath a direction of all Churches and that therefore hee seemeth to acknowledge an absolute supreme power in the Pope For answere herevnto we say that the circumstances of this Epistle doe clearely conuince and proue he had no such conceipt For first he speaketh not of Leo alone as if of himselfe hee could determine the matter of difference betweene him and his Aduersaries but of him and his Westerne Councell Secondly hee doth not say that he his Councell alone may determine the matter but that his See being the first See hee and his Bishops may call all other Bishops to their Councell and this is that direction or government which he saith the first See or Westerne Church hath of other Churches namely in going before them and inuiting and calling them to publique deliberations not in peremptory and absolute commanding without them and ouer them The tenth witnesse produced out of the Greeke church is Sozomene out of whom two things are alledged The first is that he saith Iulius Bishop of Rome restored Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople to their churches from which they were violently and vniustly expulsed by certaine Orientall Bishops The second that he did this because the care of all pertained to him in respect of the dignity of his See How the words of Sozomene reporting that Iulius restored these Bishops to their churches are to bee vnderstood we may learne of Iulius himselfe who in his Epistle mentioned by Athanasius in his second Apologie hauing blamed the Orientall Bishoppes for proceeding in a matter of so great consequence concerning the faith and the Bishops of the principall Churches of the world without him and his Bishops and as he vnderstood very irregularly telleth them that he durst not confirme that they had done that he communicated still with Athanasius and Paulus not foreiudging any thing but desirâ—…ng them to come to a Synode where thinges might bee fully debated and determined and that though hee alone wrote for them yet he wrote in the name and with the consent of all the Bishops of the West Vpon which his letter they were so farre from restoring them to their places that they tooke it in ill part that hee did write vnto them telling him that when hee proceeded against certaine Nouatians they intermedled not and that therefore hee should not meddle with their proceedings seeing the greatnesse of citties maketh not the power of one Bishop greater then the power of another By which their peremptory reiecting of his motion it appeareth that hee neither did nor could put the expulsed Bishops into their places againe which thing Sozomene himselfe testifieth also telling vs that they could neuer recouer their places till the Emperour by his mandatory letters preuailed So that when he saith Iulius restored them his meaning is that hee restored them as much as lay in him as likewise it may be said of Cyrill and Iohn of Antioche that after many and bitter contentions they were in the end reconciled and restored each to other their Churches from which yet they were neuer driuen indeed but in the censures of the one of them passed against the other But Sozomene saith the care of all Churches pertained to the Bishop of Rome therefore he acknowledgeth that hee had an vniversalitie of power ouer all Surely this consequence will neuer be made good For the Metropolitane or he that is Bishop of the first See in each Province in respect of the dignitie of his See hath the care of the whole Province yet can he doe nothing but as hee is directed by the maior part of the Bishops So that the care of all is said to pertaine to him not because he hath power to dispose of all things by himself but because all publike proceedings concerning the whole Province must take their beginning from him nothing of that nature may be taken in hand without consulting him In like sort and in the same sense and meaning Sozomene saith that for the dignity of his See the care of all pertained to the Bishop of Rome not as if the absolute disposing of all things did rest in him but for that he as prime Bishop of the world was first to be consulted before any thing concerning the common faith and the whole state of the Christian Church were determined and for that by the assistance and concurrence of other Bishops he as first in order and honour amongst them was to beginne and set forward allthings of greatest consequence tending to the common good Three more witnesses Bellarmine hath yet behinde Acatius the Bishop of Patara and Iustinian the Emperour out of whom three things are alledged The first that the Bishop of Rome beareth about with him the care of all Churches The second that the Pope is ouer the Church of the whole world The third that the Pope is the Head of all holy Churches To the first of these allegations taken out of Acatius his Epistle to Simplicius Bishop of Rome I haue answered before as likewise in what sense the Pope may be said to be ouer the Church of the whole world to wit in respect of a primacie of order and honour but not of power in which sense also Iustinian the elder writing to Iohn the second saith his See is the Head of all Churches And thus hauing examined the testimonies of the Greeke Fathers we are now to proceed to the authorities of the Latine Church CHAP. 36. Of the pretended proofes of the Popes supremacie taken out of the writings of the Latine Fathers THe first among the Latine Fathers that Bellarmine produceth is Cyprian who of all other most clearely ouerthroweth the error of the Romanists touching the Papacie therefore is very vnadvisedly produced by them in the first place and appointed to marshall and conduct the rest of their witnesses yet let vs heare what he will say Out of Cyprian foure places are alledged The first is in his booke de vnitate Ecclesiae The second in the third Epistle of his first book written to Cornelius The third in the tenth Epistle of his second booke to the same
faithfully gathered the opinions of all the Fathers and that his iudgement is their iudgment but he opposeth himself against Augustine therefore against all the Fathers This assumption we deny For Calvin no way dissenteth from Augustine but saith onely it may seeme that there should be some little difference betweene Augustine and vs For that wee affirme concupiscence in the regenerate to be sinne but he is fearefull to call it sinne vnlesse it be consented vnto naming it rather an euill sickenesse infirmity or the like But else-where taking away this doubt he saith that Augustine feareth not sometimes to call it sinne whereby the consent and agreement betweene Augustine and Caluin appeareth It were easie to shew that not onely Augustine but the Fathers generally were of the same opinion that we are of and that the popish opinion is a most dangerous and damnable errour if this were a fit place to enter into the exacte handling of that question But let vs see the rest of his objections Caluin saith he in the matter of satisfaction chargeth all the Fathers with errour This is as true as the rest For Caluin doth not say they erred in this matter of satisfaction for he sheweth plainely they were far from the absurditie of the Popish conceipt but he saith disiunctiuely only that either they erred or at least vsed some phrases and formes of speech that may seeme hard and neede a good and fauourable construction rather than to be wrested to a worse sense then they were vttered in as the manner of the Popish Sophisters is to deale with the writings of the Fathers For the clearing of this matter we must obserue that in sinne there are two things the sinfulnesse the punishment which for it the iustice of God inflicteth Both these are taken away by Christ but in a different sort The sinfulnes by the operatiō working infusion of grace the punishmēt by the imputatiō of Christs sufferings who suffering that he deserued not freeth vs frō that wee were deservedly to haue suffered From one of these wee cannot bee freede vnlesse also wee bee freede from the other and in what degree wee are delivered from the one wee are discharged from the other if wee be freed onely from the dominion of sinne we are onely discharged from the condemnation of eternall death if from all sinnefullnesse wee are discharged from all touch of any puuishment But the Romanists do teach touching sinnes committed after Baptisme that God contenteth not himselfe with the most perfect abolishing and extinguishment of all sinnefullnesse by working of Diuine grace the satisfaction of Christs sufferings but that he doth require that we suffer the extremity of that wee haue deserued onely some little mitigation procured by the bloudshead of Christ and the eternity excepted from which our ceasing from sin doth free vs the punishment of sin being eternall because sinne is eternall Hence it commeth that they teach that if wee will not suffer and endure the extremity of punishment wee haue deserued wee must make some other recompence to Gods iustice for it This is a blasphemous assertion and contrary to the doctrine of all the Fathers who know and teach as wee do that the iustice of God and his wrath against sinne is satisfied in Christ that this satisfaction is imputed to vs not continuing in but ceasing from sinne that according to the degree of our ceasing from sinne this satisfaction is diversly imputed So that if wee cease from sinne onely so that it hath no more dominion over vs it is imputed in such sort as it dischargeth vs only from condemnation but if wee wholy cease from sinne it is so imputed vnto vs as that it freeth vs from all punishment whatsoeuer So that if there were found in any of vs a perfect leauing forsaking of sinne GODS iustice would lay no punishment vppon vs. But the Romanistes thinke it might and would for precedent sinne though now wholly forsaken and quite abolished It is true indeede that the Fathers sometimes vsed the name of satisfaction in their writings but to another purpose than the Romanists doe They knew that euils are cured by contraries and therefore in the curing of sinfull soules they prescribe that which Caluine also doth that men hauing offended in yeelding too much to their owne desires pleasures delights and profits should for the freeing of themselues from the euill of sinne deny something to them selues which otherwise they might lawfully enioy which if they do not they shall in the punishments which God will bring vpon them tast the bitternesse of that that seemed sweete vnto them in sinne This exercise of repentant mortification the Fathers called satisfaction not as if the iustice of God were not satisfied in Christ or wee were tied yea though wee should wholly forsake sinne yet to satisfie for that is past by suffering so much as our sinnes haue deserued or else to doe some painefull thing equiualent to such sufferings which is the popish errour But because wee must doe that in this kind of repentant mortification which may be sufficient for the finding out of the depth of that wound which sinne hath made in the soule for remouing the causes of it the extinguishment of that remaineth of it the taking away the occasions and the preuenting of the reentrance of it againe This if wee do wee shall preuent the hand of GOD which otherwise would smite vs not to be satisfied in the course of his Iustice which at our hands cannot bee looked for and which is aboundantly satisfied in Christ and would not touch vs for any thing past if by perfect forsaking of sinne wee were fully ioyned vnto him but to driue vs by bitter sorrow to purge out that sinfullnesse and those remainders which our precedent sinnes left behind them in respect whereof wee are not yet fully ioyned to Christ. These remainders of sinne if wee dislike cast off and forsake and iudge and condemne our selues as the Apostle speaketh wee shall not bee iudged of the Lord for them This happie course of preventing the hand of God turning away his punishments by bitter and afflictiue recounting of our sinnes the Fathers call Satisfaction Some sayings of the Fathers it may bee there are which are hard and must with a favourable constructiō be reduced to the sense we haue expressed and that is all that Calvin saith for which how justly he is blamed let the Reader judge CHAP. 17. Of Prayer for the dead and Merite THe next calumniation is concerning prayer for the dead Let the Reader obserue what it is that Bellarmine is to proue and he shall find that he doth nothing but trifle For he is to proue that Calvin confesseth that more then a thousand three hundred yeares since the Popish doctrine and custome of prayer for the dead did prevaile and was generally receiued in the whole Church of God throughout the world This if hee will
mâ—…ch with many declamations against priuate interpretations and interpretations of private spirits and make the world beleeue that wee follow no other rule of interpretation but each mans private fancie For answere herevnto we say with Stapleton that interpretations of Scripture may be sayd to be private and the spirits whence they proceede named priuate either Ratione personae modi or finis That is in respect of the person who interpreteth the manner of his proceeding in interpreting or the end of his interpretation A priuate interpretation proceeding from a priuate spirit in the first sense is euery interpretation deliuered by men of priuate condition In the second sense is that which men of what condition soeuer deliuer contemning and neglecting those publike meanes which are knowen to all and are to be vsed by all that desire to finde the trueth In the third sense that which proceeding from men of priuate condition is not so proposed and vrged by them as if they would binde all other to receiue and imbrace it but is intended onely to their owne satisfaction The first kind of interpretation proceeding from a private spirit is not to be disliked if the parties so interpreting neither neglect the common rules meanes of attayning the right sense of that they interpret contemne the judgement of other men nor presumptuously take vpon them to teach others and enforce them to beleeue that which they apprehend for trueth without any authority so to doe But priuate spirits in the second sense that is men of such dispositions as will follow their owne fancies and neglect the common rules of direction as Enthusiasts and trust to their owne sense without conference and due respect to other mens judgements wee accurse This is all we say touching this matter wherein I would faine know what our aduersaries dislike Surely nothing at all as it will appeare to euery one that shall but looke into the place aboue alledged out of Stapleton But say they there must bee some authenticall interpretation of Scripture which euery one must bee bound to stand vnto or else there will be no end of quarrels and contentions The interpretation of Scripture is nothing else but the explication and clearing of the meaning of it This is either true or false The true interpretation of the Scripture is of two sorts For there is an interpretation which deliuereth that which is true and contayned in the Scripture or from thence to bee concluded though not meant in that place which is expounded This is not absolutely and perfectly a true interpretation because though it truely deliuereth such doctrine as is contayned in the Scripture and nothing contrarie to the place interpreted yet it doth not expresse that that is particularly meant in the place expounded There is therefore another kind of true interpretations when not onely that is deliuered which is contayned in the Scripture but that which is meant in the particular places expounded Likewise false interpretations are of two sorts some deliuering that which is vtterly false and contrary to the Scripture some others onely fayling in this that they attaine not the true sense of the particular places expounded An example of the former is that interpretation of that place of Genesis The sonnes of God saw the daughters of men c. which some of the Fathers haue deliuered vnderstanding by the sonnes of God the Angels of Heauen whose fall they suppose proceeded from the loue of women Which errour they confirme by that of the Apostle that women must come vayled into the Church for the Angels that is as they interpret least the Angels should fall in loue with them A false interpretation of the later kind Andradius sheweth some thinke that exposition of the wordes of the Prophet Esaie Quis enarrabit generationem eius Who shall declare his generation deliuered by many of the Fathers vnderstanding thereby the eternall generation of the son of God which no man shall declare Whereas by the name of generation the Prophet meaneth that multitude that shall beleeue in Christ which shall be so great as cannot be expressed An authenticall interpretation is that which is not only true but so clearely and in such sort that euery one is bound to imbrace and to receiue it As before we made 3 kinds of judgment the one of discretion common to all the other of direction common to the Pastors of the Church and a third of jurisdiction proper to them that haue supreame power in the Church so likewise wee make three kindes of interpretation the first private and so euery one may interpret the Scripture that is privately with himselfe conceiue or deliuer to other what hee thinketh the meaning of it to bee the second of publike direction and so the Pastors of the Church may publikely propose what they conceiue of it and the third of jurisdiction and so they that haue supreme power that is the Bishops assembled in a generall Councell may interpret the Scripture and by their authority suppresse all them that shall gainesay such interpretations and subject euery man that shall disobey such determinations as they consent vpon to excommunication and censures of like nature But for authenticall interpretation of Scriptures which every mans conscience is bound to yeeld vnto it is of an higher nature neither doe wee thinke any of these to be such as proceeding from any of those before named specified to whom wee graunt a power of interpretation Touching the interpretations which the Fathers haue deliuered we receiue them as vndoubtedly true in the generall doctrine they consent in and so farre forth esteeme them as authenticall yet doe wee thinke that holding the faith of the Fathers it is lawfull to dissent from that interpretation of some particular places which the greater part of them haue deliuered or perhaps all that haue written of them and to find out some other not mentioned by any of the Auncient CHAP. 17. Of the interpretation of the Fathers and how farre wee are bound to admit it THe Fathers sayth Andradius especially they of the Greeke Church being ignorant of the Hebrew tongue following Origen did rather striue with all their wit and learning to devise Allegories and to frame the manners of men then to cleare the hard places of the law and the Prophets Nay euen Hierome himselfe who more diligently then any of the rest sought out the meaning and sense of the Propheticall and diuine Oracles yet often to avoyde the obscurities of their words betaketh himselfe to Allegories In this sense it is that Cardinall Caietan saith hee will not feare to goe against the torrent of all the Doctors for which saying Andradius sheweth that Canus and others doe vnjustly blame him For though wee may not goe from the faith of the Fathers nor from the maine trueth of doctrine which they deliuer in different interpretations yet may wee interpret some parts of the Scripture otherwise then any
of the Auncient euer did weighing the circumstances of places the nature and force of words in the Originall and hauing other helpes necessary Neither is this to contemne the vniforme and maine consent of the Fathers but rather more exactly to illustrate and explaine those things which they did allegorically vnderstand or not so diligently trauaile in as is fit for them that come after to doe It is not then so strange a thing to say that there are many places of Scripture the true literall and natural sense whereof we cannot finde in any of the Ancient Neither is this to charge them with error in faith seeing the sense they giue tendeth to the furtherance of the true faith and the better forming of mens manners to godlinesse Wherefore wee feare not to pronounce with Andradius that whosoeuer denyeth that the true and literall sense of sundry texts of Scripture hath beene found out in this last age wherein as Guido Fabritius rightly noteth all things seeme to bee renewed and all learning to be newly borne into the world that so Christ might bee newly fashioned in vs and wee new borne in him is most vnthankefull vnto God that hath so richly shed out his benefites vpon the children of this generation vngratefull towards those men who with so great paines so happy successe and so much benefit to Gods Church haue travailed therein Neither is Andradius only of this opinion but Iansenius Maldonatus also who both of them do in sundry places professe they rest not satisfied in any interpretation giuen by the Fathers but preferre other found out in this age For example in the explication of that place of Iohn Of his fulnesse we haue all receiued grace for grace Maldonatus refuseth all the interpretations of the Fathers and giueth this of his owne We haue receiued of Christs fulnesse most excellent gifts of grace yet no man hath receiued al but euery one is defectiue yea euery one lacketh something that another hath But he may acknowledge the goodnesse of God towards him in that hee hath some other in stead of it which the other hath not and so may rightly bee saide to haue receiued grace for grace because in stead of that grace he wanteth and another hath hee hath receiued some other which the other wanteth Many other instances might bee giuen out of Caietane Andradius Iansenius Maldonatus and other worthy Divines of the Church of Rome but this may suffice CHAP 18. Of the diuers senses of Scripture THus hauing set downe to whom the interpretation of the Scripture pertaineth it remaineth that wee speake of the rules directions and helpes that men haue to leade thē to the finding out of the right meaning of it But because some suppose the Scripture hath many vncertain senses before we enter into the discourse of the rules which must direct vs in interpreting wee must speake something of the multiplicity of senses supposed to be in the words of Scripture which may seeme to contrary all certainety of interpretation There is therefore a double sense of the sacred words and sentences of Scripture for there is a literall sense and a spirituall or mysticall sense The literall sense is either proper or natiue when the words are to be taken as originally in their proper signification they import or figuratiue when the words are translated from their naturall and proper signification to signifie something resembled by those things they do primarily import As when Christ sayth hee hath other sheepe which are not of this fould The spirituall or mysticall sense of the Scripture is when the words either properly or figuratiuely signifie somethings which are figures and significations of other things This is Threefoold Allegoricall Tropologicall Anagogicall The first is when things spoken of in the old Testament are figures of somethings in the Newe So it was literally true that Abraham had two sons the one by a bond-woman the other by a free but these two sonnes of Abraham imported some other thing in the state of the newe Testament to wit two different sorts of men And here wee may obserue the difference betweene an Allegory and a Type A Type is when some perticular person or fact in the old Testament demonstrateth and shadoweth out vnto vs some particular person or fact in the newe An allegory when something in the old Testament in a spirituall and mysticall sort shadoweth out vnto vs in a generality things in some proportion answering in the newe So Dauid ouercomming Goliah was a Type of Christ and allegorically did shadow out that victory which wee obtaine in the state of the newe Testament ouer those ghostly enemies that rise vp against vs. The Tropologicall sense of Scripture is when one thing deliuered and reported in the Scripture signifieth some other thing pertaining to the behauiour and conuersation of men as when God forbade to muzzle the mouth of the oxe that treadeth out the corne This prohibition did literally signifie that God would not haue labouring oxen restrained from feeding while they were treading out the corne But this respect which God had vnto these his creatures of inferiour cōdition did signifie that much lesse they which labour for our soules good are to be denied the things of this life Anagogicall when the things literally expressed vnto vs do signifie something in the state of heauen happinesse God sware in his wrath to the Israelites that they should not enter into his rest meaning the land of Canaan but the Apostle from thence concludeth that vnbeleeuers shall not enter into that eternall rest of the Saints in heauen because the rest of the Israelites in the land of Canaan after their manyfold dangers vexations and trauels was a figure of the eternall rest in heauen This diuision of the manifold senses of Scripture is taken out of Eucherius Hierom maketh three kinds of exposition of Scripture Historicall Tropologicall and Spirituall that which he nameth spiritual comprehendeth both those before expressed by Eucherius to wit Allegoricall Anagogicall Augustine maketh the expositiō of the Scripture to be twofold Historical Allegorical The former he maketh to be twofold to wit Analogicall Aetiologicall and the later he maketh to comprehend that which properly is called Allegoricall and the other two to wit Tropologicall and Anagogicall The reason of this diuersity of mysticall senses is because the old Testament was a figure of the new and the new of future glory This multiplicity of senses breedeth no vncertainety in the Scripture nor Aequivocation because the words of the Scripture do not doubtfully signifie so diuers and different things but the things certainly signified by the words are signes significations of diuers things All these are founded vpon one literall certain sense from which onely in matter of question and doubt an argument may be drawen The thing wherein Origen offended was not that hee found out spirituall and mysticall senses of
the Bishops vsed for the gouerning and ouer-seeing of certaine parts of their Diocese allotted to them with such limitations as they pleased for counsell aduise in managing of their weightiest affaires and the Arch-deacons which they vsed as spies in all places and trusted with the dispatch of what they thought fit they had for their direction in cases of doubt and for their ease in the multiplicitie of their employments certaine of their cleargie skilfull in the canons and Lawes of the Church whom they vsed as Officials to heare all manner of causes and matters of instance betweene party party but suffered them not to meddle in the censuring and punishing of criminall things or in any matter of office but in case of absence or sicknesse they had Vicars generall that might doe any thing almost that pertaineth to the Bishops Iurisdiction The former are not onely named Officials but Chauncellours though the name of Chauncellour bee not in this sense so auncient as the former Cancellarius originally and properly signifieth a Notarie or Secretarie because these for the preseruing of their writings and notes of remembrance were wont to sit and write Intra cancellos that is Within certaine places inclosing them made in the manner of Checquer-worke But from hence in time it came to be vsed for any one that is employed for the giuing of answere vnto sutors for keeping of Records and notes of remembrance and generally for the performance of some principall duties pertayning to him whose Chauncellour he is said to be CHAP. 30. Of the forme of the gouernment of the Church and the institution and authority of Metropolitanes and Patriarches THis being the forme of gouernment of each Diocese and particular Church let vs consider what dependance or subordination such particular Churches haue For it cannot nor may not be imagined that each Diocese or particular church is absolutely supreme and subiect to no higher authority The Papists are of opinion that Christ constituted and appointed one chiefe Pastour with vniuersality of power as his Vicegerent generall vpon earth placed him in the chiefe City of the world and set him ouer all the other both Bishops and Churches But the auncient Fathers are of another opinion For Hierome pronounceth that all Bishops are equall in order office and ministery whether of Rome Eugubium Tanais or Constantinople howsoeuer riches and magnificence of Churches and cities may make one seeme to be greater then another and Cyprian speaketh to the same purpose saying Let no Bishop make himselfe a Iudge of other euery one hauing receiued his authority from Christ and therefore being accountant to him onely And this he speaketh vpon occasion of a difference betweene him and the Romane Bishops of that time about rebaptization Wherefore let vs examine these contrary opinions and see which of them is most agreeable vnto truth and reason For the confirmation of the former of these two opinions the Romanists alledge many things to proue that the best forme of Regiment and gouernment is a Monarchie and consequently that Christ who vndoubtedly established the best forme appointed one supreme Monarch in his Church To this allegation Ockam most excellently and learnedly answereth in his Dialogues shewing and prouing at large that though the gouernment of one or a Monarchie be the best forme of Regiment in one citty or country as Aristotle rightly teacheth yet it is not the best forme of policie and gouernment in respect of the whole world and all the parts of it so farre distant remote one from another because the whole world and the infinite different countreyes and regions of it regularly may be better gouerned by many whereof no one is superiour to other then by one alone neither is the same forme of gouernment alwayes most expedient for the whole and for each part for greater circuits and for straighter or narrower bounds seeing one man may susteine the burthen of hearing determining and dispatching the greater causes more important matters in one kingdome or countrey but no one can so manage the weightiest businesses of the whole world And that in like sort though it be expedient that there should bee one Bishop ouer some part of the Church and people of God yet there is not the same reason that there should bee one ouer the whole seeing no one canne dispatch the greater businesses and manage the weightier affaires of the whole Christian world Besides he saith it would bee most dangerous that there should be any such one supreme ruler of the whole Church for that if he should fall into errour or heresie all the whole world would bee in great danger to bee seduced the members for the most part conforming themselues to their head and the inferiours to their rulers and superiours That which Ockam saith may be confirmed by the authority of Saint Augustine who thinketh a Monarchie or the gouernment of one supreme ruler most fit for the seuerall countries and parts of the world but not for the whole His words are Feliciores essentres humanae si omnia Regnaessent parua concordi vicinitate laetantia that is The state of worldly things would bee much more happy if the whole world were diuided out into small kingdomes joyfully conspiring together in a friendly neighbourhood then if all should be swayed by one supreme commander Thus then wee deny not but that amongst all the simple and single formes of government a Monatchie is the best for each country and people neither doth Caluine contradict vs herein as Bellarmine seemeth to report for hee doth not simply say that amongst all the simple formes of gouernment Aristocratie is best and to bee preferred but onely in the respect of often declinings and swaruings of absolute Kings hardly moderating themselues so in so free and absolute a liberty of commaunding all as that their wils should neuer swarue from that which is right and good But Bellarmine himselfe thinketh that the mixt formes of gouernment are to bee preferred before any of those simple formes of Monarchy Aristocratie and Democratie as having in them the best that is found in every of those single and simple formes And such is the gouernment of the Church of God Christ vndoubtedly establishing the best forme of gouernment in the same For the gouernment of each Diocese particular Church resteth principally in one who hath an eminent peerelesse power without whom nothing may be attempted or done yet are there others joyned with him as assistants without whose counsell aduice and consent he may doe nothing of moment and consequence whom hee cannot at his pleasure displace and remoue from their standings or depriue them of their honour or any way hardly censure them of himselfe alone but in the case of a Deacon hee must haue two other Bishops to concurre with him and in the case of a Presbyter fiue without which concurrence he may not proceed against
knowledge of the tongues may be and is most necessary After all these exceptions taken against the helpes and rules proposed by me for the finding out of the true meaning of Scripture the Treatiser setteth on mee a fresh in fiercer manner then before and requireth me to bring some diuine testimony proofe or argument or some particular reason of the necessity and sufficiency of these helpes and rules Whereunto I briefly answer that if any Papist vnder Heauen can take any exception against any of these helpes and rules proposed by mee or deuise any other I will iustifie the necessity and sufficiencie of them but otherwise I thinke it altogether needlesse to proue that the Sunne shineth at noone 〈◊〉 to shew by reason or authority that spirituall things cannot bee discerned but by spirituall men The Treatiser therefore returneth and taketh new exceptions against the helpes and rules proposed by mee first affirming but most vntruely that the greater part of my brethren will not allow them and secondly labouring to improue them by reason For first that an illumination of the minde is not necessarie for the vnderstanding of the Scripture hee goeth about to shew because if such illumination bee necessarie no man can be assured of the truth of another mans interpretation seeing no man can tell whether hee haue an illumination of the vnderstanding and a minde disposed in such sort as is required or not Whereunto I answer that it is true that no man can assure himselfe that another mans interpretation is true good out of any knowledge of such personall things in the interpreter yet may hee know it to bee true out of the nature of the thing it selfe and thence inferre that either hee that so interpreteth or they from whom hee receiued such interpretation had a diuine illumination For even as to discourse of the nature of colours presupposeth that the man that so discourseth hath or had sight if hee speake thereof with any apprehension of that hee speaketh though a blinde man hauing heard the discourses of other may vse like wordes without all sense and apprehension of that hee speaketh So no man can interprete the Scriptures and discourse of the thinges therein contayned with sence and feeling but such a one whose minde is enlightned though prophane persons and such as bee voyde of all diuine illumination may as from others interprete the Scripture and discourse of such diuine thinges as are therein And as a man may assure himselfe that another mans discourse of colours is good out of the nature of the thing it selfe though hee know not whether hee haue or euer had such sence of seeing as is requisite in him that will speake of colours with any apprehension so a man may know that another mans interpretation is true though hee know not whether he haue such an illumination of mind as is necessary for the vnderstanding of the things contayned in the Scripture Secondly hee vndertaketh to shew that no man can eyther assure himselfe that he hath the true meaning of Scripture or conuince the gaine-sayers by following the direction of the former rules because as hee supposeth a man cannot certainely know that hee hath an illumination of minde that hee hath obserued those rules that hee is disposed as hee should bee and furnished with learning in such sort as is requisite Whereunto first I answere briefly that it is as possible for a man to know whether he haue an illumination of the mind or not as it is whether he haue the light of naturall reason Secondly that the obseruation of the rules formerly mentioned and the disposition of a mans mind resolued to embrace the trueth may as easily be knowen as any other motions purposes and resolutions Neither is it more hard for a man that is spirituall to know whether hee bee sufficiently furnished with learning requisite for the vnderstanding of the Scripture then for a naturall man to knowe whether hee haue learning enough to vnderstand Aristotle or any other prophane authour Thirdly in confutation of the former rules hee alledgeth that they may not be admitted as necessary because if they bee all such as haue no illumination of minde nor willing disposition to embrace the truth when it shal be manifested to thē must be excluded out of the number of faithfull ones Which if he thinke to be an absurdity it is no great matter what he saith but he addeth that they that are vnlearned haue not the knowledge of all those arts and sciences that are necessary for the vnderstanding of sundry parts of Scripture nor of those originall tongues wherein they were written without the knowledge whereof they cannot be vnderstood whereas yet they are to build their fayth vpon the Scripture rightly vnderstood whence it will follow that all such must be excluded out of the number of the faythfull This indeed is such a consequence as must not be admitted neither is there any such thing consequent vpon that which we say For though all men haue not that knowledge of arts sciences and tongues that is necessary for the exact vnderstanding of all parts passages of Scripture yet may they vnderstand so much of the same as is necessary to saluation without the knowledge of arts sciences the things that are so precisely necessary being deliuered in very plaine easie and familiar termes Neither is it necessary that if a man will build his faith vpon the Scripture that he must vnderstand euery part of it Onely one scruple remayneth which is that an ignorant man can haue no certaine ground of his faith if he build the same vpon the Scripture because lacking the knowledge of tongues he cannot know whether it be truely translated or not but this scruple may easily be remoued seeing an ignorant man out of the Scripture it selfe duely proposed explayned and interpreted vnto him may know it to be diuine heauenly inspired of God and consequently that in what tongue soeuer it was written it is truely translated touching the substance howsoeuer happily there may be some accidentall aberrations whereof he cannot judge After these exceptions taken against the helpes rules proposed by me as necessary for the finding out of the sence and meaning of the Scripture the Treatiser obseruing no order in his writings addresseth himselfe to proue that we haue no certaine meanes whereby to know that the Scriptures are of God or which they bee and then returneth againe to proue that we haue no certaine rule whereby to be assured we haue the sence of them But all that hee sayth to this purpose may easily bee answered For first the truth of Christian doctrine is diuinely proued vnto vs by the satisfaction wee finde in the same touching things wherein naturall reason left vs vnresolued and the effects wee finde to follow vppon the receiuing of it Secondly that Christian doctrine is reuealed it is euident because staying within the confines of the light of naturall