Against a multiplex sense in one utterance; only the literal sense is the Spirit's
Becanus (Manual 1.1 q.3) is wont to say a double sense of Scripture is distinguished — one literal or historical, the other spiritual or mystical. Craftily put. For Protestants are not disputing here (1) whether some of the fathers acknowledged a multiplex sense of Scripture — that is nothing to the point; nor (2) whether theologians busy with interpretation may variously accommodate one and the same place — we do not deny that they may, though we do not assert that they must everywhere; nor (3) whether in diverse axioms and places one word may bear several significations — that we grant with a free hand; nor (4) whether certain things contain a mystical and typical sense — for we grant that some things are written which according to the letter report what is a type of another thing (Gal. 4:24; John 3:14; Matt. 12:40).
The question is this: whether one and the same word — not thing — in one and the same place, in one and the same part of an utterance, from the Holy Spirit's intention (not from a man's ingenious collection or arbitrary application), can have several senses besides the literal, three or four. That the papists affirm; we deny: (1) because only from the literal sense, dug out by the norms of true interpretation (which the scholion on Aph. 2 will soon teach), are true, solid, and firm arguments drawn to confirm any dogma of the faith; (2) because the literal sense alone, explained in the aforesaid way, is the Holy Spirit's sense, as the Jesuits themselves confess in Bellarmine, On the Word of God 3.3 §1.
Latin
Caeterum, Becanus lib.1. manualis c.1. q.3. solet, inquit, distingui duplex Scripturae sensus: alter literalis seu historicus, alter spiritualis seu mysticus. Callide. Neque enim hic a Protestantibus disputatur 1. An quidam ex patribus multiplicem Scripturae sensum agnoverint? Id enim nihil ad rem. Neque 2. An theologi circa interpretationem Scripturae occupati, unum eundemque locum varie accommodare possint? Id enim haud inficiamur, quod vero ubique debeant, haud asserimus. Neque 3. An in diversis axiomatibus & locis una vox plura significata sustineat? Id enim larga manu concedimus. Neque 4. An res quaedam sensum mysticum & typicum contineant? concedimus enim quaedam scribi, quae secundum literam id referant, quod alterius rei typus est, ut Gal. 4.24. Joh. 3.14. Matth. 12.40. Sed, An una eademque non res, sed vox, uno eodem in loco, una & eadem enunciationis parte, ex intentione Spiritus sancti, non vero hominis sive ingeniosa collectione, sive arbitraria applicatione, praeter literalem sensum, plures, sive tres, sive quatuor, habere possit? Quod pontificii ajunt, nos vero negamus, 1. quia e solo literali sensu, secundum verae interpretationis normas, quae scholio ad aph. 2. mox docebimus, eruto petantur vera, solida & firma argumenta ad dogma aliquod fidei confirmandum. 2. quia solus literalis sensus, modo praefato explanatus, est sensus Spiritus sancti, ut fatentur ipsi Jesuitaе apud Bell. lib.3. de V.D. cap.3. §.1.