more then darkeâ— an produce light since Truth himselfe 〈◊〉 taught vs (i) Luc. 6. That we cannot gather figges â—ornes nor grapes of bushes And hence by premises we are to vnderstand that we â—n entyre perfect fayth that by the â—h we belieue all supreme articles of the Trinitie Incarnation Passion c. anâ— all the articles of the Creed expressely articulately in their true sense and do belieue all other inferiour articles at least implicitely that is that we haue a readie preparation of mind to belieue all other articles which the Church of Christ dotâ— propound to be belieued so as that thougâ— we do not belieue euery article of Chrâ—stian Religion with an explicite and expresse faith yet we are bound vnder painâ— of damnation nor to belieue any doctrinâ— contrary or repugnant to the said articleâ— which the Church of Christ doth prâ—pound to be belieued from which it vnauoydably followeth that once grauntinâ— that the Church of Christ propoundeth 〈◊〉 be belieued that there is a Purgatory â— that we may pray to the Saints he incureth damnation who belieueth that theâ— is no Purgatory or that we ought not 〈◊〉 pray to Saints Now in this third place we will toucâ— that inseparable Attribute of true Chrâ—stian fayth which is Vnity in fayth 〈◊〉 doctrine This marke is so indissolubâ—â— annexed to the true fayth of Christ as thâ— we find his Apostles euer readie most â—â—riously to inculcate the same to their dâ—ciples Thus accordingly the Aposâ—â— exhorteth the Ephesians saying (k) Ephes 4. Be you carefull to keepe the vnity of the spirit in the bond of peace And immediately againe (l) Ephes vbi supra There is one Lord one fayth one Baptisme Where we see that Vnity in fayth is expressely set downe As also in another place (m) Ephes loc cit I beseech you that you speake all one thing be you kâ—it together in one mind and one iudgment And as this was the exhortation of the Apostle To we read that the first belieuers followed â—he same of whom S. Luke thus saith The (n) Act. 4. multitude that belieued were of one hart and â—ne soule And hence it proceedeth that the Church of Christ which comprehendeth the Professours of this vnanimous faith is â—tyled by Gods holy writ (o) Rom. 12. One Bodie one (p) Cant. 6. Spouse (q) Ioan. 10. one flocke of sheepe A truth â—o euident as that besides the frequent teâ—timonies of the Faâ—hers (r) Athanasius orat 1. con Ani. Chrysost opere imperfecto in Mat. Hom. 20. Tertullian de praescript Irenaeus l r. c. 5. confirming the â—ame euer the Protestants subscribe in iudgâ—ent heerto For thus (Å¿) Luther tom 3. Wittenberg in psal 5. fol. 166. Luther himselfe to omit (t) see herâ—â—â—f the Deuines of Mansfeild against the Sacramentaries And the Deuines of Heidelberg against the Anabaptists others writeth A kingdome deuiâ—ed in it selfe shall not stand neither haue any â—eretikes at any tyme bine ouercome by force or â—btility but by mutuall dissention neither doth â—hrist fight with them otherwise then with a spiâ—â—t of giddines and disagreement Now then this Vnitie of faith is so to be â—nderstood as that it is not repugnant therto that one and the same point should at one time not be houlden as necessary to be belieued the which after it hath vndergone a definitiue sententionall decree of Gods Church is necessarily to be belieued As for example it was not necessary in the beginning of Christianity to belieue that the booke of the Machabees the Epistle of S. Iames S. Iude the second Epistle of S. Peter the second and third of S. Iohn to be Canonicall Scripture till they were defined so to be by the third Councell (u) Can. 47. of Carthage at which S. Augustine was present But after this Councell had by the assistance of the holy Ghost defined them to be Canonicall and this after confirmed by the consent of the whole Church then it was and is Heresy to deny them to be Canonicall And the reason of this disparity is because it is Gods good pleasure wisdome not to reueale to his Church all articles of faith in the beginning and at one time but at seuerall times and vpon seuerall occasions as to his diuine Maiesty best seemeth expedient Thus the fayth of a Christian is capable of dilatation and of a more large vnfoulding or exposition but not of any contrariety in beliefe chaunge or alteration Anâ— thus to insist in the former example yâ— may well stand with Christian faith in the â—eginning not to accept the former bookes or Canonicall till the authority of the Church had pronounced them for such But it standeth not with sound faith that one man should positiuely belieue now after the Churches definition therof giuen as an article of fayth that the Machabees and the rest of the bookes aboue specified are not Canonicall Scripture but the prophane writings of man and another man should belieue as an article of Faith that they are Canonicall Scripture since the one of these contrary beleifes must be Hereticall This verity of the Vnity of faith being warranted by the word both of God and man as is aboue said we will take into our consideration the Catholike and Protestant Religions both which ioyntly do professe to belieue in generall in the Trinity in Christs Incarnation his Passion and the Creed of the Apostles and so we shall discerne whether the faith of all these seuerall Professours doth inioy the foresaid marke of vnity in doctrine or noe But seing this Subiect is most ample and large I will therfore sepose this ensuing chapter for the more full and exact discouery of the many and great disagreements betweene the Catholikes and the Protestants in their fayth and Religion THE SAME PROVED FROâ— want of vnity in fayth betweene Catholikes anâ— Protestants touching the Articles of the Creed CHAP. IIII. VNDERTAKING in this place tâ— set downe the multiplicity of opinions betweene Catholikes anâ— Protestants though they all iointly belieue in the Trinity the Incarnation oâ— Christ his Passion and the like and consequently that this their general beliefe wanteth that true Vnity of fayth which out of thâ— holy Scriptures Fathers the Protestants I haue aboue shewed to be most necessary to Saluation I will first examine how the Protestants and Catholikes doe differ touching the beliefe of the Creed made by the Apostles Next I will demonstrate that supposing all Professours of both Religions should agree in the true sense and meaning of the Creed yet there are diuers other dogmaticall points necessarily to be belieued and are at this instant belieued both by Protestants and Catholikes which are not expressed or mentioned in the Creed nor by any immediate inference can be drawne from thence Lastly I wil set down the great difference betweene Catholiks ProtestaÌ„ts in other points of fayth of which the Creed makes no intimation or
the Apostles creed haue byn condemned for playne Heresies and the belieuers of them anathematized for Heretikes And first to begin with councells the infallible authority of which euen Christ himselfe hath by his owne wordes often ratifyed as where he sayth Where (k) Mat. 18. two or three much more where many hundreds of venerable Bishops are gathered togeather in my name I am in the midst of them And againe speaking to the Church and in it to the assembled Doctours and Pastours thereof I am (l) Mat. 28. with you all dayes euen to the consummation of the world which councells are euer directed and gouerned by the holy Ghost according to those wordes in the Acts (*) c. 15. Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis and therefore are worthily receaued and admitted for the supremest sentence of Gods church not only by the auncient (n) Atha Ep. ad Epictetum August in Epist 162. Greg. Nazian orat in Athan. Cyril l. de Trinit c. Fathers but euen by the more learned Protestants since to omit others one of the most remarkable of them thus writeth (o) D. Bilson in his perpetual gouernement p. 370. Synods are an externall Iudiciall meanes to discerne errour and (p) D. Bils vbi supra p. 374. the surest meanes to decide doubts But to proceed forward and to beginne with these And first with the councell of the Apostles This councell was assembled as we read in S. (1) Act. 15. Luke by reason of certayne contentious men maintayning that the Gentils conuerted to the christian Faith might eate meate offered vp to Idols bloud and strangled beasts coÌ„trary to the custome of the Iewes The Apostles being assembled and bearing with the weakenes of the Iewes in the infancy of the church decreed all prohibition of eating bloud strangled meates After which decree once established it is certayne that it had byn a mortall sinne immediatly to haue eaten of bloud straÌ„gled meates so as before it being a point of indifferency is now made necessary This appeareth from the text First from those words Certayne going forth from vs haue troubled you with words subuerting your soules But men do neyther depart out of the Church by maintayning certaine opinions nor by their example therin can they subuert other mens soules if their doctrine and practice thereof doe still remayne about thinges indifferent Secondly from that other passage It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs to lay no further burthen vpon you then these necessary thinges where we find that the prohibition of such meates is ranged by the Apostles in regard of those tymes among those thinges which are necessary Againe neither would the Apostles haue gathered themselues togeather so solemnely neither would they haue ascribed the decreeing of it to the work of the holy Ghost if the Subiect of the question and difficulty then discussed by theÌ„ had concerned matters only of Indifferency after such their decree made Now from the example of this councell I doe gather That if a councell by it owne authority may decree that the eating of certayne meates being otherwayes of their owne nature indifferently to be eaten without sinne shal be vnlawfull and shall repute and hould the impugners thereof for men departed out of the Church of Christ then à fortiori what doctrine soeuer a councell shall condemne of it owne nature for Heresy the same is to be reputed by all good christians for Heresy and the defendours thereof for Heretikes Secondly the councell of Nice was ceâ—ebrated though principally for the represâ—ing of Arius his Heresy denying the Diuinity of Christ yet withall touching the controuersy of keeping the feast of Easter as â—t is apparent out of (q) l. 3. de vit Const. Eusebius (r) in lib. de Synod Arim Seleuciae Athanasius (Å¿) Haeres 70. vz. Audianorum Epiphanius Now this councell pronounceth Anathema to al those who besides the denying of the Diuinity of Christ should deny that the feast of Easter was not to be kept according to the custome of the church but according to the custome of the Iewes And these Heretikes were called Quartadecimani of whom see Tertullian libro de praescript Augustine Haeresi 29. And heere we are to vnderstand that the word Anathema vsed and pronunced by this councell which word is also almost euery where vsed in all generall councells signifyeth as much as accursed and in this sense we find this word Anathema to be vsed by the Apostle in seuerall (t) Rom. 1. Cor. 12 places so as when a councell pronounceth Anathema to any for belieuing such or such Heresies or not belieuing such and such true doctrines it intendeth to say that those men so doing are to be accursed and abandoned from God But no man is to be accursed or abandoned from God for belieuing or not belieuing points of Indifferency but for belieuing of such Errours as cannot stand with his Soules saluation The third Councell of Carthage wherat S. Augustine was present decreed that the booke of the Machabees with some other bookes should be acknowledged as canonicall and pronounceth Anathema and condemnation to all those who should not belieue them as canonicall Scripture From whence it may be concluded that seeing the booke of the Machabees teacheth Prayer (*) 2. Macab c. 1. for the dead that therfore this councell alloweth that doctrine condemning the contrary doctrine for Heresy The doctrine of the Nouatians who taught That there was not power in the church to reconcile men to God but only by Baptisme excluding and denying therby the Sacrament of Pennance was condemned with the brand of Anathema in the councell of Rome houlden vnder Pope Cornelius as (x) lib. 6. hist c. 33. Eusebius reporteth At which tyme also was condemned for Heresy the errour of Anabaptisme as the same (y) l. 7. hist cap. 2. Eusebius relateth The councell of Calcedon condemned the Heresy of Eutiches who taught that there was but only one (z) vt patet in act 1. Conc. Nature in Christ after his Incarnation In like sort the first councell of Ephesus condemned the heresy of Nestorius teaching two Persons to be in Christ as appeareth out of (a) in Chronico Prosper and (b) l. 7. c. 34. Socrates Now touching both these last Heresies we are to vnderstaÌ„d that both Nestorius Eutiches did belieue in Christ Iesus our Sauiour as the Redeemer of the world yet they were registred and branded for Heretikes only for their pertinacious erring touching the Person and Natures of Christ as now the Protestants may be reputed Heretikes for their ascribing of Ignorance Passion and Desperation to Christ The councell of Chalcedon also decreed that vowed Virgins and Monkes could not marry condemning those with an Anathema and for Heretikes that should hould and maintayne the Contrary as is to be seene out of the Councell it selfe The fourth (c) Can. 79. councell
where for the better conceauing thereof we are to vnderstand that fayth is a supernaturall habit not obtayned by the force of nature Therfore to the beliefe of any one Article or point of fayth two things concurre the one is the first reuealing Verity as Scholemen speake which is God Himselfe the secoÌ„d is the Church propounding the article to be belieued Now when we belieue any point of fayth God who is the first reuealing Veritie as is sayd reuealeth it to the church and the church propounds it so reuealed to vs to be belieued And thus we belieue a point of fayth through the authority of God reuealing the church propounding and where we belieue any thing though it be true not through this authority this is not supernaturall beliefe in vs but only an opinion grounded vpon other reasons inducements Euen as the Turke belieueth that there is a God Creator of the worlde yet this his beliefe is no true fayth but only a meere opinion of a thing which is true since this his beliefe is grounded not vpon Gods authority reuealing this but only vpon his Alcaron being otherwayes a fabulous booke though of the being of one God it speaketh truly Now to apply this This first reuealing Verity which is God through whose authority we ought to belieue euery article doth with one the like authoritie reueale all Articles of Christian Religion to the church so as it is as forcibly reuealed to be belieued that there is for example a Purgatory or that we ought to pray to Saints graunting these articles to be true as that there is a Trinity or that Christ was Incarnate from whence it vnauoydably followeth that who belieueth in the Trinity and yet doth not belieue that there is a Purgatory or that we may pray to Saints hath no true and supernatural beliefe of the Trinity but only belieueth that there is a Trinity because he so vnderstandeth or is persuaded thereto only by his owne reason or through some other humane motiues according to that sentence of S. Augustine lib. de vtilitate credendi cap. 11. Quod intelligimus aliquid rationi debemus quod autem credimus authoritati For if he did belieue that there is a Trinity or that Christ was Incarnate through Gods authority so reuealing this truth to be belieued by the same authority he would haue belieued that there is a Purgatory or that we ought to pray to Saints seing both the Articles of the Trinity and Purgatory or praying to Saints are equally indifferently a like propounded by God and his Church to be belieued Thus we may demonstratiuely conclude that what ProtestaÌ„t doth belieue in the Trinity and yet doth not belieue that there is a Purgatory praying to Saints Freewill the Reall presence admitting them once to be true or any other point controuerted betweene Catholikes and Protestants the samâ— man hath no true fayth at all of the Trinity or Incarnation and consequently for wanâ— of a true and supernaturall fayth cannot bâ— saued since we read (a) Marc. 16. Qui non credit condemnabitur Who belieueth not shal be condemned And from this former ground it proceedeth thaâ— (b) 2. 2. q. 5. ar 3. S. Thomas all other learned Schoolemen teach that who belieueth not only for Gods authority so reuealing any poinâ— whatsoeuer great or small fundamentall or not fundamentall the same man belieueth not any other Article at all with a true and supernaturall fayth and heereto accord those wordes of (c) Lib. de praescript Tertullian against Valentinus the Heretike Some thinges of the law and Prophets Valentinus approueth some thinges he disalloweth That is he disalloweth all whilest he disproueth some Which sentence of Tertullian must of necessity be true since who reiecteth the authority of God in not belieuing any one article propounded by God to be belieued the same man begetteth a suspition or doubt of Gods authority for the belieuing of any other article how fundamentall soeuer Another reason may be taken from a distinction of fayth which according to the learned is of two sortes The one they call explicite fayth the other implicite Explicite fayth is that which all men vnder payne of damnation are bound to belieue As according to most of the Schoolemen the Trinity the Incarnation of our Sauiour his Passion the Decalogue or ten Commaundements the articles of the Creed Implicite fayth comprehendeth all those points which euery vnlearned man is not bound expressely distinctly to belieue and knowe in particuler though he be expressely bound not to beâ—ieue any thing contrary thereto but is to â—est in the iudgment of the church concerning all such points and what the church of Christ houldeth therein he is bounde â—mplicitely to belieue This distinction is warranted not only in the iudgment of all Catholike Schoolemen but also of the most â—earned (d) D. Bar. l. defide eius ortis p 40. Hooker in his Ecclesiast policy in the preface p. 28. by Melancton l. 1. Epist Epist ad RegeÌ„ Angliae Protestants though they commonly forbeare the phrase of explicite imâ—licite fayth particulerly of D. Feild who â—n these words following giueth the reason â—hereof saying For (e) In his Treatise of the Church in his Epist Dedicat to the L. Arch-Bishop seeing the Controuersies of Religion in our time are growne in number so many â—nd in nature so intricate that few haue time and â—â—asure fewer strength of vnderstanding to exaâ—ine them what remayneth for men desirous of saâ—isfaction in things of such consequeÌ„ce but diligently â— search out which amongst all the Societies of men â—s the worlde is that blessed Company of holy ones 〈◊〉 at househould of fayth that spouse of Christ and Church of the lyuing God which is the Pillar and ground of truth that so they may imbrace her communion follow her directions rest in her iudgments Thus D. Feild Now this distinction being presupposed I thus argue Both these kinds of fayth are necessary to saluation Explicite fayth because it comprehendeth all those fundameÌ„tall and supreme points of Christian Religion without which and the expresse and articulate beliefe of which a man cannot be saued And these be those only which our Newtrallists in Religion hold necessary to be belieued Implicite fayth of other points also is necessary to saluation because otherwyse then belieuing implicitely inuoluedly what the church teacheth therein we cannot according to the former Doctours words range our selues to the blessed company of holy ones the househould of fayth the spouse of Christ and Church of the lyuing God Againe seing Implicite fayth is necessary to saluation we must graunt that this Implicite fayth hath some Obiect This Obiect is not the Articles of the Trinity the Incarnation the Decalogue c. according to the foresaid iudgment of the Schoolemen since these are thâ— obiects of explicite fayth as is aboue mentioned therfore Articles of seeming lesser importance are the
throghout the world spending their whole liues in spreading and defending the same by their wrytings Finally seeing God did cut them off by such calamitous miserable and prodigious deaths which is to be feared were but presages of the eternall deaths of their soules who can otherwise be perswaded but that all this was wrought by the iust hand of God not so much for their personall sinnes proceeding of humane frailty for there were and are many others as great sinners as they and yet escaped such dreadfull ends but for their first inuenting maintayning and preaching of the Protestant fayth and Religion and empoysoning almost all Countreyes with such their false sensuall doctrines which being graunted how then can it with any truth of reason be supposed that the positions of Protestancy impugned by the Catholikes should contayne nothing but matters of Indifferency or that a man whether he belieue them or not belieue them may alike and indifferently be saued THE SAME PROVED FROM the doctrine of Recusancy taught both by Catholikes and Protestants CHAP. XIII I Haue thought good to draw another argument from the common taught and approued doctrine of Recusancy in euery ReligioÌ„ though this head may seeme to haue a speciall reference to the reason afore touched in part be therein implicity included wherein is shewed that nature herselfe hath imprinted in the professours of all Religions a Religious care punctually to keep and preserue euery article of their Religion Now heere we are to premonish that if in the iudgement of all learned men both Catholike and Protestant it is thought an action most wicked vnlawfull and not to be performed but without finall repentance vnder payne of eternall damnation that a man should communicate only in going to the Church and in hearing but a sermen contrary to that Religion which himselfe belieueth for true though this may seeme to be coloured vnder pretense of obseruing the Princes commaundement for feare of loosing our temporall estates I say if this action be thought vnlawfull wherin neuerthelesse the performers thereof doe not punctually vndertake to maintayne or belieue any one Hereticall or erroneous position how then can it be reputed as consonant to reason or Religion that men belieuing different opinions of fayth and promiscuously communicating in prayer with a contrary Religion to their owne should neuerthelesse all be saued since the first fault coÌ„sisteth as some would interprete though falsely only in an externall and materiall as the SchoolemeÌ„ speake going to the Church of a different Religion whereas this other doth directly and openly rest in defending articles at least in its owne iudgment of a Religion contrary to the truth of Christian Religion for such is the case herein eyther of Catholikes or Protestants But before we particulerly enter into this discourse we will heere insist as most pertinent to our purpose in relating the two most religious Examples of Eleazar and the Widow with her seauen Sonnes recorded in the Bookes of the Machabees Touching the first we reade (1) 2. Machab c. 6. that Eleazar being a most auncient graue and learned Man was so far from eating of the meates sacrifized to Idolls according to the prohibition of the Iewish lawe that when certaine men as tendring his old age and moued thereto as the Text sayth iniqua miseratione through vnlawfull pitty proffered him other flesh to eate vnder colour whereof they would tell the Tyrant King thereby to saue his lyfe that he had eaten of the sacrifized meates that he did choose rather to vndergoe a most cruell death then to feigne that he had eaten of the sayd sacrifized flesh And so accordingly he suffered â— most glorious Martyrdome thus speakinâ— to God in the middest of his torments (2) Vbi supra For thy feare ô Lord I do suffer these things As concerning the (3) 2. Machab c. 7. Widdow with bâ— seauen Sonnes O what spirituall resolutioâ— appeared in them all Indeed able to vpbrayd vs ChristiaÌ„s with our luk-warmnest in professing our fayth They all suffered most exquisit torments and in the end most bloudy deaths only because they would not at the Kings command eate of Swynes flesh which was contrary to the Lawe of Moyses And this both the Mother still exhorting her sonnes to constancy heerein all her seauen Sonns performed with such an admirable resolution both in their answeres to the Tyrant during their torments and in their patience of suffering death as that considering her sex and the tendernes of their yeares it might be truly sayd that weaknes was heere able to instruct strength and youth old age Now from these two most remarkable Examples I thus argue The tyme of the old Testament was much inferior in worth dignity and many priuiledges to the new testament seing to them in the Old things as the (4) 1. Cor. 10. Apostle witnesseth did happen as in a figure whereas the new Testament (5) Hebr. 8. as the sayd Apostle affirmeth is established in better promisses But now if in the old Testament men did choose to endure most cruel deaths rather then they would contrary to the Law eate forbiden Meates which in themselues were lawfully to be eaten were it not for the prohibition annexed vnto them And seeing though they had consented to the eating of them yet this being but anâ— externall Act or Ceremony they might neuerthelesse inwardly haue retayned and kept their true beliefe touching the Law yet since the performaÌ„ce of so small a matteâ— as it appeared in outward show could noâ— be without greate sinne and damnation oâ— the party so offending Shall any Christian thinke that now in the tyme of Grace anâ— of the New Testament which tyme exacteth more perfection at our hauds for 〈◊〉 (6) Luc. 12. whome much is giuen of him much shal be râ—quyred that men professing to belieuâ— with contempt of the Churches authoritâ— interposed therein contrary articles touching Christian Religion and dying sucâ— their different fayths in which the one sydâ— must of necessity mantayne a false fayth that men I say of both these sides can bâ— saued it is against all force of ReasoÌ„ againâ—â— the iudgment of the Primitiue Church â— finally against Gods Iustice And thus far concerning the two fore sayd exaÌ„ples in the Machabees Which Booke admitting them for the tyme not to be diuine Scripture yet it is acknowledged oâ— all sydes that the Histories recorded in the are true and that Eleazar and the Widâ— with her seauen Sonns performed most worth examples of piety and Religion and that they had yielded to the Kings Command in eating of forbidden meates they had as violating the law giuen to them by God without repentance incurred damnation And this is the iudgment of the auncient Fathers Catholike Doctours and the learned Protestants But let vs descend more particulerly to the doctryne of Recusancy and examine whether it be lawfull to exhibite our selues present at that Church in tyme of diuine seruice
being apprehended they commit them to prison yea further they proceed not allowing the (m) So relateth Osiander in Epitom Cent. 16. pag. 608. c. Conradus Schlussenb Catalog Haeret. l. 13. vltimo trauaylers of eyther party common entertaynement due in all nations to strangers (l) Hospinian vbi supra Finally their dissentions are so implacable among them though all be Protestants as that in defence of their seuerall doctrines they haue with great hostility taken (n) This is shewed and exemplifyed by Hospinian vbi supra fol. 395. 397. in like sort by Osiander in Epitom p. 735. armes one against another as appeareth to omit for breuity all other PresideÌ„ts by the late memorable example in Holland of the Arminians and Gomorists who only for some difference touching Freewill between them did ryse in hostile manner agaynst their aduersaryes and ceased not that course â—till Barneuelt the chiefe of one side and faction was beheaded All which violence and extremity of courses would neuer haue byn vndertakeÌ„ if the diuersity of doctrine which is the cause of such so great exorbitancies did consist only in things in different of theÌ„selues and such as did not concerne the necessity of saluation The sayd point touching the Protestants dissentions in essentiall articles of faith is lastly cleerly manifested by taking a view of their bookes written one agaynst another thogh this method is partly inuolued in the displaying of their particuler condemning sentences aboue alleadged the nuÌ„ber wherof of amounteth to diuers hundreds yet as desirous to be short compendious I will set downe the Tytles only of twenty of them euen from which Titles the Indifferent Reader may iudge whether the Authours of theÌ„ being all eminent Protestants did maintayne the subiects of their sayd bookes to be matters of Indifferency and such as may be eyther way houlden without breach of that true fayth which is necessary to mans Saluation And further I will forbeare to reckon within this number any booke written eyther for or against the reall Presence maintayned by the Lutherans because therein they conspire partly with vs Catholikes consequently the controuersy herein ariseth not only betweene the Protestants themselues but also betweene them and vs. And for more satisfaction of the Reader I haue also Englished the sayd twenty Titles from which coniecture may easily be made in what bitter style the bookes were wrytten First then may be reckoned that booke entituled Oratio de Incarnatione filij Dei contra impios blasphemos errores Zwinglianorum CaluinistaruÌ„ printed Tubingae Anno Domini 1586. An Oration or Speach of the Incarnation of the SoÌ„ne of God against the wicked and blasphemous errours of the Swinglians and Caluinists Alberti Graueri Bellum Iohannis Caluini Iesu Christi Braptae 1598. in 4. The warre of Iohn Caluin and Iesus Christ written by Albertus Grauerus Anti-Paraeus Hoc est Refutatio venenati scripti à Dauide Paraeo editi in defensione stropharum corrupâ—elarum quibus Iohannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae testimonia de mysterio Trinitatis nec non oracula Prophetarum de Christo detestandum in modum corrupit Francofurti 1598. Anti-Paraeus that is a Refutation of a â—enemous booke written by Dauid Pareus â—n defence of the Deceites Corruptions â—y the which Iohn Caluin hath detestably â—bused or wrested the most cleere testimoâ—yes of Scripture touching the Mystery of â—he Trinity and the Oracles of the Proâ—hets touching Christ AEgidij Hunnij Caluinus Iudaizans Hoc est â—udaicae glossae corruptelae quibus Iohannes Calâ—inus illustrissima Scripturae sacrae loca testimoâ—â— a de gloriosa Trinitate Deitate Christi Spiriâ—â—s Sancti cum primis autem vaticinia Prophetaâ—â—m de aduentu Messiae Natiuitate eius Passioâ—e Resurrectione Assensione ad caelos Sessione â—d dextram Dei detestandum in modum corrumpeâ—â— non abhorrutt Wittenbergae 1593. Caluinus Iudaizans or Caluin playing â—he Iew That is A discouery written by Aegidius Hunnius of the Iewish interpetaâ—ions and Corruptions by the which Iohn Caluin hath not beene affrayd to corrupt â—buse the most euident places and testimoâ—yes of holy Scripture against the glorious â—rinity the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost as also the Predictions of the Proâ—hets touching the comming of the Messias â—s Natiuity Passion Resurrection Ascenâ—â—on and his Sitting at the right Hand of â—od Conradi Schlussenburgij Theologiae Caluinisticae libri tres in quibus seu in tabula quadam quasi ad oculum plusquam ex ducentis viginti tribus Sacramentariorum publicis scriptis pagellis verbis proprijs Authorum nominibus indicatis demonstratur eos de nullo ferè Christianae fidei articulo rectè sentire Francofurti 1594. Three Bookes touching Caluinisticall Diuinity written by Conradus Schlussenburge in which bookes it is shewed as iâ— a Table to the eye eueÌ„ out of two hundred twenty and three publyke wrytings of the Sacramentaryes with speciall noting oâ— the pages the particular words and name of the Authours that the Sacramentaryes haue no true beliefe almost of any one Article of Christian fayth Pia defensio aduersus Iohannis Caluini Peâ—â— Boquini Theodori Bezae Gulihelmi Clebitij â— similium calumnias Item refutatio Pelagianisâ— Anabaptistici Caluinistarum erroris de Baptismo 〈◊〉 Peccato Originali Adduntur Collectancae plurimâ—rum Caluini contra Deum eius Prouidentiam 〈◊〉 Predestinationem Erfordiae 1583. A godly defence against the deceites 〈◊〉 Iohn Caluin Peter Boquinus Theodorâ— Beza Wilhelmus Clebitius and their Associats Also a Refutation of the Pelagian â— Anabaptisticall errour taught by the Calâ—â—nists touching Baptisme Originall sinnâ— Heere are also added certaine Collections out of Caluins wrytings against God his Prouidence and Predestination Denominatio Imposturarum ac fraudum quibus AEgidius Hunnius Ecclesiae Orthodoxae Doctrinam petulanter corrumpere pergit Bremae 1592. A Catalogue of the Impostures deceptes wherewith Aegidius Hunnius doth insolently go about to corrupt the doctrine of the Orthodoxe Church Argumentorum obiectionum de praecipuis articulis Doctrinae Christianae cum responsionibus quae sunt collectae ex scriptis Philippi Melancthonis additis Scholijs illustrantibus vsum singularum responsionum Partes 7. Neapoli 1578. Arguments Obiections concerning the chiefe Articles of Christian Doctrine with the Answers gathered out of the wrytings of Philip Melancthon togeather with Commentaries vpon euery Answere deuided into seauen Parts Gulihelmi Zepperi Dillenbergensis Ecclesiae Pastoris Institutio de tribus Religionis summis capitibus quae inter Euangelicos in Controuersiam vocantur Hanouiae 1596. In Instruction about three chiefe heads of ReligioÌ„ called into Controuersy among the Gospellers by William Zepperus Pastour of the Church of Dillenberge Responsio triplex ad fratres Tubingenses triplex eorum scriptum de tribus grauissimis quâ—stionibus c. De Coena Domini de maiestate hominis Christi de non damnandis Ecclesijs Dei nec