Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	word_n	year_n	young_a	126	3	5.6627	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A06753	A treatise of the groundes of the old and newe religion Deuided into two parts, whereunto is added an appendix, containing a briefe confutation of William Crashaw his first tome of romish forgeries and falsifications.	Maihew, Edward, 1570-1625.	1608 (1608)	STC 17197.5; ESTC S118525	390,495	428

contained in the diuine bookes These are his words They object vnto vs the place of Iames Wolfangus Musculus in locis communibus cap. de Iustificat num 5. pag. 271. but he whatsoeuer he was though he speake otherwise then S. Paul yet may he not prejudice the truth And after the disagreement betweene these two Apostles according to his imagination shewed at large he thus breaketh forth into open reproch of S. Iames Wherefore he Iames alleageth the example of Abraham nothing to the purpose where he saith wilt thou knowe O vaine man that faith without workes is dead Abraham our father was he not justified by workes when he offered his sonne Isaac He confoundeth the word faith Howe much better had it beene for him diligently and plainely to haue distinguished the true and properly Christian faith which the Apostle euer preached from that which is common to Iewes and Christians Turkes and Diuels then to confound them both and set downe his sentence so different from the Apostolical doctrine whereby as concluding he saith You see that a man is justified by workes and not by faith alone whereas the Apostle out of the same place disputeth thus c. And hauing made S. Paul to speake as hee thinketh best afterwardes he inferreth Thus saith the Apostle of whose doctrine we doubt not Compare me nowe with this argument of the Apostle the conclusion of this Iames A man therefore is justified by workes and not by faith only and see howe much it differeth whereas he should more rightly haue concluded thus c. This and other more such stuffe hath this Sacramentary Doctor against S. Iames and his Epistle in which he dissenteth from most of his owne company Doth not also Beza reject or at the least doubt of the truth of the whole history of the adoulterous woman recorded by S. Iohn in the eight Chapter of his Gospel vvhich notwithstanding other Sacramentaries admit as Canonical Scripture This cannot be denied and I haue before related his wordes Part. 2. ch 1. sect 4. Bible 1592. c. Doth not our English Church Mathewe 6. receiue as Canonical Scripture those wordes For thine is the kingdome the power and the glory which they adde at the end of our Lords praier and yet of them Bullinger a Zwinglian writeth thus There is no reason why Laurentius Valla should take the matter so hotely as though a great part of the Lords praier were cut away Rather their rashnesse was to be reproued who durst presume to peece on their owne to the Lords praier Thus Bullinger Nay further some times the same Sacramentary receiueth vvordes into the Canon vvhich before he had rejected For example Beza in one edition of his new Testament in the end of the eight chapter of S. Iohns Gospel putteth in these wordes See the newe Testaments translated by Beza of the yeares 1556. and 1565. And his Testament translated into English by L. T. printed anno 1580. Iesus passing through the midst of them c. vvhich in another edition with great vehemency he rejecteth wherefore although Beza in his edition of the yeare 1556. leaue the said vvordes out yet in Bezaes englished Testament of the yeare 1580. they are admitted And these thinges in like sort manifestly conuince that the Sacramentaries in admitting and rejecting bookes of Scripture are led by their owne judgement and fancy not by any diuine or infallible rule Moreouer diuers parcels of holy Scripture as I haue declared aboue haue bin in times past of doubtful authority of which most of our aduersaries haue receiued some into the Canon and rejected others For example our English Protestants haue receiued the Epistle to the Hebrewes and the Apocalipse and rejected the books of the Machabees of Iudith Tobias c. because the authority of these in the primatiue Church was called in question But what reason haue they for this fact haue they had any diuine testimony or reuelation commanding them to admit the first Surely none seing that they contemne the authority of the Church And wherefore receiued they not the last aswel as the first They vvil say perhaps that the first vvere admitted by diuers euen in the primatiue Church and doubted off only by some I reply that Brentius hauing named and numbred al of both sorts of them in general writeth thus Brentius in Apolog. confess Wittenb There are some of the auncient Fathers who receiue these Apocriphal bookes into the number of Canonical Scriptures and in like sort some Councels command them to be acknowledge as Canonical I am non ignorant what was done but I demand whether it were rightly and Canonically done Thus Brentius who reiecteth them al alike And that vvhich he saith may be proued true by the testimony of the third Councel of Carthage and S. Augustine as Field confesseth Concil Cartag 3. ca. 47. Augustin de doctrina Christiana lib. 2. cap. 8. Field booke 4. chap. 23. §. hence and of diuers others who receiued the bookes of Tobias Iudith and the Machabees wherefore it seemeth that not only in the judgement of Brentius but also in very deede the doubt of al was almost alike It is euident therefor● in my judgement that the reason vvhy they rejected and reject those of the old Testament is because in some points they contrary their newe doctrine which they made and make a rule whereby to discerne which bookes are Canonical Hence they receiued those which they could make in outward shewe seeme to fauour their opinion and rejected others and this is the cause why Luther rejecteth more bookes then the later Sectaries For he being the first that beganne to preach this newe Gospel could not presently forge and inuent newe glosses and interpretations vpon al the bookes of Scripture that opposed themselues against the same vvherefore he rejected sundry such bookes vvhich afterwardes his followers hauing inuented such glosses and interpretations receiued This also moued the same Luther to affirme those to be the best Euangelists Luther tom 5. praefat in epist. Petri. fol. 439. Centuriat 2. ca. 4. p. 260. who most especially and most earnestly teach that only faith without workes doth justifie and saue vs of which he inferreth that S. Paules epistles may more properly be called the Gospel then either the Gospel of S. Mathewe S. Marke or S. Luke His disciples the Centuriatores likewise yeeld this reason vvherefore the epistle of S. Iames is to be rejected that in the second chapter he affirmeth that Abraham vvas not justified by faith only Zwinglius in explanat art 57. tom 2. fol. 100. but by workes Zwinglius also affirmeth that although the second booke of the Machabees were in the Canon yet that the authour of it maketh himselfe suspected by this that writing an history he doth set downe a point of doctrine concerning praier for the dead By which it is manifest that they measure Canonical Scripture by their faith not their faith by

Canonical Scripture But to reject those bookes of Scripture vvhich made against them was an old deuise among the auncient Heretikes vnto whome our aduersaries in this also as in other things conforme themselues For this fault S. Augustine noted in Faustus a Maenichee and reprehendeth it in him after this sort Whereas thou saiest this is Scripture or this is such an Apostles August contra Faustum lib. 11. cap. 2. Tertul. lib. de praescript Epiphan heres 30. 42. 69. this is not because this standeth forme and the other against me Thou then art the rule of faith whatsoeuer is against thee is not true Hitherto S. Augustine Tertullian in like manner and S. Epiphanius record that euen in their daies Heretikes rejected certaine bookes of Scripture Vnto this their rejecting and admitting of Scripture according to their owne fancy I adde also that out of their owne judgement vvithout any further vvarrant they alter or as they say correct the text For example although they esteeme the Greeke text of the newe testament aboue al others yet Beza in his translation of the same as it is noted before doth willingly and wittingly thrust out of it those vvordes Luke 3. vers 36 who was of Cainan Of the same fault I accuse also our English Protestants in their Bible of the yeare 1595. And this they doe notwithstanding that al Greeke copies both of the old Testament in the booke of Genesis and of the newe and al the Latin of the newe conspire against them If they answere that the Hebrewe of the old accordeth with them I reply that al the Scripture was penned by the instinct of the holy Ghost and consequently is true wherefore if something more be said in one thing more then is in another the one is not to be corrected or altered by the other for both may be very vvel consonant vnto truth Moreouer vvil these men say that the Hebrewe of the old testament is so true and sincere that it selfe needeth no correction vvhat warrant haue they more for the sincerity of this then for the Greeke of the newe If it be so sincere and they haue any such warrant wherefore doe they also correct and forsake it in their translations That they doe this it appeareth by their translation of the 17. vers of the 22. psalme vvhere they reade Bible 1595. they pierced my handes and my feete vvhereas the Hebrewe text word for word ought thus to be englished As a Lion my handes and my feete And vvhat diuine authority haue they for these their actions certainely none but they alter the sacred text of holy scripture according to their owne priuate liking and fancies SECTION THE SECOND The same is confirmed by their translations and expositions of holy Scripture AND like as in admitting rejecting and altering so they proceede in translating and expounding the word of God according to their owne judgement For first it is manifest See before part 1. ch 7. sect 2. part 2. cha 5. sect 4. that diuers sentences of the holy Scripture in the tongues in vvhich they vvere first vvritten the wordes being either of sundry significations or the sentences hard obscure and doubtful admit diuers translations yea in al tongues diuers interpretations as I haue proued before This I say is manifest both because no man skilful in the tongues can denie it and also because our learned sectaries cannot as yet agree concerning the translation and interpretation of those very bookes vvhich they al receiue Munster in praefat tom 1 Bibliorum Nay Munster a learned sectary affirmeth that sometimes euen among the Hebrews themselues he findeth diuers readinges For sometimes dissentions saith he are found among them some thinking this to be the true reading some thinking contrary Thus he And in very deed their translations euen through the variety of the signification of some Hebrew wordes and their like characters are very much different in sundry places Alias ps 110. I vvil exemplifie in one Psal 109. vers 3. the vulgar edition readeth thus Tecum principium in die virtutis tuae c. Some of them translate it out of the Hebrewe thus a English bible of the yeare 1592. Thy people shal come willingly at the time of assembling thine army in holy beauty the youth of thy wombe shal be as the morning dewe Others after this sort b Bible 1577. and that cōmonly read in Churches In the day of thy power shal the people offer thee free wil offerings with an holy worship the dewe of thy birth is of the wombe of the morning Others thus c Marloratus in psal 110. Bucer Musculus Caluin Pomerane Thy people with voluntary oblations in the day of thy army in beauty of sanctity Of the wombe from the morning the dewe of thy youth to thee And howe different are these translations The first saith youth of thy vvombe and the morning dewe the second dewe of thy birth and wombe of the morning c. For the d Lauath in hist Sacram. fol. 32. Zwinglius to 2. in respon ad Luther li. de Sacra Beza in annot noui testam passim Castalio in defen suae translationis Lutherans with Luther reject the translation and interpretation of Zwinglius and the Zwinglians The Zwinglians with Zwinglius admit not that of Luther and the Lutherans and the like proceedinges are betweene Beza and Castalio and other professors of this newe religion This therefore being presupposed that diuers sentences admit diuers translations let the newe sectary nowe tel me what diuine authority he hath mouing him rather to followe one sense then another the vvordes receiuing and sometimes being indifferent to both Euery priuate mans vnderstanding is subject to errour and there is but one truth howe then doth euery one of them knowe that truth is on his side vvhat diuine authority doth warrant him this Surely in following one translation and interpretation and not admitting others he must needes followe his owne fancy And this is almost in plaine tearmes confessed by Caluin himselfe concerning his owne expositions for explicating those vvordes of Christ Math. 26. vers 26. This is my body he affirmeth that hauing by diligent meditation examined the said sentence he doth imbrace that sense which the spirit telleth him And leaning to this saith he I despise the wisdome of al men which can be opposed against me Thus Caluin See part 1. cha 7. sect 3. part 2. ch 5. sect 4. And note vvel that he preferreth his owne priuate spirit for the holy Ghost as I haue proued infallibly directeth not euery priuate mans judgement before the testimony of al other men and plainely confesseth that he buildeth vpon it not vpon the vvord of God This also moued the translatour of the English Bible printed in the yeare 1589. 1592. and 1600. to protest in his preface that in the translating of it he hath in euery point and word according to the measure

that pronouncing nowe this nowe that of the same thing he was neuer constant to himselfe but thought that such leuity and inconstancy might be vsed in the word of God as shamelesse jesters commonly vse playing at dice. Againe Luther saith he doth not only bring his former doctrine in suspition but also giueth the Papists a most fit occasion to condemne him by sending in this present controuersie his reader only to those bookes which he wrote within foure or fiue yeares before For who hauing heard or read these things wil not say that if so be that we expect other fiue yeares without al doubt they being past he wil cal into doubt those bookes which he wrote in these last fiue yeares Thus farre Zwinglius of Luthers inconstancy Erasmus also Whitaker in his answer to Campians reason 8. p. 208. a man denied by Whitakers to be a writer of our side and by the martir-maker Fox canonized for a Saint of the newe religion of Luther his disciples writeth after this sort * Erasmus lib 3. de libero arbitrio What should I recount here the dissention that is among these Gospellers their bloudy hatred their bitter contentions nay their singular inconstancy Luther himselfe hauing changed his opinion so often and yet newe paradoxes springing vp from him daily Hitherto Erasmus Finally Field although he extol Luther for a worthy diuine as euer the world had any in those times wherein he liued Field booke 3 c. 24. p. 170. or in many ages before yet confesseth that by degrees he sawe and discried those Popish errours I vse his wordes which at first he discerned not But to excuse the matter he first auoucheth that in sundry points of greatest moment as of the power of nature of free-wil grace justification the difference of the law and the Gospel faith and workes Christian liberty and the like he was euer constant Which assertion of his howe false it is that which I haue before said touching free-wil doth demonstrate An other of his excuses is that it is not so strange a thing as his aduersaries would make it seeme to be that herein Luther proceeded by degrees and in his later writings disliked that which in his former he did approue And his reason is because S. Augustine wrote a whole booke of retractations S. Ambrose complained that he was forced to teach before he had learned and so to deliuer many thinges that should neede a second reuiewe And S. Thomas of Aquine in his summe corrected and altered many things which he had written before Against this I first reply that it excuseth not Luthers building of his new beliefe vpon his owne judgement nay it proueth manifestly that he came not to it by the infallible direction of any external guide but by the discourse and search of his owne wit and moreouer Caluin Instit booke 4. ch 3. The Apology of the church of England part 4. p. 123 124. c. that he vvas not extraordinarily by internal inspirations instructed and sent by the spirit of God as diuers of these men seeme plainely to affirme for the workes of God are perfect and they whome he immediately sendeth directeth in faith erre not in any point of that argument but that his inconstant reason was the principal ground on which he built his said faith and religion Secondly I adde that the examples brought by Field in excuse of Luther make nothing for his purpose For what if S. Augustine vvriting vvhen he was yet a nouice in Christian religion and not fully instructed erred in some points which errours hauing receiued better instructions he reclaimed What if the like happened to S. Ambrose being miraculously chosen to be a Bishop and a teacher before he was a Christian What if S. Augustine before some articles of Christian religion were so throughly discussed and defined in the Church as afterward vpon the rising of new heresies spoke not so aptly and properly as was needful in succeeding times and therefore retracted what he had vttered What if he and S. Thomas of Aquin in diuers matters disputable and not determined by the Church altered and corrected their former opinions So hath Cardinal Baronius nowe done who hath runne ouer the first ten tomes of his Ecclesiastical history and made as it were a booke of retractations recalling such thinges as he judged amisse What I say if also these thinges be so as without doubt they were no otherwise shal it therefore be lawful for Luther or any other person to leape vp and downe hither and thither and to chop and change his faith according as his fancy leadeth him in any articles of Christian religion verily I thinke to no man of judgement such a fault vvil seeme excusable But was Zwinglius who as we haue seene so peremptorily reprehendeth Luther for his inconstancy him selfe free from this crime Truly he vvas not and because breuity suffereth me not to runne through his works and to shewe the change and alteration of his opinion concerning al particuler points in vvhich he shewed himselfe inconstant I wil only conuince him of inconstancy touching one or two and that by his owne confession It cannot be denied but before his fal from vs he held the Catholike doctrine concerning the baptisme of infants otherwise vvithout al doubt his nouelty vvould haue beene noted and censured His first alteration therefore concerning this matter was from vs to Anabaptisme his second from Anabaptisme in some sort to our beliefe againe That he was once an Anabaptist thus he confesseth Wherefore I my selfe also confesse frankely saith he that a fewe yeares since I being deceiued with this error thought it better to deferre the baptisme of young children vntil they come to perfest age thus Zwinglius That he partly recanted afterwards this heresie he declareth in the same place I say partly because he alwaies denied the necessity of baptisme to saluation That he was likewise inconstant in his beliefe of the Eucharist these his owne wordes testifie Zwingl tom 2. commēt de vera salsa religione cap de Eucharist fol. 202. We haue written two yeares since of the Eucharist where we haue written many thinges rather according to the time then the truth of the matter And soone after If reader thou finde certaine thinges here otherwise then in the former bookes doe not thou wonder we would not giue foode out of season nor set pearls before swine Finally We retract therefore saith he and reuoke those thinges which we haue said there in such sort that those which we set forth in the two and fortith yeare of our age counterpoise those which we set forth in the fortith when as we said we serued more the time then the truth of the matter that we might by that meanes the more edifie thus Zwinglius of himselfe Who then can deny but he also was inconstant and at the least in outward shewe altered his beliefe yea doth he not confesse to

written word whereby we are to be directed in faith And this guide is our holy mother the Catholike Church the sacred spouse of Christ and his mistical body Now therefore to proceed in mine intended discourse because it behoueth euery man as appeareth by that which hath bin already said with al speed to order that his beliefe be right and likewise because this may soone be learned of the Catholike Church hence it proceedeth that no treatises touching controuersies of religion are commonly more necessary then such as declare what congregation or company of Christians are the said one holy Catholike and Apostolike Church proue her diuine authority or shew what particuler groundes are found in her by which euery person is to be guided in his beliefe The reason of this is plaine because whosoeuer recurreth to this Church and these groundes may soone and with great ease be resolued concerning al articles vvhatsoeuer to him seeming doubtful whereas if neglecting these he betake him to the study of particular controuersies as of justification free wil merit of good workes the real presence c. he may spend many daies and nights and be nothing the nearer to a setled and sure resolution Nay some of these and other points are so high and difficult that without recourse to some general groundes and the authority of the Church directing al Christians it is impossible that by other meanes a man should euer assure himselfe that he is in the truth Neither is this the opinion only of Catholikes but also of some learned Protestants And among others M. Field esteemed by some one of the greatest schollars of their company Richard Field in the beginning of his Epistle Dedicatory before his fiue bookes of the Church writeth thus The consideration of the vnhappy diuisions of the Christian world and the infinite distractions of mens mindes not knowing in so great variety of opinions what to thinke or to whome to joine themselues euery faction boasting of the pure and sincere profession of heauenly truth challenging to it selfe alone the name of the Church and fastning vpon al that dissent or are otherwise minded the hateful note of schisme and heresie hath made me euer thinke that there is no part of heauenly knowledge more necessary then that which concerneth the Church For seing that controuersies of religion in our time are growen in number so many and in nature so intricate that few haue time and leasure fewer strength and vnderstanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in thinges of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst al the societies of men in the world is that blessed company of holy ones that house-hold of faith that spouse of Christ and Church of the liuing God which is the pillar and ground of truth that so they may embrace her communion followe her directions and rest in her judgement Hence it commeth that al wise and judicious men doe more esteeme bookes of doctrinal principles then those that are written of any other argument and that there was neuer any treasure holden more rich and pretious by al them that knewe howe to price and value thinges aright thou bookes of prescriptions against Heretikes for that thereby men that are not willing or not able to examine the infinite differences that arise among men concerning the faith haue general directions what to followe and what to auoide Hitherto are M. Fields vvordes And like as this Protestant Doctor yeeldeth this reason among others for the publication of his bookes of the Church so in very truth the same motiue hath partly moued me to publish some of my labours to the viewe of the world We Catholikes haue a long time wished and endeauoured to bring the controuersies of these times to certaine general groundes and doctrinal principles and haue fought by al meanes to drawe our aduersaries to this issue to which M. Fields vvordes seeme to tend I meane to perswade them to acknowledge a judicial infallible authority in the Catholike church which euery Christian may securely followe and is bound to obey and then by most sure notes of the same Church deliuered by God in the holy Scripture which be so pregnant in the old testament it selfe August in psalm 30. Conc. 2. that S. Augustine feareth not to affirme that the Prophets haue spoken more plainely of the Church then of Christ to search forth whether ours or any other congregation of them be the Catholike Church but those of our side could neuer hitherto obtaine so much at their handes And although this man doth so gloriously here extol the judgement of the Church as it seemeth touching al controuersies which may arise in so much as he telleth vs that men desirous of satisfaction may followe her directions and rest in her judgement vvhich they could not safely and securely doe if her direction and judgement could be erroneous yet in his fourth booke following he bereaueth her of almost al such prerogatiues for he saith that general Councels which be the highest courts of the Church Field booke 4 chap. 5. §. thus touching may erre in matters of greatest consequence and freeth the Church her selfe from errour * Ibid. and cha 2. before only in certaine principal articles of Christian religion But of these matters more hereafter Only this nowe sufficeth for my purpose that according to his testimony al wise and juditious men doe more esteeme bookes of doctrinal principles then those that are written of any other argument vvhich if it be true I hope the argument both of this my Treatise following and also of an other which I haue lying by me wil not be vngrateful but pleasing and acceptable to al vvise and juditious persons Moreouer an other writer of the English Church auoucheth that in this our last age Parkes in the Preface to the reader before his Apologie of three testimonies of scripture c. printed anno 1607. Heresie and Infidelity joining their desperate forces together labour mightily to subuert and ouerthrowe al the groundes of Christian religion vvhich if it be likewise truly affirmed a discourse discouering the fountaine of this euil and establishing such groundes as Heretikes and Infidels seeke to impugne cannot be thought vnprofitable Only my rashnesse in vndertaking such great matters and my want of wit and learning shewed in performing them may seeme worthy of blame But pardon me gentle Reader it was as I may say by chance both that I entered into discussing such thinges and also that my writings euer came to light Some fewe yeares since a Catholike gentleman being entred into some communication with a Protestant minister requested me to set him downe some briefe reasons for the Catholike part vpon vvhich he might stand I did so and I comprehended some twelue reasons in some three sheets of paper vvhich al vvere drawne from general groundes and doctrinal principles Not very long after I giuing my selfe alwaies to the

vse or prescribe Vnto which I may adde that Luther as it seemeth receiued some light from aboue if it be true which is affirmed in the Apologie of the Church of England that God sent him to giue light to the world But if no Sacramentary can compare any one of his learned masters vvith Luther much lesse can he preferre himselfe before him vvhich neuerthelesse he must needes doe if he be obstinate in his Sacramentary doctrine and as judge pronounce Luthers beliefe to be false and erroneous And thus much of Luthers censure against the Sacramentaries The Lutherans also men very learned whome the English Protestants if Whitakers say truly a Whitakers in his answer to Cāpians 8. reason p. 259 embrace as their deare bretheren in Christ pronounce the same sentence against these Sectaries And in particular Conradus Schlusselburge euen nowe alleaged being a Lutheran superintendent of great name and authority b Conradus Schlusselb in Catalog Haereticorum nostri temporis lib. 1. pa. 1. 2. lib. 3. placeth them in the Catalogue of the Heretikes of these our daies Luke Osiander vvhose Encheridion against vs some English Protestant hath of late corruptly translated into our tongue in the conclusion of the like booke made against the Caluinists hauing recited sixteene of their assertions which he condemneth afterward writeth thus c Lucas Osiāder in Enchirid cōt Caluinianos in cōclus pa. 267. printed anno 1607. published by him anno 1603. Let any godly or friendly reader whatsoeuer thinke what deadly poison Satan doth powre vnto men vnder the Caluinian doctrine by which al Christianisme almost is ouerthrowne Most of the rest proceede after the same manner but I cannot stand to recite their wordes Of al which I conclude that the faith and religion of euery Sacramentary is judged false and heretical by Luther and al the Lutherans Vnto vvhich I adde that if he be an English Protestant the Puritans esteeme him litle better then an Infidel as appeareth by their sundry admonitions to the Parliament and the booke of dangerous positions written by a Protestant If he be a Puritan the Protestants censure him to be d Powel in his consideratiōs See a Christiā modest offer pag. 9. The Suruay of the pretended holy discipline c. pag. 311. a notorious and manifest Schismatike and a member cut off from the Church of God Nay whether he be English Protestant or Puritan Zwinglius a most excellent man as wel as Luther as the Apologie of the Church of England auoucheth e Apologie of the Church of Englād part 4. pag. 124. sent of God to giue light to the world Whetenhal calleth him f Whetēhal in his discourse of the abuses c. pag. 75. the first light set vp by God among al the golden candlesticks of Heluetia with al his Zwinglians telleth him g See Zwingl to 2. epist ad quandā Germaniae ciuitatem fol. 196. in cōmentaris de vera falsa relig c. de Sacram. lib. de Baptis fol. 63. that he erreth in his faith touching the Sacraments If he be a Zwinglian h Caluini lib. de coena Domini edit an 1540. Gallice Latine an 1545. l. 4. Institut cap. 15. §. 1. c. Caluin with al his Caluinists English Protestants and Puritans tel him the like So that be he of what Sacramentary sect soeuer he please his faith and religion receiueth a three-fold censure that it is false and that from his owne bretheren For first it is condemned by the Lutherans then by the Zwinglians and English Protestants if he be a Puritan or Caluinist or by the Zwinglians and Puritans or Caluinists if he be an English Protestant or finally by the English Protestants and Caluinists among vvhome I number the Puritans if he be a Zwinglian And what wise man wil be obstinate in the defence of such a faith But what if he be a Lutheran doth he auoide this inconuenience Truly he is in the very like case for first he is judged to be of a wrong beliefe by al the Sacramentaries then if he be a strict or rigid Lutheran he is condemned by the milde or soft Lutherans if he be a milde or soft Lutheran he is deemed an Heretike by the strict or rigid Nay i Conradus Schlusselbur in Catalog Haereticorum nostri temporis in principio lib. 1. c. Conradus Schlusselburge placeth six sects of his owne Lutherans in the Catalogue of Heretikes of vvhich the one condemneth the other and he giueth the same sentence against them al. But because fewe or no Lutherans as is probable wil euer come to the reading of this Treatise I wil not stand to discusse and proue these thinges at large and in particular And therefore concerning this motiue let this suffice A second reason or motiue which is sufficient to exclude obstinacy from the hart of any one of the followers of the newe religion is that al the learned and principal sectaries as Luther Zwinglius Caluin others haue notoriously and grosly erred in some points or other touching religious matters The short limits of a preface wil not suffer me to declare the truth of this in them al wherefore I wil exemplifie only in the three named which be the heades of the rest And to beginne with Luther did not this great Patriarke and father of al Protestants teach and obstinately hold that Christ suffered on the crosse and died according to his diuinity thus he writeth a Luth. in cōfess majori de coena Domini lib. de concilijs part 2. If I beleeue that only the humane nature of Christ suffered for me Christ is a base Sauiour not of any great price or value yea be himselfe needeth a Sauiour Hence Zwinglius exclaimeth b Zwingl to 2. in respons ad Lutheri cōfess fol. 458. 469. 470. in respons ad Luther lib. de Sacra f. 411. 401. 337. c. This can by no reasons be explaned or excused For Luther clearely and manifestly confesseth that he wil not acknowledge Christ to be his Sauiour if only his humanity had suffered He calleth him also Marcion and saith he is guilty of most high blaspheamy against the nature and essence of God c. Did not the same Luther also defend c See Luth. l. de captiuitat Babilon c. de Baptis lib. cont Cocblaeū anno 1523. that infants in baptisme actually beleeue Verily although M. Field endeauour to vvrest his wordes d Field book 3 ch 44. p. 179. to habitual faith which he saith is in infants yet Luthers discourses admit not that sense as wil easily appeare to the reader Of which also the doctrine of his disciples who euen at this present e Kēnitius in examin cōcil Trident. can 13. de Baptis sess 7. Zucas Osiād in Enchirid cōt Anabapt print anno 1607. c. 2. quaest 2. affirme that infants whiles they are baptised actually beleeue is a manifest token

and moreouer that this was Luthers opinion it may be gathered out of f Caluin Instit c. 16. § 19 Caluin and g Whitaker in his answ to Campians 8. reason p. 243. Whitakers Besides this he holdeth that the soules departed out of this vvorld sleepe and are without sense or feeling neither in heauen nor in hel and so shal remaine vntil the day of judgement But of this point of his doctrine see more in the second part of my treatise following I cannot likewise omit his h Luther in serm de Sacram. coenae to 2. f. 112. c. opinion concerning the presence of Christs humane nature in euery place together vvith his diuinity of vvhich proceed these vvordes of Zwinglius vnto him i Zwingl in respōs ad Luther l. de Sacra f. 401. If thou shalt contumaciously goe on in this sentence that the humanity of Christ IESVS is essentially and corporally present wheresoeuer is his diuinity God willing we wil bring thee to those straights that either thou shalt be forced to deny the whole Scripture of the new testament or to acknowledge Marcions heresie This I say in good faith we promise we wil doe thus Zwinglius And by this heresie defended by the Lutherans of his time Caluin k Caluin Instit booke 4. ch 17. §. 16. c. Zwing l. tom 2. ep ad quādam Germaniae ciuitatē fol. 196. lib. de Baptis fol. 63. c. auoucheth that Marcion is raised vp out of hel The Geneuian diuines in the preface to the Harmony of confessions published in the name of the Churches of France and Belgia tearme it that vnhappy monster of vbiquity which if it be admitted say they wil quite ouerthrowe the true doctrine of Christs person and natures But of Luther enough Zwinglius doctrine concerning the Sacraments vvas most prophane for he made them only external signes and denied them any inward effect in the soule wherefore as I haue before noted it is worthily condemned and rejected not only by Luther and his followers but also in wordes by * Caluin lib. de coena l. 4. Instit cap. 15. §. 1. Caluin Moreouer a Zwingl in exposit fidei Chrstianae art 12. Zwinglius also placeth Hercules Theseus Socrates Numa Camillus the Catoes Scipions and other Pagans and Idolaters with the holy Patriarks and Apostles in heauen Of which his assertion Luther discourseth thus b Luther ad c. 47. Genes Zwinglius of late hath written that Numa Pompilius Hector Scipio Hercules enjoy eternal blisse in heauen with Peter Paul other Saints which is no other thing then openly to confesse that he thinketh there is no faith no Christianisme c. He addeth much more against him and of this inferreth that Zwinglius is of that minde that a man doing his best may be saued in any religion whatsoeuer vvhich in very deede is expresly by him taught in c Zwingl to 2. in declarat de peccato Original f. 118 another place Neuerthelesse this doctrine of Zwinglius touching the saluation of Infidels is maintained by d Rodolph Gualterus in Apolog pro libris Zwinglij Rodolphus Gualterus e Bullinger in Germani cōfess Eccles Figurinae Bullenger f Simlerus in vita Bullingeri c. Simlerus Daniel Tossanus and other Sacramentaries But no opinion of Zwinglius is more impious and sacrilegious then that by which he maketh God the author and cause of sinne In vpholding which blaspheamous impiety Iohn Caluin joineth hands with him If it were not that I should exceed the breuity of a preface I vvould manifestly conuince them guilty of this crime by their owne printed workes published to the viewe of the whole vvorld but I vvil here put off this manner of proofe to another place and nowe only confirme the truth of mine accusation by the testimony of some learned Protestants Albertus Grawerus rector of the Lutheran vniuersity of Eislebium in Germany about the yeare of our Lord 1597. published a booke vvith this title The warre of Iohn Caluin and of IESVS Christ God and man that is An antithesis or opposition of the doctrine of the Caluinists and of Christ in which the most horrible blaspheamies of the Caluinists especially concerning foure articles the person of Christ the supper of the Lord baptisme and predestination are faithfully shewed from the eie to the eie out of their owne proper writings and bookes and are briefly and soundly refelled out of the word of God thus hath the title And this booke hath beene printed three times among the Lutherans for I haue seene the third edition printed at Magdeburge in the yeare 1605. so plausible is it to the Lutheran churches Neuerthelesse it being oppugned and answered by some Caluinists the same author replied vvith an other booke vnto which he gaue this title Absurda absurdorum absurdissima Caluinistica absurda c. The absurde the most absurde of absurde Caluinistical absurde thinges that is an inuincible demonstration logical philosophical theological of some horrible paradoxes of the Caluinian doctrine in the article of the person of Christ the supper of the Lord baptisme and predestination of the children of God written by M. Albert Grawere Rector of the famous Vniuersity of Eislebium of the Earles of Mansfeld in defence of his Caluinian warre c. Cum gratia priuilegio at Magdeburge an 1605. hitherto are the vvordes of the title That vvhich maketh in these bookes for my present purpose is that which he deliuereth concerning the opinion of Caluin and the Caluinists touching the predestination of the children of God for in the fore-front of the last treatise after the title of the booke this Lutheran placeth this sillogisme Quodcunque dogma c. What opinion soeuer maketh God the author of sinne is not of God The Caluinian opinion maketh God the author of sinne therefore it is not of God For proofe of the minor or second proposition which is that the Caluinian doctrine maketh God the author of sinne he referreth his reader to the fift chapter of his booke following in vvhich in very deede he manifestly proueth it by diuers sentences alleaged out of Caluin Beza and other Sacramentaries Perhaps some man wil demaund what is this to Zwinglius I answere although Zwinglius in very deede be properly no Caluinist for he vvas before Caluin yet because nowe the Caluinists beare al the sway and haue almost eaten vp the Zwinglians as also because the differences betweene Zwinglius and Caluin vvere not great and notorious it pleaseth the Lutherans to number Zwinglius among the Caluinists yea to cal al the Sacramentaries Caluinists Hence Grawerus among other Caluinists making God the authour of sinne often alleageth Zwinglius and proueth him guilty of the same impiety They are likewise accused of making of God the author of sinne by Luke Osiander another Lutheran who hauing related and confuted certaine their assertions touching Christ thus beginneth the seauenth chapter of his booke

* Lucas Osiāder in Enchirid cont Caluimanos cap. 7. pag. 198. But here gentle reader beyond and aboue those blaspheamous thinges which in the discourses before we heard against the Sonne of God out of the opinions of our aduersaries the Caluinists Pandit se vorago barathrum Caluinianae doctrinae a gulfe or whirlepoole and a bel of Caluinian doctrine openeth it self In which if thou dilligently weigh the matter God is said to be the author of sinne it is so taught by our aduersaries concerning election to saluation that who shal embrace this their doctrine tentation assaulting him must needs either be cast into despaire or fal into Epicurisme and hence must of necessity arise in the harts of men manifest blasphemy against God thus Lucas Osiander whom an English sectary in his booke against vs trāslated maketh to speake like a very good Caluinist If any man be desirous to see a briefe summe of the Caluinian and Zwinglian beliefe touching this and other such like articles he shal find it gathered together in the same place by the same authour as also by Grawerus in the preface to his second booke cited Heshusius a third Lutheran vvriter esteemed among the learnedst of that sect Cōrad Schlusselburg lib. 2. Theolog. Caluinist pag. 6. See Clebetius in victoria veritatis ruina Papatus Saxonici arg 15. Conradus Schluss loco cit lib. 1. c. 6. pag. 25. 26. Beza in Absters calumni arū Heshusij much commended by Conradus Schlusselburge for this cause exclaimeth against the Caluinists that they transforme God into the Deuil But Caluin is not only accused of this impiety by the Lutherans but also by Castalio a Sacramentary who disputing of Caluins opinion touching this point maketh a distinction or difference betweene the true God and the God of Caluin these are his vvordes * Castal in l. ad Caluin de praedest The false God that is Caluins God by him described is slowe to mercy prone to anger who hath created the greatest part of the world to destruction and hath predestinated them not only to damnation but also to the cause of damnation Therefore he hath decreed from al eternity and be wil haue it so and be doth bring it to passe that they necessarily sinne so that neither thefts nor murders nor adulteries are committed but by his constraint and impulsion For be suggesteth vnto men euil and dishonest affections not only by permission sed efficaciter but effectually that is by forcing such affections vpon them and doth harden them in such sort that when they doe euil they doe rather the worke of God then their owne he maketh the Deuil a liar so that nowe not the Deuil but the God of Caluin is the father of lies But that God which the holy Scriptures teach is altogether contrary to this God of Caluin c. And soone after For the true God came to destroy that worke of that Caluinian God And these two Gods as they are by nature contrary to one another so they beget and bring forth children of contrary dispositions to wit that God of Caluin children without mercy proude c. hitherto Castalio a man highly commended by a Humfred de rat interpret lib. 1. p. 26. Gesnerus in Bibliotheca D. Humfrey and Gesnerus likewise learned scholars of the Sacramentary sect But note that in this his discourse he vvel declareth the truth of that vvhich before I related as said by Heshusius to wit that Caluin and his schollars by making God the author of sinne and ascribing vnto him other such like actions transforme him into the Deuil or rather as Castalio saith make the Deuil their God If any man be desirous to see this more fully and exactly handled let him reade Grawerus in the booke and chapter before cited Nowe touching Caluin in particular what Christian doth not abhorre and detest that his intollerable blaspheamy by which he affirmeth our Lord during the time of his passion to haue feared eternal damnation to haue beene forsaken of God to haue suffered in soule the torments of hel Let vs heare him in his owne wordes declare his owne opinion These are some of his sentences Christ was put in steede of wicked doers as surety and pledge Caluin Instit booke 2. ch 16. §. 10. Idē in Math. 26. vers 39. yea and as the very guilty person himselfe to abide and suffer al the punishments that should haue beene laid vpon them this one thing excepted that he could not be holden stil of the sorrowes of death or hel His praier in the garden was an abrupt desire he was stroken with feare and straited with anxiety in such sort that among violent fluddes oftentation he was forced as it were to stagger or wauer nowe with one and then with another desire he corrected and recalled that desire vpon the suddaine passed from him he refused as much as lay in him and sought to put off the office of a Mediator the vehemency of griefe tooke from him the present memory of the heauenly decree Christes death had beene to no effect Caluin Instit booke 2. ch 16. §. 10. Ibid. §. 12. Idē ad c. 26. Math. v. 39. if he had suffered only a corporal death but it behoued also that he should feele the rigour of Gods vengeance and that he should as it were hand to hand wrastle with the armies of the hels and the horror of eternal death He had a more cruel and harder battaile then with common death he sawe the anger of God set before him in as much as be burdened with the sinnes of the whole world presented him selfe before the tribunal seate of God he could not but horribly feare profundam mortis abyssum the bottomlesse depth of death or eternal damnation Caluin Instit booke 2. ch 16. §. 10. he suffered in his soule the terrible torments of a damned and forsaken man a Idē in c. 27. Math. v. 46. When the image or shewe of the tentation was laide before Christ as though God being his enemy he were nowe destined to destruction or damnation he was stroken with horror b Instit booke 2. chap. 16. he was feareful for the saluation of his soule He fought hand to hand with the power of the Deuil with the horror of death or damnation with the paines of hel Hitherto are some of Caluins blaspheamous assertions against our Lord and Sauiour I neede not alleage any Protestant authours accusing him of this impiety for his wordes be plaine and his bookes are in euery mans handes Nay which is worse some principal English Sectaries followe these his blaspheamous courses and vphold his doctrine as Euangelical Such are Fulke Whitakers Willet and others But listen a litle what a conclusion may be drawne out of one proposition taken from Caluin and an other from the greater part of our English Protestants Although diuers notable reasons are assigned by the auncient Fathers and

treatise which I intend I wil adde only a word or two of the manner of the nourishing of our bodies To make the foode which we receiue fit for our stomacke we haue in our mouthes two sortes of teeth some sharpe to deuide it others something flatte or plaine to grinde it with the tongue we remoue it from place to place when it is sufficiently chawed through the throate it is conueied into the stomacke where as in a pot or caldron by the heate of the hart and liuer it is boiled and brought al to one kinde of substance from thence the purest and best part thereof by subtil and smal passages is conueied to the liuer the grossest part which is not fit for nutriment is cast out at the fundament The liuer hauing receiued the said substance boileth it againe and turneth it into bloud that which is superfluous it sendeth it to other places as to the spleene and gal the rest it disperseth by the vaines throughout the whole body which is partly turned into flesh and bones a part of it is sent to the hart which being there purified is turned into vital spirits some is sent to the braine and turned into other spirits which we cal animales These considerations are sufficient to perswade euery man that there is one supreame God of infinite power and wisedome who hath created and most wisely and sweetely disposed al thinges Hence the Prophet Dauid cried out unto God in the Psalme Psal 103. ver 24. Howe high or wonderful O Lord are thy workes thou hast made al thinges in wisdome the earth is filled with thy possession or riches Surely if we looke into the nature and condition of any one creature whatsoeuer we shal not only see Eccles 3. ver 14. Galen lib. 3. de vsu partium lib. 5. Psal 99. vers 3. that as the wiseman saith we cannot adde to or take anythinge from the creatures of God and that God as Gallen the prince of al phisitions although a Pagan confesseth hath adorned and beautified the creatures of this world better then by any arte possible it could haue beene imagined but also if we demande of each creature who made it it wil seeme to make answere God made me and I made not my selfe according as the Psalme saith of vs men He made vs and we made not our selues Some Atheist perhaps wil say that al creatures are thus framed and ordered not by any supreame gouernor hauing vnderstanding and power to effect such matters but by chance I reply that like as it is impossible that a number of letters or charecters cast togither without any order of sillables wordes or sentences should make a perfect booke containing most wise learned and methodical discourses so it is impossible that the world should be so exquisitely ordered and thinges so ordained one to another by chance without the wisdome and disposition of almighty God And this confutation of this fond assertion was vsed longe since by Cicero an Ethnicke Wherefore Cicero lib. 3. de natura Deorum like as euery man would worthely account him a foole that should say that a booke containing wise and orderly discourses was made by chance by the casting togither of diuers charecters or letters or that a house most curiously and artificially built was made without the handy worke of any artificer by the accidentary concourse of stones morter timber and other such like stuffe so we may wel esteeme him a foole and voide of al reason and vnderstanding who denyeth that the world was created and ordered by almighty God Hence the Psalme saith The foole said in his hart Ps 13. v. 1 there is no God And note it is not said he said with his mouth but in his hart to signifie that this assertion is so absurde ridiculous and blasphemous that a foole although he thinke it true in his hart yet may be ashamed to vtter it with his mouth To the arguments already brought for the proofe of this matter I adde that this truth is manifestly deliuered vnto vs in the holy Scriptures in which is contained the history of the creation of the world by God and diuers other euident proofes are found of the being of his diuine Majesty This no Atheist wil or can denie But al of them answere that the Scriptures containe but fables and are of no authority I reply that it may easily be shewed that the authority of these diuine bookes ought to be great in any wisemans judgement in the world It is proued by diuers learned authors first by their antiquity for no volumes in the world are so auncient as the bookes of Moyses and consequently we may inferre that Moyses himselfe the first writer receiued the true history of those thinges which were done before his owne dayes by succession and tradition from his predecessors for which it maketh that Abraham the father of the Iewes might wel haue seene Sem the sonne of Noe Of other thinges he was an eie witnesse himselfe Secondly it is proued by the verity of diuers prophesies contained in the holy Scriptures which were fulfilled longe after that the bookes themselues were written which is a manifest demonstration that such thinges were foretold by God who only knoweth and can certainely fortel thinges contingent and depending of mans free wil of which it followeth that such prophesies and the bookes in which they are found were written by diuine inspiration Thirdly it is declared by the wonderful consent of al these bookes for although they were penned by diuers men in diuers places vpon diuers occasions and at sundry times yet no one of them containeth any one thinge contrary to the other Gre. praefat in Iob. Of which S. Gregory wel inferreth that the writers handes were the pennes of the holy Ghost The same is likewise demonstrated by the test mony of diuers miracles which haue beene wrought alwayes in the world for the confirmation of the doctrine which is taught vs in these bookes by the miraculous preseruation of them throughout al ages by the admirable consent of the seauenty two Interpreters which were appointed by Ptólomie King of Aegipt to translate them and sundrie other reasons which I cannot stand to relate Neither doe the miracles and prophesies aboue said and al other such like effects and actions only confirme the authority of the holy Scriptures but also euidently proue that there is a God who only is omnipotent and can worke effects surpassing the power and vertue of natural and created agents Such miracles and prophesies cannot be denied to haue beene found in the world in al ages of which we haue any large recordes except we wil obstinately reject the authority and testimony of al men I may joyne to this that although God be but one in essence yet he is three in persons for although the diuine essence be but one most pure and simple substance not deuided yet the selfe same is in three distinct

before proued from al cloudes of falsehood which may seeme to obscure it I thinke it not amisse in this place to proue these three propositions First that no testimonies or reasons before brought can be applied to the Church in those two first acceptions of the Church expressed by Field secondly that the same testimonies and reasons proue an infallible judgement of the Church concerning euery article of faith in general not touching some principal only lastly that to saluation it is necessary to beleeue either expresly or virtually the whole summe of Christian doctrine And to performe this concerning the first in the first place I demand whether there be or no any such Churches nowe extant in the world of which the one includeth al faithful Christians that are and haue beene since the ascension of Christ the other al those that are and haue beene since the Apostles daies if there be not then the promises of Christ cannot be verified of them if there be then I aske further vvhere they are to be found Is the Church now in the world that hath beene in former ages Are they that in times past flourished nowe members of the Church militant They are not vvithout doubt Wherefore although these two diuers considerations of the Church may be in our vnderstanding yet there is no real object of them nowe hauing any real being in the world nor euer vvas at any one time and seing that it is euident that the promises of Christ are concerning the prerogatiues of some real body or common wealth hauing real being in the vvorld and not only in our conceit it is also manifest that they were not spoken of the Church in any one of those two acceptions Besides this howe shal vve seuer or distinguish these three considerations of the Church really from one another doth not the Church in the first acception comprehend the same Church as it is taken in the second and third signification doth it not as Field saith comprehend al that are and euer haue beene since Christ appeared in the flesh if so then without doubt also that Church which hath bin in al particuler ages and at al particuler times and instances and is euen at this present We must imagine if I be not deceaued the better to vnderstand M. Field his meaning Vincent Liren aduersus haeres ca. 28. 29. as Vincentius Lirenensis seemeth to insinuate that the beginning and progresse of the Church since her first planting hath beene not much vnlike to the augmentation or growing of a child from his first birth to his perfect state or old age And who can make any question but in the time of a mans being from his birth vntil his old age that time also is included which was from the day in which he was weaned from his nurses milke vntil his said old age but if we admit this howe can we choose but confesse that the Church in the first acception includeth also the same in the second and third and so I say that the last is comprehended in the second howe then can he make the Church in the first signification free from errour and ignorance and not in the second and third or howe can he make it in the second signification free from errour and not in the third and to make the matter a litle more euident I demand of M. Field whether a man might truly haue said at al times since the Apostles daies the Church in the first and second signification is absolutely free from al errour in diuine thinges if he might not then nothing more is attributed to the Church in these acceptions then to the same in the last if he might then was the present Church in euery instant free from such errours ignorance For to insist in the similitude already made to this that a man be said to be sound and in health it is not sufficient that in his childhood or at some other time he was so affected but it is also necessary that he be sound at that very time when the sentence is pronounced and if the sentence be pronounced of al his whole life it cannot be true if once he were sicke In like sort to this that the Church as it includeth al times since the Ascention of Christ or from the Apostles be said to be free from al errour it is not sufficient that in the first yeares or at some time or other it was so but it is also requisite that she be so nowe and euer haue beene so otherwise if she haue beene infected vvith errour at some one time the said errour maketh the proposition false And in very deed I cannot see first for what other reason he freeth the Church in the first signification from ignorance and errour but in respect of the Apostles daies when it enjoied only as he saith such priueledges in like sort I can see no other reason why he freeth it in the second acception from errour but this that at some time or other in some place or other true doctrine hath beene or is taught in her concerning euery article of faith For he maketh the present Church at al times subject to errour and consequently he wil not giue this priueledge to the present Church of al times And this he semeth to confesse in those his vvords of the eleauenth chapter where he saith that the Church in the second acception is infallibly true Not in respect of the condition of the men of whome it consisteth Booke 4. chap. 11. §. that the authority or the manner of the guiding of the spirit each particuler man being subject to errour but in respect of the generality and vniuersality of it in euery part wherof in euery time no errour could possibly be found that is if I wel vnderstand him that some part or other at some time or other was free from euery errour not al nor perhappes any part from al errours at the same time Marke well what a proper prerogatiue is finally giuen to the Church in those acceptions in vvhich he doth so highly exalt it to vvit that it vvas free from errour and ignorance in the Apostles daies and free from errour in respect of the generality and vniuersality of it because no errour could possibly be found in it in euery part in euery time What improper kinde of speeches be these can a sicke man be said to be sound because he vvas found in his childe-hood or can he be saide to haue beene euer sound if once he vvere sicke or can he be called a sound man that hath had at one time his head sound at another time his armes and at other times other members although he neuer had his vvhole body at one time sound together Besides vvhat vveake priueledges are here giuen to the Church are they ansvverable to the promises of Christ and other testimonies and reasons aboue recited for her infallible and diuine authority hath he bestovved no greater

his holy spirit it must needes followe that vvhosoeuer is infected with any one such heresie is void of al spiritual life and in state of damnation and can haue no more life then a mans arme cut off from his body or a bough cut from a tree But of this matter I shal entreate more at large Chap. 1. Sect. 4. in my treatise of the definition and notes of the true Church vvhere I shal proue that the members of Christes Church are lincked together by the profession of the same vvhole summe of Christian doctrine and therefore for this present this shal suffice And lesse I thinke would haue satisfied any reasonable man for seing that there is but one true rule of beleefe Ephes 4. vers 4. and one faith according as vve are taught by the Apostle among Christians and this faith is so necessary to saluation as I haue proued before no wise-man wil prescribe himselfe a rule of faith according to his owne erroneous fancy and neglect the judgement of the Church whome truth it selfe hath warranted that she shal not erre from truth Chapter 7. Of the holy Scripture which is the first particuler ground of faith in the Catholike Church SECTION THE FIRST Howe the Scripture is knowne to be Canonical THE supreame authority and infallible judgement of the Church being thus established and proued it may wel in this place be demanded vvhat particuler groundes decrees or principles the Church doth deliuer vnto vs or we finde in the Church whereupon we may securely build our faith For the resolution of this question I haue affirmed in the title of this Chapter that the first such particuler ground is the holy Scripture And although there be no controuersie betweene vs and our aduersaries concerning the authority of diuers bookes of the said holy Scripture for most of them by vs al are confessed to be Canonical yet much difference there is betweene vs concerning the meanes by vvhich vve knowe the holie Scripture and euery parcel thereof to be the true vvord of God and vvho is to be judge of the true sence of these diuine volumes vvherefore these points are briefly to be handled and discussed Howe then doe vve knowe that the old and newe Testament are Canonical howe can vve certainely assure our selues that the Apostles and Disciples vvrote the newe vvhat proofe likevvise haue vve to perswade vs that no part of the holie Scripture hath beene in times past corrupted or depraued I answere in fewe vvordes that al this is infallibly knowne vnto vs by the authority and judgement of the Catholike Church vvho hath adjudged al such bookes to be Canonical and as Canonical receiued them and deliuered them to her children I denie not but the Scriptures before the definition and censure of the Church vvere true and contained the certaine and sincere vvord of God but this only I say that this truth and authority was first infallibly knowne vnto vs by the Church vvho adjudged and censured them to be as they are and as such commanded al Christians to esteeme and reuerence them Neither is this any waies prejudicial to the dignity and authority of the holie Scripture for this notwithstanding vve confesse that the said Scripture is of farre greater authority then the Church or her definitions be vvhich is manifest because although the holie Ghost assist and direct both the vvriters of holie Scripture and the Church yet certaine it is that hee hath assisted and directed the first after a farre more excellent manner then he doth the second because his assistance and direction in penning those sacred bookes vvas such that euery sentence in them contained is of most certaine verity but his assistance vnto the Church vvhether it be in a general Councel or otherwise in the decrees of the Bishop of Rome maketh only that vvhich the said Councel or Bishop intend to define of such an infallible truth Wherefore then doe vve proue the Scripture to be Canonical by the authority of the Church Surely for no other reason then because the Church is better knowne vnto vs then the Scripture For the Church hath alwaies beene as I vvil proue hereafter most visible and apparant to the vvhole vvorld euery man also before that the newe Testament vvas written before that it vvas generally receiued by the Church might haue knowne the Church for she vvas before any part of it was penned and consequently by her infallible judgement euery one might with farre more ease and certainety haue come to the knowledge of such bookes then by any other meanes or industry Wherefore to conclude although the Church maketh not Scripture yet of her we learne most certainely which is Scripture And this is no more disgrace vnto Scripture then it was vnto Christ that the Apostles gaue testimony of him because they were better knowne then he I adde also that euery one of them who aboue al others reprehend this our assertion taketh vpon himselfe as great authority ouer Scriptures as vve giue to the whole Church See part second chap. 5. Sect. 1. For euery newe sectarie out of his owne fancy judgeth this to be Scripture that to be none c. vvhich must needes be in euery mans judgement farre more absurd This assertion being thus explicated let vs nowe briefly proue the same And first because vve can assigne no other meanes by vvhich vve may say that vve certainely knowe the Scripture to be Canonical but the authority of the Church And as concerning the old Testament although vve graunt that the authority thereof vvas first partly approued by miracles partly by the testimony of Prophets and partly by the authority of the Church in those daies yet howe doe vve nowe infallibly knowe that it vvas so approued and that it is the selfe same nowe that vvas then approued but by the relation tradition and censure of the Church But let vs come to the newe Testament and demand vvho hath receiued it into the Canon of holie Scripture vvhat miracles haue beene vvrought to proue it Canonical who doth assure vs that it vvas penned by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ and that since their daies it hath not beene corrupted Verily the Church only resolueth vs of al these questions and telleth vs vvith assurance of truth that the said newe Testament vvas vvritten by the said sacred authours inspired and directed by the holy Ghost and that euer since their daies it hath beene preserued in her sacred bosome vvithout corruption And no other answere hauing any probability of truth and sufficient to satisfie a reasonable mans vnderstanding can be made This may also be confirmed by the continual practise of the Church For no man can deny but it vvas her doing that the foure Gospels of S. Mathewe Marke Luke and Iohn See part 2 chap. 5. Sect. 2. were receiued and the Gospel called of Nicodemus with others rejected She hath likwise now receiued as Canonical diuers bookes in times past of

Diosinius the Patriark of Alexandria men of great estimation in their daies with diuers other Bishops in sundry prouincial Councels decreed the baptisme of Heretiks to be of no force therefore to be reiterated They confirmed this their definition or sentence with many testimonies of holy scripture seeming at the first sight of no smal force and moment for their purpose but al these their decrees were ouerthrowne And how surely by the contrary Tradition of the Church for b see Vinc. Lir. ca. 9. Cipr. ab epist 70. ad 77. Aug de bapt cont Donat. et cōt Cresc Hierō cōtra Lucif S. Steuen Pope of Rome pleading Tradition against them condemned their doctrine as heretical and pronounced this renowmed sentence Let no newe thing be brought into the Church let nothing be done but that which was deliuered vnto vs thinking it altogether vnlawful to transgresse the rule of faith by succession and Tradition receiued from the Apostles This is recorded by diuers authors of great fame and antiquity By Tradition the Pelagian heresie vvas confuted as is affirmed by S. c Caelesti epist 8. Caelestinus Pope and S. Augustine By Tradition only the same d Aug. de bapt li. 2. cap 7. S. Augustine and others condemned Heluidius the heretike for denying the perpetual virginity of our blessed Ladie Yea e Basil de spir sācto ca. 27. See Aug. epist 118. ad Iā Leo ser 2. de jeiunio S. Basil telleth vs that if we reject Tradition we shal endomage the whole principal parts of our faith and without it bring the preaching of the Gospel to a naked name I could bring forth diuers other such like examples and testimonies were it not that I should be ouer long But how shal we come to the knowledge of these Traditions S. Augustine giueth vs this most certaine rule f Aug. to 7. de bapt cōt Dona. l. 4. c. 24. see ibi c. 6 That saith he which the whole Church holdeth and hath not beene instituted by any Councel but alwaies hath beene obserued is most truly beleeued to haue beene deliuered by no other but Apostolike authority Such a Tradition saith the same g Aug de Genes ad lit c. 23. et con Dona. l. 4. c. 24. Orig. in c. 6. ad Rom. S. Augustine and Origenes is the baptisme of infants Such Traditions according to h Ba. de spi sāct c. 27. S. Basil are the signe of the Crosse praying towards the East the words spoken at the eleuation of the Eucharist with diuers ceremonies vsed before and after consecration the hallowing of the font before baptisme the blessing of the oile or chrisme the annointing of the baptized with the said oile the three immersions into the font the words of abrenuntiation and exorcismes of the partie which is to be baptized c. What scripture saith he taught these and such like thinges none truly al comming of secrete and hidden Tradition wherewith our fore-fathers thought it meete to couer such misteries Hitherto S. Basil It is an Apostolical Tradition as we are taught by a Dionis de Eccles hierarc cap. 7. S. Dionisius of Areopagus b Tertul. in exhort ad castita tem c. 11. et de corona militis cap. 3. Tertullian c Chrisos homi 69. ad populum S. Iohn Chrisostome and S. Augustine to pray and make a memory of the soules departed in the Masse It is an Apostolical Tradition saith d Hieron epist 54. ad Marc. S. Hierome and e Epiphā haeres 75. Aerij S. Epiphanius to keepe certaine appointed fasting-daies especially the Lent the same is affirmed by f Aug. epi. 118. ad Ia nu cap. 1. S. Augustine concerning the obseruation of certaine holy-daies and by g Damas li. 4. de ortho fide c. 17. et l. de Imagini See Ter. de coron mil. S. Iohn Damascene concerning the adoration of Images These and diuers other such like Apostolike Traditions are sette downe by the auncient Fathers and are to be found in the Church of Christ And vpon these if they bee of matters of faith seeing that they haue diuine authority both from Christ and the Apostles vvho deliuered them to the Church and from the Church it selfe which being the piller of truth hath accepted and approued them euerie Christian may securelie build his faith and beliefe If they be concerning preceptes of moral actions vve are bound to obey them and may doe it with like security wherefore h Origen tract 29. in Math. Origen giueth vs this learned counsaile As often saith he as Heretiks alleage Canonical scriptures in which al Christians consent and beleeue they seeme to say * Mat 24. verse 26. Behold in houses is the word of truth but we ought not to beleeue them nor to goe forth from the first Ecclesiastical Tradition nor beleeue otherwise but as the Church of God by succession hath deliuered vnto vs. Thus farre Origen wishing euery one in the interpretation and sense of holy scripture to follow the Tradition of the Church as also in the beliefe of al such matters as are called in question by Heretikes Vnto these proofes I adde that i Barlow B. of Rochester in his sermon preached at Hampton Court Sept. 21. 1606. Barlowe and Field two famous English Protestants admit of certaine Apostolike Traditions k Field booke 4. cap. 20. § Much contention Field telleth vs that they reject not al vnwritten Traditions yea he alloweth of the rule of * Chap. 21. S. Augustine before mentioned for decerning Apostolical Traditions from others as also doth l Whitgift in his defence pag. 351. 352. Whitgift But Field addeth moreouer this other that whatsoeuer al or the most famous and renowmed in al ages or at the least in diuers ages haue constantly deliuered as receiued from them that went before them no man contradicting or doubting of it may be thought to be an Apostolical Tradition thus Field I confesse that this notwithstanding he affirmeth Ibid. cap. 20. § Out of this No matter of faith to be deliuered by bare and onlie Tradition But why not such as wel as those which concerne the manners conuersation of men and are by him allowed as for example Why may we not as assuredly receiue by Tradition our beliefe concerning some article of faith as to vse his owne words concerning the obseruation of the Lordes day Ibid. That the Apostles Field book 4. ca. 20. § Much confession Ibidem § The secōd kinde Doth not the allowance of these also according to their common doctrine prejudice the sufficiencie of holy scripture But he graunteth further that They receiue the number names of the Authours and integrity of the parts of bookes diuine and Canonical as deliuered by Tradition He admitteth as a second Tradition That summary comprehension of the chiefe heads of Christian doctrine contained in the Creed of the Apostles which was deliuered to the Church

things which were determined out of the scriptures in the Councel at Nice at Ephesus Constantinople Chalcedon adde also the fift and sixt by the godlie Fathers against Arius Samosatenus Apollinaris Nestorius Eutiches the Monotholites Whosoeuer therefore teacheth concerning Christs person against the determinations of those Councels certainelie they doe not rightly hold this principal foundation of Christian religion These are the discourses of Zauchius The like he hath in another place Zauchius in his obseruations vpon his confession vpon the 25. chap. pag. 330 where he expresly saith that The decrees of such Councels come from the holy Ghost and that he cannot disproue them with a good conscience Further if we weaken the authority of such Councels we must needs also make weake the authority of some books of holy scripture as of the a See part 1. chap. 7. sect 1. part 2. chap. 5. sect 2. epistle to the Hebrewes the Apocalipse and other such parcels of the written word of God of which there was some doubt in the Church whether they were Canonical or no vntil the matter was defined by general Councel Finally let vs confirme al that I haue here said by the testimony of b Hooker in the preface to his book of ecclesiastical policy pa. 24. 25. 26. 27. Hooker whom our English sectaries commonly esteeme as highly as any other He then first telleth vs that there are but two certaine waies of peaceable conclusion the one a sentence of judicial decision giuen among our selues the other the like kinde of sentence giuen by a more vniuersal authority and he meaneth by Councels The former of which two waies saith he God in the law prescribeth and his spirit it was which directed the very first Christian Churches to vse the second This he proueth by the proceedings of the Church touching the controuersie about the necessity of circumcision mentioned in the c Act. 15. Acts of the Apostles vvhich after great contention vvas ended by a Councel and he demaundeth of the Puritans whether they are able to alleage any just cause wherefore they should not condescend absolutely in the matter controuersed to haue their judgements ouer-ruled by some such definitiue sentence whether it fal out with them or against them that so saith he these tedious contentions may cease He addeth that without some definitiue sentence it is almost impossible that either confusion should be avoided or hope be had to attaine to peace Againe To smal purpose had the Councel of Hierusalem beene assembled if once their determination being set downe men might afterwards haue defended their former opinions when therefore they had giuen their definitiue sentence al controuersies was at end thinges were disputed before they came to be determined men afterwards were not to dispute any longer but to obey the sentence of judgement finished their strife which their disputers before judgement could not doe This was ground sufficiēt for any reasonable mans conscience to build the duty of obedience vpon whatsoeuer his owne opinion were as touching the matter before in question So ful of wilfulnes selfe-liking is our nature that without some defititiue sentence which being giuen may stand and a necessity of silence on both sides afterwards imposed smal hope there is that strifes thus farre prosecuted wil in short time quietly end thus he And to make this his discourse the stronger he likewise alleageth the authority of Beza Beza praefat tract de excom et presbit who saith he in his last booke saue one written about these matters professeth himselfe to be nowe weary of such combats and encounters whether by word or writing in asmuch as he findeth that controuersies thereby are made brawles and therefore he wisheth that in some common lawful assembly of Churches al these strifes may at once be decided Hitherto Hooker To the same effect he might also Luther li. cōt Zuīg et Oecolā haue alleaged the testimonie of Luther vvho considering the wonderful multitude of dissentions about religion among his sectaries themselues auouched that for the ending of them if the world long indure he saw no other meanes but that they should be forced to haue recourse to general Councels I could alleage the like sentences out of Couel Couel in his defēce of Hooker See before chap. 6. section 4. 50. 51. who wisheth that some general Councel might be assembled for the final end of al controuersies And hither also tend the discourses of those Protestants who as I haue aboue related make the constitutions of the Church diuine But it may perhaps be answered by some man to these testimonies of our aduersaries that notwithstanding al these their assertions they make general Councels absolutely subject to errour I answere and confesse that in very deede they doe so yet I affirme that any wise and discreete man may wel gather out of their sayinges alleaged not only that general Councels are needful in the Church and that al their deuision and dissention proceedeth of their denial of the authority of such Councels But also that it was requisite and necessary that Christ who is neuer wanting to his Church in thinges needful should make the authority of general Councels concerning matters of faith infallible For otherwise if they were subject to errour what reason hath man to obey them in matters of such consequence especially considering that diuers such assemblies vnlaweful consisting of a greater multitude of Bishoppes then some lawful general Councels haue erred and straied from the truth Finally they confesse that the first such Councels assembled in the first ages of Christianity erred not And thus much for the proofe of this matter It may perhaps be here further demaunded what conditions we require to a lawful and authentical general Councel I answere briefly first that such a Councel must either be called expresly by the ministerial head of the Church or at the least with his assent Secōdly the summon must be general of al Bishops throughout the world Thirdly although it be not needeful that al be personallie and reallie present yet a competent number must appeare that is to say some at the least out of the greater part of Christian Catholike prouinces yet if it be assembled in the East a smal number of the West sent to supply the place of al the rest are judged to suffice Contrariwise if in the West a smal number in such sort is sufficient out of the East Fourthly the ministerial head or vicegerent of Christ must either be present in person or by his Legates And finally the decrees of the said Councel must be by him confirmed and this both because the head is chiefe ruler of the body and consequently the body is to doe nothing without the assent of the head and also because he hath singuler priuileges granted him by Christ of not erring as shal be declared in the next chapter Hence it proceedeth that no general Councel hath euer in the Church beene held

Canonical without his approbation although the number of Bishoppes vvere neuer so great as appeareth by that of Ephesus vnder Theodosius the younger by that of Constantinople vnder Leo Isaurus and diuers others And out of this discourse I gather that this authority of general Councels if we had no other argument were sufficient to perswade vs to detest and abhorre the condemned doctrine of the new Sectaries For the same Church which in the first general Councel of Nice condemned A●ius and the Arians the same which in the second such Councel held at Constantinople condemned Macedonius and the Macedonians vvhich in the third held at Ephesus condemned Nestorius the Nestorians vvhich in the fourth held at Chalcedon condemned Eutiches and the Eutichians vvhich finally in other general Councels hath condemned other Heretiks and heresies The selfe same Church I say directed in al truth by the holy Ghost hath condemned and accursed Luther and the Lutherans Zuinglius and the Zuinglians vvith al their followers togeather vvith their doctrine in the last general Councel held at Trent But they say that this Councel vvas not laweful nor the judges indifferent I reply first that this hath beene an old cauil of al condemned Heretiks wherefore it may lawefully be suspected in these Moreouer it is sufficiently proued by Catholike authors and the matter is euident in it selfe that nothing necessarie to a laweful general Councel vvas vvanting in this vvherefore it is receiued by the vvhole Church as Canonical and therefore no vvise man seing that saluation and damnation vpon this depend vvil reject it vpon these mens reportes They affirme further that the Church hath no authority in a general Councel to make any newe article of faith To this likewise I answere that the Church properly maketh no newe article of faith for euerie decree by her made concerning such matters is either in expresse tearmes contained in the holie scriptures or gathered out of them by infallible deduction through the direction of the holie Ghost or expresly or virtually approued by the vnwritten Tradition of the Church wherefore the Church neither hath euer taught or shal euer teach any truth so newe that it vvas vnknowne to the Apostles For that which by her is defined and propounded was true before and an article of faith although sometimes not certainelie nor generally knowne before to be of such authority or dignity And that this is our doctrine it is graunted by Field vvhose vvords are these Field book 4. cap. 12. § Our aduersaries Our aduersaries confesse that the approbation and determination of the Church can not make that a truth which was not nor that a diuine or Catholike truth which was not so before thus Field Hence the Catholike diuines affirme that Christian faith neuer since Christs ascention hath increased or beene altered in substance but only in explanation or explication because the Church hath euer since only more plainelie and expresly declared her beliefe and authority to doe this vvas needful in her Vinc. Lir. cap. 28. 29. et 30. for preseruing of peace and ending of al controuersies This Vincentius Lirinensis most elegantly declareth by a similitude taken from the body of man vvhich hath the same members in his infancie youth vvhen he is at mans estate and in his old age and although for the diuersitie of time they are lesse and greater vveaker and stronger yet the body it selfe is not chaunged but augmented so saith he it falleth out in our faith c. They object also the authority of some Fathers but principally those vvordes of S. Gregorie Nazianzene vvho saith as he is alleaged by Whitaker * Whit. in his ans to Camp 4. reasō Abbot in his answere to Hils 9 reasō Nazianz epist 55. or 42. alias 102. ad Procop. Hist tri part li 9. cap. 9. That he had deliberated with himselfe and fully resolued to auoid Episcopal conuocations because he had neuer seene a good issue of anie Sinode I answere that this holy father doth not deny the authority of lawful general Councels as appeareth by his testimonie before cited and also by this that he vvas a most earnest defender of the Nicene Councel as is testified by Ecclesiastical histories and was himselfe present and subscribed to the second general Councel held at Constantinople He therefore only speaketh of such Sinods as was celebrated in those daies when he wrote that epistle of which fewe were lawful and none had good successe as appeareth by that of Seleucia Ariminum Millan Tirus Sirmium Bilson in his booke of the perpetual gouernment of Christs Church Chap. 16. pag. 396. Athan. li. de sinod et ad Affrican see also S. Ambrose epist 32. c. of vvhich in verie deed he neuer sawe good issue and for that cause he refused to be present to any of them and this solution is approued by M. Bilson a learned Protestant who expresly saith that this Father in these words condemneth not al Councels They bring likewise against vs certaine words of S. Augustine in his booke against Maximinus where he writeth thus as Abbot translateth him But nowe neither should I produce the Nicene Councel nor thou that of Ariminum as meaning to extol it neither am I held with the authority of the one nor thou with the other I answere first that although S. Augustine might haue proued out of S. Athanasius and diuers other authentical authors that the lawful Councel of Ariminum most notably confirmed the Nicene faith and that the Councel alleaged by this Heretike vvas but the supscription of the Bishops to a certaine forme of faith by threatning feare and affliction extorted by Taurus the Emperors officer after that the Councel vvas finished yet in the dispute which he had with Maximinus the said Maximinus opposing the Councel of Ariminum aganst the Councel of Nice he vvould not enter into the proofe of the authority of the one and confutation of the other but hauing most pregnant testimonies of holy scripture he voluntarily in that disputation ceased to vrge the authority of the Councel of Nice and so those his vvordes Neither am I held c. are vnderstood for the sense of them is I vvil not that nowe thou be bound to the one or I to the other Verely that he esteemed highly of the authoritie of general Councels al his workes and proceedings testifie yea his discourse before the vvords alleaged doth proue it as wil appeare to the reader For he saith that in the Councel of Nice the word consubstantial was by the Catholike fathers established by the authority of truth and by the truth of authority And in another place he telleth vs Tom. 7. de baptismo contr Donat li. 7. cap. 53. that we may securely auerre that which is confirmed and roborated by the consent of the vniuersal Church Chapter 10. Of the decrees of the supreame visible Pastour of the Church which make a fourth particuler ground of our faith and of other

10. pag. 570. Andraeas Fricius a learned Protestant of Polonia And that he held himselfe to be supreame Pastour of the Church al his b See l. 12. epi. 32. de priuiligio cōcessomo nasterio S. Medardi In psal 5. epist 38. indict 13. bookes and actions aboundantly testifie and of the Church of Constantinople in particuler thus he vvriteth c Lib. 7. epist 63. ad Ioan. Sira cusanum Of the seat of Constantinople who can doubt but it is subject to the Apostolike See which both my Lord the most holy Emperour and my brother Eusebius Bishop of the same citty of Constantinople professe And this is the common Catholike doctrine touching the supreamacie of S. Peter and the Bishop of Rome SECTION THE SECOND The aforesaid doctrine is proued IF I should endeauour to bring forth al the arguments which occurre and are commonly vsed by Catholike authors conuincing the truth of that which hath beene here said this treatise would rise to a great volume vvhich is contrarie to mine intent wherefore I wil only touch the principal and those very briefly In the holy scripture we first find that our Sauiour at the first sight of S. Peter chaunged his name from Simon to Cephas or Peter For this holy Apostle being brought by S. Andrew his brother vnto Christ He looking vpon him saith S. Iohn the Euangelist said Ioh. 1 42. Hier. in c. 2. epist ad Galatas thou art Simon the sonne of Iona thou shalt be called Cephas which word in the Siriack tongue as we are taught by S. Hierom as also Peter in the Greek signifieth a rocke wherefore then did Christ change this Apostles name more then the names of al the rest for although he called S. Iames and S. Iohn Boanerges Mark 3. yet he altered not their former names but gaue them a kind of sir-name and therefore by the holie Euangelists the whole Church they are alwaies called by their first names Iames Iohn But S. Peter is commonly called both by the Euangelists S. Paul Galat. 2. Chrisost in 1. cap. Ioan. and the whole Church Peter Cephas or a rock which as S. Iohn Chrisostome very wel noteth argueth that some great priuiledge was graunted to S. Peter aboue others for so God for some extraordinarie and great cause changed the name of Abram into Abraham and of Iacob into Israel But what was this priuiledge Verily the name it selfe imposed vpon S. Peter giueth vs notice what it was for seing that Christ communicated vnto him one of his owne names to wit the name of a rock or stone which is often times attributed vnto himselfe in holie write Isa 8. et 28. Daniel 2. psal 117. Mat. 21. Rom. 9. 1. Cor. 10. Ephe. 2.1 Peter 2. c. he also gaue vs to vnderstand that he was to communicate vnto him the highest office vnder himselfe and that like as he himselfe was the principal rock and foundation of the Church so this holy Apostle was to be by participation a secondarie stone placed next vnto himselfe in the building of the same and through his praier and warrant to be made a piller of truth not to be shaken with anie falshood nor ouerthrowne by al the powers of hel This is the doctrine of S. Basil and S. Leo as we haue seene aboue But that the force of this place of scripture against the newe sectaries may the better be perceiued let vs joine another vnto it more strongelie confirming the same truth and plainely opening the sense of the former For after that this blessed Apostle had confessed our Sauiour to be Christ the sonne of the liuing God our Redeemer replying vnto him Mat. 16. v. 18.19 vsed these wordes And I say to thee that thou art Peter or a rocke and vpon this rocke wil I build my Church and the gates of hel shal not preuaile against it And I wil giue to thee the keies of the kingedome of heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt bind vpon earth it shal be also bound in the heauens and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose in the earth it shal be loosed also in the heauens Loe a plaine promise made vnto S. Peter both that on him the Church should be built and consequently that he should be made the principal foundation of the same next vnto Christ and also that as the vicar of Christ and chiefe pastour of his flocke he should receiue the keies of the kingdome of heauen And hence proceed those vvordes of S. Hierome concerning the first prerogatiue Hieron lib. 1. contra Pelag. Cipriā epistol ad Quirinū Peter was the prince of the Apostles vpon whome the Church of our Lord was strongly and firmely founded which is neither shaken by the furie of any flood nor by any tempest Saint Ciprian that holy Martir more auncient then Saint Hierome telleth vs that our Lord did choose Peter the chiefest and vpon him built his Church Which words of his are alleadged and approued by Saint Augustine in his second booke de Baptismo cap. 1. To these I adde S. Basil and S. Epiphanius of vvhome the first auoucheth a Basil li. 2. in Eunom et homilia 19. quae est vlti de poenitentia that Saint Peter for the excellencie of his faith receiued vpon him the edifice of the Church vvherefore in another place he calleth him the rocke and foundation of the Church The other vvriteth b Epiphā in Ancor that our Lord appointed Peter the first or chiefe of his Apostles a firme rocke on which the Church was built The like sentences are found in c Leo ser 2. in Aniuers assūptio suae S. Leo d Naziā● de moder seruād in disputat S. Gregory Nazianzene e Chrisost homil 55. in Math. S. Chrisostome f Ambros serm 47. S. Ambrose and others yea that the Fathers gathered this out of the said words of our Lord it is granted by g Calu. li. 4. instit ca. 6. § 6. Caluin and h Dan. in respōs ad Bellar. disput part 1. p. 277. Danaeus That he also had a second prerogatiue promised him in the same wordes of receiuing the keies of the kingdome of heauen as ministerial head of the Church aboue the rest of the Apostles who receiued them with a certaine kind of subjection to Peter the Fathers in like sort euen as confidently testifie And first this is affirmed by S. Ciprian in these words i Ciprian epist 73. To Peter first of al vpon whom our Sauiour built his Church and from whom he instituted and shewed the beginning of vnity did he giue this power that that should be loosed in the heauens which he had loosed on earth k Hill in Math. 16. S. Hillarie in like sort crieth out O blessed porter of heauen vnto whose wil and arbitriment the keies of the eternal entry are deliuered Lastly l Chrisostome homil 55. in Mathaeum S. Iohn Chrisostome and m Gregor

in prefat li. de psichopamichia Calu. īstrust or cōtr libert ca. 11. et 22. Articles of the familie of loue prīted Lōdon an 1579. he himselfe by his owne wordes in the places cited seemeth to haue embraced it to no other end Caluin likewise insinuateth that this opinion pleased diuers good men of his sect vpon the same motiue And hence proceed both the Libertines who as Caluin reporteth deny altogether the immortallity of the soule deride the hope of resurrection also the Familists who make the soules of al mortal those of their owne sect only exempted But what difference is there betweene Luthers opinion and that of the Libertines certainlie very litle and in this matter I wil admit Caluin for a judge Caluin in Psichopamichia pa. 536. who discourseth thus They who confesse the soule doth liue and together bereaue it of al sense doe truly faine a soule which hath nothing of a soule or pul the soule it selfe from it selfe seing that the nature of it without which it can by no meanes haue being is to moue to feele to be quicke and to vnderstand and as Tertullian saith the life or soule of the soule is sense hitherto Caluin who trulie saith that Luthers sleeping of the soule doth impugne and ouerthrowe the very nature of the soule But let vs moreouer behold Luthers owne words in which be may he thought in plaine tearms to denie the immortallity of the soule Luth. tom 2. operā impres Wittenbergae an 1546. in assert art 27. I permit neuertheles saith he that the Pope make articles of his faith and to those that are his faithful such as are bread and wine to be transubstantiated in the sacrament the essence of God neither to beget nor to be begotten the soule to be a substantial forme of the bodie of man himselfe to be the Emperour of the world and the king of heauen and an earthlie God the soule to be immortal and al those infinite monsters contained in the Romane dunghil of decrees that like as his faith is such his gospel be and such his faithful thus Luther And these vvordes I haue translated vvord for vvord as they are found in his booke here cited in the margent and although none of his scholers in their publike writings that I haue seene absolutelie and plainelie make the soule of man mortal yet that this doctrine is thought true by diuers of their company it is auouched by Brentius who himselfe being a famous Lutheran of this point writeth thus Brentius ad c. 10. Lucae Although there be no publike profession among vs that the soule doth die together with the bodie and that there is no resurrection of the dead yet that most impure and most vaine life which the greatest part of men doth lead plainly sheweth that they doe not thinke there is any life after this such wordes also are let fal by some aswel by those that are drunck among their pots as by those that are sober in familiar conferences thus Brentius Hither also tendeth the doctrine of Illiricus and his followers commonlie called Substantialistes or Flaccians concerning original sinne For they affirme this sinne to be the very substance of man and say that the said substance and soule of man by the fal of Adam was transformed changed and corrupted This diuers sentences gathered out of the workes of the same Illiricus by Conradus Schlusselburge himselfe a Lutheran manifestlie declare of which some are as followeth * Conradus Schussels in catalago haereticorum lib 2. pa. 207. ex lib. Illirici de occas vitand errorem c. The Diuel transformed mentem et rationem the mind or soule and the reason into another forme The Diuel turned vp-side downe the very essential forme it selfe of the soule tooke away the first essential forme most good and put another in place of it most bad Death by sinne changed the substance of man man lost his essential forme c. These and other such like assertions I say tend to the ouerthrow of our beliefe concerning the immortallity of the soule because if these be true it must needes followe that the soule of man is corruptible and consequently of it selfe mortal Beza epist 5. pag. 55. Hence Beza against this Protestant writeth thus That Ismael Illiricus hath published a booke of original sinne a booke not only foolish and ridiculous but also execrable to wit which manifestly laieth the foundation of the doctrine of the mortallity of the soule For if the essence of the soule can be corrupted as is auouched by Illiricus truly it may die and perish and who can indure this assertion thus Beza Nowe if that be true which M. Field auerreth shal be justified against the proudest Papist of vs al that none of the differences betweene Melancton and Illiricus except about certaine ceremonies were real if Beza doth not wrong Illiricus we may also censure Melancton to be guilty of the same crime But I think M. Field wil hardly be so good as his word And like as this hidden and secret denial of the immortallity of the soule is plainly by him confessed to raigne in their sinagogues so a man out of their principles proceedings and behauiour may likewise gather the same secret denial of the being of God and of his diuine prouidence of which before But what say these sectaries touching heauen hel Luther verily writeth thus Luther ad ca. 9. Ionae What hel is before the last day of judgment I doe not yet certainly know for I esteeme it as nothing or false that there is a certaine place in which the soules of the damned nowe are as the painters expresse and those which serue their bellie preach The deuils are not in hel Againe Idem ad cap. 25. Genes The Papists say the first place of hel is that of the damned which is a punishment of euerlasting fire but whether the soules of the wicked are punished presently after death I cannot affirme It appeareth that they sleepe and rest but I affirme nothing He addeth in another place that the hel in which the rich mans soule was buried Luke 16. was nothing els Idem in serm in Euangel de Diuite et Lazaro but a remorse of the conscience it selfe which remorse wanteth faith and the word of God in which conscience the soule is kept buried and shut vp vntil the last day after which man both in body and soule shal be cast head-long downe into the places of hel In like sort he auerreth the bosome of Abraham or heauen before the day of judgment to be nothing else but the word of God in which saith he the faithful rest sleep are kept vntil that time Caluin expounding the word Topheth which is read in the thirtith chapter of Isaias Caluin in Isa 30. vers 33. hath this discourse By Topheth without doubt be vnderstandeth hel not that we ought to dreame of any place in which the

wicked are included but be signifieth their miserable condition and extreame tortures and torments for the Papists so he tearmeth the schoole Diuines are foolish and ridiculous who subtillie dispute of the nature and quality of that fire and in explicating it diuersly vex themselues These grosse imaginations are to be hissed out seing that we vnderstand the Prophet to speake figuratiuelie hitherto are Caluins words And thus we see that Luther denieth any soules to be in hel or heauen before the day of judgment and that Caluin denieth both the place and fire of hel but of this point enough SECNION THE THIRD Of our aduersaries impious assertions concerning Christ and Christian religion I Come nowe to the third principal ground to wit the truth of Christian religion And first I affirme that generally al the sectaries of our time weaken this ground by that their common principle by which they auouch the holy scripture to be the only rule of faith among Christians for hence principally proceede Anabaptisme Zauchius in his epistle before his cōfes Beza volumi ne 3. 190. et 255. Hipor Method p. 5. Bez. l. de beret a ciuili magistr puniēd see hī also in ep theolo 81. p. 334. Libertinisme Arianisme Samosatenisme Marcionisme Eutichionisme Nestorianisme which as Zauchius a Protestant reporteth haue beene fetched out of hel by the ministers of Sathan in some of the reformed Churches Yea Beza himselfe confesseth that most foule and impudent errors of auncient Archeretiks being renued and polished are in these our daies by fanatical men recalled from Hel. Vpon this ground they build who reject the wordes Trinity Consubstantial and the like vvithout which as Beza confesseth the truth of the highest misteries of Christian religion cannot be explicated nor the aforesaid heresies soundly confuted And to discourse of these matters a litle more in particuler haue not diuers newe Sectaries in plaine tearmes oppugned the truth of Christianity It cannot be denied And to omit that which is credibly reported of Bucer Posseuinus in biblio selecta part 1. l. 8. c 8. that dying he professed the Messias vvas not yet borne I wil onlie report thinges knowne to the whole world And first what shal we say of Franciscus Dauid a Ederus ibid. c. 16. Frācis Daui ī Thess 69. Posseui ib. c. 14. et 16. who of a Catholik became first a Lutheran afterwardes a Caluinist lastly a publike denier of the blessed Trinitie made Christ a pure man willed al to burie the Gospel and to returne to Moises the lawe and circumcision affirmed that the truth of the wordes of Christ and the Apostles was to be tried by the lawe of Moises and by other books of the Prophets of that lawe which only said he b In dispu Albana Act. 3. di ei In defensi negotij de non inuocād Christo fol. 21. ought to be vnto vs the rule of manners life and diuine worshippe The same man being wished by some of his friends at the least to confes Christ to be our Sauiour answered What shal I confesse him a Sauiour who could not doe so much as saue himselfe Neither did this blasphemie die vvith the author for his c Cōfutat indicij Polonicarū Eccles disciples succeeding him mette as Iewes on the saturdaies and rejecting the Gospels read the prophecies of the old Testament The diuinity of Christ was likewise denied before by d Seruet lib. 1. de trinitat fol. 7. et 47. Michael Seruetus first also a Lutheran then as some say a Caluinist and at the same time and afterwards by e Georg. Blādrata in disp Albana act diei 6. Ochimus in dial 2. de trinit● Sōmer aduersus Petrū Carolū l. 1. c. 4. de filio c. Aelianus li. Germ. Math. Ia. Georgius Blandrata Lelius Sozinus Bernardinus Ochinus Ioannes Sommerius Nathaniel Elianus Christianus Francus and other such like blaspheamous companions who were professors of the newe religion vnto whome I also adde the f Articles of the family of loue art 24. brethren of the familie of loue But a farre greater number of the new gospellers denied Christ to be equal and consubstantial to his Father the captaine of whom was g Valēt Gentil in protessibus Calu. aduers Gentil Beza in prefat ad dictūli Caluini Valentinus Gentilis a disciple of Caluin whom followed Matheus Gribaldus Franciscus Lismanius and an infinite number of others especiallie in Polonia yea some and that not without cause joine vnto these Melancton and Caluin himselfe of whom h Melāct in locis an 1535. Wittēb et Basil an 1541. the first affirmeth something of the diuinè nature or some diuine nature to be in Christ and auerred him according to his deity to haue been made inferior to his Father The i See Calu. ad c. 14. Gen. in Harmo Euang. ad c. 22. Mat. v. 44. et ad c. 26. Mat. v. 64. Lib. aduers Valēt Gētil refut 10. ep 2. ad Polonos c. second affirmed also this last and besides made Christ a Priest according to his diuinity placed him in the second or next degree to his Father as his vicar auouched the the name of God by excellency only to pertaine to the Father him only and properly to be the creator of heauen and earth made the Sonne subject to his Father and inferiour to him according to his diuinity Stancarus contra Caluī K. 4. see him also li. de trinitat c. And al this is justified by Stancarus himselfe a Protestant who vnto Caluin writeth thus What diuel O Caluin hath seduced thee to speake with Arius against the Sonne of God that thou mightest shewe him to be depriued of his glorie and nowe to aske to haue it giuen him as though he had not alwaies had it That Antechrist of the North whom thou doest impudently adore Melanchton the Gramarian hath done this And he concludeth Be ware O Christian reader and especially al you ministers beware of the bookes of Caluin and principally in the articles of the Trinity Incarnation Mediator the Sacrament of baptisme and predestination for they containe wicked doctrine and Arian blasphemies insomuch as the spirit or soule of Seruetus burnt according to the Platonist may seeme to haue entred into Caluin Againe Al the Churches Stancarus de trinitat K. 8. See Simlerus in praefat lib. de aeterno dei verbo which those men cal reformed by the Gospel and the Sonne of God and hold the faith of Geneua and Zurick concerning Christ are Arian neither can this be denied which I haue aboue demonstrated thus Stancarus Ioannes Modestus another Protestant wrote a book in the German tongue vvith this title A demonstration out of the holy scriptures that the Sacramentaries are no Christians but baptized Iewes and Turks Tubingae anno 1587. in quarto About the same time another booke was published by Phillipus Nicholaus a minister with this title A detection of the ground of the

Caluinian sect common with the auncient Arians and Nestorians in which is demonstrated that no Christian can joine himselfe to the Caluinists except be together vndertake the defence of Arianisme and Nestorianisme Ioān Schuts in l. 50. causa rū causa 48. Cōrad Schlus selb in prefa theolo Caluinist impsess Francof an 1592. and 1594. Ibid. l. 1. art 2. fo 9. et 10. Fol. 9. Tubingae anno 1586. A fourth calleth Mahometisme or Turcisme Arianisme and Caluinisme three brothers and sisters three paire of hose of the same cloth A fift man more famous for learning then al the rest and in dignity a Superintendent who as he protesteth had read ouer ouer the Sacramentaries works in the feare of the Lord for the space of three and twenty yeares auoucheth that the Caluinists doe nourish Arian and Turkish impiety in their hearts which doth not seldome at fit times openly disclose it selfe And that the Caluinists doe open the window and dore to Arianisme and Mahometisme as saith he our diuines by their publike bookes haue shewed And this he proueth by the example and testimonie of one Adamus Neuserus a minister who of an Arian became a Turke and wrote a letter from Constantinople to one of his acquaintance in Germany anno 1574. Iulij 2. In which he vsed these wordes No man that I haue knowne in these our daies became an Arian which was not before a Caluinist Seruetus Blandrata Alciatus Franciscus Dauid Gentilis Gribaldus Siluanus and others Wherefore he that feareth lest that he falinto Arianisme let him beware of Caluinisme thus he Grawerus a sixt Lutheran being a writer of these our daies in the preface to his book by him called The absurd the most absurd of absurd Caluinistical absurdities c. pronounceth the like censure against Caluin and his schollers For hauing discoursed of this matter at the length he vseth these wordes to his aduersarie Grawer praefat Apologet. ī Absurda absurdorū absur dissima c. printed anno 1605. § quar ta Spongia Goe thy waies now and say that Arians come not forth of the Caluinists schoole And for proofe of this he also reporteth the same example of Adamus Neuserus which also saith he Adam Neuserus in time past a Caluinist and a diuine of Heidelberge confessed that he knewe not one in his time made an Arian who was not first a Caluinist as Franciscus Dauid Blandrata Siluanus Gribaldus and others A seauēth man as greatly renouned for learning as any already named discouereth another foundation of Arianisme or rather of Iudaisme his book is intituled as followeth Caluinus Iadaizans Caluin Iudaizing or playing the Iewe that is saith he the Iewish glosses and deprauations by which Iohn Caluin hath not abhorred after a detestable manner to corrupt the most famous or excellent places and testimonies of holy scripture concerning the glorious Trinity the deity or godhead of Christ and the holy Ghost but especially the prophecies af the Prophets of the comming of the Messias his natiuity passion resurrection See h●● also in praefat tractat de trinit ascention into heauen and his sitting at the right hand of God There is also added a confutation of the deprauations by Eugidius Hunnius doctor of diuinity and professor in the vniuersity of Wittenberg Wittenbergae anno 1593. and againe 1604. In his epistle dedicatorie he accuseth Caluin that by his foule deprauations he hath wrested the scriptures horribly from their true sense another way to the ouerthrowe of himselfe and others And he addeth To make this more fullie knowne I wil adjoyne diuers testimonies which that Caluin by his wilie deceits hath weakned and made vnprofitable to represse the Iewish perfidie and the Arian infidelity I thinke it good also saith he to adde moreouer those deprauations by which he wrappeth or couereth the most noble prophecies of the Prophets touching the Messias with Iewish corruptions and hath not only most highly despised and laughed to scorne that holy interpetations of Ecclesiastical writers both auncient and moderne But in many sentences hath not feared wickedly to mock or shift the holy explications of the Euangelists and Apostles themselues which if I doe not demonstrate to the eie especiallie when I shal come to those prophecies of the Prophets let me neuer hereafter be credited in any thing whatsoeuer hitherto are his wordes In his booke he discouereth this manner of proceeding of Caluin in his Commentaries vpon the scripture touching these places among others In the first chapter Gen. 1. vers 1. Gen. 19. v. 24. Psal 2. v. 7. alleaged by S. Paul Acts 13. v. 33. and Hebr. 1. v. 5. cap. 5. v. 5. Psal 33. alias 32. v. 6. concerning which see him also in the first booke of his Institutions chap. 13. § 15. psal 44. alias 45. v. 7. c. cited by the Apostle Hebr. 1. v. 8. psal 68. v. 19. alleaged by the same Apostle Ephes 4. v. 8. Michae 5. v. 3. see Math. 2. v. 6. Isai 6. v. 3. c. In the second chapter he reciteth his horrible Commentaries vpon these places Genesis 13. v. 15. and concerning the natiuity of the Messias Hieremy 31. v. 22. Aggeus 2. v. 8. touching S. Iohn Baptist Isai 40. v. 3. alleaged Math. 3. v. 3. Mark 1. v. 3. Luc. 1. v. 4. Iohn 1. v. 23. of Christs preaching Deutr. 18. v. 15. cited Acts the third 21. 22. Act. 7. v. 37. Isai 61. v. 1. alleaged by Christ himselfe Luc 4. v. 18. of his comming to Hierusalem Zach. 9. v. 9. cited Mat. 21. v. 5. Iohn 12. v. 15. of his Passion Gen. 3. v. 15. Zach. 13. v. 7. alleaged by Christ Mat. 26. v. 32. Mark 14. v. 27. Zach. 11. v. 12. cited by S. Mat. 27. v. 9. Isa 50. v. 5. et 6. psal 8. v. 6. see the first to the Corinthians 15. v. 27. Hebr. 2. v. 7. psal 22. alleaged by S. Math. 27. Ioh. 19. v. 23. Heb. 2. v. 12. Isa 63. v. 1. see Apocal. 19. v. 13. of Christs resurrection psal 16. v. 8. cited by S. Peter Act. 2. v. 25. Ibid. v. 10. alleaged Act. 2. v. 31. cap. 13. v. 33. Osee 13. v. 14. cited 1. Corint 5. v. 54. Hebr. 2. v. 14. touching his ascension Zachary 14. v. 4. and his sitting on the right hand psal 110. v. 1. cited diuers times by Christ and his Apostles These and other such like places Caluin as this Protestant doctor plainely sheweth hath peruerted and weakened with his blaspheamous and Iewish glosses of which places diuers were by our Sauiour c his Apostles themeselues expounded as prophecies of Christ and his religion but not so wel and litterallie if we vvil beleeue Caluin And this his abhominable fault is likewise noted by Conradus and Grawer 〈◊〉 before named Conrad in theolog Caluinist l. 2. c. 6. fol. 38. Grawerus in praefat Apol. in absurda ab surdorū c. I could adde the like discourse touching some plaine proofes of the diuinity

Luke Libr. 1. Machab cap. 6. li. 2. c. 1. et 9. item l. 1. c. 4. lib. 2. ca● impugne the authoritie of the books of the Machabees because as they say they finde in them contractiōs concerning the death of Autiochus Illustris the purgation of the temple made by Iudas Machabeus c. The like arguments they bring against the books of Tobie Iudith and others which if we admit wherefore may not some person of an Atheistical humour by the same manner of arguing deny and reject most of the Canonical books contained in the Bible As for example the booke of Genesis because in the first chapter of it vve reade Gen. 1. v. 14. that the sunne and moone by which daies nights and yeares are also there said to be distinguished were made on the fourth day vvhich seemeth to implie contradiction because if it be so that daies and nightes are diuided by these planets as it is there affirmed and we see by daily experience 2. Reg. 23 11. 1. Par. 11 13. according to the new sect Samuel 2. Chronic. 1.3 Reg. or 1. of Kings 7 15. 2. Par. 3 15. howe could there be three daies and nightes before these planets were made also the second booke of the Kinges or the first of Paralippomenon because that feeld which in the one is said to haue beene ful of lentiles in the other is said to haue beene ful of barley Moreouer the third booke of the Kinges or the second of Paralippomenon because in the first we made that the two great brazen pillers made by Salomon were of thirty eight cubits in length but in the second of Paralippomenon the length of them is said to haue beene thirty fiue cubits yea betweene the newe Tetament and the old and betweene the Euangelistes themselues in the new such contradictions in outward shew may be espied For S. Mathew telleth vs Math. 1 8.4 Reg. 8 24. cap. 11 1. et 2. ca. 12 21. cap. 14 21. that Ioram begat Ozias whereas in the fourth booke of the kings which our aduersaries cal the second it is written that Ioram was father to Ochozias Ochozias to Ioas Ioas to Amasias and Amasias not Ioram to Ozias otherwise called Azarias Luc. 3. v. 36. it is said that Arphaxad was father to Cainan and Cainan to Sale but Genesis 10. vers 34. Arphaxad is said to haue begotten Sale Mathew 1. verse 16. the father of Ioseph our blessed Ladies husband is called Iacob Luke 3.23 Mat. 10 10. Mark 6 8. Mat. 26 34. Luke 22 34. Mat. 26 74. Luke 22 60. Iohn 18 27. Marke 14 30.68 et 71. Mark 15 25. Iohn 19 14. whereas S. Luke nameth him Heli. The same Saint Mathew reporteth that our Sauiour sending his Apostles to preach forbad them to beare a rod or staffe in their hands whereas S. Mark writeth that he bad them take only a rod or staffe Our Sauiour if we beleeue S. Mathew and S. Luke told S. Peter that before the cocke did crowe he should deny him thrice and so it vvas done according to the same Euangelists and S. Iohn But S. Mark reporteth the words of our Sauiour to haue been Before the cock shal crow twice thou shalt thrice deny me and writteh that the cocke did first crowe presently after his first denial and againe after his third The same S. Mark affirmeth that Christ vvas crucified at the third howre but S. Iohn telleth vs that it was about the sixt howre before he was condemned by Pilate Mathew 27. verse 19. Ieremias the prophet is named for Zacharias Adde also that our Sauiour himselfe foretold as S. Mathew writeth that he vvas to be in the hart of the earth three daies and three nights Mat. 12 40. yet euerie man knoweth that he yeelded vp his sacred soule into the hands of his Father about three howres after noone on the friday and rose againe on the sonday morning verie earlie wherefore although we graunt that his soule was in the hart of the earth and his bodie in the graue during part of three daies yet we shal very hardlie finde out three nights Acts 9 7. Neither is S. Luke in the acts of the Apostles altogether free from this shewe of contradiction for albeit in the historie of the conuersion of S. Paul he say that the men that went in company with him to Damascus Act. 20 10. heard the voice of Christ speaking vnto him yet in another place he relateth the wordes of the same Apostle affirming that they heard it not Finally the Apostle S. Paul himselfe whose epistles our aduersaries so highly esteeme seemeth to contradict some parts of the old testament For example he affirmeth Galat. 3. vers 17. that betweene the time of a certaine promise made by God to Abraham Genes 12.13 or 22. and the lawe giuen to Moises there passed foure hundred and thirty yeares whereas it is plainely gathered out of the historie of Genesis that between the time of the said promise and the going of Iacob vvithal his family into Egipt there passed at the least one hundred and threescore of which Iacob not then borne liued about one hundred and thirty Genes 47. vers 9. vnto which if we adde foure hundred and thirty during which the children of Israel remained in Egipt as the expresse word of Exodus chap. 12. vers 40. tel vs and is insinuated Genes 15. vers 23. betweene the aforesaid promise the lawe giuen we shal finde at the least fiue hundred ninetie yeares not only foure hundred and thirty Hebr. 9 4. as S. Paul reckoneth In like sort the same Apostle in his epistle to the Hebrewes seemeth to contradict the third booke of the Kinges vvhich our aduersaries cal the first and the second of Paralippomenon for he affirmeth that in the arke of the old testament was a golden pot hauing Manna the rod of Aaron that had blossomed 3. Reg. 8 9. the tables of the testament But in the books of the old testament alleaged we read that no other thing was in the arke but the tables of the Testament 2. Paral. 5. verse 10. Diuers other such like sentences in words seeming to containe contradictions may be found in these and other bookes of holie scripture which as I haue said may moue Atheists vvith as great reason to impugne the authority of the said bookes as our aduersaries doe by the like arguments the books of Tobie Iudith the Machabees and other by vs receiued and by them rejected Perhaps they wil answere that the seeming cōtradictions which I haue assigned are in very deed no contradictions and that the places in appearance contrarie may verie vvel be reconciled I replie and confesse that in verie truth so it is for al those places by our interpreters are verie wel saued from contrariety and contradiction And it is manifest that the same holy Ghost vvho inspired al the writers of holy scripture cannot contradict himselfe and these

deuised by the said author or done by the power of the deuil or by some natural causes wherfore may not then Atheists say that either it is a fable that e Iohn 11. Act. 9. Math. 9. v. 20. c. Christ raised Lazarus others or S. Peter Tabitha or that our sauiour cast out deuils or that a woman was healed of an issue of bloud by touching the hem of his garmēt or else that these things were done as the Iewes said by the power of Belzebub prīce of the deuils or by the application of some natural causes Surely he wil haue as litle regard of scriptures as they haue of the works of Sulpitius Seuerus and therefore if they grant it of the miracles of S. Martin and others he wil affirme it of al the rest although mentioned in the said scriptures In like sort f August lib. 22. de ciuit cap. 8. S. Augustine in his books de ciuitate Dei which no man wil denie to be of as great authoritie as any other of his vvorks g Sermo de diuersis 31. 32. 33. epist 103. and else where relateth diuers miracles vvrought by the reliques of S. Steeuen the first Martir as that by touching them a blinde vvoman receaued her sight that a Bishop by carying them in procession was cured of a fistula and that two by praying in the place where they were reserued were cured of a palsie And both S. Ambrose and S. Augustine doe the like Ambr. serm 5. de Sāct et l. 7 ep 53. 54. eau Romanae Aug. l. 9. confess c. et l. 22. de ciu c. 8 c. Lib. 4. or 2. Reg. cap. 13. Act. 19. v. 12. concerning the reliques of S. Geruasius and Protasius martirs as that a blind man was cured by touching of the beire or coffin wheron the reliques were caried vvhich miracles with the same answere are rejected by our aduersaries But who seeth not that an Atheist may with the like reason reject the miracle which was done by the reliques or dead body of Elisaeus by the touching of which as we reade in the bookes of the Kinges a dead man was raised to life and others wrought by napkins and handkerchers which had touched the body of S. Paul which are said to haue done miracles in the acts of Apostles The like discourse might be made concerning the cure of Naaman Sirus by washing himselfe seauen times in the riuer of Iordan at the commandment of Elizeus the prophet 4. Reg. 6. the said Prophets making of the iron of an hatchet to swimme vpon the vvater of the said riuer and diuers other miracles recorded both by holy writ the monuments of ecclesiastical writers of al ages against al which our aduersaries offer an occasion to Atheists to pronounce the selfe same censure Moreouer whereas the apparitions of soules departed according to the judgement of al the learned both auncient and moderne yeeldeth a most strong proofe of our soules immortallitie these Sectaries deny that euer there haue beene any such apparitions and consequently seeke to bereaue vs of this important argumēt their words are so plaine that this cannot be denied Luther himselfe writeth thus Luth. in explicat Euangelij de Diuite et Lazaro Idem in Euā dominicae 24. a Trinitate No mans soule euer since the beginning of the world hath appeared for neither doth God permit it Againe There is no doubt but it is wholy the Deuils worke or doing Quic quid vspiam est spirituum apparentium whatsoeuer is any where of soules or spirits appearing Zuinglius is of the same mind for these words he hath in his answere to one Valentinus a zuing resp ad Valentinū comparem Those things which thou babblest of the apparitions of soules are vaine and idle for the soules which are seperated from their bodies are in heauen or in hel Those which dwel in heauen neuer come downe those which are in hel cannot be deliuered the like hath b Bullīger decad 4. ser 10. Bullinger and others Finally their denial of freewil the merit of good works doe weaken the proofe of the immortallity of the soule the doctrine of the Apostle that god is a rewarder of our actions consequētly of the proofe also of heauen hel as euery man wil confes therefore I cōclude the whole discourse of this chapter that these Sectaries Church is a seminarie of Atheisme and that by their doctrine they shake and euen ouerthrowe the verie groundes of al religion vvhich their assertions being supposed as true they can neither proue nor defend against Atheists and enemies of Christianitie Chapter 2. The newe Sectaries debase the true Christian faith and in place of it extol a presumptuous faith by themselues inuented OVR aduersaries doe not only as I haue nowe shewed ouerthrowe or at the least weaken the principal grounds of al religion but also in some sort destroy the verie nature of faith it selfe by which we first come to a supernatural knowledge of God Chap. 5. For wheras in the first part of this treatise I haue proued that faith which concurreth to our justification and saluation and is the ground of religion and the foundation of spiritual life in this world to be a vertue infused by God into our vnderstanding by the helpe and force of which we giue a most firme assent vnto al those thinges vvhich are reuealed by God to his Church because they are so reuealed the followers of the newe religion I thinke partlie because as I haue noted in the chapter next before they haue weakned the authority of miracles which is the principal supernatural proofe of such misteries debase and as it were despise this faith and in place of it magnifie a newe inuention of man a Chimerical kinde of faith ful of presumption which hath neither ground in holy scripture nor in any approued author but is repugnant both to the vvord of God and the authoritie of al antiquity For they distinguish two especial kindes of faith the one say they is historical See Caluī Institut booke 3 § 9. 10. Calu. l. 3. Instit c. 2. § 7. by vvhich we beleeue the blessed Trinity the incarnation passion death resurrection and ascention of Christ and other articles of the Creed the other is a justifying faith vvhich Caluin defineth to be a stedfast and assured knowledg of Gods kindnesse or beneuolence towards vs which being grounded vpon the truth of the free promise in Christ is both reuealed to our minds sealed in our harts by the holy ghost Caluī ibid. § 16. see Luth. ī serm domī 2. quadrages In explicating this more at large the same Caluin affirmeth that there is none truly faithful but he who being perswaded with a sound assurednes that God is his merciful and louing father doth promise himselfe al things vpon trust of Gods goodnesse but he who leaning vpon the assurednesse of his owne saluation doth

of errour in al and consequentlie taketh from her al infallible authority and maketh her a fallible and vncertaine ground Chapter 4. They reject al particuler groundes of faith aboue assigned and proued to be found in the Church of Christ besides the holie Scriptures LET vs now descend to the particuler groundes of faith which we haue aboue proued to be found in the Church of Christ And although our aduersaries denial of the infallible authority of the Church and her assistance by the holy ghost on which the certainty of al such particuler groūds dependeth as I haue shewed before be a sufficient proofe not onlie that they reject them but also that according to their doctrine they haue no infallible meane to know what articles haue beene by God reuealed to his Church yet let vs declare the matter more in particuler and at large But concerning vnwritten traditions the decrees of the Pope the doctrine of the Romane Church yea of the whole Church of Christ I need say nothing because they al with one consent and voice exclaime against these groundes as superstitious friuolous and of no moment The difficulty therefore is onlie concerning holie Scriptures general and prouincial Councels and the vniforme consent of Fathers of vvhich the first is challendged by them al the other two by some of them only I wil beginne with the two last And concerning general Councels a Luther lib. de Concilijs Luther doth not only reprehend the first councel held by the Apostles at Hierusalem of which we read in the b Act. 15. acts of the Apostles and affirme that the decrees thereof bound no man in conscience but also calleth the Fathers which afterwards assembled themselues in Councels sicophants and flatterers of the Pope In particuler he calleth the Canons of the first general Councel of Nice celebrated in the daies of Constantine the great Emperour whom our c Barlow in his relatiō of the conferēce held at Hāpt Court p. 69. King by no meanes wil haue appreached of Poperie bay straw wood stuble and demandeth whether the holy Ghost hath nothing else to doe in Councels but to binde and burden his ministers with impossible daungerous and vnnecessarie lawes such according to him were decreed in that Councel I think he meaneth concerning the chaste and single life of Bishops and ministers The like censure he pronounceth against al other general Councels and concludeth his discourse in that place that more light is brought to Christian doctrine by that Catechisme which children learne then by al the Councels In another place he addeth that d Luth. in prologo li. contra statuta Ecclesiae he wil not haue his doctrine judged by any neither by Bishops nor by al the Angels but that be wil by his doctrine judge the Angels Caluin giueth leaue to euerie priuate man to examine the decrees of Councels by the exact rule of holie scripture e Caluin book 4. Instit cap. 9. § 8. 11. see also § 9. Let no names saith he or authorities of Councels Pastours Bishops hinder vs but that we may examine the spirits of al men by the rule of the word of God He likewise calleth the Fathers of the first general Councel of Nice f Idem lib. de vera ecclesiae reformatione opuscul pag. 480. see him also booke 4. of his Instit chap. 9. § 10. Phanatices that is men phanatical or deluded by the devil g Bez. in praefat noui test anno 1565. Beza telleth vs that in the best times such was partlie the ambition of Bishops partlie their foolishnes and ignorance that the verie blinde may perceiue sathan verilie to haue beene President of their assemblies the like censure is pronounced by Musculus h Vrbā Regi 1. part operū de eccl fo 51. Vrbanus Regius and others The ministers of the church of Scotland in the confession of their faith write thus i Cōfess of the faith of Scotl. prīt at the ēd of the harm of cōfess p. 19. See the said Harmonie of cōfessiōs sect 1. pag. 14. Without just examinatin we doe not receiue whatsoeuer is obtruded vnto men vnder the name of a general Councel for plaine it is that as the men assembled were men so haue some of them manifestlie erred and that in matters of great weight importance So farre then as the Councel proueth the determination and commandement that in giueth by the plaine word of God so soone doe we reuerence and embraces the same hitherto the confession of Scotland Out of which their vvordes as also out of the like assertions of others I gather that our aduersaries commonlie giue no more creditte to general Councels and consequently to the whole church of Christ which they represent then is to be giuen to the worst and meanest man liuing yea then may be giuen to the deuil himselfe For these may also be beleeued if they proue that true which they affirme by the authority of holy scripture which they al require as necessary before the decree of councel be beleeued Secondly I gather that according to their assertions we may likewise lawfully examine these their sentences or decrees whether they be according to the rule of scripture or no for they were also men subject to errour and moreouer because vve finde them not so as appeareth by that which hath beene already said we may also reject them as repugnant to the said scripture The like leaue they giue in like sort to those of their owne company yea to euerie priuate man whatsoeuer concerning al their canons and constitutions wherefore their followers or subjects are not to be reprehended according to these opinions and decrees if they examine their sentences and canons by the word of God and reject them if in their conscience according to their owne judgement they finde them not conformable to the same But what an absurd thing is it that a fewe ministers should presume to pronounce so seuere a censure against such auncient venerable and learned assemblies highly of esteemed by al true Christians in al ages euen since the beginning of Christianity whence wil they haue these errours to haue proceeded Certainly they must needs attribute them either to ignorance or malice of the Bishops and Prelates assembled But are they either for number learning or piety to be compared with them They are not without doubt as wil easily appeare vnto any learned man that shal with any difference read the Ecclesiastical histories and viewe the vvorkes of both sides Neither haue ministers being combred for the most part with wiues children and such other impediments that opportunity of giuing themselues to studie and deuotion as the auncient Bishops had who liued a chast and single life and gaue them selues altogether to spiritual affaires and vvere commonly verie holy men Wherefore seing that they also liued nearer to the Apostles daies it is verie probable yea certaine that they better vnderstood and knewe the

true sence of the word of God then these newe Sectaries doe and seing that their sanctity was so great malice could no vvaies blinde them Verilie any indifferent man if the matter were put to his censure although those ancient Fathers had enjoyed no farther warrant of the assistance of the holie Ghost then these newe Gospellers doe would rather imagine truth to be with them then with these But our aduersaries alleage for themselues that euery particuler man assembled in a general Councel may erre I answere that true it is that euery particuler man the Bishoppe of Rome being excepted is subject to errour but seing that the Popes judgement joyned vvith the assent of the vvhole Church in a general Councel is infallible and in such a case cannot be erroneous and no general Councel is of supreame force without his confirmation it followeth that the decrees of a laweful general Councel cannot be false The reason vvherefore the confirmation of al Councels dependeth so much of the Popes authority is because he is ministerial head of the Church of Christ and consequently the bodie must needs haue his assent and confirmation before the constitutions by it made be of force and certainely knowne to be free from errour and falshood Finallie our Protestants of England concerning general Councels haue decreed as followeth * Articles of faith agreed vppon in the Conuocations of the years 1562. and 1604. art 21. See Fulk vppon the Rhēs testamēt Mathew 8 14. Whitakers in his answer to Campions 4. reason in English pa. 110. Field book 4. of the church chapt 6. pag. 228. General Councels for as much as they be an assembly of men whereof al be not gouerned with the spirit and word of God may erre and sometimes haue erred euen in thinges pertaining vnto God wherefore thinges ordained by them as necessary to saluation haue neither strength nor authority vnlesse it may be declared that they be taken out of holy scriptures The like censure is pronounced by their principal diuines And M. Field telleth vs that Bishops assembled in a general Councel may interpret the scripture and by their authority suppresse al them that shal gainsay such interpretations and subject euery man that shal disobey such determinations they consent vpon to excommunication and censures of the like nature Out of which his assertion it is euident that according to the prouidence and wisedome of almighty god general Councels should not be subject to errour in such matters for otherwise men might be forced and that according to his ordinances to obey such general Councels erring and propounding false doctrine But this notwithstanding the same Field in another place concludeth Lib. 4. cap. 5. pag. 204. Luther tome 2. lib. contra regem Angliae fol. 342. that Councels may erre in matters of greatest consequence Of the testimonie of the auncient Fathers thus writeth Luther in his booke against king Henrie the eight of England In the last place Henry bringeth in for the sacrifice of the Masse the saying of the Fathers Here say I that by this my sentence is confirmed for this is it which I said that the Thomistical asses haue nothing that they can bring forth but a multitude of men and the auncient vse But I as against the sayings of the Fathers of men of Angels of deuils oppose not the auncient consent not a multitude of men but the Gospel the word of the one eternal majesty Here I stand here I sit here I remaine here I boast here I triumph here I insult ouer the sayings of men be they neuer so holy insomuch that I passe not if a thousand Augustines a thousand Tertullians did stand against me Tome 5 The like sentence he hath in his famous commentarie vpon the epistle to the Galathians his wordes are these Some wil say vnto me the Church during so many ages hath so thought and taught al the primitive Churches and doctors most holy men much greater and more learned then thou art Who art thou that darest dissent from al these and obtrude vnto vs a diuers doctrine When Sathan thus vrgeth and conspireth with flesh and reason the conscience it terrified and despaireth vnlesse constantly thou returne to thy selfe and say whether Ciprian Ambrose Augustine or Peter Paul and Iohn yea an Angel from heauen teach otherwise yet this I know for certaine that I counsaile not men humane but diuine things Againe No other doctrine ought to be deliuered or heard in the Church but the pure word of God that is the holy scripture let other doctours or hearers together their doctrine be accursed Hitherto Luther confessing as vve see the vvhole primitiue Church and al the ancient Fathers to contrarie his doctrine and yet rejecting their authority and obstinately persisting and obdurating himselfe in his heretical opinions Zuinglius to 1. ī explanat artic 64. fol. 107. The same course runneth Zuinglius who discourseth thus The Papists say who shal discusse the controuersies and dissentions which are at this present in the Church Who shal judge of them Who shal pronounce sentence I answere the word of God neither wil we allowe of any other judge They affirme we denie the Masse is a sacrifice who shal be judge of the controuersie I say the one and only word of God But presently thou beginnest to cry out the Fathers the Fathers for the Fathers haue so delivered and writ thus But I relate to thee neither fathers nor mothers but require the word by this only it ought to haue beene proued that the Masse is a sacrifice thus Zuinglius The opinion of Caluin is consonant to these Calu. in praefat Instit ad regem Galiae Item booke 3. Instit chapt 4. § 38. Al things saith he discoursing of the works of the ancient Fathers are ours to serue vs not to ouer-rule vs. Againe Those things which every foot occur in the works of the old writers or Fathers touching satisfaction moue me but litle for I see that diuers of them I wil say simply as it is almost al whose works are extant either haue erred in this matter or haue spoken ouer crabbedly and hardly Our English Protestants haue sufficiently declared their opinion touching the authority of the auncient Fathers by pronouncing so hard a censure against general Councels as we haue heard Whitak contra Sander pag. 92. Hence Whitaker one of their principal Champions vseth this discourse If you argue saith he from the testimonies of men be they neuer so learned and auncient we yeeld no more to their words in cause of religion then we perceiue to be agreeable to Scripture neither thinke your selfe to haue proued any thing though you bring against vs the whole swarme of Fathers except that which they say be justified not by the voice of men but by God himselfe this is Whitakers doctrine Whitakers in his answer to Campians 2. reason p. 70. see him also in his answer to the 6. reason pag. 159.

vvith so manie thousand lies and vntruthes set downe by Catholike authors to the view of the whole world as for example doctor * Harding in his Rejoinder to M. Iewels reply touchīg priuate masse printed anno 1566. Harding anoucheth that the number of his lies in fiue of the six and twenty articles of his replie to the said doctor Hardings answere to his Apologie In his epistle to the reader discouered by himselfe and others amounteth to a thousand and odde and also because the falshood of his said challenge being shewed by diuers learned of our side he neuer was so good as his word Humfred in vita Iuelli Hence is this complaint of doctour Humfreis Iewel hath graunted you he speaketh to the Catholikes ouer much and was to sore an enemy to himselfe that rejecting the meane by which he might more firmly easily haue vpholden his cause he spoiled himselfe the Church for what haue we to doe with the Fathers with flesh and bloud Or what doth it appertaine vnto vs what the false sinode of Bishops so he tearmeth the ancient Councels doe ordaine or decree thus much D. Humfrey Secondly it may also be alleaged that Field a late Protestant writer alloweth of diuers other rules or directions of our faith besides the holie scripture Field book 3. chap. 33. § 1. and of the Fathers in particuler he affirmeth that they reuerence and honour them much more then vve doe I answere that in very deede Field maketh a great shew of allowance of the testimonie of antiquity and may perhaps seeme to one that looketh not wel into his wordes to approue the authority of of the auncient Fathers as farre forth as any Catholike whereas in very truth there is no such thing And to make this matter manifest let vs briefly behold his rules assigned whereby as he saith we are to judge of particuler things contained within the compasse of Christian faith Field book 4. chapt 14. which are as followeth First the summary comprehension of such principal articles as are the principles whence al other things are concluded and inferred these are contained in the Creed of the Apostles Secondly al such thinges as euery Christian is bound expresly to beleeue which are rightly said to be the rule of faith Thirdly the Anologie due proportion and correspondence that one thing in this diuine knowledge hath with another Fourthly whatsoeuer books were deliuered vnto vs a written by them to whome the first and immediate reuelation of diuine truth was made Fiftly whatsoeuer haue beene deliuered by al the Saints with one consent which haue left their judgment and opinion in writing book 4. cap. 5. because saith he in another place it is not possible that they should al haue written of any thing but such as touche the very life of Christian faith generally receiued in al their times Sixtly whatsoeuer the most famous haue constantly and vniformly deliuered as a matter of faith no man contradicting though many other Ecclesiastical writers be silent and say nothing of it Seueanthly that which the most and most famous in euery age constantly deliuered as matter of faith and as receiued from them that went before them in such sort that the contradictors and gaine-saiers were in their beginnings noted for singularity noueltie and diuision Ibid. cap. 7. and afterwards in processe of time if they persisted in such contradiction charged with heresie He addeth else where that this consent of the most famous must be touching the substance of Christian faith And vnto these his three last rules I adde that vvhich he hath in the second chapter before in these vvordes Booke 4. c. 2. Though al whose writings remaine haue not written of a thing yet if al that mention it doe constantly consent in it and their consent be strengthned by vniuersal practise we dare not charge them with errour yea though their consent be not strengthned by such practise if it be concerning thinges expressed in the word of truth or by necessary and euident deduction to be demonstrated from thence we thinke that no errour can be found ill al them that speake of thinges of that nature that is of matters of substance as in the fift chapter if in euery age of the Church some be found to haue written of them But in thinges that cannot be clearly deduced from the rule of faith and word of diuine and heauenly truth we thinke it posible that al that haue written might erre and be deceiued hitherto Field And these are the rules which he prescribeth to be followed in our judgment concerning truth falshood in matters of our beleife but that none of these besides the holy scripture of which hereafter according to his owne doctrine are sufficient in al matters of faith to make an infallible or prudential ground of beleife it is easily proued And to begin with his three first how wil he proue that they be infallible how can he shewe them to be of diuine authority if the present church in al ages as he saith may erre and it be true which he affirmeth Field book 4. chapter 20. § Thus hauing Ibidem § The second kinde Caluin booke 2. Instit cap. 16 § 18. Hūn ī theseb de coloq cum pōtis ineūdo thes 54. that it is not safe in things concerning faith to rely vpon traditions are not the two first rules at the least receiued by tradition surely he confesseth it himself Further doe not some of his brethren cal the creed of the Apostles in question and make it a doubtful matter whether it were deliuered to the Church by the said Apostles or no he that knoweth not this let him reade Caluin and Hunnius Is it in like sort agreed vpon among our aduersaties what articles euery Christian is bound expresly to beleeue and which are contained in the rule of faith It is not without doubt and I verily thinke that scarse any one learned Protestant wil admit that euery point vvhich is assigned by M. Field in the fourth chapter of his third booke Moreouer how obscure is the Analogie or proportion which one thing in matters of faith hath with another and generally what man wil admit these three rules or any one of them as sufficient to make an end of al controuersies in the Church In very deede although they were al admitted by al sorts as true yet very fewe articles can be gathered out of them by such euident deduction as is able to conuince the vnderstanding of al men and consequently they are no general and sufficient directions for al points of our faith Neither are the three last rules of themselues at the least as they are deliuered by Field of any greater force or sufficiency First because Field doth not only make the present Church in al ages subject to errour for he freeth it only from damnable and pertinacious errour Field book 4. chap. 13. and book 1. c. 10.

testifie that they are from God they cary a sacred and diuine authority with them and they doe also agree in al points with the other books of god in the old testament hitherto are his words b Field booke 3. cap. 44. §. The errour Field if I doe not mistake him differeth only from others in this that whereas most of them reject al supernatural habits in our soules and attribute our beleeuing to supenatural inspiratiōs of the spirit he acknowledgeth a supernatural habit of faith which he calleth also a potential ability c Book 4. c. 13. § This judgment the light of diuine vnderstanding d Book 4. c. 8. § Thus then and the light of grace And moreouer he doth explicate himselfe a litle more in particuler then others for he distinguisheth two sorts of thinges beleeued e Book 4. c. 8. § The schoole men whereof some saith he are such as are beleeued and neuer knowne as al the matters of fact that are reported in the Scripture which we can neuer know by the immediate euidence of the things themselues but mediatly in that we knowe they are deliuered vnto vs by him that cannot lie Others are first beleeued Ibidem § Thus then and afterwards the vnderstanding being enlightned and the heart clensed they are discerned of vs to be true And he concludeth that in thinges of the first sort the formal reason of our faith or inducing vs to beleeue is the authoritie of God himselfe whome we doe most certainelie discerne to speake in the word of faith which is preached vnto vs. But in thinges of the second kinde he vvil haue the said formal reason to be the euidence of the things appearing vnto vs being enlightened by the light of grace this is the opinion of Field But in which of these two sortes of thinges he placeth the knowledge of the authority of holie Scripture I cannot so plainelie as I vvould discerne by his words this onlie I gather as certaine out of his discourse Book 4. c. 7. § Thus then first that the principal cause of our knowledge and beliefe concerning the Canonical bookes proceedeth from the habite or light of faith For this al his assertions insinuate and principally these The spirit induceth moueth and perswadeth vs to beleeue By the light of diuine vnderstanding Chapt. 13. § This judgement Chap. 7. § Thus then Chapt. 8. § Thus then Chapt. 8. Caluī book 1. of Institut chap. 7. § 4. we judge of al thinges c. Secondlie he affirmeth in plaine vvordes that besides the habit of faith or light of diuine grace are required some reasons or motiues or some reason or motiue by force whereof the spirit setleth the minde in the perswasion of the truth of thinges vvhich were formerly doubted of And this reason as we haue heard him say before in some thinges is the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto vs in others the authority of God He explicateth himselfe more plainely by these sentences of Caluin If we bring pure eies and perfect senses the majesty of God presently presenteth it selfe vnto vs in the diuine Scripture and beating downe al thoughts of contradicting or doubting of thinges so heauenly forceth vs to obey Againe After we are enlightned by the spirit we doe no longer trust either our owne judgement or the judgement of other men that the Scriptures are of God But aboue al certainty of humane judgment we most certainly resolue as if in them we saw the majesty glory of God as Moises saw in the mount that by the ministery of men they came vnto vs from Gods owne most sacred mouth Thirdlie We finde a greater light of vnderstanding shining vnto vs in this doctrine of faith then is found within the compasse of nature a * I finde not these wordes following in Caluin satisfaction touching manie thinges which humane reason could not satisfie vs in a joy and exultation of the heart such and so great as groweth not out of nature hitherto Field out of Caluin He addeth that this maketh vs assure our selues the doctrine which so affecteth vs is reuealed from God That they are the only people of God and haue the means of happinesse where this treasure of heauenly wisdome is found that these books are the richest jewel that the world posesseth and ought to be the Canon of our faith which this people deliuereth vs as receiued from them to whome these thinges were first of al made knowne and reuealed thus Field And this is the common doctrine of diuers of our Sectaries To ouerthrow this opinion I must first lay this ground To moue vs to beleeue any article of Christian religion ordinarily besides the habite of faith or some supernatural illumination of the spirit some other reasons or motiues must of necessity concurre by force of which our vnderstanding may be perswaded that the thinge propounded is credible and according to prudence may be beleeued This may be proued by authoritie of Scriptures for if no such motiues are necessary to what end did our Lord during the time of his being here on earth work such strange miracles Surely of them he saith Iohn 5 36. Iohn 10 25. Iohn 15 24. The very works themselues which I doe giue testimony of me that the Father hath sent me Againe The works that I doe in the name of my Father they giue testimony of me Finally If I had not done among them workes that no other man hath done they should not haue sinne Out of which places I may wel infer both that our Sauiour propounded his doctrine with sufficient arguments of credibility and also that if he had not so done the Iews generally had not offended God in refusing to beleeue it which is expresly affirmed by S. August tract 91. in Ioānē Augustine I adde generally because vnto the learned sort it was otherwise sufficiently proued therefore they had sinned although Christ had done no miracles yet not so grieuously This caused him likewise Mark 3 15. Luk 9 10. Mark 16. v 20. See also v. 17. 18. to giue his Apostles disciples power to doe miracles and they as S. Mark reporteth after his ascētion going forth preached euery where our Lord working withal confirming the word with signes that followed Moreouer commonly al that are said in the Gospels to haue beleeued beleeued vpon some credible motiue as the Centurion Luke 23. the Lord whose sonne was cured at Caphernaum Iohn 4. verse 46.53 and diuers others And so those wordes of S. Rom. 10.14 Paul are vnderstood Howe shal they beleeue him whom they neuer heard and howe shal they heare without a preacher that is without one both expounding the rule of faith vnto them and also propounding such reasons as are sufficient to moue them to beleeue This also al the Apostles practised as appeareth by their sermons recorded in the acts of the Apostles Nay further in the old

Testament as it is euident by holy Scriptures and granted by our * Melācht in corpo doctri Germa et in examine ordi nand cap. de definit c. Oecolampad in Isa 23 21. Aug. lib. 1. ad Simplicianū quest 2. Lib. de spirit et litt c. 34. Freder Staphil l. de cōcord disci Luther Petrus Paladius l. de heres Caluin in Inst contr Liberti c. 9. aduersaries the Prophets that were extraodinarily sent confirmed their mission by miracles and why so if not to yeeld men sufficient prudent motiues to beleeue them Hence are these vvords of S. Augustine It is commaunded that we beleeue to this that hauing receiued the gift of the holy Ghost we may be able to worke wel by loue but who can beleeue except he be touched by some vocation that is by some testification or testimony of thinges Againe A reasonable soule cannot beleeue by her freewil if there be no vocation or perswation vnto which it may beleeue hitherto Saint Augustine Finally the truth of this appeareth by the ordinarie manner of proceeding of God with mortal men vvhich is not altogether by internal illuminations as the Swencfeldians Libertines and some Anabaptists dreame but by some common and external rule and seing that according to the Apostle he requireth of vs only * Rom. 12 1. Field booke 4. chapt 7. § Thus then a reasonable obsequy seruice or obedience it can not be said that he commaundeth vs to beleeue any thing which is not propounded vnto vs and made credible by prudential motiues In this sense I take Field who telleth vs as I haue partly set downe before that three thinges concurre to make vs beleeue that whereof we are doubtful the light of diuine vnderstanding as that whereby we apprehend the things of God the spirit as the authour of this illumination and the reasons and motiues by force whereof the spirit induceth moueth and perswadeth vs. And in particular he affirmeth that it is not sufficient for Stapleton to say that he beleeueth the Church to be guided by the spirit because the spirit moueth him so to beleeue but saith it is moreouer necessary that he declare those reasons or motiues by force whereof the spirit setleth his minde in the perswasion of the truth of those thinges he formerly doubted of Some man perhaps wil object that no miracles or at the least very fewe are nowe wrought in the vvorld vvherevpon it may seeme to followe according to this discourse that Christian Catholike religion is not nowe sufficiently propounded as credible I answere that although God doth alwaies cause his true religion to be sufficiently propounded in such sort that any vvise man may prudently embrace it and beleeue it true yet as is aboue insinuated he doth not in euerie respect make it so credible as is in his power to doe and that for our greater merit humiliation And from this it proceedeth that among Christians miracles are not nowe so frequent as they were in the primatiue Church because they haue nowe not only other sufficient motiues which may perswade al men of the truth of their religion but also sufficient prudential reasons and marks by which they may discerne the true Church from al false sinagogues as I haue partly declared before and wil declare at large in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church This then being thus proued let vs behold what prudential arguments our aduersaries bring to proue the Scriptures to be canonical by force of vvhich the spirit induceth moueth and perswadeth them to beleeue them Field as I euen nowe related assigneth two motiues of our beliefe vvhich are causes of it in two distinct sorts of things the one the euidence of the things appearing vnto vs the other the authoritie of God himselfe vvhome we doe most certainly discerne to speake in the vvord of faith vvhich is preached vnto vs. Caluin seemeth to assigne the majesty of God which presenteth it selfe vnto vs in the diuine Scriptures Rogers saith The Scriptures cary a diuine and sacred authority with them and agree in al points with other bookes of the old Testament But that none of these motiues are sufficiēt to perswade a prudent man that these books are according to the rules of wisedome most certainely to be accounted diuine and canonical it is easily proued For first if they were so it vvould followe that euerie prudent man reading these books by this only according to prudence should be moued to giue euery one of them this prerogatiue but this experience among our aduersaries themselues vvho are at variance touching some books whether they be canonical or no proueth false therefore these motiues are not sufficient Field booke 4. chapt 7. § There is Moreouer No man as Field telleth vs proueth a thing doubtful by that which is as much doubted of as it selfe For this saith he is as if one taking vpon him to be a law-giuer whose authority is doubted of should first make a law and publish his proclamation and by vertue thereof giue himselfe power to make lawes his authority of making the first lawe being as much doubted of as the second Wel then this being supposed true let vs see whether the truth of al such motiues as are assigned by our aduersaries mouing them as they say to beleeue the holy scripture be not as obscure as the diuine truth of the Scripture it selfe And first this appeareth in those which are brought by Rogers for it is euen as obscure a matter and as hardly to be proued that generally al the bookes of Scripture and euery sentence of them cary an extraordinary or diuine authority with them aboue al others as it is that they are Canonical so is likewise their agreement with the books of the old testament wherefore letting them passe let vs behold whether this be not also true in such formal reasons of our faith as according to Caluin and Field moue vs to beleeue And first vvhence proceedeth that euidence vvhich Field vvil haue in some thinges beleeued to appeare vnto vs Are the articles of our faith euident in them selues this he denieth of some for Field book 4. Chapter 8. § The opinion We confesse saith he that faith may rightly be said to be a firme assent without euidence of many of the things beleeued in themselues but the medium by force whereof we are to beleeue must be euident vnto vs as Durandus doth rightly demonstrate thus Field But can he make it good that any such articles are in themselues euident vnto vs as they are the object of our faith It is plaine that most of them yea almost al considered howsoeuer haue not so much of themselues in respect of our vnderstanding as euidence and certainety of credibility that is they appeare not so certaine and credible vnto vs as a prudent man would beleeue them setting aside the medium or meane supernatural by vvhich they are propounded But if vve consider them

precisely as they are the object of our faith they al haue no other euidence then diuine reuelation as is proued before which is alwaies obscure What then is this medium or meane according to Field Is it any humane conjecture motiue or probability This cannot be according to his owne doctrine as appeareth in the same place and the chapter before Nay in another place he telleth vs Book 4. chap. 20. § Much contention that the books of Scripture winne credite of themselues and yeeld sufficient satisfaction to al men of their diuine truth and therefore he seemeth to exclude al external proofe Is it then any thing contained in the things themselues Neither can this be said for euery thing contained in the thinges themselues belonging to their essence is as obscure as the things themselues be and consequently no such thing contained in the things themselues can be such a meane to manifest themselues vnto vs. And vvhat accident he vvil assigne in the articles of our faith making them manifest vnto vs I cannot imagine Secondly I cannot see how this assertion of Field doth agree with that his common principle Field book 4. chap. 13.8 book 3. chap. 42. auouching that the Scripture is the Canon and ground of their beliefe and that they rest in the determination of the word of God as in the rule of their faith For how can this be if the euidence of the things appearing vnto vs be sometimes the formal reason of our faith as is in like sort by him auerred But to make this discourse a litle more manifest let vs demaund a question or two in particuler of M. Field and see howe he vvil resolue them according to his doctrine deliuered I aske therefore of him why he beleeueth there be three persons and one God two natures in Christ and one person and the resurrection of our bodies Wil he answere that the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto him is the formal cause of his faith or inducing him to beleeue these misteries If he doe not he contradicteth his own doctrine If he doe he contradicteth both al sense and reason and also himselfe making the Scripture the ground of faith except he affirme these misteries to be euident not in themselues but in the medium or meane by force whereof they are beleeued For which medium if he wil be constant to himselfe he must assigne the holie Scripture vvhich Scripture he must say is beleeued through the authority of God himselfe whome vve doe most certainly discerne to speake in the word of faith which is another cause of beliefe assigned by him for such thinges as we beleeue and doe not knowe so that this authority of God is the last motiue not the holy Scripture and what other processe he wil make I cannot perceiue But what doth he and Caluin vnderstand by that other reason which he tearmeth The authority of God himselfe whome we doe certainly discerne to speake in the word of faith which is preached vnto vs and Caluin The majesty of God which doth present it selfe vnto vs What is this authority and majesty of God and how doe we so certainly discerne it Verily for my part I am so farre from knowing how to discerne it as I cannot vvel imagine vvhat they meane by it yet if I be not deceiued they affirme that the authority of God or his majestie is seene in the letter of holie Scripture vvhich moueth vs by a supernatural and most infallible assent to acknowledge it to be his holy word But first this is said gratis and vvithout any ground or reason for what authority or majesty can a man discerne in such bookes as our aduersaries receiue as Canonical more then in those which they reject For example what appeareth to vs more diuine in the bookes of Ecclesiastes then in the bookes of Ecclesiasticus surely nothing much lesse so much as may be an infallible and knowne meane to moue vs to beleeue the one as diuine and to reject the other as Apocriphal Moreouer howe doe vve knowe that this representation of diuine majestie or this diuine authoritie vvhich as vve conceaue doth represent it selfe vnto vs is not either some illusion of the Deuil or some strong imagination of our owne proceeding onlie from some affection which vpon some other motiues we beare to such and such bookes of Scripture Trulie we haue great cause to feare that it may proceed from some such affection seeing that Luther and most of al his Lutherans confesse al the Sacramentaries generallie to be deceaued in such their apprehensions concerning the epistle to the Hebrewes the epistle of Saint Iames the Apocalipse of S. Iohn and other parcels of Scripture And why not concerning others as vvel as these Vnto vvhich I adde that they commonly make their doctrine a rule whereby to try which is Scripture and vvhich is not as I vvil demonstrate hereafter and appeareth by the causes assigned by Luther vvhich moued him to reject the epistle of Saint Iames. It may also be objected against this their doctrine that of it it seemeth to followe that no man can be assured of the diuine authority of any other bookes of Scripture then of those which he hath read himselfe or heard others read For first no man can possibly proue to another that in reading such and such books he did discerne in then the authority of God himselfe speaking or that the diuine majesty did in them present it selfe vnto him vvherefore vnto this that a man may judg of holy Scripture he must himselfe read or heare the words and sentences read and this he must doe before he can haue any faith For seeing that they make the Scripture the rule and ground of their beliefe the Scripture must first be knowne before they can beleeue and seeing that no one booke containeth al things necessary to be beleeued but such things are dispersed through al it is necessarie that he know the whole Canon of Scripture and consequentlie that he reade or heare it al rehearsed sentence by sentence And what a Laborinth is this how can the vnlearned that cannot reade doe it Nay how many Protestants in the world haue euer performed it Wherefore I conclude that this rule or meane how to know holy Scripture is neither easie plaine certaine nOr vniuersal Perhaps it may be thought by some that Field assigneth the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto vs in holy Scriptures as the formal cause of our beleefe concerning their authority but this cannot be both because our beleefe concerning their Canonical authority seemeth to be concerning a matter of fact to wit vvhether they vvere penned by the instinct of the holie Ghost or no as also because a great part of them rehearseth matters of fact which Field denieth to be knowne by the authority of God himselfe whome we doe certainly discerne to speake in the word of faith Field book 4. chapt 15. Adde likewise that by his confession

they are obscure which obscurity partlie as he saith ariseth through the high and excellent nature of the thinges in them contained which if we admit the thinges contained in the Scripture be no good meane for vs to come to the knowledge of Scripture And moreouer certaine it is that the euidence of thinges contained in the Scripture is no more manifest vnto vs then the Scriptures themselues and therefore for this reason also it cannot be any good Medium to proue these Canonical Field and al his fellowes to al these reasons objected against them seeme to answere that in very deede these motiues of themselues are not sufficient to perswade euerie man of the diuine truth of these bookes yet that they are fullie sufficient to perswade him that is endued with the habite of faith or hath a diuine illumination or inspiration of the spirit and commeth to reade the Scriptures vvith pure eies and perfect senses yea Caluin in his whole discourse touching the knowledge of canonical Scripture seemeth altogether to flie to diuine inspiration whence proceed these his sentences Caluin Ins●it book 1. chap. 7. § 4. and 5. The manner of perswasion touching the diuine truth of Scriptures must be fetched euen from the secret testimonie of the holy Ghost They doe disorderly that by disputation trauaile to establish the perfect credite of the Scripture The word of God shal neuer finde credit in the hearts of men vntil it be sealed vp with the inward witnesse of the holy Ghost They whom the holy Ghost hath inwardly taught doe wholie rest vpon the Scripture Though by the only majesty of it self it procureth reuerence to be giuen to it if then only it throughly pearceth our affections when it is sealed in our hearts by the holy Ghost hitherto are Caluins wordes I reply first that this taketh not away the necessity of reading or hearing read euery sentence of these diuine bookes before we can knowe them to be Canonical or discerne what we are bound to beleeue Secondly of this it followeth that before a man can discerne whether any booke be Canonical or no he must not only haue faith or a supernatural light of the holy Ghost but must also most assuredly and infallibly knowe himselfe to haue such a faith or such an illumination And how wil they make vs beleeue this and also perswade vs that the Scripture is the ground and rule of our beliefe which likewise they euen as earnestly teach can pure eies perfect senses and the light of faith be had without knoweledge of that which is the verie ground and rule of faith Must not the ground be knowne and had before vve can attaine vnto that which is built vpon the said ground If it must and the whole Canon of Scripture be the ground of our faith as they say then must the whole Canon of Scripture be infalliblie knowne before vve can haue such faith and consequently the light of faith cannot be a meane whereby we are to come to the knowledge of the said Canon of Scripture or any parcel thereof But because al Sectaries vsually both in this and other pointes seeme most to relie vpon the inspiration and illumination of the spirit by which as they say al matters are made euident vnto them and they are assured of the diuine truth of them although to others not enlightened the same matters seeme doubtful from vvhence it proceedeth that Field affirmeth themselues to rest in the light of diuine vnderstanding Field booke 4. chapt 13. § This judgement as in that whereby they judge of al things Let vs confute the certainety of this illumination or inspiration concerning such particuler pointes especially touching the knowledge of diuine Scripture a litle more at large And first thus I argue If there be such a certaine illumination or inspiration either God by this illumination or inspiration doth so teach and direct euerie man concerning euery article of faith that they cannot erre or some men only and those only touching some articles That he doth not so direct al concerning al articles it is euident and confessed by our aduersaries who acknowledg some to be Heretiks as the Anabaptists and Swencfeldians others to erre as diuers of sundry sects c. That he doth not likewise direct some concerning al points it is euident for there is no one Sectary can be named but hath erred in some point or other especially if we admit the judgment of other of his brethren to be true yea Caluin himselfe confesseth that euery man is subject to errour Calu. ī 1. Cor. 2. v. 15. See and no man is exempted from it But euery one saith he as he is regenerated according to the measure of grace giuen him doth judg truly and certainely but no further thus Caluin of the same opinion are others Lubbertus de prīcipijs christian dog p. 563. Hierō Zauchius de script pag. 411. 412. If some only be so infallibly directed those only concerning some articles first it followeth that god hath not sufficientlie prouided for the direction of men in matters of beliefe for he hath prescribed and giuen no certaine guide in al points or certaine meane to know when their direction is infallible concerning any and when it is not Of vvhich it may secondly be inferred that no man can assure himselfe that he is at any time concerning any point infallibly inspired which vncertainty is also increased not only by this that the deuil doth oftentimes as the Apostle saith transfigure himselfe into an Angel of light 2. Corinth 11. vers 14. but also by the experience of the fal and error of diuers of their owne company and that by their owne confession concerning some when they thought thēselues to be inspired by the spirit as it falleth out in the Anabaptists and diuers others Nay in al the Lutherans if we beleeue the Sacramentaries and in al the Sacramentaries if we may giue credit to the Lutherans but certainly in one side or other of these because their opinions or illuminations be opposite but we may vvel say on both because one bringeth no stronger proofe for his illumination then the other What wise man then wil or can build his faith vpon such an illumination or direction Besides this Part. 1. chap. 7. Sect. 3. I haue shewed in the first part of this treatise that no priuate person or Prelate of the Church is ordinarilie so directed by the holy Ghost that he cannot erre of vvhich it followeth that no man ordinarily hath such a diuine inspiration I adde also that God doth ordinarily proceed in the gouernment and direction of men by common rules directions not by priuate and particuler and not without cause for the first causeth charity vnity order and humility of the other springeth enmity diuision confusion and pride which reason is touched by Hooker a wise and learned Protestant Hooker book 5. of Ecclesiastical policy § 10. who rejecteth such

judgment I may adde the whole Protestant Church of England who in their sixt article agreed vpon in their conuocations of the yeares 1562. and 1604. affirme that in the name of holy Scripture they vnderstand those Canonical books of the old and newe Testament of whose authority was neuer any doubt in the Church for they seeme to make the authoritie and Tradition of the Church the meane and rule vvhereby to knowe the diuine Scriptures Field booke 4. chap. 14. Yea Field himselfe in another place telleth vs that we cannot knowe the Scriptures to be of God without the knowledge of such principal articles as are contained im the Creed of the Apostles Of vvhich it may seeme laweful to conclude against him that some other thing is necessarie besides diuine inspiration and other motiues aboue by him assigned The Lutherans of Wittenberg confesse the Church to haue authority to judge of doctrines Harmonie of confess sect 10. p. 332. Author of the treatise of the scripture and the church c. 15. p. 72. see also c. 19. p. 74. 75. Bullēger in the praeface before that booke according to that Try the spirittes whether they be of God Another Protestant in a treatise of the Scripture and the Church highly commended by Bullenger plainely telleth vs that we could not beleeue the Gospel were it not that the Church taught vs and witnessed that this doctrine vvas deliuered by the Apostle and thus much against this opinion But it may be here objected against vs that we also according to the second opinion deliuered in the first part of this treatise concerning the last resolution of our faith allowe a supernatural gift or light by the concourse and help of vvhich vve firmely assent to Christian beliefe as reuealed by God and that therefore there is no cause wherefore we should so earnestly impugne the like assertion in others I answere that there is great difference betweene vs and our aduersaries concerning this point for whereas I haue shewed that they require a particular illumination and immediate instruction from God himselfe concerning euerie particuler booke and sentence of holy Scripture yea touching the exposition of euerie sentence as I vvil declare hereafter and by no prudential groundes or arguments of credibility are ordinarilie induced to this perswasion But seing that diuers of their owne company and those of the principal thinking themselues to be inspired haue erred haue rather according to prudence just cause not to stand vpon such illuminations We assigne the the light of faith for the beliefe of a common guide and general directour and so require not a particuler instruction for the beliefe of this and that particuler matter but hauing beleeued the said general guide of it receiue infallible and diuine instructions what particulerlie is to be beleeued Neither doe vve this vvithout any prudential motiue or credible reason but induced thereunto by most strong arguments of credibility R●chardus de S. Victore l. 1. de Trinit cap. 2. insomuch as vve may wel say with Richardus de sansto Victore that If we be deceiued God hath deceiued vs. Neither are vve by this perswaded arrogantlie to followe a priuate rule which is a fountaine of dissention and contrarie to the vsual proceedings of God but humblie to submit our selues and our vnderstanding to the authority of a general guide which is a preseruatiue of vnity and according to the common courses of that heauenlie King But before I passe from this matter I must needes haue a word or two with M. Field in particuler vvho requireth more then humane inducements or motiues as reasons by force whereof we are perswaded first to beleeue Field book 4. chap. 7. 8. and seemeth to require a diuine reason or testimonie conuincing that which is beleeued to be of diuine authoritie and so to impugne the first opinion of Catholikes concerning the last resolution of faith Part 1. chap. 7. sect 6. deliuered in the first part of this treatise For vvhereas the followers of that opinion assigne humane motiues as the first inducements to our beliefe or as causes vvhy we first accept of the same and bring no other external proofe that the misteries of our faith are reuealed by God book 4. chap. 8. § The opinion he exacteth of vs a diuine proofe of this these are his words The opinion of the ordinary Papists is that the things pertaining to our faith are beleeued because God reuealeth and deliuereth them to be so as we are required to beleeue but that we know not that God hath reuealed any such thing but by humane conjecture and probabilities so weake doe they make our faith to be grounded thus Field Concerning which his imputation I must first request my reader if he be any thing moued by these his words to turne to the explication and proofe of the Catholike opinion set downe before in the first part of this treatise Chapt. 7. sect 6. because I thinke it needlesse to repeate one thing twice Secondly I cannot but wish him also to note howe diuersly Field reporteth our opinions for although he plainly here affirme that our ordinary opnion is that the articles of our faith are beleeued because God reuealeth and deliuereth them to be so yet in another place he writeth thus Our aduersaries fal into two dangerous errors the first Booke 4. c. 6. that the authority of the Church is Regula fidei et ratio credendi the rule of our faith and the reason why we beleeue The second is that the Church may make newe articles of faith And like as he himselfe in the words euen now alleaged freeth vs from the first of these dangerous errours Book 4. chap. 12. § Our aduersaries so likewise in another place he freeth vs from the second But as concerning my present purpose out of his aforesaid wordes I gather that if he wil not fal into the same fault for vvhich he blameth vs he must not only assigne such a diuine formal cause of his beliefe concerning euery point as we teach the reuelation of God to be but also adde some diuine proofe prouing this formal reason to be diuine and not only humane probabilities And vvhat such diuine proofe doth he assigne surelie none that I can finde he telleth vs in deed that in some things the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto vs Book 4. chap. 8. § thus thē and in others the authority of God discerned to speake in the word of faith is the formal cause of their faith or inducing them to beleeue But I finde no diuine proofe no not so much as a wise reason I adde moreouer not so much as a foolish reason brought neither for the one nor for the other nay he expresly telleth vs Book 4. chap. 20. § Much cōtention see also chapt 7. § Thus then Book 4. chap. 7. § Surely See hī also § There is c. that The bookes of Scripture winne credit

not only the Epistle of S. Geneuain obseruat vpon harmony of cōfess sect 1. Paul to the Hebrewes the Epistles of S. Iames and S. Iude the second of S. Peter and the second and third of S. Iohn togither with the Apocalipse whose authority as is confessed by the Doctors of Geneua by Brentius and al the Lutherans yea as it is recorded by diuers Fathers as I haue shewed before nay further as it is graunted by Thomas Rogers an English Protestant Thomas Rogers vpon the 6. Artic. Propos 4. pa. 31. See also Whitaker before cited and the disputat had in the Tower with F. Campian in the 4. daies cōferen in his discourse vpon the Articles of Religion of the yeare 1562. and before him by Whitakers and others hath beene sometimes doubtful but also certaine other parcels of Scripture by them likewise receiued as I could declare out of diuers approued Authors The Doctors of Geneua to proue the bookes named to be Canonical flie to the authority of the Church for they wil haue them admitted as such because they were receiued and acknowledged as Canonical by the consent of the whole Catholike Church although some doubt were made of them sometimes by the auncient Doctors but this according to their owne ground is to giue them no diuine authority as I haue already noted And before I end this section I cannot but adde that I vvould wish M. Rogers whome I euen now named to looke a little better into his bookes if hereafter he chaunce to publish any with such approbations as he doth pretend in the beginning of this For I cannot see but writing in defence of the sixt Article he ouerthroweth the same by graunting that which I haue alleaged him confessing To make this a little seene vnto him thus I argue In the name of the holy Scripture we doe vnderstand those Canonical bookes of the old and new Testament of whose authority was neuer doubt in the Church These are the wordes of the Article Page 26. but of some bookes of the new Testament there hath beene doubt in the Church as appeareth by those M. Rogers wordes Some of the auncient Fathers and Doctors accepted not al the bookes Pag. 31. propos 4. contained within the volume of the new Testament for Canonical therefore al the bookes contained in the volume of the new Testament are not vnderstood in the name of holy Scripture This conclusion necessarily followeth of the premisses graunted as euery man seeth and yet is directly contrary to the last wordes of the same Article Page 26. Pag. 31. propos 4. in which they professe themselues to receiue and account as Canonical al the bookes of the new Testament as Rogers himselfe affirmeth SECTION THE THIRD The same is proued because euery Christian is bound to admit and beleeue certaine propositions neither expresly contained nor according to some mens judgements so euidently gathered out of the holy Scripture SECONDLY it is apparant that the bare letter of holy Scripture and conclusions out of it manifestly deduced by euery priuate man setting a side the authority of the Church as aboue are not a sufficient ground or rule of Christian beliefe and religion because euery true Christian is bound to admit and beleeue certaine propositions concerning the misteries and articles of our faith which are not expresly contained in the letter nor as some of them thinke so euidently deduced out of the same especially if we allow of our aduersaries Commentaries The first is easily proued for where doe we finde in the vvhole Bible the wordes Trinity person and consubstantial and yet most of the Professors of the new religion vvil not denie but that euery Christian vnder paine of damnation is bound to beleeue and admit in expresse tearmes these propositions following There is a Trinity there be three persons in the blessed Trinity the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost are consubstantial the one to the other and such like yea Beza himselfe confesseth that without the vse of these wordes Beza lib. de hereticis a ciuili magistratu puniendis pag. 51. also in Ep. Theol. 81. pag. 334. 335. See part 1. chap. 9. the truth of those misteries cannot be explicated nor the deniers of them confuted And it is manifest that whosoeuer rejecteth these wordes doth open the gappe to Iudaisme Arianisme and Turcisme But some of them flie to deduction out of Scriptures and answere that although the wordes are not expresly found in the Bible yet that the misteries themselues are expresly in it contained and deliuered and conseqnently that the wordes aptly signifying the said misteries and deduced out of the word of God it selfe may very wel and conueniently be vsed I reply that this is not sufficient for euery priuate mans deduction is subject to errour except it be by an infallible argument and euery proposition be most euidently true in that sense in which it is alleaged wherefore such deductions as our aduersaries commonly vse make no articles of faith Secondly the collections themselues of these high misteries by reason of the obscurity and diuersity of senses of the holy Scripture are not seldome obscure and therefore those collections vvhich to some seeme euident by others are judged false Hence the collection of those very misteries which I haue named by diuers of our aduersaries is denied as by Valentinus Gentilis and his followers a Valent. Gentilis in cōfess apud Caluin pag. 930. in Prothes Pastor Bremēsis in hist. Valēt Gentil who affirme the three persons to haue three distinct natures or essences and the Father to haue beene before the Sonne and the Sonne before the holy Ghost Who make also the one inferiour to the other c. The same collection is likewise denied by Seruetus and his disciples b Seruetus li. de erroribus Trinitatis who acknowledged no distinction of persons in God made Christ a pure man and denied him to haue beene before his incarnation Finally by Georgius Blandrata Paulus Alciatus and other Schollers of these men who c Greg. Paul apud Hosium in judicio cēsura de adoranda Trinitate See Hooker booke 5. of eccles policy §. 42. affirmed that Luther beganne to pul downe the roofe they raised the foundations of Popery who condemned al the auncient Councels and Fathers reuerenced by al Christians of d Beza epist Theolog. 81. tritheisme or making of three Gods tearmed S. Athanasius Sathanasius auouched the blessed Trinity vvhich most blasphemously they called Cerberus and the tripartited God to be an inuention of his and called the Fathers of the first Nicene Councel blinde Sophists Ministers of the Beast slaues of Antechrist bewitched with his illusions c. yea some of these newe sectaries vvent so farre in this matter that they forsooke Christ altogither and became Turkes among vvhome were e Simlerus in praefat lib. de aeterno Dei filio Gregor Paulus lib. de Trinitat Volanus in

parauesi ex epist. Blandratae in cōfut judicij Polonicarum ecclesiarū Of Neuser this is testified by C●nr Schluss in Catal. haeret lib. 11. de Seruetianis Bernardinus Ochinus Alamannus Georgius Blandrata Adamus Neuserus Iohannes Siluanus Gregorius Paulus and Andreas Volanus al Ministers of great name and fame Franciscus Dauid denied Christ and willed al men to returne to the law of Moises and circumcision and so to become Iewes And doe not al the newe sectaries by their common doctrine offer an occasion of al these blasphemies and apostasies Surely they doe both by leauing no euident certaine and sufficient rule by vvhich such men may be confuted and attributing ouer much to the sufficiency of the bare letter of holy Scripture and also by rejecting certaine wordes and propositions of ours as manifestly gathered out of the holy Scripture as the wordes Trinity person and consubstantial and the propositions by them declared For out of these groundes some of the preciser sort of them argue that we ought not to admit into our beliefe or vse in the explication of out faith any wordes not contained and expressed in the word of God For say they the Scripture being so sufficient vvherefore should vve vse any vvordes inuented by man what neede haue we of any strange deductions or any other thing If these wordes be admitted we may euen aswel admit the word transubstantiation other new inuentions of the Papists c. thus the preciser sort and the enemies of the blessed Trinity dispute And to discourse a little more at large of the word transubstantiation Aske an English Protestant what reason he hath to reject it He wil answere both because it is not found in the Scripture and also because the thing by it signified to wit the changing of bread and wine into the body and bloud Of Christ is not collected out of the same Demand likewise of an Arian vvhy he admitteth not the vvord consubstantial He wil answere because neither the vvord it selfe is vsed in holy writ nor the thing signified thereby to vvit that the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost are of the same substance truly gathered out of the same Behold the answere of both is one and certainely the reason yeelded serueth both alike for like as the vvord transubstantiation so the word consubstantial is not found in the Scripture but both these vvordes haue beene appropriated by the Church to signifie more distinctly and plainely misteries expressed truly in the word of God but not so plainely vvherefore if one of them be rejected the other cannot be receiued They say that the thing signified by the word transubstantiation is not in expresse tearmes to be found in the Scripture I reply that like as the real presence by the confession of their owne bretheren the Lutherans is so plainely deliuered vnto vs by the Euangelists that it cannot be denied which neuerthelesse by them is vtterly rejected so likewise is transubstantiation And like as if we admit of their translations and interpretations of holy Scripture neither the real presence nor transubstantiation is out of them gathered so in like sort neither is the mistery signified by the vvord consubstantial gathered out of the said Scripture if vve admit the translations and interpretations of the Arians Yea I dare boldly affirme that if vve allowe but of Caluins Commentaries vpon the Scriptures which some of our a Hooker in the preface to his booke of eccles pollicy pag. 9. Couel in his defence of Hooker English Protestants so highly esteeme that neither of these misteries are expresly contained in the word of God For like as vvith our Sacramentaries he expoundeth it against the real presence so vvith the Arians he expoundeth it against the diuinity of Christ Part. 2. chap. 1. sect 3. And this as I haue noted before is very vvel declared by diuers Protestants especially by Aegidius Hunnius in a booke vvhich he set forth with this title Caluin playing the Iewe that is to say the Iewish glosses and corruptions by vvhich Iohn Caluin abhorred not after a detestable manner to corrupt the most noble and famous places of holy Scripture and testimonies of the glorious Trinity the Deity of Christ and the holy Ghost c. printed at Wittenberge anno 1593. Also by Conradus Schlussenbergius in his second booke of the diuinity of the Caluinists and diuers others But if vve reject al heretical interpretations both these misteries are expresly contained in the Scripture and therefore our aduersaries haue no more reason to refuse the vvord transubstantiation then they haue to refuse the vvord consubstantial and by rejecting the first they giue occasion to the Arians to reject the second because they haue no greater proofes for this then vve haue for that And hence it appeareth howe vveake a ground the naked letter of Scripture is and vvhat smal force deductions out of it commonly made by euery priuate mans discourse haue and consequently vvhat a feeble foundation they build their saluation vpon vvho haue no other ground SECTION THE FOVRTH The insufficiency of the bare letter of holy Scripture is proued by other arguments especially by this that the true interpretation cannot be infallibly gathered out of the letter LET vs adde vnto these reasons that although we should grant to our aduersaries that the bare letter of holy Scripture is sufficiently proued true by the Scripture it selfe which assertion notwithstanding I haue demonstrated to be false yet that an other argument for the proofe of the insufficiency of the said letter may be taken from the doubtfull obscure and diuers senses of the same Part. 1. chap. 7. sect 2. For as I haue proued before in the first part of this treatise the Scriptures are hard and admit diuers translations and interpretations and there may be gathered out of them both hony and poison both true and false doctrine I knowe that Luther affirmeth Luth. praefat in assert art a Leone 10. damnatorum the Scripture to be of it selfe a most certaine most easie and most manifest interpreter of it selfe prouing judging and enlightning al thinges I doe not also denie but * Brentius in Prol. cont Petrum de Soto Brentius seemeth to be of the same opinion but against these I oppose a Field booke 4. chap. 15. M. Field vvho of this point vvriteth thus There is no question but there are manifold difficulties in the Scripture proceeding partly from the high and excellent nature of the thinges therein contained which are without the compasse of natural vnderstanding and so are wholy hidden from natural men and not knowne of them that are spiritual without much trauaile and studious meditation partly out of the ignorance of tongues and of the nature of such thinges by the comparison whereof the matters of diune knowledge are manifested vnto vs Hitherto Field * Chap. 18. §. betweene §. The reason §. Thus hauing He further alleageth and approueth that of Sixtus

the neare for attaining to the true sense yea not seldome by such conference the difficulty is increased as appeareth by those places before alleaged Part. 2. chap. 1. sect 4. which seeme to contrary one another Hence our newe sectaries themselues being diuided into diuers sects and hauing conferred a longe time such places together as are controuersed among them cannot as yet agree about the true sense of the said places but remaine stil at mortal jarres And al this which I haue here said may be confirmed by the authority of Field Field booke 3 chap. 42. who affirmeth the ground of their faith to be the vvritten vvord of God interpreted according to the rule of faith the practize of the Saints from the beginning the conference of places and al light of direction that either the knowledge of tongues or any parts of good learning may yeeld Thus Field In an other place he prescribeth seauen rules Booke 4. chap. 19. vvhich he thinketh vve are to followe in the interpretation of Scripture that we may attaine to the certainty of the true sense of it of which diuers are extrinsecal and concerne not the letter it selfe of Scripture Lastly against the sufficiency of conference of places alone he addeth these vvordes Ibidem We confesse that neither conference of places nor consideration of the antecedentia and consequentia nor looking into the originals are of any force vnlesse we finde the thinges which we conceiue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant to the rule of faith but of Fields rules for the expounding of Scripture more hereafter Harmony of Confess sect 10. pag. 33. Confess Wittenb art 32. The Lutherans of Wittenberge as I haue before noted acknowledge in the Church a rule of faith according to which she is bound as they say to interpret the obscure places of Scripture by which their assertion they acknowledge also for the exposition of Scripture an other necessary guide besides the letter Let vs therefore conclude that the true sense of the Scripture is not sufficiently gathered out of the bare vvordes and consequently let vs not admit the bare vvordes to be a sufficient ground of Christian religion And hence I gather that our aduersaries haue no certainty of faith and religion which is apparent because they make the naked letter of holy Scripture the only ground of their beliefe the true sense of vvhich vnto them is alwaies very vncertaine for either the assurance vvhich euery one of them hath proceedeth from his owne reading and judgement or from the credit of some other Minister or Ministers vvho interpret the Scriptures in that sense vvhich he embraceth both vvhich meanes be most vncertaine For they depend vpon the judgement of priuate men vvho haue no assurance from the holy Ghost of not erring vvherefore they are subject to errour and consequently none of them haue any further assurance of the truth of their religion then humane judgement Vnto the reasons already brought for the proofe of the title of this Chapter I adde these that followe partly gathered out of that vvhich hath beene already said in this Treatise first that the rule of Christian faith ought to be general and sufficient for al sorts of people vvhich cannot appertaine to the bare letter of holy Scripture because diuers persons cannot reade and consequently to knowe the contents of the Bible they must vse the helpe of some of the learned and vpon their report vvhich may be false and erroneous build their beliefe It is also manifest that Christians had some other rule of faith before the Scriptures of the newe Testament vvere vvritten Finally I haue already proued that together vvith the letter we ought to receiue that sense and interpretation vvhich hath by tradition and succession descended from the Apostles And thus much concerning this matter Chapter 6. The newe Sectaries Bibles containe not the true word of God SECTION THE FIRST In which this is first proued concerning al their Bibles in general IN the Chapter next before I haue demonstrated the bare letter of holy Scripture on vvhich our aduersaries build not to be a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion in this present Chapter to make their weake foundation the more manifest I intend to proue that although we should yeeld the bare letter to be sufficient yet that in very truth their Bibles containe not truly the said bare letter And first I proue this concerning al their new translated Bibles in general and that by their owne confession Lauatherus in histor Sacramēt fo 32 for Luther the Lutherans condemne the translation of Zwinglius and the Zwinglians Zwing tom 2. in respons ad Luther li. de Sacramēt and of al others besides those which are proper to their owne sect Zwinglius and the Zwinglians pronounce the same censure against the translation of Luther and the Lutherans And in like sort proceede * Beza in annot noui test passim Castalio in defens suae translat Beza and Castalio against one another and al other sectaries for euery particular sect hath his particular Bible which it embraceth rejecting al others vvherefore if we may beleeue al these Professours of the newe religion they haue not among them one true translation of the Bible Moreouer there is but one truth and one true word of God penned by the instinct of the holy Ghost who teacheth not contrary doctrine But our aduersaries translated Bibles be diuers and different one from another and insinuate contrary doctrine wherefore euery Bible is not admitted by euery sectary but that only which fauoureth his owne sect as I haue euen nowe declared It is therefore impossible that they should al containe the true word of God and be penned by the instinct of the holy Ghost And being so that the translator of the one was euen as much subject to errour as the translator of the other and had no surer ground for his translation with like probability and reason they may be al rejected because they haue al receiued the same censure from the Church Whitak controu 1. quest 2. cap. 7. arg 3. cap. 9. arg 4. See also his reprehension of the Rhemes Testament pa. 15. Finally Whitaker seemeth to acknowledge the Scriptures only in those tongues in vvhich they vvere first spoken by God or penned by the holy Ghost to be the true word of God vvherefore he seemeth to exclude from this truth al the translations of Scripture in the world SECTION THE SECOND That Luther Zwinglius Caluin and Beza in particular haue corruptly translated the Scriptures BVT let vs descend to the particular Bibles of some principal sects and for the better declaration of this matter note some corruptions of the principal sectaries and speake a word or two of the corruptions of those translations of the word of God which be most approued and receiued in their congregations And let vs not now stand

ground of Christian religion and that their Bibles truly containe the said letter both which propositions I haue already proued to be most false yet that they build not vpon that letter which is contained in their owne Bibles And first let vs declare that the propositions and articles of their beliefe in vvhich they dissent from vs are not in expresse tearmes contained in their said letter yea that their said letter maketh more for our doctrine then for theirs and out of this gather that they build vpon their owne priuate deductions out of the letter not vpon the letter it selfe vvhich maketh more for vs then for them Where finde they then in their vvord of God as they tearme it this proposition vvhich is as they say the very ground of their religion to vvit a man is justified by faith only except it be in Luthers Bible vvho cogged into the text the vvord only as I haue shewed before We finde this in their common bookes Rom. 8. v. 24. Iam. 2. v. 24. Bible 1592. We are saued by hope and that of workes or deedes a man is justified and not of faith only Where is it found that the faith which vvorketh our justification is that by vvhich a man without al doubt beleeueth him selfe through the passion of Christ to be just and in state of saluation vve finde in diuers places as I haue proued aboue that the faith vvhich worketh this effect is that by vvhich vve beleeue the articles of our Creede and the misteries of Christian religion Where reade they that their faith ought to make them secure of their saluation vve reade in their owne bookes Phil. 3. v. 12. Bible 1595. that we ought to worke out our saluation with feare and trembling 1. Cor. 10 12. and that he that thinketh himselfe to stand must take heede least he fal Where doth the Scripture tel vs that the Commandements of God are impossible Our Sauiour telleth vs Math. 11 30. 1. Ioh. 5. v. 3. that his yoke is easie and his burthen light and S. Iohn that his commandements are not grieuous they should say not heauy Where is it affirmed in their vvord of God that the Eucharist is only a figure of the body of Christ Math. 26. v. 26.28 c. we finde that it is his body and bloud Where are vve taught that we receiue the body and bloud of Christ only spiritually Christ hath taught vs that his flesh is meate indeede Iohn 6. v. 55. Iohn 20. v. 23 and his bloud is drinke indeede Where finde they that Priests cannot forgiue sinnes vve finde that whose sinnes soeuer they remit they are remitted vnto them Where reade they that good vvorkes done in the state of grace are not meritorious vve reade Math. 16 27 Math. 25 34 that Christ on the latter day shal reward euery man according to his workes and that then he wil bestow vpon the elect the Kingdome of heauen for feeding the hungrie giuing drinke to the thirsty and doing other vvorkes of mercy Where is it affirmed that infants borne of Christian parents may be saued vvithout Baptisme vve can shewe that Christ himselfe hath pronounced this sentence Iohn 3. ver 5. except a man be borne of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of heauen Howe can they proue that the vsual forme of Baptisme is not necessary Luther in Sinops col act 7 De captiuit Babylon c. de bapt Zwing l. de vera falsa relig ca. de bapt Brēt in catechis c. de bapt as Luther Zwinglius and Brentius imagine Our Sauiour as vve are taught by S. Mathewe commanded his Apostles to a Mat. 28 19 baptize al nations In the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost Where is it said that Marriage is better then Virginity vve reade that b 1. Cor. 7 38 he that giueth his daughter in marriage doth wel but he that giueth her not in marriage doth better Where are they taught that vve ought not to vvorshippe Saints and Angels nor to pray vnto them The Scripture telleth vs that c Iosuae 5 14. Iosue and d Apocal. 19 10. c. 22 v. 8. S. Iohn Euangelist adored Angels Yea the last of these two did this honour to an Angel although forbidden before to doe it by an Angel vvhich is a manifest proof that such reuerence was due vnto the Angel although he refused it from S. Iohn vvhome he thought equal to himselfe It is also recorded in the Scripture that the e Gen. 48 16. Patriarke Iacob praied vnto an Angel Where are vve forbidden to haue Images in our Churches or to doe them any reuerence We finde that two Images of Cherubins f Exo. 25 18. c. c. 37 v. 7. by Gods Commaundement vvere placed neare the arke in the chiefest place of the tabernacle That Salomon in like sort placed two Cherubins in the most sacred part of the temple 3. or 1. of Kings cap. 6 23. Ib. v. 29. Act. 5. v. 13. and that he made pictures of Cherubins so they reade in the Bible of the yeare 1595. in the wales of the house or temple round about and that the shadowe of S. Peter which was after a sort his picture cured the sicke We also finde that the Iewes a Psal 98. or 99. v. 5 psal 131. or 132 7 adored the foote-stoole of God that is to say the arke of the old Testament and that Moises by the b Exod. 3 5. commandement of God Iosue of an c Iosuae 5 15. Angel put off their shooes because the ground on which they stood through the presence of God and an Angel was holy and consequentlie they did reuerence to the said ground Where is honor denied to Saints reliques It it affirmed in holy writ 4. or 2. Reg. cap. 13. v. 21. Math. 9 20. Act. 19. v. 12 that a dead man vvas raised to life by touching the dead bones of Elizeus the Prophet that a woman was cured of an issue of bloud by touching the hemme of of our Sauiours garment and that napkins and hand-kerchefs or d Bible 1595 partlets as they translate vvhich had touched S. Pauls body wrought miracles Finally where are they taught that temporal Princes lawes binde no mans conscience Luther in 1. Pet. c. 2. Caluin l. 1. Instit c. 19. §. 16. li. 4. c. 10. §. 15. as it is auerred by Luther and Caluin We learne of S. Paul that e Rom. 13 5. Bible 1595. vve ought to be subject vnto such Magistrates not only for feare of punishment but also because of conscience I could adde the like discourse concerning other matters in controuersie betweene vs and the newe Sectaries but I should be ouer tedious and besides I doubt not but that which hath beene already said in this Section is fully sufficient to perswade euery indifferent man that the articles vvhich our aduersaries tearme

places reproueable where he ouer-much aduanceth workes against faith but also his doctrine throughout is patched together of diuers pieces wherof no one agreeth with an other this is the general opinion of the Lutherans Among the Sacramentaries Wolfangus Musculus in locis com cap de iustificat num 5. p. 271 Wolfangus Musculus a Zwinglian hauing reprehended S. Iames for alleaging the example of Abraham as he saith nothing to the purpose and for not distinguishing if we beleeue this doctor the true and properly Christian faith from that which is common to Iewes and Christians Turks and Deuils He addeth that the said Iames setteth downe his sentence much different from the Apostolical doctrine wherby concluding he saith you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith only c. I shal recite his words more at large in the next chapter And what greater proofe then the assertion of so many of his learned Masters can a reasonable man of the newe religion require Behold both learned Lutherans with their first beginner Luther and a principal Sacramentarie confesse that we follow the true and litteral sense of S. Iames words It may be replied first that these Sectaries reject this epistle out of the Canon of holy Scripture I confesse it is so but this notwithstanding the Church of England vvith Caluin and the Caluinists and most of the Zwinglians admit it as Canonical and therefore according to the doctrine of the followers of the newe religion we may very vvel frame this argument The Epistle of S. Iames is Canonical Scripture but the Epistle of S. Iames approueth justification by good vvorkes and saith it is not wrought by faith only therefore the Canonical Scripture approueth justification by good vvorkes and saith it is not wrought by faith only The first proposition is affirmed true as is afore said by the Church of England by Caluin and al his Caluinists and by most of the Zwinglians the second by al the Lutherans of which the conclusion necessarily followeth and consequently our doctrine touching justification according to the testimony of our aduersaries is built vpon the letter of holy Scripture Which prerogatiue if it be truly yeelded vnto vs it must needes be denied vnto them for the Scriptures teach not contraries and it is in no place opposite to it selfe Secondly it may be replied and said that the Lutherans doe not vvel vnderstand and apprehend S. Iames his meaning This is likewise easily refelled for vvhat reason hath any indifferent man to preferre the Sacramentaries judgement before that of the Lutherans Doe not these vnderstand the Scriptures as wel as they what priuilege or vvarrant of not erring haue the Sacramentaries aboue the Lutherans In learning without al doubt and other gifts necessary for attaining the true sense of Scripture these were not inferiour to them yea Luther as I haue related in my Preface is extraordinarily commended euen by those Sacramentaries who otherwise expound S. Iames then he doth Their enmity and hatred against vs vvere likewise equal vvherefore it is not like if with any probable glosse they could haue drawne this Apostles sentences to an other meaning that they vvould haue bereaued themselues of such a monument of antiquity and haue confessed it to make against themselues such a monument I say which their bretheren affirme to be Canonical Scripture and they themselues cannot denie to haue beene highly esteemed by al their Christian predecessours nay by most and those of greatest learning and authority to haue beene placed in the sacred Canon of diuine bookes Finally Field booke 1. chap. 18. pag. 35. 36. Field seemeth to confesse that S. Paul sometimes by vvorkes of the lawe vnderstandeth vvorkes of the lawe of Moyses for he telleth vs that this Apostle pronounceth that the Galathians were bewitched Galat. 3. 5. and that if they stil persisted to joyne circumcision and the workes of the lawe with Christ they were fallen from grace c. Nowe if this be so it may also be that in the place which the Lutherans thinke opposite to that of S Iames by vvorkes of the lawe he vnderstandeth vvorkes of the lawe of Moyses vvhich if it be admitted as true the sentences of these blessed Apostles may easily be reconciled although S. Paules vvordes admit also other very good expositions Chap. 6. Sect. 2. Field booke 3 c. 22. p. 118. as I haue before declared The same Field in like manner affirmeth that when we are justified God requireth of vs a newe obedience judgeth vs according to it and crowneth vs for it and that in this sort it is that he wil judge vs in the last day according to our workes By vvhich his assertion he plainely granteth that for good vvorkes men shal be crowned in heauen and consequently that good vvorkes done after justification are meritorious of eternal glory in the next vvorld and vvhy not then also of the increase of grace in this life vvhich is al that by vs is auouched Ibid. chap. 44 pag. 179. Lastly he saith that justification implieth in it selfe Faith Hope and Loue vvhich proposition I see not howe he can verifie if according to the Scriptures faith only doth justifie And thus much out of our aduersaries touching the proofe of justification by vvorkes and not by faith only out of the word of God Neither haue these Protestants only thus vnderstood the holy Scriptures but also as I haue affirmed in the beginning of this Section the auncient Fathers And this I vvil also proue by the like testimonies and confession of our aduersaries The Magdeburgians or Century writers are much commended by al sorts of followers of the newe religion for their diligence vsed and paines taken both in perusing and censuring al Councels and old Authours and also in penning of their Ecclesiastical historie especially of the primatiue Church Let these men therefore declare and tel vs vvhat the auncient Fathers beleeued and taught touching justification Verily they so great and so principal antiquaries being themselues of a contrary beliefe affirme that the said Fathers haue erred in this article by ascribing justification to good vvorkes and denying it to only faith For of the second age after Christ thus they vvrite The doctrine of justification was deliuered more negligently and obscurely Centur. 2. ca. 4. col 60. 61. by the Doctors of this age Againe This article the highest and chiefest of al by litle and by litle through the craft of the Diuel beganne to be obscured Further It appeareth say they out of the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus that in his age the doctrine concerning the end of good workes beganne to be obscured Finally The times ensuing declare sufficiently that the doctrine of faith justifying without workes beganne forthwith to be more and more varied and obscured Centur. 3. ca. 4. col 53. 79. 80. 81. In their history of the third age they tel vs that this article was almost altogither obscured and

that the Doctors of that time declined more from the true doctrine of Christ and the Apostles then of the age before Hence among others that erred in this point they name S. Clement Tertullian Origen Ibi. Cētur 4. c. 4. p. 292. Centur. 5. c. 4 pag. 504. cap. 10. Cent. 6. cap. 4 pag. 274. S. Cyprian S. Augustine S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Chrysostome S. Cyril Theophilus Lactantius Eusebius Chromatius Ephrem S. Gregory Nyssene S. Gregory Nazianzene S. Hilary S. Leo Saluianus Isichius Prosper Maximus and Paulinus Nay in their Century of the fourth age hauing proued at large that neither Lactantius Chromatius Ephrem Theophilus S. Hierome S. Gregory Nyssene S. Gregory Nazianzene S. Hilary nor S. Ambrose euer acknowledged their manner of justification by faith only they adde these vvordes Nowe let the Godly reader imagine with himselfe Centur. 4. c. 4. pag. 292. howe farre this age touching this article went a stray from the doctrine of the Apostles In their history of the fift age they haue the like discourses but among others of Prosper a famous Father of that time thus they vvrite Prosper retained not a fewe freckles so they tearme such opinions in the Fathers as the said Fathers hold vvith vs Cent. 5. c. 10. pag. 1363. and they thinke erroneous of his age such an one is that faith only doth not justifie Hitherto the Magdeburgians The same is confessed by their M. Luther Luth. in colloquijs conuiualibus cap. de Patribus Ecclesiae For hauing pronounced his censure against diuers of the Fathers in particular of them in general he saith See ye what darkenesse there is in the Fathers writings concerning faith For when that article of the justification of man is couered with darkenesse it can by no meanes be that greater errors be auoided Thus Luther And because he and his bretheren confirme their doctrine of sole faith by certaine sentences especially taken out of S. Paules Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians which they vvrest to an other sence then euer vvas yeelded by the auncient Fathers hence he also maketh this complaint Those Fathers truly taught very wel Ibid. but they could bring forth nothing singular when they wrote not of controuersies and in confutation of others neither are there any workes extant of theirs vpon the Epistle either to the Romans or to the Galatians in which any thing pure and sincere may be found Hitherto are Luthers wordes But of S. Hierome in particular because he contrarieth his exposition of the said Epistles Luth. tom 5. in Epist. ad Galat. cap. 3. fol. 348. tom 2. de seruo arbitrio fo 473. in epist ad Brentiū quae praefixa est Brētij com in Oscam See him likewise in ca. 5. ad Galat. fol. 383. he auoucheth that he was deceaued by Origen and that he vnderstood nothing at al in S. Paul but depraued the justice of only faith and that this one error of his was so great that it alone was sufficient to destroy the Gospel by which if it had not beene saith Luther through the singular grace of God Hierome had merited rather hel then heauen The like he hath in other places And seing that I am entred so farre into this matter I beseech my reader not to condemne me of being tedious and ouer long if I declare vnto him out of the same Luther by al probable conjectures the fountaine and off-spring of this Solifidian doctrine For what other thing vvas this but the impurity of Luthers conscience and the abomination of his sinneful soule This relation he maketh of himselfe and his owne proceedings * Lut. in praefat tom 1. But howsoeuer saith he I liued as a Monke irreprehensible who felt my selfe to be a sinner of a most vnquiet conscience before God neither could I haue confidence that he was appeased with my satisfaction did not loue yea I hated God iust and punishing sinners and inwardly in my hart if not with a blaspheamous truly with a very great murmuring or grudging I repined and was displeased with God saying As though it were not sufficient that miserable and wreatched sinners and eternally lost by original sinne are by the lawe of the tenne Commandements oppressed with al kinde of calamity except God did by the Gospel adde griefe to griefe and threaten also by the Gospel his iustice and anger vpon vs I was therefore madde and did rage through an angry and troubled conscience And not long after declaring howe he freed himselfe from this miserable estate he addeth Wherefore by howe much the more I hated before these wordes the iustice of God with so much the greater loue I extolled that sweete word vnto me concerning justification by only faith so this place of Paul was truly vnto me Porta Paradisi a gate to Paradise Afterwardes I read S. Augustine in his booke de Spiritu Litera where beyond my expectation I found that he also doth so interprete the iustice of God to be that with which he clotheth vs when he doth iustifie vs. And although this was spoken imperfectly and he doth not explicate al thinges clearely concerning imputation yet it pleased me that he taught the iustice of God to be that by which we are iustified Hitherto are Luthers wordes By which it euidently appeareth that sweete liberty and freedome from al band of law and feare of sinne togither with the horrour of his guilty conscience burdened vvith enormious crimes were the chiefest reasons which moued this first beginner of the newe religion to inuent and imbrace the doctrine of faith only justifying by which it is defended that through the apprehension of Christs justice by faith without any more a doe man is freed from the imputation of al sinne made just by the imputation of Christs justice and secured of his eternal saluation be his sinnes neuer so great and hainous But of this no more Of the same opinion concerning the errour of the auncient Fathers or rather their true beliefe condemning the Protestant false faith is Philippe Melancthon for he affirmeth Melancthon in c. 3. 1. Cor. that presently in the beginning of the Church auncient writers obscured the doctrine touching the justice of faith And although Caluin aboue al other Fathers a Caluin Instit booke 3. cap. 11. §. 15. esteemed of S. Augustine yet he auoucheth that b Ibid. chap. 15. §. 2. the very sentence of Augustine or at the least his manner of speaking is not altogether to be receiued and graunteth moreouer that the old writers of the Church haue commonly vsed the word merit Beza his scholler accuseth Origen in this point c Beza in Act cap. 10. v. 46. of horrible blaspheamy D. Humfrey saith d H●fred Iesuitismi part 2. pag. 530. It may not be denied but that Ireneus Clemens Alexandrinus and others called Apostolical in respect of the time in which they liued haue in their writings the opinions

against al for the word of God is foolishnes to mans reason 1 Cor. 1. And they would neuer haue vttered this had they had any regard of the Scripture and were not their harts ful of infidelity so as their mouth speaketh out of the aboundance of their hart Fol. 391. Finally he concludeth thus If these be the groundes and reasons which should certifie vs of the truth and proue our faith and confirme our conscience he meaneth such groundes and reasons as are brought from natural discourse and Philosophy then truly we are in euil case If a man had deliuered me such bookes without title or name as are vvritten by the Sacramentaries and I knewe not otherwise such learned and excellent men to haue beene the Authours of them I should surely haue thought that some iesting Comediant or Turkish vagabond had made them in despite and derision of Christians Verily I see not howe they can be excused with any probable pretence as many other Heretikes haue had for it appeareth that they play with Gods word of wilfulnesse and malice And I thinke it cannot be that such cold toyes and bablings should indeede moue a Turke or Iewe much lesse a Christian c. Centur. 4. in praefat This and much more hath Luther The Magdeburgians likewise tel vs that some and they meane the Sacramentaries flatly by Philosophical reasons make voide and frustrate the Testament of our Lord so as they take away the body and bloud of Christ touching his presence and communication which presence and communication is according to the most cleare most euident most true and most puissant wordes of Christ and they deceiue men with maruelous equiuocation of speach hitherto the Centurie writers Of the same opinion touching the ground of the Sacramentary doctrine is Westphalus for the Sacramentaries against the real presence vrge this argument Westphalus in Apolog. cōtra Caluin c. 19. pag. 194. anno 1558. The body of man is circumscribed in a place therefore at one time it cannot be but in in one place therefore not in al places where the supper is ministred vnto vvhich Westphalus replieth thus Is not saith he this Geometrical argument featched from Euclides demonstrations the piller and vpholder of al these Sacramētaries Doth not this vphold the building of their sillogismes which corrupt verie many places of Scripture Most truly is verified of the Sacramentaries that memorable saying Take from Heretikes that wherein they agree with Philosophers and they cannot stand Take from the Sacramentaries that which they drawe from Philosophie and how smal a quantity wil remaine of the great volumes of al the Sacramentaries Howe long wil it be before the doctrine of Berengarius fal to the ground Wel and truly wrote Tertullian that Philosophers are the Patriarkes of Heretikes for Philosophy brought forth al Heresies and shee begat the error of Zwinglius Thus much out of the Lutherans in defence of the real presence against the Sacramentaries and their vvorkes generally are ful of such discourses Hence it appeareth that according to their judgement the beliefe of the real presence is built vpon holy Scripture and the denial of it vpon Geometrical and Philosophical reasons But finde we no proofes for our Catholike exposition of the afore said vvordes in the Sacramentaries themselues Truly first Caluin auoucheth that vnlesse a man wil cal God a deceiuer Caluin Institut booke 4. cha 17. §. 10. he can neuer be so bold as to say that he setteth before vs an empty signe and this he is forced to affirme through the euidence of the wordes of Scripture Secondly it is the opinion of diuers learned men of this sect yea of some esteemed by them Martirs that our doctrine touching this point may be held without any peril of damnation or seperation from the one true spiritual body of Christ his holy Church Of which opinion among others was William Tindal whome Whetenhal honoureth with this title * Whetēhal in his discourse of the abuses c. pag. 134. William Tindal that blessed martir of God the first man that euer brought the Gospel of Christ into English print and therefore saith this Puritan he may worthely be called our English Euangelist yea our booke of martirs a Fox p. 883. edit 1. calleth him the true Apostle of our latter daies and that much more justly then Popish Augustine the first Arch-bishop of Canterbury is so tearmed by diuers Thus Whetenhal This Tindal I say as also Frith Barnes and Cranmer of whome the said Whetenhal b Whetenhal ibid. p. 157. in an other place as is related by c Fox in Tind Fox himselfe held it d Frith Barnes and Cranmer especially pag. 500. edit anno 1563. a thing indifferent to belieue or not belieue the real presence Of the same opinion is e Couel in his def of Hooker art 11. M. Couel a man of good account among the English Protestants f Doue perswasion p. 11. Doue also vvriteth that in fundamental points of doctrine the greatest Papists in the world agree with them And seing that we agree not vvith them in this it is manifest that in his judgement this is no fundamental point It may likewise be vvel gathered out of Fields assertions g See Field booke 3. chap. 3. and 4. in his third booke of the Church that his sentence is conformable But vvhat neede I rehearse particular authors For this must of necessity be h See the Apologie of the Church of England par 3. pag. 100. Sutcliffe in his answere to the Ward-word pag. 21. Fulke vpon the Rhemes Testam Ephes 4. vers 4. c. granted by al the Sacramentaries who make one Church of themselues and the Lutherans And of this the reason is apparent because although the Lutherans differ from vs in the manner yet vvith vs they confesse Christ to be really and corporally present in the Eucharist Vnto vvhich if we adde that our doctrine touching the manner it selfe howe this is done in the Sacramentaries judgement is more tollerable then Luthers it vvil followe that there can be no reason assigned why we should receaue a harder censure for our belief then they for theirs And doth not Caluin himselfe auerre this to be so It must needes be granted For certaine it is that almost al the Lutherans to defend this real presence of Christ in the Sacrament affirme his humane nature to be really present vvheresoeuer is his Deity Caluin Institut booke 4. chap. 17. § 30 See also the preface to the harmony of confessions which Caluin calleth the monstrous being of Christ euery where and saith the Papists doctrine is more tollerable or at the least more shamefaste then this Nay al the vvhole company of Sacramentaries in forraine Countries are more vehement in oppugning this then ours Wherefore if the Lutherans according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries this notwithstanding are neither excluded from heauen nor the Church a man

them and to receaue it priuately when they were disposed as Tertullian saith he and others doe report He addeth The manner was to send it by the Deacons to them that by sickenesse or other necessary impediment were forced to be absent and to strangers Yea for this purpose they did in such places where they communicated not euery day reserue some part of the sanctified elements to be sent to the sicke and such as were in danger of death g Pag. 150. He denieth that Caluin doth not any where say that the elements consecrated and reserued for a time in reference to an ensuing receauing of them are not the body of Christ. This he plainely admitteth as also that the Christians of the primatiue Church thought the sanctified elements to be Christs body as long as they might serue for the comfortable instruction of the faithful pertaking in them Finally he telleth vs Booke 4. cha 31. pag. 266. that bread being appointed to be the matter of the Sacrament of the body of Christ and water of Baptisme the Christians in auncient time held that bread which had beene offered and presented at the Lordes table out of which saith he a part was consecrated for the vse of the Sacrament more holy then other bread Hitherto Field Al which his assertions may vvel be vrged in proofe of the real presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament But vvhereas he seeketh to drawe Caluin to his opinion he laboureth in vaine Caluin Institut booke 4. ch 17. §. 39. for Caluin expresly condemneth this reseruation as vnprofitable and although he confesse that they that so doe haue the example of the old Church yet he affirmeth that in so great a matter and in which we erre not without great danger nothing is safer then to followe the truth it selfe which he imagineth to be opposite to this obseruation It is also euident that vvith Bucer Melancthon and almost al other sectaries See him ibid. pag. 37. he holdeth the Eucharist to be no permanent thing but to be the Sacrament then only when it is receaued More I could say of the auncient doctrine and practise of the Church confirming our exposition of the aforesaid wordes of holy Scripture but here occurreth a certaine opinion of some which I thinke not amisse to confute and my confutation of the same wil be something long vvherefore I vvil breake off my former discourse and forthwith enter vpon it Some Sacramentarie followers of the newe religion imagine and thinke that Caluin and his disciples deny not the real presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrament and therefore they approch vnto the Caluinian communion with great reuerence deeming themselues truly and reallie to receiue in it the said body and bloud of our Lord where-vpon they inferre that their beliefe touching this point is as conformable to the letter of holy Scripture as ours But alas simple soules they are much deceiued as euen Caluin himselfe and their learned masters confesse For although these Doctors in some places of their vvorkes seeme to acknowledge some such matter yet in others they flatly denie it and in plaine tearmes declare their meaning in those other places first mentioned to be otherwise them their wordes doe sound I grant their magnificent tearmes may easily seduce a silly soule and I my selfe knowe some good creatures deceiued but whoseuer doth reade their masters bookes may easily discouer their falsehood let vs first behold howe they plainely seeme to auouch the real presence Caluin Institut booke 4. ch 17. §. 10. Caluin writeth thus Our soules are so fed with the flesh and bloud of Christ as bread and wine doe maintaine and sustaine the bodily life And doe not bread and vvine maintaine and sustaine the bodily life by true and real eating them But he goeth on For otherwise the proportional relation of the signe should not agree vnlesse our soules did finde their foode in Christ which cannot be done vnlesse Christ doe truly growe into one with vs and refresh vs with the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud And soone after Vnlesse a man wil cal God a deceiuer he can neuer be so bold as to say that he setteth before vs an empty signe §. 11. Againe I say that in the mistery of the supper by the signes of bread and wine Christ is truly deliuered to vs yea and his body bloud in which he hath fulfilled al obedience for purchasing of righteousnesse vnto vs. §. 32. Moreouer Christ pronounceth that his flesh is the meate of my soule and his bloud the drinke with such foode I offer my soule to him to be fed In his holy supper he commaundeth me vnder the signes of bread and wine to take eate and drinke his body and bloud I nothing doubt but he doth truly deliuer them Caluin in 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. See him also de coena Domini and I doe truly receiue them Finally I conclude and grant saith he that the body of Christ is giuen vs in the supper really as they commonly speake that is to say truly to the end it may be wholesome foode for our soules I speake after the common fashion but I meane that our soules are fed with the substance of Christes body to the intent we may be made one with him these and other such like sentences euery foote occurre in Caluin Caluin lib. de coena Domini edit an 1540. Gallice an 1545. Latine See him also in his Institutions chap. 14. and chap. 17. §. 5.6 Hence he also by name reprehendeth the doctrine of Zwinglius touching this sacrament who affirmed a Zwinglius tom 2. epist ad quandam Germaniae ciuitatem fol. 296. the supper to be nothing else but a solemne signe or token of charity and friendship a signe of spiritual thinges but it selfe in no wise spiritual neither working any spiritual thing in vs. He likewise auoucheth as I haue before noted that the truth of this misterie seemeth incredible that it is wrote by the secret power of the spirit that it is incomprehensible by our minde and aboue nature that many miracles are contained in it c. which his assertions seeme to argue some great matter Lastly he telleth vs that b Caluin Instit booke 4. c. 40. not vnworthily they are guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord who come to this sacrament vnworthily which they doe with vngodlines ful of sacriledge so fouly defile Therefore saith he by this vnworthy eating they take to themselues damnation The booke of cōmon praier in the cōmunion in the exhortations The like hath the English booke of common prayer yea much more as euery man may see and others are of the same judgement And who can denie but this is a manifest token that they acknowledge the real presence For what indignity can be offered to Christ or damnation taken by eating a peece of bakers bread only

in rememberance of Christes passion The French Sacramentaries in their confession followe Caluin for there we reade among other thinges Confess Gallica art 37. Se it in Harmony of Confess sect 14. pag. 426. that the body and bloud of Iesus Christ are no lesse truly the meate and drinke of the soule in the supper then bread and wine are the meate of the body that this mistery is aboue nature c. And these their assertions in very deed haue caused some * Cōfess Eccl. in ditione Comitum Mansfeldiae c. anno 1559. fol. 21. Lutherans to make a difference betweene the old Sacramentaries that is as they tearme them the Carolostadians the Zwinglians and the Anabaptists who say they alwaies taught the Sacrament of the Altar to be nothing else but an external signe without the body bloud of Christ and that it serued only for a token to distinguish Christians from Pagans and the newe commonly called Caluinists Nowe if vnto these discourses of Caluin and his followers vve joine that proposition by them so often repeated and with such vehemency defended that Christes humane nature is only in heauen Caluin in 1. Cor. cap. 11. vers 24. Item in his Instit chap. 17. §. 24. c. and alwaies as farre distant from the Eucharist as the highest heauen and earth are a sunder What a Paradoxe or rather a contradiction in external shewe of wordes shal we here finde I neede not recite their sentences because they are found almost in euery place vvhere any one of them treateth of this matter and no Caluinist wil denie this to be a part of his beliefe But doe these thinges accord togither Howe doth Christ truly growe vnto vs and refresh vs with the eating of his body and drinking of his bloud his said body and bloud being in a place so farre distant from vs howe is he truly deliuered vnto vs yea and his body and bloud in the supper seing that he doth approch no nearer vnto vs then the highest heauen is vnto earth howe doth he truly deliuer and we truly receaue vnder the signes of bread and wine his body and bloud and howe is his body really and truly giuen vs how are our soules finally fedde with the substance of Christes body if his said body be only in the heauens and our soules no nearer vnto him then is the earth Are not these thinges according to the proper signification of the vvordes opposite and contrary Verily if corporal sustainance came no nearer to the bodies of these sectaries then the body and bloud of Christ doth according to their owne doctrine to their soules they vvould soone perish vvith hunger But is not Caluin although he make a shewe neuer so glorious in vvordes of the true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist yet inwardly in very deede a Zwinglian and Carolostadian in beliefe It cannot be gainesaid And to declare this first thus he writeth I plainely confesse Caluin Institut booke 4. chap. 17. §. 32 that I refuse that mixture of the flesh of Christ with our soule or the powring out of it or the transposing of it from one place to an other such as they teach because it sufficeth vs that Christ doth out of the substance of his flesh breath life into our soules yea doth powre into vs his owne life although the very flesh of Christ doth not enter into vs. And in an other place euen nowe alleaged he addeth Caluin in 1. Cor. cap. 11. vers 24. that it is al one to say that our soules are fedde with the substance of Christes body to the intent we may be made one with him and to auerre that a certaine quickning vertue is powred on vs out of the flesh of Christ by the holy Ghost although the flesh be farre distant from vs. Thus Caluin beginneth more plainely to open his minde but by adding an other falshood for vvhat Philosopher or Diuine euer affirmed the body and substance to be one vvith a vertue proceeding from the same as he here auoucheth He goeth on and saith that we receiue him though so farre distant from vs as heauen is for that he causeth from heauen to descend on vs presently and truly the vertue of his flesh Loe Christian reader nowe thou receiuest no longer truly and really the body and bloud of Christ but the vertue of his flesh And let vs heare him declare this by an example or similitude In an other place he discourseth after this manner Caluin Institut booke 4. cha 17. §. 12. For if we behold the sunne shining forth with his heames vpon the earth after a certaine manner to cast forth his substance vnto it to ingender nourish and quicken the fruits thereof why should the extending beames of the spirit of Christ be inferiour to conuey the communion of his flesh and bloud vnto vs Thus he Out of ●●ch his vvordes if his similitude hold it is euident that Christin●●e Eucharist doth no otherwise cōmunicate vnto vs his body and bloud then the sunne shining doth cōmunicate his substance to the earth Wherefore like as no m●n can say that the sunne doth truly and really communicate his substance to the earth for this is most false and therefore Caluin saith it is done after a certaine manner so Christ doth not truly and really communicate himselfe vnto vs according to this Doctors opinion as before he auouched but after a certaine manner And how is this He had declared before where he vseth these vvordes We confesse there is no other eating but of faith Ibid. §. 5. as there can no other be imagined The flesh of Christ is eaten by belieuing because by faith he is made ours And this is that which our English Protestants haue decreed in their articles of religion Articles of religion agreed vpon in the cōuocation of 1562. art 28. in which they define that the body of Christ is giuen taken and eaten in the supper only after an heauenly and spiritual manner and the meane say they whereby the body of Christ is eaten in the supper is faith Hence the same Caluin and his a Beza in Math. ca. 26. vers 26. Caluin Instit booke 4. chap. 17. §. 31. disciples affirme that the right way to finde Christ and receiue him in the supper is that our mindes stay not on earth but mount aloft into the celestial glory where Christ dwelleth there to imbrace him and so they vvil haue vs to enjoy his presence as wel as if he descended vnto vs. The like hath Andrewe Willet an English Caluinist vvriter vvho telleth vs b Willet in his Synopsis controuers 13. part 1. quest 1. §. That Christ p. 516. Caluin Instit booke 4. chap. 14. §. 14. that Christ is verily exhibited vnto vs in the Sacrament that the substance of Christs flesh is exhibited vnto vs c. Not that Christ descendeth from heauen to vs but we ascend saith he by faith in spirit

to him And seing that this feeding vpon Christ by faith may be performed at other times as wel as when their supper is receiued hence they further auouch that Christ himselfe as wel at other times as then may be receiued but principally they say vve receiue him by reading the vvord of God or hearing it preached He is deceiued saith Caluin that thinketh there is any more giuen to him by the Sacraments then that which being offered by the word of God he receiueth by faith c Ibid. §. 17. in Ioan. 6. vers 54. Againe Let this remaine certaine that there is no other office of the Sacraments then of the word of God which is to offer and set forth Christ vnto vs and in him the treasures of heauenly grace Moreouer expounding those wordes of Christ d Idem in 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. Doe this in remembrance of me thus he argueth Therefore the supper is a token or memorial appointed to helpe our infirmity for if otherwise we were mindful of Christes death this helpe were superfluous And this is common to the Sacraments for they are helpes of our infirmity Thus Caluin Beza in epist Theolog. 65. pag. 285. And this was decreed in a Synode held by the Caluinists at Rochel in vvhich we finde that albeit the supper be particularly appointed for our mystical and spiritual communication of Christ yet that Christ is receiued as fully with al his gifts also in a simple or only word or sermon But this is most earnestly defended by Peter Martir likewise a Caluinist vvho among other his discourses hath these sentences We attribute no more to the wordes of God then to the Sacraments nor no more to these then to them a Martir in de fens Euchar. cont Gardin part 2. regula 5. pag. 618. I adde withal that touching the deliuery and obtaining of Christes body and bloud if yee respect the thing and substance it selfe we haue it no more by Sacraments then by wordes b Ibid part 3. pag. 651. see also before p. 644. 547. The body of Christ is receiued as wel in hearing faithfully the word of God as it is in the Sacraments c Ibid. p. 683 I denie not but this is our doctrine that the body of Christ is receiued no lesse in wordes then in the Sacraments or Symbols For this receiuing is wrought by faith and to faith we are stirred vp by wordes as wel as by the Sacraments d Only an empty signe c. possible And I feare not to affirme that we come to the receiuing of Christes body much more by wordes then by Sacraments For Sacraments haue al their force from the wordes Hitherto Martir e Caluin Instit booke 4. c. 14. §. 20. 23. Caluin Beza and Martir in 1. Cor. 10. v. 1.2 Hence they make no difference in honour grace vertue and efficacy betweene the Sacraments of the old lawe and those of the newe f Caluin Instit booke 4. c. 14. § 23. Beza in actis colloq Monpelg p. 77. Sadeel in tract demāducut Sacram p. 191. Nay they adde that the Fathers of the old were as much pertakers of the body and bloud of Christ as Christians are in the newe And to proue this g Caluin Institut booke 4. c. 14. §. 23. Caluin corrupteth S. Paules vvordes 1. Cor. 10. vers 3. by affirming the Apostle to say that the Fathers of the old lawe did eate the same spiritual meate which we eate vvhereas the Apostle maketh no comparison betweene Christians and Iewes but only telleth vs that the Iewes among themselues both good and badde just and vnjust did eate the same spiritual meate Neither ought it seeme strange to any one of our English nation that this doctrine is taught by the Caluinists for we want not some euen in our Protestants Church of England that seeke to vphold it And among other h Willet in his Synopsis controuers 11. p. 463. see also Iewel in his reply against Harding art 5. pag. 323. Andrew Willet before cited in expresse wordes auoucheth and concludeth that looke howe the word of God worketh being preached so doe the Sacraments Their doctrine therefore is that Christ may as truly and really be receiued by hearing of a sermon as he is in their supper And of al this I may first inferre that if they say true vve may as truely and really receiue Christ in our chambers reading the Scriptures and by feeding on him by faith or by eating a peece of bakers bread and drinking a cup of wine or by taking any other such corporal foode in remembrance that he died for vs on the Crosse as we can doe in their Churches by taking the like bread and vvine of the Minister I further inferre that the opinion of Carolostadius Zwinglius and Caluin in verie deede equally exclude Christ from being really present in the Eucharist and therefore the bread and vvine vvhich they receiue according to al their judgements is nothing better then a peece of bakers bread or a bottle of wine bought in a tauerne The reason is euident because Christ himselfe according to his humane nature is as far distant from the bread and wine as heauen is from earth although Caluin acknoweledg a certaine vnion betweene vs and Christ by faith yet this is a thing altogether extrinsecal to the bread and wine for this faith is in the soule not in the bread and vvine neither doth it vnite the body and bloud of Christ to the bread and vvine but as they say to the soule And this vnion in like sort is not real but imaginary for the body bloud of Christ are as farre distant from our faith vvhich is an inward act of our soule and produceth of it selfe no outward effect as they are from the bread and wine And this is true euen according to the doctrine of Caluin and his disciples vvhatsoeuer they seeme in vvordes to say to the contrary But to make the proofe of it more strong let vs confirme it by the testimony of Beza Beza Epist Theolog. 1. pag. 7. Caluins schollar and of some Lutherans Bezaes vvordes are these I say they are very impudent slaunderers that imagine that there was euer any contrariety betweene those most excellent men Zwinglius OEcolampadius and Caluin in their doctrine concerning the Sacrament Thus Beza Among the Lutherans Westphalus a principal Doctor of their company vvriteth thus Caluin vseth such art in handling this matter Westphal in Apologia de coena contra Caluin p. 71. he leaueth his reader so doubtful and vncertaine what to judge of him he shadoweth his speach with such colours that sometimes he yeeldeth a confession of faith like to our Lutheran Churches he seemeth to reject the doctrine of Zwinglius and to beleeue that the very body and bloud of Christ is truly present and giuen in the supper with the bread and wine But hauing conferred many of Caluins sentences

Wherefore in like manner vse they not to wash one anothers feete Iohn 13. Haue vve not for this an expresse example and commandement of our Sauiour vvherefore finally anoint they not their sicke vvith oile Is not this directly commanded by S. Iames Iam. 5. v 14. verily the text according to their owne translation is euident In these and diuers other points they follow not their owne text of holy Scriptures but rejecting both it and al other groundes doe that which pleaseth best their owne fancies and this neglect of the vvord of God among them is so apparent that they are after a sort inforced to confesse it themselues Martir in 1. Cor. 15. v. 5. see also Field of the Church booke 4. c. 20 §. That the Apostles Among the rest Peter Martir auoucheth that the Canons of the Apostles concerning the election of Ministers prescribed by S. Paul 1. Tim. 3. are not alwaies to be obserued with whome accordeth a Beza in praefat noui test dicati Principi Condensi Beza who telleth vs that al rites vvhatsoeuer vsed by the Apostolike Church either as profitable or as necessary for that time are not at al times to be receiued Yea b Caluin in c. 5. vers 14. Brētius in Apolog cōfess Wittenb cap. de Baptis Caluin and Brentius goe further and affirme that Christians are not bound to followe the example of Christ or the Apostles or to obey their doctrine except it can be proued out of Scripture that they did and commanded vvith an intention to be followed and obeyed this is their doctrine And vvho are to be judges vvhat Canons rites examples and doctrine are to be admitted and bind man to the obseruation of them but euery priuate mans judgement and fancy Besides this they obserue diuers rites not prescribed in the Scripture if vve followe the bare letter For vvhere finde they that there be two Sacraments Surely neither Baptisme nor the Eucharist in the vvord of God are called Sacraments Only Matrimony which commonly they esteeme not to be of such dignity is honoured by S. Paul vvith this title Moreouer Ephes 5 32. vvhere are the forme and ceremonies vvhich they obserue in publike Baptisme Communion Marriage and common Praier ordained and set downe in the Scripture What vvarrant haue they in the vvord of God for baptizing of Infants before they actually beleeue did not our Sauiour say He that beleeueth and is baptized shal be saued Mar. 16 16. and howe doe infants according to their doctrine for they vsually denie al habitual faith beleeue verily that vvhich is affirmed by c Luther lib. cont Cochlaeum Lutherani in Sinod Wittenb anno 1536. Luther and some Lutherans to vvit that infants newly borne vvhiles they are baptized haue the vse of reason actually heare and beleeue the vvord of God c. seemeth altogither incredible But d Luther ser contra Anabaptistas Luther else-where plainely confesseth that the Baptisme of infants cannot be proued by Scripture yet saith he e Luther epist. ad duos Parochos it is to be admitted because it is an Apostolical tradition The like questions I could demand concerning the Creede of the Apostles and diuers other obseruations vvherefore I conclude that they both neglect the obseruation of diuers thinges prescribed in the holy Scripture and also obserue sundry rites and ceremonies for vvhich in them they find no vvarrant and consequently that the ground of their faith and religion is not the word of God contained as they say in their owne Bibles Of which I finally inferre that they build not at al vpon the letter of the holy Scripture for certaine it is that their owne translated Bibles fauour more their doctrine then either the Hebrewe or Greeke text as euery man may gather of that vvhich hath beene said in the Chapter next before vvherefore seing that their faith and religion is not al approued in their said Bibles euery man may wel censure it not to be approued at al by the vvord of God And this may be confirmed because they neither build vpon the Hebrewe Greeke or Latin text but in some places reject them al as I haue partly aboue declared and vvil declare also in the next Chapter Chapter 8. In receiuing translating and expounding the holy Scriptures they only build vpon their owne fancies and judgement and that they haue no other ground SECTION THE FIRST In which this is proued by their doctrine and dissention concerning the bookes of Canonical Scripture and their altering of the text of the same HAVING already proued that our aduersaries build not vpon the bare letter of holy Scripture which they seeme to make the only ground and rule of their faith and religion it remaineth that I nowe declare and make manifest vvhat is the ground and rule vvhich in al such matters they followe And this in the title of this Chapter I haue affirmed to be their owne fancy and imagination by which they either by priuate and erroneous deductions out of the letter of holy Scripture or by falsly vnderstanding of the same frame to themselues a particular and false rule of beliefe or else first frame to themselues out of their carnal faithlesse and feeble vnderstanding such a rule and afterwardes by rejection false translation corruption or erroneous exposition ply and vvrest the word of God to their said rule For the proofe of this I could vse diuers arguments notwithstanding these fewe following for breuities sake shal suffice But before I bring forth any one reason I must here diuide al the Professours of the newe religion into three sorts or companies for some of them read and vnderstand the Scriptures in those tongues in vvhich they were first penned by the instinct of the holy Ghost others there be that reade and vnderstand them only translated into other tongues and others that cannot reade at al. The first for distinctions sake I wil here cal the learned the second the vnlearned and the third the ignorant sectaries In the foure first Sections I wil principally discourse of the learned And first I demand of them howe they proue the Bible to be Canonical Scripture verily this as I haue shewed before cannot be proued by Canonical Scripture neither haue they for it as I haue there also declared any other infallible proofe vvherefore I may truly auouch that euery one of them receiueth and rejecteth Scripture according as he is led by his owne fancy But to make this more euident let vs behold their dissention concerning the Canonical bookes and consider that such as some of them receiue into the Canon others reject and contrariwise such as some reject others receiue Luther telleth vs plainly that he doth not beleeue al thinges were so done as is related in the booke of * Luther in sermonib cōuiualibus titul de Patriarchis Prophetis titul de libris veteris nouitestam Iob and further disgraceth the said booke by

wordes to wicked incantations Hitherto Caluin If a Brēt in recog prophet c. in fine Brentius say true al the Zwinglians vvorkes are ful of deprauations or corruptions cunning deceits and slaunders If b Cāpanus in colloquijs Latinis Luther tom 2. cap. de aduersarijs fol. 354. Iohannes Campanus as certaine as it is that God is God so certaine it is that Luther was a diuelish liar If c Westphalus in Apologiae contra Caluin pag. 430. cap. 19. pag. 194. Westphalus deserue credit Caluins vvorkes are stuffed with taunts curses and lies and he as he saith is able to shewe certaine pages in Caluins workes of which euery one containeth aboue thirty notable lies and taunts He addeth moreouer that the Sacramentaries corrupt very many places of Scripture If d Conradus in Theolog. Caluinist lib. 2. fol. 120. 123. 124. l. 1. fol. 80. 132. Conradus al the Caluinists are compounded of lies impiety and impudency If e Oecolāpad in Dialog cōtra Melancthonem Oecolampadius the Lutherans bring forth only a colour or shadowe as Heretikes commonly are accustomed to doe of the word of God they bring not the word of God and yet al saith he wil seeme to build vpon the word of God Of the Zwinglians of Zurick thus writeth f Stācarius de Trinitate lib. 1. d. 5. Stancarius These Arians of Zurick malitiously maime and mangle the sentences of the Fathers and are worthily to be accused and condemned as falsifiers of the truth and for that grieuously to be punished for they sinne against that Commandement of God thou shalt not beare false witnesse These men are altogither Atheists and alleage falsly the Scriptures and the testimonies of holy Fathers to cast downe the Sonne of God yea the most holy Trinity from the throne of his Majesty Hitherto Stancarius Our Puritans vvorkes according to the judgement of one of our g Suruey of the pretended H. discipline cap. 3. p. 56. chap. 5. p. 80. c. 24. p. 307. Protestants are ful of boldnesse sophistications falsifications and many such corruptions The same man accuseth them that they haue peruerted the true meaning of certaine places both in the Scriptures and Fathers to serue their owne turnes And affirmeth that the word of God is much troubled with such kind of choppers and changers of it Euery giddy head saith he wresteth and wringeth it to serue his owne deuise Further he professeth as in the presence of God that of al the places of Scripture which they alleage against the Protestants Ch. 31. p. 414. See also chap. 35. pag. 463. he cannot finde any one on which they haue not cast such a colour as was neuer knowne in the Church of Christ among al the auncient Godly Fathers from the Apostles times til these our troublesome and presumptuous daies Yea he affirmeth that al the catterbrawles pittiful distractions and confusions vvhich are among Puritans proceede of such intollerable presumption as is vsed by peruerting and false interpretation of holy Scripture Listen also vvhat we reade in an other booke of theirs concerning this matter Cōspiracy for pretended reformatiō printed an 1592. in the end Lastly saith the Authour of the history of the Puritan conspiracy doe not the Puritans make great shewes and many pretences for their vnsound and absurd opinions that they are taken from the holy and sacred written word of God which by these meanes they make to be of priuate interpretation and doe not reduce their senses vnto it when they reade but doe wickedly captiuate the Scriptures vnto their owne senses and meaninges Hooker hath the like accusation Hooker in his third booke of Ecclesiastical policy §. 5. pag. 135. Caluin in like sort noted this fault in the Libertines for thus he discourseth against them * Caluin in praefat ad lectores de psychopanychia in tract theolog pag 539. And whereas they are ashamed to be ignorant of any thing in al thinges euen as oracles they answere most confidently Hence are so many schismes so many errours so many slanders of our faith by which occasion the name and word of God is blaspheamed among the wicked At length which is the head of al mischiefe when as they obstinately defend that which they rashly and foolishly vttered then they aske councel of the oracles of God out of which they seeke protections and sauegardes for their errours O good God what doe they not turne vpsidowne what doe not they corrupt that they may I say not bowe it but by force crooke it to their owne sense Doubtlesse truly said the Poët Fury findeth vveapons Is this the way to learne to turne and tosse the Scriptures to serue our owne pleasures and sensuality that they be made subject to our sense then which nothing is more foolish O n●isome plague and most certaine cockle of the enemy man by which he indeauoureth to obscure and couer the true seede and yet we wonder whence arise so many sects among those that first imbraced the Gospel and the word againe springing vp Thus farre Caluin And he concludeth of them in another place with these wordes Falsly therefore doe they abuse this pretence and seeke to perswade the more simple that they are gouerned by the prescript or rule of holy Scriptures when as these being altogither rejected they followe the imagination of their owne braine Hitherto are Caluins vvordes And these their accusations of one another conuince not only that in translating and expounding the Scriptures they frame al thinges according to their owne fancies and imaginations from vvhence proceedeth that their assertion that the Scriptures are easie because among them it is euen as easie to expound Scriptures as to imagine but also that they haue no other ground vvhereon they build their faith and religion And al these reasons proceede principally against the learned sectaries SECTION THE SIXT The vnlearned and ignorant sectaries in receiuing and expounding the holy Scriptures likewise build vpon their owne fancies and judgements and haue no other ground of their faith and religion THAT the vnlearned Sectaries be likewise in the the same case it is farre more easie to proue For besides that they haue no other meanes to know which bookes are to be receiued as Canonical Scripture which are to be rejected but the opinion of their learned Masters vvho differ among themselues concerning this matter of vvhich it followeth that in following of one and condemning others they followe their owne judgements Besides this I say it is euident that they build not their faith and religion vpon the pure word of God as it vvas first penned by the inspiration of the holy Ghost for they as I suppose vnderstand not the tongues in vvhich it vvas so penned but vpon the vvord of God translated by their learned Captaines Nowe if their translatours haue erred or may erre in their translations vvhere is their faith Surely that they are al subject to errour it is

proued before Howe then can the vnlearned knowe that either through ignorance or malice they haue not erred what diuine authority or reuelation haue they to perswade them this or to propound vnto them their translated Bibles as the true vvord of God If the sincerity of the translatour be doubtful and they haue no such authority or reuelation howe can they knowe certainely and infallibly by diuine vvarrant that their Bibles containe the pure and sincere vvord of God And if they knowe not this after this sort howe can they build vpon their Bibles true faith vvhich is a most certaine knowledge through diuine reuelation vvithout al doubt seing that they admit no other infallible rule they must needes confesse that they are alwaies vncertaine vvhether their beliefe be true or no for their beliefe can haue no further assurance of truth then they haue of the truth of the ground thereof vvhich they affirme to be the only word of God contained in their owne books Wherefore seing that the truth of these is vncertaine their faith also must needes be vncertaine And this argument is sufficient to proue that the vnlearned sectaries haue no faith But I adde further that I haue before set downe diuers places of holy Scripture vvhich we affirme in very deede to be corrupted by their translations vvhich our affirmation they may the better beleeue because they may also there see that diuers places in the first editions corrupted are amended in the latter Howe then can the vnlearned being ignorant in the tongues discerne by the Scripture only whether we say true or no or vvhether we or the authours of their translations erre Surely in judging of this controuersie they followe their owne fancies neither haue they any sound reason much lesse diuine authority that can moue them rather to condemne our translation then their owne Hence also I infer that our vnlearned Sectaries are not yet certaine that the English Bibles are the true word of God This I proue because they cannot deny but their said bibles were once falsly translated otherwise vvherefore haue they beene in so many places as I haue noted corrected Doth not euery correction suppose a fault But that they were once false it is granted in the preface to the Bible of the yeare 1589. 1592. and 1600. If they vvere once false howe knowe they that they are nowe true Had the learned Sectary or Sectaries that last amended the Bible any further vvarrant from God that they should not erre then they that erred before vvhat vvarrant had they that erred no other certainely but their owne knowledge And vvhat had they that last of al corrected it but the same and so the translatour of the aforesaid Bible in the preface to the reader protesteth that according to the measure of his knowledge he hath faithfully rendred the text and sincerely expounded al hard places but who knoweth not that al these mens judgements and knowledges be alike subject to errour If therefore the last translators or correctors had no further warrant as they had not then the former howe can it certainely be knowne that they haue not also erred Conference at Hampton-Court c. but this likewise is confessed by the Kings Majestie and D. Reinolds as I haue noted before vvherefore as yet the vnlearned English sectaries neuer had nor haue at this present a true and certaine ground of their faith and consequently they are yet vncertaine vvhither their beliefe be sound or no because their Bible on vvhich only they build containeth not the true vvord of God Neither wil this be remedied by a new edition of the Bible which as it is said is nowe in hand because the newe Translatours vvhich nowe indeauour to correct the old are also subject to errour and therefore the vnlearned sectaries can neuer certainely knowe whither they haue erred or no. Of vvhich I finally inferre that they can neuer haue true faith which is a most certaine and sure knowledge of thinges reuealed by God I vvil adde one other argument most euidently conuincing that none of the vnlearned professours of the newe religion can possibly be certaine that their translated Bibles are the true vvord of God which is this Euery man must needes confesse that there is but one true vvord of God But our aduersaries Bibles be diuers and differ much one from another wherefore as I haue shewed euery man rejecteth al other Bibles but that which is translated and approued by those of his owne sect therefore al of them but one must needes be false vvhich being presupposed I demand of any one vnlearned sectary what reason he hath to preferre one Bible as true before al the rest for example vvherefore doth he reject the Lutheran or Puritan Bible and admit that vvhich is authorized to be read in the Churches of England He cannot say that it is because the one agreeth vvith the Hebrewe and Greeke and the other doe not for this he knoweth not because he is ignorant of those languages Perhaps he wil say that some learned men told him so But this is no sufficient ground both because if he aske a Lutheran or Caluinist although euen as learned as the English Protestant they wil tel him the contrary and also because the judgement of a learned man yea of al the learned sectaries in the world togither is not sufficient to make any thing so certaine that vve may vvithout al doubt admit it as a sufficient ground of an article of faith For be they neuer so learned yet their sentence may be erroneous they themselues being subject to errour vvherefore the vnlearned sectary although he make himselfe judge of al the learned yet he can not possibly most assuredly knowe vvhich of them haue erred in translating the Bible And therefore in accepting and approuing one and rejecting and condemning the rest he buildeth only vpon his owne fancy vvhich moueth him to accept and approue one edition of holy Scripture before another either because it fauoureth his owne opinions or because he hath conceaued a good opinion of the Translatour or because the translation is allowed in the Country vvhere he dwelleth or for some other priuate respect Moreouer although vve should grant to the vnlearned and ignorant sectaries that they most assuredly knowe that their translated Bibles are the true vvord of God yet the interpretations also on which they build yeeld vs euen as forcible an argument as the former For seing that the Scriptures are hard and admit diuers interpretations as I haue already proued yea are so diuersly expounded by their learned Captaines that al their expositions cannot be true who seeth not first that the vnlearned and ignorant haue litle reason to accept more of one interpretation then of an other Secondly that in accepting one and rejecting others they build not vpon any diuine authority but vpon their owne judgement by vvhich they are moued to thinke the doctrine receiued true either through the

stil doubtful in this principal article of Christian religion or else going back to his Bible againe out of his owne judgement he must resolue to followe one of the aforesaid interpretations and to condemne the other as contrary to the vvord of God And vvhat a slender ground of faith is this yea seing that he hath no diuine authority vvhereon he buildeth I may boldly say that he hath no faith at al but only a kinde of opinion And like as I haue exemplified in this particular controuersie so could I doe concerning the real presence and the true sense of those vvordes This is my body or any other matter or place of Scripture in question betweene vs as my reader wil easily graunt for there is the like reason of them al and thus much concerning the vnlearned sectarie that can reade But what shal we say of him that is altogether ignorant and cannot reade The learned sectaries cannot send him to their Bible to search out the truth He cannot likewise conferre one place of scripture vvith another his praiers be of no greater force then his be that can reade wherefore he hath no other meane left but the aduise of the learned and his owne judgement and what wil the aduise of the learned helpe and auaile him if he finde among them possibility of errour and dissention These thinges he cannot but finde yea concerning that very text first alleaged The father is greater then I they are at variance for vvhereas some restraine it only to the humane nature of Christ Caluin saith He doubteth not to extend it to the whole complexum Caluin epist 2. ad Polonos seu in admonitione ad Polonos or person of God and man And certaine it is that if this ignorant person imbrace any one opinion as certaine concerning a matter of which he was before doubtful that he must either build vpon his owne judgement or otherwise he must take the vvorde of some learned man that the opinion which he followeth is true and vpon it ground his faith religion and saluation But vvhat reason hath he to accept rather of the word of one minister then of another For example what reason hath he in the exposition of those wordes This is my body rather to followe the Sacramentaries then the Lutherans are they not al alike subject to errors he cannot say that the scripture moueth him so to doe because he knoweth the Scripture only by the report of others Neither hath he any infallible rule whereby to discerne the true sense wherefore it is his owne fancy which perswadeth him to accept of the one exposition and to reject the other And doth not also this sectary although altogether vnlearned take vpon him to judge the learned Can he possibly beleeue the Sacramentary except he judge his doctrine to be true condemne al the learned Lutherans Can he follow the Protestants and not condemne the Puritans c. verily he cannot And vvhat a simple judge is he being a man ignorant voide of learning and commonly of a slender vvit and judgement And like as euery vnlearned sectary condemneth al the rest that dissent from him in opinion so al the rest condemne him For if he follow the Protestants al the Puritans tel him that he is deceiued if the Puritans the Protestants tel him the like tale If he beleeue Zwinglius Luther condemneth him to the pit of hel if Luther Zwinglius pronounceth the same judgement against him c. And of vvhat opinion soeuer he be certaine it is that more of his owne brethren condemne then approue his beliefe He is therefore in a most miserable and lamentable case both because he hath no ground of his faith but the vvord of a fewe ministers and his owne weake judgement and also because he is condemned of errour euen by those of his owne profession euen as learned and as vvise as they whome he followeth and farre exceeding himselfe in al such qualities And this is the ordinary manner of proceeding of the learned sectaries with the vnlearned and ignorant these grounds of faith and no others they receiue from them If any man doubt of the truth of this discourse let him exactly and strictly examine either the learned what grounds of faith they can afforde the vnlearned and ignorant or these vvhat groundes they receiue and vvhy they beleeue thus and thus touching any article of religion and their owne confession wil teach him that al which hath beene said is true and that the last and chiefest cause of this or that beliefe in the vnlearned and ignorant is their owne judgement or the opinion of the learned liking their owne fancy SECTION THE EIGHT That the newe sectaries alleage Scriptures to confirme their newe doctrine it is no certaine argument that they build their faith and religion vpon the said Scriptures TO proue that the professors of the newe religion ground their faith and religion vpon the holy Scripture some wil say that they alleage sentences of the said Scripture in great abundance in confirmation of their doctrine vnto whome I answere that true it is that so they doe But I adde that this is no sufficient argument to proue that which is intended And first let euery man deluded by such their proceedings consider that al the ancient Heretikes haue done the like Did not Arius Macedonius Nestorius Eutiches and other Arch-heretikes together with their followers for proofe of their heresies bring forth diuers places of holy Scripture Of this Vincentius Lirinensis who flourished almost twelue hundred yeares since Vincent Lirinens aduers prophanas haeresum nouitates c. 35. is a sufficient witnesse for of the ancient Heretikes alleaging of the word of God he writeth thus Here perhaps some man may demand whether Heretikes also doe vse the testimony of holy Scripture To which I say that they doe and that very earnestly for a man may behold them ranging and coursing in euery part of the Bible in Moises in the bookes of the Kinges in the Psalmes in the Apostles in the Gospels in the Prophets For whether they be among their owne brethren or with strangers whether in priuate or in publike whether in talking or in writing whether in the house a feasting or abroade in walking they almost neuer alleage any thing of their owne which they doe not pretend to shadowe with the sacred word of Scripture Reade the pamphlets of Paul as Sumosatenus of Priscillian Eunomius Iouinian and the rest of such like pestilent Heretikes and you shal finde through al their workes an huge heape of examples almost no page omitted which is not coloured and painted with the sayings of the old and new Testament thus farre Vincentius Lirinensis Origen tom 1 homil 7. in Ezechiëlem Of this point also Origenes discourseth after this sort When to defend false opinions we say it is written in the Prophet Moises testifieth this the Apostle speaketh it What other thing doe we but taking the

thus The Lutheran preachers rage hitherto in their pulpits against the Caluinists as much as euer and their Princes and people haue them in as great detestation not forbearing to professe openly that they wil returne to the Papacy rather then euer admit that Sacramentary and predestinary pestilence For these two pointes are the ground of the quarrel and the later more scandalous at this day then the former thus he writing as it is probable of thinges which he sawe and heard with his owne eies and eares And vvhat is the off-spring and fountaine of this their diuision and dissention but the vvant of a certaine infallible rule to direct them for because they al seeme with one consent to accept of the bare wordes of Scripture for the only ground of their faith and religion and the said vvordes admit sundry expositions euery man among them whose wit by any meanes can reach to the inuention either of a newe translation or interpretation of the word of God or of some newe opinion which by wresting and wringing he can in outward shewe confirme by the authority of the same foundeth a newe sect Hence are these wordes of Luther Luther epist ad Antuerp tom 2. Germ. ●en fol. 101. There be almost so many sects and religions among vs as there be men There is no Asse in this time so sottish and blockish but wil haue the dreames of his owne head and his opinion accepted for the instinct of the holy Ghost and himselfe esteemed as a Prophet And againe in an other place thus he complaineth The peace and concord of the Church being once broken that is to say the pillar of truth and the infallible rule of our faith being once forsaken there is no meane or end of dissentions Luther in ca. 5. ad Galat. tom 5. Wittenb fol. 416 In our time first the Sacramentaries forsooke vs afterwardes the Anabaptists Of these neither agree among themselues So alwaies one sect bringeth forth another and once condemneth another Hitherto Luther the ring-leader of al the daunce himselfe And thus much of their diuision and dissention in this place I knowe that some of our aduersaries are so bold I might say so impudent as to denie there is any great or material dissension in their Churches And among others M. Field writeth Field booke 3 ch 42. p. 170. See also ibid. pag. 169. Where he saith there is a ful consent in their publike cōfessions of faith that it so fel out by the happy prouidence of God when there was a reformation made by his bretheren that there was no material or essential difference among them but such as vpon equal scanning wil be found rather to consist in the diuers manner of expressing one thing and to be but verbal vpon the mistaking through the hasty and inconsiderate humors of some men then any thing else He addeth further Yea I dare confidently pronounce that after due and ful examination of each others meaning there shal be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament the vbiquitary presence or the like betweene the Churches reformed by Luthers ministery in Germany and other places and those whome some mens malice called Sacramentaries that none of the differences betweene Melancthon and Illiricus except about certaine ceremonies were real that Osiander held no priuate opinion of justification howsoeuer his strange manner of speaking gaue occasion to many so to thinke and conceiue And this shal be justified against the proudest Papist of them al Thus Field But howe vntrue this his assertion is al the world knoweth and it might be easily here demonstrated did not the matter belong properly to an other place I haue partly also shewed the falshood of it already Neuerthelesse to adde a word or two against this doctor in particular howe doth this agree with the beginning of the Epistle Dedicatory of his booke See his words cited at large in the preface of this treatise See also in his third booke ch 13. pag. 86. Doth he not there complaine of vnhappy diuisions in the Christian world and of infinite distractions of mens mindes not knowing in so great variety of opinions what to thinke or to whome to joine themselues euery faction saith he boasting of the pure and sincere profession of heauenly truth challenging to it selfe alone the name of the Church and fastning vpon al that dissent or are otherwise minded the hateful note of schisme and heresie There he affirmeth that the controuersies of religion in our time are growen in number so many and in nature so intricate that fewe haue time and leasure fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them And therefore he concludeth that nothing remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in thinges of such consequence but diligently to search out the Church that so they may embrace her communion followe her directions and rest in her judgement Thus he discourseth in his Epistle dedicatory And howe can these thinges be made consonant and agreeable to his other wordes euen nowe alleaged Truly I thinke an indifferent reader vvil hardly excuse him from contradiction Besides this he telleth vs there is no difference touching the Sacrament the vbiquitarie presence and the like betweene the Lutherans and the Sacramentaries Caluin Instit booke 4. chap. 17 §. 16. c. but Caluin auoucheth that by the vbiquitarie presence Marcion an ancient Heretike is raised vp out of hel The Caluinists also in the Preface to the Harmony of confessions although a booke published to shew a consent among the followers of the newe religion exclaime in like manner against it and a thousand other bookes written on both sides conuince him of falsehood Field saith none of the differences betweene Melancthon and Illiricus except about certaine ceremonies were real but vvhosoeuer readeth the acts of Synode held by Lutherans at Altenburge and the publike vvritings of the Flaccians so called of Flaccus Illiricus against the Synergists and Adiaphorists two other sects of Lutherans and of these against them shal finde dissentions touching greater matters Field auoucheth that Osiander held no priuate opinion of justification but Caluin in his Institutions Caluin Instit booke 3. chap. 11. §. 5. c. Heshusius l. cont Osiand Schlusselbur in Catalogo haereticorum lib. 6. spendes almost one whole Chapter in the confutation of Osianders opinion concerning this article which at his very entrance to this point he calleth be wotes not what monster of essential righteousnesse Heshusius a Lutheran in like sort condemneth his brother Osianders doctrine touching this And Conradus Schlusselburge an other of that sect placeth him and his followers in the Catalogue of Heretikes Such are Fields rare singular proceedinges in which he feareth not to affirme thinges most apparently false and confessed vntrue by al his bretheren And truly a man of smal learning reading his bookes of the church may first finde that he hath a good opinion of himselfe of his owne wit and

yeare of his raigne seemeth principally to condemne the Sacramentaries vvho denie the real presence wherefore Lutheranisme then seemed to preuaile Communion also vnder one kind in time of necessity is in it approued By another lawe inacted in the second yeare of the said King Zwinglianisme was set vp An. 2. Edwardi vi cap. 1. and a booke of common praier allowed and established as the said act pretendeth not only according to the most sincere and pure Christian religion taught by the Scriptures but also according to the vsages of the primatiue Church Which booke notwithstanding hath beene thrice reuiewed and altered and stil according to the selfe fame vvord of God once in the same King Edwards daies secondly by the direction of Queene Elizabeth and lastly by his Majesty that nowe raigneth See the booke of cōmō praier turned into latin by Thomas Vautrollerus printed at Lōdon an 1574. cū priuilegio Regiae Majestatis touching priuate baptisme administred in houses by lay-mē or women as also some others printed in English before the last corrected by his Majesty who now raigneth and conferre them with the said last corrected And yet it is much disliked by the Puritans and censured to be contrary to the said word And like as their booke of common praier hath beene altered so also haue their opinions concerning some points of religion as I could easily shewe if time suffered me If any man be desirous to behold the like proceeding among our Puritans let him read the Suruey of their religion If I should descend to the inconstancy of particular men of our English nation I should neuer make an end yet one example I wil not omit which is as followeth During the raigne of Queene Mary a Catholike Prince diuers sectaries from hence fledde to Geneua and there in the yeare 1558. printed sundry bookes in vvhich by diuers testimonies of holy Scripture they endeauoured ●o proue the gouernement of women euen in temporal matters to be monstrous vnnatural against the lawe of God and man and therefore not to be suffered But the next yeare following Queene Elizabeth cōming to the crowne the same men found it agreeable to al Scripture and al lawes that a vvoman might haue supreame authority in thinges also spiritual and be supreame head of the Church And doe al our aduersaries acknowledge this their leuity as a fault verily no Yea Caluin approueth it and indeauoureth to defend it from al suspition of a vice Thus he discourseth * Caluin de scandalis pag. 135. Many complaine that they are scandalized that they sawe not al thinges together in the same moment that so hard a worke was not throughly and perfectly polished the first day Howe importune and out of season these delicacies are who seeth not for they doe as if a man should accuse vs that at the first breaking of the day we see not as yet the Sunne shining at noone day And soone after There is nothing more common then these complaints wherefore was not that which we ought to followe presently exactly prescribed vnto vs wherefore did this lie hidden more then other thinges wil there be at the length any end if it shal be permitted euer nowe and then to goe further Certainely they that speake after this sort either enuy the profit of the seruants of God or are sorry that the Kingdome of Christ is promoted to the better Hitherto are Caluins wordes Concerning the same matter in another place he hath this censure Caluin admonit 3. ad Westphalum A lawe ouer hard saith he is prescribed to learned men if after a proofe of their wit and learning published it may not be lawful to them to profit any thing during their life Thus Caluin In which his discourses he doth not only confesse himselfe and his bretheren to haue beene inconstant but also seeketh a defence of this inconstancy But howe absurdly he reasoneth euery man of sense may easily perceiue for our Christian faith and religion depend not as he seemeth here to imagine vpon the wit and learning of any man neither is it lawful for any man be he neuer so vvise or learned to cal any one article by any meanes into doubt for al the articles of our faith are reuealed by God who is truth it selfe But Caluin here plainely granteth that he and his fellowes build their beliefe vpon their owne fancies and judgements not vpon any certaine and infallible ground and consequently that they varie and alter the same according to their progresse in learning and other motiues of their vnderstanding like as Philosophers doe their opinions concerning matters of philosophy indifferent and doubtful And this is the principal ground of our aduersaries inconstancy Some other causes there may be assigned why they are inconstant to wit that some of them make their temporal Princes their absolute guides and immediate heades in Ecclesiastical matters wherefore as often as vpon any consideration of pollicy or any other respect the Prince changeth his minde so often also is religion altered But whether this alteration in any man proceedeth from the authority of the Prince or the judgement of the learned or any other such cause certaine it is that it argueth and proueth no certaine foundation of faith to be in him that so changeth And besides this he doth also approue this or that belief or religion because for some one or other respect it pleaseth his owne fancy And like as these sectaries so vvere al the ancient Heretikes inconstant especially the Arians Socrates lib. 2. hist ca. 32. who as Socrates reporteth altered their Creede or forme of beliefe no lesse then tenne times Hence it proceedeth that none of these newe sectaries can euer be certaine that they haue attained to the truth and of this their inconstancy is a most manifest argument For I thinke that euery one of them that haue changed his beliefe vvil easily graunt that once he liued in errour And it must be confessed that euery one altering condemneth his former faith vvhich if it be so howe can such men certainely knowe that they are not in errour stil vvhat warrant haue they after their change more then they had before But besides this reason euery one of them hath other motiues to make him vncertaine of the truth of his owne religion to wit that the most learned of his company Luther Zwinglius Caluin and the rest haue erred and consequently that he also may erre that as wise and as learned men as he is himselfe censure his beliefe to be false and erroneous c. He that is vnlearned may also consider that if he build vpon the judgement of the learned he cannot possibly assure himselfe that they doe not erre yea seing that euery one of them affirmeth his doctrine to be true and yet they disagree in faith he may wel assure himselfe that some of them doe erre for contraries cannot both be true And howe can he certainely judge who

that Peter Lombardes doctrine is truly golden their 's dirty and filthy Thus discourseth Stancarus one of their owne company Yet who knoweth not that Peter Lombard by the Catholikes is accounted but among the middle sort of diuines and who is so bold as to compare him to S. Hierome especially in translating and expounding the Scriptures But the more to weaken the credit of their translated Bibles vvhich they boast to be drawne and featched from the very fountaines themselues to wit from the Hebrewe Greeke text in which tongues the scriptures were first penned let vs here adde not only that they are not sincerely featched from thence as hath beene sufficiently proued before euen by the testimonies of Protestants themselues but also that the said fountaines and that likewise according to the judgement of Protestants are not now pure and sincere but in some places haue beene corrupted I haue in like sort proued before this last point as farre forth as it concerneth the Greeke text of the new testament And although something hath beene said of the Hebrew text of the old yet in this place I wil relate for further proofe of the same certaine sentences of Castalio Conradus Pellicanus and D. Humfrey in vvhich this is plainely auouched For the first of these writing in defence of himself against one that maintained the sincerity and purity of the Hebrewe text hath these wordes Castalio in defens suae translat pag. 227. This good fellowe seemeth to be of that opinion as in manner al the Iewes are and some Christians drawing neare to Iudaisme or Iudaizing in this respect that he thinketh no errour euer to haue crept into the Hebrew Bibles that God would neuer suffer that any word should be corrupted in those sacred bookes as though the bookes of the old testament were more holy then those of the newe in the which newe so many diuers readings are found in so many places or as though it were credible that God had more regard of one or other litle word or sillable then he had of whole bookes whereof he hath suffered many I say not to be depraued but to be vtterly lost Thus Castalio And in his discourse following he calleth this high opinion of the Hebrewe text a Iewish superstition Conrad Pellic tom 4. in Psal 85. v. 9. alias 8. Conradus Pellicanus expounding these wordes of the 84. Psalme vers 9. Qui conuertuntur ad cor which in one of our English Bibles are thus translated * Bibl. 1592. Bible read in Churches That they turne not againe to folly and an other That they turne not againe writeth after this sort The old interpreter seemeth to haue read one way whereas the Iewes nowe reade another which I say because I would not haue men thinke this to haue proceeded from the ignorance or slouthfulnesse of the old interpreter Rather we haue cause to finde fault for want of diligence in the Antiquaries and faith in the Iewes who both before Christs comming since seeme to haue beene lesse careful of the Psalmes then of their Talmudical songes Hitherto are his wordes Humfred lib. 1. de rat interpret pa. 178. Idem ibid. lib. 2. pag. 219. In like sort D. Humfrey telleth vs that the reader may easily finde out and judge howe many places the Iewish superstition hath corrupted And againe I like not saith he that men should to much followe the Rabbins as many doe for those places which promise and declare Christ the true Messias are most filthily corrupted by them Such is the judgement of these sectaries Perhaps some man vvil deeme these to be men of no account among Protestants but it is not so D. Humfrey is wel knowne Humfre ibid. lib. 1. pag. 62. 63. 189. and he matcheth Castalio with the best and affirmeth the Bible by him translated to be most paineful most diligent most throughly conferred examined sifted and polished Gesnerus also a sectary of no smal fame giueth him this commendation Castalio hath translated the Bible so diligently Gesnerus in Bibliotheca and with so singular fidelity according to the Hebrewe and Greeke that he seemeth farre to haue surpassed al translations of al men whatsoeuer haue hitherto beene set forth Finally Conradus Pellicanus vvas Professor of the Hebrewe tongue in Zuricke And out of this vvhole discourse it is euident that although vvee should suppose the authority of the Church not to be infallible and that both vve and our aduersaries build only vpon the bare letter of holy Scripture yet that the said letter is a farre more sound and firme ground as it is translated and expounded by vs then it is as it is translated and expounded by our aduersaries For although vve both challenge to our selues the holy Scriptures yet our translation and interpretation is of greater authority then theirs We also for the proofe of the sense by vs receiued offer to be tried by the censure of al our auncestors from vvhome together with the letter we haue receiued also that sense which vve embrace Contrariwise they both in their translation and exposition build onlie vpon their owne judgement and haue no further proof or authority And this I say is true although we should make the Church subject to errour and grant the bare letter of Scripture to be the ground of our aduersaries beliefe But as I haue proued the authority of the Church is infallible and diuine and besides this the newe sectaries build not vpon the letter of holy Scripture Secondly I inferre of that which hath beene said that our aduersaries according to their doctrine haue no infallible meane whereby to knowe what articles of faith haue beene reuealed by God to his Church and consequently that they want a condition necessary to true faith And this is manifest both because they make the Church which God as I haue shewed hath ordained to be the ordinary meane for vs to come to the knowledge of such thinges subject to error and also because the bare letter of Scripture vvhich they ordinarily pretend in this case is insufficient neither doe they build vpon it as I haue proued Thirdly I conclude that absolutely al the professors of the newe Gospel ground their faith and religion vpon the judgement and fancy of man not vpon any diuine authority Hence they measure the omnipotent power of God by their owne weake vnderstanding and in those misteries vvhich being aboue the reach of reason cannot be by it comprehended they cry out vvith the Iewes howe can this be Iohn 6. v. 52. Ciril lib. 4. in Ioan. cap. 13. which word howe saith S. Ciril Bishop of Alexandria is a Iewish word and worthy of al punishment This also vvas in some sort confessed by king Henry the eight the first head of our English Church For being desirous after his denial of the Popes supreamacy to make some innouation of religion within his dominions he published as Hal Hollinshed and Stowe

al points appertaining to faith and religion She is finally the ship and skilful pilot which throughout al the stormes and tempests of Schismes and Heresies vvil guide vs vvithout errour to the porte of euerlasting saluation and make vs fit stones to be placed euerlastingly in the triumphant Church of God in heauen FINIS AN APPENDIX TO THIS TREATISE CONTAINING A BRIEFE CONFVTATION OF A BOOKE PVBLISHED IN THE YEARE M. D.C.VI BY WILLIAM CRASHAW bearing this title Romish forgeries and falfifications c. IF al vvere true which is objected by newe sectaries against the one true Spouse of Christ the Catholike Church al men endued vvith reason might according to reason prudently meruaile that any man of common sense doth follow her doctrine or embrace her communion Luther exclaimeth against her children that they make the Virgin Mary a * Luther ad Euangeliū d● festo Annunciationis Goddesse giuing her omnipotency both in heauen and earth Caluin a Caluin book 3. Instit c. 20 §. 22. l. de necessit reformand Eccles that they giue the worship of God vnto Saints and honour them and their relikes in place of Christ Luther againe b Luth. ad c. 50. Genes in colloq Germ. c. de Christo that they deny justification and saluation through Christes passion and merits Caluin c Caluin book 3. Instit cap. 20. §. 21. that in their Litanies Hymnes and Proses there is no mention of Christ yea that for the most part Christ being passed ouer God is praied to by the names of Saints Luther moreouer d Luther ad l. Ducis Georgij scripsit an 1533. l. de abrogat Missae priuatae that they hold a man may keepe the Commandements without the grace of God Caluin that they e Caluin booke 1. Instit ch 11. §. 9. and 10. giue Idolatrous worship vnto Images Luther also that f Luther l. de Ecclesia the Pope buried the Scripture in dirt and dust Caluin g Caluin booke 4. Instit ch 9. §. 24. in antid Concil Triden sess 7. Canon 1● that they make the oracles of God subject vnto men and that they esteeme more in baptisme of chrisme salt and such other thinges then of the washing with water Luther finally h Luther lib. de Concilijs that they giue to Councels authority to make newe articles of faith and change the old Caluin that they giue the Pope authority to institute new Sacraments and that the Popes hold there is no God Caluin alij passim in 2. Thessal 2 4. Caluin Instit booke 4. chap. 7. §. 27. that al thinges written and taught of Christ are lies and deceits that the doctrine concerning the future life and the last resurrection are meere fables These and diuers other such monstrous vntruthes are forged by our aduersaries against vs and this course they are constrained to take that they may haue something to impugne For if they should plainely and sincerely deliuer vvhat we hold the force and brightnesse of truth it selfe would easily at her only sight weaken yea ouerthrowe al their impugnations And like as the first beginners of the new religion ranne these vnconscionable I may say shameful courses so their successors alwaies haue continued in the same and euen those of our daies obstinately refusing to accept of any reasonable answere or to vnderstand the truth insist in the steps of their predecessors For vvhereas if they were but indifferent they might wel perceiue that vve vvhome neither feare of death nor infamy and disgrace nor losse of liberty liuing and worldly goodes can moue to doe one act contrary to our religion wil not for al the world denie any one article of our faith Yet notwithstanding although we denie their false slaunders neuer so much yet they vvil needes haue vs to hold them as they say vvhether vve vvil or no. Diuers impute vnto vs daily strange paradoxes in matters of faith But among others one William Crashaw Anno 1606. In the Epistle Dedicatory hath not long since published a booke accusing vs of an horrible matter of fact to wit of the crime of corruption and forgery in the highest degree so are his wordes His said booke beareth this title Romish forgeries and falsifications together with Catholike restitutions By reading of the contents of it he that is not learned and acquainted with their dealings may easily be drawne and perswaded not only to condemne vs as notable corrupters and forgers but further to imagine that we in former ages haue corrupted al the Fathers workes and consequently inferre that their testimonies can yeeld vs no firme ground vvhereon to build our faith Crash in his preface to the reader §. see what see also § wil these men contrary to that which hath beene said in this Treatise Nay Crashaw himselfe doth not only affirme that they haue cause to suspect that we haue so dealt with the Fathers because we haue not spared as he saith some as ancient as some fathers but also auerreth that it wil be proued to the worlds view that we * §. But whē haue de facto corrupted almost al antiquity in so much that no man can tel what ground to stand vpon either for Councels Fathers decrees or mens writings And he addeth § To end this point that he doth not doubt but ere long God wil raise vp some instruments of his glory who shal fully discouer to the world this treachery of the Romish Church by making it as apparent they haue corrupted the Fathers as I hope saith he to doe in this and the bookes ensuing that they haue corrupted al such late writers as they imagined any way to make against them Thus Crashaw For the resolution of which his false imputation as also for clearing of our present practise which may seeme to some to tend towardes the ouerthrow of the authority of antiquity I thinke it not amisse to spend some fewe lines in prouing these three points First that our practise in correcting of bookes reprehended by Crashaw is prudent and laudable Secondly that our aduersaries if we offend in this are much more to be condemned for the like proceedings in the same kinde Lastly that the Fathers vvorkes are sincere and free from al corruption To declare the first I must first giue my reader to vnderstand that the Church of Christ nowe hath and euer hath had authority to censure and condemne al such bookes as are published and containe thinges any vvaies opposite to the truth of her faith and religion This first appeareth because she is supreame judge on earth of al controuersies arising touching faith and religion and hath jurisdiction ouer euery Christian from which it proceedeth that she condemneth heresies and Heretikes wherefore it cannot be denied but she hath also authority to condemne the works of any Heretike or other person vvhatsoeuer containing heresies or errours opposite to her faith For much more it is to condemne

vve build our faith vpon the particular opinions of some fewe priuate men or doe vve proue the truth of our doctrine by their testimonies Moreouer suppose some followed those men in some one or two opinions were they presently in al other points Protestants or doth it proue the Protestant religion true Treatise of the definition and notes of the Church Nothing lesse for as I vvil shewe hereafter neither Wickliffe nor Hierome of Prage nor Iohn Husse were Protestants much lesse any that were in open profession Catholikes But in very deed the Church doth not only in moderne authours correct propositions that are in plaine tearmes heretical but also as appeareth by our rules related by Crashaw such as be erroneous taste of heresie are offensiue to godly eares or temerarious yea such as are vvanton or dishonest superstitious tending to the infamy of any c. as I wil declare anone Besides this if our intention were to make the authors seeme altogether ours and to take them as it vvere from the Sectaries whose doctrine they seeme to approue vvhat reason haue vve to publish in print to the whole world what we wil haue corrected in their workes Is not this a plaine confession that we dislike their manner of speach or their doctrine Wherefore in this we rather helpe our aduersaries cause if the authority of the said authors be of any moment then weaken it And in very truth if vve did it to any such end as they intend it were no wisedome to make our doinges knowne to the world but much more policy we should shewe if vve did it in priuate and neuer made any open mention of it but rather did denie it Why then doe we correct such bookes in very truth as is apparant for no other causes then I haue partly rehearsed before to wit principally that one faith and religion may be preserued among al sorts and that no man embrace any doctrine as approued or tollerated in the Church which is not so approued and tollerated then also to auoid al superstition witchcraft corruption of manners and other such vices as wil appeare by the rules of which hereafter But they say that vve take vpon vs to correct Bertramus an authour vvho liued in the Church 700. yeares since and Rampegolus who flourished in the yeare 1418. I answere that vve neither doe this to bereaue our aduersaries of any testimony for as concerning Bertramus vve commonly graunt that booke vvhich goeth vnder his name to make for their doctrine against the real presence although some Protestants seeme to denie it nay further See the Century writers Centur. 9. c. 4 col 212. many of the best learned men of our side acknowledge also in their publike vvritings the booke to be his * Pantaleon in Chronographia p. 65 although Pantaleon a Sacramentary number it not among his workes and this is sufficient for our aduersaries although the booke be neuer so much altered wherefore for this cause only that some good thinges are contained in it together with the poison lest that men sucke the one with the other we thinke it good to remoue away that vvhich is nought and leaue them the good Rampegolus is nothing like so auncient and besides it is confessed by Possiuinus that his booke being written in a time not oppugned by such heresies as since are risen Possiuin to 1. apparat q. sacr pag. 114. 115. containeth some errours vvherefore neither doe vve endeauour to conceale that in some points he seemeth to fauour our aduersaries He addeth that this authour hath put into his vvorke certaine absurd thinges or rather fables out of the master of the Ecclesiastical history that he hath many thinges otherwise then they are in the Bible that the Scripture is not cited so sincerely yea that sometimes it is alleaged falsly that he hath some thinges Apocryphal out of the 3. booke of Esdras and out of the epistle of Ciril of Hierusalem to S. Augustine concerning the death of S. Hierome Besides this he accuseth him of false allegations of Doctors of Solecismes Barbarismes and obscure phrases And seing that it is a booke vvhich young preachers would much vse if it were not forbidden and that as it is like without choice of the good from the badde for want of learning I hope no man wil blame vs if we amend that which is amisse And thus much of the first point Nowe to come to the second point I must needes returne M. Crashawes argument vpon himselfe thus They who raze the recordes and falsify the monuments of mens writings altering the bookes of learned men after they are dead adding and taking out at their pleasures and namely taking out such wordes sentences and whole discourses as make against them and adding the contrary euen whatsoeuer they can imagine to make for them incurre no lesse crime then corruption and forgery in the highest degree This is gathered out of Crashaw in the second page of his epistle Dedicatory But the followers of the newe religion who are called Protestants Puritans c. haue done so therefore they haue incurred the crime of corruption or forgery in the highest degree M. Crashaw must pardon me if I proceede not in forme of lawe by accusation declaration and proofe as he doth because I haue neuer yet bin preacher at the Temples The proofe of my minor proposition if I should runne through authours vvhich they haue corrupted citing the vvordes and sentences left out or added would rise to a great volume vvherefore briefly only I accuse them of corrupting after this sort the history of Sigonius de regno Italiae of Osorius de rebus gestis Emanuëlis Regis and of Castineda who supplied that which wanted for some yeares after Osorius ended of the liues of the Emperors and diuers others And for the proofe of this to the vnlearned English sectaries I accuse our English Protestants for corrupting S. Augustines meditations his praiers and Manuel The Meditations of Granada printed in the yeare 1602. The conuersion of a sinner the imitation of Christ the Christian directory c. It may be said that in the beginning of the bookes this correction or alteration is confessed I reply that so likewise in our Indices expurgatorij and also commonly in the beginning of such bookes as vve correct we acknowledge the correction but doe they this in al their workes surely no. And for example I name the meditations of Granada in which there is no mention of any alteration for they are plainely set forth in his name as though they vvere truly and sincerely his whereas the translator or rather the falsifier or corrupter hath left out vvhole discourses yea I may almost say whole meditations and added what pleaseth himselfe to make him speake like a Protestant Neither doe they deale only so with vs but also vvith their owne bretheren and that sometimes in principal matters For example the Lutheran Protestants in their conference or synode

arising his words of them are these Their opinion of the sacrament they began with lies Luther in epist ad Ioannē Heruagrum Typographū Argentinum and with lies they doe defend the same and they broach it abroade by the wicked fauour of corrupting other mens bookes hitherto Luther But perhaps my reader may here desire to see some president of some Protestant booke corrupted by some English sectaries and that confessed by a Protstant behold I haue such a president or two at hand The author of the Suruey of the pretended holy discipline a man of good credit among Protestants hauing alleaged Trauerse his Latin booke Dc disciplin Suruay of the pretended holy discipline printed anno 1593. ch 19. pa. 224. 225. Ecclesiast fol. 119. bringeth forth this reason why he alleaged not the English translated by some English sectary But you must remember saith he that I doe referre you to this latin booke and not to the English translation of it Why some may say is it not faithfully translated Shal we thinke that such zealous men as had to deale herein would serue vs as the Iesuites doe It is we knowe a practise with that false hipocritical broode or rather he should haue said a false slaunder imposed vpon them to leaue out and thrust in what they list into the writinges of the auncient Fathers that thereby in time nothing might appeare which should any way make against them But we wil neuer suspect nor beleeue that any man who feareth God and least of al that any of that sort which are so earnest against al abuses and corruptions shal play such a prancke Surely we doe wel to judge the best and I my selfe was of your opinian but now I am cleane altered How were some of Vrsinus workes vsed at Cambridge and it is true that some other bookes haue beene handled vary strangely else where But concerning the present point this the truth The translator of Trauerses booke hath quite omitted the wordes which I haue alleaged and al the rest which tendeth to that purpose euen seauenteene lines together So as if you see but the English booke you shal not finde so much as one steppe whereby you might suspect that euer M. Trauerse had carried so hard a hand ouer the pretend●d widowes If the translatour had receiued any commission from the author to haue dealt in that sort with his booke yet it should haue beene signified either in some preface or in some note or by some meanes or other but to leaue luch a matter out and to giue no general warning of it I tel you plainely it was great dishonesty and lewdnes hitherto are the Protestant authors wordes in the aforesaid Suruey But to come yet a litle nearer to M. Crashaw what wil he say if I finde him guilty of corruption and forgery in this very booke in which he reprehendeth vs This indeede were something to the purpose but as a discreete man would thinke hardly to be proued true in him that so sharply in this very treatise argueth and blameth others for this crime wel I wil doe my endeauour And this argument I bring against him he that taketh vpon him to cite the sayings of others patcheth in leaueth out wordes of their said sentences to serue his owne turne is a corrupter and a forger of other mens sayings but M. Crashaw doth this in his booke made of Romish forgeries and falsifications therefore he is a corrupter and a forger of other mens sayings The Major and first proposition cannot be denied by M. Crashaw For if he incurre the crimes of corruption and forgery as he saith in the highest degree that dealeth so with other mens bookes howe shal we excuse him from them that dealeth so with other mens sayings or sentences Let vs therefore see whether we can proue the Minor or second proposition the truth of vvhich I declare after this sort Prologomena T. 3. Thus you c M. Crashaw in his epistle or preface to his beloued countrimen the seduced Papists of England contending to proue that the Index of forbidden bookes and the Indices expurgatorij are the Popes worke writeth thus For your better satisfaction I wil set you downe briefly the rules to this purpose agreed vpon in that Councel and confirmed afterwardes by diuers Popes Haereticorum libri vt Lutheri Zwinglij Caluini his similium cuiuscunque nominis tituli aut argumenti existant omnino prohibentur The bookes of Heretikes as Luther Zwinglius Caluin and others like to these vnder what name title or argument soeuer they be extant are altogether prohibited thus Crashaw And in the margent he hath these wordes Regula secunda in concilio Tridentino Indice Roma Clementis octaui The 2. rule in the Councel of Trent and the Roman index of Clement the eight But in these words he hath corrupted the rule of the Councel of Trent and of the Roman index of Clement the eight and no such rule is to be found as he here setteth downe therefore he is a forger and corrupter I wil recite the whole rule as I finde it in al those bookes to the end that my reader may see I doe him no wrong The bookes of Heretikes as wel of those who found and raised heresies after the aforesaid yeare 1515. as of those who are or haue beene heads or captaines of Heretikes such as Luther Zwinglius Caluin Balthazar Pacimontanus Swenckfeldius and like vnto these are of what title name or argument soeuer they be are altogether forbidden The bookes of other Heretikes also which treate ex professo of religion that is whose principal argument is of religion are altogether forbidden But such as treate not of religion examined by the commandement of Bishops and Inquisitours by Catholike diuines and approued are permitted hitherto are the wordes of the rule Out of which it is manifest that M. Crashaw by placing the word Heretikes in the place of the word Archeretikes hath falsified the said rule and turned it to a cleane contrary sense For vvhereas the rule saith that certaine bookes of some Heretikes are permitted he maketh it say the bookes of Heretikes vnder what name title or argument whatsoeuer are prohibited And this as it may seeme he doth to perswade his reader that vve are so strict in this matter that we suffer not any bookes whatsoeuer vvritten by Heretikes be they neuer so profitable to be read which is false this is one corruption so palpable that it cannot be denied I vvil not vrge that in the third rule he nameth Iunius his translation of the old testament and Bezaes of the newe whereas these authours or their translations are not so much as named in the rule as it is found in our bookes And for breuities sake I come to his rehersal of our instructions for the purging and correction of bookes Before he setteth downe such thinges as are to be amended translating that vvhich is said in our bookes before

Cipriā epist 40. 70. 55. 69. 71. 73. see him also in exhortat ad Martirium cap. 11. the Century writers who are esteemed very diligent searchers of antiquity taxe S. Ciprian for his doctrine touching the Popes supreamacy Secondly the doctrine of S. Ciprian taught in this booke agreeth exceeding wel with that which is found throughout al his epistles in vvhich vve finde the same sentences almost in the very same wordes which Iames denieth to be in his manuscript copies of the booke of the vnity of the church as that there is one God one Church and one Chaire founded vpon Peter that the Church was built vpon S. Peter that our Lord chose him the first or chiefest that he instituted the origen of vnity from him c. Peraduenture some man wil say these epistles are also corrupted but first I thinke they are not found otherwise in the Manuscript copies mentioned by Master Iames then they are in the printed bookes For vvere they it is like he vvould not haue passed it vvith silence as he doth Secondly neither Perkins nor any other affirmeth these epistles to be corrupted Thirdlie one of these Epistles in vvhich it is said that our Lord did choose S. Peter the first or chiefest and that vpon him he built his Church is cited by S. Augustine August to 7. de bapt cont Donat. cap. 1. Cipr. ep 72. ad Quintum vvho also alleageth those very vvordes as S. Ciprians which are in the printed copies to vvit Nam nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit super quem edificauit Ecclesiam suam c. For neither S. Peter whome our Lord chose the first or chiefest and vpon whome he built his Church c. And moreouer after S. Ciprians vvordes he addeth himselfe Behold where Ciprian rehearseth which also we haue learned in holy Scriptures that the Apostle Peter in whome the Primacy of the Apostles through so excellent grace is higher then others c. Thus S. Augustine of which it is most euident that this Epistle among al the rest is not corrupted and yet here is almost said as much in substance of this matter as is in his booke de vnitate Ecclesiae Finally the vvordes vvhich Iames vvil haue excluded from S. Ciprians booke de vnitate Ecclesiae are so agreeable to this holy Fathers stile and phrase and so fitting his discourse that no man can almost suspect them to be added But it may be demanded howe it falleth out that they are wanting in the Manu-script copies mentioned by M. Iames In very truth if there be such auncient copies and there be nothing razed out of them I cannot but thinke that they were written out before the art of printing was inuented by some Wicliffian Heretike or if they came out of some forraine country by some Schismatike or other that held with some German Emperor against the Pope That the Wicliffians vvere very potent and preuailed much in our Country we may gather out of that vvhich is said by Stowe in his Chronicle and in the yeares 1414. and 1377. And Walsingham vvriteth Walsingham anno vlt. Edward 3. that the Vniuersity of Oxford in particular vvas cold in resisting him Walsingham in vita Richardi 2. anno 1378. Nay their coldnesse vvas such that Gregory XI Pope in the yeare 1378. vvrote his Breue to it and reprehended them of the said Vniuersity for their coldnesse and slacknesse AN INDEX OR TABLE OF AL THE CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THIS TREATISE The first part of the groundes of the old religion CHAPTER 1. Of the first ground of Catholike religion to wit that there is a God and that God by his prouidence gouerneth al thinges page 1. Section 1. That there is a God page 2. Sect. 2. Almighty God hath care of worldly affaires and ruleth al things by his diuine prouidence page 10. Chap. 2. Of the second ground of our religion to wit that the soule of man is immortal and that it shal either be rewarded euerlastingly in heauen or punished euerlastingly in hel page 12. Chap. 3. Of a third principal ground of our faith to wit that Christian religion only is the true worship of God page 16. Chap. 4. That among Christians they only that professe and embrace the Catholike faith and religion are in state of saluation and doe truly worship God page 24. Chap. 5. Sect. 1. Of the definition and conditions of true faith p. 28. Sect. 2. That faith is a most firme assent of the vnderstanding page 29. Sect. 3. Faith is of thinges incomprehensible by natural reason and consequently obscure page 30. Sect. 4. By true Christian faith we beleeue such misteries as God hath reuealed to his Church page 32. Sect. 5. That true faith is built vpon diuine authority page 34. Sect. 6. Besides the reuelation of God some infallible propounder of the articles of our faith is necessary and that they are propounded vnto vs by the Catholike Church page 36. Chap. 6. Sect. 1. Of the supreame and infallible authority of the Catholike Church page 38. Sect. 2. The whole summe of Christian doctrine by word of mouth not by writing was committed by Christ to his Apostles page 39. Sect. 3. The Church cannot stray from the rule of faith receaued nor erre in matter of faith or general precepts of manners which is proued first because the holy Ghost directeth her in al truth page 42. Sect. 4. The same is proued by other arguments page 44. Sect. 5. That the testimonies of holy Scripture and other proofes brought for the infallible and diuine authority of the Church cannot be applied to the Church considered as it comprehendeth al faithful Christians that are and haue beene since Christes ascention or since the Apostles daies but vnto the present Church of al ages page 52. Sect. 6. That the same testimonies and proofes conuince an infallible judgement of the Church concerning euery article of faith not only concerning certaine of the principal page 56. Sect. 7. That to saluation it is necessary to beleeue the whole Catholike faith and euery article thereof page 58. Chap. 7. Of the holy Scripture which is the first particular ground of faith in the Catholike Church page 61. Sect. 1. Howe the Scripture is knowne to be Canonical page 61. Sect. 2. Concerning the sense or exposition of holy Scriptures and first that the Scriptures are hard and receiue diuers interpretations p. 67. Sect. 3. The Scriptures may be falsly vnderstood and that euery priuate man may erre in the vnderstanding of them page 69. Sect. 4. That the letter of holy Scripture falsly interpreted is not the word of God page 72. Sect. 5. The true sense of the holy Scripture is to be learned of the Catholike Church who is the true judge thereof page 75. Sect. 6. An objection against the premises is answered and the question concerning the last resolution of our faith is discussed page 78. Chap. 8. Concerning the second particular ground of Catholike