God so farre as it may be to his honour and glory The bad spirit desires much for its owne will pleasure all with importune and vnseasonable vehemency and perturbatiō That the good spirit moues to inward humility contempt of ones selfe and the more it increaseth in vertue the meaner conceit it workes of ones selfe and the better of others The bad spirit moues to outward humility in exteriour thinges that it may seeme humble and lowly but workes an inward conceit of ones selfe and willfullnesse in all actions and proceedinges That the good spirit causes one to confide much in God and distrust much in ones selfe The bad spirit causes one to esteeme highly of his owne conceit to presume much vpon ones owne force and litle to feare his owne state danger That the good spirit is willing to suffer much for Gods cause and the more it suffers the more it is contented The bad spirit murmurs and repines and is impatient at al crosses and afflictions and is disquieted and vexed against those by whome they are any way caused or procured That the good spirit is mercifull and compassionate shewing pitty and mercy where it may shew iustice seuerity The bad spirit is seuere fierce cruel and reuengefull euen vpon those who do subiect and humble themselues That the good spirit shews a respect and reuerence euen to the Saints seruants of God for the honour it bears to God and also to their Reliques and Images for the respect it beares to them The bad neglects both and refuses to giue any respect or honour to either That the good proposes the yoke of Christ as easy the grace of God as sufficient and superaboundant to keep his Commandements thereby to enable men to performāce thereof The bad proposes the performance of Gods commandements as impossible and Gods mercy as facill before sinne is committed thereby to allure to sinne his iustice as rigide and terrible after sinne be committed thereby to draw into desperation That the good spirit if it worke any miracles illuminate with any reuelations or reueale any secrets of the hart or euents to come doth do all peaceably without any extraordinary motions of sobbing sighing exulting or grieuing without ostentation of any such guift or grace moderatly without any vehemency of desire of them or conceit of ones selfe or contempt of others for them compassionatly without aggrauating of offences receaued or benefits exhibited and humbly with submission to the iudgment of superiour authority and with conformity to their censure and correction The bad doth all contrary it proceedes in perturbation without peace in vehemency without discretion in exagerations without measure in obstinacy without relenting in any thing from that which it once conceaues That the good spirit vses those wayes and spirituall meanes which God hath for that present age tyme and place accommodated as most fit for the spirituall good of soules then liuing Therefore as in former ages he prescribed the instinct of naturall reason in the law of Nature the vse of ceremonies in the law of Moyses and either strange guift of miracles and languages or ardent desires of martyrdome or rigide austerity of pennance in the primitiue ages of the law of Grace so now in these ages not communicating so frequently the guift of miracles nor affoarding so vsually the benefit of martytdome nor exacting so seuerely the former austerity of pennāce it moueth vs to a more zealous performance of these deuotions which in this tyme the Diuell more violently oppugnes to wit frequentation of Sacraments vse of meditation duties of obedience veneration of Saints visitation of Reliques and holy places and the like The bad spirit peruerts all this order it affects nouelty it seekes curiosity it followes after rarities it ayms at singularity it lookes for prodigiosities and contents it selfe with nothing but straines to extrauagancy it seemes to know all striues to do all seekes to go beyond all and flyes in his owne conceit aboue all both measure reason discretion That the good spirit keepes in all a tranquility of the mind with a conformity in all thinges to the will of God whether it be the rooting out of vices the planting of vertues the exercise of mortification and deuotion all conioyned with a pure iniention of not seeking ones owne but Gods honour and with a discreet moderation in being neither too credulous in belieuing all nor too obdurate in belieuing nothing but with aduice and temper to examin all and not rashly to receaue or reiect any The bad spirit runs in all the contrary race in some thinges it is troubled and disquieted with feares and scruples in others loose dissolute without care or conscience at sometymes feruent and headlong in deuotion beyond measure at others stupide and dull without sense or feeling in some practises of small importance violent vehement and impatient without reason in others of moment negligent carelesse and heedlesse without any esteeme or regard in purposes of good wauering and inconstant in iudgment of others credulous and temerarious All which omitting much which might be sayd more may suffice to discerne the multiplicity of signes of good spirits and the difference of them from bad It remaynes to shew that neither these rules to discerne good spirits from bad nor the difference betweene good spirits and bad are so certaine nor the applying them to euery particuler euent so easy that the spirit of euery priuate man can of it selfe proceed in it and securely rest himselfe vpon it SVBDIV. 3. The difficulty to iudge of these rules and differences of Spirits NOtwithstanding therefore that these rules signes of a good spirit and these differences from a bad be by spirituall men well and truly thus assigned and notwithstāding that it be true that they serue for good and morall directions to discerne those spirits and that any man may proceed probably in his iudgment vpon them yet that they neither are in themselues so certaine and infallible nor yet are for so certaine assigned that euery man may infallibly rely and rest vpon them without any further directour but that these both may and often do faile in many particuler euents and that many are deceaued in the vse and application of them is by these reasons heere briefly and by examples afterwardes more at large produced euidently proued First because such is the excellency both in nature and operation of these spirits especially Angells and Diuels aboue the nature and capacity of man and such is the weaknes and obscurity of mans vnderstanding in these sensuall organs of our corporall frailty and such is the inconstancy and vncertainty of euery priuate spirit in euery particuler person that admit these rules and differences were certaine yet neither is the vnderstanding of euery man so intelligent that he knowes them nor his spirit so quicke-sighted that it can discerne them
knowne after the thing to be proued All which inconueniences this Circular manner of probation doth inferre making the probation either the same or equally or more obscure then the thing to be proued 2. Because it would follow that idem should be prius posterius notius ignotius respectu eiusdem knowne vnknowne first knowne and after knowne in respect of the same As when the premises do demonstrate the conclusion they must be first and better knowne then the Conclâ—sion And againe when the conclusion doth demonstrate the premises it should be first and better knowne then the premises so the same conclusion shal be prius notius as demonstrating the premises and posterius ignotius as demonstrated and proued by the premises both being vnderstood of the same premises 3. Because this Circular proofe is to proue the same to be the same because it is the same as the conclusion to be true if it be true or because it is true As saith Aristotle Si A est B est si B est A est ergo si A est A est In which as A is proued to be A because it is A so the conclusion is proued to be true because it is true Whereupon Aristotle concludes that euery Circular proofe and demonstration which is regressus ab eodem ad omnino idem that is when we returne froÌ„ one thing to the same thing againe and from one proofe to the same proofe againe is vitious and vnlawfull in Logicke And thus much of the nature of a Circle Secondly for the difference betweene a proper Circle which is bad and an improper which is good and lawfull we may note also that euery kind of Circular and reciprocall proofe is not vnlawfull for some is reciprocall betweene the cause and the effect as betweene rationale and risibile betweene the Sunne the Day And thus may be proued the effect by the cause à priori as Est risibile quia est rationale est dies quia Sol lucet or on the contrary the cause by the effect à posteriori as Est rationale quia est risibile or Sol lucet quia est dies Other proofes are reciprocall betweene two causes of diuers kindes as betweene the efficient cause and the finall in which sense we proue Phisicke to be good because as the efficient cause it causeth and worketh health and health to be good because as the finall cause or end it moueth to take Phisicke Or betweene the efficient and materiall cause as when we proue the entrance of the wind to be the cause that is efficient of opening the window and the opening of the window to be the cause that is materiall of the entrance of the wind Or when we proue the aboundance of raine by the aboundance of vapours as by the materiall cause and the aboundance of vapours by the aboundance of raine as by the effect All which kind of reciprocall or Circular proofe of the cause by the effect and the effect by the cause or of one cause by another is good and allowed in Logicke as being improperly a Circle Only that which is disallowed and by Aristotle all condemned is that proper manner of Circle which is 1. when in the same kind of cause one thing is proued by another and this againe by the former which is either idem per idem or ignotum per ignotius 2. When this reciprocall proofe is made by one and the same cause in one and the same manner of proofe 3. When to one and the selfe same person this one thing is thus proued by another and this againe by the former the one mutually prouing the other as when the premises demonstrate the conclusion and the conclusion againe the premises both being otherwise vnknowne As when the maister proues the seruant to be innocent and the seruant the maister both being before suspected as guilty In which the same thing is notius ignotius prius posterius that is more knowne and lesse knowne first knowne and after knowne both in one and the same respect and in respect of one and the same person and so a thing vnknowne is proued by another more vnknowne which is that vnlawfull Circle or Circular manner of demonstration disallowed and condemned by Aristotle By which is manifest what a Circular proofe is and of Circular manners of proofes which is improper lawfull and which proper and vnlawfull Thirdly Both Catholicks and Protestantes do mutually accuse one another of this vicious and Circular arguing and manner of proofe The Protestants accuse the Catholicks because they proue the authority of the scripture by the authority of the Church and the authority of the Church by the authority of scripture For aske a Catholicke how he knowes the Scripture to be infallible and true he will answer because the Church tels him it is so aske him how he proues the Church to be infallible and true he wil answer because the scripture sayes it is so and so he proues the Scripture by the Church and the Church by the Scripture The Catholicks accuse the Protestants because they proue the scripture by the spirit and the spirit by the scripture for aske a Protestant how he knowes the scripture to be true and the true sense of it he answers because the spirit so tels and assures him aske him how he knowes the spirit that it is of God and speakes truth he answers because the scripture tels and assures him so and so he knowes the Scripture by the spirit and the spirit by the Scripture The Catholikes cleared from the obiected Circle against their doctrine SECT II. THE question therefore is whether the Catholiks betweene Scripture and Church or the Protestants betweene the Scripture and the Spirit and otherwise do fall into this kind of vitious argumentation and proofe in maÌ„ner of a Circle And that the Catholikes are free from this fault and do make their proofe to seuerall sortes of persons in seuerall kinds of causes by a partiall manner of proofe and thereby do still proue one thing vnknowne by another more knowne to those persons is first to be proued For which we may note that the Catholikes require to Fayth for so much as is for our purpose two thinges First a preparation to prepare vs to accept the thinges belieued as credible and in prudence worthy to be belieued which is wrought by credible testimonyes such as are miracles consent sanctity antiquity and the rest before meÌ„tioned by which our vnderstanding is euidently conuinced to iudge and accept of the Christian Religion as more worthy or credit then any other Secondly they require a firme assent or beliefe to the articles of fayth proposed as true and of infallible verity which is wrought by the habit of fayth and dependes vpon the diuine reuelation of God declaring in Scripture or Tradition and proposing by holy Church what and why we are to belieue vpon which
God a Diuell LASTLY that this Protestant doctrine doth transforme God into a Diuell and so doth depriue him of his only and all goodnes and therby transpose him into the greatest and vilest euill that can be shall by these ensuing reasons appeare 1. It is the office or property of Satan to â—empt man to sinne yea as an aduersary to lay traps to ensnare man in sinne for which in greeke he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a tempter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an entrapper or calumniator and in hebrew Sathan an aduersary and so he is called tempter is said to tempt vs and to temp the hart to lye to the holy ghost But this is more proper to God according to this Protestant doctrine then to the Diuell 1. Because God doth not only tempt and moue a man to sinne but which is more doth will ordaine and predestinate a man to sinne and to al the sinnes which are committed 2. Because God is not only our aduersary to oppose vs but so potently doth oppose vs in so weighty a matter as our greatest good that he directly excludes most from all felicity depriues most of all benefit of it debarres most from all meanes to attaine it entraps most in all the snares which may hinder their progresse vnto it the Diuell is but only his instrument to worke that which he wils and execute that which he before had designed against vs therefore God is more our tempter and aduersary then is the Diuell Secondly The office and property of the Diuell is to sow tares or ill weeds of sinne in the field of our hearts to choake vp all the corne of grace and goodnes the enemy comes and sowes tares But God doth this according to this doctrine more then the Diuell 1. Because God doth worke inwardly in the hearts of sinners doth excecate and obdurate the minds of men doth strike them with a spirit of errour giddinesse and madnesse and that not by permission but operation as Caluin in particuler affirmes 2. Because God doth will command and worke in vs all the sinnes which are wrought as the principall cause and mouer the Diuell being only as the instrument and that not free but forced not mouing but moued and not able to do otherwise then by God he is both commanded and compelled as before therfore the chiefe and principall sower of ill seeds and weeds of sinne is God not the Diuell Thirdly The office and property of the Diuell is to be authour of all sinnes in generall sinne is of the Diuell and of lying in particuler who speakes lies of himselfe and is a lier the Father of lies But this is more proper to God then the Diuell according to this doctrine 1. Because the Diuell did only in Adam by tempting him to eat the forbidden fruit remoue an impediment which did hinder ill to wit originall iustice by which the inferiour part was kept in order without rebellion to the superiour but God did by his will saith Caluin ordaine and decree the fall of Adam the ruine of all his posterity the miserable condition into which we are all fallen Therfore God was more properly the authour of Adams fal then the Diuel 2. Because the Diuell doth only tempt to sinne indirectly medially that is either obiectiuè proposing sinfull obiects to the phantasy that the will may consent and delight in them or dispositiuè by altering tempering the organs of the senses that the appetites may with more facility incline vnto them leauing alwayes a freedome of the will to dissent or assent but God according to Caluin doth not only by his ineuitable immutable decree and ordinance will and commaÌ„d the same but also by his immediate effectual irresistable concourse operation to euery actioÌ„ of sin so works the act of sinne in man that he leaues in man neither any operation at all God working all nor any liberty or freedome God necessitating all who is thereby not only the permitter but the authour of all sinnes the authour as well of the adultery of Dauid the treachery of Iudas the hardnesse of Pharao the cruelty of Achab the incest of Absalom the reproach of Semei the idolatry of the ten Tribes of the Chaldean destruction of Iudea of the Iewes and Pilates condemning of Christ as he is of the conuersion of S. Paul Therefore God is more and truely the immediate worker of sinnes and lyes then the Diuell O diabolicall doctrine SVBDIV. 8. Obseruations vpon the former doctrine VPON good ground therefore did Castalio who as Caluins scholler best vnderstood his maisters mind not only by his writinges but from his owne mouth affirme that this doctrine of Caluin did transfer God into the Diuell and for the same forsooke both him and Geneua and writ against him and this his doctrine Truely did Peter Vermilius a Professour of Tigure affirme that this doctrine of Caluins is a libertine execrable sacrilegious abominable and altogeather diabolicall doctrine Iustly did the Tigurin Sacramentaries anno 1554 accuse Caluin for this doctrine of great impiety cause his bookes writ of this subiect to be rent in peeces by the Hangman and to be burnt publickly in the Market place by special Edict commanded that none should diuulge in their territories any so horrible and detestable opinions Vpon good reason do as yet the Lutherans in Germany so detest this doctrine that to cleare Luther of it they did expunge out of his works these words God doth worke euill in vs. And most worthily doe the same Lutherans generally disclaime both this doctrine and Caluin for it in so much as one of them Heshusius a great Superintendent affirmes that Caluin writ wickedly of the cause of sinne made God the authour of sinne and in his doctrine is horribly contumelious against God pernicious to man and makes not the Diuell but God to be the authoisr of lyes Another of them a Professour auouches that not God but the Diuell is authour of this predestination and the God of the Caluinists Out of which doctrine and sequels vpon it may be obserued 1. That neuer any doctrine of Atheist Pagan Iew or Heretike was so wickedly pernicious and abominable as this of Caluin and his followers is for though some made God idle as Epicurus others impotent as Lucianus others the authour of euill as the Cerdonists Marcionists and Manichees others miserable afflicting himselfe as the Thalmudists others no God at all as the Atheists Yet all these are more tollerable theÌ„ these Caluinists for it is not so ill to be idle as to be doing ill better to make God do nothing then to make him the worker of all wickednesse It is more tollerable to make God vnable to do good then to make him the authour and actour of doing ill to make him vnable to requit good then vniust to punish where
to bastaâ—dy it is a worke profitable and I hope worth the labour to descend into a particuler confutation of this Priuate Spirit and by speciall and seuerall kindes of arguments such as are the authority of holy Scripture the testimonies of auncient Fathers the principles of holy Fayth the euidency of solid reason the absurdities both doctrinall and practicall that ensue vpon it and the fruits and effects which haue beene produced by it to lay open the deformity falsity and impiety of this Priuate spirit and to shew the inconueniences absurdities and blasphemies which ensue vpon the making it the whole ground of Fayth the sole interpreter of Scripture and the only iudge of all controuersies of Faith Religion which as is before in the former part shewed all Protestants haue done and yet do For the better performance of which vndertaken taske and the more both orderly to proceed and more clearely to vnderstand the same as in the former part we proued six groundes of Christian and Catholike fayth vpon which it is built and shewed that as the Catholikes do imbrace them all the Protestants do reiect and delude them all so it will not be amisse in this part first before we enter the particuler confutation to propose to the iudicious Readers consideratioÌ„ also six helps or meanes by which ordinarily God vseth to worke true Catholicke fayth in the hart of euery true beleeuer and to shew that as they are all and euery one of them concurring to the true fayth of euery Catholik so they are all wanting to all sortes of Protestants and to their faith and religion whereby both Catholikes Protestants may discerne as well by what kind of causes and meanes true Fayth is produced as vpon how solid a grouÌ„d and foundation the same is builded and so al may the better be enabled to iudge whether of the two Religions that is Catholike or Protestant be not only more solidly grouÌ„ded but also more diuinely produced For which we may note that as these six Meanes or helpes are necessary to Fayth so three of them are necessary in respect of the Obiect belieued and three in respect of the Subiect belieuing In respect of the Obiect the first is the Materiall obiect or articles to be belieued which as they are supernatural and aboue the capacity of our vnderstanding so are they to reason not euident and cleare but obscure both in their verity that they are true and in their reuelation that they are reuealed by God and therefore are by fayth for the authority of God affirming belieued And these are the B. Trinity the Incarnation Resurrection Transubstantiation Iustification Glorification and the rest which we belieue The second meane is the Formall Obiect or motiue why we belieue which is the prime verity reuelation or testimony of God who as he hath reuealed all mysteries that we are to belieue and as we are to belieue them because God hath reuealed them so did he at the first reueale them all to the Prophets and Apostles from whome we are to receaue by Scripture or Tradition all reuelations of all mysteries of Fayth whatsoeuer are by any till the worlds end belieued without expectance of new reuelations by any new spirit for so did Christ himselfe make knowne to the Apostles All which he heard of his Father c. And therupon the Apostles are coÌ„manded to preach the Ghospell to all creaturs And all faithfull are sayd to be built vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles that is vpon the reuelations made by Christ vnto them and by them deliuered by Scripture or tradition to vs. The third Meane is the Proponent cause or condition necessarily required to our beliefe which as an infallible rule and iudge is immediatly to propose to vs the verity certainty both of the articles reuealed and of the reuelation of them for as the articles are aboue our capacity and the reuelation may to vs be doubtfull and both are obscure and as the Scripture and Tradition are not only hard obscure but also mute and vnable either to explicate themselues or expresse to vs the resolution of al doubts which may arise therefore some Iudge or Proponent cause in respect of vs is necessary which must be not only infallible and vniuersall in it selfe and able without errour to satisfy all doubts but also knowne and visible vnto vs that by it we may know the verity of all both articles and reuelation as also Scripture Tradition which proponent cause except God had prouided and left vs he had left vs destitute of a necessary meanes to fayth which is to deliuer and declare to vs what God hath reuealed and so had not prouided vs sufficient helps to attaine to the certainty of beliefe And this is the authority of the Church of God or the Spouse of Christ as afterwards shall be proued And thus are necessary in respect of the obiect 1. the Materiall obiect what we belieue 2. the Formal obiect why we belieue 3. the Proponent cause to assure vs of the verity both of what why we belieue In respect of the subiect who belieues are also necessary other three helpes First a Speculatiue iudgement of the Vnderstanding grounded vpon credible Testimonyes and probable reasons of perswasions which doe make appeare euident to mans natural iudgmeÌ„t that this faith is credible and worthy of beliefe and prudently may be accepted as more credible more worthy of beliefe then any other of Pagans Iewes or Heretikes whatsoeuer though it be not as yet for these reasons belieued as true These euident testimonyes of credibility which according to diuers dispositions doe diuersly moue and perswade some of them one person and some another and which are only humane not diuine and leaue as yet an impression only of euident credibility not of diuine verity as they are in Scripture required Thy testimonies are made credible exceedingly so are they ordinarily to men of reason so necessary to their conuersion that the Will which is not moued but with reason or shew of reason for nihil volitum nisi praecognitum cannot giue consent to any Verity of fayth except it first be perswaded by some direction of these motiues of credibility Wherupon ordinarily those who are conuerted from infidelity to Christianity without some one or other of these motiues may be sayd to be too credulous for qui cito credit leuis est corde He that giueth credit quickly is light of hart as on the contrary they who are not moued by them sufficiently proposed are Stulti tardi corde ad credendum Foolish and slow of hart to belieue and thereby are vnexcusable from sinne but they who with desire and deligence with deuotion humiliation and resignation do endeauour and duly doe enquire seeke out the truth of Religion are by inuincible ignorance excused from all sinne of positiue infidelity vntill
of beliefe And the Formall motiue or meanes that is reuelation of God is the formall finall and last resolution why we belieue infallibly such verityes to be true So that if one aske by what we are before prepared and disposed to belieue the truth it is by the credible testimonies if by what we are directed guided to know the truth it is by the Churches propositiō if by what we are assisted and enabled to assent infallibly to this truth it is by the habit of Faith if for what and why we doe actually formally and finally assent belieue the same truth it is for the reuelation of God As therefore the Samaritans at the first were prepared by the womans relation who told them that surely it was the Messias who had told her all that she had done to thinke it probable that he might be the Messias and the woman was as it were a proponent or propounding cause to them of him Many of the Samaritans belieued in him for the word of the woman giuing testimony that he told me all thinges whatsoeuer I haue done But afterwards hauing heard and conuersed with our Sauiour himselfe for two dayes they now sayd Not for thy saying O woman do we belieue for our selues haue heard and do know that this is the Sauiour of the world indeed So all Christians are first prepared by credible testimonies directed by Church authority to the knowledge and certainty of that truth but afterwards when the diuine reuelation it selfe as the word of our Sauiour is made knowne to them then do they now formally and finally not for the testimonies of credibility or Church proposition but for the diuine reuelation it self giue firme and infallible assent and beliefe to the verityes or articles of fayth And thus Catholike fayth is that which is for probable testimonies accepted as credible by Church proposed as infallible by an infused habit effected as supernaturall by diuine verity reuealed as truth infallible and necessary to be belieued This fayth is that which is the beginning and ground of iustification the way and gate to saluation vpō which the Church of Christ is founded and is as the life and soule of it which maketh vs members and partes of Christs Church we being by it and Baptisme inserted into his mystical body which maketh vs certainly infallibly belieue either expresly or implicitè all whatsoeuer articles of sayth God hath reuealed to his Church by his Apostles which is a necessary meane instrument or dispositiō to our iustification and saluation without which none are iustified and by which informed with charity all are iustifyed which is one entire fayth in all faithfull who for one motiue and by one proponent cause do belieue all one doctrine which being one and entire belieue as they ought eyther all articles of fayth explicitè or implicitè or none at all which by refusing to assent to any one article in which is questioned the ground of all is by infidelity lost to all and to conclude which distinguisheth a Catholike from an Heretike in that whosoeuer hath this fayth is a Catholike and whosoeuer wants it or looses it is an Infidell or Heretike and so out of state of grace and saluation And thus much for the order and manner of Gods working of fayth by these meanes in vs. Secondly for the necessity and efficacy of these meanes though all and euery one in particuler be ordinarily necessary to true and diuine supernaturall faith the credible testimonies as exteriour motiues to conuince our Vnderstanding that it may prudently accept of this faith as credible and worthy of beliefe the motion of grace and habit of fayth as interiour assistants that the Will may not resist but piously incline to consent determine the Vnderstāding to assent and that the Vnderstanding may obediently yeild assent to the misteries of fayth the materiall obiects as those which we are to belieue and the formall as that why we are to belieue all which are absolutly necessary to make fayth credible free and supernaturall and without them all faith is but humane false or fained yet in respect of vs and of our certainty of beliefe a proponent cause and that infallible which can be no other but the Churches authority is most important and necessary And first that a proponent cause is needfull all grant because faith being by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ some preacher or teacher is necessary to propose and teach vs what is to be belieued by vs for as fayth depends not vpon reason but vpon authority that of God affirming this or that to be true and commanding it to be belieued so this authority thus affirming this verity must be made knowne to vs by some directing or proponent meanes or els we cannot come to the knowledge of it 2. That this directing and proponent cause must be infallible so that it cannot erre it selfe nor propose to vs an errour or falshood to be belieued for a truth is proued for since God requires of vs a certainty infallibility of fayth and this our certainty must be had by some direction and proposition by which it is proposed made knowne to vs what we are certainly to belieue it must needes follow that this Proponent cause must be certaine and infallible or els our fayth directed and guided by it cannot be certaine Thence it followes that they who admit a proponent cause as the Protestants do their church and yet do admit it to be fallible and subiect to errour as all of them do their Church cannot haue any certaine and infallible fayth at all as wanting a necessary certaine and infallible meanes to propose and teach them this certaine and infallible fayth which is confirmed by S. Augustine who sayth That if Gods prouidence rule and gouerne humane matters we may not despaire but that there is a certaine authority appointed by the same God vpon which staying our selues as vpon a sure step we may be lifted vp to God Thirdly this certaine infallible proponent or directing cause is Church-authority which Church that it may infallibly direct vs we securely rely vpon it first Iesus Christ selected and made it not only his inheritance Which he hath chosen Or his house which he builded and gouerned Or his Temple of which himselfe is Priest but also his dearest spouse VVhich he espoused to himselfe alone in fayth and truth As a Virgin pure and vnspotted without corruption Yea as his owne body And one body with him VVhich as head he nourisheth cherisheth and sanctifieth making her glorious without spot And which he hath purchased with his pretious bloud Secondly he priuiledged it first with his owne presence promising to be with it all dayes euen to the consūmation of the world Next with the presence of the Holy Ghost The spirit of truth
and found and that by industry and reading of the words and text the spirit is to be found Whereupon they make the words of scripture as they are heard or read not only the organ or instrument of faith as much as wee make the Sacrament instrument of grace but also the sole instrument which with diligence read or heard they prescribe as the only meanes to receiue faith and saluation For first as a man consists of body and soule and the body of it selfe being senslesse dead is the inferiour â—â—rt the soule being life and giuing life is the principal part without which he is not man So the Scripture consists of the words or text which is read or heard and is only the body barke or couering of Gods word and of the sense and meaning which is vnderstood belieued and is the life soule and substance of the scripture Now the words as they are written or spoken consisting of letters syllables words are dead without life and common to Gentils Iewes and hereticks with the faithfull yea in the same manner as the law is called a law of sinne so are they by S. Paul said to Kill to be ministration of death Because according to S. August the letter read and not truly vnderstood or not performed is occasion of heresy and sinne some gathering out of it as out of the flower poison of heresy like the spider others hony of faith like the bee The sense and meaning as it is truly vnderstood belieued which is properly the word of God is an effectuall meanes more piercing theÌ„ any two-edged sword an operatiue vertue to saluation but to whome to all that belieue And to whom it is so proper that it is by faith only conceaued and attained and by faith only belieued vnderstood Secondly As the bare letter words and text of scripture without true sense are not the word of God so they do not containe the spirit of God or the holy ghost in them neither is the holy ghost thus inherent resident or to be sought found in the scripture but in the hart and soule of the writers of scripture that is the Prophets or Apostles in whom as it did remaine and dictate to them what they writ so did it reueale and manifest to them the true sense meaning of the same though perhaps not alwayes the whole complete meaning and all senses of the scripture for by reason of the fecundity of senses in Gods word many or al of them were not according to S. Augustine alwayes reuealed to the same Apostles or prophets but some reserued to the authour of it the holy ghost it selfe And as the spirit of God is not inherent or resident in the bare words sillables or text of scripture so the spirit or spiritual true sense of scripture is not to be sought or found only in or out of the bare words and their grammaticall signification but out of the rule of faith expounded according to the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike doctrine of beliefe Not by humane labour and industry of study but by the meane of faith and diuine reuelation For the words are translated into other languages different from that in which they were originally written and haue diuers and various significations and senses as litterall moral allegoricall and anagogicall and are by seuerall expositions drawne to suport diuers seuerall yea contrary faithes and religions Also great labour diligence and study haue beene vsed by many men of great wit learning and knowledge in the expounding seeking out the true sense of scripture who yet haue beene so far from finding it as that they haue inuented many false and heretical meanings and therupon grounded many wicked and damned heresies Out of al which it doth follow that the words of scripture and the diligent and frequent reading or hearing of it are so far from being a necessary meanes of faith much lesse the sole whole meanes to it that faith is a meanes necessary presupposed to the vnderstanding of scripture For if the scripture consist not in the words and letter only but in the sense vnderstanding principally and if the sense depend not vpon the bare words but vpoÌ„ the Ecclesiastical catholicke rule tradition of faith as is proued then must faith be prerequired as a help and meanes to find out the true sense of scripture And they who will read scripture must bring faith with them as a help and meanes to vnderstand the scripture and not ground their faith vpon their reading of scripture which being diligently read though it may serue to coÌ„firme and nourish faith in ones selfe or to illustrate and defend it to others and in both being according to the rule of faith interpreted a light to direct them in the way of piety and to enflame them with the heat of Charity yet it can neither be a first and firme ground to cause and produce first and certaine faith in any for a man must bring faith to belieue it nor a sufficient meanes to resolue all points of faith necessary to saluation as besids other reasons the practise of so many heresies diuided pretended to be grounded all vpon it doth conuince and the experience made for example of three persons Iews Turks or Pagans all ignorant of Christian religion all turned to a bare text of the bible all willed to seeke out and resolue in particular articles formerly or presently controuerted in Christian religion will no doubt by their seuerall contrary resolutions confirme the same And thus much of the rule of faith as a necessary meanes of expounding scripture The second meanes of expounding the holy scriprure is the generall practise or obseruation the publike Custome or tradition of the whole Church in the exercise of any religious seruice or worship or in the practise of any sacrifice sacrament or ceremony in which as the Church it selfe cannot erre so it may be a guide in expounding the scripture to keep others from errour that where the doctrine of the Church is not euident there the practise and obseruation of the same may serue This practise we will proue by the practise of the chiefe Doctours in Gods Church for by this did the ancient Fathers expound many places and conuince many Heretikes By this practise admitting the lapsed to pennaÌ„ce did Epiphanius conuince the Nouatians who reiected them By this practise of saying Glory be to the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost did S. Basil conuince Origen about the deity of the holy Ghost vrging his owne practise with the rest against Origens owne doctrine against the rest By this practise of baptizing in the name of the Father the Sonne the holy Ghost did Theodoret conuince Arius who denyed the equality of the Sonne with the Father By this practise of exorcising breathing vpon Infants in the SacrameÌ„t of Baptisme did
it be contained among the chief articles of the Creed or plainly expressed in scripture 9. So sufficient that it be able to explicate determine all articles and doubtes in religion 10. So complet that it containe virtually be able to resolue plainly all questions and conclusions of Faith which may at any time vpon any occasion arise All which are necessary for such a rule and foundation vpon which so important a matter as faith and religion is grounded And this is the first thing to be obserued for the properties and conditions both of the Iudge and his rule of faith The whole body of the Church cannot be this Iudge SECT II. SECONDLY We may note that this infallible authority to iudge of controuersies of faith is giuen neither to the whole body and congregation of the Church of God as the rigid Lutherans with Brentius do hould nor to the secular Princes and Parlamentes as all the Lutherans at first and the State-Protestants of England do yet defend nor to the lay-people and priuate persons as Caluin and the Caluinists do maintaine nor yet is it residing in the wordes and text or scripture as the ordinary preachers pretend but only is giuen to the Pastours and Prelates of the Church of Christ who are lawfully by authority from Apostolicall succession ordained and Catholickly continue without diuision of heresy or schisme in the same and among them principally to the chiefe head and Pastour the successor of Peter and Bishop of Rome All which concerning euery one shall be briefly proued First therefore although the whole body of the Church collected haue the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost that it cannot erre or be deceaued in faith yet hath it not the same assistance that it may ought to be iudge determiner of faith For as in a naturall body the soule doth informe and giue life to the whole body and euery member of it but doth not discourse and giue vse of reason to the whole or euery part but only to the head so the spirit of God assistes the whole Church with the priuiledge of freedome from errour in faith but doth not likewise giue to it the priuiledg◠of authority to teach and iudge of faith and direct others in the same for which cause God hath giuen a measure of donation diuisions of graces and ministrations and made some not al Apostles Doctours Prophets that some may rule others be ruled some teach and others be taught some be superiours to iudge and direct others be inferiours to be iudged and directed and so an order and subordination a peace and vnity may be obserued and kept in the whole body among the members of Christs Church Whereof see more in the next fourth Section Secular Princes cannot be this Iudge SECT III. THIRDLY That this infallible authority is not in secular Princes or their Assemblies and Parlaments either as particuler members of the Church against Melancthon or as Princes and Superiours among the rest against Brentius so that they can and may lawfully and infallibly iudge of Controuersies make ecclesiasticall lawes giue authority to preach and prescribe a forme of doctrine a manner of seruice and an order of Sacraments and sacrifice though it be largely by many proued against the supremacy of Princes in causes Ecclesiasticall and requires a treatise more large yet in briefe it shall by these reasons be proued First because Kinges and Princes are in the Church of God and spirituall affaires as sheep to be ruled and ordered not as sheepheardes to rule and gouerne they are Lambes to be fed by Peter Sheep of the fold of Christ Members of the Church of God and seruants of the family of Christ Thus did the ancient and holy Fathers freely tell and admonish them and the Christian and good Emperours themselues acknowledged it S. Gregory Nazianzen told Valentinian That the law of Christ did subiect them Emperours to his power and Tribunall and that they were holy sheep of his holy fold S. Ambrose told Theodosius the Great that he was a sonne of the Church and that a good Emperour is within not aboue the Church Theodoret sayes of Constantine the Great that as a louing sonne he did propose busines to the Bishops and Priests as Fathers Constantine himselfe cōfesses that God gaue Priests power to iudge of Emperours witnesse Ruffinus that they were bishops within the Church he without it witnes Eusebius Valentinian the elder confesses that he as a laye man might not interpose himselfe in Church affaires but the Bishops and Priestes had care of such affaires witnes Sozom. And that himselfe was to submit himselfe to them witnes Paulus Diaconus And Theodosius the Great obeyed S. Ambrose his excommunication departed out of the Chancell at his command and cōfessed that thereby he had learned to know what difference there was betweene an Emperour and a Bishop witnes Theodoret and Nicephorus Secondly because the offices of the Bishops and Emperours are diuers and distinct the one of bodyes and goods the other of soules and fayth the one of life and death for offences against the King and common-wealth the other of sinnes and sacraments belonging to Gods lawes mans conscience the one is temporall of the kingdome and common-wealth the other is spirituall of the Church flocke of Christ which the hereticall Emperours forgetting were stoutly and zealously admonished and reprehended by the holy Bishops vnder them for the same As for example Cōstantius the Arian 1. by Hosius of Corduba willing him not to medle with Ecclesiasticall affaires nor to commaund them but to learne of them because to him God had committed the Empire but to them the Church 2. By Leontius of Tripolis because being ruler of military and politicke affaires he should not rule in thinges that belong only to Bishops 3. By S. Hilary of Arles wishing him to writ to Iudges of Prouincies that they should not presume or vsurpe to intermedle with the causes of Clergy men 4. By S. Athanasius of Alexandria that he and such who will be Presidents in ecclesiasticall iudgments who will make the Tribunals of the Court the seales of deciding ecclesiasticall causes themselues Princes and Authours of Church affaires are the abomination of desolation yea euen Antichrist himselfe Valentinian the yonger seduced by his wife was told by S. Ambrose of Milane That he had no Imperiall right in thinges that are diuine for the Court doth belong to the Emperour but the Church to the Priest And being called by the Emperour to reason with Auxentius the Arian he answered That if a conference was to be made of fayth it was to be made by the Priestes as it was vnder Constantine who prescribed no lawes but gaue free iudgement to Priests That it was neuer heard that in a cause of fayth Lay
is the externall litterall sense of the words sometimes doth kill cause errour but the spirit that is the true sense which the holy Ghost intended doth quicken auaileth to saluation But that neither the letter nor the spirit can be a competēt iudge of controuersies is proued 7. Not the letter because the letter or the words in the bare literall sense are occasion of errour and heresy for so they were to the Iewes who in reading of Moyses the Law had the veile set ouer their eyes and vnderstood not Christ contained and signified in the Ceremonies of the law And so it hath beene to all Heretickes who forsaking the sense intended by the holy Ghost proposed by the Church and following the letter expounded by their owne spirit haue falsly vnderstood the scripture grosly fallen into errours Thus the letter deceaued Sabellius who expounding that of S. Iohn I and the father am one of vnity of persons not of substance falsly defended in the deity to be not three but only one person which had three names offices or properties of the father the sonne the holy Ghost creating redeeming and sanctifying mankind as the Patripassiās defended the Father to haue suffered on the Crosse as one and the same person with the sonne Thus the letter deceaued the Arrians who expounding that of S. Iohn The father is greater then I of Christ absolutly and completely as whole Christ not as man according to his humanity did thereupon deny Christ to be God equall to the Father Thus it deceaued the Macedonians who expounding that of S. Paul The spirit searcheth all things euen the profoundites of God concluded not as they ought that the spirit pierceth cōprehendeth all things as God but thus that he who searches doubts who doubts is ignorant who is ignorant is not God and so the holy Ghost who searches all is not God Thus it deceaued the Manichees who held the old Testamēt to be cōtrary to the new because for instance the old said that God created all things That God ceased frō labour the seuenth day That Man was created according to the Image of God And the new said the contrary that the Word created all things That God worketh vntill now And that you are of your father the diuell Not conceauing according to the spirit and true sense that God created all things by the word as by an Idaea that God rested from his worke of creation and yet worketh by conseruation that man was created to the Image of God by nature and of the diuell by malice Thus the Pelagians denying originall sinne to haue descended from Adam to vs literally interpreted that of Ezechiel The sonne shall not beare the iniquity of the father not only of sonnes who are not partakers but also of sonnes who are partakers of the iniquity of the father as all are of Adams sinne in whome all sinned and who receaued as head the promise of keeping or losing paradise by precept of for bearing or eating the apple for himselfe and his posterity after him Thus it deceaued others who applying literally that of S. Iohn The flesh profiteth nothing some in the Apostles time to the resurrection of the flesh others of late to the reall presence in the B. Sacrament the one therupon denyed the resurrection of all bodies the other the reall presence of Christs body both vpon one ground not distinguishing the spirituall from the carnall manner of one and the same body By which they might as well inferre that the flesh of Christ by his incarnation and passion profiteth no more then according to them it doth by his resurrection and manducation By which proofe of authority and examples it is apparent that the external letter of scripture cannot be iudge of controuersies That the internall sense of Scripture cannot be iudge is likwise proued because this true sense intended by the holy Ghost is often obscure hard and vncertaine as is certaine and before proued This obscurity breeds controuersies as experience dayly teaches and that these controuersies cannot be ended iudged by scripture-sense is proued 1. Because scripture-sense is the thing in question contention therfore is the thing to be iudged and decided not the iudge who is to giue iudgment and resolue the parties contending in iudgmēt As for example a question is about the sense of those words of the Gospel this is my body of those of the Creed He descended into hell Catholikes vnderstand them as the words import of the reall presence and of the locall descension both of Christs body Protestants expound them of a figuratiue presence by remembrāce of him in the sacrament and of an infernall suffering of hel-paines in his soule vpon the Crosse Now of these senses which is true which false the sense of the words cannot iudge betweene Catholicks and Protestants but some other iudge is necessary to confirme the one and confound the other so to end the controuersy 2. Because many places of scripture are so hard and obscure as the true sense of them cannot be truly discerned but by Church practise and tradition as for example whether those words of S. Mathew Teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the father and of the sonne and of the holy Ghost do proue a necessity of the vocall pronuntiation of these wordes for the forme of baptisme as all Protestants with vs do grant or require no more but a mentall intention it sufficing only to baptize in the name of Iesus as Act. 8.26 doth insinuate Whether those of S. Iohn Except a man be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdome of God inferre a necessity of water for the matter of baptisme as the Lutherans with vs grant and the words import or that the water and the holy Ghost be all one as Caluin expounds Also why the Protestants should not inferre as well a precept and necessity of a sacrament of washing of feet out of those words of our Sauiour And you ought to wash one anothers feet after the example of Christ who did and commanded it as they do out of those of S. Mathew Eat yee drinke yee inferre a necessity of receauing vnder both kinds because our Sauiour did commanded the like Now these and such like require a Iudge to iudge of the sense and reason of them cannot themselues iudge and decide themselues to vs. By which is euident that neither the letter nor the sense of scripture can be a competent iudge of all controuersies of faith and scripture Lastly the same is proued by the analogy of a temporal Iudge in causes ciuill with an Ecclesiasticall Iudge in causes spirituall for as Controuersies aryse in ciuill causes the common-wealth so do they arise also in matters spirituall and
himselfe gaue testimony to his Epistle and his Epistle to him as the maister giues to the seruant and the seruant to the maister when both are in question And if it were absurd for any to belieue Simon Magus and Selena or Hellena or Montanus and his Priscilla and Maximilla Prophetesses or Mahomet and his Sergius the Arian to be true Prophets because one did affirme and proue the other his companion to be a Prophet both being suspected and vnknowne and both wanting other kind of proofe then mutuall and Circular affection one of another Then in like manner it is as great absurdity and folly for one to belieue the scripture and sense of it because the priuate spirit affirmes it to be the true sense and againe the priuate spirit to be the true spirit of God because the Scripture interpreted by that priuate spirit affirmes it to be so In which manner of proofe all the conditions do concurre which Aristotle requires to a proper and vnlawfull Circle or circular demonstration For 1. They proue circularly and reciprocally one another as the spirit proues the scripture and the scripture againe the spirit in which is regressus ab eodem ad idem 2. They proue circularly one another in eodem genere causae for the spirit is the formall cause why they belieue the sense of the scripture and that sense of scripture is the formall cause why they belieue that to be the spirit of God 3. They proue one another totally and wholy that is the sole and whole reason why they belieue that is the sense of scripture is the spirit and the sole whole reason why they belieue this is the spirit is that sense of Scripture framed by that spirit 4. They proue one another not only circularly wholy and in the same manner of causes but also to one and the same person For as this spirit can assure only him who hath it not another that this is true sense of scripture and this true sense of scripture can assure only him not another that this is the true spirit for according to their doctrine no man can be assured of anothers spirit that it is of God but only himselfe who hath it so doth this priuate spirit and this scripture both assure one person to wit him that hath it and that circularly that this spirit is of God that this scripture is truly vnderstood by this spirit which is most proper to that Circle condemned by Aristotle for vnlawfull And thus much of the first proofe Secondly the same absurdities which Aristotle infers vpon a circular demonstration betweene the premises and coÌ„clusion do follow vpon this Circle betweene the scripture and the spirit For 1. The same thing doth proue it selfe For if by A I proue B and againe by B I proue A then I proue A by A or if I proue the conclusion by the premises and the premises againe by the conclusion then I proue the conclusion by it selfe as Aristotle reasons So if I proue the spirit by the scripture and the scripture againe by the spirit then I proue the spirit by the spirit it selfe for the spirit which proues that the scripture is true by the same scripture proues that it selfe is the true spirit therefore the same is proued by the same 2. The same thing is prius notum posterius notum in respect of the same thing For as the conclusion is knowne after the premises as it is proued by them and therefore the premises as it proues them so the spirit is knowne after the scripture as it is proued by scripture to be the spirit and knowne also before the same scripture as it proues it to be scripture and so it is posterius prius cognitum respectu eiusdem first knowne and after knowne in respect of the same 3. The same thing vnknowne is proued by another vnknowne For as when Simon Magus vnknowne to be a Prophet is proued to be a Prophet by his Selena as vnknowne Or when Montanus is so proued by his Maximilla Or Manes by his Epistle and Mahomet by his Sergius the one vnknowne Prophet is proued by another vnknowne So when this scripture and sense of it is knowne by a spirit as vnknowne doubtfull as is the scripture and sense it selfe then one vnknowne is proued by another as vnknowne which is against all manner of lawfull proofe where one ignotum vnknowne must be proued by another notius more knowne Whereupon follow these absurdities 1. That the spirit doth proue it selfe 2. That it doth proue ignotum por ignotum that is the vnknowne sense of scripture by the spirit vnknowne 3. That this spirit is prius posterius notum in respect of the same scripture By which absurdities as Aristotle did disproue the Philosophers circular demonstration of the conclusion by the premises and of the premises againe by the conclusion so we disproue the Protestants circular proofe of the spirit by the scripture and of the scripture by the spirit And as S. Augustine did reiect the Manichees proofe who by Manes did proue their Fundamentall Epistle and by their Epistle Manes And as the Fathers reiected the Monâ—anists proofe who by Montanus proued Maximilla to be a Prophetesse and by Maximilla Montanus to be an Apostle So do we reiect the Protestants proofe who by the Scripture will proue their spirit to be of God and by the spirit the sense of scripture to be true And as a Iudge should be partiall and vnwise who should admit the Maister to cleare the seruant and the seruant to cleare the maister when both are accused as guilty of the same crime so should we be partiall and vnwise if we should admit their spirit to proue their sense of scripture and their true sense of scripture to proue their spirit when both are in the same Circle and both vnknowne and doubtfull By which we see that Protestants walke in a circle and performe that which Dauid sayth The wicked walke in a Circle And that which S. Augustine out of the 139. Psal sayth VVhat is this circuit To go round not to stand to go in a round of errour where they trauell without end for they who go on forward begin in one place and end in another but he who goes in a round neuer ends This is the labour of the wicked as is shewed in another Psalme The wicked walke in a round Thus S. Augustine and that truely for they haue neither beginning from which to deriue nor end wheron to rest themselues and their groundes of doctrine but caput circuitus the head the ground and foundation of their doctrine consists in a Circle in which they still wheele in a round out of which they can neuer vnwind themselues and by which they can neuer proue any thing to be true as Aristotle sayth And thus much of the first kind of Circle made by the Protestants betweene the spirit and the scripture let vs proceed to the
all the Commandements or any of them is impossible 10. That no humane lawes do oblige in conscience to their performance 11. That the Sacraments chiefly Baptisme are seales and signes of predestination to glory of remission of sinnes and perseuerance in Gods fauour and that in Baptisme are forgiuen sinnes past and to come 12. That man by reason of Gods decree and originall sinne hath no liberty or freedome of will to do or auoid bad workes 13. That God hath ordained and predestinated vpon his meere will and pleasure without any cause giuen or so much as forseene all who are damned both to damnation and to sinne All which positions as they are auerred by the learned Protestants and preached to the people so they do ouerthrow all the articles of the Creed all the petitions of the Pater noster and all the precepts of the Ten Commandments and leade to all loosenesse and dissolution of life as shal be shewed SVBDIV. 1. In generall dectroying all fayth AND first that these Positions do quite ouerthrow take away all diuine and supernaturall fayth which is the first foundation and corner-stone of our spirituall building the first preparation to life and iustification the first root of all true vertue and good workes the first gate by which God enters into our soule the first light which shines in our vnderstanding the first true seruice which we offer to God and the first step by which we beginne to walke our iourney to heauen that this doctrine doth quite ouerthrow this fayth and all the articles of the Creed proposed in it is proued 1. Because they distinguish three sortes of fayth 1. Historicall of thinges reuealed and related in scripture and proposed by the Apostles in the Creed such as are the Trinity Incarnation Passion Resurrection and Ascension of Christ with all other articles which all Christians vsually belieue 2. Generall of promises in generall and all graces promised by Christ to all as the sending of the Holy Ghost the coming to iudgment the raysing of the dead and the like which are generall for all 3. Speciall of the promise made to euery man in particuler of his predestination iustification and saluation by which euery one is made infallibly certaine that his sinnes are forgiuen him and that he shal be saued Whereas I say they make these three sortes of Fayth the first and second of these Faithes to wit Historicall and Generall by which they belieue the articles of the Creed promises of God in general they affirme to be faigned not true fayth a shadow of Fayth not a real iustifying faith a Fayth which is common to the reprobate and damned euen to the Diuels themselues and only the third or Special fayth they assigne to be the true diuine and supernaturall iustifying fayth which hath for his obiect the speciall mercy of God to them in particuler applyed the certainty of remission of their sinnes assuredly past and security of their saluation infallibly to come by which they doe as much or more assuredly belieue their iustification and saluation then they do the B. Trinity Incarnation or the rest of the articles of Fayth Now if this speciall fayth be the only true diuine supernaturall and sauing fayth by it is belieued only one article of the Creed that not truly as shall appeare to wit Remission of sinnes and the Historicall and Generall fayth by which the rest of the articles are belieued be only a shadow of Fayth a fayth of the damned and Diuells then we haue no diuine and supernaturall fayth of the rest of the articles but belieue them only by a Faith which is a fained faith a shadow and no more a guift of God then the fayth of the damned and the Diuells in hell Therefore all true â—nd diuine beliefe of the articles of the Creed is by this special doctrine of speciall Fayth quite abolished and taken away from all Christians and nothing but a shadow of Fayth a fained and diabolicall faith left to them and so by one position of theirs is cut off all diuine fayth or beliefe of all the articles of the Creed Secondly whiles they deny all authority of Tradition Church Councels and Fathers and will belieue nothing but what they themselues find in Scripture and that as their priuate spirit interprets it While they make their spirit the iudge of all fayth all controuersies of fayth what is to be receaued or reiected belieued or condemned While I say they doe thus they may by the vertue of this spirit call in question the authority and credit of the Creed it selfe with the authours of it as not to be found in Scripture and the particuler articles they may either reiect as counterfeit intruded or els expound and interpret them as their spirit shal lead them Thus Luther and Caluin following Erasmus for Erasmus is sayd to haue layd the egge which Luther hatched to haue insinuated that which Luther assured to haue doubted of that which Luther downe right denyed made doubt of the authority of the Creed whether it was made by the Apostles or not And the Seruetians in Transiluania witnesse Canisius admit it but so farre as it agrees with the word of God interpreted no doubt by their spirit Thus did Beza by his spirit affirme that part of the sixt article he descended into hell to haue been thrust into the Creed Thus Caluin and Zuinglius following likewise Erasmus by their spirit affirmed that part of the tenth article the Communion of Saints to haue beene intruded into this Creed out of some other Creed and not to haue beene found in the ancient Creeds Thus Luther by his spirit changed in his Germane Creed the word Catholike Church into Christian Church And Beza reiected the same word Catholike as most vaine and wicked And thus by their Glosses and expositions vpon many articles as not pleasing their tast they wrest diuers as shall appeare from their natiue proper sense for example he descended into hell that is he descended into the graue so make a new Creed in sense and meaning agreable to their spirit and the doctrine of it Of which who will haue a full view let him read Andr. Iur. his Nullus and Nemo and Fitzsimons vpon the Masse where their many absurd glosses and expositions are at large discouered and confuted SVBDIV. 2. In particuler against all the twelue Articles of the Creed THIRDL Y because by this doctrine and these Doctours are oppugned in particuler all the mysteries of fayth in euery article of the Creed which by this briefe enumeration of euery one shal be made manifest And first in the first article attributed to S. Peter I follow the diuision of S. S. Augustine and Doctour Kellison is oppugned 1. The faith and beliefe of all the articles in generall in the word Credo by all who hould that it is