Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	apostolical_a	church_n	tradition_n	4,989	5	9.5918	5	true

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

the truth of Christian discipline and faith is there we shal finde also the truth of Scriptures expositions al Christian traditions Vnto these authorities I adde that the obscuritie of the holy Scriptures the danger of misinterpreting them being presupposed it vvas necessarie that God almightie should prescribe some certaine rule which euery man might follow without danger of error in vnderstanding them otherwise dissension might haue risen concerning their true sense and consequently concerning diuers articles of Christian religion and euery man might would haue expounded them according to his owne fancie although neuer so false and erroneous And what judge can we imagine him to haue appointed but the Catholike Church whom as I haue proued aboue he hath warranted from errour whose authority he hath made the rule of our beliefe who hath the custody of holy Scriptures and from whom we receiue them and infallibly know them to containe the true word of God This finally the practise it selfe of the Church hath confirmed for whensoeuer any controuersy hath risen touching the true sense of holy Scriptures she according to the rule of faith in her preserued and the sense of Scripture vnto her deliuered together with the letter hath defined the truth and decided the same as it appeareth by the condemnation al Heretikes together with their false translations and erroneous expositions of the said Scriptures And whosoeuer forsaketh this rule falleth presently into a laborinth vast Sea of difficulties and is alwaies perplexed and inconstant in his beliefe Contrariwise whosoeuer embraceth this rule buildeth vpon a firme rocke wherefore I say with the Apostle Whosoeuer shall followe this rule Galat. 6. vers 16. peace vpon them and mercy Now let vs in the last place confirme the truth of our principal assertions concerning the letter and interpretation of holy Scripture yea concerning the whole suÌ„me of christian doctrine by vnwriten traditioÌ„ preserued in the Church by the confession of our Lutheran aduersaries of Wittenberg For they doe not only confesse Harm of coÌ„fes sect 10. pag. 332. 333. Confession Wittenb artic 32. The Church to haue authority to beare witnesse of the holy Scripture and to interprete the same but also affirme that she hath receiued from her husband Christ a certaine rule to wit the Prophetical and Apostolical preaching confirmed by miracles from heauen according vnto the which she is bound to interprete those places of Scripture which seeme to be obscure and to judge of doctrines This may be seene in the Harmony of confessions Field book 4. ca. 19. 20. Â§. The secoÌ„d Field also acknowledgeth in the Church A rule of faith descending by tradition from the Apostles according vnto which he wil haue the Scriptures expounded I conclude therefore that thus the holy Scripture is a most sure and infallible ground of faith for by this meanes I meane by the diuine censure and approbation of the Church vve are assured that both the letter and sense are of diuine authoritie vvhereas the particuler or priuate approbation of the letter or interpretation or it made by any priuate man being subject to errour cannot possiblie yeeld vs any such assurance SECTION THE SIXT An objection against the premises is answered and the question concerning the last resolution of our faith is discussed BVT here occurreth a difficulty of no smal moment to be resolued For in this chapter I haue affirmed the Canonical Scriptures and their true interpretation to he knowne by the infallible authoritie of the Church whereas before I proued the authority of the Church to be infallible by the testimonie of holie Scripture vvherefore Field book 4. cap. 7. it may seeme that I haue made a circle or as M. Field calleth it a circulation The ful solution of this objection dependeth of the resolution of a question vvhich to some appeareth very intricate and hard to wit vnto what vve lastlie resolue our faith vvhether to the authority of the Church or of the Scripture or to some humane motiues and therefore this must first be discussed before the other can be answered And in verie deede although al Catholike Diuines be of one consent and hold that the cause of our beliefe is the authority of God which hath reuealed such misteries as we beleeue yet concerning the last resolution of our faith which is a schoole question and not a matter of faith I finde among them two opinions The followers of the first declare the matter thus Fiist say they euery man is induced to beleeue Christian religion and to accept of it as true by certaine humane and prudent motiues or reasons which perswade him that such doctrine as is taught in the Church according to the rules of wisedome is credible and worthie of beliefe Such motiues among others are these which followe First that almost al Nations and in them an infinite number of men of greatest authority principal wit excellent vertue and profound learning haue so beleeeued Secondly that innumerable multitudes of people of al sortes sexes and ages vvho vvere most desirous to please God and knowe true religion and vvere exemplars or patterns of probity and sanctitie haue so earnestlie embraced it that they doubted not to preferre the profession of it before goodes liberty fame and life it selfe yea that they chose rather to loose al these and endure vvithal most cruel torments then to depart from it Thirdly that it doth as it vvere miraculouslie and by some diuine meanes change men although habituated in vice vpon the sodaine to be vertuous Fourthly that the propagation of it hath beene by diuine power which appeareth by this that a fewe vnlearned and vveake fisher-men teaching such thinges as are contrarie to flesh and bloud and aboue al reason haue ouercome not by force of armes but by preaching and suffering the vvisest most eloquent most noble and most potent men of the vvorld Finally that this religion hath beene confirmed by an infinite multitude of diuine miracles recorded by famous authors of al ages of vvhich if one only be confessed true Christian religion cannot be false By these and other such like reasons and argumentes which I haue rehearsed before according to the Psalme The testimonies of our Lord are first made vnto wel disposed people ouer or exceeding credible But although these of themselues may vvel make vs accept and beleeue the truth of Christian religion by a natural and humane kinde of beliefe such as the Deuil himselfe hath and is also in Heretikes concerning such articles which they truly beleeue yet can they not alone cause in vs an act of supernatural faith For this as I haue proued before being supernatural can not proceed from a natural cause without some supernatural helpe And vvhat then is done after this perswasion Verily God almighty yeeld eth vs his supernatural helpe and imparteth vnto our soule a diuine light of faith by which our vnderstanding is made more capable of things so high

in li. de scriptor Eccl. in Ioan. S. Hierome testifie And that al is not by him recorded it is manifest because those speeches which our Sauiour had with his Apostles during the fourty daies betweene his resurection and ascension are almost altogether omitted Neither did he write this Gospel at the beginning of the Church but many yeares after to wit about threescore and six yeares after our Sauiours ascension And like as S. Iohn so did the rest of the Apostles and Disciples leaue vnto vs such parcels of scripture as vve haue receiued from them some extraordinary occasions mouing them thereunto as I could easily declare and proue See Euse hist li. 3. Chrisost hom 1. in Mat. Epipha haeres 51. Baronius to 1. au 45. et 58. out of Eusebius Saint Hierome and others I know that * Field booke 4. cap. 20. Â§ For first Field maketh shewe as though it were a plaine matter that the Euangelists in their Gospels S. Luke in the acts of the Apostles and S. Iohn in the Apocalipse Meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine and direction of Christian faith but vvhat reason he bringeth for it of any moment I cannot see And besides it is certaine that no one of them intended to set downe al because no one of them hath so done wherfore if they haue set downe al as he affirmeth either it hath proceeded from some common deliberation or consultation had among themselues in which they determined what euery one should rehearse or else from the disposition and direction of the holy Ghost who inspired them to write Not the first because no man euer made mention of such a deliberation or consultation and moreouer they wrote vpon diuers occasions in diuers Countries and at diuers times as Ecclesiastical histories testifie Not the second because Field himselfe graunteth that something is vvanting in these bookes which the Church beleeueth which would not haue beene if the holy Ghost had intended that al should haue beene set downe for he addeth that The epistles of the Apostles were occasionallie written yet so saith he as by the prouidence of God al such thinges as the Church beleeueth not being found in the other parts scripture purposedly written are most clearly and at large deliuered in these epistles Marke wel gentle reader this doctrine he told vs before that the Apostles and Euangelists in the Gospels acts of the Apostles and the Apocalipse meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine direction of Christian faith nowe he telleth vs that the Church beleeueth some things which are deliuered in the Apostolical epistles not being found in the other parts of scripture purposedly written Of which I inferre both that the holy Ghost intended not that the penners of the Gospels of the actes of the Apostles and the Apocalipse should deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine and also that he thinketh the writers of these books to haue missed of their intended purpose verily this last pointe seemeth to me no very sound doctrine And besides how wil M. Field proue that the Apostles in their epistles supplied al this want especially seing that the Apostles and Euangelists in the other books although intending to write al yet in his opinion omitted something and the authours of the epistles intended no such matter but vvrote them as he saith occasionally wherefore there is farre greater likelihood that these omitted something then they Further one Apostolical epistle at the least to the Laodicians hath perished Coloss 4.16 see 1. Cor. 5 9. Chrisost hom 9. in Math. et homil 7. in 1. Cor. of which is mention in the epistle of S. Paul to the Colossians And who can absolutely say that nothing necessary was contained in it which is not in any other part of the newe Testament Finally Field himselfe confesseth some vnwritten Traditions as I will declare in the next Section What then did the Apostles and Disciples expresly set downe in those their monuments which are contained in the newe Testament a part only without al doubt of the whole summe of Christian beliefe in which part they ratified and confirmed the supreame and infallible authority of the Church of whome the rest was to be learned and to whose custody they committed their said monuments so that the whole summe or depositum hath beene kept and preserued in the Church not al only in expres termes in the holy scripture but the whole by Tradition a part of that whole also by writing another part by only Tradition by which likewise the said scripture it selfe came to our hands And after this sort the whole corps of Christian religion without any alteration descended vnto vs. This may be proued by that which hath been already said concerning the true sense exposition of holy scripture Chap. 7. sect 5. for as I haue shewed the scripture ought to be interpreted according to the Analogie or rule of faith that is to say according to that beliefe which the Church by Tradition hath receiued from Christ and his Apostles wherefore the letter of the holy scripture is not the whole direction of the faith of the Church but the faith of the Church the perfect and ful direction of the said letter of holy scripture of which it followeth that the faith of the holy Church might haue remained sound and entire by Tradition although no such letter had beene published But let vs confirme this by the testimony of the ancient Fathers Irenae lib. 3. cap. 4. Among the rest S. Irenaeus discourseth thus What saith he if neither the Apostles had left vs scriptures ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they deliuered vnto those whome they committed Churches vnto which order many barbarous nations beleeuing in Christ assent without letter or incke that is without any written word of God hauing saluation written in their hearts by the holy Ghost and diligently keeping the ancient Tradition Hitherto S. Irenaeus And note wel that he affirmeth some to haue beene Christians without any scripture guided only by the Tradition of the Church He telleth vs moreouer that by this order of Tradition from the Apostles al Heretikes are conuinced in such sort that Catholiks shut vp their eares assoone as they heare them vtter any thing repugnant to the said order Finally he addeth that al that are desirous to heare the truth may see in the Church the Tradition of the Apostles made manifest through the whole world And we can number those saith he who are instituted Bishops in Churches by the Apostles and their successors euen vnto vs who taught no such thing as these men Heretikes dreame of Thus farre S. Irenaeus Tertul. de praescrip cap. 19. 20. 21 who suffered martirdome in the yeare of our Lord 205. Tertullian also affirmeth that by this rule of Tradition or prescription of Catholike doctrine Heretikes are to be conuinced And hence it proceedeth that the Apostle vvith

as a rule of her faith For a third Tradition he acknowledgeth That forme of Christian doctrine and explication of the seueral parts thereof which the first Christians receiuing from the same Apostles that deliuered to them the scriptures commended to posterities Vnto which I adde that which he hath in the fourteenth chapter of the same booke that without the Creed of the Apostles named here in the second place we cannot knowe the scripture to be of God that without the forme of Christian doctrine which is his third Tradition and the Analogie of faith we haue no forme of Christian doctrine by the direction whereof to judge of particular doubts and questions Yea in another place of the said forme of Christian doctrine he hath these wordes Ibidem cap. 19. We confesse that neither conference of places nor consideration of the antedentia consequentia nor looking into the originals are of any force in the interpretation of scripture 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 This is M. Fields doctrine Out of vvhich I inferre contrarie to his owne assertions that according to his owne groundes Tradition is the very foundation of his faith And this is euident For doth it not follow of this that we receiue the number names of the authors and the integritie of bookes diuine by Tradition that without Tradition we cannot knowe such diuine bookes and moreouer that if Tradition may be false that we also concerning such bookes may be deceiued Can it likewise be denied if it be so that vvithout the knoweledge of the creed we cannot know the scripture to be of God the creed also be an Apostolike Tradition that without an Apostolike Tradition vve cannot knowe the scriptures Moreouer although that should be admitted as true which he auoucheth and hardly agreeth with this to wit Chap. 20. Â§ Much conteÌ„tion See more of this matter part 2. chapter 5. sect 1. and chapter 8. section 4. that The scriptures winne credit of themselues and yeeld satisfaction to al men of their diuine truth which in very deed is false yet seing that the true interpretation of them cannot be knowne as Field saith without the knowledge of this rule of faith it followeth also apparantly that this rule must first infallibly be knowne by Tradition before that we can certainly gather any article of beliefe out of scripture Neither are these things only granted by Field but moreouer he confesseth the baptisme of Infants to be a Tradition and addeth * Field booke 4. chap. 20. Â§ the fourth That it is not expresly deliuered in scripture that the Apostles did baptize Infants and that there is not any expres precept there found that they should so doe And yet I hope that M. Field wil grant that it is a matter of faith that Infants are to be baptized lest that he be censured to be an Anabaptist which if he doe he must needs confesse that some matters of faith are deliuered vnto vs by Tradition And whereas he saith This is not receiued by bare and naked Tradition but that we find the scripture to deliuer vnto vs the grounds of it It is verie certaine that the scripture is so obscure touching this point August de Genes ad litteram l. 10. c. 23 that S. Augustine affirmeth that this custome of the Church in baptizing Infants were not at al to be beleeued were it not an Apostolike Tradition And this obscurity of Scripture is much increased if vvee confesse vvith our aduersaries that Infants may be saued vvithout Baptisme Chap. 20. But they But he doth object against vs that we proue many thinges which vve wil haue to be Apostolical Traditions by the testimony of holy scripture I cannot deny it yet I say it is one thing probably to deduce an article of faith out of the scripture another thing to be expresly and plainely contained in it We only by probable conjectures proue some Traditions out of holy scripture especially against Heretikes which deny Traditions and approue the scripture Neuerthelesse by supernatural faith vve beleeue them because they are such Traditions Booke 4. cap. 20. Â§ For this That vvhich he saith that vve make Traditions Ecclesiastical equal with the vvritten vvord of God is one of his ordinary vntruthes Besides this it is also generally vrged against vs by our aduersaries that diuers such thinges as are affirmed by vs to be Apostolike Traditions are institutions of men and they name the time vvhen such things were instituted and the author that commanded them to be obserued I answere that although touching certaine obseruations and ceremonies vvhich vve affirme to be Apostolike there be some decrees of Councels and Popes yet that the said Councels or Popes instituted not such obseruations and ceremonies but either ratified and confirmed them by their decrees or else caused them to be obserued vniuersally whereas before the vse of them was not general or finally prescribed to al faithful people a certaine and vniforme manner of obseruing them whereas before although the obseruation of them was general yet they were not generally obserued after the same manner in al places The truth of this answere appeareth by this that vve can proue by sufficient testimonies such obseruations and ceremonies to be more ancient then our aduersaries vvil haue their institution I adde also that al the definitions and decrees of Councels and Popes concerning matters of faith are but more perspicuous explications of that rule of faith which by Tardition hath descended from the Apostles as I wil declare in the next chapter wherefore it is no absurdity to affirme the like of such constitutions concerning some obseruations and ceremonies for that some haue beene instituted and ordained by the Church we confesse Neither hath she in this exceeded her authoritie because Christ hath giuen her such power to the end that al thinges might be done vniformallie vvith decencie and as the Apostle saith according to order 1. Corint 14 40. And that she hath such Apostilike authority it is confessed by most English Protestants * see chap. 6. before section 4. pag. 50. as I haue aboue declared Chapter 9. Of general Councels which make the third particuler ground of Catholike religion IN the next place I affirme that euery man may securely build his faith and religion vpon the decrees of a lawful and authentical general Councel concerning that or those matters which the Councel intendeth to define One principal reason conuincing the truth of this may be gathered out of that which hath beene already said of the infallible authority of the Church for I haue proued before not only that it vvas necessary for the preseruation of peace and vnity that Christ should ordaine in his Church some visible supreame and infallible meane to decide controuersies touching matters of religion but also that this prerogatiue was bestowed by

my judgement it is strange howe they confesse euery man although neuer so much enlightned to be subject to errour and yet euery one assureth himselfe hauing one no more warrant then an other that he is in the truth Finally this doctrine of diuine inspirations and illuminations gaue occasion to * Frederi Staphilus l. de coÌ„cordia discipuloruÌ„ Lutheri Petrus Palladius l. de haeresibus CaluiÌ„ in Instructorio coÌ„tra Libert cap. 9. Willet in his Synops controuer 1. q. 1. Muncerus and certaine Anabaptists his followers as also to the Zwenckfeldians and Libertines of their blaspheamous opinions For like as our Protestant aduersaries commonly flie to illuminations for the knowledge of the true text interpretation of holy Scripture so these men either because they found it vvritten that a 2. Cor. 3 6. the letter doth kil or because they thought the Scriptures not necessary seing that the holy Ghost is able to teach mens harts vvithout any vvritten letters rejected the Scriptures altogither and pretended only such illuminations of the spirit Hence also perhaps proceeded the dreames and visions of the Enthusiasts a famous sect of Anabaptists but of this no more SECTION THE FIFT Concerning their deductions out of holy Scripture that they likewise are framed by them according to their owne fancies and of their accusations of one another touching these matters IT is moreouer a thing most euident that in the deductions or collections of the articles of their faith and religion out of holy Scripture they are not only subject to errour but also that they followe their owne judgement and inclinations And this vvil appeare to any man that shal consider the same One deduction I vvil here set downe vvhich I my selfe haue heard some of them make which was this I vrged them to bring forth some authority out of the vvord of God for their keeping of the Sonday in steade of the Saturday and they alleaged as a sufficient proof of this matter those wordes of S. Iohn in the Apocalipse Apocal. 1 10. I was in spirit on the Dominical or as they say on the Lordes day And vvhat an insufficient deduction is this if vve set aside the authority and tradition of the Church vvhich they despise Howe doth this followe S. Iohn vvas in the spirit or had a reuelation on the Sonday therefore al Christians may lawfully worke on the saturday a day commanded by God himselfe both in the old and newe testament Exo. 20. c. Math. 19 17 if we follow the letter to be kept holy and obserue the Sonday I could bring a hundred more such examples and my reader may gather some out of that which hath beene already said in the first section of the seauenth Chapter I adde also for the proofe of this that their deductions out of the selfe same wordes be diuers and opposite for euery sect like as it hath a particular and proper forme of faith so hath it peculiar and proper deductions out of the text of holy Scripture This cannot be denied because the collections of the Lutherans Zwinglians English Protestants Caluinists or Puritans Anabaptists Libertines differ from one another as their beliefe is different And to giue one instance or two but yet to omit the knowne different collections vvhich are found among Lutherans and Sacramentaries Doe not some Lutherans gather out of Scripture a necessity of good vvorkes See colloquiuÌ„ AltenbergeÌ„se others that such vvorkes are not necessary a Bishop Barlow of Rochester in his sermon Whitgift others Doe not also some Sacramentaries as our English Protestants out of scripture deduce their gouernement of the Church by Bishops others as the Puritans their gouernement by Elders Doe not finally b Caluins Institut booke 2 chap. 16. ver 10.11.12 in Math. 26. 27. Willet in his Synopsis controuers 20. Caluin Willet and others gather out of scriptures that Christ suffered in soule the paines of hel which by others is disalowed And doe not the followers of one part of these collections condemne them of the other either as Heretikes or as Schismatikes or as Blaspheamers These thinges are most certaine Of which I inferre that al these sectaries deductions cannot be found but some must needes frame them according to their owne fancies And seing that vve haue no infallible reason according to their groundes to approue the one of them before another vve may vvith like reason condemne them al as hauing no other ground as they are by them maintained then humane judgement and vnderstanding In defence of the Lutherans of Wittenberge both concerning the proofe of the letter and interpretation of holy Scripture and also touching deductions out of the same it may perhaps be said by some man Harmony of coÌ„fess sect 10 pa. 332. 333. Confess Wittenb art 32. that they hold the Church hath authority to beare witnesse off and interpret holy Scripture as likewise to judge of al doctrines according to that Try the spirits whither they be of God and let the other judge Yea they adde that shee hath receiued of her husband Christ a certaine rule to wit the Prophetical and Apostolical preaching confirmed by miracles from heauen according to the which shee is bound to interpret those places of the Scripture which seeme to be obscure and to judge of doctrines I answere and confesse that in very deede this is their doctrine vvhich maketh not a little against the dreames and inspirations of their bretheren but this can make no infallible ground according to their assertions for they make both the Church and tradition subject to errour and consequently if vve beleeue them no man can build vpon their authority an act of diuine and supernatural faith Finally hence it proceedeth that our aduersaries themselues accuse and censure one an other to be corrupters of scripture falsifiers and liers If vve beleeue * Luth. epist ad Ioan. Heruagium typographum Argentinens Luther the Sacramentaries beganne their opinion of the Sacrament with lies and with lies they doe defend it and they broached it abroade by the vvicked fraude of corrupting other mens workes If Caluin Caluin admonit 3. ad Westphalum Caluin in defens de Sacram p. 1085 the Lutherans are nothing else but forgers and falsifiers and of Westphalus in particular he vvriteth thus Westphalus as though he were I knowe not what Comical Iupiter carrying Minerua in his braine putteth boldly vpon al his fictions the visard of the word of God if it had not beene nowe an old thing and commonly knowne that the false Prophets did so much the more gloriously pretend the name of God by howe much the further they were from him by these frights and scar-crowes he would peraduenture doe something The word of God doth confidently sound againe and againe in his mouth but in word only And soone after This prophane man doth filthily abuse at his pleasure the sacred sentences no otherwise then Magitians doe wrest holy

goe on in the first place alleaged And therefore for as much as in these controuersies the Papists and the Prelates goe hand in hand the said Ministers doe in like manner make the like offer to the Priestes and Iesuites promising their reconcilement vnto that See of Rome if they can either by arguments pul them from the aforesaid propositions or can answere such arguments as they shal propound in the defence of them in manner and forme before specified in the offer And therefore it both stands the Ministers vpon to make the aforesaid offer and the Prelates except they wil haue al the world to judge them to be friendes in hart to Popery to accept of the same Thus the Puritan Ministers and no such offer that I finde through the whole booke is made to the Protestants This then is affirmed by these men that if the Protestant doctrine mainetained against them be true and their assertions be false the separation of the newe Sectaries Churches from ours cannot be justified yea they auouch that if this be so that their said Churches are schismatical Vnto which if we adde that in very deede the propositions which the Puritans offer to mainetaine against the Prelates are false and erroneous the truth of which assertion is confessed with great vehemency defended by al the English Protestants and further concerning some of the said propositions very vvel proued by Hooker Whitgift Bilson Couel and others of their company we shal haue our desired conclusion that according to the doctrine of the English Sectaries the Puritans and the Protestants our aduersaries Churches are Schismatical and that ours is the true Spouse of Christ But I must not here omitte by the way to aduertise my reader that in the judgement of any wise and judicious person this argument yeelded vs by our aduersaries cannot but also be a very strong proofe of the truth of our Catholike cause For vvhosoeuer maturely considereth the matter shal finde that the Protestants in rejecting the Puritan propositions followe the prescript and rule of holy Scriptures the decrees of Councels and the tradition of the Church and Fathers He shal also perceiue that the Puritans in auouching that which I haue related build vpon very good reasons flowing out of the very nature of the Protestant religion and taken from the proceedings of the vpholders of the same in defending it because out of the doctrine and practise defended by the Protestants against the Puritans as also out of the proofes and reasons alleaged for themselues very strong arguments may be drawne to confirme the truth of our whole Catholike religion as wil sometimes appeare in my treatise following And to giue here one instance the Protestants for the authority of Arch-bishops bring diuers reasons and among others this one that peace and vnity can otherwise hardly be maintained in the Church But vvhat faith Cartwright Suruay of the pretended holy discipline chap. 8. pag. 125. Truly he affirmeth as is reported by the author of the Suruay of the pretended holy discipline that the Popes authority is more necessary ouer al Churches then the authority of an Arch-bishop ouer a prouince And this his assertion is grounded vpon very good reason as I shal more at large declare hereafter Nowe to prosecute mine intended discourse vvhich is to proue some errours in the English sectaries here occurreth another argument like vnto the former not vnfit for my purpose For like as I haue already demonstrated that if they al say true our Church is the true Church of Christ so it is also euident that if it be so that they al say true it is also needful there be one supreame head of the vvhole Church militant Suruay c. chap. 29. pag. 372. for thus I argue Cartwright a principal Puritan esteemed by those of his owne sect as the aforesaid author noteth one of the only worthies of the world telleth vs that the Popes authority is more necessary ouer al Churches then the authority of an Arch-bishop ouer a prouince but the authority of an Arch-bishop as al our Protestants defend is necessary ouer a prouince therefore the Popes authority is necessary ouer al Churches It may be objected that these arguments are taken from persons of sundry sectes of which the one confesseth the other to erre I grant it but this notwithstanding they proue that either some English sectaries erre or otherwise that our religion by them rejected is true which sufficeth my purpose Neuerthelesse the Protestants themselues doe afford vs no such reasons Truly if I were not here restrained to the vvriting only of a preface I could assigne diuers one I wil set downe for an example Field booke 3 chap. 39. pag. 158. 156. 157. 159. M. Field in his third booke of the Church plainly confesseth that in sundry Churches of the world being of the newe religion diuers worthy Ministers of God were ordained by Presbiters or Priestes sometime of our Church and had no ordination from any Bishop Nay he seemeth apparantly to graunt that none but Presbiters did impose handes in ordaining Ministers or Superintendents in many of the pretended reformed Churches as namely in those of France and others Morton in Apolog. Cathol part 1. lib. 1. cap. 21. which is also insinuated by D. Morton And therefore both these Doctors teach that in time of necessity a Priest or Minister may impose handes and consecrate a Priest and consequently also a Bishop or a SuperinteÌ„dent Out of this their doctrine I frame this argument seing that diuers Superintendents and Ministers of the newe religion I may say al at the least of some Countries for Field himselfe excepteth only those of England Denmarke and of some other places which places he nameth not haue had their ordination or orders only from Priests it followeth that if Priests haue no power of ordination that is of giuing orders that such Ministers and Superintendents are no true Ministers and Superintendents But Priests according to the assertion of a principal English Protestant haue no power of ordination and can giue no orders therefore such Superintendents and Ministers are no true Superintendents and Ministers Of which I also inferre that such Churches are no true Churches for they want a true ministery and clergy without which as * Field ibid. pag. 154. and booke 2. chap. 6. pag. 51. Field confesseth there can be no Church And this English Protestant is a William L. Bishop of Rochester in his sermon coÌ„cerning the antiquity superiority of Bishops preached before the King at Hampton-Court Sep. 21. 1606 William L. B. of Rochester who in his sermon not long since preached before the Kinges Majesty and afterward printed by his Majesties expresse commandement as the same Bishop b In the epist to the King priÌ„ted before the sermon auoucheth affirmeth and proueth out of holy Scripture first that the Apostles kept to themselues ordination or authority to giue holy orders til

matters vve take away al order in the Church and open the gappe to al Heretikes Some say that euerie man by conference of one place of Scripture vvith another See part 2. cap. 5. sect 4. may attaine to the knowledge of the true sense I replie that euery mans discourse in such pointes may be false and erroneous And it is wel knowne that diuers of our aduersaries haue conferred the same places and haue gathered out of them different senses vvhich cannot al be true Yea the same man not seldome at distinst times out of the same places conferred inferreth distinct conclusions and altereth his beliefe touching some article or other vvhich is a manifest proofe that this conference is no infallible rule I adde also that experience teacheth vs that such a conference sometimes encreaseth the difficulty See part 2. cap. 1. sect 4. maketh some shewe of contradiction which before appeared not as I wil declare hereafter Others say that by praier euery man may obtaine of God the direction of the holy Ghost for the finding out of the true sense But where hath God promised this Moreouer our praier is of no force except we pray as we ought And what is more vncertaine then this How then can we certainly knowe when God inspireth vs and much lesse how can we possibly assure others that we haue such a diuine inspiration Further diuers haue vsed likewise this meane and yet haue falne into errour yea after their praiers they haue had different inspirations and one hath affirmed himselfe to haue beene inspired by God thus and another thus c. Finally al Heretikes may challenge to themselues these shiftes for the proofe of their owne priuate and false expositions wherefore we must needes finde out some other rule more certaine SECTION THE FOVRTH That the letter of holy Scripture falsly interpreted is not the word of God THIRDLY I am to proue that a false or wrong exposition erroneously gathered out of the letter of holy Scripture or made vpon the same is not the word of God but the word of man yea sometimes the word of the deuil and consequently that the said letter of Scripture so vnderstood is subject to the same censure This is apparant because the Scripture is the true word of God in that sense only which was intended at the penning of it by the holy Ghost For example like as no Catholike Christian wil deny but those wordes of Christ Ioh. 14. verse 28. The father is greater then I if we vnderstand them in this sense that God the father is greater then Christ according to his humanity containe the true word of God so euery Catholike Christian if they be vnderstood as Arius expounded them that Christ according to his diuinity is inferior to his father wil affirme them to be the word of the deuil Hence proceed diuers notable sentences of the auncient Fathers Tertul. de praescript ca. 17. see him also cap. 9. Hillar li. 2. de Triuitat ad Constantium Ambros lib. 2. ad GratianuÌ„ cap. 1. VinceÌ„ Lirin li. aduers propha haeres nouitates cap. 37. Math. 4. verse 6 Hieron in dial coÌ„tra Lucifer See Math 10. Luke 10. Hieron in cap. 1. ad Galat. among the rest Tertullian telleth vs that the sense of holy Scripture adultered doth impugne the truth at much as the stile corrupted S. Hillarie affirmeth that heresie ariseth of the vnderstanding not of the Scripture that the fault is in the sense not in the word that there is not one of the Heretikes that doth not lie and say that he preacheth those thinges in which he blasphemeth according to the Scriptures For hence saith he Marcellus when he readeth the word of God knoweth it not hence Photinus c. they all speake Scriptures with out sense they al pretend faith without faith for the Scriptures are not in the reading but in the vnderstanding c. These and other like discourses hath S. Hillary S. Ambrose is of the same opinion for he saith that although the text or letter haue no error yet the Arrian interpretation hath errour Vincentius Lirinensis comparing the Heretikes alleaging Scripture against Catholikes with the deuils alleaging the same to Christ discourseth after this sort And if any man aske any Heretike perswading him such thinges that is to forsake the doctrine and tradition of the Church how prouest thou how declarest thou that I ought to forsake the vniuersal and ancient faith presently he for it is written and forthwith he alleageth out of the lawe the psalmes the Apostles the Prophets a thousand testimonies a thousand examples a thousand authorities by which being interpreted after a new and naughty manner the vnhappy soule may be cast downe head-long from the Catholike tower Thus farre Vincentius Lirinensis But let vs heare the opinion of S. Hierome in this matter who aboue al the rest was conuersant in the holy Scripture these are his wordes The Scriptures consist not in the reading but in the vnderstanding otherwise if we follow the letter we also may frame vnto our selues a new opinion and affirme that they who weare shoes or haue two coates are not to be receiued into the Church He addeth in another place Marcion and Basillides and the other heretical plagues haue not the Gospel of God because they haue not the holy Ghost without which the Gospel which is taught is made humane or of men He telleth vs also that whosoeuer interpreteth the Gospel with another spirit and minde then it was written troubleth the faithful and turneth the Gospel of Christ vpside-downe that we must not thinke that the Gospel is in the wordes of the Scripture It is not saith he in the wordes but in the sense not in the superficies or out-side but in the marrow not in the leaues of the speaches or wordes but in the roote of reason Hence he concludeth with these wordes It is a very dangerous matter to speake or teach in the Church least that by peruerse interpretation the Gospel of Christ be made the Gospel of man or that which is worse the Gospel of the deuil Thus farre S. Hierome And this is that which the Apostle himselfe instructeth vs of when he affirmeth that the letter killeth but the spirit quickneth for the vertue and substance of Scriptures consisteth in their meaning and interpretation and so it is that the bare vvordes thereof are no more Scripture vvithout the spirit that is to say vvithout that sense which vvas intended by the holy Ghost when they were vvritten then the body of man is a man vvithout the soule yea if they be vvrested to a contrary or vvrong sense they kil and become poison vvhereas rightly vnderstood they containe diuine and heauenly doctrine And so this sentence of the Apostle is expounded by S. Augustine in diuers places of his vvorkes but in one place among the rest thus he discourseth a Aug. de spiritu litera c. 4. 5. li.

1. retract cap. 4. Aug. li. 1. ad Simpli cianuÌ„ c. 1. The lawe of God being read onlie not vnderstood or not fulfilled doth kil for then it is called the letter by the Apostle S. Hierome likewise approueth the same interpretation and to the same effect in the place aboue cited he hath these vvordes b Hier. in c. 1. ad Galat Epist. ad Nepot in li. 3. Reg. c. 1. Then the Scripture is profitable to the bearers when it is not expounded without Christ that is to say not contrary to the rule of faith deliuered by Christ to his Church when it is not spoken without the Father when he that preacheth doth not insinuate it without the spirit otherwise saith he the deuil which alleageth Scriptures and al Heretikes according to Ezechiel of Scriptures make cushions which they may put vnder the elbow of men of al ages Thus much S. Hierome Finally S. Augustine writeth thus c Aug. epist 222. Loue exceedingly the vnderstanding because the Scriptures themselues except they be rightly vnderstood cannot be profitable vnto thee And the reason of this is that which I haue already touched to wit that a false sense or inrerpretation of the letter of the holy Scriptures which was neuer intended by the holy Ghost but erroneously gathered out of the wordes by a mans priuate discourse or deduction putteth as it were another life or soule vpon the said letter and turneth it cleane another vvay vvherefore so vnderstood it is his vvord that so expoundeth it not the word of God who intended altogether another sense Rai in his confereÌ„ce with Har. pag. 68. And hence it is that M. Rainolds a Protestant affirmeth that it is not the shewe but the sense of the wordes of Scripture that must decide controuersies SECTION THE FIFT The true sense of the holy Scriptures is to be learned of the Catholike Church who is the true judge thereof NOVVE seing that the Scripture of it selfe is hard and euerie particuler man may erre in the exposition of it seing also that the false vnderstanding of it is so dangerous and the true sense so soueraigne let vs see whether we can finde out any certaine and infallible guide whose judgement we may follow securely and without al feare of errour in this matter I affirme therefore that like as we receiue the letter of the holy Scripture from the Catholike Church and by her censure infallibly knowe it to be Canonical so likewise we are to receiue the sense and exposition of the said letter from the same our holy mother and receiuing and following the sense by her approued we cannot possibly erre wherefore vpon it we may securely build our faith and saluation This may be inferred out of those thinges which haue beene already proued for if the letter it selfe be not properly Scripture without the true sense which is as it were the life and soule of the said letter and the letter be knowne vnto vs by the declaration of the Church it must needes followe that we ought also to receiue the sense from the same Church But let vs proue it out of the holy Scripture First therefore we gather out of the Apostle that Scripture ought to be interpreted according to the rule of faith generally receiued in the Church his wordes are these Rom. 12. verse 6. Hauing giftes according to the grace of God that is giuen vs different either prophecy according to the rule of faith or ministry or he that teacheth in doctrine c. Out of which vve gather the prophecie according to the rule proportion or analogie of faith is one of the gifts vvhich God bestoweth vpon his Church And what is meant by the word prophecy surely nothing else but the interpretation or exposition of the vvord of God this cannot be denied And it is confessed by our aduersaries themselues who in their English newe Testament printed in the yeare 1592. and 1600. in their note vpon those wordes of the Apostle Followe charitie earnestly pursue spiritual things 1. Corin. 14. ve 1. but rather that you may prophecy tel vs that the word prophecy signifieth the exposition of the word of God to the edification of the Church And although in the said English Bible they wil haue the vvord prophecy in the place cited out of the Epistle to the Romans to signifie preaching and teaching yet because al preaching teaching according to their doctrine ought principally to be out of the word of God it al coÌ„meth to the sel same sense Hence M. Rainolds in the conference held at HamptoÌ„ Court betweene Protestants Puritans Barlow in his relatioÌ„ of the said confereÌ„ce pag. 78. requested that at certaine times there might be prophecying in rural Deanaries But how shal we vnderstand those words according to the Analogie or rule of faith Truly the meaning of them is already explicated for by them we are taught that the exposition of holie Scriptures ought to be conformable to that rule of faith which was deliuered by Christ to his Church and by the assistance and direction of the holy Ghost hath remained in the same euer since vvithout corruption and shal so remaine vntil the end of the world And al this may be confirmed by that sentence of S. Peter before alleaged 2. Pet. 1. vers 20. No prophecy of Scripture is made by priuate intepretation that is to say no exposition of Scripture ought to be made acording to any mans priuate fancie but according to the doctrine sense of the Church And by this rule as I haue before noted S. Iohn the Apostle and Euangelist 1. Iohn 4. verse 1. Luk. 24. vers 45. biddeth vs try our spirits whether they be of God or no. Moreouer S. Luke the EuaÌ„gelist recordeth that our Sauiour opened his Apostles vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures Neither did he only giue them the gift of vnderstanding such diuiue bookes but also deliuered vnto them the true sense and meaning of the same I meane of the old Testament which only before the Ascension of Christ was penned And this gift of vnderstanding the Scriptures was perfected in them on the feast of Pentecost Act. 2. When the holy Ghost taught them all truth which gift also the said holy Ghost imparted and they deliuered to their successors and so by succession and tradition the same remaineth alwaies in the Church Iren. li. 4. cap. 45. Tertul. de praescrip cap. 19. Hence S. Ireneus telleth vs that they conserue our faith and expound the Scripture vnto vs without danger with whome the succession of Bishops which is from the Apostles remaineth Tertullian likewise refusing to argue against Heretikes by only Scripture willeth vs first to search out who haue the true faith it selfe whose the Scriptures are from whom and by whom and when and to whom the discipline by which men are made Christians was deliuered For wheresoeuer saith he it shal appeare that

knowne proued by the authority of the Church as by a diuine propounder Neither doe I imagine that the followers or maintainers of this opinion doe intend to affirme that in euery processe of beliefe touching any article it is necessarie that we resolue it lastly to the holy Scripture for I thinke that notwithstanding that which hath beene said if we be asked why we beleeue the whole summe of Christian doctrine or any point thereof we may wel answere because it is reuealed by God And if further we be demaunded how infallibly and diuinely we knowe it to be so reuealed we may answere because it is propounded by the Church Neuerthelesse the first opinion of it selfe is sufficient although this may seeme more exact especially in Schooles Neither doe I or any Catholike affirme the knowledge of these pointes to be neccessary to euery faithful Christian for it is sufficient that they beleeue al such things as are propounded by the Church because they are reueled by God which is done by the helpe of supernatural faith Nay I doe not think it is needful that they expresly knowe this infallible authority of the Church as propounder of such verities or al such prudential motiues as are before mentioned But I deeme it sufficient that they beleeue such reuealed verities as they are bound to knowe expresly and others virtually moued thereunto by the authority of their predecessors or the asseueration of other faithful people for this is sufficieint in them either for the obtaining or preseruing the gift of supernatural faith Let vs now see in few words what solutions may be giuen to the objection made in the beginning of this Section First therfore according to the doctrine of the first opinion touching the last resolution of our faith I answere that in very deed the canonical Scriptures and their true sense are knowne by the infallible authority of the Church as by the propounder of such particuler matters belonging to our faith and religion as we are bound to beleeue Neuerthelesse it is lawful to proue the authority of the Church out of holy Scripture against such aduersaries of the truth as admit the said authority of holy Scripture but deny the authority of the Church So did S. Augustine against the Manichees Aug. cont epist MaÌ„ quaÌ„ vocaÌ„t Fundam ca. 4. et 5. Id. de vnitate Eccle. cap. 19. et tract 13. in IoaÌ„nem Field book 4. cap. 7. Â§ There is no questioÌ„ who approued the authority of miracles and denied the authority of Scriptures proue by miracles the Church and by the Church the Scriptures Contrariwise against the Donatists who allowed the Scriptures and boasting of their visions rejected miracles by Scriptures he proued the Church and by the Church the truth of miracles but that this manner of proceeding is lawful it is granted by Field therfore I need say no more Secondly I answere according to the other opinion that the canonical Scriptures and their true interpretation are infallibly proued knowne by the authority of the Church as by a condition necessarie propoÌ„uding them vnto vs but the authority of the Church is proued knowne to be infallible by the testimony of holy Scriptures as by diuine reuelations approuing the said authority And to affirme this as I haue shewed is no more absurd then to say that two causes may be causes of one another Neither doe I think this manner of proofe more to be blamed then the proofe of a cause by the effect and of the effect by the cause as of fire by smoke and of smoke by fire of the bignesse proportion of a mans foote by his steppe in dust or sand and of this againe by that Thus also the Philosophers proue a man reasonable because he is risible or hath power to laugh and againe demonstrate that he hath power to laugh because he is reasonable which kind of argumentation is not called circulation but a demonstratiue regresse Chapter 8. Concerning the second particuler ground of Catholike religion to wit Apostolike Traditions SECTION THE FIRST Of Apostolike Tradition in general THAT I may the better declare the authority and dignity of Apostolike vnwritten Traditions of which I am principallie to intreate in this chapter I thinke it not amisse to say a worde or two of Apostolike Tradition in general and although though I shal repeate some things which haue been already said yet I hope my reader wil pardon me seing that a just occasion of so doing is offered me I haue aboue affirmed Cap. 6. sect 2. that the whole summe or corps of Christian religion was deliuered by Christ to his Apostles not in writing but by word of mouth and that the principal meane for the entire preseruation of it in the Church without corruption or deprauation ordained by God almighty is the continual assistance and direction of the holy Ghost who alwaies remaineth in the Church and directeth her in al truth Of which I now gather that although neuer any scripture of the newe Testament had been written yet that the doctrine of Christ by Tradition had stil remained the selfe same entire and whole in the Church to the end of the world This is so manifest out of that vvhich hath been already said that it needeth no proofe in this place yet I wil repeate a word or two of that and adde a litle more to make it the more apparant I proue it therefore because our blessed Sauiour neuer penned the summe of his doctrine himselfe neither is it recorded that euer he comaunded any one of his Apostles or Disciples in expresse tearmes to write but only to preach and teach according to his owne and the holy Ghost instructions And hence it is that none of the said Apostles or Disciples wrote any parcel of the newe Testament presently after the ascension of Christ and consequently that the whole summe of Christian doctrine was published some time before any such scripture was penned and that the Church of Christ was some yeares without it S. Mathew the first Euangelist Euseb in Chronic. anno 41. published his Gospel as Eusebius recordeth some six yeres after our Sauiours ascension Hence also it proceeded that neuer any one of the Apostles or Disciples vndertooke the setting downe in writing of the whole suÌ„me of Christian doctrine this is manifest because the three first Euangelists deliuered vnto vs very litle touching the diuinity of Christ one of the chiefe and highest misteries of Christian religion Neither had the fourth which was S. Iohn the Apostle any intention to set downe al that the other three had omitted for he wrote his Gospel directly against certaine Heretikes who denied the diuinity of Christ and that not by the commandement of Christ but by the intreaty of the bishops of Asia as a Atha in sinopsi S. Athanasius S. Hipolitus bishop and martir b Epipha haeres 51. S. Epiphanius and c Hieron praefat in Mat. et

such vehemencie accuseth him that preacheth other doctrine then that which was before receiued in the Church Gal. 1 9. If any man saith he euangelize to you besides that which you haue receiued be he Anathema or cursed to vvhich sentence alludeth Vincentius Lirinensis in these wordes Vincent Lir. c. 14. To preach vnto Christian Catholikes other doctrine then that which they haue already receiued no where is lawful and neuer shal be lawful and to accurse as Heretikes those which preach other doctrine then that which before hath beene accepted it was neuer vnlawful it is in no place vnlawful and neuer wil be vnlawful Hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis Contrariwise for keeping vndefiled this rule or Tradition the same Apostle highly commendeth the Corinthians saying 1. Corin. 11 2. I praise you brethren that in al things you be mindful of me and as I haue deliuered vnto you you keepe my precepts or according to the Greeke vvord my Traditions And because the Church and aboue al others the Romans most carefully kept these Traditions Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4. S. Irenaeus called it the rich treasure-house of Apostolike Traditions wherefore vvhosoeuer is desirous to discerne a true Christian from a faithles Heretike must behold the doctrine of them both and pronounce him to be the true disciple of Christ who by succession and Tradition hath receiued his beliefe from him and his Apostles For like as a nobleman or gentleman of antiquity is knowne by his pedigree so a true Christian is knowne by the succession and descent of his Prelates and faith from them that first receiued it from our Lord. Neither doth this our doctrine any waies diminish the authority of holy scripture for this notvvithstanding we affirme that the wonderful prouidence of almighty God most wisely ordained that the scriptures of the newe Testament should be written that he moued the penners thereof thereunto and directed them by his diuine inspiration and this both for the coÌ„firmation and preseruation of the faith Tradition of the Church and also that the said Tradition might with more ease come to euery ones knowledg and that euery one by such monuments might learne to discerne the true Church of vvhich he vvas to be instructed concerning al matters of faith and religion But of our estimation of the holie scripture see more aboue Chap. 7. SECTION THE SECOND Of vnwritten Traditions in particular THis discourse beeing premised concerning the Traditions of the Church in general I come nowe to discourse of that part of the said Traditions vvhich are concerning matters of vvhich there is no expresse mention in the word of God and therefore are called vnwritten Traditions And first that both such Traditions are found in the Church and that the vvhole summe of Christian doctrine is not expresly contained in the vvritten vvord of God I haue already declared Section 1. because none of the Apostles or Disciples euer intended to set downe in any parcel of scripture the said whole summe of Christian doctrine and also proued it out of those words of S. Luke in the Actes of the Apostles in which he telleth vs Acts 1 verse 3. that Christ after his Passion shewed himselfe aliue in many argumentes for forty daies appearing to his Apostles and speaking of the kingdome of God For by this relation it seemeth euident that our Sauiour during the time betweene his resurrection and ascention gaue to his Apostles diuers instructions which are not set downe in particuler in any parte of the newe Testament for no Apostle or Euangelist relateth in particular these discourses of Christ And they vvere without al doubt concerning the sacraments their administration the gouernment of the Church and other such like affaires belonging to Christian religion which for the most part the Apostles left to their successors only by word of mouth and secret Tradition This in plaine termes is auouched by a Epiph. haeres 61. Apostolico rum S. Epiphanius whose words be these We must vse Tradition for the scripture hath not al things And therefore the Apostles deliuered certaine thinges in writing certaine by Tradition The same truth is affirmed by b Basil de spiri saÌ„cto cap. 27. S. Basil and the rest of the Fathers yea this we are taught by the Apostle himselfe who in his epistle to the Thessalonians not only commendeth most earnestly to the Church written Traditions but also vnwritten c 2. Thess 2 15. Brethren saith he stand and hold the Traditions which you haue learned whether it be by word or by our epistle Out of which place it is euident that some Traditions by the Apostle were deliuered to the Thessalonians by word And that here he speaketh of such Traditions as we treat of we are taught by al the ancient Fathers Among the rest S. Iohn Chrisostome gathereth out of them this conclusion Hence it is manifest saith he that they videlicet the Apostles deliuered not al thinges by Epistle but many thinges also vnwritten and those thinges likewise are to be beleeued d Chrisost hom 4. in 2. Thessa It is a Tradition seeke thou no further thus S. Chrisostome But that the Fathers admit vnwritten Traditions it is graunted by e Whitak de sacra scrip pag. 678. 668. 681. 683. 685. 690. 695. 696. 670. Whitaker f Rain in his conclusions aÌ„nexed to his confereÌ„ce 1. conclu pag. 689. Rainolds g Cart. in Whitg defeÌ„ce p. 103 Cartwrite h Kemnis in exam part 1. pa. 87 89. 90 Kemnisius i Fulk against pur pag. 362. 303. 397. Against Marshal pag. 170. 178. Against Brist motiues pag. 35. 36. Fulke and other Protestants wherefore I neede not alleage any more of their testimonies And this is the reason wherefore we haue no precept in the newe Testament to beleeue or obserue those thinges only which are expresly contained in the said volume Neither doe we finde that euer the Apostles or their followers commended and deliuered to any Church or people the said newe Testament as a booke comprehending in expresse termes the whole summe of Christian doctrine Nay it is certaine that for diuers yeares before the said booke was written the Apostles deliuered al by Tradition and word of mouth Further that the estimation of vnwritten Traditions hath euer beene exceeding great in the Church it appeareth not only by this that diuers of the ancient Fathers as I haue shewed in the * Section 1. chapter next before by Tradition haue proued what scripture is Canonical and pleaded the authority of them against diuers heresies but also by this that diuers heresies haue been by the testimony of them only condemned ouerthrowne In the first general Councel of Nice as a Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 16. et 18. Sozomenus reporteth the Fathers especially endeauoured that nothing should be decreed but that vvhich they had receiued by Tradition from their forefathers S. Ciprian with most of the Bishops of Affrica

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 coÌ„t Cresc HieroÌ„ coÌ„tra 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 saÌ„cto ca. 27. See Aug. epist 118. ad IaÌ„ 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 coÌ„t 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 saÌ„ct 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 EpiphaÌ„ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ Much confession Ibidem Â§ The secoÌ„d 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

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 Aâ—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. Â§ 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. reasoÌ„ Abbot in his answere to Hils 9 reasoÌ„ 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

life and when he hath done al he is almost neuer the nearer for he cannot deny but he may be deceiued in his judgment and consequently his faith is but an opinion And thus we see that although Field make a great shewe of yeelding great authority to the Fathers yet in very deed he bereaueth them almost of al partly by rejecting their testimonies concerning al other matters but certaine principal and substantial points partlie by requiring such a general consent as can hardly be proued concerning the principal articles themselues partlie by his doctrine concerning the errour of the whole Church and partlie by other meanes Let vs therefore Conclude that al our aduersaries reject al particular groundes of faith which are found in the church of Christ besides the holy scripture and make them al subject to error and falshood And this is almost in flat tearmes confessed by our English Protestants who in the Apologie of the Church affirme Apologie of the church of England part 2. pag. 58. that In the scriptures only mans hart can haue setled rest and that in them be abundantly and fully comprehended al things whatsoeuer be needful for our health The same doctrine vvas established in their conuocations held at London in the yeares 1562. and 1604. vvhere vve finde these wordes Holy scripture containeth althinges necessary for saluation Article 6. so that whatsoeuer is not read therin nor proued thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be beleeued as an article of the faith or be thought necessarily requisite to saluation Hence a Will. in his Sinops p. 38. Willet affirmeth that the scripture is not one of the meanes but the sole whole and only meanes to worke faith And this is the common doctrine of them al as wil appeare in the next chapter But in it as in other points the Sectaries of our daies follow the steps of the auncient Heretikes for they in like sort as it is recorded by auncient b Iren. l. 3. c. 2. Tertull. de praesript Ciprianus de vnit Ecclesiae August l. 32. coÌ„tra FaustuÌ„ et lib. 2. coÌ„tra MaximinuÌ„ Hooker iÌ„ the praeface to his book of Ecclesiastical policie priÌ„ted an 1604. p. 36. authors rejected the authority of Traditions Councels and Fathers and in matters of controuersy appealed to the scriptures only Yea in this they conforme themselues to the Anabaptists whome they censure to be Heretikes of this age for they also as Hooker a Protestant recordeth admit no other disputation against their opinions then onlie by allegation of scripture But they object that euerie one of the Fathers was subject to error I confesse it but yet God according to his promise as I haue aboue declared was so to direct gouerne them that they should not al erre wherefore they vvere not men guided altogether by their owne judgements and hauing no surer rule but men directed by the holie Ghost of which their consent in one true doctrine is a most manifest token And whiles these professors of the new religion contemne and reject these mens authoritie what greater authority doe they bring vs Surelie none so great for they bring vs only their owne opinions and perhaps the testimony of their chief ring-leaders who were and are men directed only by their owne judgments and fantasies of vvhich their dissention and diuersitie of doctrine is euen as an apparant proof They say that they bring vs the authoritie of the worde of God but the Fathers embraced and reuerenced the word of God more then they doe Neither is the controuersie between the word of God and the Fathers for these two were neuer repugnant the one to the other as the newe Sectaries vvould haue it but betweene the newe Sectaries themselues and the Fathers who of them expound the vvord of God more trulie as it vvil appeare by my discourse ensuing Wherefore seing that none of them are to be compared with the Fathers neither for learning sanctity of life nor any other good and vertuous condition but are in euerie wise-mans judgement farre more subject to errour then they of whome they make themselues judges we are not to be blamed if we preferre the translation and interpretation of holie scriptures left vnto vs by the said auncient fathers before theirs Chapter 5. They build not vpon the holy Scripture and first that the bare letter of holy Scripture only is not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion SEGTION SHE FIRST In which this is proued because by Scripture the Scripture it selfe cannot be proued Canonical It is also argued that according to the sectaries groundes there is no Canonical Scripture and some principal reasons especially inspiration of the spirit which they alleage for the proofe of such Scripture are refelled OVR aduersaries as I haue shewed haue alreadie bereaued themselues of al Catholike grounder of religion except the holie Scripture And this ground their Captaines euen now cited not only chalenge to themselues as vvholy and properlie theirs but also seeme to make the onlie foundation and piller of their newe beliefe and doctrine But seing that they vvillingly depriue themselues of al other groundes we must of necessity depriue them against their wils of this for it is a thing most manifest and easily to be proued that they build not vpon the Scripture but vpon their owne fancies and judgement And first I must here presuppose as certaine that they deny the Church to haue any extraordinarie authority for the true translation or interpretation of holy Scripture and that they admitte of no Tradition of the true sense thereof preserued alwaies in the same Church together with the letter This is apparant by their making the church subject to error by their denying her authority by their rejecting al vnwritten traditions among which we number the true exposition of the word of God by their daily inuenting of new and strange interpretations in former ages vnheard off by their rejecting the testimonies and expositions of the auncient Fathers and by their alleaging no other authoritie for their owne expositions but their owne judgements Hence it is affirmed Harmony of confes sect 1. in the confession of Heluetia that the interpretation of Scripture is to be taken only from her selfe and that her selfe may be the interpreter of her selfe the rule of charity and faith being her guide And in the confession of Wittenberge that the true meaning of Scripture is to be sought in the Scripture it selfe and among those that being raised vp by the spirit of God expound Scripture by Scripture I adde also that their expositions being diuers and opposite they cannot al descend by Tradition from the Apostles and seing that one of them hath no more reason to challenge this tradition then another vve may in like sort deny it to them al wherefore that which they make the only ground of their faith and religion is the bare word of holie Scripture interpreted by

themselues and of this their ground because the matter is of great importaunce I purpose to discourse something at large And first I wil shewe in this chapter that the bare and naked letter onlie of holie Scripture is not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion Then in the chapters following I wil proue that although we should grant the letter to be a sufficieÌ„t ground yet that their bibles containe not the true letter Thirdly that although this were also granted yet that they build not vpon the letter contained in their owne Bibles Lastly that in translating and expounding the holie Scriptures they followe their owne fancies and judgement and that they haue no other certaine and infallible ground Caluin de ve ra Eccles reform ratione pag. 473. Apologie of the Church of EnglaÌ„d pag. 58. Articles of faith agrreed vpoÌ„ the coÌ„uocations of the yeares 1562. 1604. I come to the first It is a common maxime or principle among al newe Sectaries that the scriptures only containe al thinges necessary to our saluation and that nothing is to be beleeued or necessarily to be obserued vvhich is not expresly taught commaunded or allowed in the same or as some of them adde manifestlie gathered out of them * Harmony of confes sect 1. In controuersies of religion saith the confession of Heluetia or matters of faith we cannot admit any other judge then God himselfe pronouncing by the holy scriptures what is true what false what is to be followed or what auoided Al thinges ought to be tried by the rule and square of holy scripture saith the French confession Al things which are needful to be knowne to saluation are contained in the Prophets and Apostles writings saith that of Wittenberg And out of this ground they argue against vnwritten traditioÌ„s ceremonies positiue lawes of the Church c. But that this doctrine is false euen according to their owne proceedings supposing that to be true vvhich they affirme concerning the infallible authority of the Church to wit that it is not expressed in the said scripture nor out of it deduced it is an easie matter to demonstrate to euerie mans eie for first this authority of the Church being set aside by vvhat Scripture can they proue the Scripture it selfe to be Canonical And seing that I am to discourse of this argument and their assertions be intricate I wil not only proue that according to this ground they haue no canonical Scripture but also absolutely that by no other means they giue it any infallible or diuine authority First therefore I may very wel frame this argument against the whole Bible out of their aforesaid ground Nothing is to be beleeued but that which is expresly taught in the written word of god or manifestly gathered out of the same but that the Bible is canonical Scripture it is neither taught in the written word of God nor manifestly gathered out of the same therfore it is not to be beleeued that the bible is canonical Scripture The major or first proposition containeth their aforesaid ground the minor or second is approued by Hooker who writeth thus Of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what books we are bound to esteeme holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And this afterwards he confirmeth with this reason For saith he if any one book of scripture did giue testimony to al yet stil that Scripture which giueth credit to the rest would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it neither could we euer come into any pause whereon to rest our assurance this way so that vnlesse besides Scripture there were something which might assure vs that we doe wel we could not thinke we doe wel no not in being assured that Scripture is a sacred and holy rule of wel-doing thus Hooker And this argument is of such force that it hath constrained some of them and among the rest the said a Hooker in his treatis of lawes of ecclesiastical policy booke 1. p. 84. book 2. Â§ 4. p. 100. 102 Zauch in his confessioÌ„ c. 1. Brent in prolog Kemn in exam Concil Tridentini Hooker Zauchius Brentius and Kemnitius to flie from Scriptures vnto tradition for the proofe of this matter yea b Hook book 3. Â§ 8. p. 146. See Whitak contr Staple l. 2. c. 4. pag. 298. 300. some of them affirme that this only tradition concerning canonical Scripture is to be rejected c Obseruations vpon the Harmonie of confessioÌ„s published by those of Geneua fol. 593. Others and among them the Geneuian doctors affirme that some books of which there was heretofore some doubt among the ancient doctors of the church were receiued as Canonical by the common consent of the whole Catholike Church and therefore that they are not to be refused But who seeth not First that these men bewray the weaknes of the aforesaid general ground concerning the sufficiency of holy Scripture alone then that if the tradition of the Church yea the Church it selfe in her judicial sentence as they al affirme may erre in one point that it may also erre in al others of the same quality and consequently that the authority or tradition of the Church cannot infallibly argue the Scriptures to be of diuine authority Caluin instit book 1. cap. 7. Â§ 1.2.4 et 5. Caluin answereth that the holy books of Scripture by them that haue the spirit are easily discerned from others by themselues as light from darknesse and sweetnes from sowrenes or bitternes And this his opinion is embraced by diuers and among the rest by Whitakers Thomas Rogers and Field and therefore is with some diligence to be refelled But before I enter into the confutation of it I must affirme as certaine that al these authors require in euery man to this that assuredly he beleeue the holy scriptures to be from God a supernatural inspiration of the holy ghost That Caluin doth so his sentences hereafter alleaged plainly declare * Whit. iÌ„ his answ to Campians first reason pag. 47. Whitakers hauing affirmed That it is euen as euideÌ„t the scriptures be from god as that the sunne is the sun or that god is God and also said that there are in the books themselues proofs inough to demonstrate it yet finally concludeth that the inward hidden testimony of the spirit must be bad that men may firmly rest in the scriptures Againe Then only doe we attaine a certaine sauing ful assurance when the same spirit which writ published them doth perswade our harts of the credit of them Rogers writeth thus a Rogers iÌ„ his discourse vpoÌ„ the articles of faith agreed vpon in the conuocations of the years 1562. 1604. art 6. p. 31. 32. printed anno 1607. We judg these books before mentioned Canonical not somuch because learned and godly men in the Church so haue and doe receiue and allow of them as for that the holy spirit in our harts doth

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. BulleÌ„ger 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 Râ—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. Â§ 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. Â§ 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. Â§ thus theÌ„ 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. Â§ Much coÌ„tention see also chapt 7. Â§ Thus then Book 4. chap. 7. Â§ Surely See hiÌ„ also Â§ There is c. that The bookes of Scripture winne credit

of their beliefe are not in expresse tearmes to be found in the whole Bible yea that the text of their owne Bibles maketh more for vs then it doth for them Out of which I may wel inferre that they build not vpon the letter contained in their owne bookes but vpon their owne collections which euery priuate man maketh according to his owne fancie SECTION THE SECOND The same argument is confirmed by the testimonie of some Protestants concerning the true sense of some wordes of Scripture alleaged for our Catholike doctrine touching justification in the Section before NOTVVITHSTANDING the wordes af Scripture cited for vs Catholikes are most plaine yet it may be some follower of the new religion wil imagine that we wrest them to a sense improper and in the primatiue ages of the Church vnheard off contrariwise that those of his beliefe deliuer the true literal and auncient exposition of the same Nowe therefore to make the force of the reason brought more strong I adde that I could easily proue euen by the testimonies of our aduersaries themselues that the letter of holy Scripture in these controuersies mentioned and others according to the proper sense thereof and the tradition and practise of al former Christians is on our side not on theirs But if I should here declare this to be true in euery particuler point I should be ouer long vvherefore I vvil exemplifie only in one or two of the principal by which my reader may easily perceiue what may be done concerning the rest Luther to 5. in cap. 5. ad Galat. f. 382. And first what article of religion by these Sectaries is esteemed aboue that of justification by only faith Luther himselfe writeth thus Whoso euer falleth from the article of justification by faith onlie becommeth ignorant of God and is an Idolater and therefore it is al one whether he returne to the law of the Iewes or worshipping of Idols Al is one whether he be a Monke a Turke a Iewe or an Anabaptist For this article being once taken away there remaineth nothing but meere errour hipochrisie impiety idolatry although in shewe there appeare excellent truth Caluin in Epist ad Sadoletum p. 176. worship of God holinesse c. thus Luther Caluin also telleth vs that the knowledge of justification by faith being taken away both the glorie of Christ was extinguished and religion abolished and the Church destroyed and the hope of saluation altogether ouerthrowne Our countriman M. Perkins in like sort affirmeth Per. in his reformed Catholike touching justification of a sinner pag. 65. 66 that we by our doctrine touching justification doe raâ—â—e the very foundation and that the disagreement betweene vs and the Protestants concerning this matter if there were no more points of difference alone were sufficient to keepe vs from vniting our religions this is his opinion Wherefore this being an article of Christian beliefe in these mens conceits so principal let vs behold whether the letter of holy Scripture according to the judgement of Protestants doe not plainely deliuer our doctrine concerning it and impugne theirs The chiefest place which I haue alleaged in the section next before touching this matter is that sentence of S. Iames the Apostle Of workes or deedes a man is justified and not of faith only Iam. 2. v. 24. Bible 1592. And howe doe al the Lutheranes yea some Sacramentaries vnderstand these wordes Truly they openly and boldly confesse that they warre against justification by onlie faith and approue justification by workes and they assigne this as one reason why this epistle is to be rejected out of the Canon Luther the captaine of them al writing vpon the 22. chapter of Genesis hath these wordes See him also praefat in nouum Testam edit 1. Genensis in captiuitat Babilo ca. de Extrema Vnct. in 1. Pet. c. 1. fol 439. 440. edit Wittenb Abraham was just by faith before he is knowne such an one by God therefore Iames doth naughtily conclude that nowe at the length he is justified after this obedience for by workes as by fruits faith and iustice is knowne But it followeth not vt Iacobus delirat as Iames dotingly affirmeth therefore the fruits doe iustifiy thus there And in another place * Luth. in colloquijs conuiualibus latin to 2. de libris noui Testam Part. 2 chap. 6. sect 2. Many saith he haue taken great paines in the epistle of Iames to make it accord with Paul as Philppe endeauoureth in his Apologie but not with good successe for they are contrary faith doth iustifie faith doth not iustifie Loe Luther expresly telleth vs that S. Iames auoucheth faith not to justifie But whereas he maketh this Apostle contrary to S. Paul he doth wrong them both For neither doth the one say that faith doth not justifie nor the other that faith alone doth justifie as he supposeth But out of their discourses it may be gathered that both faith and workes concurre to justification which is our Catholike doctrine Of the place of S. Paul vnto vvhich Luther alludeth I haue said something before therefore no more of it at this present shal be necessary The opinion of a Pomeran in c. 8. ad RomaÌ„ Pomerane a Lutheran of great estimation is conformable to that of Luther for thus he pronounceth his censure Faith was reputed to Abraham for iustice By this place thou maiest note the error of the epistle of Iames wherein thou seest a wicked argument Besides that he concludeth ridiculously he citeth Scripture against Scripture which thing the holy Ghost cannot abide wherefore that epistle may not be numbred among other bookes which set forth the iustice of only faith thus Pomerane I wil not stand to free S. Iames from his wicked accusations which is very wel performed by diuers Catholike authors Hil in his defeÌ„ce of the article Christ descended into hel fol. 23. Centur. 1. lib. 2. c. 4. col 54. Centur. 2. ca. 4. col 71. But vnto this Lutheran I wil joyne the Magdeburgians his brethren whose vvritings an English Protestant judgeth to be worthy of eternal memorie who say that the epistle of S. Iames much swarueth from the analogie of the Apostolical doctrine whereas it ascribeth justification not only to faith but to workes and calleth the lawe a lawe of liberty Againe Against Paul against al Scriptures the epistle of Iames attributeth justice to workes and peruerteth as it were of set purpose that which Paul disputeth Rom. 4. out of Genesis 15. Abraham was iustified by only faith without workes and affirmeth that Abraham obtained iustice by workes hitherto are their wordes With these consenteth Vitus Theodorus an other of that companie and a preacher of Norinberge who yeeldeth this reason wherefore he excluded this epistle from the Canon of holy Scripture The epistle of Iames and the Apocalipse of Iohn saith he we haue of set purpose left out because the epistle of Iames is not only in certaine

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 Â§. 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. BreÌ„tius in Apolog coÌ„fess 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 coÌ„uiualibus titul de Patriarchis Prophetis titul de libris veteris nouitestam Iob and further disgraceth the said booke by

of his knowledge faithfully rendred the text and in al hard places most sincerely expounded the same But to make this the more euident I adde further that they make the selfe same vvord sometimes to signifie one thing and at other times another thing as it best serueth their purpose For example our English Protestants whensoeuer the Scripture speaketh of euil traditions as Math. 15. vers 6. and in other places Bible 1595. translate the Greeke vvord vvhich signifieth properly a tradition truly as they ought But when mention is of Apostolike traditions they make the selfe same Greeke vvord signifie ordinances instructions Bible 1595. preachings or institutions as 2. Thess vers 15. c. And this they doe to bring traditions into contempt But of such examples see more in the sixt Chapter before Besides this although they vndertake to translate the Hebrewe text of the old testament and the Greeke of the newe yet vvhen the Hebrewe or Greeke maketh against them or not so much for them as the Latin they forsake the Hebrewe and Greeke and followe the Latin I vvil bring an example of both Hieremy 7. vers 18. and chap. 44. ver 19. the said Prophet inueigheth against those that offer sacrifice to strange Gods especially to the Moone And whereas according to the Hebrew they should read in the first place The women kneade the dowe to make cakes to offer to the heauens or planets they followe the Latin and say thus Bible 1595. The women kneade the dowe to make cakes for the Queene of heauen In like sort they proceede in the second place And by this meanes as they imagine they make a strong argument against vs vvho honour our blessed Lady and cal her Queene of heauen although we offer vp no sacrifice vnto her or any other creature In the newe testament whereas the Apostle according to the Greeke text saith only Rom. 8. v. 38 I am probably perswaded that neither death nor life c. shal be able to seperate vs from the charity of God they reade I am sure that neither death Bible 1595. c. And like as after this sort they serue their owne turnes in their translations so doe they also in their expositions of diuers wordes One example I haue touched aboue concerning the vvord Babilon which in S. Peters epistle to hinder the proofe of the said Apostles being at Rome 1. Pet. 5 13. Euseb lib. 2. histor c. 14. Hieron in li. descript Eccles verbo Marcus contrary to Eusebius and S. Hierome they vvil haue signifie the great City called Babilon in Assiria or Caldea contrariwise to make against the honour and dignity of Rome in the * Apocal. 17. vers 19. Bible 1592. Apocalipse they affirme the City of Rome by it to be vnderstood Let vs also consider that it must needes be granted that some of the learned sectaries haue erred in their translations and interpretations of holy Scripture for this is euident because there is but one true vvord of God which according to truth admitteth not opposite interpretations But our aduersaries translations and interpretations be diuers and much different yea repugnant one to another wherefore as I haue shewed they reject one anothers translation and interpretation and also alleage Scripture for their different doctrine They cannot therefore al be consonant to the true word of God vvhich if it be confessed it must needes follow that some of them in these matters haue erred and if some of them haue erred then some of them without al doubt haue not built vpon diuine authority which cannot be the ground of errour but vpon their owne judgement And seing that the warrant which they claime from God of al of them is the same and their ground alike we may wel inferre that none of them build vpon any other more sure foundation Adde vnto this that the selfe same sectaries oftentimes vpon further reading study and knowledge change their translations and interpretations of holy Scripture vvhich is apparent by the diuers editions of the Bibles and other their workes in which Scripture is alleaged and interpreted and of our English sectaries it is granted by the translatour of the Bible printed in the yeare 1585. 1592. and 1600. in the preface of which he confesseth that the former translations required greatly to be perused and reformed I haue also shewed in the sixt chapter that diuers places haue beene corrected and that as yet by the judgement of the best it is faulty of this followeth not seldome a change of belief and a difference from themselues in religion vvhich in the next chapter I vvil proue to haue fallen out in their first Captaines themselues And this is an inuincible argument seing that the Scriptures remaine alwaies the selfe same to proue that they varying build only vpon their owne fancies and are neuer certaine that they haue attained to the truth But this vvil be most apparent to him that shal set before his eies the manner of proceeding of our said learned sectaries in their discourses or disputations vvith their aduersaries For doe they in such conferences admit the text of holy Scripture as a supreame judge of al controuersies concerning matters of religion Surely no for although they seeme to recurre to the holy Scripture and vehemently pleade the word of God and by the authority thereof shewe themselues desirous to haue al difficulties decided yet in very truth it is not so as euery man may vvel judge because the letter of Scripture oftentimes doth not sufficiently interpret it selfe and they wil admit and allowe of no other translation or interpretation but their owne let vs declare this a litle more at large It is not vnknowne that the Catholikes receiue as Canonical the Hebrewe and Greeke text as wel as they and consequently those very places either in Hebrewe Greeke or both vvhich they alleage to establish their doctrine opposite to the beliefe of the Catholike Church Yea the Catholikes attribute more authority to the places alleaged as they are penned in the said tongues and to al bookes vvhich the newe sectaries receiue then they doe and further receiue fiue whole bookes at the least and diuers other parcels of holy Scripture into the Canon which they al commonly reject Wherefore the controuersie is not concerning the authority of the text either in Hebrewe or Greeke whither it be to be beleeued or no but vvhither the Catholikes building in this vpon the authority of the Church Traditions Councels and Fathers haue the true translation and exposition of the text or the Professours of the newe religion vvho alleage no other testimony for themselues then their owne priuate spirit and fancy To make this more euident by an example let vs suppose that a Catholike and a newe Sectary fal into disputation concerning Christs discent into hel The Catholike vsually for proofe of the affirmatiue part bringeth forth that sentence of holie Scripture Thou wilt not leaue

that any translation is true but of these matters before For the authority also of our translation in general it maketh that it hath beene read and allowed of in the Church aboue eleauen hundred yeares and approued by thousands of Saintes and learned men and by them accepted as the true vvord of God The translation of the old testament in particular if we beleeue S. Augustine Aug. l. 18. de ciuitat c. 43. was acknowledged as true by the very Iewes themselues then liuing who fauoured no more vs then the Protestants That of the newe as the same holy Father writeth was also in those daies approued by al Christians Idem epist 10 ad Hieron For it likewise we haue the testimony of Beza himselfe who among our aduersaries is accounted a great linguist who in commendation of the old translator writeth thus The old interpreter seemeth to haue interpreted or translated the holy bookes Beza in c. 1. Luc. vers 1. IbideÌ„ in praefat nou test anno 1556. Idem ibid. with marueilous sincerity and religion Againe The vulgar edition I embrace for the most part and preferre it before al other whatsoeuer By it in diuers places he correcteth the Greeke text as may be seene Luc. 20. vers 28. Luc. 7. vers 31. c. He also blameth Erasmus for reprehending of it as dissenting from the Greeke saying that he doth it vnjustly I wil recite his wordes which are as followeth Howe vnjustly and without cause doth Erasmus blame the old interpreter as dissenting from the Greeke He dissented I grant from those Greeke copies which Erasmus had gotten but we haue found out in one place that the same interpretation which he blameth is grounded vpon the authority of other Greeke copies and those most ancient Yea in some number of places we haue obserued that the reading of the Latin text of the old interpreter though it agree not some times with our Greeke copies yet it is much more conuenient for that it seemeth he followed some truer and better copy Thus Beza Vnto whome I joine Molinaeus an other sectary as some thinke to him not inferiour Molinaeus in Luc. 17. who in like sort preferreth this edition before those of Erasmus Bucer Bullinger Brentius Pagnines that of Zuricke yea also before Iohn Caluins and al others He affirmeth Ibidem that Erasmus in a certaine place did wel to followe the old edition and saith it had beene better for Beza to haue done so too He auoucheth further that Beza did not wel in changing the old translation Idem in Ioan. 3. v. 19. 43 see also in Ioan 7. ver 35. He addeth also * IdeÌ„ part 30 that he can very hardly depart from the vulgar and accustomed reading which also I am wont saith he very earnestly to defend Castalio in like sort a man much commended by a Humfredus de rat Interp. lib. 1. pa. 62. 63. 189. D. Humfrey and b Gesnerus in Bibliotheca Gesnerus blameth Beza for finding fault with the old interpreter c Castalio in defens p. 179 174. 181. 183. 188. 198. 202. 204. 213. auerring that he doth it vnjustly and that the said old interpreter had translated it better before Yea d Humfred de rat interpret lib. 1. pag. 74. D. Humfrey himselfe yeeldeth the old translator this praise The old interpreter seemeth sufficiently bent to followe the propriety of wordes and he doth in deede ouer carefully which notwithstanding I suppose him to haue done not of ignorance but of religion And in truth that this is no fault I gather out of his owne doctrine for he e Ibid. p. 179. telleth vs that in prophane writers a man may range abroade more freely and depart from the wordes but in Canonical scripture saith he no such licence is tollerable for man may not alter the tongue of God And thus much for the vulgar Latin edition of the newe Testament out of our aduersaries Further for the truth of our expositions of the holy Scripture we haue the continual tradition of the Church and the testimony and suffrage of al the holy Fathers and of thousands of Saints and learned men who euer expounded it as we doe and out of it gathered the selfe same doctrine and beliefe For vnto them vve are al contented to remit the trial of the truth of our cause and of the hoâ—y Church and them we professe our selues to learne the true sense of the word of God And thus much the Catholikes can alleage for the authority of their translation and interpretation of holy Scripture although they set aside the authority of the Church Nowe what can our aduersaries say for themselues what sound testimony or proof can they bring for the truth of their translations and expositions Surely euery sect at the lest hath a distinct bible wherefore for the proofe of these thinges they can only alleage the testimony of their sect-master or translator of their Bible and his followers And what a goodly matter is this doe not farre more of the new sectaries themselues condemne reject euery one of their Bibles and their particular expositions then there doe approue them Certainly euery Bible is condemned by diuers but approued only by the followers of one sect and so in like sort are diuers particular interpretations Vnto which I adde that the diuersity of their Bibles maketh the truth of them al suspected for seing that we haue no greater reason to allowe of one then of an other and al but one without al doubt are false as they themselues must needes confesse because there is but one true word of God we may with like reason reject them al. Moreouer is any one of their sect-masters or learned translators or expositors to be compared with S. Hierome Is the opinion of a fewe sectaries touching the translation and interpretation of holy Scriptures to be preferred before the testimony of al the Saints learned men that flourished in the Church in S. Hieromes daies and euer since yea I may demand whether their opinion be to be preferred before the testimony of al good Christians that haue liued euer since the beginning of Christianity For S. Hierome followed the steps of his predecessors and consented with the vniuersal Church of his age and the Church euer since hath approued his labours Stancarus de Trinit Mediat M. 4. Surely Stancarus himselfe a Protestant auoucheth that Peter Lombard called the master of sentences is more to be esteemed then one hundred Luthers two hundred Melancthons three hundred Bullingers foure hundred Peter Martirs fiue hundred Caluins He addeth that if al these sectaries named were beaten or pounded together in a morter there could not be strained or pressed out of them one ounce of true diuinity especially out of their doctrine concerning the blessed Trinity the Incarnation the Mediator and the Sacraments which neuerthelesse be the principal misteries of Christian religion Wherefore he concludeth

religion to wit Apostolike Traditions page 86. Sect. 1. Of Apostolike Tradition in general page 86. Sect. 2. Of vnwritten Traditions in particular page 91. Chap. 9. Of general Councels which make the third particular ground of Catholike religion page 97. Chap. 10. Of the decrees of the supreame visible Pastour of the Church which make a fourth particular ground of our faith and of other grounds hence proceeding page 108. Sect. 1. Containing a briefe explication or rehearsal of the Catholike doctrine concerning the Popes supreamacy page 108. Sect. 2. The aforesaid doctrine is proued page 113. Sect. 3. That the decrees of the Bishop of Rome when he teacheth the Church as supreame Pastour are of diuine and infallible authority and of some other groundes of faith flowing out of these page 127. Sect. 4. The opinion of some sectaries that the Pope is Antechist is briefly confuted and two objections against the premises are answered p. 133. Chap. 11. Of the consent of the auncient Fathers and the general doctrine of the Catholike Church in al ages page 140. Chap. 12. Containing the conclusion of the first part page 144. THE SECOND PART In which is proued that the newe sectaries build their faith vpon no diuine authority but that the ground of al their beliefe and religion is their owne judgement and consequently that they haue neither true faith nor religion CHAPTER 1. That by their doctrine they deny or at the least weaken the three principal and general groundes of Christian religion set downe in the three first chapters of the first part page 1. Section 1. The number of Atheists among them is great and of the causes by them giuen of this impiety page 1. Sect. 2. Of our aduersaries doctrine concerning the immortality of the soule heauen and hel page 8. Sect. 3. Of our aduersaries impious assertions concerning Christ and Christian religion page 12. Sect. 4. That in like sort they weaken the principal proofes of the said three groundes page 19. Chap. 2. The newe Sectaries debase the true Christian faith and in place of it extol a presumptuous faith by themselues inuented page 26. Chap. 3. That our aduersaries deny the infallible authority of the Church and affirme it to haue erred and perished page 30. Chap. 4. They reject al particular groundes of faith aboue assigned and proued to bee found in the Church of Christ besides the holy Scriptures page 32. Chap. 5. They build not vpon the holy Scripture and first that the bare letter of holy Scripture only is not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion page 47. Sect. 1. In which this is proued because by Scripture the Scripture it selfe cannot be proued Canonical It is also argued that according to the sectaries groundes there is no Canonical Scripture and some principal reasons especially inspiration of the spirit which they alleage for the proofe of such Scripture are refelled page 47. Sect. 2. In which the same argument is prosecuted and two things principally are proued First that the newe Testament receiueth smal authority if we beleeue our aduersaries by this that it was written by the Apostles and Disciples because they accuse them of errour Secondly because they confesse the text of Scripture to be corrupted p. 67. Sect. 3. 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 page 75. Sect. 4. 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 page 78. Chap. 6. The newe Sectaries Bibles containe not the true word of God page 83. Sect. 1. In which this is first proued concerning al their Bibles in general page 83. Sect. 2. That Luther Zwinglius Caluin and Beza in particular haue corruptly translated the Scriptures page 84. Sect. 3. Our English sectaries also haue falsly and corruptly translated the Scriptures page 90. Sect. 4. Containing false translations against the authority of the Church Traditions honour of Images Purgatory and the honour of Saints page 92. Sect. 5. Of their corruptions against inherent Iustice Iustification by good workes Merit of good workes and keeping the Commandements and in defence of their special â—aith vaine Security c. and against Freewil and Merits page 94. Sect. 6. Of their false translations against the Real presence Priest-hood election of Bishops single life of Priests Penance and satisfaction for Sinne the Sacrament of Matrimony and some other points p. 96. Sect. 7. That the Professors of the newe religion in corrupting the Scriptures followe the steps of the auncient Heretikes and what followeth of this discourse page 101. Chap. 7. That they build not vpon the letter of holy Scripture contained as they say in their owne Bibles page 103. Sect. 1. In which this is proued first because the propositions which they tearme of their faith are not in expresse tearmes contained in the Scripture page 103. Sect. 2. The same argument is confirmed by the testimonie of some Protestants concerning the true sense of some wordes of Scripture alleaged for our Catholike doctrine touching justification in the Section before page 106. Sect. 3. The like discourse is made concerning a place of Scripture alleaged for the real presence page 114. Sect. 4. The followers of the newe religion in diuers matters obserue not the letter of their owne Bibles page 130. Chap. 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 page 134. Sect. 1. 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 page 134. Sect. 2. The same is confirmed by their translations and expositions of holy Scripture page 141. Sect. 3. Concerning the newe exposition of those wordes This is my body in particular page 146. Sect. 4. That certaine rules prescribed by Field for the true vnderstanding of Scripture of themselues alone without the censure of the Church are insufficient to assure vs that our exposition made is of diuine truth page 149. Sect. 5. Concerning their deductions out of holy Scripture that they likewise are framed by them according to their owne fancies and of their accusations of one another touching these matters page 157. Sect. 6. 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 p. 161. Sect. 7. Of the miserable estate of the vnlearned and ignorant Sectaries page 166. Sect. 8. That the newe sectaries alleage Scriptures to confirme their new doctrine it is no certaine argument that they build their faith and religion vpon the said Scriptures page 172. Chap. 9. In which is proued by the newe Sectaries

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 SacrameÌ„t fo 32 for Luther the Lutherans condemne the translation of Zwinglius and the Zwinglians Zwing tom 2. in respons ad Luther li. de SacrameÌ„t 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

it vsed the vvord congregation but in the later editions since that they began to haue a certaine forme of a Church this fault is amended Secondly to make weake the authority of Traditions vvheresoeuer in the Scripture speach is of euill Traditions they translate the Greeke vvord truly Traditions but when mention is of Apostolike Traditions they cannot endure this vvord but force the same Greeke vvord to signifie ordinances instructions preachings or institutions yea they translate Tradition in il part vvhere it is not found in the Greeke For example the Apostle saith Colos 2. vers 20. according to the Greeke Why doe you yet decree They translate Why are you yet ledde with traditions and in an other edition Bible 1600. 1595. Why are you yet burthened with traditions Thirdly against the honour of Images they translate the Greeke vvord vvhich signifieth Idolatrie and an Idolater worshipping of images and a worshipper of Images 2. Cor. 6 16. Coloss 3. v. 5. Ephes 5 5. Bible 1577. 1. Cor. 10. Bible 1562. thus they make the Apostle say Howe agreeth the Temple of God with Images couetousnesse is worshipping of Images bee not worshippers of Images c. I adde also that sometimes vvhen neither the vvord Idol nor Image is to be found in the text they thrust it in by force as Rom. 11. vers 4. in steede of Baal they translate Baals Image also 2. Paral. 36. ver 8. they adde these wordes carued Images which were laid to their charge to the text But al these faults are amended in the later editions Bible 1595. Gen. 1. v. 27. Exod. 25.3 Reg. 6. c. and not vvithout cause for if euery Image be an Idol and euery Idol an Image we may say that God created man according to his Idol we may cal such Images as were vsed in the old lawe Idols and finally tearme the Image or Picture of a man the Idol of a man vvhich kinde of speach is not tollerable Fourthly against Purgatory Limbus Patrum and the descent of Christ into hel they make the Hebrewe and Greeke vvordes vvhich signifie hel signifie graue as for example vvith Beza they read Act. 2. vers 27. Thou shalt not leaue my soule in the graue Psal 15. v. 10 Bible 1600. Bible 1595. 1600. See Parkes in his Apologie concerning Christs desceÌ„t into hel in his ans to Lim bomast printed an 1607 According to their account Psal 86.49 89 this likewise is corrected in the Bible of the yeare 1595. Also Gen. 37. v. 35. they make the Patriarke Iacob say I wil goe downe into the graue to my Sonne mourning vvhereas in like sort the Hebrewe and Greeke vvord signifieth hel and it is manifest that he could not thinke it possible that he should goe downe into the graue to his Sonne because he thought him deuoured of vvilde beastes not buried The same corruption is sound in diuers other places as Psalm 86. v. 13. vvhere they reade a Bible 1579. 1600. corrected in the Bible of the yeare 1595. Thou hast deliuered my soule from the lowest graue Psal 48. vers 15. vvhere they reade thou shalt deliuer my soule from the power of the graue Osee 13. vers 14. where they reade O graue I wil be thy destruction and in sundrie other places this notwithstanding in b See other such corruptions as these are recited and sharply reprehended by Carlile a man of the English Church in his booke that Christ went not downe into hel fol. 144. other places as Prouerb 15. ver 24. c. vvhere speach is of the hel of the damned they translate the same vvord hel Fiftly to bereaue the Saints of their honour vvhich from mortal men is due vnto them they falsly translate the 17. verse of the 138. Psalm For vvhereas we reade Thy friendes O God are become exceeding honourable their Princedome is exceedingly strengthned They turne it thus Bible 1595. Psal 138. Howe deare therefore are thy Councels vnto me O God O howe great is the summe of them But the Hebrewe maketh for our translation as euery man that vnderstandeth that tongue may see especially by the last vvordes vvhich vvord for vvord are thus to be translated Howe are the heades or Princedomes of them strengthned Againe Hebr. 11. vers 21. according to the Greeke vve reade by faith Iacob dying blessed euery one of the Sonnes of Ioseph and adored the toppe of his rodde Bible 1600. some thing better in the Bible 1595. Luke 1. v. 28. Bible 1600. 1595. They translate the last vvordes thus and leaning on the end of his staffe worshipped God In which translation they adde two vvordes to the text leaning and God and turne the sense vpsi-downe I adde also their translation of those vvordes Haile ful of grace for vvhich they reade Haile thou that art freely beloued and Haile thou that art in high fauour SECTION THE FIFT Of their corruptions against inherent Iustice Iustification by good workes Merit of good workes and keeping the Commandements and in defence of their special Faith vaine Security c. and against Freewil and Merits TO proue their imputatiue justice against inherent justice first vvhereas the Apostle saith Rom. 5. vers 18. Therefore as the offence of one vnto al men to condemnation so also by the justice of one vnto al men to justification of life Bible 1595. worse in the Bible 1600. they reade thus Likewise then as by the sinne of one sinne came on al men to condemnation euen so by the righteousnesse of one good came vpon al men to the righteousnesse of life In vvhich their translation they adde foure vvordes to the text of the Apostle to make him seeme to say that al men be truly sinners and none truly just but so reputed Ephes 1. vers 6. for gratified they reade Bible 1600. made accepted Luke 1. vers 28. for ful of grace they translate freely beloued and in high fauour Dan. 6. vers 22. vvhereas Daniel according to the Chaldee Greeke and Latin said Iustice was found in me they make him say Bible 1600. 1595. my justice or vnguiltinesse according to an other translation was found out before him The like corruption may be seene 2. Cor. 5. vers 21. To proue that good workes done in state of grace concurre not to our justification and that vve reape no grace by obseruing of the Commandements vvhereas the Scripture to signifie the Commandements of God vseth in diuers places the vvord justifications and justices because the keeping of the Commandements is justification and justice and the Greeke vvord is alwaies correspondent to the same they neuerthelesse in al such places suppresse the very name of justification and vse the vvordes ordinances or statutes Bible 1595. 1600. as may be seene in the Psalm 118. in diuers verses Luke 1. vers 6. Rom. 2. vers 26. c. To this end also they auoide in their translations the vvord just and cal a just

of free-wil and merit of workes The like haue e Whitgift in his defence p. 472. 473. Whitgift f Adam Scultet in Medulla Theolog. p. 48. 122. 151. Adamus Scultetus and others Nay Field although he also tearme S. Augustine the g Field booke 3. chap. 42. pag. 170. greatest of al the Fathers and worthiest Diuine the Church of God euer had since the Apostles times yet he telleth vs that h Ibid. chap. 15. pag. 93. his manner of deliuering this article of justification is not ful perfect and exact as they are forced to require in these times against the errors of the Romanists For that when he speaketh of grace he seemeth for the most part to vnderstand nothing else thereby but that sanctification whereby the holy spirit of God changeth vs to become newe creatures seldome mentioning the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ hitherto Field And thus we see that the letter of holy Scripture not only according to the plaine and open confession of our aduersaries but also according to the tradition and belief of the ancient Fathers our said aduersaries likewise being witnesses doth teach not with them that faith only doth justifie vs by the imputation of Christs justice but with vs that workes also concurre to our justification I could joyne vnto this another argument sufficient in any wise mans judgement to condemne these Sectaries doctrine of falsehood and consequently to proue it not to be build vpon the letter of holie Scripture to vvit the dissention which is among them in explicating this article but breuity causeth me to omitte it Only I wish my reader to peruse that which a Field of the Church booke 3. chap. 44. pag. 177. Field hath in his third booke of the Church concerning this matter and to conferre it with the doctrine of Luther b Caluin in his Institutions Caluin c Perkins in his reformed Catholike pag. 48. 315. Perkins d Willet in his Synops controuers 19. part 2. pag. 827. part 4. pag. 877. 885. 887. Willet and others For there he shal finde that the said Field maketh that act of faith which obtaineth and worketh our justification an act by way of petition humbly intreating for acceptation and fauour not an act in the nature of comfortable assurance consisting in a ful and assured perswasion that through Christs merits we are the children of God as is taught by the rest SECTION THE THIRD The like discourse is made concerning a place of Scripture alleaged for the real presence AN other principal article controuersed betweene vs and our aduersaries is that touching the real presence of Christes body and bloud in the Eucharist For the affirmatiue part which we Catholikes defend especially against the Sacramentaries I haue alleaged in the first Section of this Chapter among other those wordes of our Lord This is my bodie I wil therefore proceed and discourse of this sentence as I haue already done of that of S. Iames touching justification by workes Melancthon for his learning and piety is much commended both by a See BulleÌ„ger in FirmameÌ„to firmo cap. 4. fol. 27. colloquium Altemberg an 1568 fol. 203. Lutherans Sacramentaries Luther himselfe judged his booke of common places b Luth. tom 2. de seruo arbitrio fol. 424. in colloq coÌ„uiualibus ca. de Patribus Eccles worthy to be placed in the Ecclesiastical canon of holy Scripture and * Luther in praefat to 1. affirmed that God raised him that he might haue a companion in his labours combats and daungers in the propagation of the sincere doctrine of the Gospel Caluin tearmed him c Caluin admonit 3. ad WestphaluÌ„ admonit vlt. fol. 23. the great ornament of the German Churches and with great vehemencie affirmed that Philip Melancthon in the controuersie touching the supper could be no more plucked or diuided from him then from his owne proper bowels Peter Martir calleth him d Martir in dialogo de corpore Christi in loco fol. 107. contra Gardinerum de Eucharistia pag. 768. a man incomparable and most instructed in al kind of vertue and learning he maketh him equal in learning and piety with S. Augustine S. Hierome S. Leo and the auncient Fathers Beza finally saith he was instaurator Beza in Iconib in Creophag pa. 80. the repairer againe of Euangelical doctrine he tearmeth him likewise the singular ornament of our age and together vvith * Lauather in histor Sacrament fol. 47. Lauatherus likeneth him to the Phoenix What then vvriteth this great schollar of so rare vertue touching this matter thus he discourseth There is no care that hath more troubled my minde then this of the Eucharist and not only my selfe haue weighed what might be said on either side but I haue also sought out the judgement of the old writers touching the same Melancth li. 3. ep Zwinglij Oecolampadij fol. 132. And when I haue laied al together I finde no good reason that may satisfie a conscience departing from the propriety of Christes wordes this is my body You gather many absurdities he debateth the matter with Oecolampadius a Sacramentary which followe this opinion but absurdities wil not trouble him who remembreth that we must judge of diuine matters according to Gods word not according to Geomatry And soone after I finde no reason Ibid. fol. 140. howe I may depart from this opinion touching the real presence Wel it may be an other opinion more agreable to mans reason may please an idle minde especially if the said opinion be furnished and commended with arguments wel handled but what shal be come of vs in tentation when our conscience shal be called to an account what cause we had to dissent from the receiued opinion in the Church Then these wordes this is my body wil be thunderbolts hitherto Melancthon Luther as al the vvorld knoweth out of the same vvordes gathered and defended the real presence in so much as he condemned the Sacramentaries as Heretikes for auouching the contrary but let vs rehearse some of his wordes Luther to 7. in defens verborum coenae fol. 388. Ibid. fol. 390. Wheras Gods power saith he surpasseth al cogitation and worketh that which is to our reason incomprehensible and which only faith beleeueth and the same God said This is my body which shal be deliuered for you howe can I perswade my conscience that God hath neither meanes nor ability to doe as his wordes sound Againe These good Sacramentaries by their loathing and abhorring such thinges make way to the denial of Christ and God himselfe and of al articles of our faith And truly for a great part they haue already begunne to beleeue nothing for they bring themselues within the compasse of reason which is the right way to damnation And themselues knowe that these Ethnical cauils either are nothing worth against this article or if they conclude any thing against this they doe the like

vvhich I adjoine another euen of as great force to wit that in diuers points they obserue not the letter of holy Scripture contained in their owne Bibles I vvil exemplifie in some matters in particular And first if the letter of holy Scripture be so strictly to be obserued and al other groundes to be neglected as they imagine howe dare they eate bloud and strangled meates Is not this expresly forbidden in the Acts of the Apostles by the whole Councel of Hierusalem Act. 15. v. 29. in vvhich vvere present S. Peter and S. Iames Apostles vvith diuers others Where and when and by whome was this lawe repealed verily there is no mention of any such repeale in the vvord of God nor in any Ecclesiastical vvriter vvherefore Luther himselfe absolutely confesseth Luther lib. de Concilijs in Act. 15. Exod. 20. Deut. 5. v. 25 Math. 19 17 that either the Apostles them selues erred in this Councel or else that we al sinne in transgressing this lawe Moreouer did not God in the old lawe binde al men to obserue the ten Commandements and did not Christ in the newe lawe bid vs if we wil enter into life obserue the same Howe presume they then to breake the third commandement both in not keeping holy the day prescribed in holy Scripture which without al doubt is the Saturday and also in dressing on that day which they keepe meate and making of fire They cannot denie themselues in these matters to be faulty for they haue no warrant in the vvord of God in place of the Saturday to obserue the Sonday Only in one place of the Apocalipse mention is of the Dominical or our Lordes day Apoc. 1. v. 10 but it is only there said that S. Iohn on that day had a vision which maketh litle for them And therefore Field confesseth Booke 4. cap. 20. Â§. that the Apostles Exod. 20 9. Exod. 35 3. Num. 15 32. Exod. 12. Leuit. 23. v. 5 Num. 9. v. 11 Deu. 16 5. c Luther lib. de Concilijs Baleus l. 3. c. 25. Centur. 1. de scriptor BritaÌ„ in Colman Wilfrido Powellus in thesibus de Adiaphoris cap. 3. Math. 26 17 Mar. 14 12. Luc. 22. v. 7. there is no precept found for this in the Scripture and saith the obseruation of it is an Apostolike tradition There is likewise a most expresse commandement in the Scripture that no manner of worke be done on the Sabaoth not so much as fire kindled vvherefore by the commandement of God a man vvas stoned to death for only gathering sticks on that day Further wherefore keepe they not Easter-day on the fourtenth day of the Moone of March as is prescribed in the old lawe and Christ himselfe obserued vvhat warrant haue they in the word of God otherwise to doe Verily in this also euen according to the censure of Luther they stray from the holy Scripture of vvhose opinion if I be not deceiued is likewise our countriman Iohn Bale Powel seemeth to make it a thing indifferent Wherefore also doe some of them binde their followers to haue one only wife at once Had not the Patriarkes and others of the old lawe diuers wiues at the same time And where finde they in the Scripture this liberty abridged among Christians Yea some of our English Sectaries seeme to confesse that in the primatiue Church it selfe some Christians had at once diuers wiues for in the Bible of the yeare 1589. 1592. and 1600. vpon those wordes of the Apostle * 1. Tim. 3 2. Tit. 1. vers 6. Bernard Ochinus lib. 2. Dialogo 21. pag. 200. It behoueth a Bishoppe to be irreprehensible the husband of one wife c. they make this note for in those countries at that time some men had more then one which was a signe of incontinency thus there vve reade Wherefore they seeme to grant that S. Paul only commanded Bishops to haue one only vvife at once not other Christians Yea this is expresly auerred by Bernardinus-Ochinus vvho writeth thus Paul forbiddeth Bishops and Deacons to haue many wiues to others he vertually graunteth it But in very truth the Apostle there ordereth that none be admitted to be Bishops that be Bigami that is to say that haue beene married to two wiues although to the one after the other and the aforesaid glosse is made by these men to helpe their Bishops and Ministers among vvhome some haue had two or three or more one after another contrary to this sentence of the Apostle And I must needes conclude that either they abridge Christian liberty as they tearme it in not suffering al except Bishops to haue diuers wiues at the same time or otherwise that they transgresse the word of God in admitting men twice married into their Clergie or vvhich is worse in suffering their Ministers and Bishops to marry as often as they please Luther in explicat Genes edit an 1525 in c. 16. IeneÌ„s in propositionibus de Bigamia Episcop edit an 1528. propos 62. 65. 66. And of the first opinion seemeth Luther for he absolutely graunteth Poligamy that is to say the hauing of more vviues then one at once to be neither commanded nor forbidden in the Church of God but to be a thing indifferent a Musculus in epist Pauli ad Philip. Colos c. in 1. Tim. 3. p. 396 Musculus also thinketh it was tollerated in the Church in the Apostles daies and consequently in his judgement no Christians except Bishops are to be restrained from it I adde likewise that they commonly translate those wordes of God b Exod. 2. v. 4 Deuter. 5. Bible 1595. Non facies tibi sculptile thou shalt make thee no grauen Image and with c Zwinglius tom 2. in actis disput Tigur fol. 632. Zwinglius affirme them to containe an euerlasting precept and to binde as farre forth as those vvordes Thou shalt not kil Wherefore then allowe they of the pictures of men and other worldly creatures Is there any difference betweene such pictures and the Images of Christ and his Saints vvhich they vvil needes haue here forbidden as grauen Images Certainely there is no reason wherefore those should be allowed and these forbidden and therefore they haue no reason to exclaime against the pictures of Christ and his Saints except they wil vvith the Turkes generally disalowe of al pictures d Luther tom 4. in Michae cap. 1. fol. 69. Act. 19. c. Yea Luther himselfe thought it meete that Images should be placed in Churches and judged it a very barbarous and ignorant part to tollerate the pictures of men and beasts and to cast out of Churches the Images of our Sauiour and his beloued Saints I demaund also of them vvherefore they vse not in al places to giue the holy Ghost after baptisme by imposition of handes they cannot deny but this was practised continually by the Apostles for what almost is more often recorded in the acts of the Apostles

Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Text snippets containing the quad