A TREATISE OF THE GROUNDS OF THE OLD AND NEW RELIGION.  
DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS, ¶ Whereunto is added an Appendix, containing a brief confutation of WILLIAM CRASHAW his first Tome of Romish forgeries and falsifications.  MATH. 7. VERS. 24. 
¶ A wise man buildeth his house upon a rock: a foolish man upon the sand.  
ANNO DOMINI M. D.C.VIII.   

THE PRINTER TO THE READER.  
I Desire thy favourable censure and pardon, CVRTEOV● READER; in regard that divers faults have escaped in printing this Treatise, of which, I may justly excuse and free myself from those of greatest moment, for that the Author (through most earnest occasions contrary to his expectation) could not be near at hand, whereby to have had such due perusal thereof as was most meet and requisite, before it passed through my hands. Moreover, concerning the Preface in particular, I am to advertise thee, that it is with his direction made more brief than it was first penned, and that thereby (through the messenger's fault in forgetfulness) the said Preface performeth not that which is mentioned in the third point of the argument before it; which should have been left out. As thy experience will (I doubt not) move thee to consider with what difficulties our writers, as also ourselves put any thing to the press; so I hope hereafter their endeavours, and mine also, shall be in such things amended. In the mean space referring thee to the Errata, I humbly request thee again, not to blame us altogether, but pray for us.  
Your poor Catholic Countryman. THOM. R.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
In which the occasions of the penning and publishing this Treatise, as also the argument of the same are briefly delivered. Moreover, to free the Protestant reader's mind before hand from obstinacy, three points are proved even out of writers of the new religion: first, that more of the said religion condemn every particular persons belief of that profession, then approve it; secondly, that manifest truths are denied and falsehoods maintained by the chief sectaries; lastly, that according to the confession of the same Authors, our religion and faith is true, theirs false.  
IF justly he be judged by our Lord and Saviour worthy of reproach (CHRISTIAN READER,) who minding to build a tower, 
Luke ●e●. 28. etc.  doth not first sit down and reckon the charges that are necessary, whether he have to finish it, but after that he hath laid the foundation, for want of ability is constrained to leave his work imperfect; I know not how divers of this our unhappy time can be excused from blame, who spend all the days of their lives in laying the foundation of a tower, and never come so far as to place one stone thereupon. Our principal endeavour in this world ought to be, to erect in our souls a tower or spiritual edifice of virtue, the ground of which edifice is faith; and such is the misery of these our days, 
1. Corinth. 3. vers. 12.  that divers persons are so far from building upon this foundation gold, silver, or precious stones, that they do nothing else but always busy themselves about the said foundation: my meaning is, that they so occupy or rather vex themselves continually in discussing matters concerning their belief, that they either remain always wavering without any sure ground of faith, or at the least if not altogether, verily for the most part wholly neglect their spiritual progress in virtues of higher perfection. In which their manner of proceeding I say, they cannot be censured less faulty than he, who consumeth the whole course of his life in laying the foundation of a house or sumptuous palace, and never goeth or seeketh to go so far as to build the walls or any other part of the same. Nay, the first must needs be deemed much more faulty than this fond builder, because their edifice is of greater importance, than the setting up of any such material house or palace.  
I intent not hereto show by the authority of the holy Scripture, and the testimonies of the ancient Fathers (both which yield me most plentiful proofs in this matter) that faith is only the foundation, and not the whole cause of our justification; neither is there any great need in this place of entering into any such discourse. For besides that no man according to the rules of reason, can esteem him a perfect Christian, who doth only believe rightly without proceeding any further (because certain it is that faith of itself doth only perfect the understanding and not the will, and that a right understanding profiteth little except the will be conformable it is even as apparent;) moreover, this assertion as far forth as it conduceth to my purpose, seemeth to be granted even by our adversaries the followers of the new religion. For they distinguish especially two sorts of faith, 
See part 2. of this Treatise chap. 2.  the one they call a faith historical, the other a faith justifying: the first they confound with that which we hold being joined with hope and charity to justify us, and this they deny not to be the ground, not the whole cause of our justification (for this effect and prerogative they attribute to the second of which hereafter:) wherefore, even according to their doctrine the truth of that which I have averred must be admitted.  
Notwithstanding, it may be objected against it, that the mysteries and articles of our faith are divers, & above the reach of our natural reason; and therefore that a great time is requisite to this, that the truth of every one of them be thoroughly searched, & a certain resolution concerning every point settled. I answer, that this in very deed (if all be true which is taught by the said followers of the new religion) cannot be denied: for they making the bare letter of holy Scripture, the only rule and guide of their faith, must consequently in like sort affirm, that no man can ever come to a certain knowledge what is to be believed touching the articles of religion, except by diligent discussion he plainly and infallibly draw the truth from the said letter of holy Scripture; which if he could by any means compass, yet he cannot do, unless among other things he read over the whole Bible, confer one place with another, etc. and so in this study consume almost all the days of his life.  
But according to the truth, God who is goodness itself, hath far otherwise and better provided for those that are desirous to serve him, and more richly to adorn their souls with virtue. For he hath ordained a visible guide endued with life and reason, and therefore apt to instruct and judge, whose doctrine and judgement he hath warranted from error and falsehood; of whom every person with divine assurance of truth, in a very short time may perfectly be taught what he is to believe. For the better effecting of this, he hath also left in her sacred bosom other more particular but divine and infallible grounds, besides his holy written word, whereby we are to be directed in faith. And this guide is our holy mother the Catholic Church, the sacred spouse of Christ and his mystical body.  
Now therefore to proceed in mine intended discourse, because it behoveth every man (as appeareth by that which hath been already said) with all speed to order that his belief be right, and likewise because this may soon be learned of the Catholic Church; hence it proceedeth, that no treatises touching controversies of religion are commonly more necessary, than such as declare what congregation or company of Christians are the said one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, prove her divine authority, or show what particular grounds are found in her, by which every person is to be guided in his belief. The reason of this is plain, because whosoever recurreth to this Church and these grounds, may soon and with great ease be resolved concerning all articles whatsoever to him seeming doubtful; whereas if neglecting these he betake him to the study of particular controversies, as of justification, free will, merit of good works, the real presence, etc. he may spend many days and nights, and be nothing the nearer to a settled and sure resolution. Nay, some of these and other points are so high and difficult, that without recourse to some general grounds, and the authority of the Church directing all Christians, it is impossible that by other means, a man should ever assure himself that he is in the truth.  
Neither is this the opinion only of Catholics, but also of some learned Protestants. And among others M. Field, esteemed by some one of the greatest scholars of their company, 
Richard Field in the beginning of his Epistle Dedicatory before his five books of the Church.  writeth thus: The consideration of the unhappy divisions of the Christian world, and the infinite distractions of men's minds, not knowing in so great variety of opinions, what to think, or to whom to join themselves (every faction boasting of the pure and sincere profession of heavenly truth, challenging to itself alone the name of the Church, and fastening upon all that dissent, or are otherwise minded, the hateful note of schism and heresy) hath made me ever think, that there is no part of heavenly knowledge more necessary, then that which concerneth the Church. For seeing that controversies of religion in our time are grown in number so many, and in nature so intricate, that few have time and leisure, fewer strength and understanding to examine them; what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out, which amongst all the societies of men in the world, is that blessed company of holy ones, that household of faith, that spouse of Christ, and Church of the living God, which is the pillar and ground of truth? that so they may embrace her communion, follow her directions, and rest in her judgement. Hence it cometh that all wise and judicious men, do more esteem books of doctrinal principles, than those that are written of any other argument; and that there was never any treasure holden more rich and precious by all them that knew how to price and value things aright, thou books of prescriptions against Heretics: for that thereby, men that are not willing or not able to examine the infinite differences that arise among men concerning the faith, have general directions what to follow, and what to avoid: Hitherto are M. Fields words. And like as this Protestant Doctor yieldeth this reason among others, for the publication of his books of the Church: so in very truth, the same motive hath partly moved me to publish some of my labours to the view of the world. We Catholics have a long time wished and endeavoured, to bring the controversies of these times to certain general grounds and doctrinal principles, and have fought by all means to draw our adversaries to this issue to which M. Fields words seem to tend: I mean, to persuade them to acknowledge a judicial & infallible authority in the Catholic church, which every Christian may securely follow and is bound to obey; and then by most sure notes of the same Church delivered by God in the holy Scripture (which be so pregnant in the old testament itself, 
August. in psalm. 30. Conc. 2.  that S. Augustine feareth not to affirm that the Prophets have spoken more plainly of the Church, then of Christ) to search forth whether ours, or any other congregation of them be the Catholic Church: but those of our side could never hitherto obtain so much at their hands. And although this man doth so gloriously here extol the judgement of the Church, as it seemeth touching all controversies which may arise, in so much as he telleth us that men desirous of satisfaction may follow her directions and rest in her judgement (which they could not safely and securely do if her direction and judgement could be erroneous) yet in his fourth book following, he bereaveth her of almost all such prerogatives, (for he saith that general Counsels which be the highest courts of the Church, 
Field book 4 chap. 5. §. thus touching  may err in matters of greatest consequence) and freeth the Church herself from error, 
* Ibid. and cha. 2. before.  only in certain principal articles of Christian religion: But of these matters more hereafter. Only this now sufficeth for my purpose, that according to his testimony; all wise and judicious men, do more esteem books of doctrinal principles, than those that are written of any other argument: which if it be true, I hope the argument both of this my Treatise following, and also of an other which I have lying by me, will not be ungrateful, but pleasing and acceptable to all wise and judicious persons. Moreover, an other writer of the English Church avoucheth, that in this our last age, 
Parks in the Preface to the reader before his Apology of three testimonies of scripture, etc. printed anno 1607.  Heresy and Infidelity joining their desperate forces together, labour mightily to subvert and overthrow all the grounds of Christian religion: which if it be likewise truly affirmed, a discourse discovering the fountain of this evil, and establishing such grounds as Heretics and Infidels seek to impugn, cannot be thought unprofitable.  
Only my rashness in undertaking such great matters, and my want of wit and learning showed in performing them, may seem worthy of blame. But pardon me gentle Reader it was (as I may say) by chance, both that I entered into discussing such things, and also that my writings ever came to light. Some few years since a Catholic gentleman being entered into some communication with a Protestant minister, requested me to set him down some brief reasons for the Catholic part, upon which he might stand: I did so, and I comprehended some twelve reasons in some three sheets of paper, which all were drawn from general grounds and doctrinal principles. Not very long after, I giving myself always to the study of controversies, and having no learned friend at hand with whom I might confer, the more to perfect myself in such kind of arguments (which without conference or writing can hardly be done) it came into my mind to enlarge myself much more upon the said reasons. And truly, so much matter occurred unto me being busied in these exercises, that I thought it meet to divide my twelve reasons into two treatises: of which, the one I called a treatise of the grounds of the old and new religion, the other a treatise of the definition and notes of the Church. Having finished the first, I communicated it to some one or two of my familiar friends, who were desirous to see it; and so by some means it came to the sight of some persons esteemed learned and judicious, who thought it might profit many if it were more common, and therefore were desirous to have it printed. This was the beginning of my writing in this kind, and thus the one of these treatises besides my first intention or expectation, is now passed the print; I trust without any rash presumption or boldness in me, seeing that I rather have yielded to the desire and advise of men thought to be of mature judgement, discretion, and learning, then for any other respect have followed my own fancy or inclination.  
Now, to give my reader here a certain taste of the contents of that which I intent here to publish, as also of my manner of proceeeding, I think it meet to advertise him, that in it I have principally by apparent arguments proved two things: the one, that we Catholics ground our faith and religion upon the divine authority of God, the other that our adversaries (I mean the new sectaries) build their faith and religion (I take these words in an ample signification) upon their own judgements. The first is performed in the first part, in which I have showed such grounds as the Catholics build on, to be of divine authority: The second in like sort is convinced to be true in the second part, where I have declared even to the eye, that the followers of the new religion reject all other such grounds besides the holy Scripture: which also I have proved them to reject and receive, translate and expound not according to any divine ground, but as it liketh their own fancies; & consequently I have demonstrated, that in sum they have no other foundation whereon they build, but this, that their beliefs seem true to their own natural reason.  
It may be demanded what proofs I use in these my discourses. I answer in few words, that I bring forth proofs out of the holy Scripture, I allege the ancient Fathers and writers, such as lived and wrote within the first six hundred years after Christ, which some Protestants challenge to have been of their faith and religion, and therefore allow of their testimonies: I cite moreover the sentences of divers Sectaries of these our days, who confess that to be true which I endeavour to prove, not the testimonies of Anabaptists, Libertines, Tritheists, Trinitarians, or of any others commonly by Protestants censured to be Heretics; but of such as are usually by all sorts accknowledged to be writers of their Protestant family, and members (as they say) of their reformed Churches. In alleging of which sentences of our adversaries, for the benefit of those that understand not the Latin tongue, I have observed this as much as I could, that I have taken them out of books either written in English, or translated into English, that so every person might easily turn unto them. Neither ought the testimony of such sectaries to be thought by any man a weak argument: for what proof almost, being not divine, can be of greater force than the confession of an adversary or enemy, touching the truth of that which is censured false by his doctors, and the innocency of him whom he hateth and impugneth; or the falsehood of his own chiefemasters doctrine, and the guiltiness of himself, or such as he loveth, or are of his own brotherhood? And hence it is, that M. whitaker's a Protestant of no mean fame, 
Whitaker de Eccles. controvers. 2. cap. 14. pag. 366.  granteth that argument to be strong, which is drawn from the confession of adversaries. Finally, sometimes I bring forth some natural reasons and congruences, proving the conveniency of that which is avouched. For we may well assure ourselves (so if I do not forget myself saith S. Augustine) that God hath done whatsoever in right reason we shall find to be best. These be the proofs of mine assertions, and others then these I seldom or never use.  
But the better to declare my sincere dealing herein, and also to show the force of such testimonies of ancient Authors as I allege, I have added before this treatise a table of all such Counsels extant as I find celebrated within the said first six ages; as likewise of all the writers of those times, which I find to have left any works commonly alleged in schools to their posterity. I have moreover noted out of good and approved authors, the year in which such Counsels were celebrated, and in which such writers either flourished or departed out of this world. All these things I have performed with as great sincerity as the want of books hath suffered me. And in very deed I may truly protest, that willingly and wittingly I have wronged no one writer in misalleaging his words or meaning, be he Catholic, or be he Protestant; be he Ancient, or be he Modern. It may be some faults have escaped me, but against my wil Neither doth our Catholic cause need any such juggling or false dealing, the truth is so manifest on our side, and the proofs of the same so many and pregnant.  
But before my reader enter into the viewing of these my discourses, that he may reap the greater profit of his labour, I must earnestly crave one thing at his hands, to wit: that if he be of an other religion than is here defended, before hand he do not harden his heart, and with obstinacy determine not to change his opinion or practice, whatsoever he hear, read, or understand said against it, or in proof of an other way. It behoveth every Christian to be of a right heart and a good wil Much is said in the holy Scripture, both in commendation of the one and of the other. The Prophet David in the Psalms, often commendeth them that are recti cord, right in heart, and in particular inviteth them to the praise of almighty God. The Angels at the birth of our Lord did sing this Hymn: 
Luke 2. v. 14.  Gloria in altissimis Deo, & in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis: Glory in the highest to God, and in earth peace to men of good wil And who hath a right heart and is of good will? Verily, he that doth not obdurate himself against God, but is desirous and by all means seeketh to conform his will to God's will, which is the right and strait rule, by which all our thoughts and actions are to be squared and tried. Of my reader therefore if he be a Protestant I desire no more, but that he bring his heart and will to this disposition, if it be not so disposed already; that he be desirous to serve God in his true Church, and casting off all obstinacy he be indifferent either to this or that, so that he might be thoroughly informed of the truth. Lastly, that he humbly crave of God, that if his belief be not right, he will mercifully vouchsafe to give him grace and means whereby he may find out the truth.  
And because I esteem this disposition in that Protestant which intendeth to read this Treatise, to be a matter of great moment towards his conversion, I think it convenient briefly here to touch among divers others which occur, some two motives, which in my judgement are very sufficient to draw any man from obstinacy in the new religion, yea be he of what sect soever, to make him doubtful of the sincerity of that faith and religion which he professeth. Of these the first shall be, that as many (I may say more) and as virtuous, and as learned even of the Protestant side, condemn his said faith and religion as erroneous, as there do approve it as true. For if he be a Zwinglian, a Caluinist, or an English Protestant, although his temporal Magistrates and his learned Masters tell him that he is of a sound belief, and a true member of Christ's Church, yet Luther and all the Lutherans affirm in plain terms and that with great vehemency, nevertheless deliberately and advisedly, that he is an Heretic; and consequently, is guilty of that crime which the 
* Apology of the Church of England part. 1. pa. 28. 29.  Apology of the Church of England avoucheth to be a forsaking of salvation, a renouncing of God's grace, a departing from the body and spirit of Christ. This not only the works of Luther and the Lutherans, but also of divers Sacramentaries (so the Zwinglians, Caluinists, and English Protestants are commonly called) testify to the whole world. Luther in one place writeth thus: 
a Luther thes. 21. cont. Lovaniens. & to. 7. in defins. ver borum coenae.  We seriously judge the Zwinglians and all Sacramentaries to be Heretics and aliens from the Church of God. In an other book of the same sectaries he hath these words. 
b Idem. tom. 7 in defence. verborum coenae. fol. 383.  Touching the soul and matters spiritual, we will avoid them as long as we have a day to live, we will reprove and condemn them for Idolaters, corrupters of God's words, blaspheamers, and deceivers; and of them as of enemies of the Gospel, we will sustain persecution and spoil of our goods, whatsoever they shall do unto us, so long as God will permit: Thus Luther. Hence also the Zwinglians of Zuricke complain, that Luther 
c Confessio Orthodoxa Eccles. Tigurinae in praefat. fol. 3. 4.  inveigheth against them, as against obstinate Heretics, and such as are guilty to themselves of all impiety, as against profaners of the Sacraments, and the most vile and pestilent men that go on the ground. By his 
c Ibid. tract. 3. fol. 108.  last confession by them likewise recorded, it appeareth that he continued in this mind even to his dying day. And who among all the Professors of the new religion, is generally preferred by the followers of all sects before Luther? The Sacramentaries themselves, whom he damned to the pit of hell, most highly commend him: The Apology of the Church of England a book written by M. jewel and approved by the best English Protestants, yea much 
d Martyr ep. ad Iuellum prae fixa Apolog. Eccles. Angl.  praised by Peter Martyr, and other foreign followers of Zwinglius and Caluin, termeth him 
e Apology of the Church of England part. 4. pag. 124. printed anno 1600.  a most excellent man even sent of God to give light to the world. whitaker's affirmeth, 
f whitaker's in his answer to Campians 3. reason. pag. 85.  his name is written in the book of life, and that his memory shall ever be sacred among all good men. And he addeth, 
g Idem in his answer to the 8. reason. pag. 259.  that they reverence him as Father. Field a Doctor of the English Church now living averreth, 
h Ficl. book 3 of the Church ch. 42. p. 170. See also Whetenhal a Puritan in his discourse of the abuses, etc. printed anno 1606. pag. 64. 65.  he was a most worthy divine, as the world had any in those times wherein he lived, or in many ages before: whose happy memory (saith he) for the clearing of sundry points of greatest moment in our Christian religion, all succeeding ages shall be bound to honour. Seeing then that this most excellent man sent by God to give light to the world, whose name is written in the book of life, and whose memory shall ever be sacred among all good men, sendeth forth these glistering beams of light unto us, that the Sacramentaries are damned Heretics, Idolaters, blaspheamers, corrupters of the word of God, deceivers, and enemies of the Gospel:  this most worthy divine, reverenced by our English Protestant's as a father, pronounced this so hard a censure against his children; what Sacramentary being thus censured, if he will proceed according to the rules of reason, can do otherwise then mistrust the truth of his belief? which of the Sacramentaries hath deserved or obtained such commendations of the Lutherans, as Luther hath here of the Sacramentaries? Verily Caluin himself, whose doctrine of the Sacrament our English Church and most Sacramentaries do now embrace, is most bitterly reviled and condemned by them al. Nay one of them writeth, that 
i Conradus Schlussel. in Theolog. Caluinist. lib. 2. fol. 72.  God also in this world showed his judgement against Caluin, whom he visited (saith he) in the ●odde of his anger, and horribly punished before the dreadful hour of his unhappy death. For God with his potent hand (I use his words) so struck this Heretic, that having despaired of his salvation, having called upon Devils, swearing, cursing, and blaspheming most miserably, be yielded up his wicked ghost: but Caluin died of the lousy disease, worms so increasing in an impostume or most stinking ulcer about his privy members, that none of the standers by could any longer endure the stink: Thus Conradus Schlusselburge a Lutheran reporteth Caluins' death, as he avoucheth out of public writings, of which he saw no sound refutation. What Sacramentary then can justly compare any one of his learned masters with Luther, or think that Luther erred & some one of them attained to the light of truth: seeing that Luther had and read the same Scriptures, out of which his masters affirm they have drawn their doctrine, and used in every respect as good means to come to the true sense and interpretation of them, as his said masters could use or prescribe? Unto which I may add, that Luther (as it seemeth) received some light from above, if it be true which is affirmed in the Apology of the Church of England, that God sent him to give light to the world. But if no Sacramentary can compare any one of his learned masters with Luther, much less can he prefer himself before him: which nevertheless he must needs do, if he be obstinate in his Sacramentary doctrine, and as judge pronounce Luther's belief to be false and erroneous. And thus much of Luther's censure against the Sacramentaries.  
The Lutherans also men very learned, whom the English Protestants (if whitaker's say truly) 
a whitaker's in his answer to Campians 8. reason, p. 259  embrace as their dear brethren in Christ, pronounce the same sentence against these Sectaries. And in particular Conradus Schlusselburge even now alleged, being a Lutheran superintendant of great name and authority, 
b Conradus Schlusselb. in Catalogue. Haereticorum nostri temporis, lib. 1. pa. 1. & 2. & lib. 3.  placeth them in the Catalogue of the Heretics of these our days. Luke Osiander whose Encheridion against us, some English Protestant hath of late corruptly translated into our tongue, in the conclusion of the like book made against the Caluinists, having recited sixteen of their assertions which he condemneth, afterward writeth thus: 
c Lucas Osiander in Enchirid. count. Caluinianos in conclus. pa. 267. printed anno 1607. published by him, anno 1603.  Let any godly or friendly reader whatsoever, think what deadly poison Satan doth power unto men under the Calvinian doctrine, by which all Christianisme almost is overthrown. Most of the rest proceed after the same manner, but I cannot stand to recite their words. Of all which I conclude, that the faith and religion of every Sacramentary, is judged false and heretical, by Luther and all the Lutherans. Unto which I add, that if he be an English Protestant, the Puritans esteem him little better than an Infidel, as appeareth by their sundry admonitions to the Parliament, and the book of dangerous positions written by a Protestant. If he be a Puritan, the Protestants censure him to be 
d Powel in his considerations. See a Christian & modest offer, pag. 9 The Survey of the pretended holy discipline, etc. pag. 311.  a notorious and manifest Schismatic, and a member cut off from the Church of God. Nay, whether he be English Protestant or Puritan, Zwinglius a most excellent man as well as Luther (as the Apology of the Church of England avoucheth, 
e Apology of the Church of England part. 4. pag. 124.  sent of God to give light to the world; Whetenhal calleth him 
f Whetenhal in his discourse of the abuses, etc. pag. 75.  the first light set up by God among all the golden candlesticks of Helvetia) with all his Zwinglians telleth him, 
g See Zwingl. to. 2. epist. ad quandam Germaniae civitatem, fol. 196. & in commentaris de vera & falsa relig. c. de Sacram. & lib. de Baptis. fol. 63.  that he erreth in his faith touching the Sacraments. If he be a Zwinglian, 
h calvini lib. de coena Domini, edit. an. 1540 Gallice & Latin an. 1545. & l. 4. Institut. cap. 15. §. 1. etc.  Caluin with all his Caluinists, English Protestant's and Puritans tell him the like. So that be he of what Sacramentary sect soever he please, his faith and religion receiveth a threefold censure that it is false, and that from his own brethren. For first it is condemned by the Lutherans, then by the Zwinglians and English Protestants if he be a Puritan, or Caluinist; or by the Zwinglians and Puritans or Caluinists if he be an English Protestant; or finally by the English Protestants and Caluinists (among whom I number the Puritans) if he be a Zwinglian. And what wise man will be obstinate in the defence of such a faith? But what if he be a Lutheran doth he avoid this inconvenience? Truly he is in the very like case: for first he is judged to be of a wrong belief by all the Sacramentaries; then if he be a strict or rigid Lutheran, he is condemned by the mild or soft Lutherans; if he be a mild or soft Lutheran, he is deemed an Heretic by the strict or rigid. Nay 
i Conradus Schlusselbur. in Catalogue. Haereticorum nostri temporis in principio lib. 1. etc.  Conradus Schlusselburge placeth six sects of his own Lutherans in the Catalogue of Heretics, of which the one condemneth the other; and he giveth the same sentence against them al. But because few or no Lutherans as is probable, will ever come to the reading of this Treatise, I will not stand to discuss and prove these things at large and in particular: And therefore concerning this motive let this suffice.  
A second reason or motive, which is sufficient to exclude obstinacy from the heart of any one of the followers of the new religion, is; that all the learned and principal sectaries as Luther, Zwinglius, Caluin & others, have notoriously and grossly erred in some points or other touching religious matters. The short limits of a preface will not suffer me to declare the truth of this in them all, wherefore I will exemplify only in the three named, which be the heads of the rest. And to begin with Luther; did not this great Patriarch and father of all Protestants teach and obstinately hold, that Christ suffered on the cross and died according to his divinity? thus he writeth: 
a Luth. in confess. majori de coena Domini & lib. de concilijs. part. 2.  If I believe that only the human nature of Christ suffered for me, Christ is a base Saviour, not of any great price, or value, yea be himself needeth a Saviour. Hence Zwinglius exclaimeth: 
b Zwingl. to. 2. in respon ad Lutheri confess. fol. 458. 469. 470. & in respon ad Luther. lib. de Sacra. f. 411. 401. 337. etc.  This can by no reasons be explained or excused. For Luther clearly and manifestly confesseth that he will not acknowledge Christ to be his Saviour, if only his humanity had suffered. He calleth him also Martion, and saith he is guilty of most high blaspheamy against the nature and essence of God, etc. Did not the same Luther also defend 
c See Luth. l. de captivitat. Babylon. c. de Baptis. & lib. cont. Cocblaeū anno 1523.  that infants in baptism actually believe? Verily, although M. Field endeavour to wrist his words 
d Field book 3 ch. 44. p. 179.  to habitual faith, which he saith is in infants; yet Luther's discourses admit not that sense, as will easily appear to the reader. Of which also the doctrine of his disciples (who even at this present 
e Kennitius in examine. council Trident. can. 13. de Baptis. sess. 7. Zucas Osiand. in Enchirid. count. Anabapt. print. anno 1607. c. 2. quaest. 2.  affirm that infants whiles they are baptized actually believe) is a manifest token; and moreover that this was Luther's opinion, it may be gathered out of 
f Caluin. Instit. c. 16. § 19  Caluin and 
g Whitaker. in his answ. to Campians 8. reason p. 243.  whitaker's. Besides this he holdeth, that the souls departed out of this world sleep, and are without sense or feeling, neither in heaven nor in hell, and so shall remain until the day of judgement. But of this point of his doctrine see more in the second part of my treatise following. I cannot likewise omit his 
h Luther in serm. de Sacram. coenae to. 2. f. 112. etc.  opinion, concerning the presence of Christ's human nature in every place together with his divinity: of which proceed these words of Zwinglius unto him; 
i Zwingl. in respons. ad Luther. l. de Sacra. f. 401.  If thou shalt contumaciously go on in this sentence, that the humanity of Christ JESUS is essentially and corporally present, wheresoever is his divinity, God willing we will bring thee to those straits, that either thou shalt be forced to deny the whole Scripture of the new testament, or to acknowledge Marcions heresy. This I say, in good faith we promise we will do: thus Zwinglius. And by this heresy defended by the Lutherans of his time, Caluin 
k Caluin Instit. book 4. ch. 17. §. 16. etc. Zwing l. tom. 2. ep. ad quandam Germaniae civitatem, fol. 196. lib. de Baptis. fol. 63. etc.  avoucheth that Martion is raised up out of hell. The Genevian divines in the preface to the Harmony of confessions, published in the name of the Churches of France and Belgia, term it that unhappy monster of ubiquity, which if it be admitted (say they) will quite overthrow the true doctrine of Christ's person and natures: But of Luther enough.  
Zwinglius doctrine concerning the Sacraments was most profane; for he made them only external signs, and denied them any inward effect in the soul: wherefore as I have before noted, it is worthily condemned and rejected, not only by Luther and his followers, but also in words by 
* Caluin lib. de coena, & l. 4. Instit. cap. 15. §. 1.  Caluin. Moreover, 
a Zwingl. in exposit. fidei Chrstianae art. 12.  Zwinglius also placeth Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Numa, Camillus, the Cato's, Scipions and other Pagans and Idolaters, with the holy patriarchs and Apostles in heaven. Of which his assertion Luther discourseth thus; 
b Luther. ad c. 47. Genes.  Zwinglius of late hath written that Numa Pompilius, Hector, Scipio, Hercules enjoy eternal bliss in heaven with Peter, Paul & other Saints, which is no other thing then openly to confess that he thinketh there is no faith, no Christianisme, etc. He addeth much more against him, and of this inferreth, that Zwinglius is of that mind that a man doing his best may be saved in any religion whatsoever; which in very deed is expressly by him taught in 
c Zwingl. to. 2. in declarat. de peccato Original. f. 118  another place: Nevertheless this doctrine of Zwinglius touching the salvation of Infidels is maintained by 
d Rodolph. Gualterus in Apolog. pro libris Zwinglij  Rodolphus Gualterus, 
e Bullinger in Germani. confess. Eccles. Figurinae.  Bullenger, 
f Simlerus in vita Bullingeri, etc.  Simlerus, Daniel Tossanus, and other Sacramentaries.  
But no opinion of Zwinglius is more impious and sacrilegious, then that by which he maketh God the author and cause of sin: In upholding which blaspheamous impiety john Caluin joineth hands with him. If it were not that I should exceed the brevity of a preface, I would manifestly convince them guilty of this crime by their own printed works, published to the view of the whole world: but I will here put off this manner of proof to another place, and now only confirm the truth of mine accusation by the testimony of some learned Protestants. Albertus Grawerus, rector of the Lutheran university of Eislebium in Germany, about the year of our Lord 1597. published a book with this title: The war of john Caluin, and of JESUS Christ God and man, that is: An antithesis or opposition of the doctrine of the Caluinists and of Christ, in which the most horrible blaspheamies of the Caluinists especially concerning four articles, the person of Christ, the supper of the Lord, baptism and predestination, are faithfully showed from the eye to the eye out of their own proper writings and books, and are briefly and sound refelled out of the word of God: thus hath the title. And this book hath been printed three times among the Lutherans; for I have seen the third edition printed at Magdeburge in the year 1605. so plausible is it to the Lutheran churches. Nevertheless it being oppugned and answered by some Caluinists, the same author replied with an other book unto which he gave this title; Absurda, absurdorum absurdissima, Caluinistica absurda, etc. The absurd, the most absurd of absurd, Calvinistical absurd things, that is, an invincible demonstration, logical, philosophical, theological, of some horrible paradoxes of the Calvinian doctrine in the article of the person of Christ, the supper of the Lord, baptism, and predestination of the children of God, written by M. Albert Grawere Rector of the famous University of Eislebium of the Earls of Mansfeld, in defence of his Calvinian war, etc. Cum gratia & privilegio at Magdeburge an. 1605. hitherto are the words of the title. That which maketh in these books for my present purpose, is that which he delivereth concerning the opinion of Caluin and the Caluinists touching the predestination of the children of God; for in the forefront of the last treatise, after the title of the book this Lutheran placeth this syllogism: Quodcunque dogma, etc. What opinion soever maketh God the author of sin, is not of God: The Calvinian opinion maketh God the author of sin: therefore it is not of God. For proof of the minor or second proposition, which is; that the Calvinian doctrine maketh God the author of sin, he referreth his reader to the fift chapter of his book following; in which in very deed he manifestly proveth it by divers sentences alleged out of Caluin, Beza, and other Sacramentaries. Perhaps some man will demand what is this to Zwinglius? I answer, although Zwinglius in very deed be properly no Caluinist, for he was before Caluin; yet because now the Caluinists bear all the sway and have almost eaten up the Zwinglians, as also because the differences between Zwinglius and Caluin were not great and notorious, it pleaseth the Lutherans to number Zwinglius among the Caluinists; yea to call all the Sacramentaries Caluinists. Hence Grawerus among other Caluinists making God the author of sin, often allegeth Zwinglius, and proveth him guilty of the same impiety. They are likewise accused of making of God the author of sin by Luke Osiander another Lutheran, who having related and confuted certain their assertions touching Christ, thus beginneth the seventh chapter of his book. 
* Lucas Osiander in Enchirid. count Caluimanos cap. 7. pag. 198.  But here gentle reader, beyond and above those blaspheamous things which in the discourses before we heard against the Son of God, out of the opinions of our adversaries (the Caluinists:) Pandit se vorago & barathrum Caluinianae doctrinae; a gulf or whirlpool and a bell of Calvinian doctrine openeth itself. In which (if thou diligently weigh the matter) God is said to be the author of sin: & it is so taught by our adversaries concerning election to salvation, that who shall embrace this their doctrine (tentation assaulting him) must needs either be cast into despair, or fall into Epicurism; and hence must of necessity arise in the hearts of men manifest blasphemy against God: thus Lucas Osiander, whom an English sectary in his book against us translated, maketh to speak like a very good Caluinist. If any man be desirous to see a brief sum of the Calvinian and Zwinglian belief, touching this and other such like articles, he shall find it gathered together in the same place by the same author, as also by Grawerus in the preface to his second book cited. Heshusius a third Lutheran writer, esteemed among the learnedst of that sect, 
Conrad. Schlusselburg. lib. 2. Theolog. Caluinist. pag. 6. See Clebetius in victoria veritatis & ruina Papatus Saxonici, arg 15. Conradus Schluss. loco cit. lib. 1. c. 6. pag. 25. 26. Beza in Absters. calumni arun Heshusijs.  & much commended by Conradus Schlusselburge, for this cause exclaimeth against the Caluinists that they transform God into the Devil. But Caluin is not only accused of this impiety by the Lutherans, but also by Castalio a Sacramentary, who disputing of Caluins' opinion touching this point, maketh a distinction or difference between the true God and the God of Caluin: these are his words. 
* Castal. in l. ad Caluin. de praedest.  The false God (that is Caluins' God by him described) is slow to mercy, prone to anger, who hath created the greatest part of the world to destruction, and hath predestinated them not only to damnation, but also to the cause of damnation. Therefore he hath decreed from all eternity, and be will have it so, and be doth bring it to pass that they necessarily sin, so that neither thefts, nor murders, nor adulteries are committed but by his constraint and impulsion. For be suggesteth unto men evil and dishonest affections, not only by permission, sed efficaciter but effectually (that is by forcing such affections upon them) and doth harden them in such sort that when they do evil, they do rather the work of God than their own, he maketh the Devil a liar, so that now not the Devil but the God of Caluin is the father of lies. But that God which the holy Scriptures teach, is altogether contrary to this God of Caluin, etc. And soon after: For the true God came to destroy that work of that Calvinian God: And these two Gods as they are by nature contrary to one another, so they beget and bring forth children of contrary dispositions, (to wit) that God of Caluin, children without mercy, proud, etc. hitherto Castalio a man highly commended by 
a Humfred. de rat. interpret. lib. 1. p. 26. Gesnerus in Bibliotheca.  D. Humphrey and Gesnerus, likewise learned scholars of the Sacramentary sect. But note that in this his discourse, he well declareth the truth of that which before I related, as said by Heshusius, to wit: that Caluin and his scholars by making God the author of sin, and ascribing unto him other such like actions, transform him into the Devil, or rather as Castalio saith make the Devil their God. If any man be desirous to see this more fully and exactly handled, let him read Grawerus in the book and chapter before cited.  
Now touching Caluin in particular, what Christian doth not abhor and detest that his intolerable blaspheamy, by which he affirmeth our Lord during the time of his passion, to have feared eternal damnation, to have been forsaken of God, to have suffered in soul the torments of hell. Let us hear him in his own words declare his own opinion; These are some of his sentences. Christ was put in steed of wicked doers as surety and pledge, 
Caluin Instit. book 2. ch. 16. §. 10. Idem. in Math. 26. vers. 39  yea and as the very guilty person himself, to abide and suffer all the punishments that should have been laid upon them: this one thing excepted, that he could not be holden still of the sorrows of death (or hell.) His prayer in the garden was an abrupt desire: he was strooken with fear, and straited with anxiety in such sort, that among violent floods ostentation he was forced as it were to stagger or waver, now with one, and then with another desire: he corrected and recalled, that desire upon the sudden passed from him: he refused as much as lay in him and sought to put off the office of a Mediator: the vehemency of grief took from him the present memory of the heavenly decree. Christ's death had been to no effect, 
Caluin Instit. book 2. ch. 16. §. 10. Ibid. §. 12. Idem. ad c. 26. Math. v. 39  if he had suffered only a corporal death: but it behoved also that he should feel the rigour of God's vengeance, and that he should as it were hand to hand wrestle with the armies of the hells, and the horror of eternal death: He had a more cruel and harder battle then with common death? he saw the anger of God set before him; in as much as be burdened with the sins of the whole world presented himself before the tribunal seat of God, he could not but horribly fear profundam mortis abyssum, the bottomless depth of death or eternal damnation: 
Caluin Instit. book 2. ch. 16. §. 10.  he suffered in his soul the terrible torments of a damned and forsaken man. 
a Idem in c. 27. Math. v. 46.  When the image or show of the tentation was laid before Christ, as though God being his enemy he were now destined to destruction (or damnation) he was strooken with horror: 
b Instit. book 2. chap. 16.  he was fearful for the salvation of his soul. He fought hand to hand with the power of the Devil, with the horror of death (or damnation,) with the pains of hell: Hitherto are some of Caluins blaspheamous assertions against our Lord and Saviour. I need not allege any Protestant authors accusing him of this impiety, for his words be plain, and his books are in every man's hands. Nay which is worse, some principal English Sectaries follow these his blaspheamous courses, and uphold his doctrine as evangelical: Such are Fulke, whitaker's, Willet, and others. But listen a little what a conclusion may be drawn out of one proposition taken from Caluin, and an other from the greater part of our English Protestants. Although divers notable reasons are assigned by the ancient Fathers and by the Divines of all ages, why Christ permitted himself to dread so much the corporal death which he was to suffer; yet Caluin avoucheth, that he was a very dastard and a coward, if he feared not eternal damnation. Let this then be the first proposition made of Caluins' words: If Christ feared not the curse and wrath of God he was more tender and more fearful than the most part of the rascal sort of men: for thieves and other evil doers do obstinately hast to death, many do with haughty courage despise it, some other do mildly suffer it; whereas Christ was astonished and in manner strooken dead with fear of it. How shameful a tenderness should this have been (saith Caluin) to be so far tormented for fear of a common death, as to melt in bloody sweat, and not to be able to be comforted, but by sight of Angels? Thus Caluin. The second proposition taken from the English Protestants is as followeth; But Christ feared not the curse and wrath of God, he never dreaded eternal damnation nor suffered the pains of hell: Now the conclusion followeth; Therefore Christ was more fearful than the most part of the rascal sort of men; then thieves and other evil doers; his tenderness was shameful, etc. The first proposition as I have said is almost wholly made of Caluins own words: that the second is held true by the greater part of English Protestants, 

Sutcliffe in his answer to Kellison, ch. 5. pag. 56.  
See parks also in the preface to his rejoineder to Lymbomastix   I prove by the testimony of M. Sutcliffe, who telleth us that they mislike Caluins particular opinion concerning Christ's suffering the pains of hell. So that the conclusion if both Caluin and the English Protestants say true, cannot be avoided. And thus I think it now sufficiently proved, that Luther, Zwinglius, and Caluin have fallen into some gross and notorious errors, which they have maintained as true and holy doctrine.  
I could if it were needful and convenient in this place, show the like concerning all their disciples, I mean that they grossly have erred and err in some one point or other concerning faith & religion: but first the followers of every sect will & do grant this concerning all others, but those of their own belief. For this the Lutherans confess true of all the Sacramentaries; the Sacramentaries of all the Lutherans; the English Protestants of the Puritans; and the Puritans of the English Protestants, etc. which is the cause and fountain of their bitter invectives and books written one against the other: so that (as I say) if a man will believe them all, they all hold some one or more absurd and erroneous opinions. Secondly, it is well known to any one although but meanly read in matters of controversy, and I have partly declared already before, that most sects do as yet follow the false doctrine of their Sect-master, as the Lutherans of Luther; the Zwinglians of Zwinglius; the Caluinists of Caluin: Wherefore, seeing that I must also be mindful that I writ a Preface and not a volume, letting others pass I will only say a word or two in particular touching the English Sectaries, who among all other members of the new religion, are only like to come to the sight and reading of this my Preface.  
And is it not easily proved, that the principal writers and upholders of the English Church have notoriously fallen into error? who of this company whiles they lived were comparable to jewel, Fulke and whitaker's? And do not all these 
* jewel against Harding art. 17. division 14 Fulke against Martin p. 64 65. in fine. whitaker's in his answer to Duraeus pag. 559. added by Stock to his answer of Campians 8. reason p. 211.  hold that Christ was a Priest, and offered sacrifice according to his divinity and Godhead? But what followeth of this, but that (as Arius affirmed) according to his Godhead he is inferior to his Father, for no one offereth sacrifice to his equal. Unto this I add, that 
a Fulke upon the Rheims testam. Math 27. v. 3. Act. 3 vers. 11.  Fulke and 
b whitaker's in his answer to Campians 8. reason, pag. 211. 210.  whitaker's openly and stoutly maintain Caluins' doctrine concerning Christ's dreading everlasting damnation: yea although they go not so far as Caluin in making him if this was not so, more fearful than the most part of the rascal sort of men, yet the first of them avouceth, that if the fear of bodily pain and death only had caused that agony in the garden, he had been of greater infirmity than many of his servants: the other hath almost the like sentence. But above all others 
c Willet in his Synopsis printed an. 1600. controvers. 20.  Willet passeth in defending Caluins blaspheamies, in so much as a man may well marvel that his book is suffered to be read among Christians.  
But what shall we say of the English Sectaries in general? will any man endeavour to free them from all error? Verily if none of them have fallen into error, it followeth first, that our Church is the true Church of Christ, and theirs a Schismatical Synagogue. This I prove after this sort: The Puritans in their Christian and modest offer (so they term it) of a most indifferent conference tendered not long since to the Protestant Archbishops, Bishops, and all their adherents, plainly affirm; that if their Puritan propositions be denied, and the Protestants have the truth on their side, the Roman Church is the true Church of Christ. For having set down such propositions as they offer to maintain against the Protestants, among other just considerations (as they pretend) moving them to make this offer in the sixth place they assign this for one. 
A Christian and modest of far, etc. pag. 11. published anno 1606.  divers of the aforesaid propositions are such (say they) that if the Ministers should not constantly hold and maintain the same against all men, they cannot see how possibly (by the rules of divinity) the separation of our Churches from the Church of Rome, and from the Pope the supreme head thereof; can be justified. And again in the eight consideration, having yielded an other reason, wherefore they cannot but make opposition to the Prelates, in approving the propositions above specified, 
Ibid. pag. 16.  they add: wherein if they (the Puritan Ministers who make this offer) be in error, and the Prelates on the contrary have the truth, they protest to all the world, that the Pope and the Church of Rome (and in them God and Christ JESUS himself) have great wrong and indignity offered unto them, in that they are rejected, and that all the Protestant Churches are Schismatical in forsaking unity and communion with them: Hitherto are the Puritans words. Hence (which is a point worthy to be noted) they promise their reconciliation unto us, if we can prove the falsehood of their assertions, which promise they make not to the English Protestants. For thus they go on in the first place alleged: And therefore for as much as in these controversies, the Papists and the Prelates go hand in hand, the said Ministers do in like manner make the like offer to the Priests and jesuits, promising their reconcilement unto that See (of Rome) if they can either by arguments pull them from the aforesaid propositions, or can answer such arguments, as they shall propound in the defence of them, in manner and form before specified in the offer. And therefore it both stands the Ministers upon to make the aforesaid offer, and the Prelates (except they will have all the world to judge them to be friends in heart to Popery) to accept of the same: Thus the Puritan Ministers, and no such offer that I find through the whole book is made to the Protestants. This then is affirmed by these men, that if the Protestant doctrine maintained against them be true, and their assertions be false, the separation of the new Sectaries Churches from ours, cannot be justified; yea they avouch that if this be so, that their said Churches are schismatical. Unto which if we add, that in very deed the propositions which the Puritans offer to maintain against the Prelates, are false and erroneous (the truth of which assertion is confessed & with great vehemency defended by all the English Protestants, and further concerning some of the said propositions very well proved by Hooker, Whitgift, Bilson, Covel, and others of their company) we shall have our desired conclusion, that according to the doctrine of the English Sectaries the Puritans and the Protestants, our adversaries Churches are Schismatical, and that ours is the true Spouse of Christ.  
But I must not here omit by the way to advertise my reader, that in the judgement of any wise and judicious person, this argument yielded us by our adversaries, cannot but also be a very strong proof of the truth of our Catholic cause. For whosoever maturely considereth the matter, shall find that the Protestants in rejecting the Puritan propositions, follow the prescript and rule of holy Scriptures, the decrees of Counsels, and the tradition of the Church and Fathers. He shall also perceive, that the Puritans in avouching that which I have related, build upon very good reasons flowing out of the very nature of the Protestant religion, and taken from the proceed of the upholders 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 proofs and reasons alleged for themselves, very strong arguments may be drawn to confirm the truth of our whole Catholic religion, as will sometimes appear in my treatise following. And to give here one instance, the Protestants for the authority of Archbishops bring divers reasons, and among others this one, that peace and unity can otherwise hardly be maintained in the Church. But what faith Cartwright? 
Survey of the pretended holy discipline, chap. 8. pag. 125.  Truly he affirmeth as is reported by the author of the Survey of the pretended holy discipline, that the Pope's authority is more necessary over all Churches, than the authority of an Archbishop over a province. And this his assertion is grounded upon very good reason, as I shall more at large declare hereafter.  
Now to prosecute mine intended discourse which is to prove some errors in the English sectaries, here occurreth another argument like unto the former, not unfit for my purpose. For like as I have already demonstrated, that if they all say true our Church is the true Church of Christ: so it is also evident, that if it be so that they all say true, it is also needful there be one supreme head of the whole Church militant; 
Survey, etc. chap. 29. pag. 372.  for thus I argue. Cartwright a principal Puritan, esteemed by those of his own sect (as the aforesaid author noteth) one of the only worthies of the world, telleth us that the Pope's authority is more necessary over all Churches, than the authority of an Archbishop over a province: but the authority of an Archbishop as all our Protestants defend, is necessary over a province; therefore the Pope's authority is necessary over all Churches.  
It may be objected, that these arguments are taken from persons of sundry sects, of which the one confesseth the other to err. I grant it, but this notwithstanding they prove, that either some English sectaries err, or otherwise that our religion by them rejected is true, which sufficeth my purpose. Nevertheless, the Protestants themselves do afford us no such reasons? Truly, if I were not here restrained to the writing only of a preface, I could assign divers: one I will set down for an example. 
Field book 3 chap. 39 pag. 158. 156. 157. 159.  M. Field in his third book of the Church plainly confesseth, that in sundry Churches of the world (being of the new religion) divers worthy Ministers of God were ordained by Presbyters (or Priests sometime of our Church) and had no ordination from any Bishop. Nay he seemeth apparently to grant, that none but Presbyters did impose hands 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 hands and consecrate a Priest, and consequently also a Bishop or a superintendant Out of this their doctrine I frame this argument: seeing that divers Superintendents and Ministers of the new religion, I may say all at the least of some Countries (for Field himself excepteth only those of England & Denmark and of some other places, which places he nameth not) have had their ordination or orders only from Priests, it followeth, that if Priests have no power of ordination, that is of giving orders, that such Ministers and Superintendents are no true Ministers and Superintendents: But Priests according to the assertion of a principal English Protestant, have no power of ordination, and can give no orders; therefore such Superintendents and Ministers are no true Superintendents and Ministers. Of which I also infer, that such Churches are no true Churches, for they want a true ministry and clergy, without which as 
* Field ibid. pag. 154. and book 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 concerning 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 kings Majesty, and afterward printed by his Majesty's express commandment as the same Bishop 
b In the epist. to the King printed before the sermon.  avoucheth, affirmeth and proveth out of holy Scripture first, that the Apostles kept to themselves ordination (or authority to give holy orders) till they appointed Bishops unto whom they conveyed it. Secondly, that the Church of Christ succeeding, would not admit any other but Bishops to that business, as not justifiable for the Presbyters (I use his words) either by reason, example, or scripture. And having proved it concerning reason, touching example he telleth us; that 
c C. 3.  not one is to be showed through the whole story Ecclesiastical, that any besides a Bishop did it; and that if some of the inferior rank presumed to do it, his act was reversed by the Church for unlawful, which he proved by an example. As for scripture he avoucheth there is none either of holy men, or of the holy Ghost, which doth give such authority to Presbyters: for all the fathers (saith he) with one consent do contradict it. And among others he allegeth S. Ambrose, affirming that it is consonant neither with God's nor man's law, that any besides a Bishop should do it. Of the scriptures he writeth thus: No scripture of the holy Ghost, either anagogically by consequent, or directly by precept doth justify it. For analogy, none but the Apostles did it, or might do it (as before you heard) not directly; for to what Presbyter was the authority committed as a Presbyter, etc. Thus the Bishop of Rochester plainly contradicteth the other two English Protestant doctors. And hence it manifestly appeareth, that either the said Bishop erreth in denying this power to Priests, or that the said Doctors are false in yielding it unto them: and consequently it is plain, that some English sectaries fall into error. Moreover, seeing that the Bishop convinceth by such good proofs the truth of his assertion, and the said two Doctors confess some of their Churches to have no other Pastors, but such as were ordered by Priests or Presbyters, it is even as apparent, that such their Churches are in very truth no true Church.  
But it is now high time that I end my discourse touching this point, yea that I conclude this my preface. Being therefore the truth of mine accusation that the learned sectaries, as Luther, Zwinglius, Caluin, and others have notoriously and grossly erred, is so evidently demonstrated by a few instances which I have related among divers others which I have omitted; let me now demand of my christian reader, what reason he hath to ground the everlasting estate of his soul, either upon the judgement of his learned masters, or upon his own? And first concerning his learned masters he can not deny, but they have all erred in some point or other; and doth not an error in one thing prove a possibility of erring in others of like sort? But have his captains any further warrant concerning one article, then touching an other? They have not without all doubt. How doth he then know that they have not erred in all points in which they descent from the ancient belief of all Christians their predecessors? He will perhaps answer, that he knoweth well they err not touching this and that, although their opinions be never so erroneous touching other points. Lo now he referreth all to his own judgement; I join therefore here with him, and first I ask what more strong warrant he hath that he cannot err, than had his learned masters? Is he comparable to them either in wit, learning, piety, or dignity of vocation? If he be not, than he is much more subject to error than they, who notwithstanding have grossly and palpably erred. I add also, that he taketh upon him overmuch in judging of such high matters, and in censuring his learned Doctors when they say true and when they err. Moreover, I think there is no man living which hath not in some things or others, altered his judgement and varied from himself; insomuch as he hath deemed false some things which once seemed to him true, and judged others true which once he thought false; which if it be so, what wiseman in matters of so great moment as are his faith and religion, will trust his own judgement? For wherefore may not he err in one point as well as in an other? Now if he do err in matters pertaining to faith and religion, what will be come of his soul everlastingly if he doth not alter his course? But howsoever it be, every follower of the new religion for the reasons assigned, hath just cause to mistrust the truth of his own belief, or which is yet less, not to be so peremptory and obstinate in his faith, that he will not with indifferency hear or read any thing that maketh against it; which is as much as I now crave of my courteous Reader.   

A catalogue OF THE PRINCIPAL COUNSELS WHICH WERE CELEBRATED WITHIN THE FIRST SIX HVNDRED YEARS AFTER THE BIRTH OF OUR LORD, as also of the holy Fathers and most famous Ecclesiastical writers, who flourished within the said term of years; gathered out of the works of Cardinal BARONIUS, and other approved Authors.  

A  
AFricanum Concilium, celebrated anno 403.  
Agathense Concilium, celebrated anno 506.  
Agathias Hystoricus, flourished anno 566.  
Alexander 1. Papa, suffered anno 131.  
Ambrose Episcopus Mediolan. died an. 397.  
Amphylochius Iconij Episcopus, flourished an. 394.  
Ancyranum Concilium, celebrated an. 314.  
Andegavense Concilium, celebrated an. 453.  
Antiochenum Conciliabulum, celebrated an. 341.  
Antisidiorense Concilium, celebrated an. 590.  
Antonius' Abbess, died an. 358.  
Aquileiense Concilium, celebrated an. 381.  
Arator Subdiaconus, flourished an. 544.  
Aransicanum Concilium 1. celebrated an. 441.  
Aransicanum Concilium 2. celebrated an. 463.  
Arelatense Concilium 1. celebrated an. 314.  
Arelatense Concilium 2. celebrated about the year 330.  
Arelatense Concilium 3. celebrated an. 453.  
Arnobius Rhetor, flourished an. 302.  
Athanasius Episcopus, died an. 372.  
Aruernense Concilium, celebrated an. 541.  
Augustinus Episcopus Doctor, died an. 430.  
Auitus Viennensis, died about the year 516.  
Aurelianense Concilium 1. celebrated an. 507.  
Aurelianense Concilium 2. celebrated an. 536.  
Aurelianense Concilium 3. celebrated an. 540.  
Aurelianense Concilium 4. celebrated about the year 545.  
Aurelianense Concilium 5. celebrated an. 552.   

B  
BArcionense Concilium, celebrated an. 599.  
Basilius Episcopus Doctor, died an. 378.  
Benedictus Abbas, died an. 543.  
Boaetius Senator, died an. 526.  
Bracharense Concilium 1. celebrated an. 563.  
Bracharense Concilium 2. celebrated an. 572.  
Brennacense Concilium, celebrated an. 583.  
Bicharensis Abbas, flourished an. 590.  
Byacenum Concilium, celebrated an. 541.   

C  
CAbilonense Concilium, celebrated an. 582.  
Caesarius Gregorij Frater, died about the year 368.  
Caesarius Arelatensis, died an. 544.  
Caesar augustanum Concilium 1. celebrated an. 381.  
Caesar augustanum Concilium 2. celebrated an. 592.  
Carpetoradense Concilium, celebrated about the year 463.  
Carthaginense Concilium 1. celebrated an. 348.  
Carthaginense Concilium 2. celebrated an. 435.  
Carthaginense Concilium 3. celebrated an. 397.  
Carthaginense Concilium 4. celebrated an. 398.  
Carthaginense Concilium 5. celebrated an. 398.  
Carthaginense Concilium 6. celebrated an. 401.  
Carthaginense Concilium 7. celebrated about the year 416:  
Carthaginense aliud, celebrated about the year 418.  
Cassianus Monachus, flourished an. 433.  
Cassiodorus Senator, flourished an. 562.  
Chalcedonense Concilium 4. generale, celebrated an. 451.  
Chromatius Aquileiensis, flourished about the year 410.  
Chrysostomus Episcopus Doctor, died an. 407.  
Claudianus Mamertus, flourished an. 490.  
Clemens 1. Papa, suffered an. 102.  
Clemens Alexandrinus, flourished an. 196.  
Climachus Abbas, flourished about the year 565.  
Canstantinopolitanum Concilium 1. secundum generale, celebrated an. 381.  
Canstantinopolitanum Concilium 2. tertium generale, celebrated an. 553.  
Constantinopolitanum Concilium 3. provinciale, celebrated an. 459.  
Constantinopolitanum Concil. 4 provin. sub justino Imp. celebrated an. 518.  
Constantinopolitanum Concil. 5. prouinciale sub Mena, celebrated an. 536.  
Cyprianus Episcopus Martyr, suffered an. 261.  
Cyrillus Hierosolymitan. flourished an. 386.  
Cyrillus Alexandrinus, flourished an. 444.   

D  
DAmasus Papa, died an. 384.  
Didymus Alexandrinus, flourished an. 372.  
Dionysius Alexandrinus, died an. 266.  
Dionysius Areopagita, died about the year 120.  
Dionysius Exiguus, flourished an. 527.  
Diospolitana Synodus, celebrated an. 415.   

E  
EGesippus, flourished an. 167.  
Egesippus alter, flourished an. 330.  
Elibertinum Concilium seu Eliberinum, celebrated an. 305.  
Ennodius Ticinensis Episcopus, flourished an. 517.  
Epannense Concilium, celebrated an. 509.  
Ephrem Diaconus, died an. 378.  
Ephesinum Concilium 3. generale, celebrated an. 431.  
Epiphanius Episcopus, died about the year 402.  
Epiphanius Scholasticus, flourished an. 466.  
Euagrius Epiphamensis Hyst. flourished an. 594.  
Euagrius Ponticus Monachus, flourished an. 389.  
Eucherius Lugdunensis Episcopus, flourished an. 441.  
Eugipius, flourished an. 496.  
Eulogius Episcopus Alexandrin. flourished an. 596.  
Euodius Vzali Episcopus. flourished about the year 420.  
Eusebius Caesariensis, died an. 340.  
Eusebius Emissenus, flourished an. 341.  
Eusebius Vercellensis, died an. 371.   

F  
FAebadius, flourished an. 388.  
Facundus Hermanensis Episcopus, flourished an. 548.  
Faustus Regiensis, flourished an. 520.  
Ferrandus Diaconus Carthagin. flourished an. 546.  
Fortunatus Pictaviensis, flourished an. 566.  
Fulgentius Episcopus, died an. 529.   

G  
GAngrense Concilium, celebrated about the year 325.  
Gaudentius Brixiensis, flourished about the year 390.  
Gelasius 1. Papa, died an. 496.  
Gennadius Constantinopolit. died an. 471.  
Gennadius Presbyter, flourished an. 490.  
Gerundense Concilium, celebrated an. 517.  
Gildas Sapiens, flourished an. 500  
Gregorius Baeticus, flourished an. 388.  
Gregorius Magnus Papa Doctor, flourished an. 600.  
Gregorius Nazianzen. died an. 389.  
Gregorius Nyssenus, flourished an. 390.  
Gregorius Turonensis, flourished an. 596.  
Gregorius Thaumaturgus, flourished an. 260.   

H  
HEsychius Hierosolimitan. flourished an. 400.  
Hieronimus Presbyter Doctor, died an. 420.  
Hierosolymitanum Concilium, celebrated an. 51.  
Hierosolymitanum Concilium sub Iwenali, celebrated an. 454.  
Hilarius Arelatensis, flourished an. 460.  
Hilarius Pictaviensis, flourished an. 369.  
Hilarius Papa, died an. 467.  
Hippolytus Portuensis, flourished an. 229.  
Hispalense Concilium, celebrated an. 590.   

I  
IDacius Clarus, flourished an. 381.  
Ignatius Mart. Antiochen. suffered an. 110.  
Innocentius 1. Papa, died an. 417.  
jornandus sive jordanus Histor. flourished an. 550.  
josephus judaeus, flourished an. 96.  
Irinaeus Lugdunensis, suffered an. 205.  
Isidorus Cordubensis, flourished an. 420.  
Isidorus Pelusiota, flourished an. 420.  
julianus Toletanus Episcopus, flourished an. 686.  
julius Firnicus Maternus, flourished an. 337.  
Iwilius Presbyter, flourished an. 430.  
justinianus Imperator, died an. 565.  
justinus Martyr, suffered an. 165.  
Iuuencus Presbyter, flourished an. 330.  
justinianus Valent. Episcopus, flourished an. 548.  
justus Orgelitanus, flourished an. 548.   

L  
LActantius Firmianus, flourished an. 316.  
Laodicaenum Concilium, celebrated an. 318.  
Leander Episcopus Hispalensis, flourished an. 590.  
Leo 1. Papa, died an. 461.  
Liberatus Diaconus Carthagin. flourished an. 548.  
Lucianus Presbyter, flourished an. 415.  
Lucense Concilium 1. celebrated an. 569.  
Lucense Concilium 2. celebrated an. 572.  
Lucifer Calaritanus, died an. 371.  
Lugdunense Concilium 1. celebrated an. 570.  
Lugdunense Concilium 2. celebrated an. 587.   

M  
MArcellinus Comes Histor. flourished an. 534.  
Maximus Taurinensis, flourished an. 465.  
Martialis Episcopus, died an. 74.  
Matisconense Concilium 1. celebrated an. 582.  
Matisconense Concilium 2. sub Guntheranne, celebrated an. 588.  
Mediolanense Concilium, celebrated an. 451.  
Melitus Sardensis, flourished an. 172.  
Methodius Tyri Episcopus, flourished an. 303.  
Millevitanum Concilium, celebrated an. 402.  
Millevitanum aliud, celebrated an. 416.  
Mimitius Foelix, flourished an. 211.   

N  
NArbonense Concilium 1. celebrated an. 589.  
Narbonense Concilium 2. celebrated an. 598.  
Neocaesariense Concilium, celebrated an. 314.  
Nicenum Concilium 1. primum generale. celebrated an. 325.   

O  
OPtatus Millenitanus, flourished an. 368.  
Origenes, died an. 256.  
Orosius Presbyter, flourished an. 414.  
Oscense Concilium, celebrated an. 598.  
Osius Cordubensis, flourished an. 325.   

P  
PAcianus Barilonensis, flourished an. 388.  
Palaestinum Concilium, celebrated an. 198.  
Palladius Gallata, flourished an. 388.  
Papias, flourished an. 118.  
Parisiense Concilium 1. positum 2. loco, celebrated about the year 559.  
Parisiense Concilium 2. celebrated an. 580.  
Paschasius Diaconus, flourished an. 496.  
Paulinus Nolanus, died an. 431.  
Paulinus Aquitanus, flourished an. 412.  
Petrus Chrysologus, flourished an. 502.  
Philastrius Brixiensis, flourished an. 381.  
Philo judaeus, flourished an. 42.  
Pontius Diaconus, flourished an. 260.  
Possessor Africanus Episcopus, flourished an. 520.  
Possidonius Calamensis, flourished an. 430.  
Primasius Episcopus Adrumetinus dictus Vticensis, flourished an. 551.  
Proclus Constantinopol. Episcopus, died an. 446.  
Procopius Gazaeus, flourished an. 553.  
Prosper Regiensis, flourished an. 466.  
Prudentius, flourished an. 389.   

R  
RAdegundis Regina, died an. 590.  
Regiense Concilium, celebrated an. 439.  
Remigius Episcopus Rhemensis, flourished an. 535.  
Romanum Concilium sub Siluestro, celebrated an. 325. 

Sub julio 1. celebrated an. 337.  
Sub Damaso, celebrated an. 373. 382.  
Sub Siricio, celebrated an. 386.  
Sub Caelestino, celebrated an. 430. 431.  
Sub Leone 1. celebrated an. 449.  
Sub Hilario, celebrated an. 465.  
Sub Faelice 3. celebrated an. 483.  
Sub Gelasio, celebrated an. 494.  
Sub Symmacho, celebrated an. 502. 503. 504.  
Sub Gregorio Magno, celebrated an. 595.    
Ruffinus Aquileiensis, died an. 410.  
Rusticus Diaconus, flourished an. 548.   

S  
SAlonius Viennensis, flourished an. 470.  
Saluianus Massiliensis, flourished an. 412.  
Santonense Concilium, celebrated an. 566.  
Sardicense Concilium, celebrated an. 347.  
Sedulius Presbyter, flourished an 420.  
Simeon Stelita junior, flourished an. 574.  
Sacrates Historicus, flourished an. 439.  
Sozomenus Histor. flourished an. 439.  
Sulpitius Severus, flourished an. 402.  
Sydomus Apollinaris, died about the year 484.  
Synesius Episcopus, flourished an. 411.   

T  
TAraconense Concilium, celebrated an. 516.  
Taurinense Concilium, celebrated an. 397.  
Tertullianus, flourished an. 210.  
Theodoretus Cyri Episcopus, flourished an. 450.  
Theophilus Alexander, died an. 390.  
Toletanum Concilium 1. celebrated about the year 40.  
Toletanum Concilium 2. celebrated an. 531.  
Toletanum Concilium 3. celebrated an. 589.  
Toletanum Concilium 4. sub Recaredo, celebrated an. 597.  
Turonense Concilium 1. celebrated an. 482.  
Turonense Concilium 2. celebrated an. 570.   

V  
VAsense Concilium 1. celebrated about the year 440.  
Vasense Concilium 2. celebrated an. 442.  
Vasense Concilium 3. celebrated an. 463.  
Valentinum Concilium 1. celebrated an. 374.  
Valentinum Concilium 2. celebrated an. 589.  
Venantius Fortunatus, flourished an. 566.  
Victor Capuanus, flourished an. 545.  
Victor Vticensis, flourished an. 487.  
Victor Tunniensis seu Tunnensis, flourished an. 566.  
Victorinus Pictaniensis, flourished about the year 297.  
Vigilius Tridentinus, flourished an. 480.  
Vincentius Lyrinensis, flourished an. 434.   

Z  
ZEno Veronensis Martyr. flourished about the year 258.  
Zeno alius, flourished about the year 390.    

THE FIRST PART. OF THE GROUNDS OF THE OLD RELIGION.  

Chap. the first. Of the first ground of Catholic religion, to wit: that there is a God, and that God by his providence, governeth all things.  
BEFORE I come to entreat of the particular grounds of Catholic religion, which are rejected by our adversaries; I think it not amiss, briefly to discourse of certain general grounds of the same: which although I confess to be admitted by divers new sectaries; yet in very deed by some are denied, and after some sort (as I will prove hereafter) impugned and overthrown by the common doctrine of them al.  
The Apostle S. Paul, praerequireth the belief of two things principally, in him that is to come to the service of almighty God: first, that he believe that there is a God: secondly, that he likewise believe that the said God will reward those that serve him: 
Hebr. 11. vers. 6.  He that cometh to God (saith he) must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him. Wherefore, grounding upon this sentence of the Apostle, I place the belief of one God, and of his divine providence, for the first ground of our religion. For a second, I will assign that we ought to believe God to be a rewarder of our actions in the world to come, of which reward the Apostle here principally speaketh. For the declaration of which, I purpose to prove the soul of man to be immortal, and that most certainly according to the deserts thereof, it shall either be rewarded everlastingly in heaven, or punished everlastingly in hell.  

SECTION THE FIRST. That there is a God.  
THE ancient Philosophers, led only by the force of natural reason, to convince this truth reasoned after this sort: we perceive (said they) divers motions of natural bodies in the world, but especially of the heavens; which motions of necessity proceed from some cause & mover, which mover either in essence or virtue motive, dependeth of some other mover, or no. If he dependeth not, than he is God; If he depend of some other, it is likewise demanded of that other, whether he be independent or dependent: If the first, than we must needs acknowledge him to be God, who only in his essence and virtue motive is independent of all others: if the second, then of him the same question may be moved, and so of all others, until we come to some one that is independent, and of whom all the rest do depend, which we must of necessity affirm to be God.  
The same also is proved by the divers sorts & degrees of creatures, as are first the four elements, fire, air, water, and earth: secondly, things mixed imperfect, as snow, rain, hail, etc. Thirdly, things mixed perfect, as stones, and divers sorts of metals: Fourthly, things which have life vegetative only, as trees, herbs, etc. Fiftly, things which have life vegetative, and sensitive, as all sorts of beasts, fowls, and fishes: Sixtly, a thing having besides life vegetative and sensitive, also reason, as man, above whom we place the Angels. Wherefore either in this ascent of the perfections of things, we shall never make an end, (which is most absurd) or else we shall proceed and come to some one thing most perfect, which of necessity we must confess to be God.  
Moreover the natural inclination of man, to the acknowledging and worshipping of God proveth the same: for no nation under the Sun hath ever been found (although never so barbarous) which hath not acknowledged and worshipped either the true God, or else some other thing, by it so esteemed: yea every man naturally in his distresses and miseries, flieth unto God, and craveth help and secure of his divine Majesty.  
But seeing that I writ this treatise for the unlearned sort of people, omitting to discourse at large of these reasons (although most forcible, yea invincible) I will use especially this argument following, which every man (although very simple) may for the most part apprehend and conceive, taken from the admirable constitution, order, harmony, beauty, and greatness of the world. And first let every man lift up his eyes to the heavens, and behold those incorruptible bodies: Let him consider, not only the wonderful beauty, light, and variety, of those celestial orbs: but also their strange order and motions, and above all their constancy in their said motions, that in so many thousands of years, as have passed since their first being, they have not miss or erred so much as one minute of an hour, of their assigned & accustomed time: From which it proceedeth, that Astronomers can so long before most certainly and infallibly foretell Eclipses, conjunctions, and such other accidents of the Planets.  
Among all the ornaments of the heavens, the Sun is the most principal. The body or orb of this Planet by Astronomers, is proved to be an hundred, sixty and six times greater, than the globe of the earth and water: wherefore if the compass of the earth and sea, be demonstrated to be about twenty and one thousand six hundred miles, what shall we imagine of the greatness of the Sun? If we likewise consider what a small time, the Sun is in rising and setting, we shall also perceive the motion of this Planet to be most swift; for the whole body of it although so huge and great, cometh wholly to our sight, and goeth from the same in a very short time, so that it must needs move divers miles every minute of an hour, although the motion of it, by us be hardly perceived. The Sun is the fountain of light, and imparteth it to the Moon and Stars: By the variety of his motions we distinguish times, as days, nights, months, and years. The approaching and going away of it from us, maketh the spring, summer, autumn, and winter. The Sun with his presence in the spring, as it were reviveth beasts and plants, which seemed before almost dead through his absence: and yieldeth them a fit season for generation, multiplication, and bringing forth their seeds. Finally, the Sun principally draweth up vapours from the sea and land, which cause rain, by which the earth is strangely watered, to make it fruitful. Next unto the Sun, the Moon unto our sight seemeth beautiful, which giveth light unto the nights, when the Sun is absent. And although she be variable; yet she is most constant in her inconstancy and alterations. She hath a most strange dominion over the sea, which she draweth and altereth as it were with herself: for when the moon ascendeth, the sea increaseth; contrariwise, when she descendeth it decreaseth, in so much that she causeth (as it is probable) the flux and reflux, or ebbing and flowing of the sea, by which the water is preserved from putrefaction, and other necessary effects are wrought.  
But who can explicate the variety, number, beauty, and strange effects of the stars? Surely their number is so great, that the Prophet David in the Psalms, 
Psa. 146. vers. 4.  doth attribute it unto God to number the multitude of the stars: and I doubt not, but every man in a clear night, beholding the heavens, and remembering what hath already been said, will cry out with the same Prophet, 
Ps. 18. v. 1  and say. The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the works of his hands.  
Let us descend something lower, and come to the four elements, the fire, the air, the water, and the earth: and first admire their wonderful constitution. For they are so tempered and placed in such order, that although they be endued with contrary qualities, and there be continual combats between them; yet the one never altogether overcometh or overthroweth the other: yea, every one of them although it hath one quality, contrary to that which is next unto it; yet it agreeth with it in the other, & two altogether opposite in qualities, are not joined together. For example, the fire is hot and dry: the air next unto it, is hot and moist: the water next unto the air is moist & cold: and the earth next unto the water, cold and dry. Besides this, that element, which is most active, hath least force to resist the action of others; contrariwise that which hath most force to resist, is least active; as is apparent in the fire and the earth. I add moreover, that all these elements have a natural inclination to their proper places: For the earth coveteth to be under the water: the water to be above the earth, and under the air: the air to be above the water, and under the fire: the fire above all the rest. And to this situation (if they be displaced) they move with greatspeede and violence, as we see by daily experience.  
This notwithstanding, to the end that food, place of abode, increase, growing, and dwelling may be given to other creatures, the water is separated from some part of the earth, and certain bounds are appointed unto it, which it cannot pass.  
The air serveth man and beast for breath: the lower region of it, by the reflection of the beams of the Sun, is preserved from that cold constitution which it would otherwise have, by reason of the water and earth adjoining, and so made a fit habitation for them to live in: as also fit for the growing of plants, herbs, trees, and such like senseless creatures. The middle region by vapours drawn up from the earth and water, is made colder, and in it the said vapours, through the coldness of the place, are resolved into rain, and show, by which the earth is most artificially moistened and made fruitful. The winds which be dry exhalations, toss the clouds from place to place, that all parts of the earth may receive this benefit: they serve also for passing from nation to nation on the sea; they purge the air, etc.  
Concerning the sea, we may well admire the vastness and motion thereof; the certain limits, within which it is restrained; the infinite number together with the huge and strange forms of fishes, and their wonderful increase. The rivers are as it were the veins of the earth: for like as in our bodies, by the veins, blood, and moisture is conveyed to every part: so is the earth moistened by the rivers & springs.  
The earth itself is divided into hills, dales, and plain ground, that it may bring forth diversity of fruit for man, and all sorts of cattle, and yield them fit places of abode, according to their natures: In it are divers precious stones, and sundry sorts of metals, which serve for the use of man. It is adorned with variety of flowers, trees, fruits, and herbs, far surpassing all humane art and invention; which it continually nourisheth, and receiving seed from such ornaments, like unto a fertile mother, it daily bringeth forth with great increase, new fruit; and yieldeth both man and beast at all times sufficient food: it is also apt for their pleasure and recreation.  
Here I could make a long discourse of the bodies, & nature of bruit beasts and fishes, but I should be overlong; and therefore at this present it shall be sufficient to wish every man to consider: First, that all sorts of such living creatures, find sufficient food agreeable to their divers natures: then, that every one of them hath fit members, and convenient means to come by their said food: Thirdly, that all naturally know their enemies, and have convenient means to avoid them: Fourthly, if they be sick, by the instinct of nature, they know their physic: Fiftly, the same nature giveth them knowledge, how to feed, and bring up their young ones, which especially is perceived in birds, who at the fittest season, and in the fittest places breed, and most artificially make their nests: I add further, that they have all sufficient vestures to cover their nakedness, and to defend themselves from the extremity of cold: Finally, the bodies of all such creatures are most aptly form according to their natures; as of fishes to swim, of fowls to fly, etc.  
But what shall we say of man, for whom all these things were created, and who is the King and most principal of all these inferior creatures? Surely he yieldeth us divers points most worthy of consideration. And first let us note, that although our soul, be a simple and spiritual substance: yet it hath three powers most noble and excellent, which by Philosophers are called the soul's vegetative, sensitive, and reasonable: to the first it appertaineth to nourish our bodies, and to make them grow to convenient stature and greatness: The second, by the use of our five senses, maketh us understand and feel things corporal and particular: By the third we understand things spiritual and universal. The first is common also to trees and herbs: the second to brute beasts: by the third we are like unto Angels. I will not stand to discourse of our five senses, our imagination, understanding, memory and will, because these things be something difficult, and require long treatises.  
Concerning the body of man: consider first, how strangely it is form in the mother's womb, in which unto every member is given his due proportion. Consider also that in it there are above three hundred bones, little and great, which are so artificially and firmly joined together, and with such admirable proportion, that no artificer in the world is able to make the like. Neither are the sinews and veins, by which the joints are joined, and nourishment is conveyed to all parts of the body, and the equal correspondence of the parts of one side of the body, to the parts of the other side, together with the aptness of every member to his place, and to the end for which it was ordained, less admirable. How wonderful strange is the composition of every particular member, as of the head, eyes, hands, feet, & c.? Verily an exact description of every such part, would make this section bigger, than the whole treatise which I intent. I will add only a word or two, of the manner of the nourishing of our bodies. To make the food which we receive fit for our stomach, we have in our mouths two sorts of teeth, some sharp to divide it, others something flat or plain to grind it: with the tongue we remove it from place to place, when it is sufficiently chawed: through the throat it is conveyed into the stomach, where as in a pot or cauldron by the heat of the heart and liver it is boiled, and brought all to one kind of substance: from thence the purest and best part thereof, by subtle and small passages, is conveyed to the liver; the grossest part, which is not fit for nutriment, is cast out at the fundament. The liver having received the said substance, boileth it again and turneth it into blood, that which is superfluous it sendeth it to other places, as to the spleen and gall: the rest it disperseth by the veins throughout the whole body, which is partly turned into flesh and bones; a part of it is sent to the heart, which being there purified, is turned into vital spirits; some is sent to the brain, and turned into other spirits, which we call animales.  
These considerations are sufficient to persuade every man, that there is one supreme God, of infinite power and wisdom, who hath created, and most wisely and sweetly disposed all things. Hence the Prophet David cried out unto God in the Psalm: 
Psal. 103. ver. 24.  How high (or wonderful) O Lord, are thy works, thou hast made all things in wisdom: the earth is filled with thy possession or riches. Surely, if we look into the nature and condition of any one creature whatsoever, we shall not only see, 
Eccles. 3. ver. 14. Galen. lib. 3. de usu partium: & lib. 5. Psal. 99 vers. 3.  that (as the wiseman saith) we cannot add to, or take anything from the creatures of God: and that God (as Galen the prince of all physicians, although a Pagan confesseth) hath adorned and beautified the creatures of this world, better than by any art possible it could have been imagined; but also if we demand of each creature who made it, it will seem to make answer: God made me, and I made not myself: according as the Psalm saith of us men: He made us, and we made not ourselves. Some Atheist perhaps will say, that all creatures are thus framed and ordered, not by any supreme governor, having understanding and power to effect such matters, but by chance. I reply, that like as it is impossible, that a number of letters or characters cast together, without any order of syllables, words, or sentences, should make a perfect book, containing most wise, learned, and methodical discourses: so it is impossible that the world should be so exquisitely ordered, and things so ordained one to another by chance, without the wisdom and disposition of almighty God: And this confutation of this fond assertion, was used long since by Cicero an Ethnic. Wherefore, 
Cicero lib. 3. de natura Deorum.  like as every man would worthily account him a fool, that should say that a book, containing wise, and orderly discourses, was made by chance, by the casting together of divers characters or letters; or that a house, most curiously and artificially built, was made without the handy work of any artificer, by the accidentary concourse of stones, mortar, timber, and other such like stuff: so we may well esteem him a fool, and void of all reason and understanding, who denieth that the world was created and ordered by almighty God. Hence the Psalm saith: The fool said in his heart, 
Ps. 13. v. 1  there is no God. And note: it is not said, he said with his mouth, but in his heart; to signify that this assertion is so absurd, ridiculous, and blasphemous, that a fool, although he think it true in his heart; yet may be ashamed to utter it with his mouth.  
To the arguments already brought for the proof of this matter, I add, that this truth is manifestly delivered unto us, in the holy Scriptures; in which is contained the history of the creation of the world by God, and divers other evident proofs, are found of the being of his divine Majesty: This no Atheist will or can deny. But all of them answer, that the Scriptures contain but fables, and are of no authority. I reply, that it may easily be showed, that the authority of these divine books, aught to be great in any wiseman's judgement in the world. It is proved by divers learned authors: first, by their antiquity; for no volumes in the world are so ancient as the books of Moses: and consequently we may infer, that Moses himself the first writer, received the true history of those things which were done before his own days, by succession and tradition from his predecessors; for which it maketh, that Abraham the father of the jews, might well have seen Sem the son of No: Of other things he was an eye witness himself. Secondly, it is proved by the verity of divers prophecies, contained in the holy Scriptures, which were fulfilled long after that the books themselves were written; which is a manifest demonstration, that such things were foretold by God, who only knoweth and can certainly fortel things contingent and depending of man's free will: of which it followeth, that such prophecies and the books in which they are found, were written by divine inspiration. Thirdly, it is declared by the wonderful consent of all these books: for although they were penned by divers men, in divers places, upon divers occasions, and at sundry times; yet no one of them containeth any one thing contrary to the other: 
Gre. praefat. in job.  Of which S. Gregory well inferreth; that the writers hands were the pens of the holy Ghost. The same is likewise demonstrated by the test money of divers miracles, which have been wrought always in the world, for the confirmation of the doctrine, which is taught us in these books; by the miraculous preservation of them, throughout all ages; by the admirable consent of the scutcheon two Interpreters, which were appointed by Ptólomie King of Egypt to translate them, and sundry other reasons, which I cannot stand to relate.  
Neither do the miracles and prophecies above said, and all other such like effects and actions, only confirm the authority of the holy Scriptures; but also evidently prove, that there is a God, who only is omnipotent, and can work effects surpassing the power and virtue of natural and created agents. Such miracles and prophecies cannot be denied to have been found in the world in all ages, of which we have any large records; except we will obstinately reject the authority and testimony of all men. I may join to this, that although God be but one in essence; yet he is three in persons: for although the divine essence be but one most pure and simple substance, not divided; yet the self same is in three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, who are equal and consubstantial one to the other, and in every place by their essence, presence, and power. This is proved by Divines, because God must needs understand and love himself: of his understanding the Son is begotten; of his will, of which is love, proceedeth the holy Ghost. And although during the law of Moses, and in all former ages, this high mystery for some respects (especially for fear, lest that men in those weak days of the Trinity of persons, should infer three Gods) was something concealed from the vulgar sort of people; yet it was known and believed by the learned, and is manifestly expressed in the old Testament itself: see Genes. 1. vers. 26. where God speaketh in the plural number. Let us make man, etc. Genes. 18. ve. 2. where Abraham saw our Lord as three, and adored and spoke unto one in the singular number: Psal. 32. vers. 6. where the heavens are said, to have been made firm by the word of our Lord, and all their power by the spirit of his mouth. Isa. 6. vers. 3. where the Scraphins are said to have cried unto God, holy, holy, holy; using the word holy thrice. The like testimonies are, Isa. 34. vers. 16. chap. 48. vers. 16. chap. 61. vers. 1. and in divers other places: wherefore this was acknowledged by the learned 
a Rabbi. Ib ba. in ca 6 De●ter. Rabbi. Abbi. in Thr. Rabb. Ha cadas in c. 9 Isai. Paraphras. called. in ca 45. Isai: Rab. Abi. Nuzielin Psal. 2.  Rabbins of the jews, before the coming of Christ. The 
b Sibil. apud Lact. li 4 divin. instit. cap. 6. Mercur Tres. Dialog. Prin. Plat: Plótinus, li. de tribus hipostas.  Sibyls likewise made mention of it; and some of the ancient Heathen Philosophers: And thus much of this matter.   

SECTION THE SECOND. Almighty God hath care of worldly affairs, and ruleth all things by his divine providence.  
OTHER Atheists there be, who although they confess that there is a God; yet they bereave him of his divine providence, and make him altogether careless of worldly affairs, and consequently attribute the success of all matters, to fortune and policy. These also are easily confuted by divers arguments, convincing them of falsehood and blasphemy. And first thus I argue; If God hath no providence and care of worldly matters, either it is because he is not able to discharge that office, or else because he refuseth and will not undertake the same; for no other cause can be assigned: but either of these assertions overthroweth his divine nature, as is manifest: therefore we must needs confess that by his providence he governeth the world. That the first is contrary to the nature of God, it is apparent; because God is present in every place, his power also, and his wisdom and knowledge is infinite: and consequently, by reason of his presence, he is absent from no creature; by reason of his infinite power, he is able to do all things, and cannot be wearied; by reason of his infinite wisdom, he knoweth how all things are to be done, and he cannot be overcharged with the multitude of businesses; by reason of his infinite knowledge, he knoweth the nature and necessities of all creatures, and whosoever affirmeth the contrary denieth God to be God. It appeareth likewise that he is able to undertake this government, by the discourse of the first Section. For who will deny, but he that created all things in such admirable order is able also to govern, and have providence over the same? Hence are these words of the Prophet Isay. 
Isa. 40. vers. 28.  God the everlasting Lord, who created the bounds of the earth, will not faint nor labour; neither is there any mean to search out, or comprehend his wisdom: thus the Prophet. The second likewise is repugnant to the nature of God, who is infinitely good: for if it be the part of a Prince, if he obtain or institute a Kingdom or common wealth, to govern the same, and the neglect of this doth impeach his credit in every honest or moral man's judgement: how can we say that God, who is goodness itself, refuseth to have any providence or care over the world by him created? doth it not appertain to a creator, to preserve and govern his work? what workman neglecteth the excellent workmanship of his hands? Hence S. Ambrose affirmeth, 
Ambr. lib. 1. office ca 13.  that it were great inclemency (or cruelty) in God, not to have care over those things, which he hath made. And of this reason I infer, that it is even as absurd and blasphemous, to deny the providence of almighty God; as to deny his being: for whosoever denieth the first, impugneth the second; because if the denial of this providence, be prejudicial either to the power or goodness of God, it is manifest, that it is also prejudicial to his nature, which must needs be of infinite power and goodness.  
This providence may likewise be proved by the first creation and constitution of the world: for seeing that God then, out of his infinite wisdom and goodness (as I have before declared) ordained one thing to another, and provided sufficiently for the necessities of all sorts of creatures; seeing also that his nature remaineth the same, it may well be inferred and supposed, that he continueth always the same care. But like as among other creatures, he had an especial regard of man, in the creation of the world: for besides that he provided necessaries for his food and apparel, for him also he produced the beauty and sweet smells of flowers; the precious stones, musk, divers sorts of spices; herbs and roots medecinable; iron, lead, tin, silver, gold, and other sorts of metals; sugarcanes which yield us sugar; silkworms, etc. For man also he gave the loadstone that quality that the needle, which it toucheth turneth always to the North pool: So likewise it is evident, that the eye of God's providence doth principally behold him. Moreover the sudden change and alteration of worldly estates, as the sudden ruin of most potent empires, kingdoms, common wealths, cities, and the overthrow of armies, in the opinion of men invincible: which empires, kingdoms, common wealths, cities, and armies, having been miraculously conquered by a few, far inferior to themselves in strength, are most firm arguments of the providence of God. So likewise is the strange punishment of wicked men and tyrants, and the reward of the good not seldom in this world, recorded in all histories; but especially in the old Testament, which the greatest Atheist in the world cannot deny to be of great authority: for there we may read, that the jews, as long as they served God, enjoyed prosperity; and contrariwise, when they forsook him, fell into adversity & a thousand calamities. The same may be confirmed by divers prophecies both of holy Scripture, the Sibyls and others, foretelling such things unto men, as could not be foreseen in natural causes. The like argument may be taken from miracles. For why should God either foretell such things, or work such extraordinary effects, if he had no care of worldly creatures? Finally all nations be they never so barbarous, have ever acknowledged the providence of God; which is a manifest proof, that the acknowledging of this, proceedeth from the instinct of nature itself. 
Eccles. 5. vers. 5.  Wherefore I conclude with this sentence of the wiseman: Do not give thy mouth, that thou make thy flesh to sin: That is to say: Be not thou blasphemous in thy words, against the providence of almighty God, to the end that thou mayest sin more freely, and say not before an Angel, who is the minister and executor of God's providence, there is no providence: lest that God perhaps being angry against thy speeches, overthrow all the works of thy hands. Hitherto Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes. And this shall suffice for the proof of the first ground of true religion, to wit, that there is a God; and that this God by his divine providence governeth the world, out of which ariseth the first band, that man hath to serve, obey, fear, love, and praise God above all things. For reason requireth that we yield him these duties, who is the chiefest good thing, and the fountain of all goodness, who is the Lord, maker, and governor both of us, and all other creatures.    

Chapter 2. Of the second ground of our religion, to wit: that the soul of man is immortal, and that it shall either be rewarded everlastingly in heaven, or punished everlastingly in hell.  
THE immortality of the soul of man, which I assigned for the second general ground of religion, may briefly be proved by these forcible reasons. First thus I argue: A thing spiritual, and independent of all corporal substance, which hath no original cause of decay in itself, cannot be corrupted or destroyed by any corporal agent, or any intrinsical quality contained in itself: But the soul of man is spiritual, and independent of all corporal substance, and hath no original cause of decay in itself: Therefore it cannot be corrupted or destroyed by any corporal agent; or any intrinsical quality contained in itself. The truth of the first proposition appeareth by this, that all corruption must of necessity proceed, either of some intrinsical or extrinsical cause. And that a thing spiritual, and in his being independent of all corporal substance, (especially of that which by the Philosophers is called materia prima; which is the fountain and cause of corruption in the four elements, and all other things of them compounded) and having in itself no intrinsical quality, that can bring it to destruction, cannot possibly perish through any intrinsical cause; it is most manifest. And what extrinsical cause can destroy a thing spiritual, besides the omnipotent power of God? The second likewise may easily be proved: For first (besides that the nature of the soul itself hath no contrary oppugning it) it is evident that the principal powers of the same (I mean the understanding, will, and memory,) depend not in their operations, of any certain corporal organ or part of the body, as our corporal senses do: of which it followeth that they may be separated from the said body, & retain notwithstanding after such separation, their operations; and consequently that they be spiritual: which prerogative if it be granted to the powers of the soul, it cannot be denied to the soul itself.  
Moreover, although the understanding in divers first operations, craveth aid of the senses, and the sensual imagination; yet it is manifest, that his principal operations are independent of them. For the understanding discourseth of itself; reflecteth upon his own operations, and knoweth itself to know; apprehendeth things universal; inferreth one thing of an other; by things sensible and corporal, it cometh to the knowledge of things spiritual, yea of God himself; contemplateth virtue, and judgeth that for the love of it, corporal miseries are patiently to be suffered; correcteth the errors of the senses; knoweth vice, etc. All which operations are spiritual independent of the body, and above the object of our corporal senses. And seeing that the soul hath such operations, it necessarily requireth a manner of being, answerable unto them; that it may not only remain perfect, and incorruptible, after the corruption of the body, and the separation of itself from the same: but also then exercise such operations. The soul likewise coveteth eternity, loveth virtue, and hateth vice, and is adorned with free-will; which be manifest proofs of a spiritual and immortal substance.  
Further, God hath ordained every creature to some end; Neither is any one to be termed perfectly happy and contented, until it attain to the said end, and in it as fully satiated, resteth. And seeing that the end and perfect felicity of man, cannot be obtained in this life. For no worldly thing, which man in this life can comprehend or possess, is able to satisfy his understanding and will: wherefore, seeing also that every thing is so created, that at some time or other it may enjoy his end and felicity, the final and chiefest happiness of man, must needs consist in some thing, which he may attain unto after his death, and in the world to come; and consequently his soul is immortal. Some Epicure perhaps will contend, that the final end and supreme happiness of man, doth consist in the enjoying of worldly pleasures: but this cannot be; both because these never satiate man. For the soul is never fully contented with the worldly pleasures, with which she is delighted; yea (not seldom) in a small time loatheth that which before she most desired: and also, because if this were true, and the soul were mortal, we must needs condemn God of injustice, who not seldom suffereth the wicked to live in such pleasures, and bereaveth the just of the same; and moreover suffereth them to fall into a thousand miseries and calamities, which he could not in justice do, if the true felicity of man did consist in the enjoying of worldly pleasures.  
The same may be confirmed by the consent of most of the ancient Philosophers, and generally of all nations; which doth manifestly declare, that natural reason itself is sufficient to persuade any man this truth. I add further, that if any credit be to be given to holy Scriptures or authentical histories, divers souls of men dead, have appeared unto men living. Finally, this appertained to the manifestation, both of the omnipotency of the power of God, and also to the beauty of the world, and variety of creatures; that like as God created some creatures altogether spiritual, as are the Angels: and others altogether corporal, as are all earthly creatures besides man: so he should create one creature partly spiritual and partly corporal, in which degree we place only man. And hence it proceedeth that in the book of Genesis, in the history of the creation of the world we read, that all other living corporal creatures, being produced and framed of corporal substance; as fish and foul of the water, and beasts of the earth; 
Genes. 2. vers. 7.  God inspired or breathed into the face of man the breath of life: by which is signified, that the soul of man only, among all such creatures, was created by God, and not produced of any earthly substance; and consequently, that it only is immortal. And this is also signified unto us by those words of God: 
Genes. 1. v. 26.27.  Let us make man according to our Image and likeness. For he is like unto God: First, because his understanding is apt to conceive all things, and therefore may in some sort, be said to be of an infinite capacity: secondly, because his will cannot be fully satiated with any thing, but almighty God, who is an infinite good thing, and therefore also is after a sort infinite: thirdly, because the will hath free liberty, and is not bound to this or that: lastly, because the soul hath a certain natural inclination and desire to immortality. All which inclinations and properties of the understanding and will, prove the soul itself to be immortal.  
For the proof of the other part of the title of this Chapter: viz. that the soul of man most certainly shall be either rewarded in heaven or punished in hell, after this life everlastingly; I must presuppose two things, as true. First, that among the actions of man some be virtuous, others vicious. This is taught us by the law of nature itself; from whence it proceedeth, that all nations have ever esteemed blasphemy, perjury, murder, theft, adultery, and such like actions, vicious; and contrariwise, they have judged justice, chastity, fortitude, and other such like laudable dispositions, to be virtues.  
Secondly, I must presuppose that man hath free will: which I am not in this place to prove out of holy Scripture against Heretics: but to show by natural reason against Atheists. And therefore I prove it first, because all nations by the instinct of nature, have ever punished vice, which they could not have done, had not man free will to avoid it. For no man can justly be punished for a fault, which he cannot choose but commit. Hence also proceed Counsels of estate in all kingdoms and common wealths, and consultations and deliberations concerning peace, war, and other matters; what course is to be taken; how this and that may be composed; how imminent dangers may be avoided &c. which were all in vain, if it were not in man's power to do this; or that. Finally, every one findeth it true in himself by experience, that it is in his own power to do or leave undone, any action that he undertaketh, and that nothing doth enforce him to do that, which he doth, but that he doth it of his own free choice and election.  
Out of these two assertions presupposed I infer, that God's justice hath ordained a heaven and a hell after this life. For it was necessary that man both by promise of reward, should be alured to virtue, and that by the fear of hell he should be withdrawn from vice: and also that they, which out of their own free will with the help of God's grace, embraced virtue, should have some reward for the same: contrariwise that they which followed vice, should receive their just punishment. And seeing that this retribution is seldom seen to be made in this world (for the just and virtuous are divers times afflicted even to death; and the wicked contrariwise even to their end enjoy prosperity.) It is certain that these things are reserved for the world to come. Further, because the soul is then separated from the world and the flesh, and consequently freed from all combats between vice and virtue, we may well infer, that the soul shall remain for ever in such state, as it is found at the hour of death. And this might also be proved by holy Scriptures, of whose authority even against Atheists before: by divers apparitions recorded in authentical Authors, which no man can in wisdom and reason reject as false and forged: and the consent of all nations. Out of this discourse I gather an other motive or band, that man hath to serve God and live virtuously. For seeing that his soul is to remain for ever, either in perpetual joy in heaven, or in perpetual pain in hell, according to his deserts, it behoveth every one with all his endeavour to embrace virtue, and eschew vice; because eternal joy, is to be preferred before any transitory pleasure, and any temporal pain whatsoever is to be endured, rather than the everlasting. For to use our saviours words: 
Math. 16. vers. 26.  What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and sustain the damage of his soul?   

Chapter 3. Of a third principal ground of our faih, to wit: that Christian religion only is the true worship of God.  
I HAVE already proved that there is a God, who by his omnipotent power hath created all things, and by his divine wisdom and providence governeth the same. I have also declared, that the soul of man is immortal, and to be rewarded or punished everlastingly in heaven or hell, according to his merits or demerits, during this temporal life. Out of which most true assertions, I have gathered, that man oweth God all duty, both in respect of the excellency of his divine Majesty, and also for the benefits received at his most bountiful hands. I have likewise inferred of this, that the eternal estate of our soul, dependeth of the well or evil spending of the moment of this transitory life: that we ought to have a special care to live well and virtuously.  
Now, because the ground of all duty unto God, and the fountain of all true virtue, is true religion, which is defined by Divines to be a virtue, by which man doth give to God worship and reverence: Let us go on and show, where this supreme virtue is to be found, and what sort of people can lay just claim to so noble and precious a treasure. And seeing that man is not only taught and bound by the law of nature itself, to be religious, (from whence it proceedeth that all nations under the heavens, have always adored some God, true or false:) but also cannot possible without this virtue, attain to the final end (I mean the everlasting salvation of his soul) I may well affirm that religion is both a virtue principally to be regarded by mortal men, and that the exercise thereof, is (as it were) the end wherefore a certain time is allotted them to live in this pilgrimage; and also that God almighty (supposing that he will be duly honoured, and served by them in this world, and give every man sufficient means to attain to his chiefest happiness in heaven) cannot suffer at any time true religion, clean to perish or altogether to decay on earth. For if this may be, or could ever have been, God may be, or could have been altogether deprived of his due honour from men: and men likewise void of all means of obtaining their final end. True it is, that man by original sin, committed by his first parents in Paradise, strayed from this final end, and deserved everlasting damnation; but the goodness and mercy of his maker through the merits of our Saviour JESUS Christ, and by faith in him, restored him again although not altogether to his former felicity, yet to possibility of salvation; and consequently through his grace gave him power to serve God in this world, and to enjoy him through all eternity in the next. Of which it followeth, that being so that God hath always required honour and service from man, and left him sufficient means to attain to eternal bliss, that he hath always in like manner in some place or other, been duly served; and in some place or other hath preserved true religion.  
This therefore being presupposed, I think that no man will, or can deny, but true religion from the days of Abraham until the coming of Christ, was to be found among the jews; yea during some ages immediately before his birth, only among them, & such as followed their law and institutions. This is manifest, because God (as I have showed) hath ever been religiously worshipped by some people or other; but no other people can be named, that can make any just challenge to religion, during some ages before Christ, besides the jews: it followeth therefore that the jews had true religion, which may likewise be confirmed by the testimony of holy Scripture, of whose authority before; by divers miracles in them recorded, and sundry prophecies in them contained, now verified; and other arguments. And hence I bring my first reason for the proof of the truth of Christian religion, which I affirm to be the true worship of God. For if it be granted that true religion was in those days among the jews, it must needs also be confessed, that it is now among the Christians. The sequel is evident, because all the Scriptures, ceremonies, figures, and prophecies of the jews manifestly prove, that Christ was the true Messias, promised to their holy patriarchs and Prophets: and consequently, that in his Church only, God is truly honoured and religiously worshipped: and to omit the mystical signification of their ceremonies & figures, the prophecies only contained in the Scriptures, among them even in those days authentical, will sufficiently declare this truth. I will run over some of them briefly, because I need not be long in this matter, seeing it is so excellently well handled, by the author of the Christian directory or resolution, and others of our nation.  
First therefore, Christ was promised by God unto Adam, presently after his fall, 
Genes. 31. vers. 15.  when he said to the Serpent or Devil: The seed of the woman shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait to hurt his seed. Which prophesy was fulfilled, when Christ by his bitter passion conquered the Devil. Secondly, God promised unto Abraham & Isaac at sundry times, that all nations on the earth should be blessed in their seed: 
Genes. 12. v. 18.22.  that is, that all natitions should come to be blessed through Christ, who according to his humanity came from those holy patriarchs. The time likewise in which our Saviour was borne, was that, which was foretold for the birth of the true Messias: for then the government was taken from the tribe of judas, 
Genes. 49. vers. 10.  and given unto Herod a stranger. Wherefore in those days according to the prophesy of jacob, who foretold that the sceptre should not be taken from the house of juda, until the coming of the Messias, even the jews themselves (as I could easily prove) expected their Messias. In like sort, Christ came before the destruction of the second temple of Jerusalem, as was foretold by the Prophet Aggeus. 
Agg. 2.  He suffered after sixty two 
a Dan. 9, 26.  Hebdomadas or weeks of years expired, from the building of the said temple, as was foretold by the Prophet Daniel. He was borne of 
b Isa. 7. v. 14.  a Virgin according to the prophesy of Isay: And that in 
c Mich. 5. v. 1  Bethelem according as it was foretold by the Prophet Micheas. 
d jer. 31. v. 15  Infants were murdered there about, as it was prophesied by jeremy. It was moreover foretold in the book of Numbers, that a 
e Num. 20, 17  star should appear at the birth of the Messias. In the Psalms, and by the Prophet isaiah, that 
f Psal. 71, 10. Isa. 60. v. 6.  Kings should offer up unto him gold & other gifts. By the Prophet Malachi, that he should be 
g Malac. 3, 1.  presented in the temple. By the Prophet Osee, that he should fly 
h Osee 11. v. 2.  into Egypt, and be recalled again: by the Prophet isaiah and Malachi, that a voice of one preaching in the desert, an 
i Isa. 40. v. 3. Malac. 3. v. 1  Angel or forerunner should prepare his way. By the same isaiah, that the Messias should 
k Isa. 29, 8. c. 35, 5. c. 61, 1. ca 53. ver. 4.  work strange miracles, & that he should 
l Dan. 9 v. 24. & 26.  die for the sins of the world: which was foretold by the Prophet Daniel by David in the Psalms, that he should be 
m Ps. 40, 10. Psal. 54, 14. Psal. 108, 8.  betrayed by his own disciple. By Zachary that he should 
n Zach. 9, 9  ride into Jerusalem upon an Ass, and that he should be sold for thirty 
o ca 11. v. 12.  pieces of silver. By isaiah that he should be 
p Isa. 50, v. 6.  beaten, buffeted, and spit on. By David and the same isaiah, that his body should be 
q Ps. 37. v. 18.  torn with whips. Moreover by isaiah that he should be 
r Isa. 53, vers. 2. & 12.  put to death among thieves and malefactors. By David that 
s Ps. 68 v. 22.  vinegar should be given him to drink, his apparel 
t 21. & 19  divided, & lots cast for his upper garment. All which prophecies and divers others concerning almost every particular act and circumstance of any importance, which was to pass in the life of the true Messias, were fulfilled in Christ, as the Evangelists record. But concerning his passion I cannot omit the prophecy of the Patriarch jacob, who foretold that the Messias should wash his 
u Gen. 49, 11.  stole in wine, and his cloak in the blood of grapes, which our redeemer did when he washed his human nature, with which his divinity was cloaked, in his own blood; which he therefore called the blood of grapes, because it was to be veiled under the form of wine in the dreadful Sacrament & sacrifice of the Altar, which 
x Deu. 32.14.  is called in the Scripture the blood of grapes. In like sort the 
y Ps. 106. & 15. vers. 10. Zac. 9 v. 11.  descent of Christ into hell, was foretold by the Prophet David in the Psalms, the Prophet Zachary, & others. His resurrection 
a Psal. 15. vers. 9 Ose. 6. v. 3  the third day by David and Osee: His 
b Psal. 103. & 67.  ascension & sitting on the right hand by the same David: the 
c Isa. 44. vers. 3. joel: 2. vers. 28.  coming of the holy Ghost, by David, and also by the Prophet Isay, and joel. Finally the 
d Gen. 49. v. 10. Ps. 2 v. 8. Ps. 21 67. 71. etc. Isa. 2. v. 2. c. 19 v. 25 27. etc. Osc: 2. v. 1. 24. joel: 2. v. 28. Mal 1. vers. 11. Zach. 2. v. 11. ca 8. v. 20. cap. 9 v. 10. etc.  Gentiles were called to his religion, as the Patriarch jacob, David, Isay, Osee, joel, Malachi, Zacharie, and all the rest of the holy Prophets had long before signified. I omit the promises of the Messias in general, which be infinite through the old Testament; he that will see some of them, may turn to these places: Deut. 18. v. 18. Psal. 2.88.71. jere. 23. v. 5. & 33. Ezech. 34. v. 22.23. Isa. 2. v. 2. ca 4. v. 2. ca 9 v. 6. ca 11. v. 1. ca 35. v. 5. Dan. 9 v. 23. Agg. 2. v. 4. etc. I cannot stand to recite the predictions, that he should be both God and man, which is most evidently delivered unto us; Psal. 109. v. 1. 3. where he is bid sit on the right hand of God, and said to be begotten before Lucifer was created. Isa. 53. v. 8. where it is said, that no man can tell or recount his generation. Isa. 9 v. 6. where the Prophet telleth us, that his name shall be God. jere. 23. v. 6. & cap. 33. v. 16. where he is called jehovah, a name in Scripture only attributed unto God, and in divers other places. And this was necessary for the fulpaiment of the ransom of our redemption: for every man naturally descending from Adam, being a sinner and the enemy of God, & therefore not in case to appease his anger; his actions likewise being finite, proceeding from a creature, and therefore not answerable to man's infinite offence against God, it was needful that he who was to redeem man, should be the friend of God, and both God & man: that through his friendship with God, he might be in case to merit reward, and satisfy for our sins; through his human nature in case to suffer death and other afflictions; and through his divine, his actions might be of infinite price and value. But for the proof of Christian religion, out of the authentical Scriptures and prophecies of the jews, this shall suffice. For a second proof, I allege the prophecies of the 
e See Lact. l. 1. divin. insti. c. 5. l. 4. ca 6. & 15. Aug. lib. 18. de civitate Dei ca 23.  Sibyls, which living before Christ, by the providence of almighty God, foretold his coming to the Gentiles, and many particular circumstances, belonging unto the work of our redemption: as that our Saviour should be God; that he should be borne of a Virgin; that he should cure all infirmities; raise the dead; walk upon the Sea; suffer for our sins, etc.  
The process and increase of Christian religion, yieldeth us a third argument for the proof of this truth. For our Saviour Christ confirmed his doctrine with supernatural miracles, as is recorded by all the four Evangelists: yea 
f josephus lib. 18. de antiquit. c. 4. Euseb li. 1. histor. cap. 11.  josephus himself a jew is a witness of the same, as also of his resurrection. His Apostles and Disciples after his ascension, wrought the like miracles; and this gift (according as he foretold) hath always remained with their successors: yea, all the prophecies of Christ concerning things to come, have hitherto been fulfilled. The Church by him founded, hath miraculously dilated, and spread itself throughout the whole world, not by force of arms, nor by rhetorical persuasions, but by God's mighty protection and assistance; She hath been persecuted (as he foretold) but could never be overcome, she hath always had the victory over the gates of hell, and continued glorious to this day in despite of Emperors, Kings, Iewes Pagans, Heretics, and other enemies, which have sought her overthrow. And here occurreth another argument, approving the same: to wit, that extreme miseries, and calamities by the just judgement of God, have commonly fallen upon the enemies & persecutors of Christ and Christian religion. Let us behold some of them in particular. Herod 
g josephus lib. 17. antiq. ca 10. & lib. 1. de bell. judaico: ca 21.  Ascolonita, who persecuted Christ in his infancy (as josephus a jew recordeth) after great misery endured, went about to murder himself and had effected it, had not his hand been stayed, by some near about him. Herod 
h joseph. l. 18. antiq. c. 9 & lib. 2. de bello jud. ca 8.  Antipas, who beheaded S. john Baptist, and scorned our Saviour a little before that he was crucified, was first deposed by Caius the Emperor, then banished to Lions in France, and afterwards to the inhabitable places of Spain, where abandoned by all men, he ended his life. Herod 
i Act. 12. joseph. li. 19 antiq. cap. 7.  Agrippa, who put to death S. james the brother of S. john the Evangelist, and imprisoned S. Peter, was soon after in a public assembly strooken from heaven with a most horrible disease, and died eaten up with louse: yea according to the testimony of josephus, the whole 
k joseph. ibid. li. 18. cap. 7.  stock of Herod although then most ample, within scutcheon years was rooted out. Pilate, 
l Eutrop. l. 7. histor. Eus. lib. 2. cap. 7. hist.  after great disgrace received from the Emperor, murdered himself, as we read in Eutropius and Eusebius. The jews themselves, fell into most 
m Philo: in lib. de legate. sua ad Cajum. joseph. in li. de bell. jud.  extreme miseries, in all places by them inhabited, throughout the whole Roman Empire, as Philo and josephus their countrymen being eye witnesses abundantly testify. Before that the city of Jerusalem was besieged by Titus, son of Vespasian the Emperor, 
n Ios. li. 2. de bell. judaic. c. 17. lib. 6. c. 1.12.8.9.7.  an hundred thousand were slain, and almost forty thousand sold. After the siege of the city began, Titus crucified every day five hundred of those that fled out of the city for famine. During the time of the whole war, 
o Ios. lib. 7. de bell. judaic. cap. 28.11.17.20.  ninety and seven thousand, were taken captives, and eleven hundred thousand by one means or other lost their lives. Finally their temple and city was burnt, and overthrown. The like punishment hath fallen upon the Roman Emperors, who have been Christ's enemies. Nero, who first began the tragedy, being 
a Sueton. c. 23. Dio. in Nerone.  cast down into great distress, murdered himself. Domitian, hated of all men for his cruelty, was 
b Suet. ca 17. Dio. in Domitian.  slain by a private man. Hadrian before that he died fell into such misery, through divers diseases, that he 
c Philost. lib. 8.  wished for one that would kill him. Severus being often put in danger of his life, by his own son Antoninus, who as he thought intended also to murder his other son Geta, taking thought & grief came to his end. 
d Lampridius.  Alexander was murdered in Germany. 
e Trebellius.  Maximinus, Gallus, Volusianus, and Gallienus, received their deaths from their own soldiers. 
f Euseb. in hist. lib. 7. cap. 1.  Decius not having reigned two years, lost his life in war against the Goths. 
g Eus. l. 7. ca 9 Trebel. & alij Constantius in orat. ad sancto. coetum c. 24 see Euseb. in vita Const. li. 4. c. 11.  Valerianus by treason was delivered into the hands of his enemy the King of Persia, who for a time used him for a footstool to go to his horse, afterward he flayed him alive, and powdered him with salt. Aurelianus strooken from heaven with thunder, soon after was murdered by his own company. 
h Vopisous.  Dioclesianus, and Maximianus Herculeus, because they could not, according to their endeavours prevail against the Church of Christ, and root out all Christianity, gave over the rule of the Empire. Of them the 
i Panegir. 4. victor.  first lived so long as a private man, until he saw Christian religion flourish under Constantine the great, than he died miserably according to Eusebius, but Victor saith that he was reported to have poisoned himself; 
k Euseb. li. 8. ca 18. & 29.  Maximianus afterwards either was hanged or hanged himself. Gallerius Maximianus being strooken by God with a most horrible disease, was forced before his death to recall his own & other edicts, made against Christians. Maximinus likewise being overcome by Licinius, recalled such edicts in the East: and taken moreover with a most strange disease, his eyes falling out of his head, died miserably, confessing that such calamities fell upon him for his cruelty used against Christians. Licinius was put to death by Constantine the great. julian the Apostata in battle against the Persians, strooken from heaven with a dart, blaspheming Christ as author of his death, yielded up the ghost. And these were the principal Heathen Emperors that have persecuted our religion: to whom I add two Arrian Emperors, Constantius, and Valens, who impugned the divinity of Christ, and persecuted Catholics for professing him to be equal and consubstantial to his Father; 
l Hier. ep. ad Heliodor. Victor Amianus, & others.  Of them the first died miserably in a country village, marching against julian the Apostata: 
m Hie. Ruffel & others.  The other having received the overthrow from the Goths, was burned by them alive in a country house.  
These calamities & miseries, as every man must needs confess were extraordinary, and fell upon these men for some sin or misdemeanour of theirs. And seeing that commonly they fell upon all the persecutors of Christian religion, and commonly upon no others, it is evident that their persecution of the Church of Christ, was the cause of their said miseries and calamities. I could add divers other reasons, convincing Christian religion to be the true worship of God; as that most wise men, and most profound and deep Scholars, most expert in all sciences, and most perfect in those languages, which seem most needful to attain to the knowledge of true religion, have approved and embraced Christian doctrine. I could also bring another argument, taken from the purity and sanctity of the said religion, and generally of all the true professors of the same: others taken from the absurdity of all those, that can make any challenge to this prerogative, from the testimony of the professors of divers other sects, etc. But I should be overlong, only I will add against the jews, who had the truth among them before the coming of Christ, that presently after the promulgation of our religion, they fell into most gross and fantastical opinions: yea held and taught most execrable blasphemies, concerning God himself, & other matters of faith: as that God doth weep, bewail, shed tears, and knock his breast for sorrow; that he hath so punished them, that he prayeth upon his knees; that he sinned in taking unjustly light from the Sun, and giving it to the Moon; that he hath been deceived by some Rabbins; that he studieth the law of Moses; that souls pass from one body to another; and much other such like damnable doctrine, which every man may see approved in their Talmud, 
See Andraeas Masius in c. 5. joshua. v. 10. Eugubinus in Exo. c. 12.  a book as highly esteemed by them all, as the old Testament itself, for they profess in the title of the said book, that whosoever denieth it, denieth God himself. Nay, I add further against them, that in this their Talmud itself, it is delivered as an ancient & famous tradition, that their Messias was to restore them to liberty, on the same month and day of the year, on which they were delivered from the bondage of Egypt; which tradition most aptly agreeth to the time on which our Lord suffered, as every Christian knoweth. And of this matter, this shall suffice.  
Out of the discourse of this chapter, I likewise infer, that no other religion in the world besides the Christian is true, or doth truly worship God, which is manifest, both because no other followeth the precepts and doctrine of Christ the redeemer of mankind: and also because our Saviour abolished all former laws, except the law of nature; yea he abrogated even the law of Moses itself, which was received from God; and according to the predictions of the holy Prophet, instituted one only law, and through the merits of his bitter passion, established one only Church, which only possesseth true religion, and prescribeth according to his institution the true worship of God: And this I think no man that believeth Christian religion to be true, will deny.   

Chapter 4. That among Christians, they only that profess and embrace the Catholic faith and religion, are in state of salvation, and do truly worship God.  
IN the chapter next before, I have declared that the true worship of God, and true religion, is only to be found among Christians: now I go further, and affirm that all Christians cannot truly challenge to themselves these inestimable treasures; but that they are due only to us Catholics. Before this I have disputed against Atheists, Infidels, jews, and other external enemies of Christ, and therefore I used not any arguments taken out of the new Testament, which they with one consent reject: now I am to deal with Heretics, who pretend themselves to be Christians, but have departed out of Christ's fold, yet admit of the authority of sundry books, not only of the old, but also of the new Testament; and therefore against these, I will allege as occasion shall serve divers sentences out of the said books by them admitted. And to proceed orderly in this matter, I will bring my whole discourse to certain principal conclusions, of which although some be partly already proved against external Infidels; yet I will briefly prove them again out of the new Testament, against Heretics.  
First therefore, that Christ is the redeemer of all mankind, and that by his bitter passion and painful death, he hath satisfied for all our sins, if we please to apply his merits to our souls, 
1. Io. 2, 2. 1. Io. 1, 7. 1. Cor. 6. vers. 20. Eph. 2, 13. Col. 1, 14. Heb. 9, 11.  every Christian must needs confess: for this is most plainly affirmed in the holy Scripture, in which it is said, that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world: that his blood doth cleanse us from all sins: and that we are bought and redeemed with his precious blood. It must likewise be granted by all Christians, that Christ by his infinite merits purchased to himself a Church on earth: that is to say, established a new religion, and a new law among men; ordained Apostles, Pastors, Governors of his flock; instituted new Sacraments, by which his faithful people through his merits were to receive forgiveness of sins, and his grace in this world, and everlasting glory if they deserved it, in the next. This likewise even in as plain words is delivered unto us in the said word of God: in which we read, that Christ purchased his Church with his blood; 
Act. 20. vers. 28. Ephes. 5, 25, & 26.  that he loved her, and delivered himself to death for her to sanctify her, cleansing her with the laver of water in the word of life, that he might present to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle. And all this is also manifest by reason: for what other cause can be assigned, of the incarnation & passion of Christ, but the redemption of man, & the erecting of a Church and religion, which may guide him to everlasting salvation?  
Out of these two assertions I gather a third, to wit: that there is but one true Church of Christ, in which true religion is only to be found among Christians; and consequently that they only, who are members of this Church, truly worship God, and are in state of grace in this world, and in the right way to eternal bliss in the next. And first, that Christ hath but one true Church on earth, it is evident; because he according to his own assertion, is the way, and the verity, and the life. 
joh. 13. vers. 6.  Wherefore like as there is but one life Christ, who by his bitter passion redeemed all mankind from everlasting death, and giveth man true life in heaven: so this one life ordained one only way and truth, whereby to attain to the said life and salvation, erecting one only Church, unto which the fruit & merit of his passion should be derived. Like as therefore, God made first but one man Adam and one woman Eve, who were the corporal or carnal father and mother of the transitory life of all mankind: so he hath constituted but one spiritual father Christ, and one spiritual mother, which is his only Spouse the Church, who are the spiritual parents of the spiritual life of his true children. Moreover, like as God hath given one only corporal body, although adorned with variety of members, to one head to be governed: so he hath framed one only mystical body, for one mystical head which is Christ, which he only as supreme head directeth and governeth. 
Cant. 2. vers. 6. Ephes. 4. vers. 2.  Hence we are told by Solomon in the Canticles, that the Dove of Christ is one perfect, and chosen to her mother. The Apostle likewise telleth us, that there is one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism; and consequently one Church. Finally, whosoever affirmeth that Christ hath erected more Churches than one, impugneth all sense and reason, seeing that unity is to be preferred before division and discord; and no cause can be assigned, why two Churches should be founded. Of this it also followeth, that out of the one Church of Christ there is no salvation. For if our blessed Saviour by his death established one only Church, it is evident that they only are partakers of his holy merits, who are members of that Church, and that they only are in the true way to salvation, who embrace that doctrine and religion, which is taught and prescribed in the said Church. Hence proceedeth that famous sentence of S. Cyprian, 
Cipr. de unitate Ecclesiae. c. 5.  who affirmeth that he that is not a member of Christ his Church, notwithstanding all his good works and endeavours otherwise, shall never come to enjoy the promised rewards of Christ in heaven: He is an alien, he is profane, he is an enemy (saith he) he cannot have God for his Father, who hath not the Church for his Mother. The same sentence is pronounced almost in the self same words by S. Augustine, 
Aug. tom. 9 de Simbol. lib. 4. cap. 10. Aug. de unitat. Eccles. c. 19  who avoucheth that he shall not have God his Father, who refuseth to have the Church for his Mother. And this in an other place he proveth, because no man cometh to salvation, and life everlasting, but he that hath Christ his head: and no man can have Christ his head, but he that is in his body the Church, of 
a Ephes. 5. vers. 23.  which according to the Apostle he is Saviour. This also moved Lactantius to discourse after this sort of the excellency and prerogatives of the Church: his words are these. 
b Lact. lib. 4. divin. Inst. c. vlt.  It is the Catholic Church only (so he termeth the Church of Christ) that keepeth the true worship of God, this is the fountain of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God: Into which whosoever doth not enter, or out of which whosoever doth departed, he is an alien & stranger from the hope of everlasting life and salvation. No man must by obstinate contention flatter himself, for it standeth upon life and salvation: Thus far Lactantius. And this was long since figured by the ark of Noah, which only saved the men in it contained from the general deluge; wherefore in S. Cyprian we find this sentence. 
Cipr. de unitat. Eccles. ca 5.  If any man could escape that was without the ark of No: he also may escape that is out of the Church. These and such like considerations induce all those that profess themselves Christians, of what religion or sect soever they be, to challenge to themselves the true Church of Christ. This challenge is made by them, that profess the Roman faith; it is made by the Lutherans; it is made by the Zwinglians; it is made by the English Protestants, by the Caluinists or Puritans, by the Anabaptists, by the Libertines; it is made finally by all new Sectaries, and hath ever been made by all Heretics, since the beginning of Christian religion. And although the multitude of challengers, with their false and painted reasons, make some doubtful who of all these have right and a just title, to the thing challenged: yet certain it is, and most easily to be proved, that the first challengers only (who through the whole world are termed Catholics) have justice and right on their side.  
The proof of this would ask a long discourse, of the definition and notes of the Church; but in this present treatise, I purpose only to declare, that we Catholics only have true faith, and build our said faith and religion upon most sure and firm grounds: Contrariwise that all sectaries are bereaved of this supernatural gift, and build their whole belief and religion upon their own fancies. Hereafter (if it please God) shall follow a more ample discourse of the definition and notes of the true Church.  
One reason which moved me to take this course is, that the principal controversy between us and our adversaries, is concerning matters of faith; which is manifest, because we condemn them of heresy, which proceedeth of misbelief in faith: for he that erreth not in faith may be a Schismatic, but he cannot be an Heretic; wherefore if I prove that we Catholics have true faith, and that our adversaries have no faith, the controversy between us and them, is after some sort decided. another reason is, because faith doth especially incorporate us in the Church, and make us members of the same: It is the link and glue, yea the sinnewe which uniteth and bindeth us to this body: It is the root and foundation of all true religion and justification. 
a joh. 3, 18 Marc. 16. vers. 16.  He that believeth not, according to the verdict of our Saviour, is already judged, and shall be condemned and damned; 
b Hebr. 11. vers. 6.  without faith (saith the Apostle) it is impossible to please God. Wherefore by S. john Chrisostome, 
c Chrisost. in serm. de Fide, Spe & Charit.  faith is called the offspring of justice, the head of sanctity, the beginning of devotion, and the ground of religion. By S. Ciril Bishop of Jerusalem, 
d Ciril catech. 5.  and eye lighting every conscience, and causing understanding. By the other Ciril Bishop of Alexandria, 
e Ciril l. 4. in joan. c. 9  the door and way to life, also a certain leading or bringing home again from corruption to immortality. With the like titles it is honoured 
f Aug. ser. 38. de Tempore.  by S. Augustine and other holy Fathers. Like as therefore, no material house or Castle can be erected without a foundation first laid, upon which all the burden of the work may rest: so no spiritual edifice can be built in the soul of man without faith, the ground of all spiritual works. Hence S. Athanasius that great pillar of Christ's Church beginneth his Creed, which is received by the whole Church, with this notable and famous sentence. Whosoever will be saved before all things, it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith, which except every man shall keep wholly and not corrupted, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. This is the censure of that holy Father. The reason of this is, because we cannot attain to a certain knowledge of the first grounds and principles of Christian religion (they being supernatural) by the force of our natural and weak understanding; wherefore a supernatural knowledge of them being requisite, it is necessary that this be done by supernatural faith, which giveth us power, and lifting up our understanding, maketh us able to believe them, because they are revealed by God; and of this necessity & excellency of faith it followeth, that without it there can be no true Church or religion: for how can the true Church or true religion be, without the ground and foundation of all true virtue and Christianity? Contrariwise, where true faith is found, there is the principal ground of true religion; of which I infer, that if I prove the new sectaries to have no faith, I likewise prove them to have no church nor religion: but on the other side, if I prove our faith to be true, I prove also that the ground of all religion is among us, and consequently, that if we build hope and charity upon this foundation, we are members of the true Church, truly religious, and in the sure way to everlasting salvation. Let us therefore briefly behold both our grounds and theirs, and according to the strength or weakness of them, decide the whole controversy between us. But to proceed the more plainly and distinctly, I will first add a word or two, of the nature and conditions of true faith.   

Chapter 5. Of the definition and conditions of true faith.  

SECTION THE FIRST.  
FAITH is a virtue infused by God into our understanding, by the help and force of which, we give a most firm assent unto all those things, which are revealed by God to the Church; because they are so revealed. Wherefore, although a Christian should believe never so firmly, any article of his faith upon any other ground, than the authority of almighty God who hath revealed it: yet he should not have faith, because faith biddeth us believe such articles, not because reason or any other such motive, persuadeth us that they are true; but because God (who being the first verity and truth itself cannot deceive) hath so said and revealed.  
But for the better declaration of this definition or description, & the nature itself of faith, let us treat of it a little more at large; and first show, that the act of faith is a most firm, and certain assent of the understanding: secondly, that it is of things surpassing the reach of natural reason, and consequently obscure: Thirdly, that by it we believe such mysteries, as have been revealed unto the Church by God: Fourthly, that it must needs be built upon divine authority: last., that it is necessary that the articles of our faith be propounded unto us by some infallible authority; and that the propounder of them is the holy Catholic Church.   

SECTION THE SECOND. That faith is a most firm assent of the understanding.  
TO begin therefore with the first, that the act of faith is a most firm assent of the understanding to the thing believed, without any doubt or fear of falsehood or staggering, the Apostle himself testifieth in this his description of faith: 
Hebr. 11. vers. 1.  Faith (saith he) is the substance of things to be hoped for, the argument of things not appearing. That is to say, faith is the substance or ground of hope, a certain argument or conviction, and most firm persuasion of the understanding, through the authority of God, of things not appearing to our senses, or not known by natural reason. Verily, that the word argument in this place, doth not signify every kind of argument, but an argument certain and infallible, the greek word itself which is here used, declareth. Wherefore 
a Aug. tom. 9 tract. 89 in joan. tom. 7. de peccat. merit. & remiss. l. 2. ca 31. 2. Pet. 1. vers. 19  S. Augustine in place of the word argument, useth the word conviction; affirming faith to be a most firm proof and demonstration of things not appearing. Hence S. Peter having declared, that he saw with his eyes the glory of Christ in his transfiguration, and heard with his ears the voice of God the Father, addeth these words: And we have the prophetical word more sure. By which he doth insinuate unto us, that the knowledge of holy mysteries by faith in the Scripture, is more certain than the knowledge which we receive by the benefit of our senses: 
Basil. in ps 115. & in moral. reg. 80. ca 21.  which (perhaps) moved S. Basil to affirm, that no knowledge in us is so firm and certain as faith. And the reason of this is, because (as I will prove in the fift section) faith is built upon the infallible authority of God.   

SECTION THE THIRD. Faith is of things incomprehensible by natural reason, and consequently obscure.  
THE Divines most truly affirm, that the object or subject of our supernatural faith, is God as God; because all things which by it are known and believed, tend to this, that by supernatural and revealed grounds, we attain to as full a knowledge of him, as can by us be had in this life. Wherefore I may well say, that by faith we believe mysteries above our reason, although none contrary to our reason: for faith only leadeth reason further than of itself it can reach, and maketh it stoop, and submit itself to the most certain revelation of God, notwithstanding that he doth manifest unto it mysteries, which in some sort seem to resist our sense and reason. This is signified unto us in the description of faith, even now alleged out of the Apostle, by those words (of things not appearing) for like as 
a Rom. 8. vers. 24.  hope (according to the same Apostle) that is seen, is no hope. For that which man seethe (saith he) wherefore doth he hope? So faith of things seen and most certainly known by natural reason, is not faith. For that which a man seethe & knoweth, how can he believe? Neither do those words of our 
b joh. 20. vers. 29.  Saviour to S. Thomas the Apostle (because thou hast seen me, Thomas thou hast believed) make against this. For S. Thomas 
c Greg. ho. 26. in evang.  (as S. Gregory noteth) saw one thing and believed an other; he saw Christ's humanity and believed his divinity. For this cause further the Apostle above cited telleth us, 
d Rom. 10. vers. 17. Hebr. 11. vers. 3.  that faith is by hearing, and that by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, etc. S. Augustine also avoucheth, that 
e Aug. tra. 79. in joan.  the praise of faith standeth in this, that the thing be not seen which is believed. 
f Aug. tra. 43. in joan.  For what a great thing is it (saith he) if that be believed which is seen? Again, faith is to believe, that which thou seest not; truth, to see that which thou hast believed: yea S. Athanasius plainly telleth us, 
Athanas. tract. de advent. count Apol. 1. Cor. 13. vers. 12.  that faith conceived of an evident matter, cannot be called faith. Hence it proceedeth that faith is obscure, and cannot be found in heaven, where all things are seen most clearly. We see (saith the Apostle) now by a glass in dark sort, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know, as also I am known. And this obscurity of faith, proceedeth aswell from the height, and sublimity of the mysteries themselves revealed, which are without the compass of our natural reason: as also from the feebleness and weakness of our understanding, which in this life being tied to our corporal senses, cannot clearly apprehend things spiritual; but only after a dim sort by things visible, cometh to some small apprehension of things invisible. God likewise would have it so, not only to manifest unto us his own Majesty, and that he will be believed at his word: but also for man's greater humiliation and merit.  
But although the object of faith so far surpass our reason, and by this means cause obscurity in our understanding; yet certain it is, that God (if he would) might have so declared and apparently proved the mysteries of our faith, that the truth of them might have been far more manifest than it is: yea he might have made it so apparent, that no man of sense could have denied them. As for example: Christ might (if it had pleased him) have appeared after his resurrection to the whole City of Jerusalem: yea to the whole world; and by force of miracles, persuasions, and other such like motives, have presently made Christian faith seem evidently true, to every man's eye. So likewise at this present it is in his power, to do for the manifestation of the truth of Catholic religion; wherefore then did he not in old time, and doth he not now proceed after this manner? wherefore leaveth he the object of faith (in this sense also) environed with some obscurity? I answer, that most certain it is, that every man hath or may have if he please, sufficient motives and reasons, to persuade him to embrace the true religion, and believe the whole sum of christian doctrine. For God requireth only at our hands (as the Apostle termeth it) a reasonable obsequy or obedience. Nevertheless he hath not used, 
Rom. 11.  nor doth use all means possible to manifest the truth, that man may merit the more by concurring by his free will, aided with God's grace to the belief of such mysteries, sufficiently (although not so fully as was possible) proved to be revealed by God himself. For the more reason and proof that the will hath to persuade her, the less thanks she deserveth for obeying; and so much the less reward shall be reaped by man in heaven, by how much the stronger arguments he hath to move his understanding to believe; because one only argument infallibly proving any article to be revealed by God, is sufficient to make it the object of faith, although the matter seem never so obscure; yea, although it seem (in some sort) repugnant to the ordinary course and nature of sensible creatures: and thus much of the second point.   

SECTION THE FOURTH. By true Christian faith we believe such mysteries, as God hath revealed to his Church.  
THIRDLY I am to prove, that by faith we believe such mysteries, as it hath pleased the divine Majesty of God to reveal unto his Church; and this likewise is easily proved out of the foresaid description of faith, delivered unto us by the Apostle. For what other things are those, which not appearing to our senses and understanding, faith causeth us to believe, but the articles of our faith? and what do these contain, but such mysteries as God hath revealed to his Church? yet lest the perverse humour of any man, might otherwise understand his words, he hath added soon after, that by the faith by him described, we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God: that by this faith Noah built the ark, etc. which effects cannot be attributed to any other faith, then to that by which we believe the articles of Christian religion.  
But because our adversaries seem so much to impugn this doctrine, let us prove the same out of other places of the new Testament: and first out of these words of our Saviour to his Apostles, 
Mar. 16. v. 15.16.  going into the whole world preach the Gospel to all creatures. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be condemned: In which (as we see) commission is given to the Apostles to preach the Gospel. And what Gospel? truly no other, but the whole sum of Christian doctrine, touching the incarnation, life, passion, resurrection, ascension, & other articles of Christian belief. This Gospel the Apostles preached, and (as it was then foretold by Christ in the words immediately following) confirmed with miracles. And whosoever believeth this Gospel and is baptized (if to his faith his actions be agreeable) shall be saved; contrariwise who believeth it not shall be damned: wherefore, this faith concurreth to our justification, and consequently is that faith which is required in all Christians. This faith our Lord and redeemer highly commended and rewarded in the holy Apostle S. Peter, 
Math. 16. vers. 16.17. etc.  when as for confessing him to be Christ the son of the living God, he pronounced him blessed, and promised to build the Church upon him, and to give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. This faith and no other was in S. Martha, when to our Saviour saying: I am the resurrection and the life, 
joh. 11. vers. 25.  he that believeth in me although he be dead shall live, & every one that liveth, & believeth in me shall not die for ever, believest thou this? she said to him; yea Lord I have believed that thou art Christ the son of God that art come into this world. And consequently, this is the faith which maketh us live for ever, and preserveth us from eternal death. This faith was in S. Thomas the Apostle, when touching the wounds of our Saviour after his resurrection, he cried out my Lord, and my God. Of which I infer, 
joh. 20. v. 28. etc.  that they are pronounced by Christ blessed, that are endued with this faith: when he replied to his said Apostle. Blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed. 
Act. 2. v. 4.10.13.17.  This faith and no other S. Peter and S. Paul preached to the people, as appeareth in their sermons recorded in the acts of the Apostles. This faith S. Philip before baptism required in the Eunuch, saying: Lo water, who doth let me to be baptized? S. Philip answered: 
Act. 8. vers. 36.  If thou believe with all thy heart, thou mayest, and the Eunuch replied: I believe that jesus Christ is the son of God, upon which confession he received that holy Sacrament. 
Rom. 4. vers. 22. Ibid. v. 19  By this faith Abraham (as the Apostle testifieth) was justified, for it was reputed him to justice, that he believed God promising him, that he should be the father of many nations, and that not considering (to use the Apostles words) his own body now quite dead, and the dead matrice of Sara, he staggered not by distrust, but according to the promise of God, expected a son. This word of faith, the same Apostle (according to his own testimony) preached to the world, 
Rom. 10. vers. 8.9. 1. Cor. 15. ver. 3. etc. 1. joh. 5. v. 1.4. & 5. joh. 3. ver. 36.  that who confesseth with his mouth our Lord jesus Christ, and in his heart believeth that God hath raised him up from the dead, shall be saved. This Gospel he delivered, that Christ died for our sins, that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day etc. Whosoever (saith S. john) believeth that jesus is Christ, is borne of God: again, this is the victory which overcometh the world, our faith; who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that jesus is the son of God? Hitherto S. john the Evangelist. And this is to believe in the son of God, which who doth (according unto Christ's words) hath life everlasting. 
joh. 20. vlt.  Finally, to cause in our souls this faith, S. john (as he witnesseth himself, and consequently also the other three Evangelists) wrote his Gospel. These things (saith he) are written, that you may believe that jesus is Christ the son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. All which sentences of holy Scripture, and divers others which I could produce, most evidently demonstrate, that the divinity, incarnation, passion, and resurrection of Christ, and other such articles revealed by God unto the Church, are the object of that faith which concurreth to our justification, and is the root and foundation of all justice, and true religion. Hence in the Creed of the Apostles, (which as 
a Aug. ser. 115. de tempore.  S. Augustine censureth it) is a plain, brief, and full comprehension of our faith; we profess ourselves to believe these articles. Of which Creed, mention is not only in the said 
b Aug. ibi. & ser. 181  S. Augustine; but also in 
c Amb. ep. 81. ad Siricium.  S. Ambrose, 
d Hier. ep. ad Pama. adversus joan. Hieroso.  S. Hierome, 
e Leo epi. 13. ad Pultheriam, & ser. 11. de Pass.  S. Leo and divers others.  
If I should endeavour to recite all the testimonies of the ancient Fathers to the same effect, I should never make an end: for all of them discourse of no other object of faith then this, and require only in Christians, the belief of the articles of our faith mentioned. See Ireneus lib. 1. ca 2. 3. & 4. adversus haereses. Tertul. lib. adversus Praxeam. S. Basil. in orat. de confess. fidei, where he telleth us, that the faith necessary to salvation and justification, is that, by which we believe those things which God hath revealed. The same is taught by S. Ciril Bishop of Jerusalem: Cateches. 5. & 18. By S. Leo serm. 4. de Epiphania .. This faith and no other is explicated as necessary to salvation, by S. Gregory Nazianzene, orat. in sanctum lavacrum extrema, & in tract. de fide Nicena: By S. Chrisostome, in duabus homilijs de simbolo: By S. Augustine, lib. de fide & simbolo, in lib. de Genes. imperfecto, cap. 1. & in Enchirid. per multa capita, and divers others: but of this matter enough.   

SECTION THE FIFT. That true faith is built upon divine authority.  
I NEED not use many words for the proof of the fourth point: to wit, that true faith ought to be built upon divine authority, because this is easily gathered out of that which hath been already said: for if faith be a most firm and certain assent of the understanding to things above the reach of reason, and the object of it be the mysteries of our belief; it must needs follow, that the authority of almighty God (whose knowledge and wisdom are infinite, and whose sayings are of infallible truth) must cause us to believe the said mysteries. If any will deny this, I will demand of him, how we can possibly attain to a certain knowledge of so high mysteries, but by the revelation of God? and this is that which all Christians commonly profess, when as being demanded why they believe this and that; they answer, because God hath revealed such doctrine.  
I confess, that men are commonly first induced to faith by certain reasons, which the Divines call arguments of credibility: such are miracles, which proceeding from God, can give no testimony to falsehood; the authority, wisdom, learning, and consent of the professors of our religion in all ages since it began; the strange manner of the propagation of our said religion being so strict, throughout the whole world by a few fishermen; the miraculous preservation of our Church, oppugned by so divers and mighty enemies; the constancy of our Martyrs; the great change to the better, which our religion causeth in those that embrace it; the purity of doctrine and sanctity of life shining in the Prelates and Children of our Church; the conformity of our faith with natural reason, in not being contrary to it, although above it, and other motives, which I have related in the third Chapter of this treatise, which make the object of faith (in the judgement of any prudent man) credible, and of which, either one, some, or all, induce men first to believe. But all these arguments are only inducements to the true act of supernatural faith, by which the mysteries of our belief are afterwards believed; not for any such reasons, but only because they are revealed by God. This moved Saint Basil to describe faith after this sort: 
Basilius in ser. de fidei confess. sive de vera & pia fide in Asceticis.  Faith (saith he) is an assenting approbation of those things, which through the benefit of God have been preached: thus Saint Basil. Hence I infer, that although faith and also other arguments, have the same effect in our understanding; which is, to make it give a firm assent to some verity, which is done by sundry arguments, especially by such as are called demonstrations: yet, there is this difference between such arguments and faith, that they do this through evidence of the matter: faith doth it through the authority of the revealer, leaving still the matter obscure. And this doctrine is consonant to that of Divines, who hold the first and supreme verity of God, to be the formal object of our faith: the sense of which their assertion is, that the chief reason or cause, on which (as on a foundation) the habit of our faith relieth and resteth, and into which, both it and the assent of it proceeding, is lastly resolved, is the divine and infallible revelation of God, or (which is all one) God infallibly revealing some truth by some Canonical writer, or other lawful definer of faith; of which it followeth, that faith of his own nature doth assent to no proposition, which is not propounded by divine revelation.   

SECTION THE sixth. Besides the revelation of God, some infallible propounder of the articles of our faith is necessary: and that they are propounded unto us by the Catholic Church.  
IN the precedent sections of this Chapter I have declared, that faith is a most firm assent of the understanding, to such mysteries as God hath revealed to all Christians to be believed. Now I must further lay this most certain and undoubted ground to this, that (according to the ordinary proceed of God, besides the revelation by him heretofore made of the mysteries of Christian belief) by the habit of faith we give assent to the articles revealed: it is also necessary, that the said articles be propounded unto us by some infallible authority, assuring us that they are so delivered. This reason itself teacheth us: for seeing that Christ hath withdrawn his visible presence from us, and he himself immediately after a sensible manner instructeth no man, but all by some common rule or means: seeing also that the revelation of such mysteries is obscure, and no man by the strength and force of natural reason can assure himself, that such and such articles have been revealed; it was necessary that God should ordain some infallible authority to be the Mistress of faith, which might infallibly teach the truth in all such matters doubtful: neither had he otherwise sufficiently provided us means necessary for our everlasting salvation. I add also, that although it were so that we were certain at the beginning of our belief, of such a revelation: yet, that the weakness & inconstancy of our understanding is such, that without a sure guide and director, it easily erreth and strayeth from the truth received. This notwithstanding, we make not this proposition or propounding of such verities as are revealed by God, any essential part of the formal object of faith; of which I have spoken before; for we affirm such mysteries in themselves, before any such proposition, to be credible and worthy of belief: but because this is unknown to us, we require such a proposition only as a necessary condition to this, that we infallibly know that they are so revealed; which must of necessity be known, before that we can actually assent unto them by supernatural faith.  
What infallible authority then have we (without all fear and doubt of falsehood) assuring us that all the articles of our faith have been thus revealed by God? Verily no other, but the Spouse of Christ our Mother the Church, whom our Lord hath made our Mistress and guide in such matters.  
And truly, that we are to learn our belief of the Prelates and Pastors of the Church, we are abundantly taught by the sacred word of God. For first, the Apostle S. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans discoursing of this point, useth these words: 
Rom. 10. vers. 14.  How shall they believe whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? as though he should say: No man can attain to the knowledge and belief of the articles of faith, except by some preacher they be propounded unto him. And that these preachers are the Prelates and Pastors of the Church, it is manifest; because they are the true successors of the Apostles, who in the beginning of Christianity, from Christ received authority & commandment, 
Mar. 16. vers. 15. jere. 3. vers. 15.  to teach all nations through out the whole world. For the proof likewise of this truth it maketh, that in the old Testament God promised, that in the new he would give us Pastors according to his own heart, who should feed us in knowledge and doctrine. Moreover, like as in the old law he pronounced this sentence of the sons of Aaron. 
Malac. 2. vers. 7.  The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall require the law of his mouth: so of the Bishops and Priests of the new, who are to enjoy as great (if not a greater) prerogative, the Apostle telleth us, 
Ephes. 4. vers. 11.  that our Lord hath given (and ever will give, as long as the world shall stand) some Pastors and Doctors in his Church to direct us, that we be not carried away with every wind of doctrine. And hence proceedeth this notable sentence of the holy Father S. Ireneus, who for Christian religion suffered Martyrdom about the year of Christ two hundred and five: 
Iren. li. 3. cap. 4.  We ought not (saith he) to seek among others the truth, which we may easily take and receive from the Church; seeing that the Apostles have most fully laid up in her (as into a rich treasure house, or place where the Depositum of the Church is kept: of which hereafter) all things which are of truth; that every man that will, may take out of her the drink of life. For this is the entrance of life, but all the rest are thieves and robbers: for which cause they are verily to be avoided. But those things which are of the Church, are with great diligence to be loved, and the tradition of truth is to be received: Hitherto S. Ireneus. We say therefore, that by the Church we learn as certainly, what mysteries have been revealed by Christ; as we should do by our Lord himself if he were conversant with us on earth: and the truth of this will be made most apparent, by the discourse of the next Chapter following.    

Chapter 6. Of the supreme and infallible authority of the Catholic Church.  

SECTION THE FIRST.  
MY principal intent in this treatise, is (as I have before declared) to prove, that we Catholics only have true faith, and that all Sectaries are bereaved of this supernatural virtue: wherefore having set down and made evident, in the Chapter next before, the nature and conditions of true faith, it remaineth that I now begin in particular to discourse of these points. And seeing that it is of the essence of faith, that it be most assuredly built upon divine authority: let us first behold the grounds of the Catholic Roman belief, and see whether they are able to make a sufficient foundation for such a faith, in the followers of that religion; then let us do the like concerning the grounds of the new Sectaries. But first I must note, that although (as I have proved before) we must truly say, that we know infallibly the mysteries of our faith to be revealed by God; because we are so taught by the Church: yet, that her authority is not limited to the decision of this matter only, for it extendeth itself also to the definition of all particular matters of faith, and may have for her object the verities themselves revealed. It also condemneth heresies and prescribeth general precepts of manners touching good and ill: wherefore the ancient Catholic buildeth upon her authority, not only his faith touching the point mentioned; but also (in some sort) his whole belief, and consequently all his internal virtues grounded upon the same. He relieth likewise on her doctrine for his external carriage, concerning virtue and vice; and finally accepteth all her faith as infallibly revealed by God himself, who hath made her supreme judge of all controversies touching matters of religion, and assured us that her judgement is not only certain and infallible; but also (through the perpetual assistance and direction of the holy Ghost) divine: so that God directeth her in all truth, and by her as a sensible guide, he bestoweth the same benefit upon us in all things necessary to salvation: wherefore our whole belief and religion in such sort dependeth of her infallible authority, that if this be proved, it convinceth that to be true, sincere, and divine.  
For no man can deny, but in building upon the tradition, decision, or definition of the Church, we ground our faith and religion upon divine authority, if her decrees be Gods, and her doctrine warranted to be his. Let us therefore endeavour to show this, that so with few words we may decide the whole question: and to avoid confusion, let us divide the whole discourse of this Chapter, into the proof of some three or four assertions.   

SECTION THE SECOND. The whole sum of Christian doctrine (by word of mouth, not by writing) was committed by Christ to his Apostles.  
FIRST therefore I affirm, that Christ committed the whole sum of Christian doctrine by word of mouth, not by writing to his Apostles: & ordained that they should deliver the same to their successors, the Bishops and Pastors of the Church. This is manifest, both because divers points of Christian doctrine, which the Apostles received from Christ, are not recorded by the Evangelists in their Gospels: and also because S. Luke witnesseth, 
Act. 1. v. 3.  that Christ after his passion and resurrection, showed himself alive to his Apostles in many arguments, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God: of which his speech little or nothing is recorded. I add moreover, that not long before his ascension, he gave his Apostles this commission: Going (said he) teach ye all nations, 
Mat. 28. v. 19.20.  baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. These places (I say) manifestly prove, that Christ by word of mouth instructed his Apostles concerning the mysteries and articles of Christian religion, and according to his instruction, commanded them to teach the whole world. Neither is there any record extant, that Christ gave them these instructions in writing, or that he commanded them to set them down and publish them after that sort: yea if we will not say, that the Apostles transgressed Christ's commandment, we must absolutely say, that he never bid them do any such thing, because never any one of them (as I will declare hereafter) set down in writing the whole sum of Christian doctrine.  
No man likewise will or can deny, but that it was the ordination of Christ, that the Apostles should deliver this whole sum of Christian doctrine to their successors: for otherwise Christ should have instituted a Church only for the Apostles days, not to continue to the end of the world, according to the predictions of the Prophets. And hence this sum of Christian doctrine by the Apostle S. Paul was most earnestly commended to Timothy. 
1. Tim. ult vers. 20.  O Timothy (saith he) keep the depositum (that is, the pledge or pawn left with thee) avoiding the profane novelties of voices, and oppositions of falsely called knowledge. He calleth it depositum, or a pledge or pawn, because it is (as it were) a thing laid into the Apostles and Bishops hands, and committed unto them to keep, which every one of them with great care and diligence (without any alteration or depravation) was and is to deliver to his successors until the end of the world. 
Vinc. Lir. lib. contra prophanas hoeresum novitates cap. 7.  This is most learnedly explicated by Vincentius Lirinensis, who flourished in the Church very near twelve hundred years since. For this learned Father, having demanded what the depositum was which the Apostle left with Timothy, answered thus. This pawn or pledge (saith he) is a thing committed to thy charge, not invented by thee: that which thou hast received, not that which thou hast devised. A matter not of wit, but of doctrine; not of private usurpation, but of public tradition: a thing brought down unto thee, not brought forth first by thee, of which thou must not be author, but keeper only; not the founder, but the follower; not a leader, but one which is led: Hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis. Of this Depositum likewise are these words of the Apostle in the same Chapter. 
1. Timoth. vlt. ver. 13  I command thee before God who quickeneth all things, and Christ jesus who gave testimony under Pontius Pilate a good confession: that thou keep the commandment without spot blameless, until the coming of our Lord jesus Christ. And so these places are expounded by Tertullian and the rest of the Fathers: for they are according to their exposition, 
Tertul. de praescriptionibus. Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4.  most earnest exhortations to Timothy, to keep unspotted the doctrine received, and to admit no new thing invented by man's fancy. This moved S. Ireneus to affirm, that the Apostles have laid up in the Church, as in a rich treasure house, all truth. Moreover, this sum of Christian doctrine for the same reason is likewise called, the doctrine of the Apostles: 
Act. 2.24.  They were (saith S. Luke speaking of the first Christians) persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles, that is to say: in the doctrine which by Christ was delivered to the Apostles, and by them preached and published to the world. Finally, because according unto it, every man is to direct his belief, it is called by S. Paul the rule of faith, and the form of doctrine: 
Gal. 6, 16.  Whosoever shall follow this rule (saith he) peace upon them and mercy. Again; let us continue in the same rule. And in the Epistle to the Romans: 
Phil. 3, 16 Rom. 6, 17 2. Cor. 10. vers. 15.  you have obeyed from the heart unto the form of doctrine, into the which you have been delivered: The like sentences he hath in other places. Hence Tertullian avoucheth, that the 
* Tertul. de praescr. ca 13. 22. 27. etc.  Apostles received from Christ the fullness of the preaching of the Gospel, and that they delivered unto all Christians, all the order of the rule of belief: He telleth us also that 
a Cap. 14.  faith is placed in rule: he biddeth Heretics be 
b Tertul. de praescr. cap. 22.  silent, and not prate against this rule, and wisheth Catholics (if they will doubt or ask questions concerning matters of religion) to inquire of those which are of their own company; and concerning such matters as may be called in question without the breach of the rule of faith. Lastly he addeth, that 
c Cap. 14.  this rule instituted by Christ, hath no doubts or questions among us, but such as Heretics do bring in, or do make Heretics: Thus far Tertullian. The same rule S. Ignatius the Disciple of S. john the Apostle, affirmeth himself to have observed. Do you (saith he in his Epistle to the Phillippians) say and teach the self same, and be of one judgement: for by this I have observed the rules of faith.  
Wherefore I conclude, that Christ delivered a rule of faith, or form of doctrine to his Apostles, which they confirmed by miracles, and delivered to their successors; and that the said rule containeth the whole sum or corpse of Christian doctrine.   

SECTION THE THIRD. The Church cannot stray from the rule of faith received, nor err in matters of faith or general precepts of manners, which is proved first, because the holy Ghost directeth her in all truth.  
THIS being proved I must now declare, that the Church hath never erred, nor can err from this rule of faith received, and that her judgement concerning matters of religion, is of divine and infallible authority. The most principal reason usually brought for the proof of this, is: that God himself (to wit, the holy Ghost the third person of the most blessed Trinity, who is subject to no error or falsehood) is the guide and director of the Church in all such affairs. And this we are taught by Christ, who likewise being God the second person of the most blessed Trinity, cannot deceive us. For this promise he made to his Apostles immediately after his last supper, these were his words: 
joh. 14. vers. 16. joh. 16. vers. 13.  I will ask the father, and he will give you another Paraclete (that is to say, an other comforter or advocate) that he may abide with you for ever: the spirit of truth. Again, yet many things I have to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now: but when he, the spirit of truth cometh, he shall teach you all truth. This was the promise of our Saviour, and who will say that he hath not been so good as his word? Surely if this promise was not brought to effect, the breach of it either proceeded of want of power, or of want of will in Christ: but what Christian can imagine, that either of these was wanting in the Son of God? Hence I gather, that although our Saviour (during the time of his being on earth) both before and after his passion, gave to his Apostles divers instructions touching Christian religion; yet, that he left the full and perfect instruction of them to the holy Ghost, who was to reduce all things to memory, and to establish them perfectly in faith; and whom his Father was to send by his mediation, to be the chiefest instructor and guide of his Church in all truth, to the worlds end. And this was done on the day of Pentecost, when the holy Ghost in the likeness of fiery tongues, 
Act. 2. v. 4  descended upon the Apostles and Disciples: since which time (according to the promise of Christ) he hath never departed from the Church, but remained in her and taught her all truth; which every man must needs confess, that will not accuse Christ of breach of his promise. Wherefore, like as Christ is termed the head and husband of the Church (as I will even now declare) so the holy Ghost is aptly termed by S. Augustine, her soul. 
Aug. tom, 10. serm. 186. de tempore.  For like as the soul of man directeth and governeth his body: so doth the holy Ghost the Church. Some man perhaps will answer, that Christ made this promise of the assistance of the holy Ghost to the Apostles only, and not to their successors: but this assertion is most absurd, and contrary to the words themselves of holy Scripture. For Christ (as I have noted before) erected not a Church for the days of the Apostles only: but to continue until the end of the world, as was foretold by the Prophets, that men in all ages to come might have a mean to attain to salvation; wherefore those things which he spoke to his Apostles and Disciples, he spoke also to all their successors. 
Ephes. 4. vers. 11.  For (as we are taught by the Apostle) he hath given some Apostles, some Prophets, and other some Evangelists, and others some Pastors and Doctors, until the day of judgement. In this sense he promised his Apostles (as we read in S. Mathewes Gospel) that he would be with them all days, even to the consummation of the world, that is to say: 
Math. 28. vers. vlt.  with them and those which should succeed in their place. Wherefore Saint Hierome expounding that sentence, useth these words: 
Hier. lib. 4. in Mat.  He who promiseth that he will be with his Disciples, until the consummation of the world, both showeth that they shall always live: and also that he will never departed from the faithful. Saint Augustine likewise affirmeth, 
Aug. in ps. 101. conc. 2.  that he spoke to the Apostles, and signified us. To the same effect 
a Cipr. lib. 4. epist.  Saint Cyprian, and 
b Basi. consti. monast. cap. 23.  Saint Basil tell us, that these words of Christ; 
c Luc. 10. vers. 16.  He that heareth you, heareth me, were spoken not only to the Apostles: but also to their successors. Finally, the words themselves of Christ above cited, are plain: for how can the holy Ghost remain here on earth, with those Apostles unto whom Christ spoke, for ever; seeing that they lived in the world but for a short time? Wherefore he remaineth with their successors, the Bishops and Prelates of the Church, who have succeeded the first Apostles, as children their parents; and with these he shall remain as long as the world shall endure.  
For the confirmation of this truth I add, that this assistance of the holy Ghost in the Church, was long since foretold by the Prophet isaiah. These words he useth, speaking in the person of God, of the state of the Church in the law of grace. 
Isa. 59  My spirit which is in thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not departed from thy mouth, and from the mouth of thy seed, and of thy seeds seed saith our Lord from hence forward and for ever. Hitherto the Prophet isaiah; and what could be said more plain than this? Surely the promise is so evident, that Caluin himself in his Commentary upon them, granteth as much as we have affirmed. Thus he discourseth, expounding the said words: He promiseth (saith he) that the Church shall never be deprived of this inestimable good: 
Calvinus in Isai. cap. 59  but that it shall always be governed by the holy Ghost, and supported with heavenly doctrine. And soon after: The promise is such, that the Lord will so assist the Church, and have such care of her, that he will never suffer her to be deprived of true doctrine: Thus far Caluin. Finally, Beza his Scholar confesseth, 
Beza de haereticis a civili Magistratu puniendis. pa. 69. Ire. li. 1. c. 3. li. 3. c. 4.  that the promise of our Saviour of the assistance of the holy Ghost, was not made only to the Apostles, but rather to the whole Church. Let this therefore be the conclusion of this argument, that the Church of Christ is directed by the holy Ghost, in matters concerning faith and religion; in such sort, that she neither hath fallen, nor can fall into any errors. And this was long since affirmed by S. Ireneus who telleth us, that the Church keepeth with most sincere diligence; the Apostles faith, & that which they preached; and moreover that those Churches in which succession from the Apostles is found, conserve and keep our faith. 
Cipr. epist. 55. ad Cor nelium. See him likewise epist. 69. ad Floreatium.  The same we are taught by S. Cyprian who avoucheth, that the Church always holdeth that which she first knew.   

SECTION THE FOURTH. The same is proved by other arguments.  
AN other argument, proving the judgement of the Church to be of infallible truth, we may take from the love and affection, which Christ beareth to the said Church. For in the Scripture we find, that Christ is the 
* Cant. 4. Ephes. 1. v. 22. etc.  husband and head of the Church, & the Church his Spouse and body: 
August. in psal. 126.  For (if we believe S. Augustine) he form her out of his own side upon the Cross, as Eve our first father Adam's spouse, was made of his rib; and this long since he promised to do by the Prophet Osee, in these words: I will espouse thee unto me for ever: 
Osee 2. vers. 19  and I will espouse thee unto me in justice and judgement, and mercy, and miserations. He also redeemed, purchased, and washed her with his own most precious blood, and made her his spiritual body: wherefore he is present with her (according to his promise) all days, 
Math. 28. vers. vlt.  even to the consummation of the world; and no man will deny, but he loveth, cherisheth, and governeth her as his Spouse and body. Out of which favours and prerogatives I may very well infer, that he being truth itself, and hating all falsehood, preserveth her from error; this also being a dowry, and privilege so necessary to her dignity. These considerations moved S. Cyprian to discourse after this sort of this matter: 
Cipr. li. de unitat. Ecclesiae.  the Spouse of Christ (saith he) cannot be defiled with adultery; she is incorrupt, pure, and chaste; she knoweth one only house, she keepeth with a chaste shamefastness, the sanctity of one chamber: Thus S. Cyprian. To the same allude these words of S. Augustine, spoken of the Church. This is the true mother: 
Aug. tom. 6. conc. ad cath. c. 22.  a mother pious and chaste, adorned inwardly with the dignity of her husband; not outwardly, shamefully, and dishonestly, painted deceitfully with a deceiving lie. The promiseS of Christ unto his Church of not erring and the prerogatives, which he hath bestowed upon the same, yield us a third argument. For listen a little, what a notable and worthy promise he hath made to us, that his Church built upon S. Peter, or (as I may say) his whole Church united to the supreme Vicar and chief head of the same under himself, shall not fail or err. These are the words which he uttered to the said Apostle. 
Math. 16. vers. 18.  Thou art Peter (or a rock) and upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. What could he have said more, for the certainty of the continuance of the Church, and for her infallible judgement? For is it not evident, that hell gates do prevail against the Church, if either she decay, or teach false doctrine? who then can say, that either the hath perished, or erred; except he will accuse Christ of falsehood in not performing his promise, and make him a liar? Verily 
* Chrisost. hom. 4. de verbis Isaiae vidi Dominum Epiph. in Ancorato.  S. john Chrisostome affirmeth, that heaven and earth shall fail before those words of Christ; thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church. S. Epiphanius also, alluding to this promise telleth us, that our Lord appointed Peter the first or chiefest Apostle, a firm rock, upon which the Church of God was built; and the gates of hell (saith he) shall not prevail against it: for the gates of hell are Heretics and arch-heretics, etc. the like sentences I could allege out of the rest of the ancient Fathers. And unto this testimony of our Saviour I could likewise add, that he hath warranted the faith of S. Peter, and in him the faith of his successor the Bishop of Rome, who is ministerial head of Christ's Church on earth, 
Luc. 22. vers. 31.  that it shall not fail; and consequently that the body ruled by the head, shall enjoy the same prerogative: but of this hereafter.  
Moreover, our Saviour made his Church the supreme judge on earth, of all controversies touching matters of religion: for it is manifest that from her judgement he granteth no appeal; and that he will have her definitive sentence so firm and inviolable among Christians, that he will not have him accounted one of that number, who shall prevaricate or despise the same. This is signified unto us in these his words: 
Math. 18. vers. 17.  If he will not hear the Church: let him be to thee as the Heathen, and the Publican. In which sentence he biddeth us, esteem no more of our brother or neighbour, that contemneth or disobeyeth the censure of the Church, then of a Heathen and Publican: of which I gather, that the Church in her censure cannot err. For if this might be, than we being bound to condemn, whom she condemneth, or to condemn him that will not listen and obey her counsel and precepts, might together with the Church condemn a man without just cause, and that according to Christ's commandment. It appeareth likewise out of the said words of our Saviour, that he will have the sentence of the Church obeyed; wherefore he ought in reason to provide, that the said sentence be not erroneous.  
But for the truth of these words of our Lord; and also for the constant verity of the censure of the Church, it maketh first, that divers falsehoods, which before her said censure might in times past have been believed and defended: yea, were defended & believed by the members of the true Church, without incurring the crime of heresy, afterwards could not be so believed and defended: as I could exemplify in the Milinary heresy, the opinion of such as held the baptism of Heretics to be of no force; of others that denied the authority of some Canonical books, and such like. Secondly, it maketh also for these her prerogatives, that all such as have obstinately maintained any opinions condemned by the Church for heresies, and consequently have disobeyed her authority & decrees, and been by her adjudged Heretics; have ever by all antiquity been so accounted, 
August. in Enchirid. ad Laurent cap. 5. Tertul. de pudicitia item li. de prescript. Math. 5. v. 13.15. Luc. 10. vers. 16.  and therefore have not been numbered by the ancient Fathers among Christians: whose opinions notwithstanding (if we reject her infallible judgement, by which they were condemned, and make it subject to error) may be revived and called again in question, either as wrongfully and injustly censured, or at the least as condemned by a judge, whose judgement is subject to error and falsehood. The privileges and prerogatives granted by our Saviour to his Apostles and Disciples, confirm the same: for they are by him called the salt of the earth, and the light of the world: and being sent to preach, they received from him this commission and approbation of their doctrine; He that heareth you, heareth me: and he that despiseth you, despiseth me. Which words argue an infallible truth, although not in the doctrine of every particular Bishop and Prelate of the Church: yet in them altogether, when they represent the whole Church in a Council; or in the whole number of them, although divided & separated in place. For in these, like as in Christ's Apostles and Disciples (as I have above declared) the words alleged must be verified, which cannot be done, if they all in every sense may err. For how can they then truly be termed the salt of the earth, and the light of the world? and how can it be true, that he that heareth them, heareth Christ? But if we had no other testimony of holy Scripture for this matter, five or six words of the Apostle, used by him to Timothy in his first epistle, 
1. Tim. 3. v. 15. etc.  were sufficient to convince our understanding, and make us yield to this truth. For in his said Epistle, he termeth the Church the pillar and ground of truth. These things I writ to thee (saith he) hoping that I shall come to thee quickly: but if I tarry long, that thou mayst know how thou oughtest to converse in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth. What could he have said more evident for the infallible authority of the Church? the Church (saith he) is the pillar and ground of truth; that is to say, the very foundation and establishment of all verity, upon which as upon a sure foundation, and an inviolable pillar, a man may securely build the edifice of his faith and religion: who then will say that the Church is subject to error? These considerations moved S. Augustine, 
Aug. lib. 1. cont. Cresconium.  disputing against Cresconius concerning the baptism of Heretics, to use this discourse: these are his words. Although of this (that the baptism of Heretics is true baptism) there be no certain example brought forth out of the canonical Scriptures: yet also in this we keep the truth of the said Scriptures, when as we do that which now hath pleased the whole Church, which the authority of the Scriptures themselves doth commend. That because the Scripture cannot deceive, whosoever doth fear lest that he be deceived through the obscurity of this question, may ask counsel touching it of the Church, whom without any doubt the Scripture itself doth show: Hitherto S. Augustine. Out of which discourse of his, we may gather this notable rule, that in all things doubtful, and in all obscure questions concerning faith and religion, we ought to inquire and search forth the doctrine and belief of the Catholic Church, and embrace the same, seeking no further warrant of security; because the Scriptures demonstrate her, and manifestly declare that her doctrine is true, and may securely be followed without any danger of error. Unto these arguments brought out of the word of God, reason itself assenteth: for seeing that for divers respects, it was convenient that Christ our Lord should not always converse on earth among us, and in his own person manage the affairs of the Church, it was necessary that he should leave among Christians some certain rule & guide, whereby they might direct their faith, and some judge for the deciding of daily controversies, which might arise touching matters of religion; whose judgement they might securely follow without all danger of being deceived. Neither can we imagine that Gods infinite wisdom foreseeing all things and times to come, or his unspeakable goodness and love to his Church, could order things otherwise. And this infallible guide and supreme judge is the Church, including the Pope, and other her Bishops and Prelates. It was also needful, seeing that the Church of Christ was to endure for ever (I mean on earth until the end of the world) and to be to all persons, a perfect guide in all ages to salvation, that it should be preserved from false doctrine and ruin; otherwise it could not at all times have performed these offices. Our adversaries will answer, that the Church through false doctrine and superstition hath already perished; and not appeared in the world for divers hundreds of years: but this I shall refute at large 
* Cap. 5.  in my treatise of the definition and notes of the true Church. For this present unto that which hath been already said in this Chapter, concerning the continual assistance of the holy Ghost in the Church, and other arguments proving that she cannot err; I add only, that according to the censure of S. Augustine: 
a Aug. l. de unita. Eccles. c. 6. 7 12. & 13. see him also li. 20. de civit. c. 8. & in psal. 85. & de utilit. credendi. c. 8.  Whosoever affirmeth the Church to have been overthrown, doth rob Christ of his glory and inheritance bought with his most precious blood: yea, S. Hierome goeth further and averreth, that he that so saith, doth make God subject to the Devil and a poor miserable Christ. 
Hier. cont. Lucifer. cap. 6.  The reason is, because this assertion doth (after a sort) bereave the whole incarnation, life, and passion of our Saviour, of their effect and end, which was principally to found a Church and Kingdom in this world, which should endure until the day of judgement, and direct men in all truth to salvation. Wherefore, whosoever affirmeth the Church to have perished, taketh away this effect and prerogative from his incarnation, life, and passion, and avoucheth that at sometimes, man had no means left to attain to everlasting bliss; which is also repugnant to the mercy and goodness of God. He also maketh God subject to the Devil, in making the Devil stronger than Christ, and affirming him to have overthrown Christ's Church & Kingdom, which our Lord promised should never be conquered, as I have above declared. I could add an other reason, convincing the Church not to have erred, taken out of Tertullian, 
Tertul. lib. de praescr. cap. 28.  who proveth it because error commonly bringeth forth division: for it were a very strange matter, that divers nations far distant from one an other; erring from the truth, should all fall into the self same error; wherefore, seeing that the Catholic faith and religion in all places is one and the same, it is like that it doth proceed of tradition not of error: but this matter is already sufficiently proved.  
I will therefore conclude, that the Church of Christ is not subject to error, touching matters of faith and religion; and consequently, that every man may securely follow concerning such matters, her sentence and judgement. And this is that high beaten and plain way to salvation, which was long since foretold by the Prophet Isaias, who prophesying of the Kingdom of Christ, useth these words. 
Isa. 35. vers. 8.  And there shall be a path and way, and it shall be called the holy way: and it shall be so direct that fools shall not be able to err therein: For no such way can be showed if this be denied. Hence S. Hierome telleth us, 
Hieron. in dialog. cont Lucifer. cap. 6.  that we ought to remain in that Church, which being founded by the Apostles continueth till this day.  
This also is that, which we are taught to believe in the Creed of the Apostles, when as we profess ourselves to believe the Catholic Church. For in these words we do not only acknowledge, that we believe that Christ hath a Catholic Church on earth: but also affirm, that we believe, hear, and obey the same: wherefore in all doubts and controversies touching religion, let us listen and give ear to this our holy Mother, and obey her sentence, although it seem never so repugnant to our sense and reason. For she is the rock, ground, and pillar of truth, let us believe her, and ever remain in her sacred bosom. And although we receive our faith, and are instructed in religion by some particular men: yet, let us not doubt, but that we are taught by this universal Church. For they who instruct us, and deliver our faith unto us, do this as the officers and members of this Church, and by her order and appointment: neither do they deliver the said doctrine unto us, as their own; but as the doctrine of the Church, and as such we receive it, and have sufficient motives to persuade us that this is true. Wherefore, like as the action of a member of a man's body, is attributed to the whole (for although the hand strike: yet, man is said to strike, etc.) so although we be instructed, & taught by some particular member of the Church; yet, we may well say that this is done by the said Catholic and universal Church.  
These considerations were so forcible even in Luther's understanding, for a long time after his fall from us, that he found his conscience often troubled for his disobedience to the Church. In one place thus he writeth: 
* Luther tom. 2. l. de seru. arbit.  During more than ten years, I was so moved by authority, conscience, multitude of Martyrs, of Bishops, of Popes, of Counsels, of Universities, that it was incredible that this Troy remaining so long in so many conflicts invincible, could never be conquered. And in another place: 
a Luther tom. 1. in propos. suis de viribus hominis.  When I had (saith he) overcome all arguments by the Scriptures, this one, (that the Church is to be heard) at length with most great difficulty, and perplexity or anguish (by Christ's assistance) I hardly overcame: Thus Luther. I add also, that our 
b See Hooker in his 3. book of Eccl. policy §. 2 7. 9 Bel in his treatise of the regiment of the Church. pag. 200. Whitgift & others.  English Protestant's themselves disputing against the Puritans, are forced to acknowledge, that the Church hath authority to prescribe orders for her government, which every one is bound to obey. Yea, Field, Hutton, and Gabriel Powel, seem to make the constitutions of the Church, equal with those of the Apostles. For the first of them avoucheth, that both things which 
c Field book 4. chap. 20. § that the Apostles.  the Apostles themselves delivered by tradition, and also such things, as were delivered by their next after-comers, are dispensable by the authority of the Church. And how so, if the Church hath not Apostolic authority? surely his reason assigned, is: because the Apostles and Apostolic men did not deliver them, as reporting the immediate precepts of Christ himself, but by virtue of their Pastoral power and office; of which it seemeth plainly to follow, that he yielding the Church authority to dispense in them, giveth her equal Apostolic power. 
Hutton in his answ. to a treatise of the Cross in baptism. pag. 3. and 59 see also pag. 9  Hutton affirmeth, Ecclesiastical constitutions made by the Church of Christ, not to be merely human, but in part divine: And the reason is (saith he) because the Church is ruled by the spirit of Christ, who is the truth. Again: if you make your comparison between that which God hath commanded, and that which the Church of God hath ordained, the difference is not so great as you would have it. Let God's commandment have worthily the first place and pre-eminence in all things, as is meet; but let the ordinances of the Church be immediately subordinate unto God's commandment, and ranged in a second place: not only, because the Church of God heareth his voice: but also, because she is ruled by his spirit, and by the great and precious promises of God, is made partaker of the divine nature; which (no doubt) doth assist them even in the laws also and constitutions, which are made for order and decency in the Church. Hitherto are Huttons words.  
powel's words are these. Those Adiophora or things indifferent, 
Gabriel Powellus in the sibus de Adiaphoris. ca 2. §. 7. & 8  which are well and lawfully instituted and approved by the Church, are after such sort human, as they are also divine; and therefore they have authority more than only human: yea, they have authority altogether divine. The reason is, because the Church is governed by the spirit of Christ who is truth. Again: 
* Ibid. cap. 3. §. 6. & 7  God left it in the power and will of the Church, to dispose and ordain for her own conservation, profit, comeliness, order and discipline, all things indifferent, ceremonies and external rites; which manifestly appeareth out of the holy Scriptures themselves, to have been true of the primitive Church in the Apostles days; neither can any man deny it to be true of the present Church. For seeing that it is the same spirit governing the Church of all times, why may it not likewise be lawful for the Church to institute laws concerning external rites, in times ensuing? Thus Powel. And out of these assertions of our adversaries, I think a prudent man will well infer, that our doctrine concerning the infallible judgement of the Church in matters of faith (even according to their proceedings) is very reasonable, and consonant to holy Scripture. For seeing that unity and consent in faith, is far more necessary than unity and consent in ceremonies, and positive ordinances for government; we may truly affirm, that Christ was more careful for the preservation of the first, then of the second.  further, that the reasons and authorities of holy Scripture by them brought, and generally all the promises of our Lord concerning the direction of the Church, make as much (nay commonly more) for the first then for the second (for they are principally concerning direction in truth) we do follow reason and the holy Scripture in maintaining the first, if they are not to be blamed for their maintenance of the second. Seeing moreover, that Field and Powel give the present Church in all ages, as great authority as it had the Apostles yet living, and they were then not only ordainers of positive laws and orders; but also infallible propounders of true doctrine, and directors in matters of belief, we have no reason according to their ground, to deny this prerogative to the same Church in all future times. Seeing finally, that the Puritans deny the collection or deduction of either of these prerogatives out of the Scripture, and the Protestants aver the plain deduction of one, and for this the Puritans condemn the Protestants; we may well imagine that the Puritans may err in denying both, and that the Protestants are to grant the one as well as the other, and consequently, that the Catholic truth should be embraced by al.   

SECTION THE FIFT. That the testimonies of holy Scripture, and other proofs brought for the infallible and divine authority of the Church, cannot be applied to the Church, considered as it comprehendeth all faithful Christians, that are and have been since Christ's ascension, or since the Apostles days: but unto the present Church of all ages.  
BEFORE I end this chapter, I think it not amiss to confute two or three opinions of our adversaries, of which all seem (in some sort) to derogate from the truth of those things which I have here averred, and to weaken their principal proofs. 
Book 4. chap. 1. 2. 3. 5. & 13.  The one is of M. Field, who telleth us that we may speak of the Church three manner of ways. First, as it comprehendeth all the faithful that are and have been since Christ appeared in flesh, including also the Apostles. Secondly, as it comprehendeth all that are and have been since the Apostles time. Lastly, as it comprehendeth those only that are living at one present time in the world. In the first signification, he freeth it from ignorance and error concerning matters of faith; in the second, from error only; and in the third, not from error in all articles of belief, but in such only as every man is bound expressly to know and believe: wherefore, 
Chap. 5.  he apply that promise of Christ above mentioned, that the holy Ghost should teach the Church all truth, to the Church in the first and second signification.  
Another assertion is, that the present Church may be said at all times to be the pillar of truth and not to err, because it retaineth always (as Field speaketh) a saving profession of heavenly truth: that is, 
Chap. 4. §. the Church. Field book 3. chap. 4. and 3.  true doctrine concerning all such principal points as are the substance of faith, and needful to be known & believed expressly by every man. Hence they assign some such principal points and articles, which they bind every person to know and believe, under peril of eternal damnation, and deny as much as the virtual belief of others to be necessary, which I place as a third absurd opinion. To confute these assertions, and to clear the truth before proved, from all clouds of falsehood, which may seem to obscure it, I think it not amiss in this place, to prove these three propositions. First, that no testimonies or reasons before brought, can be applied to the Church in those two first acceptions of the Church expressed by Field: secondly, that the same testimonies and reasons, prove an infallible judgement of the Church, concerning every article of faith in general, not touching some principal only: lastly that to salvation it is necessary, to believe either expressly or virtually the whole sum of Christian doctrine. And to perform this, concerning the first in the first place, I demand whether there be or no, any such Churches now extant in the world, of which the one includeth all faithful Christians that are and have been since the ascension of Christ: the other, all those that are and have been since the Apostles days? if there be not, than the promises of Christ cannot be verified of them: if there be, than I ask further, where they are to be found? Is the Church now in the world that hath been in former ages? Are they that in times past flourished, now members of the Church militant? They are not without doubt. Wherefore, although these two divers considerations of the Church, may be in our understanding: yet, there is no real object of them, now having any real being in the world, nor ever was at any one time: and seeing that it is evident that the promises of Christ, are concerning the prerogatives of some real body or common wealth, having real being in the world, and not only in our conceit; it is also manifest, that they were not spoken of the Church in any one of those two acceptions. Besides this, how shall we sever or distinguish these three considerations of the Church, really from one another? doth not the Church in the first acception comprehend the same Church, as it is taken in the second and third signification? doth it not (as Field saith) comprehend all that are and ever have been since Christ appeared in the flesh? if so, then without doubt also, that Church which hath been in all particular ages, and at all particular times and instances, and is even at this present. We must imagine (if I be not deceived) the better to understand M. Field his meaning, 
Vincent. Liren. adversus haeres. ca 28. 29.  as Vincentius Lirenensis seemeth to insinuate, that the beginning and progress of the Church since her first planting, hath been not much unlike to the augmentation or growing of a child, from his first birth to his perfect state or old age. And who can make any question, but in the time of a man's being, from his birth until his old age, that time also is included, which was from the day in which he was weaned from his nurse's milk, until his said old age? but if we admit this, how can we choose but confess, that the Church in the first acception, includeth also the same in the second and third? and so I say, that the last is comprehended in the second: how then can he make the Church in the first signification, free from error and ignorance, and not in the second and third? or how can he make it in the second signification free from error, and not in the third? and to make the matter a little more evident: I demand of M. Field, whether a man might truly have said, at all times since the Apostles days, the Church in the first and second signification, is absolutely free from all error in divine things? if he might not, than nothing more is attributed to the Church in these acceptions, then to the same in the last: if he might, than was the present Church in every instant free from such errors & ignorance. For to insist in the similitude already made, to this that a man be said to be sound and in health, it is not sufficient that in his childhood or at some other time, he was so affected: but it is also necessary that he be sound at that very time, when the sentence is pronounced; and if the sentence be pronounced of all his whole life, it cannot be true if once he were sick. In like sort, to this that the Church as it includeth all times, since the Ascension of Christ, or from the Apostles, be said to be free from all error: it is not sufficient that in the first years, or at some time or other it was so: but it is also requisite that she be so now, and ever have been so; otherwise, if she have been infected with error at some one time, the said error maketh the proposition false. And in very deed I cannot see, first, for what other reason he freeth the Church in the first signification from ignorance and error; but in respect of the Apostles days, when it enjoyed only (as he saith) such privileges: in like sort, I can see no other reason why he freeth it in the second acception from error, but this; that at some time or other, in some place or other, true doctrine hath been or is taught in her, concerning every article of faith. For he maketh the present Church, at all times subject to error, and consequently, he will not give this privilege to the present Church of all times. And this he seemeth to confess in those his words of the eleventh chapter, where he saith, that the Church in the second acception is infallibly true. Not in respect of the condition of the men of whom it consisteth, 
Book 4. chap. 11. §. that the authority.  or the manner of the guiding of the spirit, (each particular man being subject to error) but in respect of the generality, and universality of it, in every part whereof in every time no error could possibly be found: that is (if I well understand him,) that some part or other, at some time or other, was free from every error, not all; nor perhaps any part from all errors at the same time. Mark well, what a proper prerogative is finally given to the Church in those acceptions, in which he doth so highly exalt it, to wit; that it was free from error and ignorance in the Apostles days, and free from error in respect of the generality and universality of it, because no error could possibly be found in it in every part, in every time. What improper kind of speeches be these? can a sick man be said to be sound, because he was found in his childhood? or can he be said to have been ever sound, if once he were sick? or can he be called a sound man, that hath had at one time his head sound, at another time his arms, and at other times other members, although he never had his whole body at one time sound together? Besides, what weak privileges are here given to the Church? are they answerable to the promises of Christ, and other testimonies and reasons above recited, for her infallible and divine authority? hath he bestowed no greater prerogatives upon his spiritual Body and Spouse? but perhaps these prerogatives redound greatly to the good and benefit of the members and children of the Church. Neither this can be averred true: for what are poor Christians the nearer for it? how can such a Church be the director of their faith? how shall they know what faith was preached by the Apostles? and what part taught true doctrine, and when and which erred in subsequent ages? how shall we understand her judicial sentence, when controversies arise and are to be decided? surely they that are past, and are departed out of this world, can perform these things by no other means, but by their writings left behind them: wherefore, we can take no other direction, and receive no other judicial sentence from the Church in the first and second acception, but by such monuments and books, as we have received from the Apostles, Evangelists, the ancient Fathers and Doctors, and other our predecessors. And what is this? but to reduce all to the letter of holy Scripture, and to the works of antiquity, which (as I will prove hereafter, setting aside the authority of the present Church) yield us no certain and divine argument; and to give nothing at all to the Church itself, contrary to all the arguments before made for her infallible authority. Finally, some of the places of Scripture before alleged, are expressly spoken of the present Church, as that: tell the Church; If he shall not hear the Church, let him he to thee as the Heathen or Publican, etc.   

SECTION THE sixth. That the same testimonies and proofs, convince an infallible judgement of the Church concerning every article of faith, not only concerning certain of the principal.  
SECONDLY, that the testimonies of holy Scriptures and Fathers, with the reasons brought in this Chapter, prove the judgement & authority of the Church, to be of divine and infallible truth in all points of faith, it is even as easily showed. For are not the words general? Is it not said that the holy Ghost shall teach the Church all truth, and that she being the house of God is the pillar and ground of truth, & c.? And how can these promises be verified, if in some things she be subject to error? 
Field book 4. chap. 4.  Some say, these last words of the Apostle are understood of the particular Church of the Ephesians: but first, it is not like that God bestowed such an extraordinary privilege upon that Church, as to make it the pillar and ground of truth: Secondly, the Apostle calleth that Church, unto which he here giveth these prerogatives, the house of God; by which words 
a Cipr. l. 1. epist. 6.  S. Cyprian, 
b Aug. l. 7. de baptis. count. Donat. ca 49. 50. 51. Item in psalm. 25. enarrat. 2.  S. Augustine and all the Fathers commonly understand the whole militant Church: yea, S. Augustine alluding to this sentence, and using the very words of the Apostle, calleth the whole Church 
* 2. Tim. 2. vers. 20.  columnam & firmamentum veritatis: the pillar and ground of truth; and in the Scripture itself, the whole militant Church is called a great house, as 
a Field book 1. chap. 11.  Field himself confesseth. And because every particular Diocese is a part of this Church, the Apostle might very well use this kind of speech unto Timothy. I writ to thee, that thou mayst know how thou oughtest to converse in the house of God: although the said Timothy was Bishop only of Ephesus.  
Moreover, are we not absolutely under peril of being accounted Heathens and Publicans, bound to obey the Church? and what reason had our Lord so to bind us, if in some things her judgement may be erroneous? for how shall we discern which those articles be, in which she cannot err, and in which she may err? Further, what profit (if this were so) shall we receive from her for the preservation of unity, and ending of all controversies? verily, this assertion is even as prejuditial to the good of unity, as that which affirmeth the Church to have no warrant of truth at al. For what dissension and division would arise of this? might not every man contradict the rule of faith in any matter whatsoever, and affirm his contradiction to be in a matter of small moment? who shall judge which matters be of great, and which of small importance? For example, divers sectaries tell us, 
See Covel in defence of Hooker artic. 11. Fox pag. 942. etc.  that the question concerning the real presence of Christ in the blessed Sacrament, whether he be there really and substantially by transubstantiation, as the Catholics affirm; or together with bread as the Lutherans say; or only figuratively as is affirmed by the Sacramentaries, is a question of small importance, not any essential point belonging to the substance of Christian religion. But how will these men refute Castalio, who addeth (if Beza say true) that the controversies touching the blessed Trinity, the estate and office of Christ, and how he is one with his father, are concerning no essential points of Christian religion; certainly they cannot well overthrow his opinion. And this is that which was in old time, and is at this present affirmed by some, 
See Theodoretus lib 2. hist. cap. 18. 19 21. Trip. hist. lib. 5. cap. 21. & 33.  that so that Christ be believed to be God, it skilleth not whether he be believed to be equal or not equal, consubstantial or not consubstantial to his father. Wherefore this assertion of our adversaries, that the rule of faith may in some points be denied: first, openeth the gap to all dissension, then to all impiety and overthrow of Christianity: which things be sufficient to persuade every Christian to abhor and detest it.   

SECTION THE seventh. That to salvation it is necessary to believe the whole Catholic faith, and every article thereof.  
CONCERNING the third point which I intended to prove; I affirm, that it is necessary to salvation to believe and hold, either expressly or virtually, every article of faith which is propounded by the Church to her children to be believed: I add those words (expressly or virtually) because I say not, that every man is bound expressly to know all the articles of Christian religion. For it is held by us sufficient if the ruder sort know expressly certain of the principal: as are they that concern the Trinity, and the incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, etc. if they virtually believe all the rest, that is; if they believe (concerning all such points as they are not bound expressly to know) whatsoever according to the doctrine of the church ought to be believed; and be of contrary belief in no one point propounded unto them, and known to be propounded as an article of faith. We differ therefore from our adversaries in this, that some of them hold a man is not bound to believe any such articles not necessarily to be known by all; others say a man may err in them, so long as he seethe not apparently his error condemned by Scripture, or plainly proved false by evident deduction out of those articles, which are expressly to be known and believed. But the truth of this mine assertion, is gathered out of that which hath been already proved. For if the Church be the ground and pillar of truth, and cannot err in faith, it is manifest, that all her belief may safely without danger of error, be received. And moreover, because God hath revealed such articles to the Church for no other end, then that her children by the belief of them may attain to everlasting bliss, it is also evident, that every one is bound to believe whatsoever she teacheth. I add also, that whosoever believeth not all, hath no faith: and that he who thinketh it to be sufficient to salvation, to believe certain principal articles of Christian religion, although the rest be denied, must needs accuse the Church of error; and so according to his own opinion, clean overthrow her. The first is easily proved, because he that believeth not God and his Church in one point, certainly believeth them in none. For how is it possible that he can reject them in any, if he believe their authority to be infallible? Wherefore, by rejecting their judgement and sentence concerning one article, he plainly declareth that he believeth not the rest, because they are propounded unto him by the Church and revealed by God; but because they please his own fancy, and in his own judgement he thinketh them true and credible: of which it followeth, that he hath no faith, which (as I have above declared) maketh us believe the mysteries of our belief, because they are revealed by God. And this we may gather out of those words of S. james the Apostle: He that offendeth in one, is made guilty of al. 
james 2. vers. 10.  For if by committing one mortal sin, we be said to be made guilty of all, either because by breaking one commandment, we show ourselves not to regard the rest; or else because one mortal sin, is as sufficient to bereave us of the grace of God, as a thousand: we may likewise well infer of this, that a man refusing to believe one article of faith, showeth himself not to esteem of the rest, and by this only is bereaved of true faith, that in very deed he believeth none, and is guilty of infidelity touching all; and consequently, is no member of the Church of Christ, whose members by faith principally, are united and linked together.  
Further, that whosoever thinketh it sufficient to salvation, to believe certain principal articles of Christian religion, although the rest be denied, accuseth the Church of error, thus I declare. 
Galat. 5. vers. 21. Tit. 3. vers. 10.  The Apostle teacheth us, that they that follow and embrace sects or heresies, shall not possess the Kingdom of heaven: Wherefore, either the Church erreth, both in defining such articles (as some think not necessary to be believed) to belong to the object of faith; and also in condemning for heresies, such opinions as they think may safely be defended: or else such as despise her censure, and embrace the said opinions, are in state of damnation; the first (as I have already proved) overthroweth the Church, the second is that which I intent to prove.  
But let us declare the truth of my first assertion, out of the holy Scripture. And first it cannot be denied, but our Saviour absolutely, and that under pain of being censured as Etnickes and Publicans, and consequently under pain of damnation, commandeth us to hear and obey the Church: 
Math. 18. vers. 17.  if he will not hear the Church (saith he) let him be to thee as the Heathen and Publican. And note, that he biddeth us not believe her only in principal matters, but in all; making no limitation or distinction. In like sort, in general terms he telleth us, that he that heareth his Apostles & disciples (which must be likewise verified in their successors) heareth him, and he that despiseth them despiseth him. Finally, he commanded his disciples to preach his Gospel, and added that he that believeth it not, shall be condemned: which words cannot be understood only of the principal articles of Catholic religion; for his Gospel included the whole sum of Christian faith, as I have proved above.  
Hence, divers in the first ages of the Church have been condemned and accursed as Heretics, for few errors in faith; yea, some time for one only; and that in no principal point of belief, as I could exemplify in the quarto decimani, 
Epiphan. haeres. 50.  who were so censured for keeping Easter day on the fourteenth day of the moon, and others: yea, I may well say, that almost all Heretics that ever have risen, have believed certain principal articles of Christian religion; wherefore, whosoever thinketh it sufficient to believe such articles, openeth heaven almost to all Heretics. Moreover, how shall we know which are these principal articles? certainly every man will affirm (if this liberty be given) that the articles by him denied, pertain not to that number. Lastly, this error is condemned by all the ancient Fathers. S. Athanasius in his Creed received by the whole Church, affirmeth, that whosoever keepeth not entirely & wholly without any corruption the Catholic faith, without all doubt shall perish everlastingly. 
Theodor. li. 4. c. 17. Hooker. book. 5. of ecclesiastical policy. §. 42. pag. 88 Greg. Nazian. tract de fide. Aug. lib. de haeres. in fine.  S. Basil, being requested by the Perfect of Valens an Arrian Emperor, to yield a little to the time, answered: that they which are instructed in divine doctrine, do not suffer one syllable of the divine decrees to be corrupted or depraved: but for the defence of it, (if it be needful and required) embrace likewise of death. Hooker also a Protestant telleth us, that the same S. Basil for changing some one or two syllables in the verse, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the holy Ghost, was forced to write apologies and whole volumes in his own defence. S. Gregory Nazianzene hath this notable sentence: Nothing can be more dangerous than these Heretics, who when they run sound through all, yet with one word (as with a drop of poison) corrupt or stain that true and sincere faith of our Lord; and of Apostolic tradition. S. Augustine likewise having reckoned up eighty distinct Heresies, addeth that there may chance to lurk many other petty heresies unknown to him, of which heresies (saith he) whosoever shall hold any one, shall not be a Catholic Christian. Finally, 
* Hier. li. 3. Apolog. contr. Ruf.  S. Hierome witnesseth, that for one word or two, contrary to the Catholic faith; many heresies have been cast out of the Church. This is the opinion of the ancient Fathers. Wherefore, seeing that one only heresy be it never so small, bereaveth us of faith, and separateth us from the body of Christ his Church, which is quickened with his holy spirit; it must needs follow, that whosoever is infected with any one such heresy, is void of all spiritual life and in state of damnation, and can have no more life than a man's arm cut off from his body, or a bough cut from a tree. But of this matter I shall entreat more at large, 
Chap. 1. Sect. 4.  in my treatise of the definition and notes of the true Church; where I shall prove, that the members of Christ's Church, are linked together by the profession of the same whole sum of Christian doctrine: and therefore for this present this shall suffice. And less (I think) would have satisfied any reasonable man: for seeing that there is but one true rule of belief, 
Ephes. 4. vers. 4.  and one faith (according as we are taught by the Apostle) among Christians; and this faith is so necessary to salvation as I have proved before: no wiseman will prescribe himself a rule of faith according to his own erroneous fancy, and neglect the judgement of the Church, whom truth itself hath warranted, that she shall not err from truth.    

Chapter 7. Of the holy Scripture, which is the first particular ground of faith in the Catholic Church.  

SECTION THE FIRST. How the Scripture is known to be Canonical.  
THE supreme authority and infallible judgement of the Church, being thus established and proved, it may well in this place be demanded what particular grounds, decrees, or principles the Church doth deliver unto us, or we find in the Church, whereupon we may securely build our faith?  
For the resolution of this question, I have affirmed in the title of this Chapter, that the first such particular ground, is the holy Scripture: And although there be no controversy between us and our adversaries, concerning the authority of divers books of the said holy Scripture (for most of them by us all are confessed to be Canonical) yet, much difference there is between us, concerning the means by which we know the holy Scripture, and every parcel thereof to be the true word of God, and who is to be judge of the true sense of these divine volumes: wherefore, these points are briefly to be handled and discussed. How then do we know, that the old and new Testament are Canonical? how can we certainly assure ourselves, that the Apostles and Disciples written the new? what proof likewise have we to persuade us, that no part of the holy Scripture hath been in times past corrupted or depraved? I answer in few words, that all this is infallibly known unto us, by the authority and judgement of the Catholic Church, who hath adjudged all such books to be Canonical, and as Canonical received them, and delivered them to her children. I deny not, but the Scriptures before the definition and censure of the Church, were true, and contained the certain and sincere word of God: but this only I say, that this truth and authority, was first infallibly known unto us by the Church, who adjudged and censured them to be as they are, and as such commanded all Christians to esteem and reverence them. Neither is this any ways prejudicial to the dignity and authority of the holy Scripture: for this notwithstanding we confess, that the said Scripture is of far greater authority, than the Church or her definitions be; which is manifest, because although the holy Ghost assist and direct, both the writers of holy Scripture and the Church: yet certain it is, that he hath assisted and directed the first, after a far more excellent manner than he doth the second, because his assistance and direction in penning those sacred books was such, that every sentence in them contained, is of most certain verity; but his assistance unto the Church, whether it be in a general Council, or otherwise in the decrees of the Bishop of Rome, maketh only that which the said Council or Bishop intent to define, of such an infallible truth. Wherefore then do we prove the Scripture to be Canonical by the authority of the Church? Surely for no other reason, then because the Church is better known unto us then the Scripture: For the Church hath always been (as I will prove hereafter) most visible and apparent to the whole world; every man also, before that the new Testament was written, & before that it was generally received by the Church, might have known the Church (for she was before any part of it was penned) and consequently by her infallible judgement, every one might with far more ease and certainty, have come to the knowledge of such books, then by any other means or industry. Wherefore to conclude, although the Church maketh not Scripture; yet, of her we learn most certainly which is Scripture. And this is no more disgrace unto Scripture, than it was unto Christ that the Apostles gave testimony of him, because they were better known than he. I add also that every one of them, who above all others reprehend this our assertion, taketh upon himself as great authority over Scriptures, as we give to the whole Church. 
See part second chap. 5. Sect. 1.  For every new sectary out of his own fancy judgeth this to be Scripture, that to be none, etc. which must needs be in every man's judgement far more absurd.  
This assertion being thus explicated, let us now briefly prove the same: And first, because we can assign no other means by which we may say, that we certainly know the Scripture to be Canonical, but the authority of the Church. And as concerning the old Testament, although we grant that the authority thereof, was first partly approved by miracles, partly by the testimony of Prophets, and partly by the authority of the Church in those days: yet, how do we now infallibly know that it was so approved, and that it is the self same now that was then approved, but by the relation, tradition, and censure of the Church?  
But let us come to the new Testament, and demand who hath received it into the Canon of holy Scripture? what miracles have been wrought to prove it Canonical? who doth assure us, that it was penned by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ? and that since their days it hath not been corrupted? Verily, the Church only resolveth us of all these questions, and telleth us with assurance of truth, that the said new Testament was written by the said sacred authors, inspired and directed by the holy Ghost: and that ever since their days, it hath been preserved in her sacred bosom without corruption. And no other answer having any probability of truth, and sufficient to satisfy a reasonable man's understanding, can be made. This may also be confirmed by the continual practice of the Church: For no man can deny but it was her doing, that the four Gospels of S. Mathewe, Mark, Luke, and john, 
See part 2 chap. 5. Sect. 2.  were received, and the Gospel called of Nicodemus, with others rejected. She hath likewise now received as Canonical, divers books in times passed of doubtful authority: For it is recorded by Ecclesiastical writers, and also confessed by our adversaries, that there hath been controversy and doubt in the Church, concerning the authority of the 
b Euseb. li. 3. hist. ca 3. 25. 28. Hier. de viris illust. in Paulo, Petro etc. Hammer in his notes upon Eusebius lib. 2. cap. 23.  epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrues, the epistles of S. james, S. Jude, the second of S. Peter, and the second of S. john. How doubtful the authority of the 
c Euse. l. 3. cap. 28. Hier. epist 129. add Dardaran.  Apocalypse was among many, every man may see in S. Hierome and Eusebius, and in the Council of Laodicea, which numbered it not among other Canonical books. And who hath taken up and ended these controversies by declaring these parcels of Scripture to be Canonical, but our holy mother the Church? Verily this is so true and evident, that it is confessed even by some of our 
d Observations upon the Harmony of confessions, upon the 1. Section.  adversaries themselves. Thus she received in the first general council of Nice, the book of judith, about the year of our Lord 325. if we believe 
e Hier. praefat. in jud. Idem in prolo. Galeato & in prol. Prover. & in praefat. in judith.  S. Hierome, who before he heard of this decree of the said Council, rejected the said book; but understanding of it, admitted it forthwith as Canonical.  
Let us confirm all this with the testimony of S. Augustine, whom 
f Caluin li. 4. Instit. c. 14. sess. 25  Caluin acknowledgeth to be the most faithful witness of all antiquity, 
g Beza in cap. 3. ad Rom. v. 12.  Beza calleth him the prince of all ancient Divines both Greek and Latin, as concerning dogmatical points of religion. 
h Gomarus in speculo verae Ecclesiae. pag. 96.  Gomarus saith that according to the common opinion he is accounted most pure. This then is one of his notable sentences touching this matter: 
i Aug. contra epistol. Manichaei quam vocant fundamentum. cap. 5.  I would not believe the Gospel (saith he) except the authority of the Catholic Church did move me thereunto. Those therefore whom I obeyed, saying: Believe ye the Gospel: why shall I not obey them, saying unto me: Believe thou not Manichaeus? Choose which thou wilt. If thou shalt say, believe the Catholics, they admonish me that I believe not you: If thou shalt say believe not the Catholics, thou shalt not do well to constrain me by the Gospel to believe Manichaeus, because I have believed the Gospel itself, through the preaching of the Catholics: Thus S. Augustine. But here 
k Field book 4. chap. 4.  M. Field in his fourth book of the Church occurreth and saith, that the sense and meaning of S. Augustine in those his words. I would not believe the Gospel except the authority of the Church did move me thereunto: is, that he had never believed the Gospel if the authority of the Church had not been an introduction unto him. I reply, that he wresteth this holy Father's words to a wrong sense: yea, to such a sense as his discourse itself will not bear; and for proof of this, I desire no more of my reader, but to mark the force of the reason used by S. Augustine, which is this. Manichaeus in the beginning of his epistle, which this most learned Doctor confuteth, called himself an Apostle of jesus Christ. S. Augustine requireth a proof of his Apostleship; and urgeth (if perhaps he allege some authority out of the Gospel) what he would do to him that should deny the Gospel: whereunto he adjoineth the words rehearsed. I truly would not believe the Gospel etc. if the authority of the Church did not move me thereunto. And out of this that the Gospel is believed by the authority of the Church, he proveth that Manichaeus is not to be believed, because the same authority which commandeth to do the one, forbiddeth to do the other: Of which it followeth, that if it err in the last, it may also err in the first; and so no firm argument can be brought out of it, for the proof of the Apostleship of Manichaeus. Hence S. Augustine doth not say, I had not believed the Gospel, except the authority of the Church had moved me thereunto, as he should have said if he had meant as Field pretendeth; but I would not believe the Gospel, etc. taking his argument from the motive of his present belief of the Gospel: and in this sense his reason is of great force, and not otherwise. But that which I say, is yet more confirmed by that which followeth: For S. Augustine addeth. But if peradventure thou canst find something in the Gospel, most apparent for the Apostleship of Manichaeus, thou shalt weaken unto me the authority of the Catholics, who command me that I shall not believe thee; which being weakened, now neither can I believe the Gospel because through them I believed it. So whatsoever thou shalt bring me from thence, shallbe with me of no force: wherefore, if nothing manifest be found in the Gospel for the Apostleship of Manichaeus, I will believe the Catholics rather then thee. But if thou bring any thing from thence manifest for the Apostleship of Manichaeus, I will neither believe them nor thee: not them, because they have lied to me concerning thee; not thee also, because thou bringest me forth that Scripture which I believed through them, whom I have found liars. But God forbidden that I should not believe the Gospel. Hitherto are S. Augustine's words; by which (I think) every man may perceive, how greatly M. Field doth wrong him. For we see plainly, that he confesseth the authority of the Church, to have been the cause of his present belief of Scripture; yet not the formal cause, but the conditional, as is declared before. And all that I have here related out of this holy Father, 
Aug. tom. 6. li. cont. Epist. quam vocant fundamenti cap. 5.  may be as well urged against any Sectary whatsoever of our time, as against Manichaeus: for whosoever affirmeth the Church to have erred in condemning any one of their Heresies, by weakening and overthrowing her authority, weakeneth also and overthroweth the authority of the whole Bible. Neither doth that which he allegeth out of Waldensis make any ways for him: for as this learned man plainly in that very place declareth, he understandeth S. Augustine as I have delivered: These are his words. 
Waldensis lib. 2. doctrinalis fidei artic. 2. ca 21.  Without the authority of the universal Church, no scripture can be read or bad for certain: And this S. Augustine understood when he said. I would not believe the Gospel, did not the authority of the Church move me thereunto: Thus Waldensis. The point which Field toucheth, is in his discourse following, but it maketh nothing against us; for he only saith that which I have before delivered, to wit: that by the proposition of the Church, we first come to a certain and supernatural knowledge of such books as are Canonical, and then believe the verities in them contained, because they are revealed by God: like as the Samaritans first believed through the relation of the woman with whom our Saviour talked, 
job. ca 4. ver. 39 etc.  as the propounder of such things as she had heard of our Lord; afterward through the divine speeches which he used to them himself. That which Field saith before, that S. Augustine (according to the opinion of some Divines) speaketh here of the church, taken for the whole number of believers that are and have been, since Christ appeared in the flesh, so including the Apostles, is frivolous: both because S. Augustine never used the words Catholic Church, after this sort in that sense; and also because the argument had been of no force; 
See S. August. in li. 23. contra Faustum cap. 9  unto which I add further, that S. Augustine speaketh of that Church, which commanded him then not to believe Manichaeus, which was the present Church as appeareth. Neither can he (as I think) allege any Divine that ever so interpreted it. For that which he citeth in the margin out of Occam is very impertinent: and thus much of this testimony of S. Augustine.  

Hieron. in simbolo ad Damasum  S. Hierome likewise, avoucheth himself to receive the old and new Testament in that number of books, which the authority of the holy Catholic Church doth deliver. And this reason so infallibly proveth, that these divine books contain the true word of God, that every one may most assuredly believe it. For her censure and declaration cannot be false, who by God himself is warranted from error.  
Finally, unto this principal and invincible argument, I might also add the tradition of the Church, and one consent of holy Fathers, who have delivered to their successors, and confirmed by their testimony, that these holy books were penned by the instinct of the holy Ghost; which argument of tradition for the proof of Canonical books, was used by Serapion, Clemens Alexandrinus and Origenes, as Eusebius recordeth. 
Eusebius li. 6. hist. cap. 10. 11. 18.  But this argument is almost the same with the former: for the certainty of the tradition of the Church, and of the testimony of the ancient fathers, dependeth of this, that the Church cannot err. For if we make her judgement subject to error, her tradition and the whole consent of fathers, may likewise be erroneous: but supposing the Church cannot err, this argument is of as great force, but almost the same with the first. And hence I infer against our adversaries, that no books of the old and new Testament received by the Church as canonical, are to be rejected; for seeing that the same authority hath approved them all, they are all with like reason to be admitted: neither hath any man more reason to reject one, then another. And thus much of the letter of holy Scripture.   

SECTION THE SECOND. Concerning the sense or exposition of holy Scriptures; and first that the Scriptures are hard, and receive divers interpretations.  
BUT a far greater controversy there is, between us and the new Sectaries, concerning the true sense and interpretation of holy Scripture, who is the judge thereof, and of whom we are to receive it. For the decision of which difficulty, before I deliver the Catholic opinion, I must briefly prove two or three conclusions, averred also by us Catholics.  
And first, that the Scriptures are hard, and admit divers interpretations. This is insinuated unto us in sundry places of the sacred books: but for brevities sake, 
2. Pet. 3. vers. 16. Aug tom. 2. epistola 119. ad Ia nu. ca vlt.  I will content myself with one testimony of S. Peter, who telleth us that in S. Paul's epistles, There are certain things hard to be understood: which the unlearned (saith he) and unstable deprave, as also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own perdition. The holy Fathers plainly affirm the same. Among the rest S. Augustine (although a man of rare wit and great learning) affirmed, that there were far more things in the Scriptures of which he was ignorant, then there were that he knew. 
Idem tom. 3. li. 2. de doctrina Christiana cap. 6. Idem epist. 3. see him also epist. 1. ad Volusium.  He telleth us also, that they that read the Scriptures rashly, are deceived through many and divers obscurities and doubts. That through the providence of God the Scripture is hard, to tame with labour our pride, and to recall our understanding from irksomeness, unto which those things which are easily found our, seem base and of no moment. He affirmeth moreover in an other place, that the depth and profundity of wisdom contained not only in the words of holy Scripture, but also in the matter and sense is so wonderful; that live a man never so long, be he never of so great wit, never so studious, and never so fervent and desirous to attain to the knowledge thereof; yet that when he endeth, he shall confess that he doth but begin. This moved him in the books of his confessions, to cry out unto God after this sort. 
Aug. lib. 12. confess. cap. 14.  O wonderful profoundness of thy words! wonderful profoundness my God, wonderful profoundness! it maketh a man quake to look on it; to quake for reverence, and tremble for the love thereof: Hitherto S. Augustine. S. Hierome likewise, a man most expert in those tongues (the knowledge of which, maketh most for the understanding of these sacred books) and experienced in the translation and interpretation of them above others, 
Hieron. in cap. 5. ad Galatas  witnesseth; that the fruit of the spirit is found in the holy Scripture by much labour and industry: and in another place he saith that the Apocalypse of S. john, containeth as many mysteries as words. The like sentences are found in the rest of the Fathers.  
And this obscurity of holy Scripture is a thing so evident, that divers, even of our adversaries themselves (although others will have them easy) are forced in express and plain terms to confess it. Among the rest the translator or corrector of the English bible, published in the year one thousand six hundred, in his preface avoucheth, that it is a very hard thing to understand the holy Scriptures, and that divers errors, sects, and heresies grow daily for lack of the true knowledge thereof. divers others have the like sentences, some of which I shall recite in the second part of this Treatise: 
See part. 2. cap. 5. sect. 4.  yea, almost all the new sectaries by their proceedings, seem to acknowledge this truth: for otherwise, what mean they to write such great and huge volumes or commentaries upon the holy Scripture? But whence ariseth this difficulty and obscurity? surely of divers causes. First, because sundry words of Scriptures, admit many senses, and the very phrase itself is obscure and doubtful. Secondly, many sentences in it are prophetical, many parabolical, many metaphorical, which commonly are full of obscurity. Thirdly, it is proper to Scripture to have many senses under one letter, as the literal sense, which is that which the holy writer first intended: and this sense sometimes is signified by proper words; sometimes by words metaphorical and improper, yea sometimes the literal sense of the same words is divers. It hath also a spiritual sense, which is that which is signified by the things under the letter. And this sense is either moral, which is called also tropological, when it tendeth to manners: or allegorical, when it tendeth to faith, or the Church; or anagogical, when it tendeth to heaven or life everlasting. For example, this word Jerusalem literally signifieth the City so called, morally the soul of man, allegorically the Church militant, and anagogically the Church triumphant. All these senses the words of Scripture bear; and divers of them not seldom, were intended by the holy Ghost in the same sentence. And what a difficult matter is it, to discern them? I add finally, that sundry mysteries delivered unto us in holy writ, are high and above the reach of our natural reason: Wherefore it is no marvel if the sentences in which they are disclosed, be hard and obscure. Hence the prophet David desired of God understanding, 
Psal. 118. john. 5. verse 39 Luke 24. vers. 45.  that he might search his law. Our Saviour also willed the jews to search the Scriptures, opened his Apostles and disciples understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures, &c: which places plainly convince the Scriptures to be hard.   

SECTION THE THIRD. The Scriptures may be falsely understood: and that every private man may err in the understanding of them.  
IN the second place I must prove, that the Scriptures may be falsely understood, and that every private man may err in the translation or interpretation of the same. This followeth of that which hath been already said touching their obscurity: for if the Scripture be so obscure (as I have showed) these things must needs ensue. And verily, that the words of Scripture may receive false interpretations, 
2. Pet. 3. verse 16.  S. Peter above cited plainly avoucheth, affirming that the unlearned and unstable (even in his days) depraved the epistles of S. Paul and other Scriptures, to their own perdition. And it is a thing so manifest, that it needeth no proof: for it is evident, that all Heretics heretofore have alleged Scriptures falsely expounded, to confirm their heresies, and this I will declare more at large hereafter. 
See part 2. cap. 8. sect. 8.  It is apparent also that in these our days some in the world; either Catholics, Lutherans, Zwinglians, Anabaptists, or Libertines, do not give the true sense of holy Scripture, because it is impossible that more than one of these can have the truth, their expositions in divers points be so divers and contrary; 
August. tract. 18. in johan. Aug. tom. 3. de Gen. ad litteran li. 7. ca 9 Vincent. Lirin. lib. x propha. haeres novitates cap. 2. Barlow in his relation of the said conference pag. 61. See part. 2. c. 5. sect. 1.  yea S. Augustine affirmeth, that heresies have no other offspring or root, than that good Scriptures are badly understood. In another place to the same effect he telleth us, that all Heretics read Catholic Scriptures: neither (saith he) are they for any other cause Heretics, then for that not understanding them truly, they defend obstinately their false opinions against the truth of them. The same is declared by Vincentius Lirinensis in these words: All (saith he) take not the Scripture in one and the same sense, because of the deepness thereof: but the speeches of it some interpret one way, and some another way; so that there may almost as many senses be picked out of it, as there be men. For Novatus doth expound it one way, and Sabellius another way: otherwise Donatus; otherwise Arrius, Eunomius, Macedonius; otherwise jovinian, Pelagius, Celestius; last, otherwise Nestorius: Hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis. Hence our King in the conference held at Hampton Court between the Protestants and Puritans, most discreetly affirmed, that he would not wish all Canonical books to be read in the Church, unless there were one to interpret them.  
Moreover, that the judgement of every private man (as before) is subject unto error and falsehood in his translation, or interpretation of holy Scripture, it is granted by some of our adversaries, and likewise easily proved: First, because he Scripture itself warranteth no private man's judgement from error. Nay S. Peter in express terms telleth us: 
2. Pet. 1. verse 20. See sect. 5. following 1. joh. 4. verse 1.  That no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation; that is to say, that no Scripture ought to be expounded according to any private man's opinion: for the word Prophecy signifieth the interpretation or exposition of holy Scripture, as shall hereafter be proved. The Apostle Saint john teacheth us the same lesson, willing us not to believe every spirit, but to prove the spirits, if they be of God. And how are we to prove the spirits? without all doubt not by our own judgement, which is subject to error; but by considering whether they be consonant, or no, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, or the rule of faith, received by tradition from the Apostles. This appeareth by the discourse of the said Apostle following: In which (to confute Cerinthus, Ebion, Basilides, and other Heretics who denied the divinity, humanity, or union of two natures in Christ, and to prove their spirits not to be from God) he setteth down the doctrine of the Church concerning those points; and addeth these words. He that knoweth God, heareth us, that is to say, he that hath the knowledge of God by true supernatural faith, heareth and obeyeth the Church,  
But what do I use many words in a matter so evident, gathered out of our adversaries own proceedings? For the holy Ghost teacheth men but one truth: seeing therefore, that there are among the new Sectaries now in the world, so great dissensions and differences in opinions, concerning the exposition of the self same words of Scripture; it necessarily followeth, that some of them expound the Scriptures falsely: and seeing that one of them hath no better warrant for his direction in truth, than another; we may well affirm them all to be subject to error and falsehood. I add also, that every Sectary must needs confess, every one of his Captains (I mean Luther, Zuinglius, Caluin, and the rest) to have erred in some point or other, touching the true sense of Scripture; for almost no one Sectary followeth any one of these in all points, and approveth all his interpretations: but if we grant them all to have erred in some points, we may well infer that they are subject to error in all, because their warrant is equal for al.  
Finally, if we admit every private man's spirit as a judge in such matters, we take away all order in the Church and open the gap to all Heretics. Some say, that every man by conference of one place of Scripture with another, 
See part. 2. cap. 5. sect. 4.  may attain to the knowledge of the true sense: I reply, that every man's discourse in such points, may be false and erroneous. And it is well known, that divers of our adversaries have conferred the same places and have gathered out of them different senses, which cannot all be true: Yea the same man (not seldom) at distinst times, out of the same places conferred, inferreth distinct conclusions, and altereth his belief touching some article or other; which is a manifest proof, that this conference is no infallible rule: I add also that experience teacheth us that such a conference sometimes increaseth the difficulty, 
See part. 2. cap. 1. sect. 4.  & maketh some show of contradiction which before appeared not, as I will declare hereafter. Others say that by prayer every man may obtain of God the direction of the holy Ghost, for the finding out of the true sense: But where hath God promised this? Moreover, our prayer is of no force, except we pray as we ought: And what is more uncertain than this? How then can we certainly know when God inspireth us? and much less, how can we possibly assure others that we have such a divine inspiration? Further, divers have used likewise this mean, and yet have fallen into error, yea after their prayers, they have had different inspirations: and one hath affirmed himself to have been inspired by God thus, and another thus, etc. Finally, all Heretics may challenge to themselves these shifts, for the proof of their own private and false expositions: wherefore, we must needs find out some other rule more certain.   

SECTION THE FOURTH. That the letter of holy Scripture falsely interpreted, is not the word of God.  
THIRDLY, I am to prove, that a false or wrong exposition erroneously gathered out of the letter of holy Scripture, or made upon the same; is not the word of God, but the word of man: yea, sometimes the word of the devil; and consequently, that the said letter of Scripture so understood, is subject to the same censure. This is apparent, 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 Catholic Christian will deny, but those words of Christ: 
joh. 14. verse 28.  The father is greater than I, if we understand them in this sense, that God the father is greater than Christ according to his humanity, contain the true word of God: so every Catholic Christian, if they be understood as Arius expounded them; that Christ according to his divinity, is inferior to his father, will affirm them to be the word of the devil. Hence proceed divers notable sentences of the ancient Fathers, 
Tertul. de prescript. ca 17. see him also cap. 9 Hillar. li. 2. de Trivitat. ad Constantium. Ambros. lib. 2. ad Gratianum. cap. 1. Vincen. Lirin. li. adverse. propha. haeres novitates cap. 37. Math. 4. verse 6, Hieron. in dial. contra Lucifer. See Math 10. Luke 10. Hieron. in cap. 1. ad Galat.  among the rest Tertullian telleth us; that the sense of holy Scripture adultered, doth impugn the truth at much as the style corrupted. S. Hilary affirmeth; that heresy ariseth of the understanding, not of the Scripture; that the fault is in the sense, not in the word; that there is not one of the Heretics, that doth not lie and say that he preacheth those things 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 etc. they all speak Scriptures with out sense, they all pretend faith, without faith: for the Scriptures are not in the reading, but in the understanding, etc. These and other like discourses hath S. Hillary. S. Ambrose is of the same opinion: for he saith, that although the text or letter have no error; yet the Arrian interpretation hath error. Vincentius Lirinensis comparing the Heretics alleging Scripture against Catholics, with the devils alleging the same to Christ, discourseth after this sort: And if any man ask any Heretic persuading him such things (that is, to forsake the doctrine and tradition of the Church) how provest thou? how declarest thou, that I ought to forsake the universal and ancient faith? presently he; for it is written: and forthwith he allegeth out of the law, the psalms, the Apostles, the Prophets, a thousand testimonies, a thousand examples, a thousand authorities, by which being interpreted after a new and naughty manner, the unhappy soul may be cast down headlong from the Catholic tower: Thus far Vincentius Lirinensis. But let us hear the opinion of S. Hierome in this matter, who above all the rest was conversant in the holy Scripture: these are his words. The Scriptures consist not in the reading, but in the understanding, otherwise if we follow the letter, we also may frame unto ourselves a new opinion, and affirm that they who wear shoes or have two coats, are not to be received into the Church: He addeth in another place. Martion and Basillides and the other heretical plagues, have not the Gospel of God, because they have not the holy Ghost, without which the Gospel which is taught, is made human or of men. He telleth us also, that whosoever interpreteth the Gospel, with another spirit and mind than it was written, troubleth the faithful and turneth the Gospel of Christ upside-down; that we must not think that the Gospel is in the words of the Scripture. It is not (saith he) in the words but in the sense; not in the superficies or outside, but in the marrow; not in the leaves of the speeches or words, but in the root of reason. Hence he concludeth with these words: It is a very dangerous matter to speak or teach in the Church, lest that by perverse interpretation, the Gospel of Christ be made the Gospel of man; or that which is worse, the Gospel of the devil: Thus far S. Hierome. And this is that which the Apostle himself instructeth us of, when he affirmeth that the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth: for the virtue and substance of Scriptures, consisteth in their meaning and interpretation; and so it is, that the bare words thereof are no more Scripture without the spirit (that is to say, without that sense which was intended by the holy Ghost, when they were written) then the body of man is a man, without the soul: yea, if they be wrested to a contrary or wrong sense, they kill and become poison; whereas rightly understood, they contain divine and heavenly doctrine. And so this sentence of the Apostle is expounded by S. Augustine, in divers places of his works; 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. cianun c. 1.  The law of God being read only, & not understood or not fulfilled, doth kill: for than it is called the letter by the Apostle. S. Hierome likewise approveth the same interpretation, and to the same effect in the place above cited, he hath these words: 
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 delivered 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 devil which allegeth Scriptures, and all Heretics (according to Ezechiel) of Scriptures make cushions, which they may put under the elbow of men of all ages: Thus much S. Hierome. Finally S. Augustine writeth thus: 
c Aug. epist. 222.  Love exceedingly the understanding, because the Scriptures themselves (except they be rightly understood) cannot be profitable unto thee. And the reason of this is that which I have already touched, to wit: that a false sense or inrerpretation of the letter of the holy Scriptures, which was never intended by the holy Ghost, but erroneously gathered out of the words, by a man's private discourse or deduction, putteth (as it were) another life or soul upon the said letter, and turneth it clean another way; wherefore so understood, it is his word that so expoundeth it, not the word of God who intended altogether another sense. 
Rai. in his conference with Har. pag. 68  And hence it is, that M. Rainolds a Protestant affirmeth, that it is not the show but the sense of the words of Scripture, that must decide controversies.   

SECTION THE FIFT. The true sense of the holy Scriptures, is to be learned of the Catholic Church, who is the true judge thereof.  
NOW, seeing that the Scripture of itself is hard, and every particular man may err in the exposition of it: seeing also that the false understanding of it is so dangerous, and the true sense so sovereign, let us see whether we can find out any certain and infallible guide, whose judgement we may follow securely, and without all fear of error in this matter.  
I affirm therefore, that like as we receive the letter of the holy Scripture, from the Catholic Church, and by her censure infallibly know it to be Canonical: so likewise we are to receive the sense and exposition of the said letter, from the same our holy mother; and receiving and following the sense by her approved, we cannot possibly err: wherefore, upon it we may securely build our faith and salvation. This may be inferred out of those things which have been already proved: for if the letter itself be not properly Scripture without the true sense, which is (as it were) the life and soul of the said letter; and the letter be known unto us by the declaration of the Church, it must needs follow, that we ought also to receive the sense from the same Church: But let us prove 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 received in the Church: his words are these. 
Rom. 12. verse 6.  Having gifts according to the grace of God that is given us, different; either prophecy according to the rule of faith, or ministry; or he that teacheth in doctrine: etc. Out of which we gather, the prophecy according to the rule, proportion, or analogy of faith, is one of the gifts which God bestoweth upon his Church. And what is meant by the word prophecy? surely nothing else but the interpretation or exposition of the word of God: this cannot be denied. And it is confessed by our adversaries themselves, who in their English new Testament printed in the year 1592. and 1600. in their note upon those words of the Apostle (Follow charity, earnestly pursue spiritual things, 
1. Corin. 14. ve. 1.  but rather that you may prophesy,) tell us 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 will have the word prophecy in the place cited out of the Epistle to the Romans to signify preaching and teaching: yet because all preaching & teaching (according to their doctrine) ought principally to be out of the word of God, it all cometh to the sell same sense. Hence M. Rainolds in the conference held at Hampton Court between Protestants & Puritans, 
Barlow in his relation of the said conference pag. 78.  requested; that at certain times there might be prophesying in rural Deaneries. But how shall we understand those words according to the Analogy or rule of faith? Truly, the meaning of them is already explicated: for by them we are taught, that the exposition of holy Scriptures, aught to be conformable to that rule of faith, which was delivered by Christ to his Church, and by the assistance and direction of the holy Ghost, hath remained in the same ever since, without corruption, and shall so remain until the end of the world. And all this may be confirmed by that sentence of S. Peter before alleged: 
2. Pet. 1. vers. 20.  No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation: that is to say, no exposition of Scripture, aught to be made according to any man's private fancy, but according to the doctrine & sense of the Church. And by this rule (as I have before noted) S. john the Apostle and Evangelist, 
1. john 4. verse 1. Luk. 24. vers. 45.  biddeth us try our spirits, whether they be of God or no. Moreover, S. Luke the Evangelist recordeth that our Saviour opened his Apostles understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures. Neither did he only give them the gift of understanding such divine books; but also delivered unto them, the true sense and meaning of the same, I mean of the old Testament, which only before the Ascension of Christ was penned. And this gift of understanding 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 delivered to their successors, and so by succession and tradition the same remaineth always in the Church. 
Iren. li. 4. cap. 45. Tertul. de praescrip. cap. 19  Hence S. Ireneus telleth us, that they conserve our faith and expound the Scripture unto us without danger, with whom the succession of Bishops which is from the Apostles, remaineth. Tertullian likewise, refusing to argue against Heretics by only Scripture, willeth us first to search out who have the true faith itself; whose the Scriptures are; from whom and by whom, and when and to whom the discipline by which men are made Christians, was delivered. For wheresoever (saith he) it shall appear, that the truth of Christian discipline and faith is; there we shall find also the truth of Scriptures, & expositions & all Christian traditions. Unto these authorities I add, that the obscurity of the holy Scriptures, & the danger of misinterpreting them being presupposed, it was necessary that God almighty should prescribe some certain rule, which every man might follow without danger of error in understanding them: otherwise, dissension might have risen concerning their true sense, and consequently, concerning divers articles of Christian religion; and every man might & would have expounded them, according to his own fancy, although never so false and erroneous. And what judge can we imagine him to have appointed, but the Catholic Church? whom (as I have proved above) he hath warranted from error, whose authority he hath made the rule of our belief, who hath the custody of holy Scriptures, and from whom we receive them, and infallibly know them to contain the true word of God. This finally, the practice itself of the Church hath confirmed: for whensoever any controversy hath risen touching the true sense of holy Scriptures, she (according to the rule of faith in her preserved, and the sense of Scripture unto her delivered, together with the letter) hath defined the truth and decided the same, as it appeareth by the condemnation (all Heretics, together with their false translations, and erroneous expositions of the said Scriptures. And whosoever forsaketh this rule, falleth presently into a labyrinth & vast Sea of difficulties, and is always perplexed and inconstant in his belief: Contrariwise, whosoever embraceth this rule buildeth upon a firm rock; wherefore I say with the Apostle: Whosoever shall follow this rule, 
Galat. 6. vers. 16.  peace upon them and mercy,  
Now let us in the last place, confirm the truth of our principal assertions, concerning the letter and interpretation of holy Scripture; yea, concerning the whole sum of christian doctrine, by unwritten tradition preserved in the Church, by the confession of our Lutheran adversaries of Wittenberg. For they do not only confess, 
Harm. of confess. sect. 10. pag. 332. 333. Confession Wittenb. artic. 32.  The Church to have authority to bear witness of the holy Scripture, and to interpret the same: but also affirm, that she hath received from her husband Christ, a certain rule (to wit, the Prophetical and Apostolical preaching) confirmed by miracles from heaven, according unto the which she is bound to interpret those places of Scripture, which seem to be obscure; and to judge of doctrines. This may be seen in the Harmony of confessions.  

Field book 4. ca 19 & 20. §. The second.  Field also acknowledgeth in the Church, A rule of faith descending by tradition from the Apostles, according unto which, he will have the Scriptures expounded. I conclude therefore, that thus the holy Scripture is a most sure and infallible ground of faith: for by this means (I mean by the divine censure and approbation of the Church) we are assured, that both the letter and sense are of divine authority; whereas the particular or private approbation of the letter, or interpretation or it made by any private man, being subject to error, cannot possibly yield us any such assurance.   

SECTION THE sixth. An objection against the premises is answered, and the question concerning the last resolution of our faith is discussed.  
BUT here occurreth a difficulty of no small moment to be resolved: For in this chapter I have affirmed, the Canonical Scriptures, and their true interpretation, to he known by the infallible authority of the Church, whereas before I proved the authority of the Church to be infallible, by the testimony of holy Scripture: wherefore, 
Field book 4. cap. 7.  it may seem that I have made a circle, or (as M. Field calleth it) a circulation.  
The full solution of this objection, dependeth of the resolution of a question, which to some appeareth very intricate and hard, to wit: unto what we lastly resolve our faith, whether to the authority of the Church, or of the Scripture, or to some human motives? and therefore this must first be discussed, before the other can be answered. And in very deed, although all Catholic Divines be of one consent, and hold that the cause of our belief is the authority of God, which hath revealed such mysteries as we believe: yet concerning the last resolution of our faith, which is a school question, and not a matter of faith, I find among them two opinions. The followers of the first declare the matter thus.  
Fiist (say they) every man is induced to believe Christian religion, and to accept of it as true, by certain human and prudent motives or reasons which persuade him, that such doctrine as is taught in the Church according to the rules of wisdom, is credible and worthy of belief. Such motives among others, are these which follow.  
First, that almost all Nations, and in them an infinite number of men of greatest authority, principal wit, excellent virtue, and profound learning have so beleeeved. Secondly, that innumerable multitudes of people of all sorts, sexes and ages, who were most desirous to please God and know true religion, and were exemplars or patterns of probity and sanctity, have so earnestly embraced it, that they doubted not to prefer the profession of it, before goods, liberty, fame, and life itself: yea, that they chose rather to lose all these, and endure withal most cruel torments, then to departed from it. Thirdly, that it doth (as it were) miraculously and by some divine means, change men (although habituated in vice) upon the sudden to be virtuous. Fourthly, that the propagation of it hath been by divine power: which appeareth by this, that a few unlearned and weak fishermen, teaching such things as are contrary to flesh and blood, and above all reason; have overcome, not by force of arms, but by preaching and suffering, the wisest, most eloquent, most noble, and most potent men of the world. Finally, that this religion hath been confirmed by an infinite multitude of divine miracles, recorded by famous authors of all ages, of which if one only be confessed true, Christian religion cannot be false. By these, and other such like reasons and arguments, which I have rehearsed before, according to the Psalm: The testimonies of our Lord are first made (unto well disposed people) over or exceeding credible.  
But although these of themselves, may well make us accept and believe the truth of Christian religion, by a natural and human kind of belief, such as the Devil himself hath, and is also in Heretics concerning such articles which they truly believe: yet can they not alone, cause in us an act of supernatural faith. For this (as I have proved before) being supernatural, can not proceed from a natural cause, without some supernatural help. And what then is done after this persuasion? Verily God almighty yieldeth us his supernatural help, and imparteth unto our soul a divine light of faith, by which our understanding is made more capable of things so high, then before; and by which our minds are so divinely lifted up and affected (as it were) by a divine testimony, that through it, far more strongly then by any human motives, we are inclined to believe, and made most firmly to rest in the divine revelation: and so by this assistance of God, together with the concourse of our understanding, an act of supernatural faith is produced, by which we firmly believe the articles of Christian faith, taught and propounded by the Catholic Church; not for such and such motives as before proved them credible, but for that they are revealed by almighty God. And because one of these articles is, that the Church in propounding particular mysteries of our faith, cannot err; this also is believed among the rest: upon which as a common rule and guide, we ground our belief, as upon a sure propounder of such things as we are bound to believe, touching every other particular article. Hence ariseth a great difference between us and some of the most learned of our adversaries, touching the decision of this question: for although we both seem to admit some supernatural aid, light, or habit to this, that our understanding produce an act of supernatural faith: yet, we differ much concerning the object of this act; as also in the motives or arguments of credibility, which first induce us to accept of the same. For whereas we include in the first act of faith, into which we are induced by the said motives, the belief of an infallible guide touching all particular points: they include no such matter; but for their ground and guide in this act believed, acknowledge only the letter of holy Scripture: which verily, although we also in our aforesaid act include; yet we give it no such sole pre-eminence, as is before declared. And of this followeth a far greater difference, couching the arguments and proofs of our propounder and ground: for whereas althe arguments of credibility, persuading us that Christian religion is credible, persuade us also, that the authority of the propounder of our faith (I mean of the Catholic Church) according to prudence, may be believed infallibly: the said arguments are not sufficient in a wise man's judgement (setting aside the said authority of the Church) to make it credible unto us, that every book and parcel of holy Scripture commonly admitted, is canonical and divine; much less, that every particular exposition of Scripture by every private man accepted, is divine & true. And of this it proceedeth, that they allege no such forcible arguments of credibility, for the proof of this and that book of Scripture; nor for the truth of their interpretation of this and that sentence, but for the first, usually fly to divine illumination only, joined with the majesty of the letter, or some such thing, which be no such arguments of credibility as I will prove hereafter: 
Part. 2. Chap. 5.  and for the last, some of them assign certain rules to be observed, which (in very deed) are insufficient, as shall likewise hereafter be proved. Hence they assign no prudent motives, 
Ibid. c. 8.  which persuade them to concur with the supernatural help of God, to a supernatural act of faith: 
2. Cor. 10. verse 5. Rom. 12. verse 1.  Whereas God (although he require of men an humble obsequy or obedience to faith) yet propoundeth nothing to be believed, which in the judgement of wise men is not credible; and therefore also requireth a reasonable obsequy. Verily if there were no other reason to persuade a man the truth of our doctrine, this only would suffice, that God doth usually teach all by some common rule or mean, which draweth men to unity and humility; not every one by private illumination or inspiration, which is commonly a motive to pride and a fountain of discord.  
But Field urgeth, 
Field book 4. cap. 7.  that by this doctrine we lastly resolve our faith to human motives and inducements. I answer, that concerning this matter two questions may be demanded, very much divers. First, what moveth men to accept of the belief of such obscure articles, as are those of Christian religion? unto which I make this answer, that unto this they are moved by such prudential or human motives, as I have assigned before. Secondly, it may be asked concerning the formal cause of faith itself, why men now actually believe such obscure mysteries? And unto this I say, that the cause of their present belief, is the revelation of God, or (which is all one) the authority of God revealing. And because they are not sufficient of themselves, supernaturally to believe such articles as so revealed, their understanding is aided and inclined to this, by the divine gift of supernatural faith, like as their will by charity, is aided and inclined to any act of supernatural love; which gift of faith together with their understanding (as I have said) produceth a supernatural act of belief: wherefore, we assign not human inducements as the formal cause, but as the cause of the first acceptance of our faith; and as into the formal cause, we lastly resolve our faith into divine revelation: And so I think this opinion sufficiently explicated. But before I pass any further, 
Field ibid. § Surely. Stapheton in his Triplic. contra Whitaker pag. 188.  I cannot there but advertise my reader, that Field discoursing of this point, wrongeth D. Stapleton very much. For whereas he accuseth him, as though in his Triplication against Whitaker he should affirm, Other matters to be believed, because contained in the Scripture; and the Scripture, because it is the word of God; and that it is the word of God because the Church delivereth it so to be; and the Church, because it is led by the spirit; and that it is led by the spirit, because it is so contained in the Scripture and the Creed. Stapleton (in very deed) in this last place hath no mention of the Scripture, but of the Creed only. True it is that he proveth against Whitaker out of the Scriprture, a certain internal motion of God, by which we are moved to assent to this first proposition (as he saith) of our faith: I believe the Catholic Church is infallibly governed by the holy Ghost, and that she is to be heard, and her voice obeyed: but this is not to say, that we believe the Church to be led by the spirit, because it is so contained in the Scripture.  
I come now to the second opinion: Others therefore besides this divine affection or inclination, proceeding from the peculiar assistance of God in the act of faith, being desirous also to assign some other divine and infallible reason, moving us to believe; affirm, both that we believe the authority of the Church to be infallible, because it is so revealed in holy Scripture; and also, that we infallibly know the Scriptures to be canonical, because as canonical they are propounded unto us by the Church. Neither do they (as they say) in this kind of proceeding, commit any absurd or vicious circle: because these two things are not motives or reasons of the belief of one another, after the self same manner, but in two sundry respects; being so, that we yield the reason why the Church cannot err, by the Scriptures (as by a divine revelation) approving it. For although we formally believe this, because it is revealed by God; yet, this revelation we prove by other revelations contained in holy Scripture: but that the Scripture is canonical, although we formally believe because God hath so revealed; yet, this revelation we prove not by any other revelation, but by the authority of the Church, as a condition only requisite, propounding it infallibly unto us.  
To make this assertion a little more plain, we must presuppose the truth of two propositions, commonly held certain in Philosophy: the one is, that two causes may for divers respects, be causes of one another; so say the Philosophers: the efficient cause is the cause of the being or existence the final cause; and the final cause of the causality of the efficient. For example, when a Physician doth administer physic to one that is sick, the final cause or end why he administereth physic, is the health of the patiented; and the administering of the physic, is the efficient cause of the sick-man's health. In like sort, when the wind openeth a window, it openeth it by entering in, and entereth in by opening it, so that the efficient cause of the opening the window, is the motion of the entrance of the wind, and the material cause and mean by which the wind entereth, is the opening of the window, because unless the window be opened, the wind cannot enter in. Secondly, it is also certain that a mere condition necessarily requisite, is no cause: for example, wood cannot be burned except it be put near, or in the fire; and yet this approximation (as I may call it) is not the cause to speak properly, why the wood is burnt but a condition necessary. In like sort, a law doth not bind except it be promulgated; and yet the promulgation is not the cause why the law doth bind, but a condition etc. Now to come to the matter: If two causes (in some sort) may be causes of one another; wherefore may not we prove two propositions for divers respects, by one another?  
That these respects be divers in the proof of the infallible authority of the Church by Scripture, and of Scripture by the infallible authority of the Church, it is manifest; because the infallible authority of the Church is proved by Scripture, as by a divine revelation; the Scripture by the infallible authority of the church, as by a condition requisite: and that a cause and a condition be different I have showed. We say therefore, that Christ departing out of this world, left the whole sum of Christian doctrine with his holy spouse the Church, and made her the infallible propounder of the same. And being so that among other articles left, this was one, that she should not err in executing her office: this also she was to propound, and her children by the divine precept of God were bound to believe it: Wherefore, if in those days, before any Scripture of the new Testament was written, a man had asked a Christian why he believed the mysteries of Christian religion? he might truly have answered, because they were revealed by God. If he had been further demanded, how he knew such and such articles to be revealed? he might have answered, because the Church propounded them to be believed: so that the cause why he believed such mysteries, was the revelation of God: the mean whereby he knew them infallibly to be revealed, was the propounding of the Church. If he had been urged further, why he believed that the Church in propounding such matters could not err? Surely he might have said, that this was before included in the belief of the mysteries of Christian religion in general; and consequently was believe because God so revealed: but let us come to the succeeding ages. The Apostles & disciples of Christ whiles they lived, wrote the holy Scriptures of the new Testament, and left them to the Church; in which among other mysteries, they confirmed unto us the authority of the Church: and the Church propounded the said Scriptures unto her children as Canonical. Now then, wherefore believe we, or how do we prove the Church cannot err? I answer, by the revelation of God, contained in holy Scripture. If it be demanded further, how we know such a revelation to be divine? I answer, not by any other divine revelation; because this is the last, and believed for itself: but by the proposition or propounding of the Church, which is only a condition requisite for the belief of it; and yet a divine proof. So that the reason or cause why we believe the Church cannot err, is the revelation of God contained in holy Scripture: the cause why we believe such a revelation, is no other revelation but itself: the mean whereby we come to know that this revelation is from God, is the proposition of the Church: wherefore, the respects are divers, and also the objects of these assertions. The respects, because when we assign the divine revelations contained in holy Scripture, as the reason of our belief concerning the infallible authority of the Church; we assign a reason (as it were) by the cause of our said belief, which is divine revelation: But when assign the propounding of the Church, as that which moveth us to believe the Scripture; we assign not a reason by the cause of this our belief, which is divine revelation: but by a conditon infallibly guiding us, as is aforesaid. The objects also of these two reasons yielded of our belief, are divers: For the object of the divine revelations contained in holy Scripture assigned as the reason of our belief of the Church, are the verities, or things themselves revealed and believed; but the object of the propounding or proposition of the Church, requisite for our belief of Scripture, are the revelations themselves contained in the said Scripture: For by it we are taught that the Scripture containeth divine revelations, and is the true word of God. And thus much of the second opinion, concerning the solution of the question propounded, which in truth giveth us a very good method how to answer the cavils our adversaries; and rather addeth something to the former, then is otherwise different from it. For the authors following this opinion, to this that we believe or accept of Christian faith as true, require also the aforesaid inducements or arguments of credibility; but moreover they assign a divine proof or reason built upon divine authority, which moveth us to the said act of belief. For as I have declared, they affirm that the infallible authority of the Church, which is the general propounder of all particular articles of faith, is known and proved by holy Scripture, as by a divine revelation: they add also, that the truth of holy Scripture is, as certainly known & proved by the authority of the Church, as by a divine propounder. Neither do I imagine, that the followers or maintainers of this opinion, do intent to affirm, that in every process of belief touching any article, it is necessary that we resolve it lastly to the holy Scripture: for I think, that notwithstanding that which hath been said, if we be asked why we believe the whole sum of Christian doctrine, or any point thereof? we may well answer, because it is revealed by God: And if further we be demanded how infallibly and divinely we know it to be so revealed? we may answer; because it is propounded by the Church. Nevertheless, the first opinion of itself is sufficient, although this may seem more exact, especially in Schools. Neither do I or any Catholic affirm, the knowledge of these points to be neccessary to every faithful Christian; for it is sufficient, that they believe all such things as are propounded by the Church, because they are revealed by God, which is done by the help of supernatural faith. Nay I do not think it is needful that they expressly know this infallible authority of the Church, as propounder of such verities, or all such prudential motives, as are before mentioned: But I deem it sufficient, that they believe such revealed verities, as they are bound to know expressly; and others virtually, moved thereunto by the authority of their predecessors, or the asseveration of other faithful people; for this is sufficieint in them, either for the obtaining, or preserving the gift of supernatural faith. Let us now see in few words, what solutions may be given to the objection made in the beginning of this Section.  
First therefore, according to the doctrine of the first opinion, touching the last resolution of our faith; I answer, that in very deed the canonical Scriptures and their true sense, are known by the infallible authority of the Church, as by the propounder of such particular matters belonging to our faith and religion, as we are bound to believe: Nevertheless, it is lawful to prove the authority of the Church out of holy Scripture, against such adversaries 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. count epist. Man. quam vocant Fundam. ca 4. et 5. Id. de unitate Eccle. cap. 19 et tract. 13. in joannem. Field book 4. cap. 7. § There is no question.  who approved the authority of miracles, and denied the authority of Scriptures, prove 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 proved the Church, and by the Church the truth of miracles: but that this manner of proceeding is lawful, it is granted by Field, & therefore I need say no more.  
Secondly, I answer according to the other opinion, that the canonical Scriptures and their true interpretation, are infallibly proved & known by the authority of the Church, as by a condition necessary proponuding them unto us: but the authority of the Church is proved & known to be infallible, by the testimony of holy Scriptures as by divine revelations approving the said authority. And to affirm this (as I have showed) is no more absurd, then to say that two causes may be causes of one another. Neither do I think this manner of proof more to be blamed, than the proof 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 bigness & proportion of a man's foot by his step in dust or sand, and of this again by that. Thus also the Philosophers prove a man reasonable, because he is risible or hath power to laugh; and again demonstrate that he hath power to laugh, because he is reasonable: which kind of argumentation is not called circulation, but a demonstrative regress.    

Chapter 8. Concerning the second particular ground of Catholic religion, to wit, Apostolic Traditions.  

SECTION THE FIRST. Of Apostolic Tradition in general.  
THAT I may the better declare the authority and dignity of Apostolic unwritten Traditions, of which I am principally to entreat in this chapter, I think it not amiss to say a word or two of Apostolic Tradition in general: and although though I shall repeat some things which have been already said; yet I hope, my reader will pardon me, seeing that a just occasion of so doing is offered me. I have above affirmed, 
Cap. 6. sect. 2.  that the whole sum or corpse of Christian religion, was delivered by Christ to his Apostles, not in writing, but by word of mouth: and that the principal mean for the entire preservation of it in the Church, without corruption or depravation, ordained by God almighty; is the continual assistance and direction of the holy Ghost, who always remaineth in the Church, and directeth her in all truth. Of which I now gather, that although never any scripture of the new Testament had been written; yet, that the doctrine of Christ by Tradition had still remained the self same, entire and whole in the Church, to the end of the world. This is so manifest out of that which hath been already said, that it needeth no proof in this place: yet, I will repeat a word or two of that, and add a little more to make it the more apparent. I prove it therefore, because our blessed Saviour never penned the sum of his doctrine himself: neither is it recorded, that ever he commanded any one of his Apostles or Disciples in express terms to write, but only to preach and teach according to his own, and the holy Ghost instructions. And hence it is, that none of the said Apostles or Disciples wrote any parcel of the new Testament, presently after the ascension of Christ; and consequently, that the whole sum of Christian doctrine was published some time, before any such scripture was penned, and that the Church of Christ was some years without it. S. Matthew the first Evangelist, 
Euseb. in Chronic. anno 41.  published his Gospel (as Eusebius recordeth) some six years after our saviours ascension. Hence also it proceeded, that never any one of the Apostles or Disciples, undertook the setting down in writing of the whole sum of Christian doctrine: this is manifest, because the three first Evangelists delivered unto us very little, touching the divinity of Christ, one of the chief and highest mysteries of Christian religion. Neither had the fourth which was S. john the Apostle, any intention to set down all that the other three had omitted: for he wrote his Gospel directly against certain Heretics, who denied the divinity of Christ; and that not by the commandment of Christ, but by the entreaty of the bishops of Asia, as 
a Atha. in sinopsi.  S. Athanasius S. Hippolytus bishop and martyr, 
b Epipha. haeres. 51.  S. Epiphanius and 
c Hieron. praefat. in Mat. et in li. de scriptor. Eccl. in joan.  S. Hierome testify. And that all is not by him recorded it is manifest, because those speeches which our Saviour had with his Apostles, during the forty days between his resurrection and ascension, are almost altogether omitted. Neither did he write this Gospel at the beginning of the Church, but many years after, to wit: about threescore and six years after our saviours ascension. And like as S. john, so did the rest of the Apostles and Disciples, leave unto us such parcels of scripture, as we have received from them, some extraordinary occasions moving them thereunto, as I could easily declare and prove, 
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 book 4. cap. 20. § For first.  Field maketh show, as though it were a plain matter that the Evangelists in their Gospels, S. Luke in the acts of the Apostles, and S. john in the Apocalypse, Meant to deliver a perfect sum of Christian doctrine, and direction of Christian faith: but what reason he bringeth for it of any moment I cannot see. And besides it is certain, that no one of them intended to set down all, because no one of them hath so done: wherefore, if they have set down all, (as he affirmeth) either it hath proceeded from some common deliberation or consultation had among themselves, in which they determined what every 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 ever made mention of such a deliberation or consultation, and moreover they wrote upon divers occasions, in divers Countries, and at divers times, as Ecclesiastical histories testify. Not the second, because Field himself granteth, that something is wanting in these books which the Church believeth, which would not have been, if the holy Ghost had intended that all should have been set down: for he addeth, that The epistles of the Apostles were occasionally written; yet so (saith he:) as by the providence of God, all such things as the Church believeth, not being found in the other parts scripture purposedly written, are most clearly and at large delivered in these epistles. Mark well (gentle reader) this doctrine: he told us before that the Apostles and Evangelists in the Gospels, acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse, meant to deliver a perfect sum of Christian doctrine, & direction of Christian faith: now he telleth us, that the Church believeth some things which are delivered in the Apostolical epistles, not being found in the other parts of scripture purposedly written. Of which I infer, both that the holy Ghost intended not, that the penners of the Gospels, of the acts of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse, should deliver a perfect sum of Christian doctrine; and also, that he thinketh the writers of these books to have miss of their intended purpose: verily this last point seemeth to me no very sound doctrine. And beside, how will M. Field prove that the Apostles in their epistles supplied all this want? especially seeing that the Apostles and Evangelists in the other books, although intending to write all: yet in his opinion omitted something, and the authors of the epistles intended no such matter, but written them (as he saith) occasionally: wherefore, there is far greater likelihood that these omitted something, than 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 new Testament? Finally, Field himself confesseth some unwritten Traditions, as I will declare in the next Section.  
What then did the Apostles and Disciples expressly set down in those their monuments, which are contained in the new Testament? a part only (without all doubt) of the whole sum of Christian belief, in which part they ratified and confirmed the supreme and infallible authority of the Church, of whom the rest was to be learned, and to whose custody they committed their said monuments: so that the whole sum or depositum, hath been kept and preserved in the Church, not all & only in express terms 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 itself came to our hands. And after this sort the whole corpse of Christian religion, without any alteration descended unto us. This may be proved by that which hath been already said, concerning the true sense & exposition of holy scripture: 
Chap. 7. sect. 5.  for (as I have showed) the scripture ought to be interpreted according to the Analogy or rule of faith, that is to say; according to that belief which the Church by Tradition hath received 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 full direction of the said letter of holy scripture: of which it followeth, that the faith of the holy Church might have remained sound and entire by Tradition, although no such letter had been published. But let us confirm 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 us scriptures? aught we not to follow the order of Tradition, which they delivered unto those whom they committed Churches? unto which order many barbarous nations believing in Christ assent, without letter or ink (that is, without any written word of God) having salvation written in their hearts by the holy Ghost, and diligently keeping the ancient Tradition: Hitherto S. Irenaeus. And note well that he affirmeth, some to have been Christians without any scripture, guided only by the Tradition of the Church. He telleth us moreover, that by this order of Tradition from the Apostles, all Heretics are convinced in such sort, that catholics shut up their ears, assoon as they hear them utter any thing repugnant to the said order. Finally he addeth, that all that are desirous to hear 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 even unto us, who taught no such thing as these men (Heretics) dream of. Thus far S. Irenaeus, 
Tertul. de praescrip. cap. 19 20. 21,  who suffered martyrdom in the year of our Lord 205. Tertullian also affirmeth, that by this rule of Tradition or prescription of Catholic doctrine, Heretics are to be convinced. And hence it proceedeth, that the Apostle with such vehemency accuseth him that preacheth other doctrine, then that which was before received in the Church: 
Gal. 1, 9  If any man (saith he) evangelize to you, besides that which you have received, be he Anathema or cursed: to which sentence alludeth Vincentius Lirinensis in these words. 
Vincent. Lir. c. 14.  To preach unto Christian Catholics other doctrine then that which they have already received, no where is lawful, and never shallbe lawful: and to accurse as Heretics those which preach other doctrine then that which before hath been accepted, it was never unlawful, it is in no place unlawful, and never will be unlawful: Hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis. Contrariwise, for keeping undefiled this rule or Tradition, the same Apostle highly commendeth the Corinthians, saying: 
1. Corin. 11, 2.  I praise you brethren, that in all things you be mindful of me: and as I have delivered unto you, you keep my precepts, (or according to the Greek word) my Traditions. And because the Church (and above all others the Romans) most carefully kept these Traditions, 
Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4.  S. Irenaeus called it the rich treasure-house of Apostolic Traditions: wherefore, whosoever is desirous to discern a true Christian from a faithless Heretic, must behold the doctrine of them both, and pronounce him to be the true disciple of Christ, who by succession and Tradition, hath received his belief from him and his Apostles. For like as a nobleman, or gentleman of antiquity, is known by his pedigree: so a true Christian is known by the succession and descent of his Prelates, and faith from them that first received it from our Lord. Neither doth this our doctrine any ways diminish the authority of holy scripture: for this notwithstanding we affirm, that the wonderful providence of almighty God most wisely ordained, that the scriptures of the new Testament should be written, that he moved the penners thereof thereunto, and directed them by his divine inspiration: and this both for the confirmation and preservation of the faith & Tradition of the Church; and also that the said Tradition might with more ease come to every one's knowledge, and that every one by such monuments, might learn to discern the true Church, of which he was to be instructed concerning all matters of faith and religion. But of our estimation of the holy scripture see more above. 
Chap. 7.    

SECTION THE SECOND. Of unwritten Traditions in particular.  
THis discourse being premised, concerning the Traditions of the Church in general, I come now to discourse of that part of the said Traditions which are concerning matters, of which there is no express mention in the word of God, and therefore are called unwritten Traditions.  
And first, that both such Traditions are found in the Church, and that the whole sum of Christian doctrine, is not expressly contained in the written word of God, I have already declared; 
Section 1.  because none of the Apostles or Disciples, ever intended to set down in any parcel of scripture, the said whole sum of Christian doctrine: and also proved it out of those words of S. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, in which he telleth us, 
Acts 1, verse 3.  that Christ after his Passion showed himself alive in many arguments, for forty days appearing to his Apostles, and speaking of the kingdom of God. For by this relation it seemeth evident, that our Saviour during the time between his resurrection and ascension, gave to his Apostles divers instructions which are not set down in particular in any part of the new Testament: for no Apostle or Evangelist relateth in particular these discourses of Christ. And they were (without all doubt) concerning the sacraments, their administration, the government of the Church, and other such like affairs 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 plain terms is avouched by 
a Epiph. haeres. 61. Apostolico rum.  S. Epiphanius, whose words be these: We must use Tradition; for the scripture hath not all things. And therefore the Apostles delivered certain things in writing, certain by Tradition. The same truth is affirmed by 
b Basil. de spiri. sancto cap. 27.  S. Basil and the rest of the Fathers: yea, this we are taught by the Apostle himself, who in his epistle to the Thessalonians, not only commendeth most earnestly to the Church written Traditions: but also unwritten. 
c 2. Thess. 2, 15.  Brethren (saith he) stand; and hold the Traditions which you have learned, whether it be by word or by our epistle: Out of which place it is evident, that some Traditions by the Apostle, were delivered to the Thessalonians by word. And that here he speaketh of such Traditions as we treat of, we are taught by all the ancient Fathers. Among the rest S. john Chrisostome gathereth out of them this conclusion: Hence it is manifest, (saith he) that they (videlicet the Apostles) delivered not all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and those things likewise are to be believed: 
d Chrisost hom. 4. in 2. Thessa.  It is a Tradition, seek thou no further: thus S. Chrisostome. But that the Fathers admit unwritten Traditions, it is granted by 
e Whitak. de sacra scrip. pag. 678. 668. 681. 683. 685. 690. 695. 696. 670.  Whitaker, 
f Rain. in his conclusions annexed to his conference 1. conclu. pag. 689.  Rainolds, 
g Cart. in Whitg. defence 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. motives pag. 35. 36.  Fulke and other Protestants: wherefore, I need not allege any more of their testimonies. And this is the reason wherefore we have no precept in the new Testament, to believe or observe those things only, which are expressly contained in the said volume. Neither do we find, that ever the Apostles or their followers, commended and delivered to any Church or people the said new Testament, as a book comprehending in express terms, the whole sum of Christian doctrine. Nay, it is certain, that for divers years before the said book was written, the Apostles delivered all by Tradition and word of mouth.  
Further, that the estimation of unwritten Traditions hath ever been exceeding great in the Church, it appeareth not only by this, that divers of the ancient Fathers (as I have showed in the 
* Section 1.  chapter next before) by Tradition have proved what scripture is Canonical and pleaded the authority of them against divers heresies: but also by this, that divers heresies have been by the testimony of them only condemned & overthrown. In the first general Council of Nice (as 
a Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 16. et 18.  Sozomenus reporteth) the Fathers especially endeavoured, that nothing should be decreed, but that which they had received by Tradition from their forefathers: S. Cyprian with most of the Bishops of Africa, & Diosinius the Patriarch of Alexandria (men of great estimation in their days) with divers other Bishops in sundry provincial Counsels decreed, the baptism of Heretics 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 small force and moment for their purpose: but all these their decrees were overthrown. 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. count Donat. et cont. Cresc. Hieron. contra Lucif.  S. Steven Pope of Rome, pleading Tradition against them, condemned their doctrine as heretical, and pronounced this renowned sentence: Let no new thing be brought into the Church; let nothing be done but that which was delivered unto us: thinking it altogether unlawful to transgress the rule of faith, by succession and Tradition received from the Apostles. This is recorded by divers authors of great fame and antiquity.  
By Tradition the Pelagian heresy was 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 helvidius the heretic for denying the perpetual virginity of our blessed Lady. Yea, 
e Basil. de spir. sancto ca 27. See Aug. epist 118. add Iam. Leo ser. 2. de jeiunio.  S. Basil telleth us, that if we reject Tradition, we shall endamage the whole principal parts of our faith, and without it bring the preaching of the Gospel to a naked name. I could bring forth divers other such like examples and testimonies, were it not that I should be over long.  
But how shall we come to the knowledge of these Traditions, S. Augustine giveth us this most certain rule. 
f Aug. to. 7. de bapt. count. Dona. l. 4. c. 24. see ibi. c. 6  That (saith he) which the whole Church holdeth, and hath not been instituted by any Council, but always hath been observed, is most truly believed to have been delivered by no other, but Apostolic 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 baptism of infants: Such Traditions (according to 
h Ba. de spi. sanct. c. 27.  S. Basil) are the sign of the Cross, praying towards the East, the words spoken at the elevation of the Eucharist, with divers ceremonies used before and after consecration: the hallowing of the font before baptism, the blessing of the oil or chrism, the anointing of the baptised with the said oil, the three immersions into the font, the words of abrenunciation and exorcisms of the party which is to be baptised, etc. What scripture (saith he) taught these and such like things? none truly, all coming of secret and hidden Tradition, wherewith our forefathers thought it meet to cover such mysteries: Hitherto S. Basil. It is an Apostolical Tradition as we are taught by 
a Dionis. de Eccles. hierarc. cap. 7.  S. Dionysius of Ariopaguses, 
b Tertul. in exhort. ad castita tem c. 11. et de corona militis cap. 3.  Tertullian, 
c Chrisos. homi. 69. ad populum.  S. john Chrisostome and S. Augustine, to pray and make a memory of the souls departed in the Mass. It is an Apostolical Tradition saith 
d Hieron. epist. 54. ad Marc.  S. Hierome and 
e Epiphan. haeres. 75. Aerij.  S. Epiphanius, to keep certain appointed fasting-days, especially the Lent: the same is affirmed by 
f Aug. epi. 118. ad Ia nu. cap. 1.  S. Augustine concerning the observation of certain holidays, and by 
g Damas'. li. 4. de ortho. fide c. 17. et l. de Imagini. See Ter. de coron. mil.  S. john Damascene concerning the adoration of Images.  
These and divers other such like Apostolic Traditions, are set down by the ancient Fathers, and are to be found in the Church of Christ. And upon these, if they be of matters of faith (seeing that they have divine authority both from Christ and the Apostles, who delivered them to the Church, and from the Church itself, which being the pillar of truth hath accepted and approved them) every Christian may securely build his faith and belief. If they be concerning precepts of moral actions, we are bound to obey them, and may do it with like security: wherefore, 
h Origen tract. 29. in Math.  Origen giveth us this learned counsel. As often (saith he) as Heretics allege Canonical scriptures in which all Christians consent and believe, they seem to say: 
* Mat 24. verse 26.  Behold in houses is the word of truth; but we ought not to believe them, nor to go forth from the first Ecclesiastical Tradition; nor believe otherwise, but as the Church of God by succession hath delivered unto us. Thus far Origen, wishing every one in the interpretation and sense of holy scripture, to follow the Tradition of the Church, as also in the belief of all such matters as are called in question by Heretics. Unto these proofs I add, that 
i Barlow B. of Rochester in his sermon preached at Hampton Court Sept. 21. 1606.  Barlowe and Field (too famous English Protestants) admit of certain Apostolic Traditions. 
k Field book 4. cap. 20. § Much contention.  Field telleth us that they reject not all unwritten 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 moreover this other; that whatsoever all, or the most famous and renowned in all ages, or at the least in divers ages, have constantly delivered, as received from them that went before them, no man contradicting or doubting of it, may be thought to be an Apostolical Tradition: thus Field. I confess that (this notwithstanding) he affirmeth, 
Ibid. cap. 20. § Out of this.  No matter of faith to be delivered by bare and only Tradition. But why not such as well as those which concern the manners & conversation of men, and are by him allowed? as for example: Why may we not as assuredly receive by Tradition, our belief concerning some article of faith, as (to use his own words) concerning the observation of the lords day? 
Ibid. That the Apostles. Field book 4. ca 20. § Much confession. Ibidem § The second kind.  Doth not the allowance of these also (according to their common doctrine) prejudice the sufficiency of holy scripture? But he granteth further, that They receive the number, names of the Authors, and integrity of the parts of books divine and Canonical, as delivered by Tradition. He admitteth as a second Tradition, That summary comprehension of the chief heads of Christian doctrine, contained in the Creed of the Apostles, which was delivered to the Church as a rule of her faith. For a third Tradition he acknowledgeth, That form of Christian doctrine and explication of the several parts thereof, which the first Christians receiving from the same Apostles that delivered to them the scriptures, commended to posterities. Unto which I add that which he hath in the fourteenth chapter of the same book; that without the Creed of the Apostles named here in the second place, we cannot know the scripture to be of God: that without the form of Christian doctrine which is his third Tradition, and the Analogy of faith, we have no form of Christian doctrine, by the direction whereof to judge of particular doubts and questions, Yea in another place, of the said form of Christian doctrine he hath these words: 
Ibidem cap. 19  We confess 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, unless we find the things, which we conceive to be understood and meant in the places interpreted, to be consonant to the rule of faith: This is M. Fields doctrine. Out of which I infer contrary to his own assertions, that according to his own grounds, Tradition is the very foundation of his faith. And this is evident: For doth it not follow of this, that we receive the number, names of the authors, and the integrity of books divine by Tradition; that without Tradition, we cannot know such divine books: and moreover, that if Tradition may be false, that we also concerning such books may be deceived? Can it likewise be denied (if it be so, that without the knowledge of the creed we cannot know the scripture to be of God, & the creed also be an Apostolic Tradition) that without an Apostolic Tradition we cannot know the scriptures? Moreover, although that should be admitted as true, which he avoucheth and hardly agreeth with this, to wit: 
Chap. 20. § Much contention. See more of this matter part. 2. chapter 5. sect. 1. and chapter 8. section 4.  that The scriptures win credit of themselves, and yield satisfaction to all men of their divine truth, which in very deed is false: yet, seeing that the true interpretation of them cannot be known (as Field saith) without the knowledge of this rule of faith, it followeth also apparently, that this rule must first infallibly be known by Tradition, before that we can certainly gather any article of belief out of scripture. Neither are these things only granted by Field; but moreover, he confesseth the baptism of Infants to be a Tradition: and addeth, 
* Field book 4. chap. 20. § the fourth  That it is not expressly delivered in scripture, that the Apostles did baptise Infants: and that there is not any express precept there found that they should so do. And yet (I hope) that M. Field will grant, that it is a matter of faith that Infants are to be baptised, lest that he be censured to be an Anabaptist: which if he do, he must needs confess that some matters of faith are delivered unto us by Tradition. And whereas he saith, This is not received by bare and naked Tradition, but that we find the scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it: It is very certain, that the scripture is so obscure touching this point, 
August. de Genes. ad litteram l. 10. c. 23  that S. Augustine affirmeth, that this custom of the Church in baptizing Infants, were not at all to be believed, were it not an Apostolic Tradition. And this obscurity of Scripture is much increased, if we confess with our adversaries that Infants may be saved without Baptism.  

Chap. 20. But they.  But he doth object against us, that we prove many things which we will have 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 expressly and plainly contained in it. We only by probable conjectures prove some Traditions out of holy scripture, especially against Heretics which deny Traditions, and approve the scripture: Nevertheless, by supernatural faith we believe them, because they are such Traditions. 
Book 4. cap. 20. § For this.  That which he saith, that we make Traditions Ecclesiastical equal with the written word of God, is one of his ordinary untruths.  
Besides this, it is also generally urged against us by our adversaries, that divers such things as are affirmed by us to be Apostolic Traditions, are institutions of men; and they name the time when such things were instituted, and the author that commanded them to be observed. I answer, that although touching certain observations and ceremonies, which we affirm to be Apostolic, there be some decrees of Counsels and Popes; yet, that the said Counsels or Popes instituted not such observations and ceremonies, but either ratified and confirmed them by their decrees, or else caused them to be observed universally; whereas before, the use of them was not general: or finally, prescribed to all faithful people, a certain and uniform manner of observing them; whereas before, although the observation of them was general, yet they were not generally observed after the same manner in all places. The truth of this answer appeareth by this, that we can prove by sufficient testimonies, such observations and ceremonies to be more ancient, than our adversaries will have their institution. I add also, that all the definitions and decrees of Counsels 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 will declare in the next chapter: wherefore, it is no absurdity to affirm the like of such constitutions, concerning some observations and ceremonies; for that some have been instituted and ordained by the Church, we confess. Neither hath she in this exceeded her authority, because Christ hath given her such power, to the end that all things might be done uniformally with decency, 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 have above declared.    

Chapter 9 Of general Counsels, which make the third particular ground of Catholic religion.  
IN the next place I affirm, that every man may securely build his faith and religion, upon the decrees of a lawful and authentical general Council, concerning that or those matters which the Council intendeth to define.  
One principal reason convincing the truth of this, may be gathered out of that, which hath been already said of the infallible authority of the Church: for I have proved before; not only, that it was necessary for the preservation of peace and unity, that Christ should ordain in his Church some visible, supreme and infallible mean, to decide controversies touching matters of religion: but also, that this prerogative was bestowed by him, upon his holy spouse our mother the Church. Now, what Court in the world representeth the whole Church, if not a general Council; in which her visible head either in person, or by his Legates, with a great part of her chief Pastors and Prelates (who represent not only all the particular Churches of which they have charge, but also the whole body) are assembled? What assembly is above this? What decree is so firm and of such eminent authority, as is the definition of such a Council? Verily, seeing that the authority of the Church is infallible, and she doth in no superior Court pronounce her sentence; it is manifest that this is the Court, in which all controversies touching matters of faith, with warrant of infallible and divine truth, are finally decided and ended.  
Furthermore, if Christ's Vicar on earth cannot err in matters of faith, or general precepts of manners, when he teacheth the whole Church, as shallbe proved in the next chapter: when (if not in a general Council) doth he enjoy this privilege? If helgates cannot prevail against the Church, when (if not in a general Council) shall we think her so invincible? If the Prelates of the Church are to be obeyed as Christ: When (if not in a general Council) shall we hearken unto them, 
Math. 18. verse 20. See before chap. 6. section 2.  and yield them such obedience? If when two or three are gathered together in the name of Christ, he is in the midst of them, according to his own promise; how shall we think him absent from a general Council? If the holy Ghost doth teach the Church all truth; when (if not in a general Council) doth he so instruct and direct her? Finally, if the Bishops & Prelates of the Church in a general Council may err themselves, how can they (as we are taught by the Apostle they should) according to the ordination of Christ, 
Ephes. 4. vers. 11. etc.  keep all the whole Church from wavering and error in faith?  
Hence the decision of a general Council, hath ever had three principal prerogatives given it, by all allowed monuments of antiquity; which may also manifestly be deduced out of holy scripture itself. First, that it is (as is aforesaid) the supreme and last judicial sentence of the Church, from which there can be no appeal, and which by no means can be made void or recalled. This we gather out of 
a Athan. epist. ad Epictetum.  S. Athanasius, the greatest scholar, and the most principal champion of his age against the Arians, who in an epistle recited also by 
b Epiphan. haeres. 77. See also Hieron. epist. 57 ad Damasunt  S. Epiphanius, wondered how certain durst move any question concerning things defined in the Nicene Council: Much more would he have wondered, if in his days any man had written as Field now hath done, that 
c Field book 4. c. 12. and 5.  after the decrees of a Council hath passed, a man may still doubt and refuse to believe without Heretical pertinacy; yea he avoucheth, that Counsels may err in matters of greatest consequence. But the same holy Father addeth this reason why he thus marveled, to wit: because the decrees of such Counsels cannot be altered without error. S. Augustine saith, 
d Aug. epist. 162.  A general Council is the last judgement of the Church. 
e Leo episto. 50. ad Martianun  S. Leo requesteth of Martianus the Emperor, that those things which are defined in general Counsels, may not be reversed or recalled: which also the said 
f L. Nemo. cap. de sum. Trinit. et fide catho.  Martianus ratified by his Imperial constitution. The same is decreed in the general Counsels of 
g Concilium Ephesinum circa finem.  Ephesus and 
h Concilium Chalcedom. act 5. can. vlt.  Chalcedon.  
Secondly, those are censured by the Fathers and Counsels to be Heretics, who disobey the decrees of such Counsels. And first, all general Counsels denounce Anathema to them, and accurse those that shall contradict their definitions; which they could not do without error upon a mere persuasion, without infallible assurance of divine truth in their said definitions.  
That the Fathers of the Council of Nice did so, it is recorded by 
i Athanas. epistol. ad Episcopos Affricae.  S. Athanasius, and the acts of other such Counsels, evidently prove the same proceed in them. The judgement of 
k Leo epi. 78. ad Leonem Imp. see bin also in epist 77. add Anatho.  S. Leo was, that they could not be numbered among Catholics that resisted the Counsels of Nice and Chalcedon. 
l Basil epist. 87.  S. Basil willed Catholics to propound the decrees of the Council of Nice, to those that were suspected of heresy, because by this it would have appeared, whether they were Heretics or Catholics. 
m August. de baptismo cap. 18.  S. Augustine excuseth S. Cyprian from heresy only for this reason, that his opinion touching the baptism of Heretics, was not condemned by any general Council. 
n Greg. lib. 1. epist. 24.  S. Gregory denounceth Anathema to those that receive not the five general Councles, which only were celebrated before his days.  
Unto this I add, that all Christian Catholic Emperors by their constitutions, adjudged such as Heretics; and made them subject to the punishment of such miscreants, that opposed themselves against the definitions of general Counsels. He is wicked and sacralegeous (say 
a Martian. et Valen. in edicto ad Paladium praefectum. praetorio edicto quod extat act. 3. sinodi Chalced.  Martianus and Valentinianus) who after the sentence of so many bishops doth say any thing according to his own opinion: yea, at all times such as were condemned by such Counsels as Heretics, have been so esteemed by all sorts, although not so censured before: and not only in that age in which they were so condemned; but in all ages following. And both these assertions may be proved by that sentence of our Lord: 
b Math. 10, 7.  He that shall not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the Heathen and the publican. For he that disobeyeth the Church assembled in this supreme Court, is no longer to be thought a Christian, or to be admitted to any other trial, but to be esteemed an Heretic, and an Infidel.  
Thirdly, by the same Counsels and Fathers, the decrees of general Counsels are said to be divine, and from the holy Ghost; of which it followeth, that they are of infallible truth and not subject to error. The Fathers assembled in the most ancient Counsels, avouch the said Counsels to be gathered together by the holy Ghost. 
c Epist. ad Ecclesiam apud Eusebium li. 3. de vita Constantini.  Constantine the great calleth the decrees of the Council of Nice, heavenly precepts. 
d Athan. epistola ad episcopos Affricae.  S. Athanasius writeth, that the word of our Lord by the general Council of Nice, remaineth for ever. 
e Nazian. orat. in Athanas.  S. Gregory Nazianzene telleth us; that in it, the Bishops were assembled by the holy Ghost. 
f Ciril. lib. de trinita. et dialog. cum Hermia, et epi. ad Anasta.  S. Ciril of Alexandria termeth the decree of the same Council a divine and most holy oracle; also the strong and invincible foundation of our faith, and a faith defined by divine instinct. 
g Leo epistol. 53. ad Anatho. et 54. ad Martian. et 78 ad Leonem Aug.  S. Leo affirmeth, that the canons of that Council, and of the Council of Chalcedon, were ordained by the holy Ghost. 
h Constan. epist. ad Ecclesiam de habita Nicaenae synod.  Receive (saith Constantine the great, of the canons of the Council of Nice) with willing minds this decree, as the gift of God, and a precept in very deed sent from heaven. For whatsoever is decreed in the Counsels of the Saints, must be attributed to the divine wil 
i Gregor. li. 1. epist. 24. et lib. 2. indict. 11 epist. 10.  S. Gregory said, He honoured the four first general Counsels as the four Gospels; 
k justin. authent. collat. 9 de Ecclesiasticis titulis cap. 1. see Ruffinus in hist. lib. 1. cap. 5.  We receive their decrees of faith (saith justinian the Emperor, more ancient than he) as the holy scriptures. 
l Caelestinus epist. ad synod. Ephesinam.  Caelestinus the Pope affirmeth, that he believed the holy Ghost to be present in the Council of Ephesus. And this prerogative of the spouse of Christ, is also gathered out of those testimonies of the holy scriptures above rehearsed, proving that the Church is directed in all truth by the holy Ghost: unto which I join this taken out of the Acts of the Apostles, to wit: that the Apostles and ancients assembled together in the first Council held at Jerusalem, in their decision of the matter then in controversy, used this style: 
Act. 15. verse 28.  It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and us, etc. giving us to understand, that in holy Counsels the resolution of controversies and other decrees, proceed jointely from the holy Ghost, and the Fathers assembled; and that he together with them, propoundeth unto us such things as are decreed. And because all general Counsels ever since, have had the same direction and assistance of the holy Ghost; they have likewise ever used the same kind of style.  
Of the authority of the decrees of the said first Council, held by the Apostles at Jerusalem, we are sufficiently informed in the said history of the Acts of the Apostles: In which S. Luke recordeth, 
Act. 15, 41. chap. 16, 4.  that when S. Paul and Silas passed through the Cities, they delivered unto the faithful, the precepts of the Apostles & the ancients that were decreed at Jerusalem; and commanded them to keep them. And like as all faithful Christians embraced those precepts: so ever since all Catholics have embraced the Creeds and Decrees of general Counsels; building therein, not upon the authority of men subject to error, but upon the authority of men directed by the holy Ghost; and (as I may say) upon the authority of the holy Ghost and men: For the holy Ghost is chief precedent in all such general Counsels. Wherefore, although every particular man assembled in the Council (except the Bishop of Rome) may err in his private opinion; yet, certain it is, that in such a Council confirmed by the Pope, they have not erred; and upon this every Christian may securely build his faith and salvation.  
Hence the Fathers teach, that we ought rather to die, then to departed from the decrees of general Counsels: 
a Ambros. epist. 32.  I follow (saith S. Ambrose) the decree of the Nicene Council, from which neither death nor sword shall separate me. 
b Hieron. count Lucif. Hilla. in fine lib. de sinodis.  S. Athanasius, S. Hilary, and S. Eusebius endured banishment, rather than they would contrary the faith of the same Council: 
c Victor in li. de Vandalica per secutione.  Victor Affricanus relateth the martyrdom of divers, who suffered for the same cause.  
Moreover, if we make the decrees of a general Council subject to falsehood, we must needs condemn all such Counsels, even the most ancient and best, of an intolerable error in this, that they propounded things to be believed as articles of faith, of which it is not certain whether they were true or false; and made new Creeds or forms of faith, or (at the least) added some sentences to the old, which they commanded all Christians to embrace, as part of their belief. For how could they do this, if they could have erred and have propounded falsehood? Unto which I may also add, that if we bereave such definitions of divine truth, the condemnation of all heresies condemned in ancient times, may be called in question; and doubt may be made, whether they were lawfully and justly condemned or no: and so we shall not only open the way to all dissension, and division in the Church; but also bereave ourselves of a principal mean, for the condemnation of such new Trinitarians, 
See Zauchius in the epistle before his confession. Beza volumine 3. pa. 190. 195. Hooker book 5. § 42.  Arians, Nestorians, and Eutychians, as have in this last age sprung up, out of our adversaries evangelical or rather Pseudo-evangellical doctrine.  
This forced Beza disputing against such Heretics, to plead the authority of the Counsels of Nice, Ephesus and Chalcedon, 
* Beza epist. The●log. 81 p. 334. 335. Zauchius in his epistle before his confession pag. 12. 13.  Than which (saith he) the Sun never beheld any thing more holy and excellent, from the Apostles days. He addeth, that Although all use of new words be diligently to be avoided; yet (saith he) I so define, that the difference between the essence and hipostasis being taken away, what words soever thou use; and the word consubstantial being abrogated (which words were established in the said Counsels) the deceits and errors of these Arians and Trinitarians, can hardly or not at all be discovered, or their errors so clearly confuted. I deny also, that the words nature, propriety, hypostatical union, etc. being taken away, that the blasphemies of Nestorius and Eutiches can well be refelled: hitherto Beza. Hence also Zanchius a Protestant of no small fame, writeth thus: And because Heretics when they durst not simply deny these foundations, were ever wont to wrest, and yet do wrest and wring the same for the most part, by false interpretations, to their own heresies: Therefore, that the true Churches may be discerned from the conventicles of Heretics, we must understand and expound those principles and chief points of doctrine, in no other sense, then as the ancient Church (agreeably to the scriptures by common consent, specially in the best approved Counsels) expounded them. For what (to say something for example sake) can be more firm, certain, and manifestly spoken for the article in the Creed of the person of Christ, than those things which were determined out of the scriptures, in the Council at Nice, at Ephesus, Constantinople, Chalcedon? add also, the fift and sixth by the godly Fathers, against Arius, Samosatenus, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutiches, the Monotholites. Whosoever therefore teacheth concerning Christ's person, against the determinations of those Counsels, certainly they do not rightly hold this principal foundation of Christian religion: These are the discourses of Zauchius. The like he hath in another place, 
Zauchius in his observations upon his confession upon the 25. chap. pag. 330  where he expressly saith, that The decrees of such Counsels come from the holy Ghost, and that he cannot disprove them with a good conscience. Further, if we weaken the authority of such Counsels, we must needs also make weak the authority of some books of holy scripture, as of the 
a See part. 1. chap. 7. sect. 1. part 2. chap. 5. sect. 2.  epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse, and other such parcels of the written word of God, of which there was some doubt in the Church, whether they were Canonical or no, until the matter was defined by general Council. Finally, let us confirm all that I have here said, by the testimony of 
b Hooker in the preface to his book of ecclesiastical policy pa. 24. 25. 26. 27.  Hooker, whom our English sectaries commonly esteem as highly as any other. He than first telleth us, that there are but two certain ways of peaceable conclusion: the one, a sentence of judicial decision given among ourselves; the other, the like kind of sentence given by a more universal authority, and he meaneth by Counsels. The former of which two ways (saith he) God in the law prescribeth: and his spirit it was, which directed the very first Christian Churches to use the second. This he proveth by the proceed of the Church, touching the controversy about the necessity of circumcision, mentioned in the 
c Act. 15.  Acts of the Apostles, which after great contention was ended by a Council: and he demandeth of the Puritans, whether they are able to allege any just cause, wherefore they should not condescend absolutely in the matter controversed, to have their judgements overruled by some such definitive sentence, whether it fall out with them or against them? that so (saith he) these tedious contentions may cease: He addeth, that without some definitive sentence it is almost impossible, that either confusion should be avoided, or hope be had to attain to peace. Again, To small purpose had the Council of Jerusalem been assembled, if once their determination being set down, men might afterwards have defended their former opinions: when therefore they had given their definitive sentence, all controversies was at end, things were disputed before they came to be determined, men afterwards were not to dispute any longer, but to obey: the sentence of judgement finished their strife, which their disputers before judgement could not do. This was ground sufficient for any reasonable man's conscience, to build the duty of obedience upon, whatsoever his own opinion were, as touching the matter before in question. So full of wilfulness & self-liking is our nature, that without some defititive sentence, which being given may stand, and a necessity of silence on both sides afterwards imposed; small hope there is, that strifes thus far prosecuted, will in short time quietly end: thus he. And to make this his discourse the stronger, he likewise allegeth the authority of Beza, 
Beza praefat. tract. de excom. et presbit.  who (saith he) in his last book save one written about these matters, professeth himself to be now weary of such combats and encounters, whether by word or writing, in as much as he findeth that controversies thereby are made brawls: and therefore he wisheth, that in some common lawful assembly of Churches, all these strifes may at once be decided: Hitherto Hooker. To the same effect he might also, 
Luther li. cont. Zuing. et Oecolan.  have alleged the testimony of Luther, who considering the wonderful multitude of dissensions about religion, among his sectaries themselves, avouched; that for the ending of them (if the world long endure) he saw no other means, but that they should be forced to have recourse to general Counsels. I could allege the like sentences out of Covel, 
Covel in his defence of Hooker See before chap. 6. section 4. 50. 51.  who wisheth that some general Council might be assembled for the final end of all controversies. And hither also tend the discourses of those Protestants, who (as I have above related) make the constitutions of the Church divine.  
But it may (perhaps) be answered by some man, to these testimonies of our adversaries; that notwithstanding all these their assertions, they make general Counsels absolutely subject to error. I answer and confess, that in very deed they do so; yet I affirm, that any wise and discreet man, may well gather out of their sayings alleged, not only that general Counsels are needful in the Church, and that all their division and dissension, proceedeth of their denial of the authority of such Counsels: But also that it was requisite and necessary, that Christ who is never wanting to his Church in things needful, should make the authority of general Counsels concerning matters of faith, infallible. For otherwise, if they were subject to error, what reason hath man to obey them in matters of such consequence? especially considering, that divers such assemblies unlawful, consisting of a greater multitude of Bishops, than some lawful general Counsels, have erred and strayed from the truth. Finally they confess, that the first such Counsels assembled in the first ages of Christianity, erred not: And thus much for the proof of this matter.  
It may (perhaps) be here further demanded, what conditions we require to a lawful and authentical general Council? I answer briefly; first, that such a Council must either be called expressly, by the ministerial head of the Church, or (at the least) with his assent. Secondly, the summon must be general, of all Bishops throughout the world. Thirdly, although it be not needful that all be personally and really present: yet, a competent number must appear, that is to say; some (at the least) out of the greater part of Christian Catholic provinces: yet, if it be assembled in the East, a small number of the West sent to supply the place of all the rest, are judged to suffice: Contrariwise, if in the West, a small number in such sort is sufficient out of the East. Fourthly, the ministerial head or vicegerent of Christ, must either be present in person, or by his Legates. And finally, the decrees of the said Council, must be by him confirmed: and this, both because the head is chief ruler of the body; and consequently, the body is to do nothing without the assent of the head; and also, because he hath singular privileges granted him by Christ of not erring, as shall be declared in the next chapter. Hence it proceedeth, that no general Council hath ever in the Church been held Canonical, without his approbation, although the number of Bishops were never so great, as appeareth by that of Ephesus under Theodosius the younger: by that of Constantinople under Leo Isaurus, and divers others. And out of this discourse I gather, that this authority of general Counsels if we had no other argument, were sufficient to persuade us, to detest and abhor the condemned doctrine of the new Sectaries. For the same Church which in the first general Council of Nice, condemned A●ius and the Arians: the same, which in the second such Council held at Constantinople, condemned Macedonius and the Macedonians; which in the third held at Ephesus, condemned Nestorius & the Nestorians; which in the fourth held at Chalcedon, condemned Eutiches and the Eutychians; which finally, in other general Counsels, hath condemned other Heretics and heresies: The self same Church (I say) directed in all truth by the holy Ghost, hath condemned and accursed Luther and the Lutherans, Zuinglius and the Zwinglians, with all their followers together with their doctrine, in the last general Council held at Trent.  
But they say that this Council was not lawful, nor the judges indifferent. I reply, first; that this hath been an old cavil of all condemned Heretics: wherefore, it may lawfully be suspected in these. Moreover, it is sufficiently proved by Catholic authors, and the matter is evident in itself, that nothing necessary to a lawful general Council, was wanting in this: wherefore, it is received by the whole Church, as Canonical; and therefore no wise man (seeing that salvation and damnation upon this depend) will reject it upon these men's reports.  
They affirm further, that the Church hath no authority in a general Council, to make any new article of faith. To this likewise I answer, that the Church properly maketh no new article of faith: for every decree by her made concerning such matters, is either in express terms contained in the holy scriptures: or gathered out of them by infallible deduction, through the direction of the holy Ghost; or expressly or virtually approved by the unwritten Tradition of the Church: wherefore, the Church neither hath ever taught or shall ever teach any truth so new, that it was unknown to the Apostles. For that which by her is defined and propounded, was true before; and an article of faith, although sometimes not certainly nor generally known before, to be of such authority or dignity. And that this is our doctrine it is granted by Field, whose words are these: 
Field book 4. cap. 12. § Our adversaries.  Our adversaries confess, that the approbation and determination of the Church, can not make that a truth which was not; nor that a divine or Catholic truth which was not so before: thus Field. Hence the Catholic divines affirm, that Christian faith never since Christ's ascension hath increased, or been altered in substance, but only in explanation or explication; because the Church hath ever since, only more plainly and expressly declared her belief: and authority to do this was needful in her, 
Vinc. Lir. cap. 28. 29. et 30.  for preserving of peace, and ending of all controversies. This Vincentius Lirinensis most elegantly declareth, by a similitude taken from the body of man, which hath the same members in his infancy, youth, when he is at man's estate, and in his old age: and although for the diversity of time, they are less and greater, weaker and stronger; yet the body itself is not changed, but augmented: so (saith he) it falleth out in our faith, etc.  
They object also, the authority of some Fathers, but principally those words of S. Gregory Nazianzene, who saith (as he is alleged by Whitaker) 
* Whit. in his ans. to Camp. 4. reason. Abbot in his answer to Hills 9 reason. Nazianz. epist. 55. or 42. alias 102. ad Procop. Hist. tri. part. li 9 cap. 9  That he had deliberated with himself, and fully resolved, to avoid Episcopal convocations, because he had never seen a good issue of any Synod. I answer, that this holy father doth not deny the authority of lawful general Counsels, as appeareth by his testimony before cited, and also by this, that he was a most earnest defender of the Nicene Council, as is testified by Ecclesiastical histories, and was himself present, and subscribed to the second general Council held at Constantinople. He therefore only speaketh of such synods, as was celebrated in those days when he wrote that epistle, of which few were lawful, and none had good success, as appeareth by that of Seleucia, Ariminum, Milan, Tirus, Sirmium, 
Bilson in his book of the perpetual government of Christ's Church. Chap. 16. pag. 396. Athan. li. de synod. et ad African. see also S. Ambrose epist. 32.  etc. of which in very deed he never saw good issue, and for that cause he refused to be present to any of them: and this solution is approved by M. Bilson a learned Protestant, who expressly saith, that this Father in these words condemneth not all Counsels. They bring likewise against us, certain words of S. Augustine in his book against Maximinus, where he writeth thus (as Abbot translateth him) But now neither should I produce the Nicene Council, 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 answer first, that although S. Augustine might have proved out of S. Athanasius, and divers other authentical authors, that the lawful Council of Ariminum most notably confirmed the Nicene faith; and that the Council alleged by this Heretic was but the supscription of the Bishops to a certain form of faith, by threatening, fear and affliction, extorted by Taurus the Emperor's officer, after that the Council was finished: yet, in the dispute which he had with Maximinus, the said Maximinus opposing the Council of Ariminum against the Council of Nice, he would not enter into the proof of the authority of the one, and confutation of the other; but having most pregnant testimonies of holy scripture, he voluntarily in that disputation, ceased to urge the authority of the Council of Nice: and so those his words Neither am I held etc. are understood; for the sense of them is, I will not that now thou be bound to the one, or I to the other. Verily, that he esteemed highly of the authority of general Counsels, all his works and proceed testify: yea, his discourse before the words alleged doth prove it, as will appear to the reader. For he saith, that in the Council of Nice, the word consubstantial was by the Catholic fathers established by the authority of truth, and by the truth of authority. And in another place he telleth us, 
Tom. 7. de baptismo contr. Donat. li. 7. cap. 53.  that we may securely aver that, which is confirmed and roborated by the consent of the universal Church.   

Chapter 10. Of the decrees of the supreme visible Pastor of the Church, which make a fourth particular ground of our faith, and of other grounds hence proceeding.  
IN the three precedent Chapters, I have treated of three principal grounds, on which with all security we may build our faith and religion: I will now add unto them certain others, commonly by all Catholics esteemed also to be of infallible authority. And in the first place, I assign the decrees and definitions of the supreme visible Pastor of the Church militant: but for a full explication and plain proof of this ground, I will divide this chapter into certain sections.  

SECTION THE FIRST. Containing a brief explication or rehearsal of the Catholic doctrine, concerning the Pope's supremacy.  
BECAUSE our belief concerning the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, is diversly slandered by our adversaries; I think it not amiss before I come to the proof of it, briefly to explicate what our doctrine is: For true it is, that our assertion being explicated to them that are misinformed, is half proved. We hold therefore, that the supreme power which our Saviour Christ even according to his human nature, received of his Father before his ascension over all his Church (of which are these his words. 
Mat. 28. verse 18. Ephes. 1, 22. 1 Pet. 5, 4. Heb. 5.6.  All power is given to me in heaven and in earth) was never resigned or given by him to any mortal creature; Wherefore, as yet he remaineth supreme head of his Church, prince of Pastors, and Priest according to the order of Melchisedech. Nevertheless, because he was to withdraw his visible corporal presence from the Church militant, and therefore could not himself decree, and gives sentence or advise in matters doubtful: like as Kings or Princes not being resident in their dominions, for the good and peaceable government of their subjects, appoint Viceroys or Vicegerents: 
Luke 19 vers. 12.  so he departing from his Church (as the scripture saith) into a far Country, like as he appointed divers vicar's for the administration of the sacraments: so he ordained one for the government of the whole Church (to wit) S. Peter, who immediately received such jurisdiction and authority from him; and therefore during his mortal life, was his Vicegerent on earth, ministerial head of his Church, and chief governor, Pastor, and Prelate of the same. And hence proceedeth the first difference between Christ and S. Peter, touching the supremacy over the Church. For although they be both termed supreme heads of the same; yet the last of them, is subordinate & dependeth of the first: and the first only is the supreme independent, the last was the supreme visible, ministerial & dependent head. Of which it appeareth, that the authority and jurisdiction of the second, was nothing prejudicial to that of the first: for they may stand very well together, seeing that the one was subordinate to the other. Neither do Christ and his vicar properly make two heads of the Church, but one: like as a King and his viceroy make not properly two Kings, but one. For like as the King notwithstanding his viceroy, is the one chief prince, governor, and head of his country: so is Christ the chief Prelate and head of his Church. S. Peter was his vicar and vicegerent: and so is at this present his successor the Bishop of Rome. For the proof of the truth of this doctrine it maketh, that like as Christ in the holy scripture is called Head of the Church: so he is likewise called 
a Apoc. 17, 14. ca 19, 16.  King, Lord, 
b 1. Pet. 2, 25.  Bishop, Pastor, 
c Heb. 3, 1. cap. 5. vers. 6.  Apostle and Priect. Wherefore, like as this notwithstanding, others may be Kings, Lords, Bishops, Pastors, Apostles and Priests: so another may be, although not absolute; yet subordinate and ministerial head of the Church. After this sort also our Saviour and S. Peter are both rocks: for although Christ be the chief rock and stone on which the Church was built; yet S. Peter was the ministerial or secondary rock, made by Christ a rock and the principal stone next unto himself, in the edifice of his Church: In which sense by S. Paul and S. john, 

Eph. 2, 20 Apoc. 21. verse 14. Basil hom. de poeniten. quae est ultima inter varias homilias.  
Math. 5. verse 14. Leo serm. 3. amniversario Assumptionis suae.   although Christ be the principal foundation of his Church; yet the Apostles are likewise termed the foundation of the same. This which I have said, is most learnedly and evidently declared by the holy father S. Basil in these his words. Although S. Peter (saith he) be a rock, yet he is not a rock as Christ is: for Christ is the true immovable rock of himself: Peter is immovable through Christ the rock. For jesus doth impart and communicate his dignities, not voiding himself of them: but holding them to himself, he bestoweth them also upon others. He is the light, and yet you (saith he) are the light. He is the Priest, and yet he maketh Priests. He is a Rock, and yet be maketh a Rock: thus far S. Basil. The like discourse we find in S. Leo: for expounding those words of our Saviour, Thou art Peter; thus he speaketh in the person of Christ to the said Apostle. Whereas I am an inviolable Rock; I the corner stone, who make both one; I the foundation besides which no man can lay another: yet thou also art a rock, because by my power thou art made firm and strong, to the end that those things which are proper to me by power, be made common to thee by participation: hitherto S. Leo. And thus much of the first difference between Christ and S. Peter, touching their superiority over the Church.  
another difference between them is, that the authority of Christ was ever absolute; of S. Peter limited: for our Saviour derived not unto him all his authority, but a part only of the same. Hence it proceedeth, that although Christ instituted sacraments, forgave sins without the use of any sacraments, etc. yet, neither S. Peter nor any of his successors, ever had any such power or authority: The reason is, because every man but Christ, hath always been bound to use the means by him instituted, and left unto his Church. Of which it appeareth, how false their slander is, who affirm the Pope to pardon sins by his Indulgences or Pardons: for certain it is, that by such indulgences no sins are forgiven, but men are only released of such temporal pain, as is due unto them. It is also confessed by all Catholics, that no man (as long as he is guilty of mortal sin, and out of the state of grace) can receive any benefit from any such pardon.  
A third difference is, that our Saviour being the way, the truth, and life; yea, the son of God himself, could neither err in judgement, nor in manners, that is: he could neither have any false or erroneous opinion, in his understanding; nor sin or err from reason and right, in his will and actions: Contrariwise, his vicar (although as I will prove hereafter) when he teacheth the whole Church as supreme Pastor, cannot err in matters of faith or precepts of manners, which he prescribeth to all faithful Christians and concern things necessary to salvation; or in those things which are of themselves good or evil (for he cannot so command any vice, or forbidden any virtue) yet, as a private man or particular doctor, he may err in his judgement or opinion: he may also offend God most deeply and be damned in hell-fire. 
Mat. 24. verse 48.  For if that servant whom his Lord hath appointed over his family, (these are our saviours words) shall say in his heart my Lord is long a coming, and shall begin to strike his fellow servants, and eateth and drinketh with drunkards; the Lord of that servant shall come in a day that he hopeth not, and an hour that he knoweth not, and shall divide him, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites: there shallbe weeping and gnashing of teeth: Thus our Saviour Christ. But although S. Peter in authority and divers other prerogatives, was far inferior to Christ, even as man: yet, he was superior to all the rest of the Apostles. For although all the Apostles received of Christ, orders and power to use the keys of the kingdom of heaven (that is, to forgive sins) and also to preach the Gospel throughout the whole world: yet S. Peter only above the rest received supreme power, authority, and jurisdiction. The authority of the other Apostles was given them with a certain kind of subjection to Peter: they were also Christ's legates or ambassadors sent to the whole world; but they being only Apostles were equal among themselves, and no one superior over the other. Neither were they ordinary Bishops or Pastors of the whole world; for of it S. Peter was only the ordinary Pastor. Wherefore, like as a legate or ambassador, cannot of himself communicate or delegate his authority to another, or leave it by inheritance to his successor: so the other Apostles left not all their authority in so ample sort as they received it, to the Bishops who succeeded them: contrariwise, S. Peter as absolute prince, having absolute and ordinary jurisdiction under Christ, left the same to his successor or heir the Bishop of Rome.  
This doctrine we receive from the holy father and martyr S. Cyprian, who of this point discourseth thus. 
Cipr. lib. de unitate Ecclesiae cap. 3.  To Peter our Lord after his resurrection saith; feed my sheep, and buildeth his Church upon him alone: and to him be gave the charge of feeding his sheep. And although after his resurrection he gave his power alike to all, saying: As my father sent me, so send I you; take the holy Ghost; if you remit to any their sins they shall be remitted, etc. Yet, to manifest unity, he constituted one Chair, and disposed by his authority, the origen or fountain of the same beginning of one. The rest of the Apostles were that Peter was, in equal fellowship of honour and power: but the beginning cometh of unity. The primacy is given to Peter, that the Church of Christ may be showed to be one, and one chair: thus far S. Cyprian. In which words he plainly avoucheth, that S. Peter had supreme and ordinary authority: the other Apostles although they had equal and like Apostolic power; yet they were not equal to him in all prerogatives: this their authority (as I have said) was not ordinary nor so absolute, but depending & having his beginning of that of Peter. 
Ibid. ca 4.  Hence the same S. Cyprian in the self same book, affirmeth the Church to be one: like as all the beams of the sun are termed one light, because they issue from one sun; and many little brooks one water, because they proceed from one spring; and many boughs one tree, because they have the self same root. And this sun, fountain, and root, in other places he acknowledgeth to be the chair of S. Peter, which is therefore by him called 
a Cipr. l. 1. epist. 3. ad Cornel. li. 4. epist 8. ad Cornel. epi. ad jubaianum.  the principal Church from which Priestly unity hath his beginning, and the matrice or mother, root and head of the Catholic Church. It is also by him affirmed, that the one Church by the voice of our Lord was built upon one, who received the keys, etc. I could recite other such like testimonies, but these in this place shall suffice. And although S. Peter had so ample, and eminent authority, and for this cause his successors were sometimes honoured with the title of universal Bishop, as appeareth in the general Council of 
b Concil. Chal. act. 3. et 6.  Chalcedon yet, they seldom or never called themselves so, but rather following the commandment of Christ (who bid; that 
c Math. 20. v. 26.  whosoever would be greater among his Apostles, should be their servant or minister) called themselves the servant of the servants of God. Hence are these words of S. Gregory the great, who is highly commended by 
d Humfre. in jesuitif. part. 2. rat 5. p. 624.  D. Humphrey and by another 
e Theodor. Bibli. in orat. ad principes Germa. See also Godwin in his catalogue of Bishops in Augustine pag. 3.  Protestant (although he term all his successors antichrists) called a very holy father, and most excellent Pastor; he discourseth thus: 
f Greg. l. 4. epist. 32.76.  It is plain to all men that ever read the Gospel, that by our lords mouth the charge of the whole Church was committed to S. Peter prince of the Apostles; for to him it was said: Feed my sheep. For him was the prayer made, that his faith should not fail: to him were the keys of heaven given, and authority to bind and loose: to him the cure of the Church, and principality was delivered; and yet he was not called the universal Apostle. This title indeed was offered for the honour of Peter prince of the Apostles, to the Pope of Rome, by the holy Council of Chalcedon, but none of that See did ever use it, nor consent to take it. This is a part of the discourse of S. Gregory, writing against john the Bishop of Constantinople, usurping the title of universal Bishop: which although some of his predecessors (after some sort and in some sense) used, when they called themselves Bishops of the universal Church; yet he therefore disliked, 
Sixtus 1. epis. 2. Victor 1. epi. 1. Pontian. epist. 2. Stephan 1. epi. 2. Leo epist. 54. 62. et 65.  because it seemed to affirm, that he who should use it, was himself the only Bishop of the whole world, and all other Bishops his vicar's not his brethren: whereas every Bishop is head & Bishop of his particular Church, although subject to the vicar of Christ, and the ministerial head of his whole flock, the successor of S. Peter. Verily, that S. Gregory's words have no other sense, it is averred by 
a Andraeas Fricius de Eccles. li. 2. cap. 10. pag. 570.  Andraeas Fricius a learned Protestant of Polonia. And that he held himself to be supreme Pastor of the Church, all his 
b See l. 12. epi. 32. de priviligio concessomo nasterio S. Medardi In psal. 5. epist. 38. indict. 13.  books and actions abundantly testify: and of the Church of Constantinople in particular thus he writeth. 
c Lib. 7. epist. 63. ad joan. Sirrah cusanum.  Of the seat of Constantinople who can doubt, but it is subject to the Apostolic See? which both my Lord the most holy Emperor, and my brother Eusebius Bishop of the same city of Constantinople, profess. And this is the common Catholic doctrine touching the supremacy of S. Peter and the Bishop of Rome.   

SECTION THE SECOND. The aforesaid doctrine is proved.  
IF I should endeavour to bring forth all the arguments which occur, and are commonly used by Catholic authors, convincing the truth of that which hath been here said, this treatise would rise to a great volume, which is contrary to mine intent; wherefore, I will only touch the principal, and those very briefly. In the holy scripture we first find, that our Saviour at the first sight of S. Peter, changed his name from Simon, to Cephas or Peter. For this holy Apostle being brought by S. Andrew his brother unto Christ, He looking upon him (saith S. john the Evangelist) said; 
joh. 1, 42. Hier. in c. 2. epist. ad Galatas.  thou art Simon the son of jona: thou shalt be called Cephas; which word in the Siriack tongue (as we are taught by S. Hierom) as also Peter in the Greek, signifieth a rock, wherefore then did Christ change this Apostles name, more than the names of all the rest? for although he called S. james and S. john Boanerges; 
Mark. 3.  yet he altered not their former names, but gave them a kind of surname: and therefore by the holy Evangelists, & the whole Church, they are always called by their first names, james & john. But S. Peter is commonly called both by the Evangelists, S. Paul, 
Galat. 2. Chrisost. in 1. cap. joan.  and the whole Church Peter & Cephas, or a rock; which (as S. john Chrisostome very well noteth) argueth, that some great privilege was granted to S. Peter above others: for so God for some extraordinary and great cause, changed the name of Abram into Abraham, and of jacob into Israel. But what was this privilege? Verily the name itself imposed upon S. Peter, giveth us notice what it was, for seeing that Christ communicated unto him, one of his own names (to wit) the name of a rock or stone, which is often times attributed unto himself in holy write; 
Isa. 8. et 28. Daniel 2. psal. 117. Mat. 21. Rom. 9 1. Cor. 10. Ephe. 2.1. Peter 2. etc.  he also gave us to understand, that he was to communicate unto him the highest office under himself: and that like as he himself was the principal rock and foundation of the Church; so this holy Apostle was to be by participation, a secondary stone, placed next unto himself in the building of the same, and through his prayer and warrant, to be made a pillar of truth, not to be shaken with any falsehood, nor overthrown by all the powers of hell. This is the doctrine of S. Basil and S. Leo, as we have seen above.  
But that the force of this place of scripture against the new sectaries, may the better be perceived, let us join another unto it, more strongly confirming the same truth, and plainly opening the sense of the former. For after that this blessed Apostle had confessed our Saviour to be Christ, the son of the living God; our Redeemer replying unto him, 
Mat. 16. v. 18.19.  used these words: And I say to thee, that thou art Peter (or a rock) and upon this rock, will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shallbe also bound in the heavens: and whatsoever thou shalt lose in the earth, it shallbe loosed also in the heavens. Lo, a plain promise made unto S. Peter, both that on him the Church should be built, and consequently, that he should be made the principal foundation of the same next unto Christ; and also, that as the vicar of Christ and chief pastor of his flock, he should receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And hence proceed those words of S. Hierome concerning the first prerogative: 
Hieron. lib. 1. contra Pelag. Cyprian. epistol. ad Quirinun.  Peter was the prince of the Apostles, upon whom the Church of our Lord was strongly, and firmly founded; which is neither shaken by the fury of any flood, nor by any tempest. Saint Cyprian that holy Martyr, more ancient than Saint Hierome, telleth us; that our Lord did choose Peter the chiefest, and upon him built his Church. Which words of his are alleged and approved by Saint Augustine, in his second book de Baptismo cap. 1.  
To these I add S. Basil, and S. Epiphanius, of whom the first avoucheth 
a Basil. li. 2. in Eunom. et homilia 19 quae est ulti. de poenitentia.  that Saint Peter for the excellency of his faith, received upon him the edifice of the Church: wherefore, in another place he calleth him the rock and foundation of the Church. The other writeth, 
b Epiphan. in Anchor:  that our Lord appointed Peter, the first or chief of his Apostles, a firm rock on which the Church was built. The like sentences are found in 
c Leo ser. 2. in Anivers. assumptio. suae.  S. Leo, 
d Naziā● de mother. servant. in disputat.  S. Gregory Nazianzene, 
e Chrisost. homil. 55. in Math.  S. Chrisostome, 
f Ambros. serm. 47.  S. Ambrose and others: yea, that the Fathers gathered this out of the said words of our Lord, it is granted by 
g Calu. li. 4. instit. ca 6. § 6.  Caluin and 
h Dan. in respons. ad Bellar. disput. part. 1. p. 277.  Danaeus. That he also had a second prerogative promised him in the same words, of receiving the keys of the kingdom of heaven, as ministerial head of the Church above the rest of the Apostles, who received them with a certain kind of subjection to Peter, the Fathers in like sort, even as confidently testify: And first this is affirmed by S. Cyprian in these words. 
i Cyprian. epist. 73.  To Peter first of all, upon whom our Saviour built his Church, and from whom he instituted and showed the beginning of unity, did he give this power, that that should be loosed in the heavens, which he had loosed on earth. 
k Hill. in Math. 16.  S. Hilary in like sort crieth out: O blessed porter of heaven, unto whose will and arbitrament, the keys of the eternal entry are delivered! Lastly, 
l Chrisostome homil. 55. in Mathaeum.  S. john Chrisostome and 
m Gregor. lib. 5. epist 32.  S. Gregory, of the delivery of the keys of heaven to S. Peter, infer; that unto his charge the whole world was committed, and that he was made Pastor and head of the whole Church.  
But when did Christ perform these promises? Verily no man (I think) will be so wicked and blaspheamous as to say, that our Redeemer was not so good as his word: when then were these promises performed? In very truth after our lords resurrection; when as he made this blessed Apostle general Pastor over all his flock, exempting none, no not the other Apostles themselves, from his jurisdiction; but committing all both sheep, and lambs to his charge: for he said to him, 
n john 21. verse 16.17.18.  Feed my lambs, feed my sheep. And verily it is apparent that by these words, supreme authority under Christ, was given to this Apostle, over all the flock and Church of Christ. For what other meaning can they admit? Every man will confess that it is the part of him that feedeth sheep, to provide them food, which belongeth to a superior & governor. What other thing is it to feed, guide, defend, rule, correct, then to be superior over his flock? And this also the Greek word used by the Evangelist in this place, convinceth; which signifieth to feed, by ruling and being superior. Moreover, who can deny but those words (My lambs, and my sheep) comprehend all Christians? For the Lambs are the lay sort of people, and such as are not spiritual Pastors over other; the Sheep are the Bishops and Pastors of the Church, who bring forth unto Christ lambs. Add also, that all the lambs and sheep of Christ, without any limitation or restriction, were here committed to S. Peter's charge: wherefore, no man could exempt himself from his jurisdiction, except he would deny himself to be a sheep or lamb of Christ. And this may be confirmed by those words of our Redeemer: I know my sheep; 
joh. 1, 14.  my sheep hear my voice; I yield my life for my sheep. For like as in these places, the word (sheep) signifieth all Christians; so it must needs do in those words; feed my lambs, feed my sheep. I conclude therefore, that in these words, all the members or children of Christ's Church, were committed to S. Peter's charge; and that he was made Pastor of the whole fold and flock of Christ.  
But let us confirm all this by the testimony of the ancient Fathers: S. Leo of this matter discourseth thus. 
Leo serm. 3. de Assumpt. sua.  Of the whole world one Peter is chosen, that he may be preferred and made superior over the vocation of all Nations, over all the Apostles, and all the fathers of the Church: to the end that although among the people of God there be many Priests, and many Pastors, yet Peter might properly rule them all, whom principally also Christ doth govern: 
Epiph. in Anc orat. Chrisost. lib. de Sacerdotio.  Hitherto Saint Leo. The same doctrine is taught us also by S. Epiphanius, who speaketh thus of S. Peter. This is he who heard, feed my sheep, to whom the fold of Christ was committed: S. Chrisostome likewise is of the same opinion, for he telleth us; That our Lord did shed his blood to redeem those sheep, the care of which be committed to S. Peter, and also to his successors: That Christ would have Peter to be far above all his other Apostles: That be appointed him Pastor of his future Church: That he committed to him the care of his brethren, and the charge of the whole world. He also calleth his office then received Praefecturam (that is) a Lieutenant ship, or office committed unto him to judge and govern; 
Ambros. in cap. vlt. Lucae. Centur. 4. col. 556. 1704.  and explicateth it by that place of scripture Matthew 24. v. 45. Who thinkest thou is a faithful & wise servant, whom his Lord hath appointed over his family. S. Ambrose affirmeth that by these words feed my sheep, he left Peter unto us, as the vicar of his love, and that he was therefore preferred before all, because he only professed such love. Finally, our adversaries confess, that some of the Fathers honoured S. Peter with these titles, Head of the Apostles, and Bishop of Bishops.  
Another argument also out of the holy scripture for confirmation of the same, may be gathered of this; that S. Peter in the said scripture, is not only called the first of the Apostles: but also among the rest when they are named, obtaineth the first place. He is called the first by 
* Math. 10, 2.  S. Matthew, according as we read in all Greek and Latin copies. The words of the Evangelist are these: And the names of the twelve Apostles be these, the first, Simon who is called Peter. He is likewise named first commonly in divers places, as no man can deny.  
Moreover, it is a thing most certain and confessed by all Christians, that the old testament was a figure of the new, and that the Church of Christ succeed in the true service of God, the synagogue of the jews: now, that in the old law there was always one high priest, no man reading the old testament can deny, and it is confessed by our adversaries themselves, especially by the 
a Magde. centur. 1. lib. 1. c. 7. col. 157.  Magdeburgenses, and Caluin: of whom the first write thus. In the Church of the people of the jews, there was one only high or chief priest by the divine law, whom all were forced to acknowledge & obey. 
b Calu. li. 4. Insti. c. 6. § 2. etc.  Caluins' words are these: There he appointed one Prelate above the rest, whom all should respect or obey, that by this means they might the better be kept in unity: hitherto our adversaries. Like as therefore in the old testament there was one superior, of whom are those words of God: 
c Deutro. 17. v. 20.  He that shall be proud refusing to obey the commandment of the priest, who at that time doth ministrate to the Lord thy God, and the sentence of the judge: that man shall die (to wit, a corporal death) which words our 
d Rain. in his confer. pag. 251. Whitak. de sacr. scriptura pa. 466. 470. Bilson in his treatise of the perpetual government of the Church p. 20. Hook. in his preface pag. 26. 27. 28.  adversaries understand of his supreme authority, both in causes temporal and spiritual, without appeal to any higher: So in the new law it was convenient, that Christ should appoint one high Priest his vicar over all the Church, whose sentence whosoever despised, he should die spiritually in his soul, and be accounted no child of the Church. Hence proceed these words of 
e Cyprian de unitate ecclesiae.  S. Cyprian: He that withstandeth and resisteth the Church; he that forsaketh Peter's Chair, upon which the Church was built, doth he trust that he is in the Church? Further, like as the true Church being among the jews, the high Priest by the commandment of God, had his seat and principal residence in Jerusalem their chief city: so the truth being taken away from the jews and delivered to the Gentiles, it was convenient that the See of the high Priest, should be placed in Rome, the principal city of the Gentiles.  
Reason also proveth, that there ought to be one supreme visible governor in the Church. For seeing that nothing almost is more necessary, for the preservation and good government of a commonwealth, than a mean and provision to keep unity in the same; nothing more hurtful, 
Math. 12. verse 25. Mark 3. verse 24. Luke 11. verse 18.  than rebellion, sedition, and discord: For every kingdom (as truth itself affirmeth) divided against itself shall be made desolate; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: It is certain that our Redeemer, the wisest and most prudent lawmaker that ever lived in the world, in establishing his Church or kingdom, which was to be peaceable, glorious, and everlasting; and which is also his spiritual body (and therefore in that respect likewise to be united in one) had a principal regard, that the members of his commonwealth and body, should be linked together in peace and concord, and not rend a sunder by schism, division, or diversity of faiths. Out of which ground I frame this argument: Christ without all doubt ordained a mean for the preservation of unity in his Church; but unity cannot be preserved in it without one visible head having jurisdiction over it all: therefore, Christ ordained one such visible head. And this one head was during the time of his life, the blessed Apostle S. Peter, who was (as I have proved before) furnished with all necessary qualities, for the execution and performance of this high office and dignity: and all the children of the Church of what condition whatsoever, were bound in matters of faith and precepts of manners concerning good and evil, to obey him. This reason (as we have heard Caluin before confess) was that which moved God in the old law to appoint one Prelate above the rest: And for the superiority of one in the new law, it was long since assigned by 
* Hieron. adversus iovinianum. Hieron. adver. Luciferianos.  S. Hierome, who concerning this matter, useth these words: For this cause one is chosen among the twelve, that a head being appointed, occasion of schism be taken away. And in another place: The health of the Church dependeth of the dignity of the highest Priest, unto whom, if some certain power 
* exhorts. et ab homini. eminens. Cyprian epist. 55. ad Cornelium.  peerless and above men, be not given, there will be as many schisms in Churches, as priests. But long before him the same was noted by S. Cyprian, who affirmeth that heresies and schisms rise in the Church of no other cause, then that the Priest of God is not obeyed, and that one Priest and judge in Christ's place is not acknowledged. In another epistle he hath this sentence: 
a Cip. epi. 4. see him also de unita. Eccles.  God is one, and Christ is one; and the Church is one, and the Chair is one, by our Lord's voice founded on Peter. There can no other altar be erected, or new Priesthood be made, besides the one altar and one Priesthood: whosoever doth elsewhere gather, doth disperse. And is it not apparent (except there be some one superior that may keep unity and uniformity, whom all the rest ought to obey) that schism, division, and rebellion will presently ensue? will not every one believe, do, and change as he pleaseth? will one conform himself to another? certainly he will not: of which will follow as many distinct faiths and religions, as there be heads and fancies. And of this we see most manifest proofs among our adversaries, who for want of one head over them all, are divided into almost an infinite number of sects, without any hope or mean of reconciliation, 
b Treatise of the definition & notes of the Church Chap. 3.  as in another place I will declare at large. But let us exemplify a little in this matter, It is well known, that in this kingdom the Puritans have a long time by all means endeavoured, to conform our Protestant Church to their Genevian platform of discipline: but what answer maketh a learned Protestant unto them? Verily he demandeth of them, 
c Whitgif. in his ans. to the admonit. pa. 138. § 1. And in the defence of his said an swe. tract. 20. p. 702 and tract. 9 c. 1. pa. 481. c. 2. § 6. p. 491  Unto which reformed Church, they would have the English Church framed, and why other reformed Churches should not as well frame themselves unto the form of the English Church? For (saith he) we are as well assured of our doctrine, and have as good grounds and reasons for our doings, as they have. He addeth: I tell you again, that there is no cause why this Church of England, either for truth of doctrine, sincerity of public divine service and other policy, should give place to any Church in Christendom: and sure I am, that we are as near joined with the Lord our God, as the members are to the body, and the body to the head: Such is the answer of this Protestant to the Puritans: The like may the Puritans make un- the Protestants and Lutherans, Zwinglians and other Sectaries to them both. And this maketh them (as I have said) to remain in deadly dissensions: which evil if they would acknowledge one head, would easily be remedied and removed. This reason among others, moved the ancient 
d justin. in ora. exhor. Cip. tract. de idol. va nit. Atha- adver. ido. nas. orati. Philo l. de confus. lingu. Plat. in polit. Arist. l. 8. ethni. c. 10. l. 12. philos. etc.  Fathers (yea the Heathen philosophers themselves) to affirm, that Monarchia (that is to say the government by one chief head) is the best and chiefest.  
Moreover, this preservation of unity in general, is used as a special argument of great force and moment, by some of our 
a Survey of the pretended holy discipline. cap. 8.  English Protestant's against the Puritans, in the defence of their primates, Archbishops, and Bishops. For they affirm such officers to be necessary in the Church of Christ, that unity and peace in it be preserved: 
b Field book 3. c. 39 § thus then  Because the unity and peace of each particular Church of God (saith Field) and flock of his sheep, dependeth of the unity of the Pastor etc. Therefore, though there be many presbyters, yet there is one Bishop among the rest, to whom an eminent and peerless power is given, for the avoiding of schisms and factions: thus Field. 
c Will. in his Sinopsis controuer. 5. qu. 3. part 2. in the appendix pag 237. edit. 1600.  willet's words to the same effect are these. The distinction of Bishops and Priests, is very necessary for the policy of the Church, to avoid schisms and to preserve it in unity. And he proveth this out of the text of the Apostle Corin. 14. God is not the author of confusion or disorder: but (saith he) to have a popular equality among ministers, were the next way to bring in confusion, if none should be ruled or directed. Wherefore, he addeth in another place, that In the calling of Bishops somewhat is divine; and that it is a divine ordinance, that among the ministers of the Church there should be a superiority. For the proof likewise of the same, they bring the testimony of some 
d Ibid. controuer. 16. quest. 2. p. 726. edit. an 1600.  other learned Sectaries, especially of 
f jacob Andraeas in epistola contra minist. Heil derberg.  jacobus Andraeas. But who seethe not, that if a Bishop be necessary over Priests, and an Archbishop over Bishops, and a Primate over Archbishops, for the preserving of unity in certain provinces, nations, or kingdoms? that over sundry Primates one supreme Primate or head is also needful, for the preservation of the said unity through all nations and kingdoms. 
e Survey of the pretended holy discipl.  If it be true as Field affirmeth, that the unity of each particular Church dependeth of the unity of the Pastor, how much more doth the unity of the universal Catholic Church, depend on the unity of one universal Pastor over all? Yea of these things we may well infer, that God who is never wanting to his Church in things necessary, hath ordained some such Prelate. For much easier it is, to preserve unity and uniformity in one kingdom, without a Primate; or in one province, without an Archbishop; or in one diocese, without a Bishop: than it is to preserve the same in all parts of the world, without one head over all; seeing that those of one kingdom, province, or diocese, live under the same laws, have the same temporal prince, and by reason of neighbourhood may be joined together in amity and friendship; and so one may understand the faith and belief of another, and confer together concerning such matters: which occasions of unity are wanting to those, who are of several kingdoms or common wealths. Wherefore, for the sovereignty of one chief Pastor, we have an express warrant of holy scripture; whereas there is but little so expressly uttered for the proof of the authority of Bishops, nothing almost for the jurisdiction of Primates and archbishops. Neither can this unity be sufficiently preserved by the letter of holy scripture, as it appeareth by the daily dissensions of our adversaries, and I will at large declare hereafter. Some of the Sectaries seem to allow of the authority of a general Council, and to acknowledge it to be a fit mean to end all controversies; as 
a Hooker in the preface to his book of ecclesiastical policy p. 24. etc.  Hooker, 
b Covel in his defence of Hooker  Covel, 
c Zauchius in his epistle before his confessions p. 12.13.  Zauchius, 
d Sutcliffe in his answer to kellison's Survey chapter 1. pag. 42.  Sutcliffe and others. But these may likewise easily be confuted: for it is evident even by the confession of Protestants, that no good can be done by such a Council, except one head and superior in the same be granted. About the year of our Lord 1585. Henry now the French king and a Catholic, than king of Navarre and a Caluinist, sent his letters to certain electors and princes of the Roman Empire, being Lutheran Protestant's of Germany, desiring a concord and reconciliation, between the Lutherans and Sacramentaries, and wishing (as it should seem by the answer) that some Council might be assembled of the learned men of both sorts, to that purpose. The said Protestants of Germany returned answer, that in those days things standing as they did, they thought it not necessary that such a course should be taken touching a Council: and why so? Verily, these reasons are by them alleged. This principally (say they) seemeth worthy of our consideration, whether now between the divines of other Churches and ours, any Synod can be called and assembled. For who of us will arrogate to himself, to appoint the place, to name the day, to call the divines of divers nations? Which (as histories testify) was the proper office of the Roman Emperors, before the Papal tyranny increased. Now moreover, who shall have rule or be superior in authority in the Synod itself? There can no other have this office, but either one of our side or of our adversaries: but neither we will suffer a precedent or chief ruler of the adverse part, to the prejudice of ours: so neither will they (without doubt) endure, that one of ours should have that place. But if of both sides some be appointed, than each one will undertake the patronage of his own part, and so there will arise dissension between the Precedents. Further, who shallbe judge over those that vary or contend? but let us put the case, or rather feign and imagine that the Synod is now called; that it is sufficiently argued on both sides; that the Precedents have pronounced their sentence; that the pertinacious and fanatical are condemned and accursed, by the common consent and suffrage of all: Who then shall bridle and restrain the clamours of the condemned? their complaints? their accusations? by which they will exclaim that the proceed against them have been unjust; that they were not rightly heard; that judgement was given rather according to affection, then according to the word of God. Hence will arise new swarms of contentions, and the Synod being ended, the Church will enjoy no more quietness, tranquillity and peace, than was before. Thus the aforesaid Princes of Germany in their letter penned (without all doubt, or at the least viewed and approved) by their best divines. The Elector of Saxony, the Elector of Brandeburg, the Administrator of Magdeburge, Philip Lewes Palatine of Rhine, julius Duke of Brunswich and Luneberg, Vdalricus Duke of Mechelburg, and Lewes Duke of Wittenberg subscribed unto it. And the letter together with the subscriptions is published in print by Conradus Schusselburg a famous Lutheran divine, at the end of his thirteenth book of the catalogue of Heretics. How then can any person say, that controversies may always be sufficiently decided and ended by a Council, without one head? Are not these reasons most true and apparent? Nay, hath not experience taught us the truth of these things? What success had the colloquies or conferences, held for the reconciliation or union of Lutherans & Sacramentaries, between their chief doctors at Malbrun in the year one thousand five hundred threescore and four, 

See colloquium Mont pelgartense published by Protestants.  
David Chitrae. in chron. Saxo. part 3. Turrian. 1568. p. 440. 441. johan. Petraeus admonit. quae docet vitandos esse Flaccian.   or at Montpelgar in the year one thousand five hundred fourscore and six? was any unity or concord made between them? nothing less. Neither was the event of particular assemblies of Lutherans only concerning some difference found among themselves, any better. In the year one thousand five hundred threescore & eight, as Chitraeus (himself a famous writer of this sect) recordeth; was that famous assembly of Lutherans held at Altenberg, concerning the necessity of good works, and free will: which (as he telleth us) was dissolved without any hope of concord: and (saith he) the acts were set out on both sides; and not only the divines did contend with public invectives, but also most bitter hatred was raised between the Princes themselves, who caused this assembly. Yea, another Lutheran of the same meeting writeth thus: This whole conference was not only dissolved without fruit: but also the estate of the whole cause became worse. The like hath happened in other of their Synods: For I find it not recorded, that ever hitherto two nations or different Churches of these sectaries, were united together by any council held among them. But unto the Lutherans above cited, I add also the authority of whitaker's; who granteth, 
Whitaker li. de consilijs p. 56.  that without authority no Council can be assembled: And seeing that no one (according to Protestants) hath authority over the whole world, it followeth; that in their judgement no Council can be assembled of all the Prelates of the world. And out of this doctrine of our adversaries, joined unto that maintained by divers of them, concerning the necessity of general Counsels, which is likewise strongly by me proved before, I infer; that it was necessary that God should appoint some one general visible head over his Church: which illation is very evident: For if general Counsels be necessary, and they cannot be had without a head, it must needs follow; that Christ who is not wanting to his Church in things necessary, ordained some such head. 
Andraeas Fricius de Ecclesia l. 2. cap. 10. pag. 570.  Hence Andraeas Fricius although a Protestant, and a man bearing deadly hatred to the Bishop of Rome, yet thought it needful, that one head should be appointed over all the evangelical Churches, to keep them in unity, which he deemed otherwise would never be: and handling that matter, he also truly answereth that common objection of Protestants touching the title of universal Bishop, out of S. Gregory; of which before. But the Lutherans (as we have seen) aver, that it was in times past the proper office of the Roman Emperors, to call general Counsels. I reply; first, it is evident that Christ bequeathed not this office to the Emperor, both because the office being necessary in the Church, Christ (if he had so done) should have taken order, that ever there should have been some one Emperor over the whole world, to discharge the same; which (as is evident) he did not: And also, because many of the Emperors have been Infidels, some Heretics, and therefore in all reason not capable of any such pre-eminence in the Church. Secondly, it is very well proved by Catholic authors, that there never hath been any one lawful general Council assembled in the Church, by the Emperor alone, without the consent and authority of the Bishop of Rome: which I confirm only in this place, by an Ecclesiastical canon alleged by Socrates; which (as he saith) forbiddeth, 
Socrates lib. 2. cap. 13.  that decrees be made in the Church without the consent of the Bishop of Rome. And seeing that this canon was not made by any Council, it is apparent, that it descended from the Apostles themselves: But of this point enough.  
Some of our adversaries deny the Pope to be the successor of S. Peter, because (say they) S. Peter was never at Rome. I reply, that nothing (not most plainly expressed in the word of God, or not known by divine revelation) can be more certain, than that S. Peter lived in Rome, and was Bishop of Rome: for this is affirmed by all ancient and modern writers, 

Luther in colloquijs mensalibus cap. de Antichristo.  
Peter 5. verse 13. See Caluin l. 4. Instit. ca 6. § 15. and Bilson in his treatise of the perpetual government of the Church cap. 13. Psal. 47.   besides a few new sectaries. Hence are these words of Luther: All histories testify, that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, but they are mere fables. And why do our adversaries deny so manifest a truth? truly for no other cause, but to prejudice and weaken the Pope's authority, by which they are condemned. Neither is there any ancient author, that ever called the matter in question as doubtful, and the monuments themselves of Rome most evidently convince our assertion to be true: yea, it is gathered out of S. Peter's own words in his first epistle, and confessed by the best learned of our adversaries. Others say, that the privilege of S. Peter mentioned, perished together with him, and was not derived to his successors. But certain it is, that the virtue of Christ's promise made to this blessed Apostle, together with his office descended to all the Bishops of Rome his successors. This I have partly proved in the second section of the sixth chapter before, where I have declared, that the promises made by Christ to his Apostles, concerning the assistance of the holy Ghost in the Church, etc. were to be verified in the Bishops of the Church, during all ages ensuing. In this place I will only repeat, that no man of sense will imagine, that Christ building his Church for ever, provided Pastors and Apostolic officers only for it, during the life of S. Peter and the Apostles: For certain it is, that like as the same Church, so the same governors (though not in person, yet in power) are always extant in the world. 
Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 22. 24. 25. Athan. l. de sent. Dionisijs Alexandrini. Cipr. l. 3. epist. 13. Athan. Apolog. 2. et in epist. ad ●olitarios. Socrates l. 2. cap 11.  Hence the Bishop of Rome hath always exercised his authority, throughout all Countries and Nations in the world. Pope Victor without any note or censure of passing the bounds of his authority, about the year one hundred fourscore & eighteen, excommunicated the Churches of Asia. S. Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, was accused not long after before Pope Dionysius, as S. Athanasius telleth us: And neither did the Pope (although himself also a Saint) refuse the office of a judge, or the Bishop accused his judgement. S. Cyprian requested Pope Steven to depose Martianus Bishop of Arles in France, and to ordain another in his place. S. Athanasius reporteth, that he himself being condemned and deprived of his Bishopric of Alexandria, in the year three hundred thirty and six, by a false Synod held at Tirus, and having received the same censure of condemnation, by such another Synod assembled at Antioch, in the year 341. was absolved by Pope julius, and restored again to his Bishopric, notwithstanding these former sentences pronounced against him. The same Pope (if we believe Socrates) restored Paul Bishop of Constantinople, and Asclepas Bishop of Gaza in like sort to their Churches: who being wrongfully deprived, appealed to his supreme authority. S. Damasus the Pope about the year three hundred seventy seven, restored in like sort Peter patriarch of Alexandria to his seat, from which he was likewise unjustly expelled by the Arians, as witnesses are Zozomenus and 
* Socrates li. 4 c. 30.  Socrates.  

a Chrisos. ep. ad Inno. Theodorus Rom. diac. apud Pallad. in dial. Inno. Papa in literis ad Archad. apud Gena. Nicepho. et Glica.  S. john Chrisostome Bishop of Constantinople in the year four hundred and four, being by Theophilus' Patriarch of Alexandria and other Bishops in a Council deposed, appealed to S. Innocentius Pope; who not only made void the sentence pronounced against him: but also excommunicated and deposed the said Theophilus. 
b Calest. epi. ad Nestor. et ad Ciril ep. 3.  Pope Caelestinus not long after in a Council held at Rome, first of all condemned the Nestorian heresy, allotting Nestorius himself then Bishop of Constantinople only ten days, within which if he did not repent, he should receive the same censure from S. Ciril Bishop of Alexandria, his Legate. 
c Liberatus ca 12.  S. Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople condemned in the Pseudosinod of Ephesus, by Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and others, appealed to S. Leo the great Bishop of Rome: So did also 
d Theodor. epist. 113.  Theodoretus Bishop of Cirus at the same time. And divers other such like examples might be alleged.  
The testimonies of the ancient Fathers approving the same superiority of the Pope, are almost infinite; but I can not stand to recite them: only this I note, that almost the same titles of primacy and dignity, were given in ancient ages to S. Peter and the Bishop of Rome. For like as S. Peter by 
e Euseb in Chronic. an. 44. et lib. 2. hist. cap. 14.  Eusebius, is called The first Bishop of the Christians, the greatest of the Apostles, the prince and captain of the chiefest, and the master of the warfare of God; by 
f Orig. homil. 2. in diversos Euangel.  Origenes, The top of the Apostles; by 
g Epiphan. haeres. 51.  S. Epiphanius, Captain of Christ's disciples; by 
h Cir. hierosol. catech. 2.  S. Ciril Bishop of Jerusalem, Most excellent prince of the Apostles; by 
i Ciril Alex. l. 12. in joan.  S. Ciril Bishop of Alexandria, Prince and head of the rest; by 
k Chrisos. in 1. Cor. 15. et hom. 11. in Mat.  S. Crisostome Prince of the Apostles, pastor and head of the Church; by 
l Cipr. l. de unit. Eccles.  S. Cyprian, The head, fountain, and root of the whole Church etc. So the Bishop of Rome by 
a See Cip. epi. 46. ad Cornel. et li. de unit. Eccle. l. 1. epist. 3. ad Corn. et ep. 8. ad plebem et l. 2. epi. 10. ad eundem Corne.  S. Cyprian is termed, Bishop of the most holy Catholic Church; by 
b Amb. in c. 3. 1. Tim. et epi. 81. ad Siricium  S. Ambrose, Rector of the Church of God; by 
c Steph. episco. Carthag. epist. ad Dama.  Steven Bishop of Carthage, Father of Fathers and chief or highest priest; by 
d Hieron. praefat. Euangel. ad Damasum.  S. Hierome, highest or chiefest priest; by the general Council of 
e Concilium Chalced. epi. ad Leon.  Chalcedon, head of the Bishops of the Church, and the keeper of our Lord's vineyard; and by 
f Aug. epist. 157.  S. Augustine, Bishop of the Apostolic See etc. Finally, our adversaries themselves seem to grant, that all antiquity acknowledge this superiority. Bucer writeth thus: 
* Bucerus in praeparatorijs ad Concilium.  We plainly confess, that among the ancient Fathers of the Church, the Roman Church obtained the primacy above others, as that which hath the Chair of S. Peter, and whose Bishops almost always, have been accounted the successors of Peter. 
g Centur. 2. c. 4. col. 63. Cent. 3. c. 4. col. 8. Cent. 5. c. 4. col. 512. 520.  The century writers, who are commonly accounted the most diligent and learned Protestant historians, censure S. Irenaeus, S. Ignatius, Tertullian, S. Cyprian, Origenes, S. Leo and S. Ciril, as maintainers of this supremacy. 
h Cent. 4. c. 10. col. 1010. 1249. 1074. 1100.  They note S. Ephrem and S. Hierome, for affirming the Church to be built upon S. Peter; 
i Cent. 5. c. 6. col. 728.  Arnobius, for calling S. Peter the Bishop of Bishops; Optatus, for extolling overmuch the chair of Peter; Gelasius the Pope, for excommunicating the Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople etc. Besides this, divers of the Sectaries and among the rest 
k Beza cited in the survey of the pretended holy disci. c. 27. p. 343.  Beza 
l Cartw. l. 2. p. 507. 508. l. 1. p. 97.  Cartwrighte and 
m Fulk against Saund. Rock p. 248. 271. upon the Rheims test. in 2. Thes. 2, 9 See also Dan. in respon. ad Bell. disp. part 1. p. 275. 276.  Fulk confess, that the Fathers in the first Council of Nice began the foundation of the Pope's primacy: yea, some of them say it was begun long before. Their discord concerning the time of the beginning of this superiority doth also testify this, as I could easile show, if it were not that I have already been overlong in this section. Lastly I add, that neither 
n Wicl. in ep. ad Vrban. 6.  Wickclif nor 
o Luth. in resollut. priorum disput. ad Leon. 10. in declarat quorund. artic.  Luther (who in sundry ages were the first raisers of rebellion against the See of Rome) denied the Pope's superiority, before that he condemned their doctrine. For the works of them both are yet extant, written after their fall to preach novelties: in which they most apparently and plainly, submit themselves and their doctrine to his censure, and acknowledge his primacy. Of Luther divers 
p Sleid. l. 1. fol. 10. Fox act. & mon. p. 404. Osiander in epist. Cent. 16. p. 61. 62. 68 Cowper in his Chronic. fol. 278.  Protestants testify the same: and this is a manifest sign, that they opposed themselves against him for no other cause, then that he condemned their opinions and proceed.   

SECTION THE THIRD. That the decrees of the Bishop of Rome, when he teacheth the Church as supreme Pastor, are of divine and infallible authority; and of some other grounds of faith, flowing out of these.  
HAVING already proved, that the Bishop of Rome is the true successor of S. Peter, and ministerial head of Christ's Church; it remaineth that now we see, what authority and credit is to be given to his decrees. I affirm therefore, that the Pope when (teaching the whole Church as ministerial head of the same) he defineth any matter concerning faith, and general precepts of vice or virtue, cannot err: I add those words, when teaching the whole Church as ministerial head etc. because we confess that the Pope may sin and err in person, understanding, and private doctrine; and we defend only, that his judicial sentence pronounced as he is Pope, concerning matters of faith and precepts of manners, cannot be false or erroneous. And this is evident, first by the testimony of Christ himself, who unto S. Peter the Apostle used these words: Simon Simon, 
Luke. 22. v. 31.32.  behold Satan required to have you to sift as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and thou once converted, confirm thy brethren. Mark well those words: Satan hath required to have you, but I have prayed for thee, which argue a singular privilege in S. Peter, of not erring in faith, above the rest of the Apostles. For sathan required to sift them all, and our Lord prayed for Peter only, that his faith might not be overthrown by any subtle deceits, open assaults or other practices of the devil. The like is insinuated by those words following: And thou once converted, confirm thy brethren: which both prove, that the first part of the sentence was proper to S. Peter only (I mean that his faith should not fail) and also declare, that the rest of the Apostles, were by him to be confirmed and strengthened in their belief. Hence proceedeth this sentence of S. Leo: The danger was common to all the Apostles, 
Leo serm. 3. de assump sua.  but our Lord took special care of Peter, that the state of all the rest might be more sure, if the head were invincible: God so disposing the aid of his grace, that the assurance and strength which Christ gave to Peter, might redound by Peter to the rest of the Apostles: Hitherto S. Leo.  
To signify this privilege of S. Peter to us, our Saviour changed (as I have before declared) his name from Simon to Cephas or Peter, both which words signify a rock: Thou art Simon (said he) the son of jona, thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter or a rock. For how well do these two sentences answer one another; Thy faith shall not fail, and Thou art a rock. And upon this rock afterwards he built his Church, warranting it from ever being overcome by the devil or his ministers, 
Mat. 16. verse 18. john 21. v. 17.18. Ambrose in himnis. August. li. 1. retrac. cap. 21.  which he promised to do (as I have above noted) in these his words to this B. Apostle: Thou art Peter or a rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and performed in those: Feed my lambs: feed my sheep. Hence by S. Ambrose (as S. Augustine recordeth) S. Peter is called the Rock of the Church, that is: the very strength and foundation of it next unto Christ. Neither did our Saviour without just cause, grant this extraordinary privilege unto him: for he (as I have also before showed) for the preservation of unity, and better direction of his spouse, was appointed by him Pastor of the whole Church, shepherd of his whole flock, his chief vicar and ministerial head of his body. Unto his charge he committed both his sheep and lambs, exempting no Christians from his jurisdiction: wherefore it was necessary, that he should be so directed concerning matters of faith and religion, seeing that the members are to obey the head, and sheep to follow and to be guided by their Shepherd, that he should not draw them into errors, or propound unto them any bad pasture of false doctrine.  
Like as therefore God always in the old law, preserved the truth in the Chair of Moses, wherefore (as I have showed before) all men were bound under pain of death, to obey the high Priest; and our Saviour said: 
Math. 23. vers. 2.  upon the Chair of Moses have sitten the scribes & pharisees; all things therefore whatsoever they shall say unto you, observe ye and do ye: so according to the assertion of S. Augustine, God preserveth the truth of Christian religion in the See of Rome, which is in the new Testament answerable to the Chair of Moses; although the Bishops of that city were never so wicked men.  
I add also, that this was necessary for the condemnation of heresies; because, although the sentence of a general Council pronounced against any heresy, cannot be erroneous; yet every man will grant, that such a Council sometimes by reason of persecution or other accidents, can not be assembled: yea every man must needs confess, that at no time such a Council can be so soon gathered, as it is necessary that an heresy springing up should be condemned. 
2. Timoth. 2. ver. 17. Hieron. in cap. 5. ad Galatas.  For the Apostle very well compareth heresy to a canker: and S. Hierome, both to a canker, and also to a spark of fire, a piece of leaven, and a scabbed sheep; and concludeth, that like as a canker (if we will not have it eat over all the body) is presently to be killed, and a spark of fire in a dangerous place forthwith to be put out, and a pecce of leaven (if we will not have the whole past leavened) is to be taken away out of hand from the same; and a scabbed sheep, is forthwith to be removed out of the flock, lest that it infect the rest: so an Heretic is presently so soon as he appeareth, to be cut off from the body of the Church, and to be cast out of Christ's fold, lest that by infection he corrupt others, which (as I have said) cannot be so soon effected by a general Council, as is expedient; although the times be never so calm: yea, sometimes there is no means to assemble such a Council: And therefore not without cause God almighty hath warranted in such cases, the Pope's sentence from error, that all his whole flock, understanding any new doctrine to be condemned by his censure, may presently both avoid it, and the authors and followers of the same.  
Finally, in a general Council itself, it is not only needful that there be one supreme judge: but also that the sentence of this judge at the least, joined with the censure and approbation of a part of the Council, be of an infallible truth and of divine authority. The first part of this assertion is proved before, and is evident; because otherwise we must needs confess, that no certain mean is ordained in the Church to end controversies: For the Prelates assembled in a Council being divided, either part might refuse to stand to the others judgement. The second also is even as apparent, because otherwise we have no certain rule, whereby in such a division to know which part hath the truth. We find it true by experience, that the greater part (which nevertheless according to ordinary courses, should be of greater authority than the lesser) may err: for so it fell out in the false Synod held at Ephesus, about the year of our Lord four hundred forty and nine. Wherefore, if we should yield this pre-eminence to the greater part, that it must be obeyed; heresies and false doctrine might be established in a Council, without any means left us to know, when it doth err, and when it defineth a truth; to which I likewise add, that it may fall out that both parts be equal: And lastly, that we have no warrant in holy scripture, that the one part shall have infallible directions by God's spirit, more than the other. And seeing that we have the most manifest authority of the said scripture, warranting us that the successuor of S. Peter cannot err, neither reason nor scripture will suffer us, to deny him this prerogative. But like as I have declared before, the truth of the first part of this reason, by the doctrine & examples of foreign sectaries: so I think it not amiss in this place, to show the truth of the last, by the positions and proceedings of some nearer home. There came to my hands of late, a little pamphlet bearing this title. A Christian and modest offer of a most indifferent conference or disputation about the many and principal controversies betwixt the Prelates, 
Printed an. 1660.  and the late silenced and deprived ministers in England, tendered by some of the said ministers to the archbishops and Bishops and all their adherents. At the end of this pamphlet, among other objections which these Puritan ministers as making against this conference, endeavour to solve, this is one: That they (the said Puritan) when they have been heard to oppose and answer what they can, 
page 40.  name no judge, and will not stand to any man's definitive sentence, but will continue obstinate still. Unto which objection they plainly answer, that they do not think it lawful in any matter of religion, to settle their consciences upon the definitive sentence of any person absolutely: yea (say they) If both sides rest unsatisfied, 
page 41.  and continue persuaded still, that the truth is on their side, it were impious for either side in such a case, to commit the absolute determination thereof, unto the will and pleasure of any man or men whatsoever. They add; that it were unjust for either side, to require judges either incompetent, or not indifferent. And their reason is; because as the prelate's (except they would wilfully betray their own cause) might justly refuse such to be judges, as have in any degree inclined more to the ministers then to them; so may the ministers in like manner as justly refuse, to stand to the judgement and determination of such, as incline more to the Prelates then to them: thus they. How then will they have controversies ended? Surely they tell us, 
p. 40. 41.  that in desiring (as they do before) that the whole carriage of this intended conference may be published, they make all the world to be judges thereof: that it should content any Christianly affected man, that the ministers are content to offer their defence of these points, to the view of all, to scan and to weigh them, and so far forth to judge thereof, as (if their reasons do not satisfy them) to give them leave to cendemne them of error; which will be (say they) a judgement heavy enough to them, if notwithstanding they shall still persist in their former opinions: 
pa. 41. 42.  and that it is needles to name judges, because his Majesty, the civil Magistrates under him, and the high court of Parliament (though the ministers should appeal from them) would in this case judge them and their cause; whose judgement if it go against the ministers, and it appear to be righteous; the more they shall neglect the same, and refuse to submit themselves unto it, the more gross and refractory they shall show themselves to be, etc. This is the substance of their answer to the aforesaid objection. And what prudent man reading these things, will not first judge, that this course is no sufficient mean to decide matters in question; then, that one supreme judge whose sentence is of infallible truth, is necessary for the final ending of such contentions? Who will not likewise infer, that Christ who is not wanting to his Church in things necessary, hath ordained some such supreme judge? And like as the Puritans proceed after this sort, so might either side of the Bishops, if it should happen they should be divided among themselves, touching any point of religion. But although these things be so; yet we hold not the Bishop of Rome can rashly define what he please, for he is bound to proceed maturely, and to use such inquisition, arguments, advise of learned men and other means, as are necessary for the finding out of the truth of the matter, which he is to define. Neither can he institute any sacrament, or make any new article of faith, unknown altogether to the Apostles, or not delivered by them to the Church, as I have said before of a general Council. 
Chap. 9  Only touching these points, he hath power more plainly and expressly to explicate to the faithful those verities, which the said Apostles either knew or delivered, and to bring them (as it were) from darkness to light.  
Some men perhaps will admit, that S. Peter had a prerogative of not erring in faith, but will deny that it was ever derived to his successors. This evasion is fully above confuted: yet here I add further, 
Chap. 6. sect. 2.  that this warrant from error in faith, was more necessary after S. Peter's departure out of the world in his successors, than before in himself; both because the chiefest planters and rulers of the Church the holy Apostles and Disciples, were then likewise, or soon after deceased; and also because persecution daily increased, and new heresies in greater abundance began to impugn the rule of faith received. Moreover, our Saviour building his Church upon S. Peter, built it especially upon his faith (not upon his flesh, as some of the ancient Fathers say) neither so upon his faith, that he built it upon faith separated from S. Peter, or being in any other person: but upon faith as being in S. Peter the ministerial head of the Church. Wherefore, although the flesh of S. Peter be consumed, yet seeing that his office and dignity is in his successors, his faith also through the warrant of Christ still remaineth in them, which is the foundation of the Church, and the firm rock, against which Helgates shall not prevail. And this may be confirmed, because Christ when he prayed for the faith of S. Peter, obtained and imparted this prerogative unto him, as his supreme vicar, or by reason of his office: Wherefore, seeing that the office continueth always in the Church, the privilege likewise must always remain in the same. And this is the doctrine of the ancient Fathers, and their exposition of the places of scripture alleged. Hence in the third general 
a Concil. Ephes. to. 2. cap. 16.  Council, the Bishop of Rome is called the ordinary successor and vicar of S. Peter, prince of the Apostles: And the like is affirmed in the 
b Concil. Chalcedon act. 2. et 3.  fourth. This also moved S. Hierome in his epistle to S. Damasus the Pope, to use these words: 
c Hieron. to. 2. epist. 7. ad Damasum.  I following no chief or principal but Christ, join myself to the communion of Peter's Chair: upon this rock, I know the Church was built. The same may be proved by this sentence of S. Augustine, 
d Aug. to. 7. psal. contra part Donati.  Count the priests (saith he) from the very See of Peter, and in that order of Fathers consider, who to whom hath succeeded, that same is the rock which the proud gates of hell do not overcome. Finally, by the chair of Peter, manifestly showed by the succession of the Roman Bishops, 
e Aug. contra epist. Manich. ca 4. et epist. 105.  he severeth Catholics from Heretics.  
Our adversaries barking against this, accuse divers Popes of sundry errors, but they are all very well answered by divers Catholics, and the Popes manifestly cleared from their false slanders.  
I must further note in this place, that although the decrees of the Pope (as is before declared) of themselves, be of an infallible truth, touching the matter which he intendeth to define: yet, that some further authority (if it be possible) is added unto them, when they are accepted and approved by the whole Church; for if they so accepted could be false, the whole Church might err, contrary to that which hath been proved before.  
I must also add here two grounds more, flowing out of this warrant of the Pope's judgement from error: In the first place are provincial Counsels confirmed by the Pope, for by such only, divers heresies have been condemned, as that of the Pelagians, Priscillianists, of jovinian and others. The second such ground is the faith of the Church of Rome, including the Pope, his Clergy and people; for unto this Church (as we were long since told by 
a S. Cipr. l. 1. epi. 3. et 55. Num. 6.  S. Cyprian) infidelity or false belief cannot have access. 
b Hieron. epist. 16. c. 3. item li. 3. Apol. x Ruffinum.  S. Hierome calleth it The most safe haven of communion: and likewise avoucheth, that The Roman faith commended by the Apostles mouth, will admit no deceits of Heretics: and that it cannot possibly be changed. 
c Ambr. in ora. de obitu Satiri circa medium. Ambros. ibid.  S. Ambrose affirmeth, that he doth agree with the Catholic Bishops, who accord with the Roman Church. And hence it proceedeth that not only he but also 
d Cipr. epi. 52. Num. 1. ad Antonianum.  S. Cyprian and 
e Hieron. apol. 1. adverse. Ruffinum cap. 1.  S. Hierome aver, that it is all one to say the Roman and the Catholic faith.   

SECTION THE FOURTH. The opinion of some sectaries that the Pope is Antichrist, is briefly confuted: and two objections against the premises are answered.  
OUR 
f Caluin ad c. 2. poster. ad Thess. l. 4. Instit. ca 7. § 24.  Adversaries by divers means endeavour to overthrow the Catholic doctrine, delivered and proved by me in this chapter. Nay the malice of some of them (especially of our 
g Bullenger Willet in his Sinop. controvers. 2. quest. 5. par. 2. etc.  Puritan brethren) extendeth itself so far, that they are not ashamed stoutly to aver, that the Pope is the very Antichrist, foretold by Christ and the Apostles in the new Testament. But this assertion is so absurd and opposite to the word of God, and all show of truth; that divers learned Protestants not overmastered by their passions, reject it as false; and among the rest 
h Covel in his defence of Hooker artic. 11.  M. Covel confesseth, the Pope to be a member of the Church militant of Christ. 
i Hooker in his third book of Ecclesiastical policy, § 1. pag. 128. edit. anno 1604.  Hooker also himself in whose defence he writeth, of the Church of Rome useth these words: With Rome we dare not communicate concerning her sundry gross and grievous abominations: yet touching those main parts of Christian truth, wherein they constantly still persist, we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of jesus Christ: Thus Hooker. But a little 
k pag. 127.  before he discourseth thus: In S. Paul's time the integrity of Rome was famous; Corinth many ways reproved, they of Galatia much more out of square. In S. john's time Ephesus and Smirna in far better state, than Thiatira and Pergamus were. We hope therefore, that to reform ourselves (if at any time we have done amiss) is not to sever ourselves from the Church we were of before: In the Church we were, and we are so still. Hitherto are hooker's words; in which he seemeth to me, plainly to affirm, both that the Church of Rome is a true Church, and also that it is no divers Church from that of the Protestants of England: which I think this learned man would not have said, if he had imagined the Pope to be Antichrist. But this confession of our adversaries notwithstanding, briefly I thus confute the aforesaid untrue and absurd opinion of others.  
In the scripture we find that Antichrist shall deny jesus to be Christ; who is a liar (saith S. john) but he who denieth that jesus is Christ? 
1. john 2. verse 22.  this is Antichrist which denieth the Father and the Son. He shall also affirm himself to be Christ, and the jews shall receive him for their true Messias as we gather our of these words of our Saviour unto the said jews: If an other come in his own name, 
john 5. Iren. li. 5. Ciril catech. 15. Ambros. in c. 21. Luc. 2. Thessal. 2. vers. 4.  him you will receive. That he shall affirm himself to be Christ we are taught by S. Irenaeus, S. Ciril Bishop of Jerusalem, S. Ambrose and others. That the jews shall receive him as Christ, it is avouched by all the Fathers. Moreover, Antichrist shall publicly name himself to be God, and covet to be worshipped as the only God: this is manifest out of these words of the Apostle; He shallbe extolled above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God showing himself as though he were God. These be some of the properties of Antichrist set down in the word of God: but none of these agree unto the Pope; for he neither denieth Christ, nor affirmeth himself to be Christ, or is accepted as Christ by the jews; finally, he is not worshipped as God, but worshippeth God: therefore he is not Antichrist. Add also, that Antichrist shall be but one man, he shall come immediately before the day of judgement, he shall reign but three years and an half, and that at Jerusalem, as is evidently gathered out of the same holy scripture, and all the holy Fathers: by which likewise appeareth the falsehood of our adversaries assertion.  
But to impugn and overthrow the primacy of the Pope, they all make divers objections: and although it were a very easy matter here to show the weakness of them all, yet I should exceed mine intended brevity. I will therefore answer only two, the one commonly used by them all, and (as they think) of greatest force, the other much urged by M. Field. 
Galath. 2. verse 11.  The first is taken out of that place of S. Paul, where he affirmeth that he resisted S. Peter in face, because he was reprehensible: the second out of a decree (as Field saith) of the Council of Chalcedon: I will answer (I say) briefly these, that by the weakness of them, the reader may judge of the strength of others, which are of less force than these. And to begin with the first; as in other places so in this, 
Bibl. anno 1592.  our English Puritan Genevians falsify the text of holy scripture, to make it seem the better for them. For whereas the Apostle saith, that he resisted S. Peter in face, that is: publicly in presence of all, 
Bibl. anno 1592.  or (as they say in their marginal note) before all men, they contrarying their own exposition and Bezaes' also, in the text make S. Paul say, that he withstood S. Peter to his face, imagining thereby the more to disgrace the superiority of S. Peter: for every man knoweth, that it is not all one to reprehend or resist a man publicly, and to resist him to his face. This being noted, let us now first see what the ancient Fathers write, 
Cyprian epist. 71. ad Quintum Numb. 2. August. li. 2. de Baptism. ca 1.  concerning this controversy between these holy Apostles. S. Cipran (whose sentence is also alleged by S. Augustine) discoursing of the said reprehension, useth these words: Neither Peter whom our Lord did choose the first, and upon whom he built his Church, when Paul disputed with him of circumcision, challenged insolently, or arrogantly took any thing to himself, saying; that he had the primacy, and therefore that the later disciples ought rather to obey him etc. This and more S. Cyprian: out of which his words we may gather, that the action of S. Paul was nothing prejudicial in his opinion, to the primacy of S. Peter. 
Aug. li. 2. de Baptis. cap. 1.  But was S. Peter in this case worthy of blame? S. Augustine thought him faulty; for thus in one place he discourseth: we have learned in the holy scriptures that Peter the Apostle, in whom the primacy of the Apostles by excellent grace is so praeeminent, when he did otherwise concerning circumcision then the truth required, was corrected by Paul the later Apostle: 
Tertul. de prescript. cap. 23.  thus S. Augustine. And this opinion long before him was taught by Tertullian, who telleth us, that the Heretics of his days (whose disciples the new sectaries seem to be) alleged this reprehension of S. Peter, to prove the Apostles ignorance: but he answereth, that the error or fault was of conversation, and not of preaching or doctrine. Neither doth this prove any thing against S. Peter's primacy, 
Ciril li. 9 in joan. Hieron. in proaemio Comment. epistola ad Galatas.  for we deny not but the Pope of Rome may err in conversation, & be consequently admonished, by his inferiors. S. Ciril recordeth, that julian the Apostata objected the same reprehension against Christians. S. Hierom first telleth us, that wicked Porphiry an Apostata, charged S. Paul of envy & malapert boldness, and S. Peter of error. Secondly he teacheth us, that there was neither fault in S. Peter nor in S. Paul, which opinion is at large most learnedly explicated and defended by Cardinal Baronius, in the first tome of his ecclesiastical annuals. And briefly with him I answer, that although S. Peter was reprehensible in this sense, that of his action a thing might follow worthy of reprehension; yet in very truth it is certain, that neither S. Peter nor S. Paul did amiss. For first we must suppose, 
Acts 15. v. 23. etc.  that although in the Council of Jerusalem celebrated before that time (of which in the acts of the Apostles) it was decreed, that the Gentiles converted to Christ, were not bound to observe the old law of the jews; yet nothing was there decreed for the freeing of the jews from the same: yea, although they were in very deed by the law of grace, released of that burden; yet for avoiding of scandal, and that the said old law might be buried with honour, they for some time observed them very religiously. Hence after the aforesaid Council, the Apostles themselves observed divers ceremonies of the old law: 
Act. 16.3.  for example, S. Paul himself circumcised Timothee; yea after this altercation with S. Peter, he following the advise of S. james, and the priests assembled at Jerusalem, 
Acts 21. verse 26. 1. Corint. 9 v. 20.  according to the law of Moses, purified himself in the temple of Jerusalem. Thence proceed these his words: I became a jew to the jews, that I might gain the jews. As it was therefore lawful for the jews to forsake the old law, and live as the converted Gentiles did; so also it was lawful for a time unto them (according as time and place required, especially for avoiding of scandal) to use the said ceremonies of the old law. This moved S. Peter living at Antioch with S. Paul, although being the Apostle, unto whom the rest of the Apostles had committed the especial patronage of the jews, to live with the rest as a converted Gentile, and so to transgress the law of Moses. But certain jews coming from Jerusalem, where the Christian jews yet observed the said law, that being their patron he might not give any scandal, he retired himself from the rest, and began to live as the strangers did. This action of his, divers of the rest of the jews of Antioch followed: yea, S. Barnabas himself being S. Paul's companion, took this course among the rest, which S. Paul being the patron of the Gentiles beholding, he reprehended S. Peter for his judaical conversation, affirming that by his example, he drew all to observe the law of Moses. This is briefly the history of this matter, as it is plainly gathered out of the place of S. Paul alleged. Hence it appeareth that not only S. Peter's action, but also S. Paul's reprehension was lawful, and necessary: for S. Peter by his action, removed all scandal from the jews: S. Paul also by his reprehension, removed the like from the Gentiles. And thus much of the first objection.  
Field discoursing of the patriarch of Constantinople, 
Book 3. chapter 1.  useth these words: In the second general Council holden at Constantinople, he was preferred before the other patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, and set in degree of honour next unto the Bishop of Rome. In the great Council of Chalcedon, he was made equal with him, and to have all equal rites, privileges and prerogatives, because he was Bishop of new Rome, as the other of old: thus Field. And upon this ground in the next chapter, 
Chap. 2.  he entereth into a railing and scoffing discourse against the Pope. But (in very deed) I cannot do otherwise then marvel, that a man of his place and learning, doth not blush to commit such a notorious untruth, to the print and view of the world: For not to speak of the falsehood of the first part of his assertion, because it is in some sort impertinent, that which he saith of the Council of Chalcedon is most untrue, repugnant to all antiquity, and not only contrary to all proceedings, and the history of the said Council; but also to the words of the Canon by him alleged. For in it is decreed only, that the city of new Rome or Constantinople, shall have majesty (like as old Rome) in Ecclesiastical affairs, et secundam post illam existere, that is, shallbe the second or next after it, and enjoy certain privileges for the ordination of some Metrapolitans: these are the contents of the Canon. And what more touching this matter, did the Bishops assembled in that Council, in their synodical epistle desire S. Leo the great than bishop of Rome to confirm, than this? 
Concilium Chalcedom. sessio 12. alias actione 16. An. Christi 451. Concilium Nice. sessio ultim. Conci. Chal. actione 1. Actione 3.  We have confirmed (say they) the rule of the seavenscore and ten holy Fathers, which were gathered together at Constantinople under Theodosius of happy memory, which commanded that the See of Constantinople (which is ordained the second) have second honour after your most holy and Apostolic See, trusting that the Apostolical sunbeam shining with you, etc. But how can it be the second and next after, and also the equal with it, as Field affirmeth? Besides this, in the Council itself those words of the Canon of the Council of Nice, that the Church of Rome ever had the primacy, were allowed; and the Legates of Pope Leo without reprehension or exception taken, said: We have here at hand, the commandments of the most blessed and Apostolic man the Pope of the city of Rome, which is head of all Churches, by which his Apostleship hath vouchsafed to command etc. Again, one of them first subscribed (as he said) in the place of the most blessed and Apostolic universal Pope of the city of Rome, etc. And in the epistle, all the Fathers writ unto him thus: We crave therefore, that you will honour our decrees with your judgement, and like as we desirous, have consented in those things which are good: sic et summitas tua: so thy chiefdom (or pre-eminence above all) will (as it is meet) accomplish them to his children: hitherto are their words. And what could be said more apparent for the Pope's supremacy? Do not they acknowledge him to be their chief, and themselves his sons and children? 
Gregor. li 4. epi. 32. 36. 38. li. 7. epi. 30. See before in the first section of this chapter.  I could add to this the authority of S. Gregory the great, who lived not long after this Council; who against the ambition of john bishop of Constantinople in divers letters confidently affirmeth, that the title of universal Bishop by this Council, was offered to Pope Leo.  
But Field will urge, that it is gathered out of some Greek copies of this Council, that by this Canon the Bishop of Constantinople was so made second after the Bishop of Rome, that equal privileges were given him. I answer, that these privileges were only concerning jurisdiction, to order certain Metrapolitans of the east Church, as the Bishop of Rome had the like in the west. But now suppose I should grant M. Field, that in this Canon the Bishop of Constantinople, was made in every respect equal to the Pope: what would he get by this? In truth nothing. For of what authority is this Canon? Surely of none, for it was cunningly made by the Grecian bishops after the Council was risen, and the Legates of Pope Leo departed, who also when it came to their knowledge the next day, resisted them in the next Session: yea, this was never confirmed by the Pope, without whose confirmation the decrees of general Counsels have never had force; but was by Pope Leo forthwith overthrown and annulled. 
Leo epist. 55. 53. 54. 61.  We cancel or make void (saith he speaking of that Canon and others then enacted) the consent of Bishops repugnant to the Nicene Canons: and by the authority of blessed S. Peter the Apostle, by a general definition we make them altogether of no force. And this his decree was so highly esteemed in the East itself, 
Marcian. l. 12. c. de sacrosancta Ecclesia.  that it was confirmed presently by an Imperial constitution, even by the Emperor of Constantinople: and Anatolius the patriarch through whose ambition and instigation the said Canon was made, was constrained to cease from such proceedings, to relinquish that dignity which ambitioussie he covered, and to take place even after the other patriarchs; for neither was the constitution of the Council of Constantinople, which preferred him before those of Alexandria and Antioch, authentical. 
justin. novel. 131. cap. 2. Field book 3. cap. 1.  Yea justinian the Emperor after this (even when Rome was most in disgrace and Constantinople flourished, long before the days of Phocas, from whom Field would derive the beginning of the Pope's superiority) confirmed the primacy to the Bishop of Rome: and thus we may see, upon how weak grounds Field doth venture to pass the bounds of modesty.  
Concerning the point itself of the Pope's infallible judgement, he accuseth us of contrary doctrine, to wit: that we all hold at this day, 
Field book 3. cap. 45.  the infallibility of the Pope's judgement, to be the rock on which the Church is builded, and therefore build our faith upon the same: whereas the same men (saith he) that hold this, say also it is no matter of faith to acknowledge or not acknowledge the infallibility of the Pope's judgement. I answer, that the infallibility of the Pope's judgement without the assent of a general Council, is not the most sure & received rock, on which the Church was built: for this is the Pope's judgement confirming the decrees of a general Council, or (as I may say) the definition of a general Council, in which the head confirmeth the verdict of the body, and both together infallibly define a truth. And in this sense no Catholic now affirmeth, that it is no matter of faith to acknowledge or not acknowledge, the infallibility of the Pope's judgement: for it is held absolutely to be a matter of faith; and consequently, our doctrine touching these points is not contrary. True it is, 
Bell. li. 4. de Roman. pontiff. ca 2. in fine. Stapleton in Relect. scholast. princi. controvers. 3, quest. 4.  that some Catholic doctors (as Bellarmine and Stapleton) think not that opinion properly heretical, which holdeth that the Pope as Pope may be an Heretic and teach heresy, if he define without a general Council (so far are we from making all the Pope's words divine oracles, as some Protestants falsely pretend:) but nevertheless they deem this opinion to be erroneous, and most near unto heresy. Neither doth this their assertion, contradict that commonly averred; that the decrees of the Pope without a general Council in the sense above mentioned, are a rock or ground of faith: for although the whole Church hath not yet authentically defined, that the Pope after this sort cannot err? yet the scriptures and other arguments brought in this behalf, are so plain and forcible, and the consent of all learned & pious men (except some few) is so consonant and strong for this point, that every man may well admit his definitions, as a ground of supernatural faith. And so we may truly say, both it is no matter of faith, to acknowledge or not acknowledge in this sort, the infallibility of the Pope's judgement in this sense, that the whole Church hath not as yet defined either part to be a divine truth; and yet hold the infallibility of the Pope's judgement to be a Rock of faith in this sense, that every man for the authorities and reasons alleged, may prudently build upon it an act of supernatural faith. And thus much of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and his decrees. I have been the longer in this discourse, 
Vergerius dialago 1. contra Hosium.  because some Protestants affirm the denial of this supremacy or superiority, to be not only the foundation of their new religion; but also a good part of the edifice built thereupon.    

Chapter 11. Of the consent of the ancient Fathers, and the general doctrine of the Catholic Church in all ages.  
CONCERNING the testimony of antiquity touching matters of faith and religion, found in the works of such ancient doctors, as from the Apostles days have flourished through all ages in Christ's church, and have been & are esteemed by her, as fathers & masters of christian faith; learned men give us these rules. First those things which they say (as it were by the way, and treating of another thing) are to be distinguished from such sentences, as they pronounce of such matters as they purposely handle: for their sayings of the first kind are of small, those of the other of greater authority. secondly, that which is said by any one of them but once, is not so much to be credited, as that which is often and constantly repeated. But principally we must make a difference, between that which they say in disputation or contention with their adversaries, and that which is affirmed positively as a true conclusion, according to the argument of which they treat: for an authority of the first sort is little to be esteemed, of the latter greatly. Touching their assertions in general, this is to be observed: First, when the opinion of any father touching matters of faith, is singular and contradicted by all, or most of the rest, it is rather to be thought an error than a truth. secondly, when one or two only affirm a thing of that subject, and the rest make no mention of it, their testimonies make a probable, not a certain argument. Thirdly, what doctrine soever concerning any point of Christian religion, is commonly found in all the ancient Father's works, where mention is of that point, and is held by them as an article of the said religion, and contradicted by none of the rest without the note of singularity, error, or heresy imposed upon them by others; such doctrine may well be thought to pertain to the rule of faith, descending by Tradition from the Apostles, and is to be embraced as an article of our belief. The truth of this last rule which toucheth most my purpose, is gathered out of that which hath been already said; for I have declared, that neither the Church can err, nor the tradition of Christian faith in it preserved be overthrown or altered: but if we admit a possibility of error in all such Father's works touching matters of such consequence, both of these assertions may be proved false. For an error in faith found in most of the Fathers without contradiction of any other, argueth an error in all believers, not only of the ages in which those Fathers flourished, but also in all times ensuing; because that doctrine which is delivered by most as an article of faith, without any opposition of others, may well be deemed to be the doctrine of all the faithful, who oppose not themselves against it, & consequently of the whole Church. Wherefore, if that be proved erroneous, of it we may infer an error in all sorts of christians, & consequently a change of the rule of faith received by tradition. Moreover, although we should set aside the warrant of the Church and tradition, from error; who will think it possible that the Fathers should after this sort departed from the truth, and conspire in error without any, or (at the least) without any great contradiction? Is not novelty commonly discovered and oppugned? And of this I gather, that their agreement seemeth an infallible argument of the truth of their doctrine: yea, that they all held sincerely the tradition delivered them by their predecessors. And this moved the holy fathers assembled in general Counsels (as appeareth by the acts of the said counsels) to make great search into the works of their forefathers, and of the ancient doctors, as also to use them as a principal mean to find out the rule of faith, by the said tradition preserved in the church. Finally, by their testimonies to direct very much their definitions and decrees in particular; S. Athanasius recordeth, 
Athanas. epist. ad Afros.  that the Bishops who were present in the first Council of Nice, followed the testimonies of the ancient Fathers: and that the same was done in those of Ephesus and Chalcedon, the bishops themselves assembled also testify; who affirm in their definitions yet extant, that in them they follow the holy Fathers.  

Ephes. 4. v. 11. etc.  Further, we are taught by the Apostle, that Christ gave some Apostles (I use S. Paul's words) and some Prophets, and other some Evangelists, and other some Pastors and Doctors, to the consummation of the Saints unto the work of the ministry, unto the edifying of the body of Christ, until we meet all into the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, into a perfect man, into the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ: that now we be not children wavering, and carried about with every wind of doctrine in the wickedness of men, in craftiness to the circumvention of error: Hitherto the Apostle. In which his discourse in plain terms he telleth us, that Christ appointed Apostles and other such like officers in his Church until the day of judgement, for the instruction of his people, and to keep them from wavering in faith and errors in religion. Of which I infer, that not only the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Doctors, who planted, ruled, and instructed the Church presently after Christ's Ascension, are to believed and obeyed: but also, that the like credit is to be given to their successors, who in all ages following have supplied, and shall ever until the day of judgement supply their places; and consequently, that they also have been and are directed in all truth, otherwise they might have wavered and erred themselves, and so have drawn the whole Church to such inconveniences. Seeing therefore, that the fathers of the Church in their ages have supplied such places, it must needs follow, that they have enjoyed the like privileges and prerogatives. Moreover, the jews were bound to hear and obey the Scribes & Pharisees of the old law, as we are taught by these words of Christ: 
Math. 23. v. 2. & 3.  Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees; all things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe ye, and do ye. Who then will be so impudent as to say, that Christians are not bound to hear and obey the prelate's of the Church? 
Luke 10. see also Math. 10. & joh. 13. Iren. li. 4. cap. 4.  especially seeing that of them Christ hath said, He that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me: which words argue as great truth in their doctrine, as there is in the doctrine of Christ, who is truth itself. Hence S. Irenaeus telleth us, that we ought to obey those who have succession from the Apostles, who together with the succession of their Bishoprics, have received the gifts or privileges of truth. And although these sentences, are principally verified in the prelate's of the Church assembled in a general Council: yet, they must needs also be confessed true in the whole body of them, in all ages dispersed through the whole world; and in every one of them, when he teacheth and delivereth us the doctrine of the universal Church.  
Finally, the ancient Fathers are most pregnant and faithful witnesses of that Depositum or sum of Chistian doctrine, which they received from their predecessors, and delivered to their successors. They are also most indifferent judges of all controversies after their days arising in the Church, because they lived before ever any such controversy was moved; and therefore are partial of no side. 
Aug. count julianuni li. 2. c. 10.  Hence are these words of S. Augustine to the Pelagians concerning this matter: They (he speaketh of the Fathers that lived before him) were angry neither with you nor with us; they favoured neither you nor us: That which they found in the Church they held fast, that which they learned they taught, that which they received of their Fathers they delivered to their children: Hitherto S. Augustine. This moved the same holy Father and divers others, to appeal so often to the judgement of their predecessors, and to cite their testimonies. And these arguments in like manner prove, that the truth of faith and religion always and in all ages, remaineth among the true Bishops and Pastors of the Church: and consequently that at all times (even at this present) a man may securely follow their belief and doctrine. This I say the authorities alleged testify: for the Church must never err, her prelate's are always to stay us from wavering in faith etc. 
1. Cor. 11. verse 16. August. epist. 118. cap. 5. Idem epist. 86. ad Casulan.  And it is moreover insinuated unto us by the Apostle, in these words: But if a man seem contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Church of God; for as we see, in them he pleadeth the custom of the Church against the contentious. And this moved S. Augustine to term it most insolent madness, to dispute against that which the whole church holdeth: he telleth us also, that the custom of the people of God, or the ordinances of our ancestors are to be held as a law in those things, in which the divine scripture prescribeth nothing certain. S. Hierome is of the same opinion: for in his dialogue against the Luciferians, he bringeth in the Heretic affirming, that the consent of the whole world hath the force of a law, although it be in a matter not to be proved by scripture; 
Epiphani. haeres. 75.  and maketh the Catholic assent to his assertion. The like hath S. Epiphanius, who disputing against Aerius in defence of certain fasting-days observed in the Church, useth this argument: The Church received them, and the whole world in it consented before Aerius was, and they which of him are called Aerians: the same is affirmed by the rest of the Fathers.  
In the last place for a ground of our faith I must add such propositions, as are deduced out of these most certain grounds, by an evident and infallible argument. For although it is commonly held, that in a syllogism of one proposition of faith, and another known only by the light of natural reason, the conclusion is not properly of faith, but Theological, that is a conclusion in divinity held most true: yet, certain it is, 
See Greg. de Valentia in secunda secundae disput. 1. qu. 1. puncto 2.  that a conclusion following in a syllogism of two propositions of faith, is indirectly (and as the divines say) immediately de fide or of faith: as also that proposition is, which is inferred by good and evident consequence of a proposition of faith; because whosoever denieth the proposition inferred, will be constrained to deny the proposition or propositions, of which it is inferred. But concerning such propositions, the unlearned if occasion be offered, must crave instructions of the learned.   

Chapter 12. Containing the conclusion of the first part.  
THESE be the immovable and most firm grounds which we find in the Church of Christ, whereon we build our faith and religion. Upon these sure foundations as upon a firm rock, every Catholic buildeth his belief and salvation. And although the articles delivered unto us by the Church, be not apparent to our senses, nor for the most part comprehensible by reason; yet in all such matters (according to the saying of the Apostle) We make our reason and understanding captive unto the obedience of Christ, 
2. Corint. 10. vers. 5. 1. Corint. 2. vers. 5.  and acknowledge with the same Apostle, that our faith is not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God: And therefore, that in such mysteries above reason we cannot show ourselves more reasonable, then to leave off reasoning. 
Genes. 18. vers. 14. Luk. 1, 37. Math. 19, 26. Mat. 16, 17.  Verily, we are taught by the scripture, that nothing is hard (much less impossible) unto God; yea, that all things are possible with him, although with men impossible. And if scripture had not taught us this, reason itself would easily persuade us to assent unto it, because by nature he is omnipotent. We know also, that it is not flesh and blood that hath revealed such things unto us, but God himself, who being eternal wisdom & truth, can neither be deceived nor deceive: wherefore, although the mysteries be obscure, let us always be mindful by whom we are informed of their truth, and not make the depth of our own capacity, the rule and measure of God's power, and of our faith; but believe them. When either the devil or his instruments object any thing against our belief, let us say with S. Augustine. 
Aug. serm. 147. de tempore. Ambrose in cap. 5. Lucae. Ambr. de Abraham cap. 3.  Why do we wonder? why do we not believe? it was God that did it: and with S. Ambrose; If we believe not God whom will we believe? If a grau●●onourable parsonage (I use the same holy Doctor's comparison) in this life (especially if he be of high degree and our better) would scorn to be asked of us a proof for that which he affirmeth, how much more ought God to be credited without proof of human reason, when he propoundeth unto us a matter above man's reason and capacity: thus in effect S. Ambrose.  
And how weak and feeble our reason and understanding is, we may easily perceive by this, that it is not able to comprehend the nature or causes of divers things, which we daily behold with our eyes. Hence arise so many intricate difficulties in natural philosophy, which the deepest wits and most learned philosophers could never hitherto unfold. For example, what philosopher hath ever hitherto yielded a certain cause without any contradiction, of the ebbing and flowing of the Sea? Yea, how many things are there in man's body itself, which move no small difficulties to philosophers? as the forming of it in the mother's womb, the concoction and distribution of nourishment, the growing of it to a due proportion and stature, etc. What shall we say of the five senses, by which our understanding cometh to the knowledge of external and corporal things? how strange is their operation? what great and huge bodies are together truly represented in the little compass of the apple of the eye? But I can not stand to discourse of them in particular. If we look up to the heavens, how can we conceive the huge bodies of the planets, seeming to our senses so small, their certain and swift motion, and their nature itself most admirable? And if we cannot without great difficulty and discourse, comprehend these ordinary matters, how dare we by our weak wit, measure the omnipotent power of God, and think him able to do no more than we can conceive?  
Moreover, if God had not made all things of nothing by his only word, we should hardly imagine such a creation to be possible; seeing that it is a rule among natural agents, that of nothing nothing is made. If God himself had not revealed unto us, that in the most blessed Trinity the same simple essence or substance is in three persons, which therefore make but one God, we should hardly have believed it; seeing that among us every person hath a distinct substance or essence. If faith did not teach us, that in Christ two natures the one of God the other of man make one person, it would seem incredible; seeing that among us e●●●ie nature maketh a distinct person. Come a little lower, if our Saviour had not told us, 
Mat. 19 verse 26. john 20, 19 & 26.  that a camel by the power of God may be made to pass through the eye of an needle, who would have believed it? If Christ had not entered into his disciples the doors being shut, who would have thought it possible? If then our understanding can not naturally comprehend these mysteries, which nevertheless every Christian must confess to be true, we may very well think with ourselves, that other such like which Heretics deny, may likewise be even as certain, although our understanding can not reach to the apprehension of them; seeing that they are no more repugnant to reason then the former, but like as they above reason, and proceed from the same omnipotent power of God. Certainly, The works of God (as we are taught by S. Gregory) if they were comprehensible by reason, 
Gregor. hom. 26. in evan.  were not admirable: neither hath faith (saith he) any merit, when human reason yieldeth an experiment, or maketh the thing evident; for the less evidence that our reason hath in matters of faith, so that the things be propounded unto us with sufficient prudential motives proving divine revelation, the more we merit in believing, according to those words of our Saviour: 
john 20. verse 29.  Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed.  
And therefore concerning those works of God principally, which by faith we are bound to believe, 
Chrisost. homil. 21. in Genes.  let us follow the learned advise of S. john Chrisostome, contained in these his words following. When God doth any thing (saith he) do not thou examine those things which are done by human reason, for they exceed our understanding: and man's thought or imagination can not reach and comprehend the reason of those things, which are made and done by God. Wherefore it is meet, that we hearing what God commanded, obey and believe those things which are said by him, for seeing that he is the founder of nature, he doth order and transform all things as he thinketh good: hitherto Saint john Chrisostome.   
FINIS.   

THE SECOND PART OF THIS TREATISE, SHOWING THE GROUNDS OF the new religion. In which is proved, that the new Sectaries build their faith upon no divine authority, but that the ground of all their belief and religion is their own judgement; and consequently, that they have neither true faith, nor religion.  

Chapter 1. That by their doctrine they deny or at the least weaken, the three principal and general grounds of Christian religion, set down in the three first chapters of the first part.  

SECTION THE FIRST. The number of Atheists among them is great, and of the causes by them given of this impiety.  
IN the three first chapters of the first part of this treatise, I have proved three principal grounds of our religion, to wit: the being of God and his divine providence, the immortality of the soul of Man, and the truth of Christianity. Now, perhaps the title of this chapter to some may seem very strange, and my accusation of our adversaries; that by their doctrine they deny or weaken these grounds, very slanderous and injurious: but I desire no more credit in this matter, than the reasons I shall bring will yield, which if I obtain of my reader, I doubt not but I shall free myself of all suspicion of offering them any wrong.  
But first I must declare, that in this section I intent not to accuse all the new Sectaries of Atheism; for I know very well that they teach & commonly believe there is a God: neither do I intend to affirm, that the same man can properly be termed a new sectary and Atheist; but mine assertion only is, that a great number of such as are in outward show professors of the new religion, are (in very deed) inwardly profane Atheists, and that the said new religion is a very fountain of Atheism. And in proof of the first part of this assertion, I need not use many words or long discourses: for so it is, that divers principal professors and followers of this new belief, confess and acknowledge a great number of such impious and irreligious persons, 
Zauchius in his epistle before his confession. pa. 7.  to be in their congregations. Of foreign sectaries Zauchius affirmeth, that among other monster's Atheism hath been fetched out of hell, by the ministers of sathan, in some of the reformed Churches. Of our own countrymen 
* Whitg. in his defence tract. 3. cap. 6. pag. 278. See also Hooker in his 5. book of ecclesiast. policy § 2. Mornay in his treatise of the proof of christian religion.  Whitgift complaineth, that the Church of England is replenished with Atheists. The same complaints have Hedio, Powel, Parks, & others, as will appear by some of their sentences which I shall relate hereafter. To come therefore to the second part: seeing that this impiety reigneth now more among our adversaries, than it hath done in former ages among Christians, in which such monsters were not so usually found and commonly seen, it is like that it hath some root and offspring in these days among them, which appeared not in the religion of our forefathers and predecessors. And what is this root? surely it is not one, but divers. And for the first cause of this blasphemy, I assign their dissension and inconstancy concerning matters of faith and religion, without any certain ground whereon to build their belief, or mean of ending and deciding such controversies as arise. That their doctrine is subject to these inconveniences, it shall at large be proved hereafter. That such dissension, inconstancy, want of firm ground and mean to end controversies, may truly be said to be roots & fountains of Atheism, it is apparent; because of these things may well be inferred an uncertainty of truth (which is always one and constant to herself) and no divine foundation of the religion professed, or revelations of the truths preached, because things proceeding from God (whose wisdom and providence are infinite) cannot be subject to such absurdities. Hence divers being first, by the false calumnies & unjust slanders of their ringleaders, clean averted from our religion, in which only a sure ground, an immovable rock of faith, and a firm pillar of truth are found; then in their new profession, being tossed hither and thither concerning the articles of their faith, and finding no certain authority whereon to rest, or firm foundation whereon to build a firm and undoubted resolution, are brought finally to this, that they think all articles to be of an uncertain truth, and consequently imagine religion to be but a politic invention of man, and so become Atheists. S. Hilary even in his days complained, 
Hillar. lib. ad Constantium Augustum.  that the Arian heretics by these means, of Christians made Atheists: these are his words. Perilous and miserable it is, that there are now so many faiths as wills, and so many doctrines as manners: whiles either faiths are so written as we will, or as we will are so understood. And whereas according to one God, & one Lord, & one baptism, there is also one faith, they fall away from that which is the only faith, and whiles no faiths are made, they begin to come to this, that there is none at all: hitherto S. Hilary. But let us hear certain Protestants declare unto us the truth of that, which hath been here said touching this offspring of this impiety in their congregations. 
Relation of the state of religion used in the western parts of the world. § 45. printed at London anno 1605.  And first a Protestant relator of the state of religion used in the western parts of the world, discourseth thus: The division of Protestants into their factions of Lutherans and Caluinists, threateneth a great ruin and calamity of both sides. And soon after having showed how the Lutheran preachers rage in their pulpits against the others, he addeth: The Romans have the Pope as a common father, adviser and conductor to them all, to reconcile their jars, to appease their displeasures, to decide their difference, and finally to unite their endeavours in one course etc. to draw their religious by consent of Counsels to an unity or likeness and conformity, etc. Whereas on the contrary side, the Protestants are as severed bands, or rather scattered troops, each drawing adverse way, without any means to pacify their quarrels, to take up their controversies, without any bond to knit their forces or courses in one. No Prince, with any pre-eminence of jurisdiction above the rest, no Patriarch, one or more, to have a common superintendance or care over their Churches for correspondency and unity: no ordinary way to assemble a general Council of their part, the only hope remaining ever to assuage their contentions, and the only desire of the wisest and best minds among them. Every church almost of theirs, hath his several form and frame of government, his several liturgy and fashion of service, and lastly some several opinion from the rest, which though in themselves they be matters of no great moment, being no differences essential, or any part capital; yet have they been, are, and will be as long as they continue, causes of dislike, of jealousies, of quarrels and danger. These contentions tend mainly to the increase of Atheism within, of Mahometisme abroad: hitherto are the Relators words. But before him Bullenger a principal doctor among the Sacramentaries, noted the same effect of these contentions even in the beginning of this new religion: 
Bullenger in Firmamento firmo contra Brentium ca 1. Mayor in orat. de cofus. dogmatum. Hed. in epist. ad Melanct.  for he writeth that divers in his days, were so moved with that vehement and implacable dissension between the Lutherans and Zwinglians concerning the Eucharist, that as it were despairing & being clean out of hope, they said they would believe no more than they pleased. Major in like sort, a Lutheran of no less same confesseth, that divers were so moved with their scandals and dissensions, that they doubted whether there were any true Church of God extant in the world, or no. Unto these I add Hedio a third sectary, who having complained that there are almost one hundred twenty and eight errors among the professors of the Gospel, and that they fall to Atheism & neglect of religion, affirmeth that they assign their dissension to be the cause of these evils. But concerning their Atheism he also afterwards useth these words: The Popedom is rejected, and names are not given to Christ: The youth hath almost nothing of God. And what shall we say of our Church of England? hath not the dissension among Protestants and Puritans brought men to the same pass? 

Parks in the epistle dedicatory before his Apology of three testimonies of holy scripture, etc.  
Hillar. l. adversus Constantium.   Verily Parks a Protestant writer, having discoursed of such contention here at home affirmeth, that by it settled minds are distracted, the parts of the same body dismembered, and religion itself brought to be a matter of mere dispute and altercation, not without fear (saith he) that it befall unto us, as it did to the builders of Babel, or to the brethren of Cadmus. He hath also these words: These contentions are no small preparatives to Atheism, in that we may now say as Hilary said of his time; that there are so many faiths, as wil●, & so many doctrines as manners of men, lest either we writ them as we list, or understand them as we please: in so much that many are brought even to their wit's end, not knowing what to do. Amidst all which miseries and mischiefs the Papists insult & triumph, to see those that profess themselves brethren, to be at such deadly feud among themselves: thus Parks. To the same effect writeth Powel, who avoucheth; that through this dissension together with other inconveniences from it flowing by him recited, Many for want of knowledge are wrapped in ignorance, do not call upon God, but fly God. Many fall into an Epicurian contempt of religion, and are oppressed with despair. And thus much of the first root of Atheism among our adversaries.  
A second reason of the multitude of atheists among them, I deem to be the liberty which they give to every person, to examine sundry of the high mysteries of Christian religion, by the rule & measure of their own feeble understanding; & according to their own fancies to frame interpretations of scripture. For this liberty the principal Sectaries having taken to themselves, they have consequently (as Tertullian long since noted in Heretics) both by example and otherwise given the same to every one of their followers. 
Tert. de prescript. c. 42. Caluin lib. 4. Instit. cap. 17. § 20.  For example, Caluin telleth the defenders of the real presence, that howsoever they cry out that they be touched with reverence of the words of Christ, whereby they do not figuratively understand those things that were plainly spoken: yet, that this is not a pretence rightful enough, why they should so refuse all the reasons which they object to the contrary. And what reasons bringeth he & others against it? Their common arguments are: that the same body cannot be at the same instant in sundry places; that so great a corporal body cannot be in so small a room; that the accidents of bread and wine cannot be without a subject; that it repugneth to the nature of a body to be wholly in all, and wholly in every part of the Host. But who seethe not that by this manner of proceeding and arguing, they give occasion to Atheists to impugn the truth of the B. Trinity, the presence of God in all places, the incarnation of Christ, the resurrection of our bodies, the immortality of our souls, and other such like articles? For like as they affirm the real presence to be impossible, because the same body cannot be at the same instant in sundry places: so may an Atheist argue, that it repugneth that the self same nature without any distinction should be in three distinct persons, or that the self same bodies being once corrupted should rise again. Nay it is certain, that some of our late adversaries have in very deed, pleaded this argument of impossibility against the B. Trinity. Moreover, 
Theodosius Schimberg. epist. praefixa scriptis joan. Sommeri. Thedorus Dorchius li. Germanico quo defen dit dogmata Francis. Davidis.  like as they impugn the real presence, because so great a body cannot be in so small a place, nor the accidents of bread and wine without a subject, nor the body of Christ wholly in the whole, and wholly in every part of the Host etc. So may an Atheist dispute against the incarnation, that it is repugnant that two natures should be united in one person, because no substance can be without a proper subsistence, which is even as natural unto it, as inherence is to an accident; against the presence of God in every place, and the spiritual nature of the soul, because neither God can be wholly in the whole, and wholly in every part of the world, as they may falsely imagine; nor the soul of man wholly in the whole, and wholly in every part of his body. And although these arguments (in very deed) overthrow not the truth of these mysteries and articles of our belief, yet are they even as hard to answer, as any of those which our adversaries bring against the real presence. Wherefore, like as for the aforesaid reasons they reject the one as false: so do they give occasion to Atheists for the like reasons to reject the others. And upon this ground of measuring all things by their feeble understanding, built those sectaries in Germany, 
jacobus Curio in rebus chronolog. anno 1566. p. 151 impress. Basil.  who as jacobus Curio a Protestant reporteth, laughed Moses to scorn, for giving Adam and his progeny an age which exceedeth the measure and warrantise of nature; and this is the next step to Atheism. And because the Sacramentaries much more than the Lutherans, rely upon natural reason in matters of faith, hence perhaps it proceeded, that Brentius a Lutheran (whom jewel calleth a most grave and learned man) foretold, 

jewel in the defence of the Apol. part 4. c. 19.20. § 1.  
Brentius in recognit. etc. in fide, et in Bullengeri Coron. de anno 1564.   that it would in short time come to pass, that by the Zwinglians the heresy of Nestorius would be brought again into the Church, and nothing more would remain of the articles of our religion, but Paganism, Talmudisme or judaisme; and Mahometisme would be brought into the Church.  
thirdly, sin (which now through these sectaries licentious doctrine aboundeth among them, as I will declare in my treatise of the notes of the Church) bringeth them also to Atheism: for besides that continual carnal pleasures dull and darken the understanding, and make it unapt to conceive the articles of our faith; custom and delight in sin, breed also a desire of sinning without restraint or scruple of conscience, which desire maketh them unwilling to think of spiritual matters, and moveth them to accept of any persuasions whatsoever, be they never so absurd, disproving those articles of our faith, which usually move men to fear of punishment due to sinful actions.  
In the fourth place I add their blasphemous doctrine against God, by which they make him a tyrant, in commanding us to do things which are not in our power, (for they 
a That this is their doctrine I will prove at large in my treatise of the definition & notes of the Church.  hold his commandments to be impossible) and damning us everlastingly for not performing that, which he knoweth us not able to do. They make him likewise (as I may say) a devil, in being the cause of our sin and wickedness; of which crime Caluin is accused by divers 
b 
Heshusius l. cui titulus est Aliquot errores calvini. Petr. Vermelius a zwinglian in lib. 2. Reg. cap. 6.  
Grawerus in bello joannis calvini et jesu Christi. printed an. 1605. et lib. qui inscribitur Absurda, absurdorum, absurdissima, Caluinistica absurda. printed also an. 1605   Protestants of great fame. And this last assertion made one apprehended at Mets in France, an Atheist (as 
c Duraeus contra Whitak. in confut. respon. ad 10. ratio. pag. 432.  Duraeus recordeth) who being brought before the Magistrates, and demanded how he came to be of that blaspheamous opinion? answered, that he learned it out of Caluins' Institutions. For (said he) reading there that God is the author of sin, I thought it better to deny that there is a God, then to acknowledge a God so wicked: thus he. And (in very deed) 
d Basil in bomil. Quod deus non est auctor malorum.  S. Basil telleth us, that it is the same madness to deny God and to make him the author of sin. An other of our adversaries named 
e Historia Davidis Georgij printed at Antwerp anno 1560. published by the Protestants of Basil.  David George affirmed himself to be Christ, and oppugned our Saviour and his Church with this argument: If the doctrine of Christ (said he) and his Apostles had been true and perfect, certainly the Church by them planted could not have perished; for jesus said, that hell gates should not prevail against it. But it is manifest and known to all men, that the Church hath perished, and that Antichrist hath now for many ages reigned over the whole world: wherefore, the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles was false and imperfect. This he argued against his own brethren the new sectaries, who affirm that the Church of Christ was overthrown.  
And although the same assertion brought not Sebastian Castalio (a man much commended by some 
f Humfred de rat. interpret. lib. 1. pag. 62. 63. Zuingerus in Theatro. Gesnerus and others.  Protestants) so far; yet every man may see by his own writing, that it made him very doubtful, wavering, and perplexed in faith: in so much as he plainly professed, 
Sebastian Castalio. in his preface of the great lat in Bible dedicated to K. Edward the 6.  that he could not see how the oracles or prophecies of the old Testament concerning the glory and continuance of the Church, have been hitherto fulfilled in the new: and in very deed it is evident, that they have not been verified if our religion be condemned as false.   

SECTION THE SECOND. Of our adversaries doctrine concerning the immortality of the soul, heaven and hell.  
BUT far greater is the number of those among the new Sectaries, who deny the soul of man to be immortal. And first Luther himself may not only be truly accused of laying a certain foundation or ground of this damnable error, but also (if we take his words as they sound) to be a maintainer of the same: for whereas it is commonly held by all Christians, that the soul of man is created by almighty God, when the body in the mother's womb is apt to receive it, Luther favoureth that erroneous opinion of Tertullian very much, and seemeth to approve it, which defendeth the soul of man to have his being from his Parents, and consequently, 
Luther in disput. Theolo. habita Wittenbergae anno 1545. Thessi 31.  denieth it to be created of God: his words are these. They (saith he) who deemed the soul to be extraduce, that is, by generation produced, seem not altogether do have dissented from scripture; yea, these will more easily defend the propagation of original sin than they who think otherwise: ut nihil sit quod dicitur, so that it is nothing which is said: the intellectual soul creando infunditur, in the creation of it is infused, et in fundendo creature, and in the infusion of it is created: who proved this or who will prove, that the like may be said of every other soul? what difficulty can hinder God from producing the intellectual soul, both of nothing and also of corrupt seed? thus Luther. 
Centur. 5. c. 4. Dress. de partibus humani corporis etc. cap. de origine animae.  And in this he is followed by the Century writers, who note the denial of this in S. Augustine as an error: and of the same opinion is Dresserus also. But what is this, but to make no difference between the soul of man and the souls of brute beasts? doth not Luther make the generation of all these alike? nay what other thing is this, but (according to the common received opinion of philosophers) to make the soul mortal? Surely it is usually held in schools, that whatsoever is produced by natural generation, is mortal and corruptible: And no doubt but if the generation of man and beast be granted to be alike, occasion is offered to infer also like corruption of them both. Besides this, hither tendeth the opinion of Luther touching the state of souls departed, during the time between their departure out of this world, and the day of judgement: for what happiness or action doth he attribute unto them before the general doom? none certainly, for he avoucheth that they sleep; and how? his words shall declare, which are these. 
To. 4. Luth. add c. 9 Ecclesi. v. 5. et 10. Luth. enar. in Genes. c. 25. fol. 351. et in cap. 26. fol. 392. 393. Ibid. in cap. 49. vers. 22.  The dead sleep and understand nothing of our affairs etc. they feel nothing, they lie there dead neither numbering days or years: but being waked they shall seem to themselves to have slept but for a moment. Again, The sleep of the soul in the next life is more profound or sound, then in this. Moreover, The Saints are in peace and rest, not in the kingdom; they sleep and know not what is done: thus Luther. And for the place where the souls so sleep, he seemeth to assign the grave; for he addeth in another place. It is a strange thing truly, that God maketh us like unto beasts by sleeping, waking, eating: for the soul of man sleepeth all the senses being buried; and our bed is as it were our grave, in which nevertheless is nothing painful or troublesome: so the place of the dead hath no torments, but as it is said they rest in peace. 
in c. 25. Gen.  He addeth in the same place, that the sleep of the soul is so pleasant without passion of desire, that it hopeth, feareth, or feeleth nothing. In another place above cited, he doubteth whether the souls of the wicked go presently after death to hell or else sleep: hitherto are Luther's words. And by this assertion, 
Sleidan lib. 9  Sleidan affirmeth him clean to have overthrown our doctrine concerning prayer to Saints and Purgatory: yea, 

Caluin in prefat. li. de psichopamichia. Calu. intrust. or contr libert. ca 11. et 22.  
Articles of the family of love printed London an. 1579.   he himself by his own words in the places cited, seemeth to have embraced it to no other end. Caluin likewise insinuateth, that this opinion pleased divers good men of his sect upon the same motive. And hence proceed both the Libertines, who (as Caluin reporteth) deny altogether the immortality of the soul, & deride the hope of resurrection: & also the Familists, who make the souls of all mortal, those of their own sect only exempted. But what difference is there between Luther's opinion, and that of the Libertines? certainly very little: and in this matter I will admit Caluin for a judge, 
Caluin in Psichopamichia pa. 536.  who discourseth thus: They who confess the soul doth live, and together bereave it of all sense, do truly feign a soul which hath nothing of a soul, or pull the soul itself from itself, seeing that the nature of it, without which it can by no means have being, is to move, to feel, to be quick, and to understand, and (as Tertullian saith) the life or soul of the soul, is sense: hitherto Caluin, who truly saith that Luther's sleeping of the soul, doth impugn and overthrow the very nature of the soul. But let us moreover behold Luther's own words, in which be may he thought in plain terms to deny the immortality of the soul: 
Luth. tom. 2. operam impres. Wittenbergae an. 1546. in assert. art. 27.  I permit nevertheless (saith he) that the Pope make articles of his faith: and to those that are his faithful: such as are bread and wine to be transubstantiated in the sacrament; the essence of God neither to beget nor to be begotten; the soul to be a substantial form of the body of man; himself to be the Emperor of the world, and the king of heaven and an earthly God; the soul to be immortal, and all those infinite monsters contained in the Roman dunghill of decrees, that like as his faith is, such his gospel be and such his faithful: thus Luther. And these words I have translated word for word, as they are found in his book here cited in the margin, and although none of his scholars in their public writings that I have seen, absolutely and plainly make the soul of man mortal; yet, that this doctrine is thought true by divers of their company, it is avouched by Brentius, who himself being a famous Lutheran of this point writeth thus: 
Brentius ad c. 10. Lucae.  Although there be no public profession among us, that the soul doth die together with the body, and that there is no resurrection of the dead; yet, that most impure and most vain life which the greatest part of men doth lead plainly showeth, that they do not think there is any life after this: such words also are let fall by some, aswell by those that are drunk among their pots, as by those that are sober in familiar conferences: thus Brentius. Hither also tendeth the doctrine of Illiricus and his followers, commonly called Substantialistes or Flaccians, concerning original sin. For they affirm this sin to be the very substance of man, and say; that the said substance and soul of man by the fall of Adam was transformed, changed, and corrupted. This, divers sentences gathered out of the works of the same Illiricus by Conradus Schlusselburge himself a Lutheran, manifestly declare, of which some are as followeth: 
* Conradus Schussels. in catalago haereticorum lib 2. pa. 207. ex lib. Illirici de occas. vitand. errorem etc.  The Devil transformed mentem et rationem, the mind or soul and the reason, into another form. The Devil turned upside down the very essential form itself of the soul, took away the first essential form most good, and put another in place of it most bad. Death by sin changed the substance of man; man lost his essential form etc. These and other such like assertions (I say) tend to the overthrow of our belief concerning the immortality of the soul: because, if these be true it must needs follow, that the soul of man is corruptible, and consequently, of itself mortal. 
Beza epist. 5. pag. 55.  Hence Beza against this Protestant writeth thus: That Ishmael Illiricus hath published a book of original sin, a book not only foolish and ridiculous but also execrable, to wit: which manifestly layeth the foundation of the doctrine of the mortality of the soul. For if the essence of the soul can be corrupted (as is avouched by Illiricus) truly it may die and perish: and who can endure this assertion? thus Beza. Now if that be true which M. Field averreth, shallbe justified against the proudest Papist of us all, that none of the differences between Melancton and Illiricus (except about certain ceremonies) were real: if Beza doth not wrong Illiricus we may also censure Melancton to be guilty of the same crime. But I think M. Field will hardly be so good as his word.  
And like as this hidden and secret denial of the immortality of the soul, is plainly by him confessed to reign in their synagogues: so a man out of their principles, proceed, and behaviour, may likewise gather the same secret denial of the being of God, and of his divine providence, of which before. But what say these sectaries touching heaven & hell? Luther verily writeth thus: 
Luther ad ca 9 jonae.  What hell is before the last day of judgement I do not yet certainly know, for I esteem it as nothing or false, that there is a certain place in which the souls of the damned now are, as the painters express, and those which serve their belly preach: The devils are not in hell. Again, 
Idem ad cap. 25. Genes.  The Papists say the first place of hell is that of the damned, which is a punishment of everlasting fire: but whether the souls of the wicked are punished presently after death, I cannot affirm. It appeareth that they sleep and rest, but I affirm nothing. He addeth in another place, that the hell in which the rich man's soul was buried Luke 16. was nothing else, 
Idem in serm. in Euangel. de Divite et Lazaro.  but a remorse of the conscience itself, which (remorse) wanteth faith and the word of God, in which (conscience) the soul is kept, buried, and shut up until the last day, after which man both in body and soul, shallbe cast headlong down into the places of hell. In like sort he averreth the bosom of Abraham or heaven, before the day of judgement to be nothing else but the word of God, in which (saith he) the faithful rest, sleep, & are kept until that time. Caluin expounding the word Topheth which is read in the thirtieth chapter of Isaias, 
Caluin in Isa. 30. vers. 33.  hath this discourse: By Topheth (without doubt) be understandeth hell, not that we ought to dream of any place in which the wicked are included, but be signifieth their miserable condition, and extreme tortures and torments: for the Papists (so he termeth the school Divines) are foolish and ridiculous, who subtly dispute of the nature and quality of that fire, and in explicating it diversly, vex themselves. These gross imaginations are to be hissed out, seeing that we understand the Prophet to speak figuratively: hitherto are Caluins words. And thus we see that Luther denieth any souls to be in hell or heaven, before the day of judgement: and that Caluin denieth both the place and fire of hell: but of this point enough.   

SECNION THE THIRD. Of our adversaries impious assertions concerning Christ, and Christian religion.  
I Come now to the third principal ground, to wit: the truth of Christian religion. And first I affirm, that generally all the sectaries of our time, weaken this ground by that their common principle, by which they avouch the holy scripture to be the only rule of faith among Christians: for hence principally proceed Anabaptisme, 
Zauchius in his epistle before his confess. Beza volumi ne 3. 190. et 255. Hipor. Method. p. 5. Bez. l. de beret, a civili magistr. puniend. see him also in ep. theolo. 81. p. 334.  Libertinisme, Arianisme, Samosatenisme, Marcionisme, Eutichionisme, Nestorianisme, which as Zauchius a Protestant reporteth, have been fetched out of hell by the ministers of Satan in some of the reformed Churches. Yea Beza himself confesseth, that most foul and impudent errors of ancient Archeretiks being renewed and polished, are in these our days by fanatical men recalled from Hel. Upon this ground they build, who reject the words Trinity, Consubstantial and the like, without which (as Beza confesseth) the truth of the highest mysteries of Christian religion cannot be explicated, nor the aforesaid heresies sound confuted. And to discourse of these matters a little more in particular: have not divers new Sectaries in plain terms oppugned the truth of Christianity? It cannot be denied. And to omit that which is credibly reported of Bucer, 
Possevinus in biblio. selecta part 1. l. 8. c 8.  that dying he professed the Messias was not yet borne, I will only report things known to the whole world. And first, what shall we say of Franciscus David, 
a Ederus ibid. c. 16. Francis. Davi. in Thess. 69. Possevi. ib. c. 14. et 16.  who of a Catholic became first a Lutheran, afterwards a Caluinist, lastly a public denier of the blessed Trinity; made Christ a pure man, willed all to bury the Gospel, and to return to Moses, the law, and circumcision; affirmed, that the truth of the words of Christ and the Apostles, was to be tried by the law of Moses, and by other books of the Prophets of that law, which only (said he) 
b In dispu. Albana Act. 3. di ei. In defensi. negotij de non invocand. Christo fol. 21.  ought to be unto us the rule of manners, life, and divine worship. The same man being wished by some of his friends, at the least to confess Christ to be our Saviour, answered; What shall I confess him a Saviour who could not do so much as save himself? Neither did this blasphemy die with the author, for his 
c Confutat. indicij Polonicarun Eccles.  disciples succeeding him met as jews on the saturdays, and rejecting the Gospels, read the prophecies of the old Testament. The divinity of Christ was likewise denied before by 
d servet. lib. 1. de trinitat. fol. 7. et 47.  Michael servetus, first also a Lutheran, then as some say a Caluinist; and at the same time and afterwards, by 
e Georg. Blandrata in disp. Albana act. diei 6. Ochimus in dial. 2. de trinity Summer. adversus Petrun. Carolun l. 1. c. 4. de filio etc. Aelianus li. Germ. Math. ja.  Georgius Blandrata, Lelius Sozinus, Bernardinus Ochinus, joannes Sommerius, Nathaniel Elianus, Christianus Francus, and other such like blaspheamous companions, who were professors of the new religion: unto whom I also add, the 
f Articles of the family of love art. 24.  brethren of the family of love.  
But a far greater number of the new gospelers, denied Christ to be equal and consubstantial to his Father; the captain of whom was 
g Valent. Gentil. in protessibus. Calu. adverse. Gentil. Beza in prefat. ad dictunli. calvini.  Valentinus Gentilis, a disciple of Caluin, whom followed Matheus Gribaldus, Franciscus Lismanius, and an infinite number of others, especially in Polonia: yea some, and that not without cause, join unto these Melancton and Caluin himself, of whom 
h Melanct. in locis an. 1535. Wittemb. et Basil. an. 1541.  the first affirmeth, something of the divinè nature, or some divine nature to be in Christ, and averred him according to his deity, to have been made inferior to his Father. The 
i See Calu. ad c. 14. Gen. in Harmo. evang. ad c. 22. Mat. v. 44. et ad c. 26. Mat. v. 64. Lib. adverse. Valent. Gentil. refut. 10. ep. 2. ad Polonos etc.  second affirmed also this last; and beside, made Christ a Priest according to his divinity, placed him in the second or next degree to his Father as his vicar; avouched the the name of God by excellency only to pertain to the Father, him only and properly to be the creator of heaven and earth; made the Son subject to his Father, and inferior to him according to his divinity, 
Stancarus contra Caluin. K. 4. see him also li. de trinitat.  etc. And all this is justified by Stancarus himself a Protestant, who unto Caluin writeth thus: What devil (O Caluin) hath seduced thee to speak with Arius against the Son of God, that thou mightest show him to be deprived of his glory, and now to ask to have it given him, as though he had not always had it? That Antichrist of the North whom thou dost impudently adore, Melanchton the Grammarian hath done this. And he concludeth: Be ware (O Christian reader, and especially all you ministers) beware of the books of Caluin, and principally in the articles of the Trinity, Incarnation, Mediator, the Sacrament of baptism, and predestination, for they contain wicked doctrine and Arian blasphemies: insomuch as the spirit or soul of servetus burnt, according to the Platonist, may seem to have entered into Caluin. Again, All the Churches, 
Stancarus de trinitat. K. 8. See Simlerus in praefat. lib. de aeterno dei verbo.  which those men call reform by the Gospel and the Son of God, and hold the faith of Geneva and Zurick concerning Christ, are Arian; neither can this be denied which I have above demonstrated: thus Stancarus. joannes Modestus another Protestant wrote a book in the Germane tongue with this title; A demonstration out of the holy scriptures, that the Sacramentaries are no Christians, but baptised jews and Turks, Tubingae anno 1587. in quarto.  
About the same time another book was published by Phillipus Nicholaus a minister, with this title; A detection of the ground of the Calvinian sect, common with the ancient Arians and Nestorians, in which is demonstrated, that no Christian can join himself to the Caluinists, except be together undertake the defence of Arianisme and Nestorianisme: 
joann. Schuts in l. 50. causarum causa 48. Conrad. Schlus selb. in prefa. theolo. Caluinist. impsess. Francof. an. 1592. and 1594. Ibid. l. 1. art. 2. fo. 9 et 10. Fol. 9  Tubingae anno 1586.  
A fourth calleth Mahometisme or turcism, Arianisme and Caluinisme, three brothers and sisters, three pair of hose of the same cloth.  
A fift man, more famous for learning then all the rest, and in dignity a superintendant, who as he protesteth had read over & over the Sacramentaries works, in the fear of the Lord, for the space of three and twenty years, avoucheth; that the Caluinists do nourish Arian and Turkish impiety in their hearts, which doth not seldom at fit times openly disclose itself. And that the Caluinists do open the window and door to Arianisme and Mahometisme, as (saith he) our divines by their public books have showed: And this he proveth by the example and testimony of one Adamus Neuserus a minister, who of an Arian became a Turk, and wrote a letter from Constantinople to one of his acquaintance in Germany, anno 1574. julij 2. In which he used these words: No man that I have known in these our days, became an Arian which was not before a Caluinist, servetus, Blandrata, Alciatus, Franciscus David, Gentilis, Gribaldus, Silvanus and others. Wherefore, he that feareth lest that he fall into Arianisme, let him beware of Caluinisme: thus he.  
Grawerus a sixth Lutheran, being a writer of these our days, in the preface to his book by him called: The absurd, the most absurd of absurd Calvinistical absurdities, etc. pronounceth the like censure against Caluin and his scholars. For having discoursed of this matter, at the length he useth these words to his adversary. 
Grawer. praefat. Apologet. in Absurda absurdorum absurdissima etc. printed anno 1605. § quar ta Spongia.  Go thy ways now and say that Arians come not forth of the Caluinists school. And for proof of this, he also reporteth the same example of Adamus Neuserus, which also (saith he) Adam Neuserus in time past a Caluinist and a divine of Heidelberge confessed, that he knew not one in his time made an Arian, who was not first a Caluinist, as Franciscus David, Blandrata, Silvanus, Gribaldus and others.  
A seventh man as greatly renowned for learning as any already named, discovereth another foundation of Arianisme, or rather of judaisme: his book is entitled as followeth; Calvinus jadaizans, Caluin judaizing or playing the jew, that is (saith he) the jewish glosses and depravations, by which john Caluin hath not abhorred after a detestable manner, to corrupt the most famous or excellent places and testimonies of holy scripture, concerning the glorious Trinity, the deity or godhead of Christ, and the holy Ghost; but especially the prophecies of the Prophets of the coming of the Messias, his nativity, passion, resurrection, 
See h●● also in praefat. tractat. de trinit.  ascension into heaven and his sitting at the right hand of God. There is also added a confutation of the depravations, by Eugidius Hunnius doctor of divinity, and professor in the university of Wittenberg, Wittenbergae anno 1593. and again 1604. In his epistle dedicatory he accuseth Caluin, that by his foul depravations he hath wrested the scriptures horribly, from their true sense another way, to the overthrow of himself and others. And he addeth: To make this more fully known I will adjoin divers testimonies, which that Caluin by his wily deceits hath weakened and made unprofitable, to repress the jewish perfidy, and the Arian infidelity. I think it good also (saith he) to add moreover those depravations, by which he wrappeth or covereth the most noble prophecies of the Prophets touching the Messias, with jewish corruptions; and hath not only most highly despised and laughed to scorn, that holy interpetations of Ecclesiastical writers both ancient and modern: But in many sentences hath not feared, wickedly to mock or shift the holy explications of the Evangelists and Apostles themselves: which if I do not demonstrate to the eye, especially when I shall come to those prophecies of the Prophets, let me never hereafter be credited in any thing whatsoever: hitherto are his words. In his book he discovereth this manner of proceeding of Caluin in his Commentaries upon the scripture, touching these places among others. In the first chapter, Gen. 1. vers. 1. Gen. 19 v. 24. Psal. 2. v. 7. (alleged by S. Paul Acts 13. v. 33. and Hebr. 1. v. 5. cap. 5. v. 5.) Psal. 33. alias 32. v. 6. (concerning which see him also in the first book of his Institutions chap. 13. § 15.) psal. 44. alias 45. v. 7. etc. (cited by the Apostle Hebr. 1. v. 8.) psal. 68 v. 19 (alleged by the same Apostle Ephes. 4. v. 8.) Michae 5. v. 3. (see Math. 2. v. 6.) Isai 6. v. 3. etc. In the second chapter he reciteth his horrible Commentaries upon these places; Genesis 13. v. 15. and concerning the nativity of the Messias; Hieremy 31. v. 22. Aggeus' 2. v. 8. touching S. john Baptist Isai 40. v. 3. (alleged, Math. 3. v. 3. Mark. 1. v. 3. Luc. 1. v. 4. john 1. v. 23.) of Christ's preaching, Deutr. 18. v. 15. (cited Acts the third, 21. 22. Act. 7. v. 37.) Isai 61. v. 1. (alleged by Christ himself, Luc, 4. v. 18.) of his coming to Jerusalem, Zach. 9 v. 9 (cited Mat. 21. v. 5. john. 12. v. 15.) of his Passion, Gen. 3. v. 15. Zach. 13. v. 7. (alleged by Christ, Mat. 26. v. 32. Mark. 14. v. 27.) Zach. 11. v. 12. (cited by S. Mat. 27. v. 9) Isa. 50. v. 5. et 6. psal. 8. v. 6. (see the first to the Corinthians, 15. v. 27. Hebr. 2. v. 7.) psal. 22. (alleged by S. Math. 27. joh. 19 v. 23. Heb. 2. v. 12.) Isa. 63. v. 1. (see Apocal. 19 v. 13.) of Christ's resurrection, psal. 16. v. 8. (cited by S. Peter, Act. 2. v. 25.) Ibid. v. 10. (alleged, Act. 2. v. 31. cap. 13. v. 33.) Osee 13. v. 14. (cited, 1. Corint. 5. v. 54. Hebr. 2. v. 14. (touching his ascension, Zachary 14. v. 4. and his sitting on the right hand, psal. 110. v. 1. (cited divers times by Christ and his Apostles.) These and other such like places Caluin (as this Protestant doctor plainly showeth) hath perverted and weakened with his blaspheamous and jewish glosses, of which places divers were by our Saviour etc. his Apostles themselves expounded, as prophecies of Christ and his religion, but not so well and literally (if we will believe Caluin.) And this his abominable fault is likewise noted by Conradus and Grawer 〈◊〉 before named. 
Conrade. in theolog. Caluinist. l. 2. c. 6. fol. 38. Grawerus in praefat. Apol. in absurda ab surdorun etc.   
I could add the like discourse touching some plain proofs of the divinity of Christ, contained in the new testament, but I should be over long; yet one for an example of the rest I will not omit, which is touching those words of our Lord, 
* john 10. In disp. Alban. act. 2. di●i.  I and the Father are one: upon which Caluin putteth this blasphemous gloss. The ancient writers or Fathers abused this place, to prove Christ consubstantial to the Father: for neither doth Christ dispute of unity of substance, but of the consent which he hath with the Father: thus Caluin. And this his gloss was alleged by the new Arians or Trinitarians in defence of themselves, in a disputation had between them and other Sectaries.  
The aforesaid Hunnius answereth also very well, two objections which may be made in defence of the said Caluin; the one, that he approveth sometimes the evangelical and Christian sense of such testimonies; the other, that he impugneth in his works very earnestly, the Trinitarians and enemies of Christ's divinity. To the first he saith, 
Caluin judaizans cap. 2. p. 112. 113. anno 1604.  that Caluin observeth this order in expounding such prophecies; first by his jewish glosses, he weakeneth & bereaveth them of what force he can, and shaketh the very foundation: and this done, he addeth something concerning the sense assigned by the Evangelists and Apostles; yet so (saith he) that he will have the first be thought the principal, and the other (as it were) besides the matter. And although in his answer to the second, he doth not plainly say that Caluin nourished Arian impiety in his heart, and that nevertheless he impugned it sometimes in outward show, that he might the better and with less appearance of infidelity, sow the seeds of the same heresy, which every man would have abhorred if they had proceeded from an open enemy of Christ: yet he affirmeth all those enemies of Christ before mentioned, to have issued out of Calvin's schools, and useth these words. 
Pag. 172.  Away also with that brag touching servetus, Gentilis, and the companions of their wicked acts Alciatus, Blandrata etc. sharply repressed by Caluin; for it is likewise long since known to the Christian world, out of what schools and Churches those cruel monsters issued: neither is it obscure, that this kind of mocking and shifting the scriptures which is used by Caluin, is a grateful and wished help to the devil, by which the force of one testimony after another, is shaken in the hearts of men until he bring them (thinking nothing less) to the butt of Arian heresy: thus Hunnius. And hence also it is, 
jacob. Andrae. in praefa. refut. Apol. Danaei.  that jacobus Andraeas a●● ●●heran of no less fame affirmeth: that it is not to be marveled, that very many Caluinists in Polonia, Transiluania, Hungaria & other places, fell to Arianisme, some also to turcism; unto whose impiety (saith he) this Calvinian doctrine prepareth the way. I will add a word or two for the confirmation of this whole discourse out of Hooker, who discoursing against our English Puritans for their dislike of the Creed of S. Athanasius, and the verse Glory be to the Father, and to the Son etc. and having affirmed that the weeder of heresy grown ripe, do often in the very cutting down scatter such seeds, as for a while lie unseen and buried in the earth: but afterwards freshly spring up again, no less pernicious than at the first, 
Hook. book. 5. of Ecclesiastical policy § 42. pag. 89.  useth these words. Which thing they very well know, and I doubt not will easily confess, who live to their great both toil and grief, where the blaspheamies of Arians, Samosatenians, Tritheits, Eutychians, and Macedonians are renewed: renewed by them, who to hatch their heresy, have chosen those Churches as fittest nests where Athanasius Creed is not heard. By them I say renewed, who following the course of extreme reformation, were wont in the pride of their own proceedings to glory, that whereas Luther did but blow away the roof, and Zuinglius batter but the walls of Popish superstition, the last and hardest work of all remained; which was, to raze up the very ground and foundation of Popery, that doctrine concerning the deity of Christ, which Satanasius (for so it pleased those impious forsaken miscreants to speak) hath in this memorable Creed explained: hitherto Hooker. And mark well those words (who following the course of extreme reformation, and have chosen those Churches as fittest nests &c.) for by these he plainly seemeth to tax the Caluinists or Puritans, who so extremely seek reformation, and beside dispersed themselves into Polonia and Transiluania, where they raised some, if not all, and maintained other of these Heresies. But of Caluin and some Caluinists according to the judgement of learned Protestants I need not say more. Only I add this as a thing most certain that Caluin wrote far more plainly of these points in his epistles to his disciples of Polonia than he did in other his works. In one of them he saith: 
* Caluin epist. ad Polonos pag. 946. In epist. 2. sive inaamonit. ad Polonos.  One God that is the Trinity; you believe in God, that is in the Trinity: that they may know thee one God, that is the Trinity. We reject this, not only as unsavoury, but also as profane. Again, Although by the ancient Fathers this sentence of our Lord: The Father is greater than I; was restrained to the human nature of Christ, yet I doubt not to extend it to the whole complexum, or person of God and man. And thus much of our adversaries doctrine touching Christ and Christianisme.   

SECTION THE FOURTH. That in like sort they weaken the principal proofs of the said three grounds.  
BESIDES this, the Sectaries by their doctrine diminish and shake the credit of the most forcible reasons, which are alleged for the proof of the aforesaid grounds. And first I have already showed, how Caluin by his wicked glosses endeavoureth to overthrow the force, even of those prophecies of the old Testament, which are alleged by Christ & his Apostles for the proof of Christianity; to which I add, that they nor only bereave the Church of all infallible means to prove the scriptures to be Canonical, as I will declare hereafter: but also, 
Cap. 5. sect. 1.  by their rejecting of certain books received by us into the Canon, partly under pretence that they have been sometimes among christian catholics of doubtful authority, partly because (as they imagine) they contain contradictions; they seem to give others licence upon the same pretences, to pronounce the same censure against other books which they admit: but of their rejecting books because their Canonical truth was sometimes doubted of, 
Cap. 1. sect. 2.  I shall elsewhere in a more convenient place discourse. Let us therefore here only declare by a few examples, what may follow of their alleging of contradiction, which is the second pretence. And first it is well known, that they 
* Fulke upon the Rheims testamet Luke Libr. 1. Machab. cap. 6. li. 2. c. 1. et 9 item l. 1. c. 4. lib. 2. ca●  impugn the authority of the books of the Maccabees, because (as they say) they find in them contractions concerning the death of Autiochus Illustris, the purgation of the temple made by judas Machabeus etc. The like arguments they bring against the books of Toby, judith, and others: which if we admit, wherefore may not some person of an Atheistical humour by the same manner of arguing, deny and reject most of the Canonical books contained in the Bible? As for example, the book of Genesis, because in the first chapter of it we read, 
Gen. 1. v. 14.  that the sun and moon by which days, nights, and years, are also there said to be distinguished, were made on the fourth day, which seemeth to imply contradiction; because, if it be so that days and nights are divided by these planets, as it is there affirmed, and we see by daily experience; 
2. Reg. 23, 11. 1. Par. 11, 13. according to the new sect. Samuel 2. Chronic. 1.3. Reg. or 1. of Kings 7, 15. 2. Par. 3, 15.  how could there be three days and nights before these planets were made? also the second book of the Kings or the first of Paralippomenon, because that field which in the one is said to have been full of lentils, in the other is said to have been full of barley. Moreover, the third book of the Kings or the second of Paralippomenon; because in the first we made, that the two great brazen pillars made by Solomon, were of thirty eight cubits in length: but in the second of Paralippomenon the length of them is said to have been thirty five cubits; yea, between the new Tetament and the old, and between the Evangelists themselves in the new, such contradictions in outward show may be espied: For S. Matthew telleth us, 
Math. 1, 8.4. Reg. 8, 24. cap. 11, 1. et 2. ca 12, 21. cap. 14, 21.  that joram begat Ozias, whereas in the fourth book of the kings which our adversaries call the second, it is written that joram was father to Ochozias, Ochozias to joas, joas to Amasias and Amasias (not joram) to Ozias otherwise called Azarias. Luc. 3. v. 36. it is said that Arphaxad was father to Cainan, and Cainan to Sale; but Genesis 10. vers. 34. Arphaxad is said to have begotten Sale. Matthew 1. verse 16. the father of joseph our blessed Lady's husband is called jacob; 
Luke 3.23. Mat. 10, 10. Mark. 6, 8. Mat. 26, 34. Luke 22, 34. Mat. 26, 74. Luke 22, 60. john 18, 27. Mark 14, 30.68. et 71. Mark 15, 25. john 19, 14.  whereas S. Luke nameth him Heli. The same Saint Matthew reporteth that our Saviour sending his Apostles to preach, forbade them to bear a rod or staff in their hands; whereas S. Mark writeth, that he bade them take only a rod or staff. Our Saviour (if we believe S. Matthew and S. Luke) told S. Peter that before the cock did crow, he should deny him thrice, and so it was done according to the same Evangelists and S. john. But S. Mark reporteth the words of our Saviour to have been, Before the cock shall crow twice thou shalt thrice deny me; and writteh that the cock did first crow presently after his first denial, and again after his third. The same S. Mark affirmeth that Christ was crucified at the third hour; but S. john telleth us, that it was about the sixth hour before he was condemned by Pilate, Matthew 27. verse 19 jeremias the prophet is named for Zacharias. Add also, that our Saviour himself foretold (as S. Matthew writeth) that he was to be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights; 
Mat. 12, 40.  yet every man knoweth, that he yielded up his sacred soul into the hands of his Father, about three hours after noon on the friday, and rose again on the sunday morning very early: wherefore, although we grant that his soul was in the heart of the earth, and his body in the grave during part of three days, yet we shall very hardly find out three nights. 
Acts 9, 7.  Neither is S. Luke in the acts of the Apostles, altogether free from this show of contradiction: for albeit in the history of the conversion of S. Paul he say, that the men that went in company with him to Damascus, 
Act. 20, 10.  heard the voice of Christ speaking unto him, yet in another place he relateth the words of the same Apostle affirming, that they heard it not. Finally the Apostle S. Paul himself whose epistles our adversaries so highly esteem, seemeth to contradict some parts of the old testament: For example, he affirmeth (Galat. 3. vers. 17.) that between the time of a certain promise made by God to Abraham (Genes. 12.13. or 22.) and the law given to Moses, there passed four hundred and thirty years; whereas it is plainly gathered out of the history of Genesis, that between the time of the said promise and the going of jacob withal his family into Egypt, there passed at the least one hundred and threescore, of which jacob (not then borne) lived about one hundred and thirty (Genes. 47. vers. 9) unto which if we add four hundred and thirty, during which the children of Israel remained in Egypt, as the express word of Exodus (chap. 12. vers. 40.) tell us, and is insinuated (Genes. 15. vers. 23.) between the aforesaid promise & the law given, we shall find at the least five hundred ninety years, not only four hundred and thirty, 
Hebr. 9, 4.  as S. Paul reckoneth. In like sort, the same Apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews, seemeth to contradict the third book of the Kings (which our adversaries call the first) and the second of Paralippomenon; for he affirmeth, that in the ark of the old testament was a golden pot having Manna, & the rod of Aaron that had blossomed, 
3. Reg. 8, 9  & the tables of the testament: But in the books of the old testament alleged we read, that no other thing was in the ark, but the tables of the Testament. 
2. Paral. 5. verse 10.   
divers other such like sentences, in words seeming to contain contradictions, may be found in these and other books of holy scripture, which as I have said, may move Atheists with as great reason to impugn the authority of the said books, as our adversaries do by the like arguments the books of Toby, judith, the Maccabees, and other by us received and by them rejected. Perhaps they will answer, that the seeming contradictions which I have assigned, are in very deed no contradictions, and that the places in appearance contrary may very well be reconciled. I reply and confess, that in very truth so it is; for all those places by our interpreters, are very well saved from contrariety and contradiction. And it is manifest, that the same holy Ghost who inspired all the writers of holy scripture, cannot contradict himself: and these difficulties of holy scripture are only to tame our understanding, and increase our merit. But like as these places are brought to accord: so likewise are those and even with as great case, which they allege to disprove the authority of those books which they reject and we receive. Neither can an Atheist desirous to impugn both, discern any difference: wherefore I conclude, that by this manner of proceeding they weaken the authority of the whole Bible, and offer an occasion to Atheists of rejecting the whole.  
Unto this I may adjoin, that Beza rejecteth, or (at the least) doubteth of the truth of the whole history of the adulterous woman, recorded in the eight chapter of S. john's Gospel. And why so? 
Beza in cap. 8. joan.  he yieldeth these reasons. The great variety of reading, maketh me doubt of the whole matter. To speak opinion, I do not dissemble that to be by me worthily suspected, which those ancient writers with so great a consent, either rejected or were ignorant off. Furthermore, that the story reporteth that jesus alone was left in the temple with the woman, I know not how probable it is, and that it writeth that jesus wrote with his finger in the ground, seemeth to me nowm et insolitum a thing strange and not accustom, neither can I conjecture how it can fitly be explicated: thus Beza. But if these reasons be sound and sufficient, the same may justly be pleaded against divers other parcels of holy scripture, and consequently Beza by this his manner of arguing, weakeneth the authority of the same.  
Secondly, they laugh and scoff at the ceremonies used in the Catholic Church, by which they induce their followers to think even as basely, of divers ceremonies prescribed by God in the old law. 
Levit. 16. vers. 21. etc.  As of that for example, that the high Priest should put both his hands upon the head of a live goat, and confess over him the sins of the children of Israel, and then should send away the said goat into the desert, bearing upon him all their iniquities. The like may be said of the water of aspersion, with which the unclean were sprinkled, which was made of running water; 
Numer. 19  the ashes of a red cow burned, scarlet, cedar, and bishop, and a thousand other ceremonies far more reprehensible in an Atheists judgement, than those which in our Church they call Idolatrous and superstitious. I add also that by the same rule, they give an Atheist licence to scoff at divers actions of the old Prophets: as of that of Ahias Selonites, 
3. Reg. 11. verse 29. 1. of King's  who to signify to jeroboam that he should be king of ten Tribes of the twelve, Cut a new cloak which he wore into twelve pieces, and delivered him ten of them: yea, by the same rule he may also laugh at divers precepts of God himself to the said Prophets: As for example, at that of God to Ezechiel, 
Ezech. 4.  when he had him take a brick and draw in it the figure of the city of jerusalem: he commanded him likewise to sleep on his left side three hundred and ninety days, and and in the mean time, to eat daily a certain quantity of bread made of divers sorts of grain, and baked in the dung of bulls: then to take a razor and shave off all the hair of his head and beard, 
Ezech. 5.  and by weight to divide it into three parts; of which, the first part he willed him to burn in the midst of the city; the second he willed him to chop with a knife; and the last he willed him to scatter in the wind. And truly I see no reason in the things themselves, why an Atheist should think himself more worthy of reprehension for scoffing at these actions, than our adversaries for running the like course against our ceremonies. Nay I add further, that by their scoffing at our ceremonies, they offer evil persons an occasion to scoff at certain ceremonies, used even by our Lord himself, and recorded by the Evangelists; I will exemplify in one particular. Caluin calleth our ceremony of touching with spittle the nostrils and ears of one that is to be baptized, before baptism, 
Caluin de Eccle. reformat. Willet in his answer to the Apolog. epist. sect. p. 106. Mark 7, 33. john 9, 6.  absurd and ridiculous, and Willet calleth it an interpretive toy: But who doth not see that this may be a motive to others, to pronounce the same censure against certain like actions of Christ? as that, when healing a man deaf and dumb spitting he touched his tongue: or that when giving sight to a blind man, He spit on the ground & made clay of spittle, and spread the clay upon his eyes. I could produce other such examples.  
Thirdly, I have declared above, that miracles proceeding from God himself who can neither deceive nor be deceived, are a principal motive to induce us to believe the supernatural mysteries of our faith. But the authority of these also is weakened by our adversaries: for although they cannot deny, but that 
a job. 14.12. Mark. 16, 17  Christ bestowed upon his Apostles, & their successors the gift of working miracles; yet, because such miracles in every age since the first beginning of christianity, have been done by those of our church as testimonies of their doctrine, & sanctity of life; they either 
b See Abbot in his ans. co D. hills sixth reason. Fulk upon the Rheims testam. 2. Thes. 2.9 Willet in his Sinop. controu. 2. qu. 3.  deny that such miracles were ever wrought (notwithstanding that they are recorded by all historians, yea even by eye witnesses of the same of great credit) or else they attribute the working of them to the devil, or to natural causes. The first two shifts are used by the 
c Ceturiat. in singulis fere Centurijs. Cent. 5. c. 10. col. 1393.  Ceturiators, who among the rest of S. Martin's miracles written by S. Sulpitius Severus an author of great credit & renown, & a disciple of the same S. Martin whiles he lived, give this censure; that either they were false, or else that S. Martin was a conjurer. The same devices are approved by 
d Calu. in prae fat. Inst. Fox p. 204. col. 2. Num. 7. Hastings in his Apolog. against the Waraw. encount. 2. See also Sutcl. in his ans. to kellison's Survey cap. 11. p. 99  Caluin, Fox & others. The third is added by Sir Francis Hastings. But every man may easily perceive, that the same shifts may be used by an Atheist for the overthrow of all miracles whatsoever, although expressed in the scripture itself, & wrote by Christ & his Apostles. for example, in the life of S. Martin mentioned written by Sulpitius Severus, we read that S. Martin raised 3. dead men to life, cast devils out of men possessed, that a woman was cured of an issue of blood by touching of his garment etc. These things say the new sectaries are either fables devised by the said author, or done by the power of the devil or by some natural causes: wherefore may not then Atheists say, that either it is a fable that 
e john 11. Act. 9 Math. 9 v. 20. etc.  Christ raised Lazarus & others, or S. Peter Tabytha, or that our saviour cast out devils, or that a woman was healed of an issue of blood by touching the hem of his garment; or else that these things were done (as the jews said) by the power of Belzebub prince of the devils, or by the application of some natural causes? Surely, he will have as little regard of scriptures as they have of the works of Sulpitius Severus, and therefore if they grant it of the miracles of S. Martin, and others, he will affirm it of all the rest although mentioned in the said scriptures. In like sort 
f August. lib. 22. de civit. cap. 8.  S. Augustine in his books de civitate Dei (which no man will deny to be of as great authority as any other of his works) 
g Sermo de diversis 31. 32. 33. epist. 103.  and else where, relateth divers miracles wrought by the relics of S. Steeven the first Martyr: as that by touching them a blind woman received her sight, that a Bishop by carrying them in procession was cured of a fistula, and that two by praying in the place where they were reserved, were cured of a palsy. And both S. Ambrose and S. Augustine do the like, 
Ambr. serm. 5. de Sanct. et l. 7 ep. 53. 54. eau. Romanae. Aug. l. 9 confess. c. et l. 22. de ciu. c. 8 etc. Lib. 4. or 2. Reg. cap. 13. Act. 19 v. 12.  concerning the relics of S. Geruasius and Protasius martyrs; as that a blind man was cured by touching of the bier or coffin whereon the relics were carried: which miracles with the same answer are rejected by our adversaries. But who seethe not that an Atheist may with the like reason, reject the miracle which was done by the relics or dead body of Elisaeus? by the touching of which (as we read in the books of the Kings) a dead man was raised to life; and others wrought by napkins and handkerchiefs which had touched the body of S. Paul, which are said to have done miracles in the acts of Apostles. The like discourse might be made concerning the cure of Naaman Sirus, by washing himself seven times in the river of jordan at the commandment of Elizeus the prophet: 
4. Reg. 6.  the said Prophets making of the iron of an hatchet to swim upon the water of the said river, and divers other miracles recorded both by holy writ, & the monuments of ecclesiastical writers of all ages: against all which, our adversaries offer an occasion to Atheists to pronounce the self same censure. Moreover, whereas the apparitions of souls departed (according to the judgement of all the learned both ancient and modern) yieldeth a most strong proof of our soul's immortality, these Sectaries deny that ever there have been any such apparitions; and consequently, seek to bereave us of this important argument: their words are so plain that this cannot be denied. Luther himself writeth thus: 
Luth. in explicat. evangelii de Divite et Lazaro. Idem in evan. dominicae 24. a Trinitate.  No man's soul ever since the beginning of the world hath appeared, for neither doth God permit it. Again, There is no doubt but it is wholly the devils work or doing, quicksands quid uspiam est spirituum apparentium, whatsoever is any where of souls or spirits appearing. Zuinglius is of the same mind: for these words he hath in his answer to one Valentinus. 
a zuing. resp. ad Valentinum comparem.  Those things which thou babblest of the apparitions of souls, are vain and idle: for the souls which are separated from their bodies, are in heaven or in hell. Those which dwell in heaven never come down, those which are in hell cannot be delivered: the like hath 
b Bullinger decad. 4. ser. 10.  Bullinger and others.  
Finally, their denial of free-will & the merit of good works, do weaken the proof of the immortality of the soul, the doctrine of the Apostle that god is a rewarder of our actions, & consequently of the proof also of heaven & hell, as every man will confess: & therefore I conclude the whole discourse of this chapter, that these Sectaries Church is a seminary of Atheism, and that by their doctrine they shake and even overthrow the very grounds of all religion: which their assertions being supposed as true, they can neither prove nor defend, against Atheists and enemies of Christianity.    

Chapter 2. The new Sectaries debase the true Christian faith, and in place of it, extol a presumptuous faith by themselves invented.  
OUR adversaries do not only (as I have now showed) overthrow or at the least weaken, the principal grounds of all religion; but also in some sort destroy the very nature of faith itself, by which we first come to a supernatural knowledge of God. 
Chap. 5.  For whereas in the first part of this treatise I have proved, that faith which concurreth to our justification and salvation, and is the ground of religion, and the foundation of spiritual life in this world, to be a virtue infused by God into our understanding, by the help and force of which we give a most firm assent unto all those things, which are revealed by God to his Church, because they are so revealed: the followers of the new religion (I think partly because, as I have noted in the chapter next before, they have weakened the authority of miracles, which is the principal supernatural proof of such mysteries) debase and as it were despise this faith, and in place of it magnify a new invention of man, a Chimerical kind of faith, full of presumption, which hath neither ground in holy scripture, nor in any approved author; but is repugnant both to the word of God, and the authority of all antiquity.  
For they distinguish two especial kinds of faith: the one (say they) is historical, 
See Caluin Institut. book 3: § 9 & 10. Calu. l. 3. Instit. c. 2. § 7.  by which we believe the blessed Trinity, the incarnation, passion, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ, and other articles of the Creed; the other is a justifying faith, which Caluin defineth to be a steadfast and assured knowledge of God's kindness or benevolence towards us, which being grounded upon the truth of the free promise in Christ, is both revealed to our minds & sealed in our hearts by the holy ghost. 
Caluin ibid. § 16. see Luth. in serm. domī. 2. quadrages.  In explicating this more at large the same Caluin affirmeth that there is none truly faithful but he, who being persuaded with a sound assuredness that God is his merciful and loving father, doth promise himself all things upon trust of God's goodness; but he who leaning upon the assuredness of his own salvation, doth confidently triumph upon the devil and death. Hence proceed these words of Luther: 
Luth. in c. 2. ad Galatas. See certain quest. & ans. touching the doctr. of predest. printed between the new and old testam. of the years 1593. and 1601.  Believe that Christ will be thy salvation & mercy, and so it will be undoubtedly. Our adversaries works are full of such sentences. And that they prefer this second kind of faith before the first; yea that they attribute unto it our whole justification, it is apparent in all 
a Luc. Osiand. in Enchirid. contra Anabaptistas cap. 2.  their discourses of this matter. Our 
b Notes upon the Eng. test. print. an. 1592. and 1600 in 1. Cor. 13, 2. Willet contro. 19 pag. 877  English sectaries call the first an historical faith and make it common to devils: but Caluin discourseth after this sort. 
c Calu. lib. 3. Institut. cap. 2.9. and 10. Ibi. l. 39 etc.  Many indeed (saith he) believe that there is a God, and that the history of the Gospel or other parts of scripture are true etc. but this image or shadow of faith as it is of no value: so it is not worthy of the name of faith. Wherefore according to Caluin, although we believe the Trinity and all other articles of our faith never so firmly; yet if we believe not that undoubtedly God is our friend, and that we shall most certainly be saved, it profiteth us nothing: ᵈ Yea (saith he) who impugn this doctrine slanderously speak: against the spirit of God, horribly rob God, foully stumble in the first principles of religion, feign a Christianity that needeth not the spirit of Christ, and show a token of miserable blindness: hitherto Caluin. But if we believe this without any other thing, we are secure of our salvation: wherefore, Luther hath this exclamation. 
e Lut. de captiu. Babi. c. de bapt. et in ser. sic deus dilexit mundum  Thou seest how rich a Christian man is, who although he will be cannot by never so great sins lose his salvation, except he refuse to believe: for of this belief he speaketh. I intent not here to confute the asurd assertion of our adversaries, that faith only doth justify, which they understand of this their presumptuous faith; for this controversy belongeth not to this place: only I will add a word or two in disproof of their said faith, and so make an end of this chapter. First therefore it is apparent, that this faith was never heard of in the world before Luther's days: for there is no description or mention of it in the holy scripture, nor in any author more ancient than himself, as I could easily demonstrate by yielding the true sense of all those testimonies, which are by them brought forth for the confirmation of this their doctrine. Yea Melanchton himself Luther's scholar seemeth to confess, that it was an invention of that age; 
Melanchton in praefat. in 2. tom. Luth.  for he telleth us, that Luther learned his opinion of an old Friar of his own order, when as yet he lived in his cloister, who alleged for it a certain sentence of S. Bernard nothing (indeed) to the purpose: wherefore it is very probable, that this old Friar gathered his opinion out of certain words of S. Bernard by himself falsely understood, which Luther upon discontentment taking from him, began to confirm by the authority of holy scriptures by himself falsified and corrupted, or else wrested to a new and strange sense.  
Secondly, it is also manifest that this faith altogether destroyeth hope, for how can hope be together with an assurance and certainty of salvation? It also taketh away all fear of sin, damnation, or loss of the favour of God which is so highly commended in his holy word; 
Phil. 2. v. 12.  insomuch as the Apostle himself biddeth us work our salvation with fear and trembling. Nay farther, whosoever is endued with this faith cannot say our Lord's prayer: for he that is assured that his sins are forgiven, and thinketh this assurance necessary to his justification, cannot in conscience pray for the forgiveness of his trespasses or offences, as Christ himself taught us to do. Moreover, this faith is a lying and false faith, which I prove after this sort: The power of justifying which is in this faith according to Caluin and the rest of his brethren, consisteth not in the worthiness of the work which is to believe, as before hath been signified: 
See Willet in Sinopsis controvers. 19 part. 2. pag. 827.  neither doth it justify as our work, for so they confess it to be a sin; but when this work of faith is in us, than God of his only mercy through the merits of Christ doth justify us, and Christ's justice is made ours: so that faith in their opinion, is only the instrument by which we apprehend Christ's justice, and his justice is made ours. Now thus I argue: Either before they believe themselves to be just and Christ's justice to be theirs, they are just in very deed and Christ justice is theirs, or no? If these things be true before, than they are not justified by this faith: If they be not, than their faith is false. For they believe that which is not true; because it must needs be granted, that this faith being as it were the instrument by which their justification is wrought, is before their justification; and consequently, they believe themselves ●●st before they are just. Moreover, how doth this doctrine stand with other their positions? for do not they hold, that every one of the elect being predestinate from all eternity is the friend of God, & just as soon as he hath his being in his mother womb? Do not they aver, that the children of the faithful are sanctified for divers generations? If they do not maintain these propositions as true, why deny they the necessity of baptism, affirming that infants may be saved without it? Why do they make it only a seal of justice, not the instrument or cause of justification or sanctification? Is it not also a common principle among Protestants, that God doth never hate whom once he loved, or love whom once he hated? these things truly be so apparent that they cannot be denied. But if they be granted it must needs also be confessed, that every one of the elect (who only can according to their doctrine have justice) were ever just, and never can be wicked. Of which it consequently followeth that they are just before they can have actual faith, and consequently that by faith they are not justified.  
I add also, that according to their own ground nothing is to be believed, but that which is expressly contained in the scripture, or manifestly gathered out of the same: And where doth every man find in the Bible that most assuredly he is just, elect and shallbe saved? verily no such thing is found? wherefore they do contrary to their own rule in believing it. Finally, I have declared above, that faith to be a true Christian faith and to concur to our justification, by which we believe the articles and mysteries of Christian religion; wherefore, seeing that there is but one such faith, this faith of our adversaries cannot have that prerogative.  
And hence I infer, that these Sectaries by disgracing and neglecting the true Christian faith, and esteeming so highly of a forged devise of Luther's or of his masters an old Friar, overthrow in effect all Christian faith and religion, or at the least give their followers a just occasion of contemning the belief of such mysteries, as every Christian is bound to believe. Some man (perhaps) will seek to free our English Protestant's from this doctrine, because in their public administration of baptism, they cause the minister to demand only of the child, whether he believe the article of the Creed, and make no mention of Luther's and Caluins' strange justifying faith, which (as it is like) they would not have omitted, if they had thought the justification of the child wholly on it to depend. I answer, that in very truth for the reason alleged, they may seem to be of that opinion. 
See the questions & answers concerning predestination, printed in those Bibles before the new test.  Nevertheless, if the Bible printed with notes in the year 1589. 1592. and 1600. be by them allowed and approved, every man may see that they agree with other sectaries in this matter. I add also, that is they hold justification to be wrought by any other faith then this newly devised, they disagree from their principal captains and all their 
* Abbot in his answer to Hil reason 3. pag. 96 Perkins in his reformed Catholic, touching justification of a sinner.  brethren, touching the article of justification; which (as they say) is the very ground of Christian religion. But our adversaries say, that according to S. james the devils believe and tremble. I grant it, but the faith of devils is a natural and a kind of historical faith, grounded upon natural reason and discourse, much like unto the belief of Heretics: Our habitual faith is a supernatural gift or habit infused into our souls, by which our understanding it lightened, lifted up, and made able and apt to believe things revealed by God: our actual faith is an act of our understanding, proceeding also from the said habit or light by which such things are actually believed because they are for revealed. Moreover, their faith is with despair and hatred; ours may be joined with hope and charity: wherefore, there is a great difference between our faith and theirs; and our Sectaries do very evil in making no distinction between them.   

Chapter 3. That our adversaries deny the infallible authority of the Church, and affirm it to have erred and perished.  
IN the sixth chapter of the first part of this treatise, I have affirmed and proved the church of Christ to be the chief pillar and ground of truth, in which is preserved entirely and sincerely that corpse, sum, or depositum of Christian doctrine, which was by Christ delivered to his Apostles, and by them to their successors; and that through the perpetual assistance of the holy Ghost she cannot err or perish: and consequently, that of her we ought & may securely learn, not only what articles of faith have been revealed by God to his Church; but also what concerning every particular point we are to believe, and what to avoid: and that in following her doctrine and judgement we cannot be deceived. But because the professors of the new religion cannot show a continual succession of their faith, religion, & church in any one corner of the world, since the Apostles days: yea, because they cannot name one for every hundred years that was of their Church and belief, they are forced to say that the Church erred for some ages, and was for a time clean overthrown.  

a Luth. in Comitijs Wormat. an. 1522.  Luther first affirmed this to have fallen out, during the time between the Council of Constance and the first preaching by him of his new doctrine, to wit, for the space of some hundred years. Soon after, 
b Authores repetit. confess. Augustanae.  some of his followers affirmed the Church to have erred three hundred years before Luther. And of this opinion seemeth 
c Fox in his protestation to the Church of England.  john Fox, who telleth us; that all was turned up side down, all order broken, true doctrine defaced, and Christian faith extinguished in the time of Pope Gregory the seventh, about the year 1080. and of Innocentius the third about the year 1215. After this, 
d Luth. to. 7. l. x Papatum. Idem in captiu. Babil. et in supputat. mundi.  Luther attributed six hundred years to the Apostasy of the Church, and last of all one thousand: of which opinion is also 
e Caluin ep. ad Sadoletum et in prophetas mi nores passim.  Caluin. But all of them agree, that for some ages the visibie Church altogether erred; and that for a certain time, there was in the world no true preaching of the word of God, or lawful administration of the Sacraments.  
Hence we read in the 
f Apol. of the Church of England par. 4. p. 124.  Apology of the Church of England, that truth unknown and unheared off, at that time began to give shine in the world, when Luther and Zuinglius sent of God began in preach the Gospel: the like sentences are found in the works of 
g Calu. in resp. ad Sado. p. 185. 176. l. 4. Inst. c. 18. § 1. et 2. c. 1. § 11. c. 17 § 12. et 3.  Caluin, 
h Bez. in praef. test. novi ad principem Condens.  Beza, 
i Melanch. in locis common. 1. edit.  Melanchton, 
k Wil in sinops. controu. 2. qu. 2. p. 61. edit. ann. 1600.  Willet and others. And although some of them assign an invisible church, which (as they say) flourished in all ages: yet this they cannot prove, because a thing invisible & unknown cannot be proved; and besides it is nothing to the purpose, because we treat of the infallible authority and continuance of the Church visible. And certainly although we should confess, that such an invisible Church was in the world, and preserved in itself always the truth (which is most false, and shallbe confuted in my treastise of the definition and notes of the church:) yet it must needs be granted, that it was done invisibly; and consequently, this Church could not direct the whole world in all truth.  
But that they accuse the whole Church of error, it will sufficiently appear in the next chapter; where I will declare, that they attribute errors in faith to general Counsels, which be the supreme assembles and highest courts of the said Church. And it is sufficiently purpose at this present, if they grant the Church to have erred in any one point: for a possibility of error in one article of faith, proveth a possibility of error in all; and consequently, taketh from her all infallible authority, and maketh her a fallible and uncertain ground.   

Chapter 4. They reject all particular grounds of faith above assigned, and proved to be found in the Church of Christ, besides the holy Scriptures.  
LET us now descend to the particular grounds of faith, which we have above proved to be found in the Church of Christ. And although our adversaries denial of the infallible authority of the Church, and her assistance by the holy ghost, on which the certainty of all such particular grounds dependeth (as I have showed before) be a sufficient proof, not only that they reject them but also that (according to their doctrine) they have no infallible mean to know what articles have been by God revealed to his Church; yet, let us declare the matter more in particular and at large.  
But concerning unwritten traditions, the decrees of the Pope, the doctrine of the Roman Church, yea of the whole Church of Christ, I need say nothing; because they all with one consent and voice exclaim against these grounds as superstitious, frivolous, and of no moment. The difficulty therefore is only concerning holy Scriptures, general and provincial Counsels, and the uniform consent of Fathers; of which, the first is challenged by them all, the other two by some of them only: I will begin with the two last.  
And concerning general Counsels, 
a Luther lib. de Concilijs.  Luther doth not only reprehend the first council held by the Apostles at Jerusalem, of which we read in the 
b Act. 15.  acts of the Apostles, and affirm that the decrees thereof bound no man in conscience: but also calleth the Fathers (which afterwards assembled themselves in Counsels) sycophants and flatterers of the Pope. In particular, he calleth the Canons of the first general Council of Nice, celebrated in the days of Constantine the great Emperor (whom our 
c Barlow in his relation of the conference held at Hampt. Court p. 69.  King by no means will have appreached of Popery) bay, straw, wood, stubble; and demandeth whether the holy Ghost hath nothing else to do in Counsels, but to bind and burden his ministers with impossible, dangerous, and unnecessary laws: such (according to him) were decreed in that Council; I think he meaneth concerning the chaste and single life of Bishops and ministers. The like censure he pronounceth against all other general Counsels; and concludeth his discourse in that place, that more light is brought to Christian doctrine by that Catechism which children learn, then by all the Counsels. In another place he addeth: that 
d Luth. in prologo li. contra statuta Ecclesiae.  he will not have his doctrine judged by any, neither by Bishops nor by all the Angels, but that be will by his doctrine judge the Angels. Caluin giveth leave to every private man, to examine the decrees of Counsels by the exact rule of holy scripture. 
e Caluin book 4. Instit. cap. 9 § 8. & 11. see also § 9  Let no names (saith he) or authorities of Counsels, Pastors, Bishops, hinder us, but that we may examine the spirits of all men by the rule of the word of God. He likewise calleth the Fathers of the first general Council of Nice, 
f Idem lib. de vera ecclesiae reformatione opuscul. pag. 480. see him also book 4. of his Instit. chap. 9 § 10.  Phanatices (that is) men fanatical or deluded by the devil: 
g Bez. in praefat. novi test. anno 1565.  Beza telleth us that in the best times, such was partly the ambition of Bishops, partly their foolishness and ignorance, that the very blind may perceive sathan verily to have been Precedent of their assemblies: the like censure is pronounced by Musculus, 
h Vrban. Regi. 1. part. operum de eccl. fo. 51.  Vrbanus Regius and others: The ministers of the church of Scotland in the confession of their faith write thus: 
i Confess. of the faith of Scotl. print. at the end of the harm. of confess. p. 19 See the said Harmony of confessions sect. 1. pag. 14.  Without just examinatin we do not receive whatsoever is obtruded unto men under the name of a general Council; for plain it is, that as the men assembled were men, so have some of them manifestly erred, and that in matters of great weight & importance. So far then as the Council proveth the determination and commandment that in giveth, by the plain word of God, so soon do we reverence and embraces the same: hitherto the confession of Scotland. Out of which their words as also out of the like assertions of others, I gather; that our adversaries commonly give no more credit to general Counsels, and consequently to the whole church of Christ, which they represent, then is to be given to the worst, and meanest man living; yea, then may be given to the devil himself. For these may also be believed, if they prove that true which they affirm by the authority of holy scripture, which they all require as necessary before the decree of council be believed. Secondly I gather, that according to their assertions we may likewise lawfully examine these their sentences or decrees, whether they be according to the rule of scripture or no, (for they were also men subject to error:) and moreover, because we find them not so (as appeareth by that which hath been already said) we may also reject them as repugnant to the said scripture. The like leave they give in like sort to those of their own company; yea, to every private man whatsoever concerning all their canons and constitutions: wherefore, their followers or subjects are not to be reprehended according to these opinions and decrees, if they examine their sentences and canons by the word of God; and reject them, if in their conscience according to their own judgement, they find them not conformable to the same.  
But what an absurd thing is it, that a few ministers should presume to pronounce so severe a censure against such ancient, venerable, and learned assemblies, highly of esteemed by all true Christians in all ages even since the beginning of Christianity? whence will they have these errors to have proceeded? Certainly, they must needs attribute them either to ignorance, or malice of the Bishops and Prelates assembled. But are they either for number, learning, or piety to be compared with them? They are not without doubt, as will easily appear unto any learned man, that shall with any difference read the Ecclesiastical histories, and view the works of both sides. Neither have ministers being cumbered for the most part with wives, children and such other impediments, that opportunity of giving themselves to study and devotion as the ancient Bishops had, who lived a chaste and single life, and gave themselves altogether to spiritual affairs, and were commonly very holy men: Wherefore, seeing that they also lived nearer to the Apostles days, it is very probable, yea certain, that they better understood and knew the true sense of the word of God, than these new Sectaries do: and seeing that their sanctity was so great, malice could no ways blind them. Verily any indifferent man, if the matter were put to his censure (although those ancient Fathers had enjoyed no farther warrant of the assistance of the holy Ghost then these new Gospelers do) would rather imagine truth to be with them, then with these: But our adversaries allege for themselves, that every particular man assembled in a general Council may err. I answer, that true it is that every particular man (the Bishop of Rome being excepted) is subject to error: but seeing that the Pope's judgement joined with the assent of the whole Church in a general Council, is infallible, and in such a case cannot be erroneous; and no general Council is of supreme force without his confirmation: it followeth, that the decrees of a lawful general Council cannot be false. The reason wherefore the confirmation of all Counsels dependeth so much of the Pope's authority, is, because he is ministerial head of the Church of Christ, and consequently the body must needs have his assent and confirmation, before the constitutions by it made be of force, and certainly known to be free from error and falsehood. Finally, our Protestants of England concerning general Counsels have decreed as followeth: 
* Articles of faith agreed upon in the Convocations of the years 1562. and 1604. art. 21. See Fulk upon the Rhens testament Matthew 8, 14. whitaker's in his answer to Campions 4. reason in English pa. 110. Field book 4. of the church chapt. 6. pag. 228.  General Counsels (for as much as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the spirit, and word of God) may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God: wherefore, things ordained by them as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy scriptures: The like censure is pronounced by their principal divines. And M. Field telleth us, that Bishops assembled in a general Council may interpret the scripture, and by their authority suppress all them that shall gainsay such interpretations, and subject every man that shall disobey such determinations they consent upon; to excommunication and censures of the like nature. Out of which his assertion it is evident, that according to the providence and wisdom of almighty god, general Counsels should not be subject to error in such matters; for otherwise men might be forced and that according to his ordinances, to obey such general Counsels erring and propounding false doctrine. But this notwithstanding, the same Field in another place concludeth, 
Lib. 4. cap. 5. pag. 204. Luther tome 2. lib. contra regem Angliae fol. 342.  that Counsels may err in matters of greatest consequence.  
Of the testimony of the ancient Fathers thus writeth Luther: in his book against king Henry the eight of England. In the last place Henry bringeth in for the sacrifice of the Mass the saying of the Fathers. Here say I, that by this my sentence is confirmed: for this is it which I said, that the Thomistical asses have nothing that they can bring forth, but a multitude of men and the ancient use. But I as against the sayings of the Fathers, of men, of Angels, of devils, oppose not the ancient consent, not a multitude of men, but the Gospel, the word of the one eternal majesty: Here I stand, here I sit, here I remain, here I boast, here I triumph, here I insult, over the sayings of men be they never so holy: insomuch that I pass not if a thousand Augustine's, a thousand Tertullians' did stand against me. 
Tome 5  The like sentence he hath in his famous commentary upon the epistle to the Galathians, his words are these. Some will say unto me, the Church during so many ages hath so thought and taught, all the primitive Churches and doctors most holy men, much greater, and more learned than thou art: Who art thou that darest dissent from all these, and obtrude unto us a divers doctrine? When Satan thus urgeth and conspireth with flesh and reason, the conscience it terrified and despaireth, unless constantly thou return to thyself, and say; whether Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, or Peter, Paul, and john, yea an Angel from heaven teach otherwise, yet this I know for certain, that I counsel not men human but divine things. Again, No other doctrine ought to be delivered or heard in the Church, but the pure word of God, (that is) the holy scripture: let other doctors or hearers together their doctrine be accursed. Hitherto Luther confessing (as we see) the whole primitive Church and all the ancient Fathers, to contrary his doctrine; and yet rejecting their authority, and obstinately persisting and obdurating himself in his heretical opinions.  

Zuinglius to. 1. in explanat. artic. 64. fol. 107.  The same course runneth Zuinglius who discourseth thus: The Papists say, who shall discuss the controversies and dissensions which are at this present in the Church? Who shall judge of them? Who shall pronounce sentence? I answer the word of God; neither will we allow of any other judge. They affirm, we deny the Mass is a sacrifice: who shall be judge of the controversy? I say the one and only word of God. But presently, thou beginnest to cry out, the Fathers, the Fathers, for the Fathers have so delivered and writ thus. But I relate to thee neither fathers nor mothers, but require the word; by this only it ought to have been proved that the Mass is a sacrifice: thus Zuinglius. The opinion of Caluin is consonant to these; 
Calu. in praefat. Instit. ad regem Galiae. Item book 3. Instit. chapped. 4. § 38.  All things (saith he discoursing of the works of the ancient Fathers) are ours to serve us not to overrule us. Again, Those things which every foot occur in the works of the old writers or Fathers touching satisfaction, move me but little: for I see that divers of them (I will say simply as it is) almost all whose works are extant, either have erred in this matter, or have spoken over crabbedly and hardly. Our English Protestant's have sufficiently declared their opinion touching the authority of the ancient Fathers, by pronouncing so hard a censure against general Counsels, as we have heard. 
Whitak. contra Saunder. pag. 92.  Hence Whitaker one of their principal Champions useth this discourse: If you argue (saith he) from the testimonies of men be they never so learned and ancient, we yield no more to their words in cause of religion, than we perceive to be agreeable to Scripture: neither think yourself to have proved any thing, though you bring against us the whole swarm of Fathers, except that which they say be justified not by the voice of men, but by God himself: this is whitaker's doctrine. 
whitaker's in his answer to Campians 2. reason p. 70. see him also in his answer to the 6. reason pag. 159.  In another place he discourseth thus: We are not the servants of the Fathers, but the sons. When they prescribe us any thing out of the law and divine authority, we obey them as our parents: If they enjoin anything against the voice of the heavenly truth, we have learned not to hearken to them, but to God. You as vassals and base servants receive whatsoever the Fathers say, without judgement or reason, being afraid (as I think) either of the whip, or the halter, if every thing they speak be not Gospel with you: thus whitaker's defendeth his rejecting the ancient Fathers, and upbraideth us for our high estimation of the same. But concerning the father's opinions of particular points, he telleth us, 
Ibidem in his answer to the 5. reason pag. 129.  that Cyprian wrote something of repentance very unseasonably and undiscreetly; and not be alone, but all the holy Fathers of that time (saith he) were tainted with that error: That is, all the Fathers of the third age after Christ; for S. Cyprian suffered martyrdom in the year two hundred threescore and one. Of prayer to Saints he hath these words: Prudentius I grant, 
Ibidem. pag. 140. 141.  as a poet sometimes called upon the Martyrs, whose acts he describeth in verse; and the supertitious custom of praying to saints had now taken deep root in the Church, which as a tyrant haled sometimes the holy Fathers into the same error: thus he of the beginning of the fift age, when Prudentius flourished. Lastly, 
Ibid. p. 132.  he defendeth the first sentence of Luther before alleged. 
Abbot in his answ. to Hil reason 10. p. 371. Horat. lib. 1. epist. 1. see also Morton in Apologia Catholica part 1. lib. 1. cap. 8.  With whitaker's agreeth Abbot, who touching the Fathers thus delivereth his opinion unto us: Where there is just cause, we as men Nullius addicti jurare in verba magistri, bound to stand to the opinion of none, but of the holy Ghost, we declining-wise do leave them: But where they subscribe to the authority of God, there we subscribe to them, defend them, and refuse not to be tried by them, so far as we may by any holy and learned men, of which sort we hold them, but yet still know them to be men: hitherto George Abbot. And note, that these men pretending that they follow the ancient Fathers as far forth as they follow the law, or divine authority or the authority of God, endeavour to make show of an opposition or contrariety, between the written word of God and the Fathers, in all points in which they forsake them; whereas (in very deed) the Fathers understood and followed the scriptures better than they do, and the opposition is not between the scriptures and the Fathers, but between the Fathers and the Scriptures expounded by these Sectaries; which scriptures so expounded, they make a rule whereby to know when the Fathers are to be followed, when to be forsaken.  
Our Puritans in this point (at the least in words) got far beyond our Protestants. He who is desirous to understand their opinion, may read the seven and twentieth chapter of the Survey of their pretended holy discipline, written by a 
a Printed anno 1693.  Protestant; in which he shall find it set down at large. And among others, Cartwright is there accused the places of his books being cited, for terming the seeking into the Father's writings, 
b Pag. 331. 337. See also chap. 4. p. 64.  a raking of ditches, and the bringing in of their authorities, the moving and summoning of hell. 
c Parks in his preface to his ans. of Limbo mastix printed anno 1607. Henry jacob treatise p. 1. 3. 54. 81. 68 cited by him in the margin see also saith he Bilsons' sermons pa. 323. and the answer to M. Broughtons' letters p. 17.  Parks also a later writer telleth us, that If you allege the ancient Fathers against them, they will tell you roundly, that their opinions are nothing else but the corrupt fancies and vain imaginations of men, toyish fables, fond, absurd, without sense and reason; and some (saith he) stick not to call the Fathers of the latin Church, the plague of divinity.  
Unto all these proofs I add likewise, that our adversaries confess all the ancient Fathers to have been of our belief, touching every article now controversed between us and them (as I will prove in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church) and yet reject their doctrine as erroneous and repugnant to the word of God: wherefore, they must needs confess all the Fathers to have erred, and so reject their authority. Finally, none of them will grant that any consent of Fathers whatsoever, be it never so general touching any point, is of itself a sufficient ground of faith without the testimony of holy scripture, which is enough for my purpose. But it may be objected by some, that divers of these sectaries allege in their works the holy Counsels and Fathers abundantly, not only against us, but also against their own brethren dissenting from them in faith or things belonging to religion, I answer that true it is that they so do allege the holy Counsels and Fathers: But do they make their testimony an infallible ground? they do not certainly. For although they approve their doctrine in some points, yet in others they presently reject them. The Centuriatores being Lutherans, 
Centuriat. 4. pag. 242. In every century, cap. 4.  allege the Fathers against the Sacramentaries for proof of the real presence: but they reject their testimony when they affirm this sacrament to be a Sacrifice. In like sort, our Protestants against our Puritans allege the authority of S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine, condemning Aerius for an Heretic, because he acknowledged no distinction between a Bishop and a Priest: 
See the Survey of the pretended holy discipline. Whit gift in his defence, and others.  but they reject the authority of the same Fathers in the self same places, condemning the same Aerius as an Heretic for denying sacrifice and mass for the dead: wherefore it is manifest, that they only (as Caluin saith) use the Counsels and Fathers to serve their own turns, not to be overruled by them.  
In defence of our English Protestant's in particular, it may first be said, that M. jewel in his challenged, doth challenged to their religion, all the Counsels and Fathers of the first six hundred years, alloweth of their authority and offereth to be tried by their censure. I answer first, that this challenged made by M. jewel is not general, touching all points controversed between us, but concerning a few only and those not of greatest moment. Secondly I say, that M. jewel did this only to make a show among the common people, as though his religion had been ancient, not that he intended to do as he promised (to wit to subscribe to our religion) if this challenged could be showed false. This appeareth to be true, both because he maintained his vain challenged with so many thousand lies and untruths, set down by Catholic authors to the view of the whole world (as for example, doctor 
* Harding in his Rejoinder to M. jewels reply touching private mass printed anno 1566.  Harding avoucheth that the number of his lies in five of the six and twenty articles of his reply, to the said doctor Hardings' answer to his Apology, 
In his epistle to the reader.  discovered by himself and others, amounteth to a thousand and odd) and also because the falsehood of his said challenge being showed by divers learned of our side, he never was so good as his word. 
Humfred. in vita juelli.  Hence is this complaint of doctor Humfreis: jewel hath granted you (he speaketh to the Catholics) over much, and was to sore an enemy to himself, that rejecting the mean by which he might more firmly & easily have upholden his cause, he spoilt himself & the Church; for what have we to do with the Fathers, with flesh and blood? Or what doth it appertain unto us what the false synod of Bishops (so he termeth the ancient Counsels) do ordain or decree? thus much D. Humphrey.  
Secondly it may also be alleged, that Field a late Protestant writer alloweth of divers other rules or directions of our faith, besides the holy scripture; 
Field book. 3. chap. 33. § 1.  and of the Fathers in particular he affirmeth, that they reverence and honour them much more than we do. I answer, that (in very deed) Field maketh a great show of allowance of the testimony of antiquity, and may perhaps seem to one that looketh not well into his words, to approve the authority of of the ancient Fathers as far forth as any Catholic, whereas (in very truth) there is no such thing. And to make this matter manifest let us briefly behold his rules assigned, whereby (as he saith) we are to judge of particular things contained within the compass of Christian faith, 
Field book 4. chapped. 14.  which are as followeth. First, the summary comprehension of such principal articles, as are the principles whence all other things are concluded and inferred; these are contained in the Creed of the Apostles. Secondly, all such things as every Christian is bound expressly to believe, which are rightly said to be the rule of faith. Thirdly, the Anology, due proportion and correspondence, that one thing in this divine knowledge hath with another. Fourthly, whatsoever books were delivered unto us a written by them, to whom the first and immediate revelation of divine truth was made. Fiftly, whatsoever have been delivered by all the Saints with one consent, which have left their judgement and opinion in writing, 
book 4. cap. 5.  because (saith he in another place) it is not possible that they should all have written of any thing, but such as touch the very life of Christian faith generally received in all their times. Sixtly, whatsoever the most famous have constantly and uniformly delivered, as a matter of faith no man contradicting, though many other Ecclesiastical writers be silent and say nothing of it. Seveanthly, that which the most and most famous in every age constantly delivered as matter of faith, and as received from them that went before them, in such sort that the contradictors and gainesaiers were in their beginnings noted for singularity, novelty, and division; 
Ibid. cap. 7.  and afterwards in process of time (if they persisted in such contradiction) charged with heresy. He addeth else where, that this consent of the most famous must be touching the substance of Christian faith: And unto these his three last rules I add, that which he hath in the second chapter before in these words. 
Book 4. c. 2.  Though all whose writings remain, have not written of a thing; yet if all that mention it do constantly consent in it, and their consent be strengthened by universal practice, we dare not charge them with error: yea though their consent be not strengthened by such practice, if it be concerning things expressed in the word of truth, or by necessary and evident deduction to be demonstrated from thence, we think that no error can be found ill all them that speak of things of that nature, (that is of matters of substance, as in the fift chapter) if in every age of the Church some be found to have written of them. But in things that cannot be clearly deduced from the rule of faith, and word of divine and heavenly truth, we think it possible that all that have written might err and be deceived: hitherto Field. And these are the rules which he prescribeth to be followed in our judgement, concerning truth & falsehood in matters of our belief: but that none of these besides the holy scripture (of which hereafter) according to his own doctrine, are sufficient in all matters of faith to make an infallible or prudential ground of belief, it is easily proved. And to begin with his three first: how will he prove that they be infallible? how can he show them to be of divine authority, if the present church in all ages (as he saith) may err, and it be true which he affirmeth, 
Field book 4. chapter 20. § Thus having. Ibidem § The second kind. Caluin book 2. Instit cap. 16 § 18. Hunn. in theseb. de coloq. cum pontis. ineundo thes. 54.  that it is not safe in things concerning faith to rely upon traditions? are not the two first rules at the least, received by tradition? surely he confesseth it himself. Further, do not some of his brethren call the creed of the Apostles in question, and make it a doubtful matter whether it were delivered to the Church by the said Apostles, or no? he that knoweth not this let him read Caluin and Hunnius. Is it in like sort agreed upon among our adversaries, what articles every Christian is bound expressly to believe, and which are contained in the rule of faith? It is not without doubt: and I verily think, that scarce any one learned Protestant will admit that every point, which is assigned by M. Field in the fourth chapter of his third book. Moreover, how obscure is the Analogy or proportion, which one thing in matters of faith hath with another? and generally, what man will admit these three rules or any one of them, as sufficient to make an end of all controversies in the Church? In very deed, although they were all admitted by all sorts as true; yet, very few articles can be gathered out of them by such evident deduction, as is able to convince the understanding of all men; and consequently, they are no general and sufficient directions for all points of our faith.  
Neither are the three last rules of themselves (at the least as they are delivered by Field) of any greater force or sufficiency. First, because Field doth not only make the present Church in all age's subject to error (for he freeth it only from damnable and pertinacious error: 
Field book 4. chap. 13. and book 1. c. 10. ) but also affirmeth, that a right judgement of men by their power of jurisdiction maintaining truth and suppressing error, may be wanting in the Church; and that sometimes almost all may conspire against the truth, or consent to betray the sincerity of the Christian profession: yea, that most part of those that hold great places of office and dignity in the Church, falling into error or heresy, may departed from the soundness of the Christian faiths; so that truth be maintained by some few, and they molested, persecuted, and traduced as turbulent and seditious men, enemies to the common peace of the Christian world: thus Field. Which doctrine if we admit as true, what authority shall we leave to the Father's works? will not a possibility of error follow in them all? it cannot be denied: but I need not dispute any longer of this matter, for Field himself of these his three rules of belief writeth thus. 
Field book 4. cap. 14.  These three latter rules of our faith (saith he) we admit not, because they are equal with the former, and originally in themselves contain the direction of faith; but because nothing can be delivered with such and so full consent of the people of God as in them is expressed, but it must needs he from those authors and founders of our Christian profession. Hitherto Field: in which words he expressly granteth, that these rules originally in themselves are no directions of faith. And truly, although we could not overthrow them by his own sayings, this only would suffice (according to the Protestant grounds) to prove them to have no divine or infallible authority, that he bringeth no one sentence of scripture, or other proof for their truth, but only this bare reason; that nothing can be delivered with such full consent, but it must needs be from the founders of Christianity. For if that be thought or affirmed possible which he deemeth impossible, what force or strength will be left to his rules? but every man may also perceive, that if we admit his assertions even now related, concerning the error of the Church and her Prelates; we must needs also grant, that it may be all the Fathers have conspired in error. For if all the Fathers of the present Church at any time, yea although assembled in a general Council, may and that in matters of greatest consequence (as he saith) err: 
Field book 4. chap. 5. and 12.  who seethe not that it is a thing possible, that in all ages they have all erred? This notwithstanding, let us now look a little into the words themselves of these three last rules, and behold concerning what articles of belief they are: as also, what conditions are required in them as necessary to this; that out of the Father's works (according to Fields opinion) we may gather any article of faith. The first of them, which is the fift in order as the words themselves tell us, requireth that the matter belong to the substance of our faith: by which words he doth abridge and limit the authority of the Fathers, to be of force (according to this rule) only concerning certain principal articles by him set down, which every man (as he saith) is bound expressly to know and believe. He prescribeth also in this rule, that the consent be general, that is: not only of all that have written of that matter; but of all that have left any monuments of learning to their posterity, that all make express mention of it and without contradiction of any other; and that this is his mind he plainly declareth, in the second and fift chapter before.  
But what error or heresy is there, which contentious persons either will not deny to pertain to the substance of our faith, or that all the monuments of antiquity do positively contradict, or which Heretics cannot confirm by some, or at the least by one sentence of some ancient writer? Verily, if they draw and pull the holy scriptures in such sort to their private fantasies, that no sect will be persuaded but that they favour the false opinions in it maintained: much more may they deal so with the writings of their predecessors which be far more in number, and not also penned as the scriptures are by divine inspiration.  
The second rule of the three last (if M. Field will not have it to contradict that which I have added at the end of them, out of the second chapter before) must he understood according to it; and then how uncertain it is I will even now declare: but if we take it as the words sound it cannot be universal for the decisions of all points, at the least in the judgement of all men; for all matters are not delivered as matters of faith, constantly & uniformly by the most famous Christian writers, and that without contradiction: yea a man of a perverse humour although in very deed it were so, yet by wresting and false understanding of ssuch authors, would make appearance of the contrary. The last may be confuted as insufficient of itself for the same reasons: for it requireth that the point be of the substance of faith, etc. The addition out of the second chapter requireth universal practice, and necessary and evident deduction out of the scripture, or the rule of faith; and (as it seemeth) that it be a matter of substance, that in every age some be found to have written of it, etc. which be things intricate & not easily to be proved in every matter controversed. But to make all these rules more obscure, he addeth in the fift chapter; that the writings of the ancient may be much corrupted, so that the consent of antiquity cannot always easily be known: 
Field book 4. cap. 5. Vincent Lirivens. cap. 39  yet (saith he) there will be ever some means to find out and descry the errors and frauds of the corrupters. And so he affirmeth himself to understand that of Vincentius Lirinensis, that the judgement of antiquity is to be sought out at the very first rising of heresies, & not afterwards when they are grown inveterate; for that then they will corrupt the monuments of antiquity. Finally, these three rules are not sufficient to direct any man whatsoever whether learned or unlearned, to an infallible truth in all articles of faith: for seeing that every private man, yea the whole visible present Church is subject to error, and all her greatest Prelates to heresy, according to the doctrine of M. Field, one man cannot build his faith upon another's judgement, no not upon the judgement of the whole present visible Church: wherefore, if we proceed according to M. Fields rules, it is not sufficient to cause true faith in us, that others tell us that the Fathers and writers of former ages say this and that, but we must ourselves read over the works of all such Fathers and authors. And how can the unlearned do this? Yea, if a man be never so learned he cannot do it, although he do nothing else but read all the days of his life, and when he hath done all, he is almost never the nearer; for he cannot deny but he may be deceived in his judgement, and consequently his faith is but an opinion. And thus we see, that although Field make a great show of yielding great authority to the Fathers; yet (in very deed) he bereaveth them almost of all, partly by rejecting their testimonies concerning all other matters but certain principal and substantial points; partly by requiring such a general consent, as can hardly be proved concerning the principal articles themselves; partly by his doctrine concerning the error of the whole Church, and partly by other means.  
Let us therefore Conclude, that all our adversaries reject all particular grounds of faith, which are found in the church of Christ, besides the holy scripture, and make them all subject to error and falsehood. And this is almost in flat terms confessed by our English Protestants, who in the Apology of the Church affirm; 
Apology of the church of England part 2. pag. 58.  that In the scriptures only man's heart can have settled rest, and that in them be abundantly and fully comprehended all things whatsoever be needful for our health. The same doctrine was established in their convocations held at London in the years 1562. and 1604. where we find these words: Holy scripture containeth allthings necessary for salvation, 
Article 6.  so that whatsoever is not read therein nor proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought necessarily requisite to salvation. Hence 
a Will. in his Sinops. p. 38.  Willet affirmeth, that the scripture is not one of the means, but the sole, whole and only means to work faith: And this is the common doctrine of them all as will appear in the next chapter. But in it as in other points, the Sectaries of our days follow the steps of the ancient Heretics: for they in like sort (as it is recorded by ancient 
b Iren. l. 3. c. 2. Tertull. de praesript. Ciprianus de unit. Ecclesiae. August. l. 32. contra Faustum, et lib. 2. contra Maximinun. Hooker in the preface to his book of Ecclesiastical policy printed an 1604. p. 36.  authors) rejected the authority of Traditions, Counsels, and Fathers, and in matters of controversy appealed to the scriptures only: Yea, in this they conform themselves to the Anabaptists, whom they censure to be Heretics of this age: for they also (as Hooker a Protestant recordeth) admit no other disputation against their opinions, then only by allegation of scripture.  
But they object that every one of the Fathers was subject to error. I confess it; but yet God according to his promise (as I have above declared) was so to direct & govern them, that they should not all err: wherefore, they were not men guided altogether by their own judgements and having no surer rule; but men directed by the holy Ghost, of which their consent in one true doctrine is a most manifest token. And whiles these professors of the new religion contemn and reject these men's authority, what greater authority do they bring us? Surely none so great; for they bring us only their own opinions, and perhaps the testimony of their chief ringleaders, who were and are men directed only by their own judgements and fantasies, of which their dissension and diversity of doctrine is even as an apparent proof. They say that they bring us the authority of the word of God: but the Fathers embraced and reverenced the word of God more than they do. Neither is the controversy between the word of God and the Fathers, for these two were never repugnant the one to the other, as the new Sectaries would have it; but between the new Sectaries themselves and the Fathers, who of them expound the word of God more truly, as it will appear by my discourse ensuing: Wherefore, seeing that none of them are to be compared with the Fathers, neither for learning, sanctity of life, nor any other good and virtuous condition, but are in every wiseman's judgement, far more subject to error than they of whom they make themselves judges; we are not to be blamed, if we prefer the translation and interpretation of holy scriptures, left unto us by the said ancient fathers, before theirs.   

Chapter 5. They build not upon 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 proved, because by Scripture the Scripture itself cannot be proved Canonical. It is also argued, that according to the sectaries grounds there is no Canonical Scripture, and some principal reasons (especially inspiration of the spirit) which they allege for the proof of such Scripture, are refelled.  
OUR adversaries (as I have showed) have already bereaved themselves of all Catholic grounder of religion, except the holy Scripture. And this ground their Captains even now cited, not only challenge to themselves as wholly and properly theirs, but also seem to make the only foundation and pillar of their new belief and doctrine. But seeing that they willingly deprive themselves of all other grounds, we must of necessity deprive them against their wills of this: for it is a thing most manifest and easily to be proved, that they build not upon the Scripture, but upon their own fancies and judgement. And first I must here presuppose as certain, that they deny the Church to have any extraordinary authority, for the true translation or interpretation of holy Scripture, and that they admit of no Tradition of the true sense thereof, preserved always in the same Church together with the letter. This is apparent, by their making the church subject to error; by their denying her authority; by their rejecting all unwritten traditions, among which we number the true exposition of the word of God; by their daily inventing of new and strange interpretations, in former ages unheard off; by their rejecting the testimonies and expositions of the ancient Fathers; and by their alleging no other authority for their own expositions, but their own judgements. Hence it is affirmed, 
Harmony of confess. sect. 1.  in the confession of Helvetia, that the interpretation of Scripture is to be taken only from herself, and that herself may be the interpreter of herself, the rule of charity and faith being her guide. And in the confession of Wittenberg, that the true meaning of Scripture is to be sought in the Scripture itself, and among those that being raised up by the spirit of God expound Scripture by Scripture. I add also, that their expositions being divers and opposite, they cannot all descend by Tradition from the Apostles, and seeing that one of them hath no more reason to challenge this tradition than another, we may in like sort deny it to them all: wherefore, that which they make the only ground of their faith and religion, is the bare word of holy Scripture interpreted by themselves; and of this their ground because the matter is of great importance, I purpose to discourse something at large. And first I will show in this chapter, that the bare and naked letter only of holy Scripture, is not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion. Then in the chapters following I will prove, that although we should grant the letter to be a sufficient ground: yet, that their bibles contain not the true letter. Thirdly, that although this were also granted, yet that they build not upon the letter contained in their own Bibles. Lastly, that in translating and expounding the holy Scriptures they follow their own fancies and judgement, and that they have no other certain and infallible ground: 
Caluin de ve ra Eccles. reform. ratione pag. 473. Apology of the Church of England pag. 58. Articles of faith agrreed upon the convocations of the years 1562. 1604.  I come to the first.  
It is a common maxim or principle among all new Sectaries, that the scriptures only contain all things necessary to our salvation; and that nothing is to be believed or necessarily to be observed, which is not expressly taught, commanded, or allowed in the same; or (as some of them add) manifestly gathered out of them. 
* Harmony of confess. sect. 1.  In controversies of religion (saith the confession of Helvetia) or matters of faith, we cannot admit any other judge than God himself, pronouncing by the holy scriptures what is true, what false: what is to be followed, or what avoided. All things ought to be tried by the rule and square of holy scripture, saith the French confession. All things which are needful to be known to salvation, are contained in the Prophets and Apostles writings, saith that of Wittenberg. And out of this ground they argue against unwritten traditions, ceremonies, positive laws of the Church, etc. But that this doctrine is false even according to their own proceed (supposing that to be true which they affirm 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 easy matter to demonstrate to every man's eye: for first this authority of the Church being set aside, by what Scripture can they prove the Scripture itself to be Canonical. And seeing that I am to discourse of this argument, and their assertions be intricate; I will not only prove, that according to this ground they have no canonical Scripture: but also absolutely, that by no other means they give it any infallible or divine authority. First therefore, I may very well frame this argument against the whole Bible, out of their aforesaid ground: Nothing is to be believed but that which is expressly 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; therefore it is not to be believed that the bible is canonical Scripture. The major or first proposition containeth their aforesaid ground: the minor or second is approved by Hooker, who writeth thus: Of things necessary the very chiefest is, to know what books we are bound to esteem holy; which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture itself to teach. And this afterwards he confirmeth with this reason: For (saith he) if any one book of scripture did give testimony to all; yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest, would require another Scripture to give credit unto it: neither could we ever come into any pause whereon to rest our assurance this way; so that unless besides Scripture there were something which might assure us that we do well, we could not think we do well, no not in being assured that Scripture is a sacred and holy rule of well-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 laws of ecclesiastical policy, book 1. p. 84. book 2. § 4. p. 100 102 Zauch. in his confession c. 1. Brent. in prolog. Kemn. in exam. Concil. Tridentini.  Hooker, Zauchius, Brentius, and Kemnitius, to fly from Scriptures unto tradition for the proof of this matter: yea, 
b Hook. book 3. § 8. p. 146. See Whitak. contr. Staple. l. 2. c. 4. pag. 298. 300.  some of them affirm, that this only tradition concerning canonical Scripture, is to be rejected. 
c Observations upon the Harmony of confessions published by those of Geneva fol. 593.  Others, and among them the Genevian doctors affirm, that some books (of which there was heretofore some doubt among the ancient doctors of the church) were received as Canonical by the common consent of the whole Catholic Church, and therefore that they are not to be refused. But who seethe not; First, that these men bewray the weakness of the aforesaid general ground, concerning the sufficiency of holy Scripture alone: then that if the tradition of the Church, yea the Church itself in her judicial sentence (as they all affirm) may err in one point, that it may also err in all others of the same quality; and consequently, that the authority or tradition of the Church, cannot infallibly argue the Scriptures to be of divine authority? 
Caluin instit. book 1. cap. 7. § 1.2.4. et 5.  Caluin answereth, that the holy books of Scripture by them that have the spirit, are easily discerned from others by themselves, as light from darkness, and sweetness from sourness or bitterness. And this his opinion is embraced by divers, and among the rest by whitaker's, Thomas Rogers, and Field, and therefore is with some diligence to be refelled. But before I enter into the confutation of it, I must affirm as certain, that all these authors require in every man to this, that assuredly he believe the holy scriptures to be from God, a supernatural inspiration of the holy ghost. That Caluin doth so, his sentences hereafter alleged plainly declare. 
* Whit. in his answ. to Campians first reason, pag. 47.  whitaker's having affirmed, That it is even as evident the scriptures be from god, as that the sun is the sun, or that god is God; and also said, that there are in the books themselves proofs enough 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. Again; Then only do we attain a certain & saving full assurance, when the same spirit which writ & published them, doth persuade our hearts of the credit of them. Rogers writeth thus: 
a Roger's in his discourse upon the articles of faith agreed upon in the convocations of the years 1562. 1604. art. 6. p. 31. 32. printed anno 1607.  We judge these books before mentioned Canonical, not somuch because learned and godly men in the Church, so have, and do receive and allow of them; as for that the holy spirit in our hearts doth testify that they are from God, they carry a sacred and divine authority with them, and they do also agree in all points with the other books of god in the old testament: hitherto are his words. 
b Field book 3. cap. 44. §. The error.  Field (if I do not mistake him) differeth only from others in this, that whereas most of them reject all supernatural habits in our souls, and attribute our believing to supenatural inspirations of the spirit: he acknowledgeth a supernatural habit of faith, which he calleth also a potential ability, 
c Book 4. c. 13. § This judgement.  the light of divine understanding. 
d Book 4. c. 8. § Thus then  and the light of grace. And moreover, he doth explicate himself a little more in particular then others: for he distinguisheth two sorts of things believed, 
e Book 4. c. 8. § The school men.  whereof some (saith he) are such as are believed and never known, as all the matters of fact that are reported in the Scripture, which we can never know by the immediate evidence of the things themselves; but mediately, in that we know they are delivered unto us by him that cannot lie: Others are first believed, 
Ibidem § Thus then.  and afterwards the understanding being enlightened and the heart cleansed, they are discerned of us to be true. And he concludeth, that in things of the first sort the formal reason of our faith or inducing us to believe, is the authority of God himself, whom we do most certainly discern to speak in the word of faith, which is preached unto us. But in things of the second kind, he will have the said formal reason to be the evidence of the things appearing unto us, being enlightened by the light of grace: this is the opinion of Field. But in which of these two sorts of things he placeth the knowledge of the authority of holy Scripture, I cannot so plainly as I would discern by his words: this only I gather as certain out of his discourse, 
Book 4. c. 7. § Thus then  first that the principal cause of our knowledge and belief concerning the Canonical books proceedeth from the habit or light of faith? For this all his assertions insinuate, and principally these. The spirit induceth, moveth and persuadeth us to believe. By the light of divine understanding, 
Chapt. 13. § This judgement. Chap. 7. § Thus then. Chapt. 8. § Thus then. Chapt. 8. Caluin book 1. of Institut. chap. 7. § 4.  we judge of all things etc. secondly he affirmeth in plain words, that besides the habit of faith or light of divine grace, are required some reasons or motives, or some reason or motive, by force whereof the spirit settleth the mind in the persuasion of the truth of things, which were formerly doubted of. And this reason (as we have heard him say before) in some things is the evidence of the things appearing unto us, in others the authority of God. He explicateth himself more plainly by these sentences of Caluin. If we bring pure eyes and perfect senses, the majesty of God presently presenteth itself unto us in the divine Scripture; and beating down all thoughts of contradicting or doubting of things so heavenly, forceth us to obey. Again, After we are enlightened by the spirit, we do no longer trust either our own judgement or the judgement of other men, that the Scriptures are of God: But above all certainty of human judgement we most certainly resolve, as if in them we saw the majesty & glory of God; as Moses saw in the mount, that by the ministry of men they came unto us from Gods own most sacred mouth. thirdly, We find a greater light of understanding shining unto us in this doctrine of faith, then is found within the compass of nature, (a 
* I find not these words following in Caluin.  satisfaction touching many things, which human reason could not satisfy us in, a joy and exultation of the heart, such and so great as groweth not out of nature:) hitherto Field out of Caluin. He addeth, that this maketh us assure ourselves the doctrine which so affecteth us, is revealed from God: That they are the only people of God and have the means of happiness, where this treasure of heavenly wisdom is found; that these books are the richest jewel that the world possesseth, and aught to be the Canon of our faith; which this people delivereth us, as received from them, to whom these things were first of all made known and revealed: thus Field. And this is the common doctrine of divers of our Sectaries.  
To overthrow this opinion I must first lay this ground: To move us to believe any article of Christian religion ordinarily, besides the habit of faith or some supernatural illumination of the spirit, some other reasons or motives must of necessity concur, by force of which our understanding may be persuaded, that the thing propounded is credible, and according to prudence may be believed. This may be proved by authority of Scriptures; for if no such motives are necessary, to what end did our Lord during the time of his being here on earth, work such strange miracles? Surely of them he saith: 
john 5, 36. john 10, 25. john 15, 24.  The very works themselves which I do, give testimony of me that the Father hath sent me. Again, The works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me. Finally, If I had not done among them works that no other man hath done, they should not have sin: Out of which places I may well infer, both that our Saviour propounded his doctrine with sufficient arguments of credibility; and also that if he had not so done, the jews generally had not offended God in refusing to believe it, which is expressly affirmed by S. 
August. tract. 91. in joamnen.  Augustine. I add generally, because unto the learned sort it was otherwise sufficiently proved, & therefore they had sinned although Christ had done no miracles; yet not so grievously. This caused him likewise, 
Mark 3, 15. Luk 9 & 10. Mark 16. v 20. See also v. 17. & 18.  to give his Apostles & disciples power to do miracles: and they (as S. Mark reporteth) after his ascension- going forth preached every where, our Lord working withal, & confirming the word with signs that followed. Moreover, commonly all that are said in the Gospels to have believed, believed upon some credible motive: as the Centurion Luke 23. the Lord whose son was cured at Caphernaum, john 4. verse 46.53. and divers others. And so those words of S. 
Rom. 10.14.  Paul are understood: How shall they believe him whom they never heard, and how shall they hear without a preacher? that is: without one both expounding the rule of faith unto them and also propounding such reasons as are sufficient to move them to believe.  
This also all the Apostles practised, as appeareth by their sermons recorded in the acts of the Apostles. Nay further in the old Testament, as it is evident by holy Scriptures and granted by our 
* Melancht. in corpo. doctri. Germa. et in examine ordinand. cap. de definite etc. Oecolampad. in Isa. 23, 21. Aug. lib. 1. ad Simplicianun, quest. 2. Lib. de spirit. et litt. c. 34. Freder. Staphil. l. de concord disci. Luther, Petrus Paladius l. de heres. Caluin in Inst. contr. Liberti. c. 9  adversaries, the Prophets that were extraodinarily sent, confirmed their mission by miracles; and why so, if not to yield men sufficient prudent motives to believe them? Hence are these words of S. Augustine: It is commanded that we believe to this, that having received the gift of the holy Ghost, we may be able to work well by love: but who can believe except he be touched by some vocation, that is: by some testification or testimony of things. Again, A reasonable soul cannot believe by her free-will, if there be no vocation or persuasion unto which it may believe: hitherto Saint Augustine. Finally, the truth of this appeareth by the ordinary manner of proceeding of God with mortal men, which is not altogether by internal illuminations, as the Swencfeldians, Libertines, and some Anabaptists dream; but by some common and external rule: and seeing that according to the Apostle he requireth of us only 
* Rom. 12, 1. Field book 4. chapped. 7. § Thus then.  a reasonable obsequy, service, or obedience; it can not be said, that he commandeth us to believe any thing which is not propounded unto us, and made credible by prudential motives. In this sense I take Field, who telleth us (as I have partly set down before) that three things concur to make us believe that, whereof we are doubtful: the light of divine understanding, as that whereby we apprehend the things of God: the spirit, as the author of this illumination; and the reasons and motives by force whereof the spirit induceth, moveth, and persuadeth us. And in particular he affirmeth, that it is not sufficient for Stapleton to say that he believeth the Church to be guided by the spirit, because the spirit moveth him so to believe: but saith it is moreover necessary, that he declare those reasons or motives by force whereof, the spirit settleth his mind in the persuasion of the truth of those things he formerly doubted of.  
Some man perhaps will object, that no miracles (or at the least very few) are now wrought in the world; whereupon it may seem to follow according to this discourse, that Christian Catholic religion is not now sufficiently propounded as credible. I answer, that although God doth always cause his true religion to be sufficiently propounded in such sort, that any wise man may prudently embrace it, and believe it true: yet (as is above insinuated) he doth not in every respect make it so credible as is in his power to do, and that for our greater merit & humiliation. And from this it proceedeth, that among Christians miracles are not now so frequent, as they were in the primitive Church; because they have now not only other sufficient motives, which may persuade all men of the truth of their religion; but also sufficient prudential reasons and marks, by which they may discern the true Church from all false synagogues, as I have partly declared before, and will declare at large in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church.  
This then being thus proved, let us behold what prudential arguments our adversaries bring to prove the Scriptures to be canonical, by force of which the spirit, induceth, moveth, and persuadeth them to believe them. Field (as I even now related) assigneth two motives of our belief, which are causes of it in two distinct sorts of things: the one, the evidence of the things appearing unto us; the other, the authority of God himself, whom we do most certainly discern to speak in the word of faith which is preached unto us. Caluin seemeth to assign the majesty of God, which presenteth itself unto us in the divine Scriptures. Rogers saith: The Scriptures carry a divine and sacred authority with them, and agree in all points with other books of the old Testament. But that none of these motives are sufficient to persuade a prudent man, that these books are according to the rules of wisdom, most certainly to be accounted divine and canonical, it is easily proved. For first if they were so, it would follow that every prudent man reading these books, by this only according to prudence should be moved to give every one of them this prerogative; but this experience among our adversaries themselves (who are at variance touching some books whether they be canonical or no) proveth false: therefore these motives are not sufficient.  

Field book 4. chapped. 7. § There is.  Moreover, No man (as Field telleth us) proveth a thing doubtful by that which is as much doubted of, as itself: For this (saith he) is, as if one taking upon him to be a lawgiver whose authority is doubted of, should first make a law and publish his proclamation, and by virtue thereof give himself power to make laws, his authority of making the first law being as much doubted of as the second. Well then this being supposed true, let us see whether the truth of all such motives as are assigned by our adversaries, moving them (as they say) to believe the holy scripture, be not as obscure as the divine truth of the Scripture itself. And first this appeareth in those which are brought by Rogers: for it is even as obscure a matter and as hardly to be proved, that generally all the books of Scripture and every sentence of them, carry an extraordinary or divine authority with them above all others, as it is that they are Canonical; so is likewise their agreement with the books of the old testament: wherefore letting them pass, let us behold whether this be not also true in such formal reasons of our faith, as (according to Caluin and Field) move us to believe. And first, whence proceedeth that evidence which Field will have in some things believed to appear unto us? Are the articles of our faith evident in themselves? this he denieth of some: for, 
Field book 4. Chapter 8. § The opinion.  We confess (saith he) that faith may rightly be said to be a firm assent, without evidence of many of the things believed in themselves; but the medium by force whereof we are to believe, must be evident unto us, as Durandus doth rightly demonstrate: thus Field. But can he make it good, that any such articles are in themselves evident unto us, as they are the object of our faith? It is plain that most of them, yea almost all considered howsoever, have not so much of themselves in respect of our understanding, as evidence and certainty of credibility, that is: they appear not so certain and credible unto us, as a prudent man would believe them, setting aside the medium or mean supernatural, by which they are propounded. But if we consider them precisely as they are the object of our faith, they all have no other evidence then divine revelation, as is proved before; which is always obscure. What then is this medium or mean according to Field? Is it any human conjecture, motive, or probability? This cannot be according to his own doctrine, as appeareth in the same place and the chapter before. Nay in another place he telleth us, 
Book 4. chap. 20. § Much contention.  that the books of Scripture win credit of themselves, and yield sufficient satisfaction to all men of their divine truth: and therefore he seemeth to exclude all external proof. Is it then any thing contained in the things themselves? Neither can this be said: for every thing contained in the things themselves & belonging to their essence, is as obscure as the things themselves be; and consequently, no such thing contained in the things themselves, can be such a mean to manifest themselves unto us. And what accident he will assign in the articles of our faith, making them manifest unto us, I cannot imagine. Secondly, I cannot see how this assertion of Field doth agree with that his common principle, 
Field book 4. chap. 13.8. book 3. chap. 42.  avouching that the Scripture is the Canon and ground of their belief, and that they rest in the determination of the word of God, as in the rule of their faith: For how can this be, if the evidence of the things appearing unto us, be sometimes the formal reason of our faith, as is in like sort by him averred. But to make this discourse a little more manifest, let us demand a question or two in particular of M. Field, and see how he will resolve them according to his doctrine delivered. I ask therefore of him, why he believeth there be three persons and one God, two natures in Christ and one person, and the resurrection of our bodies? Will he answer that the evidence of the things appearing unto him, is the formal cause of his faith, or inducing him to believe these mysteries? If he do not, he contradicteth his own doctrine: If he do, he contradicteth both all sense and reason, and also himself making the Scripture the ground of faith; except he affirm these mysteries to be evident not in themselves, but in the medium or mean, by force whereof they are believed: For which medium if he will be constant to himself he must assign the holy Scripture; which Scripture, he must say is believed through the authority of God himself, whom we do most certainly discern to speak in the word of faith, which is another cause of belief assigned by him, for such things as we believe and do not know: so that this authority of God is the last motive, not the holy Scripture; and what other process he will make I cannot perceive. But what doth he and Caluin understand by that other reason, which he termeth The authority of God himself, whom we do certainly discern to speak in the word of faith which is preached unto us; and Caluin, The majesty of God which doth present itself unto us? What is this authority and majesty of God? and how do we so certainly discern it. Verily for my part, I am so far from knowing how to discern it, as I cannot well imagine what they mean by it; yet, if I be not deceived they affirm, that the authority of God or his majesty is seen in the letter of holy Scripture, which moveth us by a supernatural and most infallible assent, to acknowledge it to be his holy word. But first this is said gratis, and without any ground or reason: for what authority or majesty can a man discern in such books as our adversaries receive as Canonical, more than in those which they reject? For example, what appeareth to us more divine in the books of Ecclesiastes, then in the books of Ecclesiasticus? surely nothing; much less, so much as may be an infallible and known mean to move us to believe the one as divine, and to reject the other as Apocryphal.  
Moreover, how do we know that this representation of divine majesty, or this divine authority, which as we conceive doth represent itself unto us, is not either some illusion of the Devil, or some strong imagination of our own proceeding only from some affection, which upon some other motives we bear to such and such books of Scripture? Truly we have great cause to fear that it may proceed from some such affection, seeing that Luther, and most of all his Lutherans confess, all the Sacramentaries generally to be deceived in such their apprehensions, concerning the epistle to the Hebrews, the epistle of Saint james, the Apocalypse of S. john, and other parcels of Scripture. And why not concerning others as well as these? Unto which I add, that they commonly make their doctrine a rule whereby to try which is Scripture and which is not, as I will demonstrate hereafter, and appeareth by the causes assigned by Luther, which moved him to reject the epistle of Saint james. It may also be objected against this their doctrine, that of it it seemeth to follow, that no man can be assured of the divine authority of any other books of Scripture, then of those which he hath read himself, or heard others read: For first no man can possibly prove to another that in reading such and such books, he did discern in then the authority of God himself speaking, or that the divine majesty did in them present itself unto him: wherefore unto this, that a man may judge of holy Scripture, he must himself read, or hear the words and sentences read, and this he must do before he can have any faith. For seeing that they make the Scripture the rule and ground of their belief, the Scripture must first be known before they can believe: and seeing that no one book containeth all things necessary to be believed, but such things are dispersed through all, it is necessary that he know the whole Canon of Scripture; and consequently, that he read or hear it all rehearsed sentence by sentence. And what a Labyrinth is this? how can the unlearned that cannot read, do it? Nay how many Protestants in the world have ever performed it? Wherefore I conclude, that this rule or mean how to know holy Scripture, is neither easy, plain, certain, nOr universal. Perhaps it may be thought by some, that Field assigneth the evidence of the things appearing unto us in holy Scriptures, as the formal cause of our belief concerning their authority: but this cannot be, both because our belief concerning their Canonical authority, seemeth to be concerning a matter of fact, to wit: whether they were penned by the instinct of the holy Ghost or no; as also because a great part of them rehearseth matters of fact, which Field denieth to be known by the authority of God himself, whom we do certainly discern to speak in the word of faith. 
Field book 4. chapt. 15.  Add likewise that by his confession they are obscure, which obscurity partly (as he saith) ariseth through the high and excellent nature of the things in them contained, which if we admit, the things contained in the Scripture, be no good mean for us to come to the knowledge of Scripture. And moreover, certain it is that the evidence of things contained in the Scripture, is no more manifest unto us, than the Scriptures themselves: and therefore for this reason also, it cannot be any good Medium to prove these Canonical. Field and all his fellows, to all these reasons objected against them seem to answer, that in very deed these motives of themselves are not sufficient, to persuade every man of the divine truth of these books: yet, that they are fully sufficient to persuade him that is endued with the habit of faith, or hath a divine illumination or inspiration of the spirit, and cometh to read the Scriptures with pure eyes and perfect senses; yea Caluin in his whole discourse touching the knowledge of canonical Scripture, seemeth altogether to fly to divine inspiration, whence proceed these his sentences. 
Caluin Instit. book 1. chap. 7. § 4. and 5.  The manner of persuasion (touching the divine truth of Scriptures) must be fetched even from the secret testimony of the holy Ghost: They do disorderly, that by disputation's travail to establish the perfect credit of the Scripture. The word of God shall never find credit in the hearts of men, until it be sealed up with the inward witness of the holy Ghost. They whom the holy Ghost hath inwardly taught, do wholly rest upon the Scripture: Though by the only majesty of itself it procureth reverence to be given to it; if then only it thoroughly pierceth our affections, when it is sealed in our hearts by the holy Ghost: hitherto are Caluins words.  
I reply, first that this taketh not away the necessity of reading, or hearing read every sentence of these divine books, before we can know them to be Canonical, or discern what we are bound to believe. Secondly of this it followeth, that before a man can discern whether any book be Canonical or no, he must not only have faith or a supernatural light of the holy Ghost: but must also, most assuredly and infallibly know himself to have such a faith, or such an illumination. And how will they make us believe this, and also persuade us that the Scripture is the ground and rule of our belief, which likewise they even as earnestly teach? can pure eyes, perfect senses, and the light of faith be had without knowledge of that, which is the very ground and rule of faith? Must not the ground be known and had, before we can attain unto that which is built upon the said ground? If it must, and the whole Canon of Scripture be the ground of our faith as they say; then must the whole Canon of Scripture be infallibly known, before we can have such faith; and consequently, the light of faith cannot be a mean, whereby we are to come to the knowledge of the said Canon of Scripture, or any parcel thereof. But because all Sectaries usually both in this and other points, seem most to rely upon the inspiration and illumination of the spirit; by which (as they say) all matters are made evident unto them, and they are assured of the divine truth of them, although to others not enlightened the same matters seem doubtful, from whence it proceedeth that Field affirmeth themselves to rest in the light of divine understanding, 
Field book 4. chapped. 13. § This judgement.  as in that whereby they judge of all things: Let us confute the certainty of this illumination or inspiration, concerning such particular points, especially touching the knowledge of divine Scripture, a little more at large. And first thus I argue: If there be such a certain illumination or inspiration, either God by this illumination or inspiration, doth so teach and direct every man concerning every article of faith, that they cannot err; or some men only, and those only touching some articles. That he doth not so direct all concerning all articles, it is evident and confessed by our adversaries; who acknowledge some to be Heretics, as the Anabaptists and Swencfeldians; others to err, as divers of sundry sects etc. That he doth not likewise direct some concerning all points, it is evident; for there is no one Sectary can be named but hath erred in some point or other, especially if we admit the judgement of other of his brethren to be true: yea Caluin himself confesseth that every man is subject to error, 
Calu. in 1. Cor. 2. v. 15. See  and no man is exempted from it. But every one (saith he) as he is regenerated according to the measure of grace given him, doth judge truly and certainly but no further: thus Caluin, of the same opinion are others. 
Lubbertus de principijs christian. dog. p. 563. Hieron. Zauchius de script. pag. 411. 412.  If some only be so infallibly directed, & those only concerning some articles; first it followeth, that god hath not sufficiently provided for the direction of men in matters of belief, for he hath prescribed and given no certain guide in all points, or certain mean to know when their direction is infallible concerning any, and when it is not. Of which it may secondly be inferred, that no man can assure himself that he is at any time concerning any point infallibly inspired: which uncertainty is also increased not only by this, that the devil doth oftentimes (as the Apostle saith) transfigure himself into an Angel of light; 
2. Corinth. 11. vers. 14.  but also, by the experience of the fall and error of divers of their own company, and that by their own confession concerning some, when they thought themselves to be inspired by the spirit; as it falleth out in the Anabaptists and divers others. Nay in all the Lutherans if we believe the Sacramentaries, and in all the Sacramentaries if we may give credit to the Lutherans; but certainly in one side or other of these, because their opinions or illuminations be opposite: but we may well say on both, because one bringeth no stronger proof for his illumination then the other. What wise man then will or can build his faith, upon such an illumination or direction? Besides this, 
Part. 1. chap. 7. Sect. 3.  I have showed in the first part of this treatise, that no private person or Prelate of the Church, is ordinarily so directed by the holy Ghost that he cannot err; of which it followeth, that no man ordinarily hath such a divine inspiration. I add also, that God doth ordinarily proceed in the government and direction of men, by common rules & directions not by private and particular, and not without cause: for the first causeth charity, unity, order and humility; of the other springeth enmity, division, confusion and pride; which reason is touched by Hooker a wise and learned Protestant, 
Hooker book 5. of Ecclesiastical policy § 10.  who rejecteth such private inspirations of the spirit. And hence it is that the Prophet Ezechiel saith: 
* Ezechielis 13. verse 3. August. tract. 45. in joan.  Woe to the foolish Prophets, who follow their own spirit, and see nothing. Finally, the ancient Heretics (as S. Augustine doth testify) boasted of such illuminations: There are innumerable (saith he) who do not only boast that they are videntes or Prophets, but will seem to be illuminated or enlightened by Christ: but are Heretics. And thus much against the infallible truth of illuminations in general.  
Let us now apply some of these general reasons, to the knowledge of Scripture by illumination in particular, and also urge them a little further. First therefore I demand, whether this illumination concerning the authority of Scriptures, be common to all, or particular to some? If common to all, it consequently followeth that all men reading the Scriptures, are thus infallibly and super-naturally inspired of their truth: but that all men are not thus generally and infallibly led to the knowledge of such divine books, it is apparent by our adversaries dissension, not only from the ancient fathers; but also among themselves touching this very point. For did none of the Father's judge such books Canonical, as all Protestants commonly reject? it cannot be denied but they did: for it is evident, 
Field book 4. chap. 23. council. Carthag. 3. canon. sess. 47. See also S. Aug. de praedest. cap. 14. Cap. 8. sect. 1.  and plainly gathered out of Field himself that the third council of Carthage in which (as he truly saith) S. Augustine was present, numbered the books of Tobias, judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and of the Maccabees in the Canon. Do they also among themselves all admit and reject the same books? nothing less. Luther and his Lutherans reject some, which Caluin, our English Protestant's and others, avouch to be Canonical: and this shall at large be proved hereafter. But they will say this inspiration is particular only to some, that are enlightened by the spirit, or as Caluin insinuateth, only to the elect: 
Caluin Instit. book 1. chap. 7. § 5.  and this seemeth to be their common opinion. Against which I oppose; first that of this would follow, that there is no certain rule in the Church, whereby all men may come to a certain knowledge of God's word: which assertion is very absurd, especially if the written word of God be the only rule of faith as they contend. Secondly, the Scripture yieldeth us no warrant for a divine assurance of any such inspiration, that there is any such in the Church. They will say that divers sentences of the word of God plainly approve it, but the contrary is already showed: and besides this is to fall into a circle, by proving the truth of Scriptures by divine inspirations, or illuminations; and the truth of this again by Scripture. Thirdly, it cannot be proved by Scripture, that this inspiration (if there be any such) is particular to some, and not common to al. Fourthly, although we should grant this to some, yet no man can by any warrant of Scripture or prudential ground, assuredly know that he hath such an inspiration; especially considering first, that divers sectaries have been deceived & falsely pretended such inspirations, as appeareth by their contrariety. Nay I may further add, that either all Protestants are now deceived in their judgement concerning certain books, or else that S. Augustine with the whole Council of Carthage erred touching them in times past, as appeareth by that which is said a little before; and no man will deny but an error in either of these, giveth a man just cause to mistrust his own illumination. For certain it is, that S. Augustine was guided by the spirit, as far forth as any Sectary. Secondly, his judgement may also grow doubtful out of this, that the same man may have (as they say) a divine inspiration touching one book, and be deceived touching another; 
Stock and whitaker's in the answer to Duraeus, the first reason. pag. 48.  for so saith Stock out of whitaker's, who telleth us, that All things are not revealed to all alike, and that all have not the same measure of the spirit: Out of which he draweth an excuse of the Lutherans, if they believed well of some, and rejected not well other books of Scripture; and this likewise seemeth to be gathered out of Caluin above cited. fiftly, others have no means to know who receiveth such an inspiration; and consequently, it only profiteth the man himself who hath it, and no other person: this cannot be denied; for Luther boasted of the spirit as far forth as Caluin, yet they disagreed concerning the Canonical books, and were of different faiths. And what reason have we, either to grant or deny this inspiration more to the one then to the other? or what arguments can be brought by the one which cannot be used by the other? yea of this I infer further, that neither of them had any such divine inspiration; for seeing that both were not inspired with the holy Ghost, and one of them had no stronger proofs for his inspiration then the other, we ought to give no more credit to the one then to the other: and seeing that we cannot believe them both, we cannot according to reason credit either of them. And in very deed, neither of them is able to bring any certain reason or authority, able to persuade any other that he hath a supernatural inspiration, showing that this and that is holy scripture. Finally, of this whole opinion follow two other great inconveniences or absurdities: first, it giveth every man licence to reject and admit books of holy Scripture, out or into the Canon at his pleasure according to his fancy; for there is no Sectary but may allege the majesty of the letter, the evidence of things contained in it, pure eyes, and perfect senses, the light of grace or internal inspiration, for the proof of his own particular opinion concerning canonical Scripture, & that with as great probability as any other Sectary be he Lutheran, Sacramentary, or of what other sect soever: Neither can this refel him, unless they refute themselves. In like sort if he deny these proofs to any book whatsoever, no man can convince him of error: and of this may follow without any certainty, almost as many opinions of this matter, as there be heads. Secondly, by this allowance of an inspiration, for the proof of the letter of canonical Scripture, the way is opened to the allowance of private inspiration also, for the knowledge of the true sense and exposition of the same; which is denied by Field, 
Field book 4. chap. 16.  and is in very deed a very fountain of discord and confusion. But what proofs can they bring for the one, which cannot be applied to, yea not aswell prove the other? And these reasons (as I imagine) moved the authors before named, to fly from this private inspiration to Tradition and the authority of the Church. Unto whom in my judgement, I may add the whole Protestant Church of England, who in their sixth article agreed upon in their convocations of the years 1562. and 1604. affirm, that in the name of holy Scripture, they understand those Canonical books of the old and new Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church: for they seem to make the authority and Tradition of the Church, the mean and rule whereby to know the divine Scriptures. 
Field book 4. chap. 14.  Yea Field himself in another place telleth us; that we cannot know the Scriptures to be of God, without the knowledge of such principal articles as are contained in the Creed of the Apostles: Of which it may seem lawful to conclude against him, that some other thing is necessary besides divine inspiration, and other motives above by him assigned. The Lutherans of Wittenberg confess the Church to have authority to judge of doctrines, 
Harmony 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. Bullenger in the preface before that book.  according to that; Try the spirits whether they be of God. Another Protestant (in a treatise of the Scripture and the Church, highly commended by Bullenger) plainly telleth us, that we could not believe the Gospel, were it not that the Church taught us, and witnessed that this doctrine was delivered by the Apostle: and thus much against this opinion.  
But it may be here objected against us, that we also according to the second opinion delivered in the first part of this treatise, concerning the last resolution of our faith, allow a supernatural gift or light; by the concourse and help of which we firmly assent to Christian belief as revealed by God; and that therefore there is no cause, wherefore we should so earnestly impugn the like assertion in others. I answer, that there is great difference between us and our adversaries concerning this point: for whereas I have showed, that they require a particular illumination and immediate instruction from God himself, concerning every particular book and sentence of holy Scripture; yea, touching the exposition of every sentence as I will declare hereafter; and by no prudential grounds or arguments of credibility, are ordinarily induced to this persuasion: But seeing that divers of their own company, and those of the principal, thinking themselves to be inspired, have erred, have rather according to prudence just cause not to stand upon such illuminations. We assign the the light of faith for the belief of a common guide and general director and so require not a particular instruction for the belief of this and that particular matter; but having believed the said general guide, of it receive infallible and divine instructions, what particularly is to be believed. Neither do we this without any prudential motive, or credible reason, but induced thereunto by most strong arguments of credibility; 
R●chardus de S. Victore l. 1. de Trinit. cap. 2.  insomuch as we may well say with Richardus de sansto Victore, that If we be deceived God hath deceived us. Neither are we by this persuaded arrogantly to follow a private rule, which is a fountain of dissension, and contrary to the usual proceed of God; but humbly to submit ourselves and our understanding to the authority of a general guide, which is a preservative of unity, and according to the common courses of that heavenly King.  
But before I pass from this matter, I must needs have a word or two with M. Field in particular, who requireth more than human inducements or motives, as reasons, by force whereof we are persuaded first to believe: 
Field book 4. chap. 7. & 8.  and seemeth to require a divine reason or testimony, convincing that which is believed to be of divine authority, and so to impugn the first opinion of Catholics concerning the last resolution of faith, 
Part 1. chap. 7. sect. 6.  delivered in the first part of this treatise. For whereas the followers of that opinion, assign human motives as the first inducements to our belief, or as causes why we first accept of the same, and bring no other external proof that the mysteries of our faith are revealed by God: 
book 4. chap. 8. § The opinion  he exacteth of us a divine proof of this, these are his words: The opinion of the ordinary Papists is, that the things pertaining to our faith are believed, because God revealeth and delivereth them to be so, as we are required to believe, but that we know not that God hath revealed any such thing but by human conjecture and probabilities: so weak do they make our faith to be grounded: thus Field. Concerning which his imputation, I must first request my reader if he be any thing moved by these his words, to turn to the explication and proof of the Catholic opinion set down before in the first part of this treatise, 
Chapt. 7. sect. 6.  because I think it needless to repeat one thing twice. Secondly, I cannot but wish him also to note, how diversly Field reporteth our opinions: for although he plainly here affirm, that our ordinary opinion is, that the articles of our faith are believed, because God revealeth and delivereth them to be so, yet in another place he writeth thus. Our adversaries fall into two dangerous errors; the first, 
Book 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 believe: The second is, that the Church may make new articles of faith. And like as he himself in the words even now alleged, freeth us from the first of these dangerous errors: 
Book 4. chap. 12. § Our adversaries.  so likewise in another place he freeth us from the second. But as concerning my present purpose, out of his aforesaid words I gather; that if he will not fall into the same fault for which he blameth us, he must not only assign such a divine formal cause of his belief concerning every point, as we teach the revelation of God to be: but also add some divine proof, proving this formal reason to be divine, and not only human probabilities. And what such divine proof doth he assign? surely none that I can find; he telleth us in deed, that in some things the evidence of the things appearing unto us, 
Book 4. chap. 8. § thus them.  and in others the authority of God discerned to speak in the word of faith, is the formal cause of their faith, or inducing them to believe. But I find no divine proof, no not so much as a wise reason; I add moreover not so much as a foolish reason, brought neither for the one nor for the other: nay he expressly telleth us, 
Book 4. chap. 20. § Much contention. see also chapped. 7. § Thus then. Book 4. chap. 7. § Surely. See him also § There is etc.  that The books of Scripture win credit of themselves, and yield sufficient satisfaction to all men of their divine truth; wherefore he seemeth, contrary to that which he had said before, to require no other reason by force whereof the spirit moveth him to believe the Scripture, but the Scripture. Neither should he only bring a divine proof for these matters, but also to show the certainty of his supernatural illumination, of which all these depend. And how will he do this? will he prove it by Scripture? This cannot be done, lest that he fall into a circle, and according as he maketh the Psalm say of the wicked, Run round till he be giddy, and be at the end where he was when he began: for by this illumination he is come to the knowledge of Scripture, and consequently it must not be proved out of Scripture; and what other divine proof he will assign, for my part I cannot imagine. Neither can he say, that this illumination is believed for itself: for than he both granteth that something must be believed without divine proof; and also, that all things are not believed because they are contained in the Scripture, and consequently, that the Scripture is not the only ground of our faith. Many places of Scripture are alleged out of the written word of God by our adversaries, to prove the certainty of private illuminations: and seeing that I can not stand to give the true sense of them, I desire my reader only to consider in general, that such sentences as they allege (if they prove any thing for them, and are to be understood as they pretend) prove the judgement of every Christian man, or at the least of every spiritual man to be infallible: which being false, as appeareth both in the ancient Fathers, and also in themselves; we may well infer that they have some other sense.  
Field affirmeth, that Saint Augustine in a certain place doth fully agree unto his opinion, showing that the authority of the Church, is but an introduction to the spiritual discerning of things divine. I answer, that Saint Augustine in the chapter by him cited only affirmeth, that because all men are not capable at the first, to understand the sincere wisdom and truth taught in the Church, God hath ordained in it two motives which may first move them to seek it, to wit: miracles, and multitude of believers. 
Aug. de utilitate credendi cap. 16.  Authoritas (saith he) praesto est, quam partim miraculis, partim multitudine valere, nemo ambigit: The authority of the Church is at hand which no man doubteth, partly through miracles, partly through multitude to be of force viz. to move men.  
Field to make this sentence seem the better for his purpose, 
Book 4. c. 8.  translateth the word (valere) standeth upon: and maketh Saint Augustine say, that the authority of the Church standeth upon two things etc. but how truly every grammar scholar may discern. That which he allegeth out of Hugo de sancto Victore, is as little to the purpose, but (as I think) far more falsely translated: for if in the English immediately following the Latin in the same different letter, he doth intend a translation of the Latin going before (as every man will judge he doth) he dealeth in it most corruptly and untruly, and so I leave him for this present.   

SECTION THE SECOND. In which the same argument is prosecuted, and two things principally are proved. First, that the new Testament receiveth small authority (if we believe our adversaries) by this that it was written by the Apostles and Disciples, because they accuse them of error. secondly because they confess the text of Scripture to be corrupted.  
HAVING evidently confuted in the section next before, the chiefest and most common reasons, by which the Sectaries of our days endeavour to prove the divine authority of holy Scripture, let us now behold such other reasons as may be brought according to their principles, and together insinuate some other their assertions which diminish the credit of these holy books. And to pass over (as a thing manifest) that the authority of 〈◊〉 new Testament cannot sufficiently and infallibly be proved ●uine, by the testimony of the old; some perhaps will say, that the authority of the old is confirmed and ratified by the new. But how is the new itself proved to be Canonical? which prerogative if we deny it, the old will receive but little credit from it. Peradventure they will answer, that they know the new to be Canonical, because it was written by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ inspired by the holy Ghost. I reply and demand, first, how they can prove this to be true by canonical Scripture? What canonical Scripture for example (if we deny the said Gospel to be Canonical) telleth us that S. Matthew the Apostle wrote that Gospel, which we term S. Mathewes Gospel? Secondly, although we suppose it to be true, that the Apostles and Disciples were the authors of the new Testament, yet how can they prove that in penning it they have not erred? What canonical Scripture have they for this? Certainly our adversaries make all their successors subject to error; wherefore it seemeth, that they will not be very scrupulous to grant it of the Apostles and Disciples themselves.  

Luther tom. 5. in c. 1. ad Galath. fol. 290. Act. 7. v. 14. Luther in cap 46. Genes.  But do they not moreover in express terms, condemn them of error? Who can deny this? Luther himself (after that he had affirmed that he would not submit his doctrine to the censure of the Fathers, no not to the censure of S. Peter nor S. Paul, nor of any Angel from heaven) addeth in defence of this his action, that S. Peter did live and teach besides the word of God. In another place, in plain terms he accuseth S. Steven of error in following the 70. Interpreters, who as he saith, erred concerning the number of those that went down into Egypt. Nay moreover, discoursing of extreme unction, 
Luth. de captivita. Babil. c. de extrema unctione. Luther in Isai 64. Martyr in 1. Corinth. 2. fol. 46. Centur. 1 lib. 2 c. 10. Col. 1600. 180.  he telleth us; that Although the epistle said to be of S. james, were in deed and truly his; yet he would say, that it was not lawful for an Apostle of his own authority to institute a Sacrament: By which he seemeth plainly to confess; that the Apostles in their Apostolic writings were subject to such faults: finally he telleth us, that S. Paul 1. Corinth. 2. vers. 9 doth finely wretch or wrest a certain sentence of the Prophet Isay; but Peter Martyr avoucheth, that he mistook the Hebrew word. Hence the Centuriatores his scholars, note certain Naevi or lapsus (so they term them) that is, freckles or moles and falls of S. Peter, S. Paul, and S. james Apostles; as that of S. Peter at Antioch for which he was reprehended by S. Paul, of which also 
a Calu. in ca 2. ad Galat. et in Mat. 26.  Caluin; that of S. james at Jerusalem, in persuading S. Paul to purify himself according to the law of Moses in the 
b See also the same Caluin touching S. Paulin 2. Cor cap. 1. & S. james in cap. 21. Act. Act. 21. v. 15. etc.  temple; and lastly they accuse S. Paul of error, in yielding to the persuasion of S. james. The same is affirmed by Brentius & divers others, concerning S. Peter and james, and the whole Church of Jerusalem: 
c Brent. in Apolog. confess. Wittenberg. c. de concilijs.  Both S. Peter Prince of the Apostles (saith he) and Barnabas also after the holy Ghost received, and together with them the whole Church of Jerusalem erred, Galat. 2. of the same opinion are other sectaries. 
d Bullenger in Apocalip. 19 & 22.  Bullenger hath the like stuff touching S. john. Do not also Beza and our English Protestant's themselves seem to confess, that 
* Luc. 3. v. 36  S. Luke in his Gospel erred, in making Arphaxad the father of Cainan, and Cainan of Sale; whereas in the book of Genesis, Arphaxad is said to have been the father of Sale? For if S. Luke did not err, why do 
e Beza in his translat. our Protestant's in their Bible printed, anno 1595. authorized to be read in Chur.  they (notwithstanding that all copies both Latin and Greek in this accord) thrust out of the text these words, who was of Cainan; and make S. Luke say that Arphaxad was the father of Sale. Add unto this that 
f Musculus in locis communibus cap. de justificat. num. 5.  Musculus no mean Sectary, to the Catholics objecting the authority of S. james against justification by faith only, maketh this answer: that he whosoever he was, although the brother of Christ and a pillar among the Apostles, and a great Apostle above measure (as 
g Gal. 2. v. 9 2. Cor. 12, 12.  S. Paul saith) cannot prejudice the truth of only faith. 
h Molinae. in unione quat. evang. par. 64  Another of them testifieth, that certain of his learned brethren limit and restrain those words of Christ: He that heareth you heareth me, that Christ only is to be heard, that is to say: that his word only is to be preached; that the Apostles were subject to error in going beyond their commission, and therefore that they are not to be heard, but when they relate unto us the very words of Christ. Thus he writeth upon the said sentence; These words (he that heareth you, heareth me) limit that Christ only be heard, that is: that his word only be preached, as most learned Philip Melancthon expoundeth, etc. For so expoundeth john Brentius, saying: That Christ when he saith: He that heareth you, heareth me, speaketh not of all words of the Apostles whatsoever, but of the prescribed commandment of their embassage. Thus Carolus Molinaeus. From this opinion 
i Cal. l. 4. Inst. c. 8. § 4. & 7.  Caluin himself seemeth not much to dissent, whose words are these: The Apostles in their very name show how much is permitted them in their office, that is: if they be Apostles that they should not babble what they please, but should deliver truly his commandments by whom they were sent: and soon after he plainly insinuateth, 
Modrenius lib. 2. de Eccles. cap. 2.  that he would have Christ only heard. Further, one Fricius a very learned Protestant telleth us, that although he should grant that S. james gave the communion under one kind only, yet that his authority is not to be admitted seeing that Christ said: Eat and drink. 
Clebetius in victoria veritatis et ruina papatus Saxoni. argumento 5.  Clebetius one of the chief ministers of the County Palatine of Rhine, granteth to his adversary; that S. Mathewe and S. Mark in their gospels contradict S. Luke: but saith that he hath two against one, and that S. Luke was not present at the last supper (concerning the history of which, the controversy was between him & his adversary) as S. Matthew was, and therefore that he deserved less credit. Finally, Zuinglius being impugned for denying prayer for the dead, & pressed with the authority of Fathers (especially of S. Chrisostome & S. Augustine, who derive this custom from the Apostles) answered thus. 
Zuing. tom. 1. Epicherae. de can. Missae fol. 186. See him also tom. 2. in Eleuch. count. Anabap. fo. 10.  If it be so as Augustine & Chrisostome report, I think that the Apostles suffered certain to pray for the dead, for no other cause then to condescend to their infirmity: hitherto Zuinglius; in which words he confesseth that the Apostles wilfully suffered some to err, which could not be done without error in themselves. And out of all these assertions of our adversaries, in which they either accuse the writers of holy Scripture of error, or make them subject thereunto, I infer; that the new Testament may contain errors, although we should grant it to be written by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ.  
But let us also add, that although we should grant them that the Apostles and Disciples could not err in penning these sacred books: yet that it is a hard matter for them to prove, that the new Testament since their days, hath not either through negligence or malice been corrupted. For had not the catholics their enemies, by their own confession the keeping of it for the space of divers hundreds of years? how know they then that the said Catholics to serve their own turns, have not corrupted it? Surely they confess their own brethren to have falsified it within few years, in divers places: wherefore, one sect rejecteth the translation of another. Do they then think us and our predecessors, more sincere than they are themselves? Perhaps some ignorant man will say, that it hath been always in the custody of those of their religion; but it is certain; that they cannot possibly assign any succession of men of their profession, that could always keep it. I demand also (if any man will needs say that there were such men, although invisible in the world, and mentioned off by no Author of any one age since the Apostles days) whether they were Lutherans, Zwinglians or Caluinists, or of what other sect? If they were Lutherans, how do the Zwinglians, Caluinists, and other Sectaries know that they kept it sincerely and truly? if they were Zwinglians, how do the Lutherans know the same? The like question I demand concerning other Sectaries, and none of them I think will be so absurd, as to say that all these sects have ever been in the world.  
But let us see whether they do not plainly confess, that the text of Scripture itself hath been corrupted. 
Beza in praefat. novi Test. anno. 1556. et Annota. in 1. Luc. v. 1.  Although Beza prefer the vulgar Latin edition which we use, before all other translations, and confesseth that the old Interpreter translated very religiously; yet both he and all the professors of the new religion, prefer the Hebrew of the old Testament and the Greek of the new, far before it. And as concerning the Greek translation of the old by the 70. Interpreters, 
Luther in ca 40. Genesis. Munst. in bibl. Hebraicis. Act. 7. v. 14. Caluin in Antid. Sinodus Trident. sess. 4. pag. 372.  Luther and Munster plainly condemn it of error; and the first of them in particular affirmeth, the text alleged of it by S. Steven in the seventh chapter of the acts of the Apostles (as he citeth it) to be erroneous, our Latin bibles are also censured by Caluin to be most corrupt: wherefore, they always where they can translate the Hebrew of the old and the Greek of the new; rejecting as it were, the Greek of the old and the Latin of the new: but that both the Hebrew of the old and Greek of the new be corrupted, it is manifest by their own confession. And first it cannot be denied, but that they some times correct both the Hebrew and Greek text: as for example, in the Hebrew psalm 22. whereas the Hebrew word for word ought thus to be translated, As a lion my hands & my feet; they translate according to the Greek and vulgar Latin thus: They have pierced my hands and feet. The examples of the Greek in the new which principally pertaineth unto Christians, are almost infinite: I will only set down a few out of Beza and our English translators. If then the Greek text be not corrupted, wherefore do these translators (whereas Hebrews 9 verse 1. the Greek text hath the first tabernacle) read the first covenant? Again, Rom. 11. ver. 21. they translate not according to the Greek text, eruing the time; but according to our vulgar Latin, serving our Lord. Apoc. 11. vers. 2. their translation is not according to the Greek, The court which is within the temple; but according to the Latin, The court which is without the temple. 2. Tim. 1. vers. 14. they add the word (but) out of the Latin. james 5. vers. 12. they forsake the Greek and follow our Latin, reading, Lest you fall into condemnation. In these and other places they correct the Greek text, and consequently confess it to be corrupted. But as touching Beza in particular I should make a long discourse, if I should recite all such places as in the Greek he accuseth of corruption. Act. 13. vers. 20. He calleth it a manifest error, that in the Greek we read four hundred years (as he saith) for three hundred. Act. 7. vers. 18. He maketh a whole Catalogue of corruptions. In S. Matthewes Gospel (as he confesseth in his Preface to the new Testament) he corrected divers errors; and sundry other such testimonies he giveth of the corruption of the Greek text of the new Testament. But doth not he moreover besides these his general corruptions (which he thinketh perhaps not done of malice) also suspect, that we have even of malice willingly and wittingly falsified the Scriptures? verily he doth. And to bring fourth three or four examples to prove this his assertion. 
Beza in annotat. novi Testament. an. 1556.  Math. 10. vers. 2. the Greek text hath: The first Simon who is called Peter. But what saith Beza? he telleth us, that he thinketh the word (first) to have been added to the text, by some that sought to establish Peter's primacy. Again, Luke 22. vers. 20. according to the Greek text we read; This is the Chalice, the new Testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. In which sentence the Relative (which) according to the Greek, is not governed by the Noun (blood) but by the word (Chalice) to signify unto us, that the blood of Christ, as the contents of the Chalice, or as in the Chalice was shed for us. But what saith Beza? he affirmeth it to be most probable, that the words (which is shed for you) being sometime but a marginal note, came by corruption out of the margin into the text. Act. 7. vers. 43. the Greek hath; Figures which you made to adore them: It may be suspected saith Beza, that these words (to adore them) as many others, have crept by corruption out of the margin into the Text. 1. Cor. 15. vers. 57 He thinketh that the Apostle said not Victory, as it is in all Greek copies, but Contention: And thus much concerning the corruption of the text of holy Scripture.  
And out of this discourse it is evident, first that our adversaries cannot prove by Canonical Scripture, that the Scripture itself is Canonical; secondly, that they cannot prove that the new Testament was written by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ; thirdly, that although this be admitted, yet that they cannot prove that the said Apostles and Disciples in penning it did not err; lastly, that they cannot prove the Scriptures to remain sincere and not corrupted: yea I have declared, that they confess that the Apostles and Disciples were subject to error, and that the Hebrew and Greek text which they esteem above all others, is corrupted. Out of all which positions so manifestly proved, I conclude; that the bare words of Scriptures are not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion. And although this argument concerning the whole Bible, and in particular touching the new Testament, be invincible and insoluble; yet, a far greater difficulty there is according to their ground mentioned, that nothing is to be believed, but that which is expressly contained in the Scripture, or gathered out of the same concerning those books of Scripture, which have long after the Apostles days been in the Church of doubtful authority (of which before) and yet are now received by our adversaries into the Canon. For what one sentence of the word of God removing all doubt, declared their authority to be divine? Surely after the doubt had of them, there was no Scripture written; and before, the matter in the said Scripture was not decided: wherefore, if we allow the Scriptures only to be a sufficient judge of such controversies, our adversaries themselves contrary to their own proceed, must of necessity be forced to confess such parcels of Scripture, to be as yet of doubtful authority. And this is not only granted by 
a Brentius in confess. Wittenberg. cap. de sacra Scriptura, anno. 1552.  Brentius and certain other Lutherans, who acknowledge those books of Scripture only to be Canonical, of whose authority there was never any doubt made in the Church: but also may seem to be confessed by our countryman M. Whitaker, who touching the Epistle of S. james received telleth us, that he doth 
b Whitaker against Campian, reason the first, p. 28.  not inquire how justly that might be received in a succeeding age, which once was rejected; yea, our whole Church of 
c Conuocat. Lon. an. 1562. & 1604. ar. 6  England alloweth of the position of 
d Brentius in Apolog. confess. Wittenb.  Brentius, even now mentioned. Wherefore, these sectaries must reject out of the Canon (if they will be constant to themselves) not only the Epistle of S. 
Genevain observat. upon harmony of confess. sect. 1.  Paul to the Hebrews, the Epistles of S. james and S. Jude, the second of S. Peter, and the second and third of S. john, together with the Apocalypse, whose authority (as is confessed by the Doctors of Geneva, by Brentius, and all the Lutherans, yea as it is recorded by divers Fathers as I have showed before, nay further as it is granted by Thomas Rogers an English Protestant, 
Thomas Rogers upon the 6. Artic. Propos. 4. pa. 31. See also Whitaker before cited, and the disputat. had in the Tower with F. Campian in the 4. days conferens.  in his discourse upon the Articles of Religion of the year 1562. and before him by whitaker's and others) hath been sometimes doubtful; but also certain other parcels of Scripture by them likewise received, as I could declare out of divers approved Authors. The Doctors of Geneva to prove the books named to be Canonical, fly to the authority of the Church; for they will have them admitted as such, because they were received and acknowledged as Canonical, by the consent of the whole Catholic Church; although some doubt were made of them sometimes by the ancient Doctors: but this according to their own ground, is to give them no divine authority, as I have already noted.  
And before I end this section I cannot but add, that I would wish M. Rogers (whom I even now named) to look a little better into his books, if hereafter he chance to publish any with such approbations, as he doth pretend in the beginning of this: For I cannot see but writing in defence of the sixth Article, he overthroweth the same, by granting that which I have alleged him confessing. To make this a little seen unto him, thus I argue: In the name of the holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the old and new Testament, of whose authority was never doubt in the Church; (These are the words of the Article): 
Page 26.  but of some books of the new Testament, there hath been doubt in the Church as appeareth by those M. Roger's words (Some of the ancient Fathers and Doctors accepted not all the books, 
Pag. 31. propos. 4.  contained within the volume of the new Testament for Canonical) therefore all the books contained in the volume of the new Testament, are not understood in the name of holy Scripture. This conclusion necessarily followeth of the premises granted, as every man seethe; and yet is directly contrary to the last words of the same Article, 
Page 26. Pag. 31. propos. 4.  in which they profess themselves to receive and account as Canonical, all the books of the new Testament, as Rogers himself affirmeth.   

SECTION THE THIRD. The same is proved, because every Christian is bound to admit and believe certain propositions, neither expressly contained, nor (according to some men's judgements) so evidently gathered out of the holy Scripture.  
SECONDLY it is apparent, that the bare letter of holy Scripture, and conclusions out of it manifestly deduced by every private man, setting a side the authority of the Church (as above) are not a sufficient ground or rule of Christian belief and religion; because every true Christian is bound to admit and believe, certain propositions concerning the mysteries and articles of our faith, which are not expressly contained in the letter, nor (as some of them think) so evidently deduced out of the same, especially if we allow of our adversaries Commentaries. The first is easily proved; for where do we find in the whole Bible the words, Trinity, person, and consubstantial? and yet most of the Professors of the new religion will not deny, but that every Christian under pain of damnation, is bound to believe and admit in express terms these propositions following: There is a Trinity, there be three persons in the blessed Trinity; the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost are consubstantial the one to the other, and such like: yea Beza himself confesseth, that without the use of these words, 
Beza lib. de hereticis a civili magistratu puniendis, pag. 51. also in Ep. Theol. 81. pag. 334. 335. See part 1. chap. 9  the truth of those mysteries cannot be explicated, nor the deniers of them confuted; And it is manifest, that whosoever rejecteth these words doth open the gap to judaisme, Arianisme, and turcism. But some of them fly to deduction out of Scriptures; and answer, that although the words are not expressly found in the Bible, yet that the mysteries themselves are expressly in it contained and delivered; and conseqnently, that the words aptly signifying the said mysteries, and deduced out of the word of God itself, may very well and conveniently be used. I reply that this is not sufficient: for every private man's deduction is subject to error, except it be by an infallible argument, and every proposition be most evidently true, in that sense in which it is alleged: wherefore, such deductions as our adversaries commonly use, make no articles of faith: Secondly, the collections themselves of these high mysteries, (by reason of the obscurity and diversity of senses of the holy Scripture) are not seldom obscure; and therefore those collections which to some seem evident, by others are judged false. Hence the collection of those very mysteries which I have named, by divers of our adversaries is denied; as by Valentinus Gentilis and his followers, 
a Valent. Gentilis in confess. apud Caluin, pag. 930. & in Prothes. Pastor. Bremensis, in hist. Valent. Gentil.  who affirm the three persons to have three distinct natures or essences, and the Father to have been before the Son, and the Son before the holy Ghost; Who make also the one inferior to the other, etc. The same collection is likewise denied by servetus and his disciples, 
b servetus li. de erroribus Trinitatis.  who acknowledged no distinction of persons in God, made Christ a pure man, and denied him to have been before his incarnation. Finally, by Georgius Blandrata, Paulus Alciatus, and other Scholars of these men, who 
c Greg. Paul. apud Hosium in judicio & censura de adoranda Trinitate. See Hooker book 5. of eccles. policy, §. 42.  affirmed that Luther began to pull down the roof, they raised: the foundations of Popery; who condemned all the ancient Counsels and Fathers reverenced by all Christians, of 
d Beza epist. Theolog. 81.  tritheisme or making of three Gods; termed S. Athanasius, Sathanasius; avouched the blessed Trinity (which most blasphemously they called Cerberus and the tripartited God) to be an invention of his; and called the Fathers of the first Nicene Council, blind Sophists, Ministers of the Beast, slaves of Antichrist, bewitched with his illusions, etc. yea, some of these new sectaries went so far in this matter, that they forsook Christ altogether, and became Turks: among whom were 
e Simlerus in praefat. lib. de aeterno Dei filio. Gregor. Paulus lib. de Trinitat. Volanus in paravesi ex epist. Blandratae in confut. judicij Polonicarum ecclesiarum. Of Neuser. this is testified by C●nr. Schluss. in Catal. haeret. lib. 11. de Seruetianis.  Bernardinus Ochinus, Alamannus, Georgius Blandrata, Adamus Neuserus, johannes Silvanus, Gregorius Paulus, and Andrea's Volanus, all Ministers of great name and fame. Franciscus David denied Christ, and willed all men to return to the law of Moses and circumcision, and so to become jews. And do not all the new sectaries by their common doctrine, offer an occasion of all these blasphemies and apostasies? Surely they do; both by leaving no evident, certain, and sufficient rule by which such men may be confuted, and attributing over much to the sufficiency of the bare letter of holy Scripture, and also by rejecting certain words and propositions of ours, as manifestly gathered out of the holy Scripture: as the words Trinity, person, and consubstantial, and the propositions by them declared. For out of these grounds some of the preciser sort of them argue, that we ought not to admit into our belief, or use in the explication of out faith, any words not contained and expressed in the word of God. For (say they) the Scripture being so sufficient, wherefore should we use any words invented by man? what need have we of any strange deductions, or any other thing? If these words be admitted, we may even aswell admit the word, transubstantiation, & other new inventions of the Papists, etc. thus the preciser sort and the enemies of the blessed Trinity dispute. And to discourse a little more at large of the word, transubstantiation; Ask an English Protestant what reason he hath to reject it? He will answer, both because it is not found in the Scripture, and also because the thing by it signified (to wit, the changing of bread and wine into the body and blood Of Christ) is not collected out of the same. Demand likewise of an Arian why he admitteth not the word consubstantial? He will answer, because neither the word itself is used in holy writ, nor the thing signified thereby, (to wit: that the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost are of the same substance) truly gathered out of the same. Behold the answer of both is one, and certainly the reason yielded serveth both alike; for like as the word transubstantiation, so the word consubstantial is not found in the Scripture, but both these words have been appropriated by the Church, to signify more distinctly and plainly mysteries expressed truly in the word of God, but not so plainly: wherefore, if one of them be rejected, the other cannot be received. They say, that the thing signified by the word transubstantiation, is not in express terms to be found in the Scripture. I reply, that like as the real presence by the confession of their own brethren the Lutherans, is so plainly delivered unto us by the Evangelists, that it cannot be denied (which nevertheless by them is utterly rejected:) so likewise is transubstantiation. And like as if we admit of their translations, and interpretations of holy Scripture, neither the real presence, nor transubstantiation is out of them gathered: so in like sort, neither is the mystery signified by the word consubstantial gathered out of the said Scripture, if we admit the translations and interpretations of the Arians. Yea I dare boldly affirm, that if we allow but of Caluins' Commentaries upon the Scriptures (which some of our 
a Hooker in the preface to his book of eccles. policy pag. 9 Covel in his defence of Hooker.  English Protestant's so highly esteem) that neither of these mysteries are expressly contained in the word of God. For like as with our Sacramentaries he expoundeth it against the real presence: so with the Arians he expoundeth it against the divinity of Christ. 
Part. 2. chap. 1. sect. 3.  And this (as I have noted before) is very well declared by divers Protestants, especially by Aegidius Hunnius in a book which he set forth with this title: Caluin playing the jew, that is to say; the jewish glosses and corruptions by which john Caluin abhorred not after a detestable manner, to corrupt the most noble and famous places of holy Scripture, and testimonies of the glorious Trinity, the Deity of Christ, and the holy Ghost, etc. printed at Wittenberg anno 1593. Also by Conradus Schlussenbergius, in his second book of the divinity of the Caluinists, and divers others. But if we reject all heretical interpretations, both these mysteries are expressly contained in the Scripture; and therefore our adversaries have no more reason to refuse the word transubstantiation, than they have to refuse the word consubstantial: and by rejecting the first they give occasion to the Arians to reject the second, because they have no greater proofs for this than we have for that. And hence it appeareth, how weak a ground the naked letter of Scripture is, and what small force deductions out of it, commonly made by every private man's discourse, have; and consequently, what a feeble foundation they build their salvation upon, who have no other ground.   

SECTION THE FOURTH. The insufficiency of the bare letter of holy Scripture is proved by other arguments, especially by this; that the true interpretation cannot be infallibly gathered out of the letter.  
LET us add unto these reasons, that although we should grant to our adversaries, that the bare letter of holy Scripture is sufficiently proved true by the Scripture itself (which assertion notwithstanding I have demonstrated to be false) yet, that an other argument for the proof of the insufficiency of the said letter, may be taken from the doubtful, obscure, and divers senses of the same. 
Part. 1. chap. 7. sect. 2.  For (as I have proved before in the first part of this treatise) the Scriptures are hard and admit divers translations and interpretations, and there may be gathered out of them both honey and poison, both true and false doctrine. I know that Luther affirmeth, 
Luth. praefat. in assert. art. a Leone 10. damnatorum.  the Scripture to be of itself a most certain, most easy, and most manifest interpreter of itself, proving, judging, and enlightening all things. I do not also deny but 
* Brentius in Prol. cont. Petrum de Soto.  Brentius seemeth to be of the same opinion; but against these I oppose 
a Field, book 4. chap. 15.  M. Field, who of this point writeth thus: There is no question but there are manifold difficulties in the Scripture, proceeding partly from the high and excellent nature of the things therein contained, which are without the compass of natural understanding, and so are wholly hidden from natural men, and not known of them that are spiritual without much travail and studious meditation; partly out of the ignorance of tongues, and of the nature of such things, by the comparison whereof the matters of diune knowledge are manifested unto us: Hitherto Field. 
* Chap. 18. §. between §. The reason, §. Thus having.  He further allegeth and approveth that of Sixtus Senensis, affirming the literal exposition of Scripture, to be in deed the hardest of all other. And this notwithstanding, upon it he will have the allegorical, tropological, and anagogical senses founded, of which a man may infer great obscurity of them al. This also may be proved out of 
a Illiric. in his clavis scripture. de causis difficul. script & remedijs remed. 2.  Illiricus a famous Lutheran, who (as 
b Field, book 4. chap. 19  Field testifieth) discoursing of the difficulties that are found in Scriptures, and how they may be cleared, showeth; that nothing is more necessary for the understanding of Scripture, then to be rightly taught the general principles and axioms of divinity, out of which flow and on which do depend, whatsoever things are contained in the Scripture. 
c Kemnit. in examine. Conc. Trid. sess. 4.  Kemnitius an other Lutheran, acknowledgeth in the Church such a gift of interpreting the Scripture, as is the gift of doing miracles, not common to all but peculiar to some. The 
d Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. col. 52.  Century writers avouch, that the Apostles thought the Scriptures could not be understood without the holy Ghost, and an interpreter: yea, 
e Luth. in colloq. convival. titu. de verbo Dei: see him also l. de Concil. & praefat. in psalm.  Luther himself seemeth to have recanted his former opinion before his death; for two days before he died (as his disciples record) he pronounced this sentence. No man can understand the Bucolica of Virgil, except he be five years a shepherd: no man can understand the Georgica of Virgil, except he be five years a husbandman: no man can understand the Epistles of Cicero, except he have lived in some famous common wealth for 20. years. Let every man know that he hath not sufficiently tasted the holy Scriptures, except he have governed in the Church for an hundred years, with the Prophets; as with Elias, Elizeus, john Baptist, Christ and the Apostles. Thus Luther, and the like he hath in other places. And all this may be confirmed by this, 
Chap. 8. Sect. 7.  that all Heretics have ever alleged Scriptures for proof of their heretical assertions, as I will hereafter declare. Yea Osiander a professor of the new religion telleth us, 
Osiander in confut. scripti Melancthon. contra ipsum editi, & l. cot. Nicticoracen.  that among the Confessionists only (so he termeth those that follow the confession of Auspurge) there are twenty different opinions concerning the formal cause of justification, and that every one is affirmed to be deduced and proved out of the word of God. I argue therefore thus: The rule and ground of Catholic faith ought to be one (that is not divers) certain, and manifest: but the bare words of Scripture alone cannot be such a rule, because the Scriptures are obscure, may be falsely and erroneously interpreted, etc. wherefore the sense of them is not one, certain, and manifest: therefore, the bare words of Scripture are not the only rule and ground of Catholic faith.  

Math. 26. vers. 26. See chap. 8. Sect. 3.  Let us declare this by an example: The Catholic understandeth those words of our Saviour; This is my body, one way: the Lutherans an other way: the Zwinglians a third way; and the Caluinists a fourth way as I will show hereafter. I demand now of our adversaries, how in this sentence and a thousand other such like, the bare words of Scripture are a plain, and certain rule, whereby the truth of any one of their interpretations may infallibly be known? Can the words speak and interpret themselves, or do they sufficienty decide the controversy? This they will not grant, because they are plain for the Catholic part. Yea Caluin himself confesseth, that Christ's words are so plain, (although to make his words accord with his doctrine, he flieth to certain chimerical conceits) that except a man will make God a deceiver, 
Caluin lib. 4. Instit. cap. 17 §. 10. 11.  he can never be so bold as to say, that he setteth before us a naked sign: wherefore according to their judgement if we will allow of any one of their interpretations, we must find out some other judge, or else affirm; that Christ hath ordained no sufficient judge or rule in his Church to decide controversies, and to discern the true interpretations of holy Scripture, from the false. And because our adversaries acknowledge no other judge but the bare letter, and every man's own fancy; Hence proceed so many sects and dissensions among them, which were so divers and implacable even in Luther's days (who began this Tragedy,) concerning the true sense of Scripture itself, that the said Luther plainly confessed; that if the world were long to endure they should be forced to have recourse again to trial of Counsels, and that otherwise they should never agree. 
Luther contra Zwinglium & Oecolampadium.   
Further, seeing that the Scriptures admit senses so divers, and interpret not themselves, and the false sense is so dangerous; how can any man be assured by the bare words, that he hath attained to the true sense? For example, 
Bible, 1592. Hieron. in Catal. verbo Marcus. Eusebius, lib. 2. hist. cap. 14.  our new Sectaries affirm that the word Babylon, in the first Epistle of S. Peter (although S. Hierome and Eusebius say the contrary) signifieth the great City called Babylon in Caldea or Assyria, not Rome; because otherwise it would follow, that S. Peter was at Rome: contrariwise they tell us, that in the 
* Apocal. 17. & 18.  Apocalypse the same word signifieth the City of Rome, because there much is said against Babylon, which they are desirous to apply to the City of Rome. But how know they by the bare words of Scripture, that this their double interpretation of the self same word, is true? Add also, that the divers and large Commentaries upon the Scriptures, and the great study of all sorts concerning the exposition of them, are evident arguments, that the bare words of Scripture may receive divers and false interpretations: yea every man must of necessity grant, that some of our learned adversaries themselves expound them falsely, seeing that their expositions be repugnant and contrary. Of which I infer, that it is a matter impossible that every man out of the words themselves only, should gather infallibly the right sense; which if it be true in the learned, much more true it is in the unlearned.  
The common answer of our adversaries to this argument is, 
See before part. 2. chap. 5. sect. 1. in the beginning  that one place of Scripture expoundeth another; and therefore if the words of any place be of doubtful sense, they bid us confer them with other such like sentences: but this answer may be easily refelled. For like as the place in controversy or doubtful, receiveth divers interpretations; so do also those other places with which they would have it conferred: wherefore, by this conference divers times we are never the near for attaining to the true sense; yea not seldom, by such conference the difficulty is increased, as appeareth by those places before alleged, 
Part. 2. chap. 1. sect. 4.  which seem to contrary one another. Hence our new sectaries themselves being divided into divers sects, and having conferred a long time such places together as are controversed among them, cannot as yet agree about the true sense of the said places, but remain still at mortal jars. And all this which I have here said may be confirmed by the authority of Field, 
Field book 3 chap. 42.  who affirmeth the ground of their faith to be the written word of God, interpreted according to the rule of faith, the practise of the Saints from the beginning, the conference of places and all light of direction, that either the knowledge of tongues or any parts of good learning may yield: Thus Field. In an other place he prescribeth seven rules, 
Book 4. chap. 19  which he thinketh we are to follow in the interpretation of Scripture, that we may attain to the certainty of the true sense of it, of which divers are extrinsical, and concern not the letter itself of Scripture. Lastly, against the sufficiency of conference of places alone, he addeth these words. 
Ibidem.  We confess that neither conference of places, nor consideration of the antecedentia and consequentia; nor looking into the originals are of any force, unless we find the things which we conceive to be understood 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 Wittenberg (as I have 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 us therefore conclude, that the true sense of the Scripture is not sufficiently gathered out of the bare words; and consequently, let us not admit the bare words to be a sufficient ground of Christian religion. And hence I gather, that our adversaries have no certainty of faith and religion; which is apparent, because they make the naked letter of holy Scripture the only ground of their belief, the true sense of which unto them is always very uncertain: for either the assurance which every one of them hath proceedeth from his own reading and judgement, or from the credit of some other Minister or Ministers, who interpret the Scriptures in that sense which he embraceth; both which means be most uncertain. For they depend upon the judgement of private men, who have no assurance from the holy Ghost of not erring; wherefore they are subject to error; and consequently, none of them have any further assurance of the truth of their religion, then human judgement.  
Unto the reasons already brought for the proof of the title of this Chapter, I add these that follow, partly gathered out of that which hath been already said in this Treatise: first, that the rule of Christian faith ought to be general and sufficient for all sorts of people, which cannot appertain to the bare letter of holy Scripture, because divers persons cannot read; and consequently, to know the contents of the Bible, they must use the help of some of the learned, and upon their report (which may be false and erroneous) build their belief. It is also manifest, that Christians had some other rule of faith, before the Scriptures of the new Testament were written. Finally I have already proved, that together with the letter we ought to receive that sense and interpretation, which hath by tradition and succession descended from the Apostles: And thus much concerning this matter.    

Chapter 6. The new Sectaries Bibles contain not the true word of God.  

SECTION THE FIRST. In which this is first proved concerning all their Bibles in general.  
IN the Chapter next before, I have demonstrated the bare letter of holy Scripture on which our adversaries build, not to be a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion: in this present Chapter to make their weak foundation the more manifest, I intent to prove; that although we should yield the bare letter to be sufficient, yet that in very truth their Bibles contain not truly the said bare letter. And first, I prove this concerning all their new translated Bibles in general, and that by their own confession; 
Lavatherus in histor. Sacrament. fo. 32  for Luther & the Lutherans condemn the translation of Zwinglius and the Zwinglians, 
Zwing. tom. 2. in respon ad Luther. li. de Sacrament.  and of all others besides those which are proper to their own sect: Zwinglius and the Zwinglians pronounce the same censure against the translation of Luther and the Lutherans. And in like sort proceed 
* Beza in annot. novi test. passim. Castalio in defence. suae translat.  Beza and Castalio against one another, and all other sectaries; for every particular sect hath his particular Bible, which it embraceth rejecting all others: wherefore, if we may believe all these Professors of the new religion, they have not among them one true translation of the Bible. Moreover, 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 adversaries translated Bibles be divers and different one from another, and insinuate contrary doctrine (wherefore every Bible is not admitted by every sectary, but that only which favoureth his own sect, as I have even now declared:) It is therefore impossible that they should all contain 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 even as much subject to error as the translator of the other, and had no surer ground for his translation, with like probability and reason they may be all rejected; because they have all received 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 Rheims Testament, pa. 15.  Finally, Whitaker seemeth to acknowledge the Scriptures only in those tongues, in which they were first spoken by God, or penned by the holy Ghost, to be the true word of God; wherefore he seemeth to exclude from this truth, all the translations of Scripture in the world.   

SECTION THE SECOND. That Luther, Zwinglius, Caluin, and Beza, in particular have corruptly translated the Scriptures.  
BUT let us 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 speak a word or two of the corruptions of those translations of the word of God, which be most approved and received in their congregations: And let us not now stand upon the truth of the Latin vulgar edition, but prove that they forsake and falsify the true sense of the very Hebrew and Greek text, which they profess to translate. So shall I not only prove, that the unlearned professors of the new religion, build their faith upon a false ground (to wit, the word of men or the word of God corrupted:) but also, make that more manifest which I principally intent to prove, I mean that the learned sort have erred in their translations, and that the ground of their faith also is not the word of God.  
S. Augustine long since observed in Heretics, 
August. tom. 6. contra Faustum, lib. 32, cap. 29.  that they make not their faith subject to the Scriptures, but the Scriptures (as a man may say) subject to their faith: giving us thereby to understand, that all Heretics either out of some one place of Scripture falsely understood; or out of their own perverse and licentious humour; or out of the weakness of their natural reason, not able to comprehend the high mysteries of our faith; or finally, out of some other false and erroneous ground, frame to themselves one or more false opinions, and afterwards by corrupting the text or wresting the sense, make the Scripture seem to confirm the same. And like as this hath been found true in all Heretics, who in former ages have oppugned the Church: so most true it is in the Professors of the new religion of our days, as every man skilful in the tongues may easily perceive, in their translated Bibles and other of their works.  
If I should run over all their corruptions and falsifications, I should scarce ever make an end, they are so many and divers. 
See Staphilus in Apolog part. 2. Emser. in praefat Annot. in nowm Testam. Lutheri. Lindanus in Dubitantio, pag. 84. 85. etc. Erasmus in Epist. ad fratres inferioris Germaniae.  Some note a thousand four hundred in the new Testament only, translated by Luther, Caluin: and Bezaes' corruptions are to be seen in divers worthy Authors; wherefore, I will only gather five or six notable falsifications out of the translations of these principal Sectaries, and afterwards discourse more at large of our English Bibles.  
To begin therefore with the first Captain Luther; before his Apostasy from the Catholic Church, he read with us and all antiquity according to the Greek text: 1. Cor. 9 vers. 5. after this sort: Have not we power to lead about a woman a sister as also the rest of the Apostles? But having changed his profession, and contrary to his vow coupled himself to Catharine Bore (whom he termed his wife) he changed also his translation of this sentence, and read: Have not we power to lead about a sister, a wife as the rest of the Apostles? S. Paul to give us to undertstand that faith doth justify us, as the foundation and root of our justification, or else comprehending under the word faith, also the works of faith, useth these words: We account a man to be justified by faith. 
Rom. 3, 28.  Moreover, to exclude from our justification the works done before our conversion or faith, he addeth; without the works of the law. But how doth Luther translate this place of Scripture? 
Luther to. 2. edit. Wittenberg. anno. 1551. fo. 405.  We account (saith he) a man to be justified by faith only, without the works of the law: this is his translation.  
And what a manifest corruption is this? where doth he find in the Greek text or any other approved edition, the word only? verily, it is added by himself, and not to be found in the text. But perhaps although S. Paul hath it not expressly in this place cited, yet it is necessarily understood. I reply and demand how Luther knew this? I add further, that although it were so, yet he hath no authority to add to the word of God: neither is it likely that if the said word had been necessary, the holy Ghost guiding the Apostles pen, would have omitted it. And that Luther giveth not the true sense of the sentence of the Apostle, I prove out of these words following of S. Augustine: 
August. de gratia et lib. ●rbitrio ca 7.  Men (saith he) not understanding that which the Apostle saith (we account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law) did think him to have affirmed, that faith would suffice a man, though he lived ill, and had no good works; which God forbidden, the vessel of election should think, who in a certain place after that he had said: 
Galat. 5, 6.  In Christ jesus neither circumcision or prepuce availeth any whit, he strait added; but faith which worketh by love: this is the opinion of S. Augustine. Hence the same Apostle in other places, 
Galat. 6, 15.  hath these and such like sentences: In Christ jesus neither circumcision availeth aught, nor prepuce, but a new creature. Again: Circumcision is nothing, 
1. Cor. 7, 19  and prepuce is nothing but the observation of the commandments of God. In which he giveth us to understand, that in the place corrupted by Luther, under the name of faith he comprehendeth the whole reformation of our souls, and our new creation in good works; which may further be proved, because taking faith precisely as it is a virtue distinct from hope and charity, 
1. Cor. 13. v. 2. and 13.  he telleth us; that Although a man hath a● faith so that he should remove mountains, and hath not charity, he is nothing: And concludeth, that charity is a greater virtue than either faith or hope; with whom accordeth S. james, who directly contradicteth Luther and avoucheth, 
james 2, 24.  that by works a man is justified and not by faith only.  
Perhaps some Lutheran in the defence of Luther will say, that this corruption was not wilful. But I reply, that the contrary is manifest: for Luther by letter being kindly admonished by his friend, that this by some was reprehended as a fault, answered his said friend very sharply, calling the reprehender Ass and Papist, and gave this reason in his own defence: 
Luther to. 5. Germ. f. 141. epist adf amicum.  Doctor Martin Luther will have it so. And like as in this text he added to serve his purpose, so in another he omitted. For whereas the Apostle S. Peter writeth, 2. Peter. 1. verse 10. Wherefore brethren labour the more, that by good works you make sure your vocation and election, he left out the words, by good works.  
These and other such like corruptions of Scripture, which are to be found in the Bible and other works of Luther, gave Zwinglius writing against him, just occasion to condemn him of this fault. Thou dost (saith he) corrupt and adulterate the word of God, 
Zuing. in resp. ad Luth. l. de sacram. to. 2. fol. 412. 413.  imitating surely in this the disciples of Martion and Arius. Again, See how thy case standeth Luther, that in the eyes of all men thou art seen a manifest and common corrupter and perverter of the holy Scripture, which thing thou canst never deny before any creature. How much are we ashamed of thee, who hitherto have esteemed thee beyond all measure, and now try thee to be such a false fellow? Bucer telleth us, 
Bucer Dial. cont, Melanch.  that in translating the Scriptures his errors are manifest, and not few. But is not Zwinglius himself (although he so confidently reprehend Luther) to be found guilty of the same crime? Certainly to establish his doctrine against the Real presence, he corrupted those words of our Saviour; This is my body, by translating them thus: 
Mat. 26, 26. Conr. Schluss in Theolog. Caluinist. l. 2. cap. 6. fol. 43. 44. l. 2. art. 1. Luther. tom. 7. in defence. verborum coenae.  This signifieth my body. Of this Conradus a Lutheran is a sufficient witness, who affirmeth, that he saw those words so translated in a Zwinglian Bible at Mundera, in the year of our Lord one thousand five hundred and threescore: and therefore he pronounceth this sentence against him, that he was strooken with the spirit of giddiness, and blindness, as all Heretics are, daring to corrupt the Testament of our Lord. Hence Luther also to requite Zwinglius, called him and all his followers corrupters of the word of God. Caluin to prove his blaspheamous Doctrine that Christ despaired, and suffered on the Cross the very torments of the damned in hell, whereas the Apostle saith, Hebr. 5. vers. 7. that Christ was heard for his reverence, 
Caluin in Catechis. & lib. 2. Instit. cap. 16. §. 11. 12.  maketh him say that Christ was heard from his own fear: which translation is not only new, (for Caluin, as Beza confesseth in his Annotations upon this place, was the first Author of it;) but also contrary to the true signification of the Greek word, as Beza likewise granteth, and it is apparently to be seen, Act. 8. vers. 2. where the adjective of the same Greek word is used to signify devout men, 
Caluin lib. 4. Instit. ca 14. §. 23. 1. Cor. 10. v. 3  such as religiously reverenced God. In like sort, the same Caluin to prove no difference between the Sacraments of the old and new law, affirmeth; that the Apostle teacheth that our Fathers of the old law did eat the same spiritual meat which we eat: whereas the said Apostle saith only, that the jews among themselves did eat the same meat.  

Beza annot. in Math. 3. v. 2. Marc. 1. v. 4. Luc. 3, 8 Beza annot. in Rom. 5.  Beza of set purpose (as he himself confesseth) in his translation avoideth the word penance, and this sentence, do penance. Wherefore Act. 26. vers. 20. whereas the Greek saith doing works worthy of penance, he readeth: doing the fruits meet for them that amend their lives. Also he granteth, that he added to the text of Scripture and altered the same, to overthrow (as he termeth it) the execrable error of inherent justice. Further, those words (Act. 2. vers. 27.) thou wilt not leave my soul in hell: He wittingly and willingly according to his own confession, 
Beza annot. in Act. 2. ver. 27. & 24. & in 1. Petr. 1. vers. 19  to improve Limbus Patrum, Purgatory, and Christ's descent into hell (which he termeth foul errors) translated in his edition of the new Testament of the year 1556. thus: thou shalt not leave my carcase in the grave. And this not only against all Greek copies in the world, but also against the proper signification of the Hebrew words in the 15. Psalm ver. 10. whence this sentence is taken. For the Hebrew word which Beza translateth carcase signifieth only a soul, and the other which he translateth grave, usually signifieth hell. Hence in his latter edition he corrected somewhat the former, and read, thou shalt not leave my soul in the grave: but of this his corruption more hereafter. Finally, because these words of our Lord spoken of the Chalice and recorded by S. Luke (which is shed for you) as they are in the Greek text, 
Beza in Luc, 22. vers. 20.  contain a manifest proof of the real presence: for (as he saith) according to their plain construction, and that in all his ancient books, they appertain of necessity not to the blood, but to the cup of the Chalice; this Genevian Doctor altered the text, and made an other sense of the said words in this translation. And why so? but because they cannot (as he affirmeth) be understood of the cup, and that according to his belief. Our English Sectaries cannot deny this fault in Beza: for they in some places dare not be so bold as to follow him, but think it best to forsake and reject him. For example, james 2. vers. 22. whereas Beza readeth, 
Bible printed anno, 1592. 1595.  Faith was a helper of his works; they read with the Greek, Faith wrought with his deeds. Again, whereas Beza readeth 1. Cor. 12. vers. 30. in his new Testament of the year 1556. Behold moreover also I show you a way most diligently, and in the editions of the year, 1562. And beside I show you a way to excellency, 
Bible, 1595. vers. 31.  against the dignity of charity above faith. Our English sectaries according to the Greek read: And yet show I unto you a more excellent way. Yea, although in the new Testament printed in the year, 1580. they undertake and profess to follow him, yet in some places they reject him; as for example, Act. 1. vers. 14. Beza readeth, 
Bible, 1595. Bible, 1600. they put the word wives in the margin Carolus Molinaeus in translat. Test. novi. part. 11. fol. 110. Idem part. 26 30. 40. 64. 65. 66. 67. 74. 99 Humfred. de ratione interpret and i lib. 1. pag. 62. 63. 189.  All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with their wives; to the end to prove that the Apostles were married: they read according to the Greek, with the women.  
But I need not labour to prove Caluin and Beza guilty of this crime, seeing that one of their own brethren confesseth, that Caluin made the text of holy Scripture leap up and down at his pleasure, that he offered violence to the same, and added of his own to the very sacred letter itself, to the end he might draw it to his purpose. He crieth likewise out against Beza, and telleth us; that he actually altereth the text, that he actually changeth the text, retained by all Doctors: and the like censure is pronounced against his translation by Selneccerus, by the University of Zena, by Castalio, and divers other Protestants. But the last of these named although a Sacramentary, and a man much commended by Doctor Humphrey, 
a Gesnerus in Bibliotheca.  and Gesnerus, is more vehement than the rest. For having noted certain errors committed by Beza in his translation, only of the first ten Chapters of S. Mathewes Gospel, thus he concludeth: 
b Casta. in def. pa. 182. 183.  I trust I have showed sufficiently by these ten Chapters of S. Mathewe (in which notwithstanding I have omitted very many things, which justly I might have reprehended) what a long register of his errors I could gather out of his whole work. For this is true, that oftentimes he erreth not only in words (which is not so dangerous, and might be tolerated;) but also in things, and the same most weighty: and often times be enforceth by wresting, not the sentences only, but also the words of the holy writers to serve his error. So john the 1. vers. 12. he corrupteth a most notable place and of greatest moment touching free will, etc. Thus Castalio. Before this he affirmeth, that to note all Bezaes' errors in translating the new Testament, 
Ibid. pa. 170.  would require a volume over great. Contrariwise, Beza to requite Castalio, condemneth his translation of holy Scripture (which is very highly praised by D. Humphrey and Gesnerus, even now alleged) not only as false, 
Beza in Testament. anno 1556. in Praefat. & in Marc. cap. 3. 1. Cor. 1. Math. 4. Luc. 1. Act. 8. & 10.  corrupt, and perverse, but also as pestilent, sacrilegious, Ethnical, and Turkish: he avoucheth it to be such a translation, as containeth the very seed, and layeth open the high way to manifest Apostasy from Christ. The like censure he pronounceth against the new Testament set forth by Oecolampadius (as is supposed) and the other Divines of Basil; for he avoucheth it to be in many places 
* Beza in respon ad defence. & respons. Castalionis.  wicked, and altogether disagreeing from the mind of the holy Ghost: But of these foreign sectaries enough.   

SECTION THE THIRD. Our English Sectaries also, have falsely and corruptly translated the Scriptures.  
BUT do our English sectaries, although they follow not (as I have showed) some corruptions of Beza; yet commit no wilful errors and falsify nothing themselves? Truly they are far from this sincerity. 
Carlisle in his book that Christ went not down into hell, printed anno 1582. fol. 116. 144 etc.  Carlisle an English Sectary having discovered many faults in the English Bible, of them inferreth; that our English Protestant's in many places detort the Scriptures from the right sense, and show themselves to love darkness, more than light, and falsehood, more than truth: he saith, they have corrupted and depraved the sense, obscured the truth, deceived the ignorant, supplanted the simple, etc. M. Broughton, one of the greatest Linguists of our English precisians, wrote not many years since an Epistle to the Honourable Lords of the Council (which is yet extant) desiring them to procure speedily a new translation of the Scripture, because (said he) that which is now in use in England is full of errors. The same request was made of late by Doctor Reynolds in the conference held at Hampton-Court between the Protestants and the Puritans; yea, 
Barlow in his relation of conference held at Hampton-Court, pag. 45. 46. Lindanus in Dubitantio. Fox, pa. 981.  the King himself (as it is recorded by M. Barlowe) avouched that he could never yet see a Bible well translated in English, but the worst of all he affirmed to be that of Geneva: wherefore, by his Majesty's order another translation (as is said) is now in hand. And this may very well be believed: For Bishop Tonstal as it is recorded by Lindanus, noted no less than two thousand corruptions in Tindals' translation only of the new Testament, which assertion of his may be confirmed by the authority of a statute, made by the first head of our English Church, King Henry the eight. For notwithstanding that Fox termeth Tindal not only the true servant, and martyr of God, but the Apostle also of England in our later age, 
Idem, pa. 732  and painteth the said King with the Gospel in his lap, and his sword in his right hand, lifted up for defence of the same: yet certain it is, that King Henry in the 34. or 35. year of his reign, not long before his death, together with the whole Court of Parliament, 
An. 34. & 35 Henri. 8. c. 1.  by statute condemned the translation of Tindal, as a crafty, false, and an untrue translation; and also commanded it to be utterly abolished, and extinguished; and forbade it to be kept or used within any of his Dominions: These things are to be seen in the statute itself yet extant. Finally, that the English Bible itself set forth under King Henry the eight was corrupt, it is confessed by D. Humphrey. And no doubt, 
Humfred. de ratione interpret. lib. 3. pag. 523.  but although many of the said corruptions be amended in the latter editions, yet the multitude of them through the whole Bible, is all most infinite. For besides those which are reprehended by M. Broughton and D. Reynolds, which (as I suppose) were none wilfully committed in prejudice of our religion, and in defence of their own against us (because they being of our preciser sort of enemies, would not as I imagine acknowledge any such errors): M. Gregory Martin a learned man of our side, hath also made a whole book concerning such corruptions as have been made in their English Bibles, of set purpose to draw the text from the true sense, to impugn us and favour their new opinions.  
I cannot stand to repeat them all, wherefore referring my reader to the said book of M. Gregory Martin, entitled a discovery of the false translations, etc. I will only note a few; yet in such order, that every man may see that this hath been done of malice, concerning every article between us in controversy. Neither do I speak of their forsaking and corrupting of the true sense of the Latin vulgar edition, but of the Hebrew and Greek text itself, which they profess to follow.  
But before I come to this matter, I must forewarn my reader that although our English sectaries have set forth divers Bibles in their vulgar tongue; yet I intent especially to speak of three of the principal: of which the first was authorized by Cranmer called Archbishop of Canterbury, and read during all King Edward's reign in their Churches, and (as it seemeth by the new printing of it in the year 1562.) during a great part also of the reign of Queen Elizabeth; The second was printed in the year 1577. and again as I think, in the year 1595. and is authorized likewise to be read in their Churches at this present. The third is that which was lately printed in the year 1600. which as I imagine is the self same with that which was printed not long before in the year 1589. and 1592. let us now come to see a few of their corruptions.   

SECTION THE FOURTH. Containing false translations against the authority of the Church, Traditions, honour of Images, Purgatory, and the honour of Saints.  
FIRST, to improve the supreme authority of the Church, they banished the word Church clean out of their Bible printed in the year 1562. and in place of it used the word congregation; but in the later editions, since that they began to have a certain form of a Church, this fault is amended.  
Secondly, to make weak the authority of Traditions, wheresoever in the Scripture speech is of evil Traditions, they translate the Greek word truly, Traditions; but when mention is of Apostolic Traditions, they cannot endure this word, but force the same Greek word to signify ordinances, instructions, preachings, or institutions: yea they translate Tradition in ill part where it is not found in the Greek. For example, the Apostle saith: Colos. 2. vers. 20. according to the Greek. Why do you yet decree? They translate: Why are you yet led with traditions? and in an other edition. 
Bible, 1600. 1595.  Why are you yet burdened with traditions?  
Thirdly, against the honour of Images, they translate the Greek word which signifieth Idolatry 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; How agreeth the Temple of God with Images, covetousness is worshipping of Images, be not worshippers of Images, etc. I add also, that sometimes when neither the word Idol nor Image is to be found in the text, they thrust it in by force, as Rom. 11. vers. 4. in steed of Baal, they translate Baal's Image: also 2. Paral. 36. ver. 8. they add these words (carved Images which were laid to their charge) to the text. But all these faults are amended in the later editions, 
Bible, 1595. Gen. 1. v. 27. Exod. 25.3. Reg. 6. etc.  and not without cause; for if every Image be an Idol, and every Idol an Image, we may say that God created man according to his Idol; we may call such Images as were used in the old law, Idols; and finally term the Image or Picture of a man the Idol of a man, which kind of speech is not tolerable.  
Fourthly, against Purgatory, Limbus Patrum, and the descent of Christ into hell, they make the Hebrew and Greek words which signify hell, signify grave: as for example, with Beza they read Act. 2. vers. 27. Thou shalt not leave my soul in the grave; 
Psal. 15. v. 10 Bible, 1600. Bible, 1595. 1600. See parks in his Apology, concerning Christ's descent into hell, & in his ans. to Limb bomast. printed, an. 1607 According to their account. Psal. 86.49. & 89  this likewise is corrected in the Bible of the year 1595. Also Gen. 37. v. 35. they make the Patriarch jacob say; I will go down into the grave to my Son mourning: whereas in like sort the Hebrew and Greek word signifieth hell; and it is manifest that he could not think it possible that he should go down into the grave to his Son, because he thought him devoured of wild beasts, not buried. The same corruption is sound in divers other places, as Psalm. 86. v. 13. where they read. 
a Bible, 1579. 1600. corrected in the Bible of the year, 1595.  Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest grave. Psal. 48. vers. 15. where they read, thou shalt deliver my soul from the power of the grave. Osee 13. vers. 14. where they read, O grave I will be thy destruction, and in sundry other places: this notwithstanding in 
b See other such corruptions as these are, recited and sharply reprehended by Carlisle a man of the English Church, in his book that Christ went not down into hell, fol. 144.  other places, as Proverb. 15. ver. 24. etc. where speech is of the hell of the damned, they translate the same word, hell.  
Fiftly, to bereave the Saints of their honour, which from mortal men is due unto them, they falsely translate the 17. verse of the 138. Psalm. For whereas we read, Thy friends, O God, are become exceeding honourable; their Princedom is exceedingly strengthened: They turn it thus, 
Bible 1595. Psal. 138.  How dear therefore are thy Counsels unto me O God; O how great is the sum of them. But the Hebrew maketh for our translation, as every man that understandeth that tongue may see, especially by the last words, which word for word are thus to be translated: How are the heads or Princedoms of them strengthened. Again, Hebr. 11. vers. 21. according to the Greek we read, by faith jacob dying blessed every one of the Sons of joseph, and adored the top of his rod: 
Bible 1600. some thing better in the Bible 1595. Luke 1. v. 28. Bible 1600. 1595.  They translate the last words thus, and leaning on the end of his staff worshipped God: In which translation they add two words to the text (leaning and God) and turn the sense upsidowne. I add also their translation of those words, Hail full of grace; for which they read: Hail thou that art freely beloved; and Hail thou that art in high favour.   

SECTION THE FIFT. Of their corruptions against inherent justice, justification by good works, Merit of good works, and keeping the Commandments, and in defence of their special Faith, vain Security, etc. and against free-will, and Merits.  
TO prove their imputative justice, against inherent justice, first whereas the Apostle saith, Rom. 5. vers. 18. Therefore as the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation, so also by the justice of one unto all men to justification of life: 
Bible 1595. worse in the Bible 1600.  they read thus; Likewise then as by the sin of one, sin came on all men to condemnation: even so by the righteousness of one, good came upon all men to the righteousness of life. In which their translation, they add four words to the text of the Apostle, to make him seem to say, that all men be truly sinners; and none truly just, but so reputed. Ephes. 1. vers. 6. for gratified, they read; 
Bible 1600.  made accepted. Luke 1. vers. 28. for full of grace, they translate, freely beloved and in high favour. Dan. 6. vers. 22. whereas Daniel according to the Chaldee, Greek, and Latin said; justice was found in me: they make him say, 
Bible 1600. 1595.  my justice (or unguiltiness according to an other translation) was found out before him: The like corruption may be seen, 2. Cor. 5. vers. 21.  
To prove that good works done in state of grace, concur not to our justification, and that we reap no grace by observing of the Commandments: whereas the Scripture to signify the Commandments of God, useth in divers places the word justifications, and justices; because the keeping of the Commandments is justification, and justice, and the Greek word is always correspondent to the same: they nevertheless in all such places, suppress the very name of justification, and use the words ordinances or statutes, 
Bible 1595. 1600.  as may be seen in the Psalm. 118. in divers verses: Luke 1. vers. 6. Rom. 2. vers. 26. etc. To this end also they avoid in their translations the word just: and call a just man a righteous man. Math. 1. v. 19 
Bible 1577. 1595. corrected in the text of the Bible 1600.  Luke 1. vers. 6. except the word just be joined with faith, for then, they translate the same word, just: as Rom. 1. vers. 17.  
For proof of their special faith, vain security, and only faith they wrist first the words of S. Paul, Hebr. 10. vers. 22. for whereas he saith: Let us approach with a true heart in fullness of faith: they make him say; Let us draw near with a true heart in assurance of faith. Rom. 
Bible 1595. 1600.  8. ver. 38. the same Apostle saith according to the Greek. I am probably persuaded: They in their Bible of the year 1595. read; I am sure, but this is corrected in the Bible of they year 1600. Further, in divers places of the Gospel where our Saviour said. Thy faith hath healed thee, or made thee whole (to wit of thy corporal infirmity) they translate; Thy faith hath saved thee; as Mark 10. vers. 52. 
Bible 1595.  Luke 18. v. 42. etc. The like corruptions unto these may be seen, Sapient. 3. vers. 14. Eccles. 5. vers. 5. Ephes. 3. vers. 12.  
To impugn free-will, whereas Christ speaking of continency or chastity, saith; Math. 19 vers. 11. Not all take this word: 
Bible 1595. 1600.  they translate, All men cannot receive this saying. God said unto Cain, Gen. 4. vers. 7. that he should receive according as he did well or evil, because sin was subject unto him, and he had the rule and dominion thereof: They make him say thus. 
1600.  If thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou dost not well, sin lieth at the door and also unto thee his desire shall be subject, and thou shalt rule over him. In which translation they put the relative in the masculine gender, reading (his and him) as though these last words were referred to Abel: whereas they should be referred to sin, and most absurdly and contrary to S. Augustine lib. 15. de civitate. cap. 7. wherefore in the Bible 1595. they translate it otherwise. The Apostle saith, Rom. 5. vers. 
Bible 1600. amended in the Bible 1595.  6. Christ when we were yet weak died for us: They read, when we were of no strength: again, whereas the same Apostle, 1. Cor. 15. vers. 10. useth these words: I have laboured more abundantly than all they: yet not I but the grace of God with me, that is to say, which laboureth with me: 
Bible 1595.  they turn the last part of this sentence thus; Yet not I but the grace of God which is with me. Finally, S. john in his first Epistle cap. 3. vers. 3. telleth us, that the Commandments are not heavy: they say, 
Bible 1595.  not grievous, but falsely; because through patience they may not be grievous, although heavy and impossible.  
Against merits or meritorious works and their reward, they also corrupt divers places: as Rom. 8. vers. 18. where the Apostle affirmeth, that the passions of this time are not condign, equal, correspondant, or comparable to the glory to come, 
Bible 1595.  as Beza himself translateth: they make him affirm, that they are not worthy. The same Apostle saith, Hebr. 10. vers. 29. How much more doth he deserve worse punishment, etc. 
Bible 1562. corrected in the Bible 1595. 1600.  They leave out the word deserve, and read, how much sorer shall he be punished. Sometimes they will have for their advantage the self same Greek word signify worthy, as Math. 3. vers. 11. cap. 8. vers. 8. etc. other times 
a Bible 1600. See Beza in his new Testament of the year 1556. Annot. in Math. 3.  meet, as Colos. 1. vers. 12. 1. Cor. 15. vers. 9 moreover in the Psalm. 118. vers. 112. King David saith. I have inclined my heart to keep thy justifications always for reward. They forsaking the scutcheon Interpreters in Greek, and S. Hierome, and all the Latin Fathers, contrarying also their 
b Bible 1600. Psal. 19 Bible 1595. Psal. 119.  own translation of the 18. Psalm. vers. 11. or 12. translate that verse thus. I have applied my heart to fulfil thy statutes always even to the end: The like corruptions may be seen. 2. Cor. 4. vers. 17. Wisdom. 3. vers. 5.   

SECTION THE sixth. Of their false translations against the Real presence, Priesthood, election of Bishops, single life of Priests, Penance, and satisfaction for Sin; the Sacrament of Matrimony, and some other points.  
BUT have they nothing to pervert or corrupt, in defence of their Sacramentary Heresy against the Real presence? They have verily: S. Mathewe telleth us according to the Greek text, 
Math. 26, 26  that our Saviour instituting the blessed Sacrament took bread, and blessed and broke it, etc. and taking the Chalice gave thanks, etc. They use not the word (blessed) but in place of it read in the first place also (gave thanks,) to derogate from the virtue of our saviours benediction. But if every blessing were a thanksgiving we might read, Genes. 1. and 9 that God gave thanks to Adam, Eve, 
Bible 1595.  and No, and his children; for there it is said that he blessed them. What sense also should we make of those words of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 10. vers. 16. The Chalice of benediction which we do bless? Again, Act. 3. vers. 21. we read according to the Greek, whom heaven truly must receive until the restitution of all things: They translate; whom heaven must contain until the times that all things be restored; 
Bible 1600. Whitaker ad rat. Campian. pag. 43. falsely englished by Stock, pa. 63. corrected in the Bible 1595.  and Beza, and Whitaker worse, who must be contained in heaven. By which translation they intent to prove, that Christ is always in heaven, and never forsaketh the right hand of his Father; of which they infer, that he is not really in the Eucharist: but although we grant the first, yet we deny the sequel; because Christ can be in more places than one at once. Further, 1. Cor. 9 vers. 13. and cap. 10. vers. 13. contrary to the Greek, in place of Altar, they use the word Temple. 
* Bible 1562. Bible 1562. 1577.  Contrariwise, to derogate from the dignity of Altars, Dan. 14. vers. 13.18. & 21. they call the Idol Bel his table, the Altar of Bel: but now all Altars in their Churches be down, these faults be some thing or altogether 
a Bible 1595. 1600.  amended. Finally, Proverb. 9 vers. 2. & 5. against the mingling of Wine and Water in the Chalice, they translate, 
b Bible 1595. 1600.  powered out, and some times drawn in steed of mingled.  
For the overthrow of Priesthood, and to prove that there be no Priests of the new Testament: when mention is of the Priests of the jews, or Gentiles, 
See Acts. 14. v. 23. Act. 16. & 20. Tit. 1. 1. Timot. 4. james 5. 1. Peter 5.  (especially when they are blamed) they use the word Preiest; but when speech is of the Priests of the Church of Christ through the whole Bible, they use not the word Priest, but in place of it read Elder. They say that the Greek word Presbyter signifieth an Elder and not a Priest. I answer, that although this word if we run to the first signification of it, signifieth an Elder, (wherefore the Latin Interpreter of our vulgar edition translateth it sometimes senior or Ancient) yet by Ecclesiastical use, 
See the first Counc. of Nice Bilson in his treatise of the perpetual government of Christ's Church, cap. 11. pag. 181.  and Apostolic authority, as appeareth in all the ancient Father's works, ever since the beginning of Christ's Church it hath been appropriated to signify a Priest: no less than Episcopus to signify a Bishop, and Diaconus a Deacon. And hence almost in all languages the word which signifieth a Priest, is derived from the Greek word Presbyter. Neither did the first founders of the Church without cause, appropriate this word to signify men of this function: for it was done to distinguish the Priests of the new law, from those of the old, which long after the Ascension of Christ kept their offices; and perhaps also to make a difference between them, and the Priests of the Gentiles, with whom the world was replenished.  
But concerning this matter I cannot but note the folly and oversight of our adversaries, who term their Elders, Ministers, and their Deacons, Deacons; whereas the Greek word Deacon signifieth properly a Minister, wherefore a Minister, and a Deacon, in very truth are all one: and they according to their proceed should have termed their Ministers, not Ministers but Elders, and their Deacons, Ministers.  
Besides this sometimes they translate, and read Minister, whereas according to the Greek they should read Priests: as Ecclesiast. 7. 
Bibl. 1595.  vers. 29. whereas they should read Priests, they read, Honour his Ministers, contrary to themselves in the 31. verse following.  

Bibl. 1562.  To the same end they call S. Peter and S. john, lay-men, whereas the Scripture calleth them only unlearned or unlitterated, Act. 4. vers. 13. but this is amended in the edition of the year 1595. and 1600. For their Puritan election of Ministers, whereas Act. 1. vers. 26. 
Bibl. 1600. & in some bibles before amended in the bible 1595. Bible 1595. Bibl. 1592. Amended in the text of the bible 1595.  we read according to the Greek, that S. Mathias was numbered with the eleven Apostles: they translate, that he was By common consent counted with the eleven Apostles; the like corruption is Act. 14. vers. 23.  
Moreover, against the grace which is given by the sacrament of order, 1. Timoth. 4. vers. 14. and 2. Tim. 1. vers. 6. In steed of grace, they read gift. To prove that Priests may lawfully marry, whereas the Apostle saith, 1. Corinth. 9 vers. 5. That he might have led about a woman a sister: they read a wife, being a sister. And this notwithstanding, 1. Corinth. 7. vers. 1. where the Apostle useth the self same Greek word, they read not: It is good for a man not to touch a wife: but, it is good for a man not to touch a woman, 
See Beza annot. in Mat. 5. vers. 28. Bible 1595. 1600. Philip. 4. v. 3. Bible 1577. 1600. 1595.  because otherwise it would make against their doctrine of marriage. To this purpose also they make S. Paul say as to his wife: I beseech thee also faithful good fellow: whereas his words signify a sincere companion, and so Caluin and Beza translate them.  
Further, to the same end is that their translation of the 4. verse of the 13. chapter to the Hebrews, Wedlock is honourable among all men; or as they have in another edition something amended the matter: Marriage is honourable in al. For in the first translation they added two words to the sentence, is, and men; and in the last the the word, is; and so they turn clean the sense of the Apostle, which rather is, Let marriage be honourable in all; to wit, in those that are married. So they themselves translate the next verse; 
Bible 1600.  Let your conversation etc. the like corruption may be seen, Mat. 16. v. 11.  
The Priest's lips (saith Malachias the Prophet) shall keep knowledge etc. they read, should keep knowledge. S. Paul affirmeth, 
Malach. 2. v. 7. Bibl. 1592. corrected in the bibl. of the year 1595. Bibl. 1595. and 1600. Bibl. 1600. Bibl. 1595.  that he released the penance of the incestuous Corinthian in the person of Christ; that is, as the Vicar of Christ: They translate, In the sight of Christ, and put in the margin this exposition, That is truly and from mine heart even as in the presence of Christ. Contrary to the Greek, and also to the Apostle himself, who (1. Corint. 5. vers. 4.) excommunicated the said person as he saith, In the name and with the virtue or power (as they translate) of our Lord jesus Christ. See also Mich. 5. vers. 3.  
Because their liberty cannot endure any painful satisfaction for sin, for; Do penance, and fruits worthy of penance: They translate; 
Mat. 3, 2.8. Luke 3. v. 8. Act. 17, 30. Apoc. 2, 21. and 22. cap. 16, 9 & 11  Repent, and fruits worthy of amendment of life and repentance. They say that the Greek word signifieth as they translate: But the circumstance of the text, and all the Greek and Latin Fathers tell us the contrary. Neither can they in some places translate the Greek word otherwise then we do, as Math. 11. vers. 21. Luk 10. vers. 13. 2. Corint. 7. vers. 9 where it must needs signify sorrowful, painful, and satisfactory repentance. I grant that the Greek word being spoken of God and the damned, must be otherwise translated; but this is little to the purpose: for neither in such places can it be translated as our adversaries translate it in the places alleged; for God and the damned amend not their lives. Dan. 10. vers. 12. for, Afflict thyself, contrary to the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, they read, 
Bible 1600.  Humble thyself. 
Bible 1595.  Esdras 9 vers. 5. for, affliction: they read, heaviness. Dan. 4. in like sort contrary to all the said texts in steed of redeem thy sins with alms: 
Bible 1595. 1600. jam. 5. v. 14.  they read; Break off thy sins with righteousness. See another corruption, Tit. 3. vers. 8. against confession, whereas S. james saith: Is a man sick among you, let him bring in the Priests of the Church etc. and after, vers. 16. Confess therefore your sins one to another: 
Bible 1595.  they translate thus: Is any diseased among you? let him call for the Elders of the Church etc. and vers. 16. knowledge your faults one to another.  
And although they seem to esteem so highly of marriage, yet they commonly deny it to be a sacrament, wherefore, whereas the Apostle speaking of matrimony saith; 
Ephes. 5, 32. Bible 1595.  This is a great sacrament, or mystery: they translate, This is a great secret.  
In defence of the Prince's supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical, in king Henry the eight, and king Edward the sixth his days, they read 1. 
Bible 1539. 1562.  Peter 2. vers. 13. Submit yourselves to all manner of ordinance of men; whether tt be to the King as the chief head, etc. whereas the Apostle saith: Be subject therefore to every human creature for God, whether it be to the king as excelling, 
Bible 1595. 1600.  etc. But now the last corruption contained in these words, as the chief head, is corrected, the first remaineth still.  

Hebr. 5. v. 7. Bible 1595. 1600.  Another corruption is in their translation of these words of the Apostle; He was heard for his reverence, which with Caluin they turn thus: He was heard in that which he feared.  
Finally, to prove that a man may absolutely find out the true sense of Scripture, by conferring only one place with another; Act. 9 
Bible 1577. 1595.  v. 22. they read, Saul confounded the jews, proving by conferring one Scripture with another that this is very Christ: whereas the Greek words only tell us, that he affirmed that this is Christ. But this is amended in the later Bibles.  
Unto all these corruptions I add, that our English Sectaries in their translations add words to the text of Scripture, which they print not seldom in a smaller letter, then that which containeth the text itself. And who can say that the said text with such additions is the true word of God? seeing that such additions are made by man, without any warrant from God himself.   

SECTION THE seventh. That the Professors of the new religion in corrupting the Scriptures, follow the steps of the ancient Heretics, and what followeth of this discourse.  
I HAVE now discovered divers corrupt and false translations of our English Bibles, yet not all, but certain of the principal. I have been the longer, because the Sectaries of our days (as I have before showed) make the holy Scripture the only Canon and rule of their faith: and these Bibles (as every man knoweth) are accounted the only ground of our English adversaries new belief and religion; for unto them as to a touchstone they always appeal: wherefore their Bibles especially were to be impugned.  
They boast truly very much of the word of God, but as we see they have not the word of God among them, but are corrupters and falsifiers of the same; and in stead of it possess a devise of their own heads. In this also as in other things, they follow well the steps of all Heretics their forefathers, who to colour their horrible blasphemies and detestable heresies, have always used the like deceits. Hence Tertullian fourteen hundred years since, used this discourse of the Heretics of his days. 
Tertul. lib. de prescript. ca 18. see him also, cap. 15. & 38.  Encountering with such by Scriptures availeth nothing, but to overturn a man's stomach or his brain. This heresy receiveth not certain Scriptures: and if it do receive some, yet by adding and taking away, it perverteth the same to serve her purpose; and if it receive any, it doth not receive them wholly: and if it doth exhibit them after a sort wholly, nevertheless by devising divers expositions it turneth them clean an other way. 
Origen in c. 2 add Roman. Cypr. de unit. Eccl. Numb. 7. Ambros. lib. 2. de Spiritu sancto, ca 11.  Hence also Origen who flourished soon after, called Heretics, thieves, and adulterers of the Scriptures: S. Cyprian termeth them corrupters of the Gospel, false interpreters. artificers, and craft-masters in corrupting the truth. S. Ambrose noteth, that the Macedonians to overthrow the divinity of the holy Ghost, blotted out of the Gospel those words: 
* joh. 4. v. 24. Tertul. contra Marcionem, lib. 1. in princip. & lib. de prescript.  God is a spirit. Martion an ancient Heretic, is reprehended for the same fault by Tertullian, ᵃ and is called Must Ponticus the mouse of Pontus, because with his corruptions to serve his own turn, he did as it were gnaw certain places of Scripture. The Arians against the eternal generation of Christ, whereas the Scripture saith: The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways; 
Hierom. in c. 26. Isaiae.  read as S. Hierome recordeth: The Lord created me. The like corruptions 
* August. lib. 5. cont. julianum, cap. 2.  S. Augustine noteth of the Pelagians, and more such complaints may be seen in 
a Epist. 89. & lib. de peccatorum meritis, cap. 11.  Origenes epist. ad Alexandrinos'; Eusebius in Apologia sub nomine Pamphili; Ruffinus epist. ad Macarium; Euagrius lib. 3. cap. 31. Cassiodorus de divinis lect. cap. 8. Finally, 
b Sutcl. in his answ. to kellison's Survey ch. 4. pag. 32.  Sutcliffe telleth us, that Heretics to defend their perverse and erroneous doctrine, are wont to detruncate, and by false expositions, to pervert holy Scriptures. And no marvel that Heretics have always run this course, for how can falsehood being of no force or strength, be defended and maintained but by cunning devices, deceits, and lies? truth being of itself invincible needeth no such deceitful help. This moved S. Paul of himself and other preachers of truth, to use these words: 
c 2. Cor. 2, 17.  We are not as very many adultering the word of God, but of sincerity: and as of God, before God we speak. And again: We renounce the secret things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness not adultering the word of God: contrary to this are all the proceed of the patrons of falsehood.  
But let us now gather two brief conclusions out of the long discourse of this Chapter: Of which the first shall be, that the controversy between us and our adversaries is not touching the authority of the Scriptures themselves, but touching the translation and interpretation of the same. This is manifest, because we do not reject the places of Scripture by them corrupted and falsified, as they are in the Hebrew, Greek, or vulgar Latin: but we argue their translation and interpretation of the said places of corruption and falsehood; and consequently, censure it to be the word of man, not the word of God.  
Secondly I infer, that our adversaries translated Bibles contain not the true word of God: and consequently, that although we should grant unto them, that the bare letter of Scripture is a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion; yet that they building upon their said Bibles, have not this ground or foundation.    

Chapter 7. That they build not upon the letter of holy Scripture, contained (as they say) in their own Bibles.  

SECTION THE FIRST. In which this is proved; first, because the propositions (which they term of their faith) are not in express terms contained in the Scripture.  
LET us go on a little further and prove, that although we should also yield to our adversaries, that the letter of holy Scripture is a sufficient ground of Christian religion, and that their Bible's truly contain the said letter (both which propositions I have already proved to be most false:) yet, that they build not upon that letter which is contained in their own Bibles.  
And first let us declare, that the propositions and articles of their belief in which they descent from us, are not in express terms contained in their said letter; yea, that their said letter maketh more for our doctrine, then for theirs: and out of this gather, that they build upon their own private deductions out of the letter, not upon the letter itself which maketh more for us then for them.  
Where find they then in their word of God (as they term it) this proposition, which is (as they say) the very ground of their religion, to wit; a man is justified by faith only, except it be in Luther's Bible who cogged into the text the word (only) as I have showed before? We find this in their common books: 
Rom. 8. v. 24. jam. 2. v. 24. Bible 1592.  We are saved by hope; and that of works or deeds a man is justified; and not of faith only. Where is it found, that the faith which worketh our justification is that by which a man without all doubt, believeth himself through the passion of Christ to be just, and in state of salvation? we find in divers places (as I have proved above) that the faith which worketh this effect, is that by which we believe the articles of our Creed, and the mysteries of Christian religion. Where read they, that their faith ought to make them secure of their salvation? we read in their own books, 
Phil. 3. v. 12. Bible 1595.  that we ought to work out our salvation with fear and trembling: 
1. Cor. 10, 12.  and that he that thinketh himself to stand, must take heed lest he fall. Where doth the Scripture tell us, that the Commandments of God are impossible? Our Saviour telleth us, 
Math. 11, 30. 1. joh. 5. v. 3.  that his yoke is easy and his burden light; and S. john, that his commandments are not grievous (they should say not heavy.) Where is it affirmed in their word of God, that the Eucharist is only a figure of the body of Christ? 
Math. 26. v. 26.28. etc.  we find, that it is his body and blood. Where are we taught that we receive the body and blood of Christ only spiritually? Christ hath taught us, that his flesh is meat indeed, 
john 6. v. 55. john 20. v. 23  and his blood is drink indeed. Where find they that Priests cannot forgive sins? we find, that whose sins soever they remit, they are remitted unto them. Where read they, that good works done in the state of grace are not meritorious? we read, 
Math. 16, 27 Math. 25, 34  that Christ on the latter day shall reward every man according to his works, and that then he will bestow upon the elect the Kingdom of heaven, for feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, and doing other works of mercy. Where is it affirmed, that infants borne of Christian parents may be saved without Baptism? we can show that Christ himself hath pronounced this sentence: 
john 3. ver. 5.  except a man be borne of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven. How can they prove that the usual form of Baptism is not necessary, 
Luther in Sinops. col. act. 7 De captivit Babylon, c. de bapt. Zwing. l. de vera & falsa relig. ca de bapt. Brent. in catechiss. c. de bapt.  as Luther, Zwinglius, and Brentius imagine? Our Saviour as we are taught by S. Mathewe, commanded his Apostles to 
a Mat. 28, 19  baptise all nations; In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. Where is it said that Marriage is better than Virginity? we read, that 
b 1. Cor. 7, 38  he that giveth his daughter in marriage doth well, but he that giveth her not in marriage doth better. Where are they taught that we ought not to worship Saints and Angels, nor to pray unto them? The Scripture telleth us, that 
c josuae 5, 14.  joshua, and 
d Apocal. 19, 10. c. 22, v. 8.  S. john Evangelist adored Angels: Yea, the last of these two did this honour to an Angel, although forbidden before to do it by an Angel, which is a manifest proof that such reverence was due unto the Angel, although he refused it from S. john, whom he thought equal to himself. It is also recorded in the Scripture, that the 
e Gen. 48, 16.  Patriarch jacob prayed unto an Angel. Where are we forbidden to have Images in our Churches or to do them any reverence? We find that two Images of Cherubins; 
f Exo. 25, 18. etc. c. 37, v. 7.  by God's Commandment were placed near the ark in the chiefest place of the tabernacle. That Solomon in like sort placed two Cherubins in the most sacred part of the temple; 
3. or 1. of Kings, cap. 6, 23. Ib. v. 29. Act. 5. v. 13.  and that he made pictures of Cherubins (so they read in the Bible of the year 1595.) in the wales of the house (or temple) round about; and that the shadow of S. Peter (which was after a sort his picture) cured the sick. We also find that the jews 
a Psal. 98. or 99 v. 5 psal. 131. or 132, 7  adored the footstool of God, that is to say; the ark of the old Testament: and that Moses by the 
b Exod. 3, 5.  commandment of God, & joshua of an 
c josuae 5, 15.  Angel, put off their shoes because the ground on which they stood through the presence of God and an Angel, was holy; and consequently they did reverence to the said ground. Where is honour denied to Saints relics? It it affirmed in holy writ, 
4. or 2. Reg. cap. 13. v. 21. Math. 9, 20. Act. 19 v. 12  that a dead man was raised to life by touching the dead bones of Elizeus the Prophet, that a woman was cured of an issue of blood by touching the hem of of our saviours garment; and that napkins and handkerchefs (or 
d Bible 1595  partlets as they translate) which had touched S. Paul's body, wrought miracles. Finally, where are they taught that temporal Prince's laws bind no man's conscience, 
Luther in 1. Pet. c. 2. Caluin l. 1. Instit c. 19 §. 16. li. 4. c. 10. §. 15.  as it is averred by Luther and Caluin? We learn of S. Paul that 
e Rom. 13, 5. Bible 1595.  we ought to be subject unto such Magistrates; not only for fear of punishment, but also because of conscience.  
I could add the like discourse concerning other matters in controversy between us, and the new Sectaries; but I should be over tedious: and beside I doubt not, but that which hath been already said in this Section, is fully sufficient to persuade every indifferent man that the articles which our adversaries term of their belief, are not in express terms to be found in the whole Bible; yea, that the text of their own Bibles maketh more for us than it doth for them. Out of which I may well infer, that they build not upon the letter contained in their own books, but upon their own collections, which every private man maketh according to his own fancy.   

SECTION THE SECOND. The same argument is confirmed by the testimony of some Protestants, concerning the true sense of some words of Scripture, alleged for our Catholic doctrine touching justification in the Section before.  
NOTWITHSTANDING the words of Scripture cited for us Catholics are most plain, yet it may be some follower of the new religion will imagine, that we wrist them to a sense improper, and in the primitive ages of the Church unheard off; contrariwise, that those of his belief deliver the true, literal and ancient exposition of the same. Now therefore to make the force of the reason brought more strong, I add; that I could easily prove even by the testimonies of our adversaries themselves, that the letter of holy Scripture in these controversies mentioned and others, according to the proper sense thereof, and the tradition and practice of all former Christians, is on our side, not on theirs. But if I should here declare this to be true in every particular point, I should be over long: wherefore I will exemplify only in one or two of the principal, by which my reader may easily perceive, 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 above that of justification by only faith? Luther himself writeth thus: Whoso ever falleth from the article of justification (by faith only) becometh ignorant of God and is an Idolater; and therefore, it is all one whether he return to the law (of the jews) or worshipping of Idols. All is one, whether he be a Monk, a Turk, a jew, or an Anabaptist. For this article being once taken away, there remaineth nothing but mere error, hipochrisie, impiety, idolatry; although in show there appear excellent truth, 
Caluin in Epist. ad Sadoletum, p. 176.  worship of God, holiness, etc. thus Luther. Caluin also telleth us, that the knowledge of justification by faith being taken away, both the glory of Christ was extinguished, and religion abolished, and the Church destroyed, and the hope of salvation altogether overthrown. Our countryman M. Perkins in like sort affirmeth, 
Per. in his reformed Catholic touching justification of a sinner, pag. 65. 66,  that we by our doctrine touching justification, do ra●●e the very foundation; and that the disagreement between us and the Protestants concerning this matter (if there were no more points of difference) alone, were sufficient to keep us from uniting our religions: this is his opinion. Wherefore, this being an article of Christian belief in these men's conceits so principal, let us behold whether the letter of holy Scripture according to the judgement of Protestants, do not plainly deliver our doctrine concerning it, and impugn theirs.  
The chiefest place which I have alleged in the section next before touching this matter, is that sentence of S. james the Apostle: Of works or deeds a man is justified, and not of faith only. 
jam. 2. v. 24. Bible, 1592.  And how do all the Lutherans, yea, some Sacramentaries understand these words? Truly they openly and boldly confess, that they war against justification by only faith, and approve justification by works; and they assign this as one reason, why this epistle is to be rejected out of the Canon. Luther the captain of them all writing upon the 22. chapter of Genesis hath these words: 
See him also praefat. in nowm Testam. edit. 1. Genensis & in captivitat. Babilo. ca de Extrema Vnct. & in 1. Pet. c. 1. fol 439. 440. edit. Wittenb.  Abraham was just by faith before he is known such an one by God: therefore james doth naughtily conclude, that now at the length he is justified, after this obedience: for by works as by fruits faith and justice is known. But it followeth not, ut jacobus delirat, as james dotingly affirmeth, therefore the fruits do iustifiy: thus there. And in another place, 
* Luth. in colloquijs convivalibus latin. to. 2. de libris novi Testam. Part. 2 chap. 6. sect. 2.  Many (saith he) have taken great pains in the epistle of james, to make it accord with Paul, as Philppe endeavoureth in his Apology; but not with good success, for they are contrary; faith doth justify, faith doth not justify. Lo, Luther expressly telleth us, that S. james avoucheth faith not to justify. 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 justify, nor the other, that faith alone doth justify as he supposeth: But out of their discourses it may be gathered, that both faith and works concur to justification, which is our Catholic doctrine. Of the place of S. Paul unto which Luther alludeth, I have said something before: & therefore no more of it at this present shallbe necessary. The opinion of 
a Pomeran. in c. 8. add Roman.  Pomerane a Lutheran of great estimation, is conformable to that of Luther, for thus he pronounceth his censure: Faith was reputed to Abraham for justice: By this place thou mayest note the error of the epistle of james, 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 numbered among other books which set forth the justice of only faith: thus Pomerane. I will not stand to free S. james from his wicked accusations, which is very well performed by divers Catholic authors. 
Hil in his defence of the article, Christ descended into hell, fol. 23. Centur. 1. lib. 2. c. 4. col. 54. Centur. 2. ca 4. col. 71.  But unto this Lutheran I will join the Magdeburgians his brethren (whose writings an English Protestant judgeth to be worthy of eternal memory) who say, that the epistle of S. james much swerveth from the analogy of the Apostolical doctrine, whereas it ascribeth justification not only to faith, but to works; and calleth the law, a law of liberty. Again, Against Paul against all Scriptures, the epistle of james attributeth justice to works, and perverteth as it were of set purpose, that which Paul disputeth, Rom. 4. out of Genesis 15. Abraham was justified by only faith without works, and affirmeth that Abraham obtained justice by works: hitherto are their words. With these consenteth Vitus Theodorus an other of that company, and a preacher of Norinberge; who yieldeth this reason wherefore he excluded this epistle from the Canon of holy Scripture. The epistle of james and the Apocalypse of john (saith he) we have of set purpose left out, because the epistle of james is not only in certain places reprovable, where he overmuch advanceth works against faith, but also his doctrine throughout is patched together of divers pieces, whereof no one agreeth with an other: this is the general opinion of the Lutherans. Among the Sacramentaries, 
Wolfangus Musculus in locis come: cap de justificat. num 5. p. 271  Wolfangus Musculus a Zwinglian having reprehended S. james for alleging the example of Abraham (as he saith) nothing to the purpose, and for not distinguishing (if we believe this doctor) the true and properly Christian faith, from that which is common to jews and Christians, Turks and Devils: He addeth, that the said james setteth down his sentence much different from the Apostolical doctrine, whereby concluding he saith; you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith only etc. I shall recite his words more at large in the next chapter. And what greater proof than the assertion of so many of his learned Masters, can a reasonable man of the new religion require? Behold both learned Lutherans with their first beginner Luther, and a principal sacramentary confess, that we follow the true and literal sense of S. james words. It may be replied first, that these Sectaries reject this epistle out of the Canon of holy Scripture. I confess it is so, but this notwithstanding the Church of England with Caluin and the Caluinists and most of the Zwinglians, admit it as Canonical; and therefore according to the doctrine of the followers of the new religion, we may very well frame this argument: The Epistle of S. james is Canonical Scripture; but the Epistle of S. james approveth justification by good works, and saith it is not wrought by faith only; therefore the Canonical Scripture approveth justification by good works, and saith it is not wrought by faith only. The first proposition is affirmed true as is afore said, by the Church of England, by Caluin and all his Caluinists and by most of the Zwinglians; the second by all the Lutherans: of which the conclusion necessarily followeth, and consequently our doctrine touching justification, according to the testimony of our adversaries, is built upon the letter of holy Scripture. Which prerogative if it be truly yielded unto us, it must needs be denied unto them; for the Scriptures teach not contraries, and it is in no place opposite to itself.  
Secondly, it may be replied and said, that the Lutherans do not well understand and apprehend S. james his meaning. This is likewise easily refelled; for what reason hath any indifferent man, to prefer the Sacramentaries judgement, before that of the Lutherans. Do not these understand the Scriptures as well as they? what privilege or warrant of not erring have the Sacramentaries above the Lutherans? In learning without all doubt, and other gifts necessary for attaining the true sense of Scripture, these were not inferior to them; yea, Luther as I have related in my Preface, is extraordinarily commended even by those Sacramentaries, who otherwise expound S. james than he doth. Their enmity and hatred against us were likewise equal, wherefore it is not like, if with any probable gloss they could have drawn this Apostles sentences to an other meaning, that they would have bereaved themselves of such a monument of antiquity, and have confessed it to make against themselves: such a monument, I say, which their brethren affirm to be Canonical Scripture, and they themselves cannot deny to have been highly esteemed by all their Christian predecessors; nay by most, and those of greatest learning and authority, to have been placed in the sacred Canon of divine books. Finally, 
Field book 1. chap. 18. pag. 35. 36.  Field seemeth to confess, that S. Paul sometimes by works of the law, understandeth works of the law of Moses: for he telleth us, that this Apostle pronounceth that the Galathians were bewitched; 
Galat. 3. & 5.  and that, if they still persisted to join circumcision and the works of the law with Christ, they were fallen from grace, etc. Now if this be so, it may also be, that in the place, which the Lutherans think opposite to that of S: james, by works of the law he understandeth works of the law of Moses: which if it be admitted as true, the sentences of these blessed Apostles may easily be reconciled; although S. Paul's words admit also other very good expositions, 
Chap. 6. Sect. 2. Field book 3 c. 22. p. 118.  as I have before declared. The same Field in like manner affirmeth, that when we are justified God requireth of us a new obedience, judgeth us according to it, and crowneth us for it; and that in this sort it is, that he will judge us in the last day according to our works. By which his assertion he plainly granteth, that for good works men shall be crowned in heaven, and consequently that good works done after justification, are meritorious of eternal glory in the next world: and why not then also of the increase of grace in this life, which is all that by us is avouched? 
Ibid. chap. 44 pag. 179.  Lastly he saith, that justification implieth in itself Faith, Hope, and Love; which proposition I see not how he can verify, if according to the Scriptures faith only doth justify. And thus much out of our adversaries touching the proof of justification by works, and not by faith only, out of the word of God.  
Neither have these Protestants only thus understood the holy Scriptures, but also as I have affirmed in the beginning of this Section, the ancient Fathers. And this I will also prove, by the like testimonies and confession of our adversaries. The Magdeburgians or Century writers are much commended by all sorts of followers of the new religion, for their diligence used and pains taken, both in perusing and censuring all Counsels and old Authors, and also in penning of their Ecclesiastical history, especially of the primitive Church: Let these men therefore declare and tell us, what the ancient Fathers believed and taught touching justification. Verily, they so great and so principal antiquaries, being themselves of a contrary belief affirm that the said Fathers have erred in this article by ascribing justification to good works, and denying it to only faith. For of the second age after Christ thus they write: The doctrine of justification was delivered more negligently and obscurely, 
Centur. 2. ca 4. col. 60. 61.  by the Doctors of this age. Again; This article the highest and chiefest of all, by little and by little through the craft of the Devil, began to be obscured. Further, It appeareth (say they) out of the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus, that in his age the doctrine concerning the end of good works, began to be obscured. Finally, The times ensuing declare sufficiently, that the doctrine of faith justifying without works, began forthwith to be more and more varied and obscured. 
Centur. 3. ca 4. col. 53. 79. 80. 81.  In their history of the third age they tell us, that this article was almost altogether obscured, and that the Doctors of that time declined more from the true doctrine of Christ and the Apostles, then of the age before. Hence among others that erred in this point, they name S. Clement, Tertullian, Origen, 
Ibi. & Centur. 4. c. 4. p. 292. Centur. 5. c. 4 pag. 504. & cap. 10. Cent. 6. cap. 4 pag. 274.  S. Cyprian, S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Chrysostome, S. Cyril, Theophilus, Lactantius, Eusebius, Chromatius, Ephrem, S. Gregory Nyssene, S. Gregory Nazianzene, S. Hilary, S. Leo, Saluianus, Isichius, Prosper, Maximus, and Paulinus. Nay in their Century of the fourth age, having proved at large that neither Lactantius, Chromatius, Ephrem, Theophilus, S. Hierome, S. Gregory Nyssene, S. Gregory Nazianzene, S. Hilary, nor S. Ambrose ever acknowledged their manner of justification by faith only; they add these words: Now let the Godly reader imagine with himself, 
Centur. 4. c. 4. pag. 292.  how far this age touching this article went a stray from the doctrine of the Apostles. In their history of the fift age they have the like discourses: but among others of Prosper a famous Father of that time, thus they write: Prosper retained not a few freckles (so they term such opinions in the Fathers as the said Fathers hold with us, 
Cent. 5. c. 10. pag. 1363.  and they think erroneous) of his age; such an one is that faith only doth not justify: Hitherto the Magdeburgians. The same is confessed by their M. Luther: 
Luth. in colloquijs convivalibus, cap. de Patribus Ecclesiae.  For having pronounced his censure against divers of the Fathers in particular, of them in general he saith; See ye what darkness there is in the Father's writings concerning faith. For when that article of the justification of man is covered with darkness, it can by no means be that greater errors be avoided: Thus Luther. And because he and his brethren confirm their doctrine of sole faith by certain sentences, especially taken out of S. Paul's Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, which they wrist to an other sense, then ever was yielded by the ancient Fathers, hence he also maketh this complaint. Those Fathers truly taught very well, 
Ibid.  but they could bring forth nothing singular, when they wrote not of controversies and in confutation of others: neither are there any works extant of theirs upon the Epistle either to the Romans or to the Galatians, in which any thing pure and sincere may be found: Hitherto are Luther's words. But of S. Hierome in particular, because he cotrarieth his exposition of the said Epistles, 
Luth. tom. 5. in Epist. ad Galat. cap. 3. fol. 348. & tom. 2. de servo arbitrio, fo. 473. & in epist. ad Brentium, quae praefixa est Brentij come. in Oscam See him likewise in ca 5. ad Galat. fol. 383.  he avoucheth; that he was deceived by Origen, and that he understood nothing at all in S. Paul, but depraved the justice of only faith; and that this one error of his was so great, that it alone was sufficient to destroy the Gospel, by which if it had not been (saith Luther) through the singular grace of God, Hierome had merited rather hell than heaven: The like he hath in other places. And seeing that I am entered so far into this matter, I beseech my reader not to condemn me of being tedious and over long, if I declare unto him out of the same Luther by all probable conjectures, the fountain and offspring of this Solifidian doctrine. For what other thing was this, but the impurity of Luther's conscience, and the abomination of his sinful soul? This relation he maketh of himself and his own proceed. 
* Lut. in praefat. tom. 1.  But howsoever (saith he) I lived as a Monk irreprehensible, who felt myself to be a sinner of a most unquiet conscience before God, neither could I have confidence that he was appeased with my satisfaction, did not love, yea I hated God just and punishing sinners; and inwardly in my heart if not with a blaspheamous, truly with a very great murmuring or grudging, I repined and was displeased with God, saying: As though it were not sufficient that miserable and wretched sinners, and eternally lost by original sin, are by the law of the ten Commandments oppressed with all kind of calamity, except God did by the Gospel add grief to grief, and threaten also by the Gospel his justice and anger upon us; I was therefore mad and did rage through an angry and troubled conscience. And not long after declaring how he freed himself from this miserable estate, he addeth: Wherefore, by how much the more I hated before these words (the justice of God) with so much the greater love I extolled that sweet word unto me (concerning justification by only faith:) so this place of Paul was truly unto me Porta Paradisi, a gate to Paradise. Afterwards I read S. Augustine in his book de Spiritu & Litera, where beyond my expectation I found, that he also doth so interpret the justice of God, to be that with which he clotheth us, when he doth justify us. And although this was spoken imperfectly, and he doth not explicate all things clearly concerning imputation, yet it pleased me that he taught the justice of God to be that, by which we are justified: Hitherto are Luther's words. By which it evidently appeareth, that sweet liberty and freedom from all band of law, and fear of sin, together with the horror of his guilty conscience burdened with enormous crimes, were the chiefest reasons which moved this first beginner of the new religion, to invent and embrace the doctrine of faith only justifying; by which it is defended that through the apprehension of Christ's justice by faith, without any more a do man is freed from the imputation of all sin, made just by the imputation of Christ's justice, and secured of his eternal salvation, be his sins never so great and heinous: But of this no more.  
Of the same opinion concerning the error of the ancient Fathers, or rather their true belief condemning the Protestant false faith, is Philippe Melancthon: for he affirmeth, 
Melancthon in c. 3. 1. Cor.  that presently in the beginning of the Church, ancient writers obscured the doctrine touching the justice of faith. And although Caluin above all other Fathers 
a Caluin Instit. book 3. cap. 11. §. 15.  esteemed of S. Augustine, yet he avoucheth, that 
b Ibid. chap. 15. §. 2.  the very sentence of Augustine, or at the least his manner of speaking, is not altogether to be received: and granteth moreover, that the old writers of the Church have commonly used the word merit. Beza his scholar accuseth Origen in this point 
c Beza in Act cap. 10. v. 46.  of horrible blaspheamy. D. Humphrey saith, 
d H●fred. jesuitismi part. 2. pag. 530.  It may not be denied but that Ireneus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and others called Apostolical (in respect of the time in which they lived) have in their writings the opinions of free-will, and merit of works. The like have 
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 term S. Augustine the 
g Field book 3. chap. 42. pag. 170.  greatest of all the Fathers, and worthiest Divine the Church of God ever had since the Apostles times; yet he telleth us, that 
h Ibid. chap. 15. pag. 93.  his manner of delivering this article of justification, is not full, 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 understand nothing else thereby, but that sanctification, whereby the holy spirit of God changeth us to become new creatures; seldom mentioning the imputation of the righteousness of Christ: hitherto Field: And thus we see, that the letter of holy Scripture, not only according to the plain and open confession of our adversaries, but also according to the tradition and belief of the ancient Fathers (our said adversaries likewise being witnesses) doth teach, not with them, that faith only doth justify us by the imputation of Christ's justice, but with us, that works also concur to our justification. I could join unto this another argument, sufficient in any wise man's judgement to condemn these Sectaries doctrine of falsehood, and consequently, to prove it not to be build upon the letter of holy Scripture, (to wit) the dissension which is among them in explicating this article; but brevity causeth me to omit it. Only I wish my reader to peruse that which 
a Field of the Church book 3. chap. 44. pag. 177.  Field hath in his third book of the Church concerning this matter, and to confer it with the doctrine of Luther, 
b Caluin in his Institutions.  Caluin, 
c Perkins in his reformed Catholic pag. 48. 315.  Perkins, 
d Willet in his Synops. controvers. 19 part. 2. pag. 827. part. 4. pag. 877. 885. 887.  Willet and others. For there he shall find, that the said Field maketh that act of faith which obtaineth and worketh our justification, an act by way of petition humbly entreating for acceptation and favour, not an act in the nature of comfortable assurance, consisting in a full and assured persuasion, that through Christ's 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 alleged for the real presence.  
AN other principal article controversed between us and our adversaries, is that, touching the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist. For the affirmative part which we Catholics defend, especially against the Sacramentaries, I have alleged in the first Section of this Chapter among other, those words of our Lord; This is my body: I will therefore proceed and discourse of this sentence, as I have already done of that of S. james, touching justification by works.  
Melancthon for his learning and piety is much commended, both by 
a See Bullenger in Firmamento firmo, cap. 4. fol. 27. colloquium Altemberg. an. 1568 fol. 203.  Lutherans & Sacramentaries. Luther himself, judged his book of common places, 
b Luth. tom. 2. de servo arbitrio, fol. 424. in colloq. convivalibus, 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 have a companion in his labours, combats, and dangers in the propagation of the sincere doctrine of the Gospel. Caluin termed him 
c Caluin admonit. 3. ad Westphalun, & admonit. vlt. fol. 23.  the great ornament of the Germane Churches, and with great vehemency affirmed, that Philip Melancthon in the controversy touching the supper, could be no more plucked or divided from him then from his own proper bowels. Peter Martyr calleth him 
d Martyr in dialogo de corpore Christi in loco, fol. 107. contra Gardinerum de Eucharistia, pag. 768.  a man incomparable, and most instructed in all kind of virtue and learning; he maketh him equal in learning and piety with S. Augustine, S. Hierome, S. Leo and the ancient Fathers. Beza finally saith he was instaurator, 
Beza in Iconib. & in Creophag. pa. 80.  the repairer again of evangelical doctrine: he termeth him likewise the singular ornament of our age, and together with 
* Lauather. in histor. Sacrament. fol. 47.  Lavatherus likeneth him to the Phoenix. What then writeth this great scholar of so rare virtue touching this matter? thus he discourseth: There is no care that hath more troubled my mind, than this of the Eucharist; and not only myself have weighed what might be said on either side, but I have also sought out the judgement of the old writers touching the same. 
Melancth. li. 3. ep. Zwinglij & Oecolampadij, fol. 132.  And when I have laid all together, I find no good reason that may satisfy a conscience departing from the propriety of Christ's words; this is my body. You gather many absurdities (he debateth the matter with Oecolampadius a Sacramentary) which follow this opinion, but absurdities will not trouble him who remembreth, that we must judge of divine matters according to God's word, not according to Geomatry. And soon after; I find no reason, 
Ibid. fol. 140.  how I may departed from this opinion touching the real presence. Well it may be an other opinion more agreeable to man's reason, may please an idle mind, especially if the said opinion be furnished and commended with arguments well handled: but what shallbe come of us in tentation, when our conscience shallbe called to an account, what cause we had to dissent from the received opinion in the Church? Then these words (this is my body) will be thunderbolts: hitherto Melancthon. Luther as all the world knoweth, out of the same words gathered and defended the real presence; in so much as he condemned the Sacramentaries as Heretics for avouching the contrary: but let us rehearse some of his words. 
Luther to. 7. in defence verborum coenae, fol. 388. Ibid. fol. 390.  Whereas God's power (saith he) surpasseth all cogitation, and worketh that which is to our reason incomprehensible, and which only faith believeth; and the same God said; This is my body which shallbe delivered for you, how can I persuade my conscience, that God hath neither means nor ability to do as his words sound? Again, These good Sacramentaries by their loathing and abhorring such things, make way to the denial of Christ, and God himself, and of all articles of our faith. And truly for a great part, they have already begun to believe nothing: for they bring themselves within the compass of reason, which is the right way to damnation. And themselves know, that these Ethnical cavils, either are nothing worth against this article, or if they conclude any thing against this, they do the like against all: for the word of God is foolishness to man's reason, 1: Cor. 1. And they would never have uttered this, had they had any regard of the Scripture, and were not their hearts full of infidelity, so as their mouth speaketh out of the abundance of their heart. 
Fol. 391.  Finally he concludeth thus; If these be the grounds and reasons which should certify us of the truth, and prove our faith and confirm our conscience, (he meaneth such grounds and reasons as are brought from natural discourse and Philosophy) then truly we are in evil case. If a man had delivered me such books without title or name (as are written by the Sacramentaries,) and I knew not otherwise such learned and excellent men to have been the Authors of them, I should surely have thought that some jesting Comediant or Turkish vagabond, had made them in despite and derision of Christians. Verily I see not how they can be excused with any probable pretence, as many other Heretics have had: for it appeareth, that they play with God's word of wilfulness and malice. And I think it cannot be, that such cold toys and babblings should indeed move a Turk or jew, much less a Christian, etc. 
Centur. 4. in praefat.  This and much more hath Luther: The Magdeburgians likewise tell us, that some (and they mean the Sacramentaries) flatly by Philosophical reasons, make void and frustrate the Testament of our Lord, so as they take away the body and blood of Christ touching his presence and communication, which (presence and communication) is according to the most clear, most evident, most true, and most puissant words of Christ; and they deceive men with marvelous equivocation of speech: hitherto the century writers. Of the same opinion touching the ground of the Sacramentary doctrine, is Westphalus; for the Sacramentaries against the real presence urge this argument: 
Westphalus in Apolog. contra Caluin. c. 19 pag. 194. anno 1558.  The body of man is circumscribed in a place, therefore at one time it cannot be but in in one place, therefore not in all places where the supper is ministered, unto which Westphalus replieth thus: Is not (saith he) this Geometrical argument featched from Euclides demonstrations, the pillar and upholder of all these Sacramentaries? Doth not this uphold the building of their syllogisms, which corrupt very many places of Scripture? Most truly is verified of the Sacramentaries that memorable saying; Take from Heretics that wherein they agree with Philosophers, and they cannot stand. Take from the Sacramentaries that which they draw from Philosophy, and how small a quantity will remain of the great volumes of all the Sacramentaries? How long will it be before the doctrine of Berengarius fall to the ground? Well and truly wrote Tertullian, that Philosophers are the patriarchs of Heretics; for Philosophy brought forth all Heresies, and she begat the error of Zwinglius: Thus much out of the Lutherans in defence of the real presence against the Sacramentaries; and their works generally are full of such discourses. Hence it appeareth, that according to their judgement the belief of the real presence is built upon holy Scripture, and the denial of it upon Geometrical and Philosophical reasons.  
But find we no proofs for our Catholic exposition of the afore said words in the Sacramentaries themselves? Truly first Caluin avoucheth, that unless a man will call God a deceiver, 
Caluin. Institut. book 4. cha. 17. §. 10.  he can never be so bold as to say, that he setteth before us an empty sign: and this he is forced to affirm through the evidence of the words of Scripture. Secondly, it is the opinion of divers learned men of this sect, yea of some esteemed by them Martyrs, that our doctrine touching this point may be held without any peril of damnation, or separation from the one true spiritual body of Christ his holy Church. Of which opinion among others was William Tindal, whom Whetenhal honoureth with this title; 
* Whetenhal in his discourse of the abuses, etc. pag. 134.  William Tindal that blessed martyr of God, the first man that ever brought the Gospel of Christ into English print; and therefore (saith this Puritan) he may worthily be called our English Evangelist: yea, our book of martyrs 
a Fox p. 883. edit. 1.  calleth him the true Apostle of our latter days, and that much more justly then Popish Augustine the first Archbishop of Canterbury, is so termed by divers: Thus Whetenhal. This Tindal I say, as also Frith, Barnes, and Cranmer (of whom the said Whetenhal 
b Whetenhal ibid. p. 157.  in an other place) as is related by 
c Fox in Tind.  Fox himself, held it 
d Frith, Barnes, and Cranmer, especially pag. 500 edit. anno 1563.  a thing indifferent to believe or not believe the real presence. Of the same opinion is 
e Covel in his def. of Hooker, art. 11.  M. Covel, a man of good account among the English Protestants. 
f Dove persuasion p. 11.  Dove also writeth, that in fundamental points of doctrine, the greatest Papists in the world agree with them: And seeing that we agree not with them in this, it is manifest that in his judgement this is no fundamental point. It may likewise be well gathered out of Fields assertions 
g See Field book 3. chap. 3. and 4.  in his third book of the Church, that his sentence is conformable. But what need I rehearse particular authors? For this must of necessity be 
h See the Apology of the Church of England par. 3. pag. 100 Sutcliffe in his answer to the Ward-word, pag. 21. Fulke upon the Rheims Testam. Ephes. 4. vers. 4. etc.  granted by all the Sacramentaries, who make one Church of themselves and the Lutherans: And of this the reason is apparent, because although the Lutherans differ from us in the manner, yet with us they confess Christ to be really and corporally present in the Eucharist. Unto which if we add, that our doctrine touching the manner itself how this is done, in the Sacramentaries judgement is more tolerable than Luther's, it will follow that there can be no reason assigned, why we should receive a harder censure for our belief than they for theirs. And doth not Caluin himself aver this to be so? It must needs be granted: For certain it is, that almost all the Lutherans to defend this real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, affirm his human nature to be really present wheresoever is his Deity, 

Caluin Institut. book 4. chap. 17. § 30  
See also the preface to the harmony of confessions.   which Caluin calleth the monstrous being of Christ every where; and saith, the Papists doctrine is more tolerable or at the least more shamefast than this. Nay, all the whole company of Sacramentaries in foreign Countries, are more vehement in oppugning this, than ours: Wherefore, if the Lutherans according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries this notwithstanding, are neither excluded from heaven nor the Church, a man may likewise believe as we do and be barred from neither; and consequently it cannot be said, that our faith is opposite to the word of God. I may urge this a little further; for seeing that the Sacramentaries belief is so hardly censured both by us and the Lutherans, and the Lutheran opinion both by us and the Sacramentaries; seeing moreover, ours by the Lutherans is esteemed better than that of the Sacramentaries (as all the world knoweth, and it appeareth true by this that the Lutherans condemn it, not as heretical; yea 
* Luth. de captivit. Babylon. Iten serm. de Eucharist. & serm. de venerabili Sacramento, etc. tom. 7. Germ. fol. 20. & in Visitat. Saxonica.  Luther alloweth of it as tolerable,) and by the Sacramentaries preferred before that of the Lutherans, a man according to the rules of wisdom, is rather to think ours conformable to truth and the written word of God, then that either of the Lutherans, or Sacramentaries.  
But it may be urged against us, that divers 
a See whitaker's reprehension against Martin, p. 11.  learned Sacramentaries censure our doctrine to be of things incredible and impossible. I answer; although some of this sect be so blaspheamous against the omnipotent power of God, as so to affirm it; yet others protest, that they never doubted of God's power herein, that he is able to effect it, but they say he never did it; as may be seen in 
b jewel in his reply against Harding, art. 10. §. 9  M. jewel and others: Wherefore, according to these men our faith is of things by us in this life incomprehensible, and above the ordinary course of reason, not of things impossible. Neither is this peculiar and proper only to this mystery, but also common to other articles of our faith; as to our belief touching the most blessed Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, the resurrection of our bodies, etc. Nay, if Caluin and some of his disciples say true, this is verified even in their doctrine concerning the Eucharist. For Caluin himself discourseth thus: Although it seem incredible, 
Caluin Institut. book 4. cha. 17 §. 10.  that in so great distance of places the flesh of Christ reacheth to us, that it may be meat to us (for they hold the body and blood of our Lord to be always as far from us as is the highest heaven:) yet let us remember, how much the secret power of the Spirit surmounteth above all our senses, and how foolish a thing it is, to go about to measure his unmeasurableness by our measure. That therefore which our mind comprehendeth not, let our faith conceive etc. Again; 
Ibid. §. 24.  The doctrine itself which I have declared doth clearly enough show, that I do not measure this mystery by the proportion of man's reason, nor do make it subject to the laws of nature. He addeth, that he is more than senseless, that perceiveth not many miracles to be contained in this mystery as he delivereth it, and that nothing is more beside nature or more incredible. Finally, 
Ibid. §. 32.  now if any man (saith he) ask me of the manner (how Christ is joined to us in the supper) I will not be ashamed to confess, that it is a higher secret then that it can either be comprehended with my wit, or uttered with my words: and to speak it more plainly, I rather feel it then I can understand it. Therefore I do herein without controversy embrace the truth of God in which I may safely rest: Hitherto are Caluins words. The like hath the French Confession, 
French confession art. 36. in Harmony of confess. sect. 14. pag. 426.  in which his disciples affirm, that this mystery of our union with Christ (in the supper) is so high a thing, that it surmounteth all our senses, yea and the whole order of nature; that it being divine and heavenly, cannot be perceived nor apprehended, but by faith. Now if these things be so, who can make any great difference between Caluins' doctrine and ours in this, that his is of things credible and possible, ours of things incredible and impossible? Are not both according to his sayings, of things incomprehensible? Verily, whosoever considereth well his words, and observeth his rules, will not be very much moved with any of the Sacramentaries arguments, convincing (as they imagine) the real presence by us taught to be impossible. Thus than we see, that by the confession of our adversaries, the words of our Lord, This is my body, according to their literal and plain sense, are an evident proof of the real presence; against which their sense, no human or Philosophical reasons (as they likewise avouch) are to be admitted.  
Let us now see how our said adversaries relate, all our Predecessors especially the Christians of the first ages after Christ, to have expounded the said words. And in this point I need not be long or spend much labour, because the Lutherans have not been altogether negligent, in gathering such testimonies of antiquity against their enemies the Sacramentaries, as make for the real presence and overthrow the Sacramentary doctrine. This appeareth in divers of their 
* See the Magdeburgians in their centuries and others.  books published to the view of the whole world; in which they declare even to the eye, that all the ancient Fathers held and taught the true, real, and corporal presence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist. Nay, some of them grant certain of the Fathers to have believed transubstantiation, so the Century writers affirm 
a Centur. 5. c. 4. col. 517.  that S. Chrysostome seemeth to confirm it, and that 
b Centur. 4. c. 4. col. 294. see also ca 6. col. 480.  S. Athanasius, S. Ambrose, and S. Gregory make for it. Luther himself telleth us, that 
c Luth. tom. 7. in defence. verborum coenae, fol. 391.  this is worthy of admiration, that none of the Fathers (of whom there is an infinite number) did ever speak of the Sacrament so as do the Sacramentaries, but clean contrary. And what say the Sacramentaries? 
d Martyr in defence. ad object. Gardiner. part. 4. p. 724. See also his epist. annexed to his common places, pag. 106. to. Beza and p. 98 to Caluin.  Peter Martyr plainly refuseth to subscribe to S. Cyrils' doctrine touching this matter. Beza averreth, that 
e Beza epist. Theolog. 8. pag. 73. 74.  most of the most ancient Fathers thought it meet, to hide or keep secret the holy mysteries of the Christians (he meaneth the celebration of the Eucharist) no otherwise then the mysteries of Ceres; in so much as they admitted not the Catechumenes, that is: such as believed yet were not baptised, to behold them. And why so, if Christ be not really and corporally present in the Eucharist? Field also confesseth, that 
f Field book 3. chap. 34. pag. 149.  in the primitive Church the manner of many was to receive the Sacrament, and not to be partakers of it presently, but to carry it home with them, and to receive it privately when they were disposed; as Tertullian (saith he) and others do report. He addeth; The manner was to send it by the Deacons to them, that by sickness or other necessary impediment were forced to be absent, and to strangers. Yea for this purpose, they did in such places where they communicated not every day, reserve some part of the sanctified elements, to be sent to the sick and such as were in danger of death. 
g Pag. 150.  He denieth, that Caluin doth not any where say, that the elements consecrated and reserved for a time, in reference to an ensuing receiving of them, are not the body of Christ. This he plainly admitteth; as also that the Christians of the primitive Church, thought the sanctified elements to be Christ's body, as long as they might serve for the comfortable instruction of the faithful partaking in them. Finally he telleth us, 
Book 4. cha. 31. pag. 266.  that bread being appointed to be the matter of the Sacrament of the body of Christ, and water of Baptism, the Christians in ancient time held that bread, which had been offered and presented at the lords table (out of which, saith he, a part was consecrated for the use of the Sacrament) more holy than other bread: Hitherto Field. All which his assertions, may well be urged in proof of the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament. But whereas he seeketh to draw Caluin to his opinion, he laboureth in vain; 
Caluin Institut. book 4. ch. 17. §. 39  for Caluin expressly condemneth this reservation as unprofitable: and although he confess, that they that so do have the example of the old Church; yet he affirmeth, that in so great a matter, and in which we err not without great danger, nothing is safer than to follow the truth itself, which he imagineth to be opposite to this observation. It is also evident, that with Bucer, Melancthon, and almost all other sectaries, 
See him ibid. pag. 37.  he holdeth the Eucharist to be no permanent thing, but to be the Sacrament then only when it is received.  
More I could say of the ancient doctrine and practice of the Church, confirming our exposition of the aforesaid words of holy Scripture, but here occurreth a certain opinion of some which I think not amiss to confute; and my confutation of the same will be something long: wherefore, I will break off my former discourse, and forthwith enter upon it.  
Some sacramentary followers of the new religion imagine and think, that Caluin and his disciples deny not the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, and therefore they approach unto the Calvinian communion with great reverence, deeming themselves truly and really to receive in it, the said body and blood of our Lord: whereupon they infer, that their belief touching this point, is as conformable to the letter of holy Scripture, as ours. But alas simple souls, they are much deceived; as even Caluin himself and their learned masters confess. For although these Doctors in some places of their works, seem to acknowledge some such matter; yet in others they flatly deny it, and in plain terms declare their meaning in those other places first mentioned, to be otherwise them their words do sound. I grant their magnificent terms may easily seduce a silly soul, and I myself know some good creatures deceived; but whosoever doth read their master's books, may easily discover their falsehood: let us first behold how they plainly seem to avouch the real presence. 
Caluin Institut. book 4. ch. 17. §. 10.  Caluin writeth thus: Our souls are so fed with the flesh and blood of Christ, as bread and wine do maintain and sustain the bodily life. And do not bread and wine maintain and sustain the bodily life by true and real eating them? But he goeth on: For otherwise the proportional relation of the sign should not agree, unless our souls did find their food in Christ, which cannot be done, unless Christ do truly grow into one with us, and refresh us with the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. And soon after; Unless a man will call God a deceiver, he can never be so bold as to say, that he setteth before us an empty sign. 
§. 11.  Again; I say that in the mystery of the supper, by the signs of bread and wine, Christ is truly delivered to us, yea and his body & blood, in which he hath fulfilled all obedience for purchasing of righteousness unto us. 
§. 32.  Moreover, Christ pronounceth that his flesh is the meat of my soul, and his blood the drink; with such food I offer my soul to him to be fed. In his holy supper he commandeth me, under the signs of bread and wine to take, eat, and drink his body and blood, I nothing doubt but he doth truly deliver them, 
Caluin in 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. See him also de coena Domini.  and I do truly receive them. Finally, I conclude and grant (saith he) that the body of Christ is given us in the supper really, (as they commonly speak) that is to say truly, to the end it may be wholesome food for our souls. I speak after the common fashion, but I mean, that our souls are fed with the substance of Christ's body, to the intent we may be made one with him: these and other such like sentences every foot occur in Caluin. 
Caluin lib. de coena Domini edit. an. 1540 Gallice. & an. 1545. Latin. See him also in his Institutions chap. 14. and chap. 17. §. 5.6.  Hence he also by name reprehendeth the doctrine of Zwinglius touching this sacrament, who affirmed 
a Zwinglius tom. 2. epist. ad quandam Germaniae civitatem, fol. 296.  the supper to be nothing else, but a solemn sign or token of charity and friendship, a sign of spiritual things; but itself in no wise spiritual, neither working any spiritual thing in us. He likewise avoucheth (as I have before noted) that the truth of this mystery seemeth incredible, that it is wrote by the secret power of the spirit, that it is incomprehensible, by our mind and above nature, that many miracles are contained in it, etc. which his assertions seem to argue some great matter. Lastly he telleth us, that 
b Caluin Instit. book 4. c. 40.  not unworthily they are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, who come to this sacrament unworthily, which they do with ungodliness full of sacrilege so foully defile. Therefore (saith he) by this unworthy eating they take to themselves damnation. 
The book of common prayer in the communion in the exhortations.  The like hath the English book of common prayer (yea much more) as every man may see, and others are of the same judgement. And who can deny, but this is a manifest token that they acknowledge the real presence? For what indignity can be offered to Christ, or damnation taken, by eating a piece of bakers bread only in remembrance of Christ's passion? The French Sacramentaries in their confession follow Caluin, for there we read among other things, 
Confess. Gallica, art. 37. See it in Harmony of Confess. sect. 14. pag. 426.  that the body and blood of jesus Christ, are no less truly the meat and drink of the soul (in the supper) than bread and wine are the meat of the body, that this mystery is above nature, etc.  
And these their assertions in very deed have caused some 
* Confess. Eccl. in ditione Comitum Mansfeldiae, etc. anno 1559. fol. 21.  Lutherans, to make a difference between the old Sacramentaries, that is (as they term them) the Carolostadians, the Zwinglians, and the Anabaptists, who (say they) always taught the Sacrament of the Altar to be nothing else, but an external sign without the body & blood of Christ, and that it served only for a token to distinguish Christians from Pagans, and the new commonly called Caluinists.  
Now if unto these discourses of Caluin and his followers, we join that proposition by them so often repeated, and with such vehemency defended; that Christ's human nature is only in heaven, 
Caluin in 1. Cor. cap. 11. vers. 24. Item in his Instit. chap. 17. §. 24. etc.  and always as far distant from the Eucharist as the highest heaven and earth are a sunder; What a Paradox or rather a contradiction in external show of words, shall we here find? I need not recite their sentences, because they are found almost in every place, where any one of them treateth of this matter, and no Caluinist will deny this to be a part of his belief. But do these things accord together? How doth Christ truly grow unto us, and refresh us with the eating of his body and drinking of his blood, his said body and blood being in a place so far distant from us? how is he truly delivered unto us, yea and his body and blood in the supper, seeing that he doth approach no nearer unto us then the highest heaven is unto earth? how doth he truly deliver, and we truly receive under the signs of bread and wine his body and blood? and how is his body really and truly given us? how are our souls finally fed with the substance of Christ's body, if his said body be only in the heavens, and our souls no nearer unto him than is the earth? Are not these things according to the proper signification of the words opposite and contrary? Verily if corporal sustainance came no nearer to the bodies of these sectaries, than the body and blood of Christ doth (according to their own doctrine) to their souls, they would soon perish with hunger.  
But is not Caluin, although he make a show never so glorious in words, of the true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; yet inwardly in very deed a Zwinglian and Carolostadian in belief? It cannot be gainsaid. And to declare this, first thus he writeth: I plainly confess, 
Caluin Institut. book 4. chap. 17. §. 32  that I refuse that mixture of the flesh of Christ with our soul, or the pouring out of it (or the transposing of it from one place to an other) such as they teach, because it sufficeth us, that Christ doth out of the substance of his flesh breath life into our souls; yea doth power into us his own life, although the very flesh of Christ doth not enter into us. And in an other place even now alleged he addeth, 
Caluin in 1. Cor. cap. 11. vers. 24.  that it is all one to say that our souls are fed with the substance of Christ's body, to the intent we may be made one with him; and to aver, that a certain quickening virtue is powered on us out of the flesh of Christ by the holy Ghost, although the flesh be far distant from us. Thus Caluin beginneth more plainly to open his mind, but by adding an other falsehood: for what Philosopher or Divine ever affirmed the body and substance to be one, with a virtue proceeding from the same, as he here avoucheth? He goeth on and saith, that we receive him though so far distant from us as heaven is, for that he causeth from heaven to descend on us presently and truly the virtue of his flesh. Lo, Christian reader, now thou receivest no longer truly and really the body and blood of Christ, but the virtue of his flesh. And let us hear him declare this by an example or similitude. In an other place he discourseth after this manner; 
Caluin Institut. book 4. cha. 17. §. 12.  For if we behold the sun shining forth with his heames upon the earth, after a certain manner to cast forth his substance unto it, to engender, nourish, and quicken the fruits thereof: why should the extending beams of the spirit of Christ; be inferior to convey the communion of his flesh and blood unto us? Thus he: Out of ●●ch his words if his similitude hold, it is evident, that Christin●●e Eucharist doth no otherwise communicate unto us his body and blood, than the sun shining doth communicate his substance to the earth. Wherefore, like as no m●n can say that the sun doth truly and really communicate his substance to the earth (for this is most false, and therefore Caluin saith it is done after a certain manner:) so Christ doth not truly and really communicate himself unto us according to this Doctor's opinion, as before he avouched, but after a certain manner. And how is this? He had declared before where he useth these words: We confess there is no other eating but of faith, 
Ibid. §. 5.  as there can no other be imagined. The flesh of Christ is eaten by believing, because by faith he is made ours. And this is that which our English Protestant's have decreed in their articles of religion; 
Articles of religion agreed upon in the convocation of 1562. art. 28.  in which they define, that the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper only, after an heavenly and spiritual manner; and the mean (say they) whereby the body of Christ is eaten in the supper, is faith. Hence the same Caluin and his 
a Beza in Math. ca 26. vers. 26. Caluin Instit. book 4. chap. 17. §. 31.  disciples affirm, that the right way to find Christ and receive him in the supper, is that our minds stay not on earth, but mount aloft into the celestial glory where Christ dwelleth, there to embrace him: and so they will have us to enjoy his presence as well as if he descended unto us. The like hath Andrew Willet an English Caluinist writer; who telleth us, 
b Willet in his Synopsis controvers. 13. part. 1. quest. 1. §. That Christ. p. 516. Caluin Instit. book 4. chap. 14. §. 14.  that Christ is verily exhibited unto us in the Sacrament, that the substance of Christ's flesh is exhibited unto us, etc. Not that Christ descendeth from heaven to us, but we ascend (saith he) by faith in spirit to him. And seeing that this feeding upon Christ by faith, may be performed at other times as well as when their supper is received, hence they further avouch, that Christ himself as well at other times as then, may be received; but principally they say, we receive him by reading the word of God or hearing it preached. He is deceived (saith Caluin) that thinketh there is any more given to him by the Sacraments, then that which being offered by the word of God, he receiveth by faith. 
c Ibid. §. 17. & in joan. 6. vers. 54.  Again, Let this remain certain, that there is no other office of the Sacraments then of the word of God, which is to offer and set forth Christ unto us, and in him the treasures of heavenly grace. Moreover, expounding those words of Christ. 
d Idem in 1. Cor. 11. v. 24.  Do this in remembrance of me, thus he argueth; Therefore the supper is a token or memorial appointed to help our infirmity: for if otherwise we were mindful of Christ's death, this help were superfluous. And this is common to the Sacraments, for they are helps of our infirmity: Thus Caluin. 
Beza in epist Theolog. 65. pag. 285.  And this was decreed in a Synod held by the Caluinists at Rochel; in which we find, that albeit the supper be particularly appointed for our mystical and spiritual communication of Christ, yet that Christ is received as fully with all his gifts also, in a simple or only word or sermon. But this is most earnestly defended by Peter Martyr likewise a Caluinist, who among other his discourses hath these sentences: We attribute no more to the words of God, then to the Sacraments: nor no more to these then to them. 
a Martyr in defens. Euchar. count Gardin. part. 2. regula 5. pag. 618.  I add withal, that touching the delivery and obtaining of Christ's body and blood, if ye respect the thing and substance itself, we have it no more by Sacraments then by words. 
b Ibid part. 3. pag. 651. see also before, p. 644. 547.  The body of Christ is received as well in hearing faithfully the word of God, as it is in the Sacraments. 
c Ibid. p. 683  I deny not but this is our doctrine, that the body of Christ is received no less in words, then in the Sacraments or Symbols. For this receiving is wrought by faith, and to faith we are stirred up by words as well as by the Sacraments. 
d Only an empty sign, etc. possible.  And I fear not to affirm, that we come to the receiving of Christ's body much more by words then by Sacraments. For Sacraments have all their force from the words: Hitherto Martyr. 
e Caluin Instit. book 4. c. 14. §. 20. 23. Caluin Beza and Martyr in 1. Cor. 10. v. 1.2  Hence they make no difference in honour, grace, virtue, and efficacy between the Sacraments of the old law and those of the new. 
f Caluin Instit book 4. c. 14. § 23. Beza in acts colloq Monpelg. p. 77. Sadeel in tract. demanducut. Sacram. p. 191.  Nay they add, that the Fathers of the old were as much partakers of the body and blood of Christ, as Christians are in the new. And to prove this 
g Caluin Institut. book 4. c. 14. §. 23.  Caluin corrupteth S. Paul's words, 1. Cor. 10. vers. 3. by affirming the Apostle to say, that the Fathers of the old law did eat the same spiritual meat which we eat; whereas the Apostle maketh no comparison between Christians and jews, but only telleth us, that the jews among themselves both good and bad, just and unjust, did eat the same spiritual meat.  
Neither ought it seem strange to any one of our English nation, that this doctrine is taught by the Caluinists: for we want not some even in our Protestants Church of England, that seek to uphold it. And among other. 
h Willet in his Synopsis controvers. 11. p. 463. see also jewel in his reply against Harding, art. 5. pag. 323.  Andrew Willet before cited, in express words avoucheth and concludeth, that look how the word of God worketh being preached, so do the Sacraments. Their doctrine therefore is, that Christ may as truly and really be received by hearing of a sermon, as he is in their supper. And of all this I may first infer, that if they say true we may as truly and really receive Christ in our chambers reading the Scriptures, and by feeding on him by faith, or by eating a piece of bakers bread and drinking a cup of wine, or by taking any other such corporal food in remembrance that he died for us on the Cross; as we can do in their Churches by taking the like bread and wine of the Minister. I further infer that the opinion of Carolostadius, Zwinglius, and Caluin in very deed, equally exclude Christ from being really present in the Eucharist: and therefore the bread and wine which they receive according to all their judgements, is nothing better than a piece of bakers bread, or a bottle of wine bought in a tavern. The reason is evident, because Christ himself according to his human nature, is as far distant from the bread and wine as heaven is from earth: & although Caluin acknowledge a certain union between us and Christ by faith, yet this is a thing altogether extrinsical to the bread and wine, for this faith is in the soul not in the bread and wine: neither doth it unite the body and blood of Christ to the bread and wine, but (as they say) to the soul. And this union in like sort is not real but imaginary; for the body & blood of Christ are as far distant from our faith (which is an inward act of our soul, and produceth of itself no outward effect;) as they are from the bread and wine. And this is true, even according to the doctrine of Caluin and his disciples, whatsoever they seem in words to say to the contrary. But to make the proof of it more strong, let us confirm it by the testimony of Beza, 
Beza Epist. Theolog. 1. pag. 7.  Caluins' scholar; and of some Lutherans. Bezaes' words are these: I say they are very impudent slanderers, that imagine that there was ever any contrariety between those most excellent men, Zwinglius, OEcolampadius, and Caluin, in their doctrine concerning the Sacrament: Thus Beza; Among the Lutherans, Westphalus a principal Doctor of their company writeth thus: Caluin useth such art in handling this matter, 
Westphal. in Apologia de coena contra Caluin. p. 71.  he leaveth his reader so doubtful and uncertain, what to judge of him: he shadoweth his speech with such colours, that sometimes he yieldeth a confession of faith like to our (Lutheran) Churches: he seemeth to reject the doctrine of Zwinglius, and to believe, that the very body and blood of Christ is truly present, and given in the supper with the bread and wine. But having conferred many of Caluins' sentences together, thus he resolveth: By view of these places, every man may see, 
Ibid. p. 76. 71  that Caluin sticketh in the same mire, in which Zwinglius and other Sacramentaries have wallowed, and that he is stirred up with their spirit, and that under this crafty juggling, he singeth the old song of Zwinglius and OEcolampadius, and jumbleth in his figures and significations, taking away the true presence of Christ's body and blood: Hitherto are the words of Westphalus.  
But wherefore did Caluin in this matter use such crafty dealing and juggling? 
Luther 4. fol. ante.  Verily the said Westphalus affirmeth it was to deceive his readers, and to abuse them more perniciously. For seeing that the words of Scripture are so evident for the real presence of Christ's body and blood in this Sacrament; seeing also that all our forefathers and predecessors have esteemed it so highly, have spoken so honourable of it, and have expounded the Scriptures according to their plain meaning, if Caluin had in flat terms & words so much debased it, as to make it no better than a piece of bakers bread, and a cup of wine, he had made forthwith his doctrine odious to all indifferent Christians. And of this he saw an experience in Zwinglius before him, against whose profane doctrine both the Catholics and Lutherans with one voice exclaimed. He thought it therefore convenient in external show to condemn Zwinglius, and to cover his wolvish heart and opinion, with the words and fleeces of the sheep of Christ's fold; but in condemning Zwinglius he condemneth himself, and his own disciples as is sufficiently proved. The same proceed of the Caluinists are also noted by Luke Osiander an other Lutheran Protestant and superintendant, who for the aforesaid proceed of the Caluinists likeneth them to the chameleon; 
Lucas Osiander in Euchirid. count Caluinianos c. 1. In principio Plinius lib. 28. cap. 8.  and he avoucheth, that like as this creature as Pliny writeth, hath of his own nature no certain colour, but seemeth now of one colour, now of an other, according to the variety of the place and colours near unto him: So the Caluinists play. For where (saith he) they are to deal with the more simple sort, which they hope may be drawn to their opinion, there they take upon them the colour and confession of the orthodox or right believers, and say with them: The body and blood of our Lord to be so present in the supper, that they cannot be more present, etc. And for these and other such like speeches he allegeth Beza in the conference of Monpelgar, pag. 21. He addeth; But when they speak among those of their own sect, they condemn and blaspheme the true and real presence of the body of Christ, and pronounce a far different sentence. Hence also Grawerus an other Lutheran, very learned and living in these our days, 
Grawer. Absurda, Absu●dorum, etc. cap. 3. §. 4.  avoucheth; that the Caluinists in words protest, that both by heart and voice they confess before God and all his Angels and Men, that the body and blood of Christ not only are present in the supper, but also that they are eaten and drunken: Notwithstanding in the mean time (saith he) it is most certain, that in very deed they deny the true and real presence of the body of Christ in the supper. And this he proveth at large by invincible arguments, and among other things he very well declareth, 
§. 34.  that faith cannot make things absent present, as the Caluinists say it doth in the Sacrament.  
Now to conclude this discourse, no man I think weighing well these matters, will deem Caluin and his disciples to accknowledge any true and corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, their words and proceed are so plain for the contrary. And truly, what need we almost any other proof of this matter, than the testimony of Beza rehearsed? who calleth them impudent slanderers, who imagine there was any contrariety between Zwinglius, OEcolampadius, and Caluin in their doctrine concerning the Sacrament. For seeing that Zwinglius excluded Christ altogether from the Sacrament, and made it a naked sign as Caluin confesseth; if Beza say truly, who can doubt but Caluin himself doth the same? Of which I infer, first that Caluin and his followers call God a deceiver. For thus I argue: Unless a man will call God a deceiver, he can never be so bold as to say that he setteh before us an empty or naked sign in the supper (so saith Caluin before cited:) but Caluin and his followers are so bold as to say, that God setteth before us an empty or naked sign in the supper, as is proved by their own words, by the testimony of Beza, and the censure of some learned Lutheran Protestants; therefore Caluin and his followers call God a deceiver. Secondly I infer, that the Calvinian Sacrament or supper, is no better than a piece of bakers bread and cup of ordinary wine; this is demonstrated and it is apparent, because Christ (as they say) is no otherwise present but by the apprehension of faith, and faith hath no effect at all in the bread & wine, it being an inward act of the understanding: whererfore the bread and wine remain as they were before. And this Luther long since concluded against Zwinglius, from whom Caluin as Beza confesseth doth not dissent: for he complaineth that the Devil (by Zwinglius and his adherents) laboureth to sup up the egg and leave us the shell, 
Luther ser. de Eucharist. fol. 335.  that is (as he expoundeth himself) to take from the bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ, so that nothing remain but plain bakers bread. Thirdly it is evident, that the words of Scripture are plain for Christ's real and corporal presence in the Sacrament; for this is one principal reason, why Caluin and his Caluinists some times would seem to affirm it. And seeing that the Sacramentary doctrine denieth this true and real presence, it is manifest finally, that the said doctrine is not built upon the word of God, but that this prerogative is due to our faith which holdeth the affirmative part.  
Thus I have exemplified and showed in two principal controversies, by the testimonies of our adversaries, that the words of holy Scripture are on our side, not with our adversaries: Of which my prudent reader may gather, what I could do concerning other matters for brevities sake omitted. And by these means it is apparently declared, that the propositions which the new Sectaries term of their faith, are not contained in the holy Scripture. Let us now prove the title of this Chapter by an other reason.   

SECTION THE FOURTH. The followers of the new religion in divers matters observe not the letter of their own Bibles.  
MY drift and intent in this Chapter is to show, that our adversaries build not their belief upon the letter of holy Scripture, contained (as they say) in their own Bibles. This I have already proved by one argument, unto which I adjoin another even of as great force, to wit: that in divers points they observe not the letter of holy Scripture contained in their own Bibles. I will exemplify in some matters in particular.  
And first, if the letter of holy Scripture be so strictly to be observed, and all other grounds to be neglected, as they imagine; how dare they eat blood and strangled meats? Is not this expressly forbidden in the Acts of the Apostles by the whole Council of Jerusalem, 
Act. 15. v. 29.  in which were present S. Peter, and S. james Apostles, with divers others? Where, and when, and by whom was this law repealed? verily there is no mention of any such repeal in the word of God, nor in any Ecclesiastical writer: wherefore Luther himself absolutely confesseth, 
Luther lib. de Concilijs & in Act. 15. Exod. 20. Deut. 5. v. 25 Math. 19, 17  that either the Apostles themselves erred in this Council, or else that we all sin in transgressing this law. Moreover, did not God in the old law bind all men to observe the ten Commandments? and did not Christ in the new law bid us, if we will enter into life observe the same? How presume they then to break the third commandment, both in not keeping holy the day prescribed in holy Scripture, which without all doubt is the Saturday; and also in dressing on that day (which they keep) meat, and making of fire? They cannot deny themselves in these matters to be faulty, for they have no warrant in the word of God, in place of the Saturday to observe the Sunday. Only in one place of the Apocalypse mention is of the Dominical or our lords day, 
Apoc. 1. v. 10  but it is only there said, that S. john on that day had a vision; which maketh little for them. And therefore Field confesseth, 
Book 4. cap. 20. §. that the Apostles: Exod. 20, 9 Exod. 35, 3. Num. 15, 32. Exod. 12. Levit. 23. v. 5 Num. 9 v. 11 Deu. 16, 5. etc. Luther lib. de Concilijs. Baleus l. 3. c. 25. Centur. 1. de scriptor. Britan. 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 observation of it is an Apostolic tradition. There is likewise a most express commandment in the Scripture, that no manner of work be done on the Sabaoth, not so much as fire kindled: wherefore by the commandment of God a man was stoned to death for only gathering sticks on that day.  
Further, wherefore keep they not Easter-day on the fourteenth day of the Moon of March, as is prescribed in the old law, and Christ himself observed? what warrant have they in the word of God otherwise to do? Verily in this also even according to the censure of Luther, they stray from the holy Scripture; of whose opinion (if I be not deceived) is likewise our countryman john Bale. Powel seemeth to make it a thing indifferent. Wherefore also do some of them bind their followers to have one only wife at once? Had not the patriarchs and others of the old law, divers wives at the same time? And where find they in the Scripture this liberty abridged among Christians? Yea some of our English Sectaries seem to confess, that in the primitive Church itself some Christians had at once divers wives: for in the Bible of the year 1589. 1592. and 1600. upon those words of the Apostle: 
* 1. Tim. 3, 2. Tit. 1. vers. 6. Bernard. Ochinus, lib. 2. Dialogo. 21. pag. 200.  It behoveth a Bishop to be irreprehensible, the husband of one wife, etc. they make this note: for in those countries at that time some men had more than one, which was a sign of incontinency; thus there we read. Wherefore they seem to grant, that S. Paul only commanded Bishops to have one only wife at once, not other Christians; Yea this is expressly averred by Bernardinus-Ochinus, who writeth thus: Paul forbiddeth Bishops and Deacons to have many wives, to others he virtually granteth it. But in very truth the Apostle there ordereth, that none be admitted to be Bishops, that be Bigami, that is to say; that have been married to two wives, although to the one after the other: and the aforesaid gloss is made by these men to help their Bishops and Ministers, among whom some have had two or three, or more, one after another, contrary to this sentence of the Apostle. And I must needs conclude, that either they abridge Christian liberty (as they term it) in not suffering all except Bishops, to have divers wives at the same time; or otherwise that they transgress the word of God, in admitting men twice married into their Clergy; or which 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. jenens. & in propositionibus de Bigamia Episcop. edit. an. 1528. propos. 62. 65. 66.  And of the first opinion seemeth Luther: for he absolutely granteth Polygamy (that is to say, the having of more wives than 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. etc. in 1. Tim. 3. p. 396  Musculus also thinketh it was tolerated in the Church in the Apostles days; and consequently in his judgement, no Christians except Bishops are to be restrained from it.  
I add likewise, that they commonly translate those words of God; 
b Exod. 2. v. 4 Deuter. 5. Bible 1595.  Non facies tibi sculptile, thou shalt make thee no graven Image: and with 
c Zwinglius tom. 2. in acts disput. Tigur. fol. 632.  Zwinglius affirm them to contain an everlasting precept, and to bind as far forth as those words; Thou shalt not kill. Wherefore then allow they of the pictures of men and other worldly creatures? Is there any difference between such pictures and the Images of Christ and his Saints, which they will needs have here forbidden as graven Images? Certainly there is no reason wherefore those should be allowed, and these forbidden: and therefore they have no reason to exclaim against the pictures of Christ and his Saints, except they will with the Turks generally disallow of all pictures. 
d Luther tom. 4. in Michae. cap. 1. fol. 69. Act. 19 etc.  Yea Luther himself thought it meet that Images should be placed in Churches; and judged it a very barbarous and ignorant part, to tolerate the pictures of men and beasts, and to cast out of Churches the Images of our Saviour and his beloved Saints.  
I demand also of them, wherefore they use not in all places to give the holy Ghost after baptism by imposition of hands? they cannot deny but this was practised continually by the Apostles: for what almost is more often recorded in the acts of the Apostles. Wherefore in like manner use they not to wash one another's feet? 
john 13.  Have we not for this an express example and commandment of our Saviour? wherefore finally anoint they not their sick with oil? Is not this directly commanded by S. james? 
jam. 5. v▪ 14.  verily the text according to their own translation is evident.  
In these and divers other points they follow not their own text of holy Scriptures, but rejecting both it and all other grounds, do that which pleaseth best their own fancies: and this neglect of the word of God among them is so apparent, that they are after a sort enforced to confess it themselves. 
Martyr in 1. Cor. 15. v. 5. see also Field of the Church book 4. c. 20 §. That the Apostles.  Among the rest Peter Martyr avoucheth, that the Canons of the Apostles concerning the election of Ministers prescribed by S. Paul, 1. Tim. 3. are not always to be observed, with whom accordeth 
a Beza in praefat. novi test. dicati Principi Condensi.  Beza who telleth us, that all rites whatsoever used by the Apostolic Church, either as profitable or as necessary for that time, are not at all times to be received. Yea 
b Caluin in c. 5. vers. 14. Brentius in Apolog. confess. Wittenb. cap. de Baptis.  Caluin and Brentius go further and affirm, that Christians are not bound to follow the example of Christ or the Apostles, or to obey their doctrine, except it can be proved out of Scripture, that they did and commanded with an intention to be followed and obeyed: this is their doctrine. And who are to be judges, what Canons, rites, examples, and doctrine, are to be admitted and bind man to the observation of them, but every private man's judgement and fancy? Besides this, they observe divers rites not prescribed in the Scripture if we follow the bare letter. For where find they that there be two Sacraments? Surely neither Baptism, nor the Eucharist in the word of God are called Sacraments: Only Matrimony which commonly they esteem not to be of such dignity, is honoured by S. Paul with this title. Moreover, 
Ephes. 5, 32.  where are the form, and ceremonies which they observe in public Baptism, Communion, Marriage, and common Prayer, ordained and set down in the Scripture? What warrant have they in the word of God for baptizing of Infants, before they actually believe? did not our Saviour say: He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved? 
Mar. 16, 16.  and how do infants according to their doctrine (for they usually deny all habitual faith) believe? verily that which is affirmed by 
c Luther lib. cont. Cochlaeum. Lutherani in Synod. Wittenb. anno 1536.  Luther and some Lutherans (to wit, that infants newly borne while they are baptised have the use of reason, actually hear, and believe the word of God, etc.) seemeth altogether incredible. But 
d Luther ser. contra Anabaptistas.  Luther elsewhere plainly confesseth, that the Baptism of infants cannot be proved 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 Creed of the Apostles, and divers other observations: wherefore I conclude, that they both neglect the observation of divers things prescribed in the holy Scripture; and also observe sundry rites and ceremonies for which in them they find no warrant; and consequently, that the ground of their faith and religion is not the word of God, contained (as they say) in their own Bibles. Of which I finally infer, that they build not at all upon the letter of the holy Scripture; for certain it is that their own translated Bible's favour more their doctrine, then either the Hebrew or Greek text, as every man may gather of that which hath been said in the Chapter next before: wherefore, seeing that their faith and religion is not all approved in their said Bibles, every man may well censure it not to be approved at all by the word of God. And this may be confirmed, because they neither build upon the Hebrew, Greek, or Latin text, but in some places reject them all as I have partly above declared, and will declare also in the next Chapter.    

Chapter 8. In receiving, translating, and expounding the holy Scriptures they only build upon their own fancies and judgement, and that they have no other ground.  

SECTION THE FIRST. In which this is proved by their doctrine and dissension concerning the books of Canonical Scripture, and their altering of the text of the same.  
HAVING already proved, that our adversaries build not upon the bare letter of holy Scripture, which they seem to make the only ground, and rule of their faith and religion; it remaineth that I now declare and make manifest, what is the ground and rule which in all such matters they follow. And this in the title of this Chapter, I have affirmed to be their own fancy and imagination, by which they either by private and erroneous deductions out of the letter of holy Scripture, or by falsely understanding of the same, frame to themselves a particular and false rule of belief; or else first frame to themselves out of their carnal, faithless, and feeble understanding, such a rule; and afterwards by rejection, false translation, corruption, or erroneous exposition, ply and wrist the word of God to their said rule. For the proof of this I could use divers arguments, notwithstanding these few following for brevities sake shall suffice.  
But before I bring forth any one reason, I must here divide all the Professors of the new religion into three sorts or companies: for some of them read and understand the Scriptures in those tongues, in which they were first penned by the instinct of the holy Ghost; others there be that read and understand them only translated into other tongues; and others that cannot read at al. The first for distinctions sake I will here call the learned, the second the unlearned, and the third the ignorant sectaries. In the four first Sections I will principally discourse of the learned. And first I demand of them how they prove the Bible to be Canonical Scripture? verily this as I have showed before, cannot be proved by Canonical Scripture, neither have they for it as I have there also declared, any other infallible proof: wherefore I may truly avouch, that every one of them receiveth and rejecteth Scripture according as he is led by his own fancy. But to make this more evident, let us behold their dissension concerning the Canonical books; and consider, that such as some of them receive into the Canon others reject, and contrariwise, such as some reject others receive.  
Luther telleth us plainly, that he doth not believe all things were so done as is related in the book of 
* Luther in sermonib. convivalibus titul. de Patriarchis & Prophetis, & titul. de libris veteris & novitestam.  job; and further disgraceth the said book, by affirming it to be only an argument of a fable or tale, whereby to set forth an example of patience. He affirmeth that the book of 
a Luth. in convival. ser. tit. de libris novi & veter. test. Rabenstocke, l. 2. colloquior. Latin. Luther cap. de veter. test.  Ecclesiastes hath never a perfect sentence, that the author of it had neither boots nor spurs, but rid upon a long stick, or in begging shoes as he did when he was a Friar. He will have 
b Luth. in exordio suarum Annotat. in Cantica.  Cantica Canticorum, (which some 
c Bible 1595  English Sectaries term, the Ballet of Ballets of Solomon) to be nothing else, but a familiar speech or communication between Solomon and the common wealth of the jews. 
d Castalio in translat. Latin suorum Bibliorum. see Beza praefat. in josuae.  Castalio goeth further, and judgeth it to be a communication between Solomon and a certain friend or mistress, he had called Sulamitha. The Epistle to the 
e Luther in 1. edit. novi test. Germ. praefat in epistol. ad Hebr. & in posterior edit eiusdem.  Hebrews (if we believe Luther) was written by none of the Apostles, and containeth things contrary to the Apostolic doctrine: The like is affirmed by the 
f Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4.  Century writers. The same Luther calleth the Epistle of S. james, truly a 
g Luth. in praefat. in nowm test. Germ. edit. 1. & in jenens. edit. novi test. praefat in jacob.  strawen Epistle in comparison of those of S. Peter, and S. Paul; saith that it is 
h In captivit. Babylon. cap. de extrema unctione.  probably averred to be none of his, nor worthy of an Apostolic spirit; 
i Ad cap. 22. Genes. in colloquijs convival. lat. tom. 2. de lib. novi test.  reprehendeth the doctrine of it as false and contrary to that of Genesis and of S. Paul the Apostle; saith the author doth delirare, that is dote, etc. It is likewise judged not Canonical by 
k Muscul. in locis comunibus c. de justific. Brent. in Apol. Illiric. praef. in jacob.  Musculus, Brentius, Illiricus, Kemnitius, and others. The second epistle of S. Peter (saith 
l Luth. in suis Germ. Biblijs Brentius in Apolog. ca de Scriptures.  Luther) is none of his, but is of some uncertain author, who was desirous to give credit to his work by the glory of an other man's name: Brentius plainly rejecteth it as Apocryphal. The like is said by these and others of the Epistle of 
m Luther praef. in epist. jacob & lib. cont. Amb. Catharinum Magdeburg. Cent. 1. lib. 2. ca 4. Brent. in Apolog.  S. jude. Finally, Luther censureth the 
n Luther praefat. in Apocal. prioris edit. & lib. de abroganda missa privata. Brent. in Apol.  Apocalypse of S. john to be neither Apostolic nor Prophetical, but I think it is (saith he) like the fourth of Esdras (a book rejected by us all) neither can I any ways find that it was made by the holy Ghost. Let every man think of it as he please, my spirit cannot accommodate itself to it. And this cause is sufficient to me not greatly to esteem it, that in it Christ is neither taught nor known: Thus Luther. Brentius having recited it among other books by him censured Apocryphal, concludeth; that some of the books rejected are called dreams, others fables. And this is the judgement of these Protestants, concerning these books.  
Notwithstanding, our 
o See the Bible of the year 1595. authorized to be read in Churches. Articles of the year, 1562. 1604. Articul. 6. Caluin in his Institut. & in argum. epist. jacobi.  Church of England with Caluin & divers other of their brethren, receive all these books as Canonical. And seeing that both these opinions cannot have an infallible ground, and one according to their own proceed, hath no greater reason for itself then the other, I infer; that they both have no other rule whereby to receive and reject books of Scripture, but their own judgement and fancy, from which principally this difference among them ariseth. It may be said that some Sacramentaries, and among the rest 
p Whitaker in his answer to Campians 1. reason.  Whitaker and 
q Roger's pag. 30. upon the Articles of faith of the year 1562. 1604.  Rogers deny Luther and the Lutherans, to reject the books mentioned. I confess it, but in very truth whosoever readeth the authors and places alleged, will find that I do them no wrong. And this he may partly gather out of Rogers himself, who although he 
r Pag. 30.  affirm all reformed Churches to be of the same judgement with the Church of England, concerning the Canonical books: Yet in the next leaf 
s Pag. 32.  allegeth two principal Lutherans, Wigandus and Heshusius, and accuseth them both of error; the one for refusing the first and second epistles of S. john's, with the epistle of S. Jude; the other for rejecting the book of S. john's Revelation or the Apocalypse. I add also, that 
t Whitaker de sacris Script. controvers. 1. quaest. 1. c. 6.  whitaker's himself discoursing of this matter in an other place, having set down their doctrine concerning the authority of all the books of the new testament, addeth these words: If Luther or some that have followed Luther, have taught or written otherwise, let them answer for themselves; this is nothing to us, who in this matter neither follow Luther nor defend him, but are led by a better reason: Thus whitaker's. But Caluin directly telleth us, 
u Caluin in argumento epistol. jacobi.  that in his time there were some that judged the epistle of S. james not Canonical. Oecolampadius testifieth the same touching the Apocalypse, and affirmeth himself to 
x Oecolampadius lib. 2. ad cap. 12. Danielis.  wonder that some with rash judgement rejected S. john in this book as a dreamer, a mad, or brainsick man, and a writer improfitable to the Church. That Luther in particular with a hard censure bereaved this book of all authority, it is recorded by 
y Bullinger. in Apocalip. cap. 1. ser. 1.  Bullinger: Yea 
* Field book 4. chap. 24. §. wherefore.  Field condemning the inconsiderate rashness of such, as in our time make question of any of the books of the new testament, etc. nameth Luther in the margin.  
It may perhaps be said by some man, that all the Sacramentaries accord together concerning the books of Canonical Scripture, and therefore that they have some certain and divine rule, whereby to discern such books from others. But this is easily refelled because there is no such consent or agreement among them. For doth not Wolfangus Musculus a Zwinglian of great fame with Luther and the Lutherans, reject the epistle of james out of the Canon? Verily either this must be granted, or else it must be confessed that he affirmeth one Scripture to contradict an other, and false doctrine to be contained in the divine books. These are his words: They object unto us the place of james; 
Wolfangus Musculus in locis communibus cap. de justificat. num. 5. pag. 271.  but he whatsoever he was, though he speak otherwise then S. Paul, yet may he not prejudice the truth. And after the disagreement between these two Apostles (according to his imagination) showed at large, he thus breaketh forth into open reproach of S. james: Wherefore he (james) allegeth the example of Abraham nothing to the purpose, where he saith; wilt thou know O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Abraham our father was he not justified by works when he offered his son Isaac? He confoundeth the word faith. How much better had it been for him, diligently and plainly to have distinguished the true and properly Christian faith which the Apostle ever preached, from that which is common to jews and Christians, Turks and Devils; then to confound them both, and set down his sentence so different from the Apostolical doctrine, whereby as concluding he saith: You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone; whereas the Apostle out of the same place disputeth thus, etc. And having made S. Paul to speak as he thinketh best, afterwards he inferreth. Thus saith the Apostle of whose doctrine we doubt not: Compare me now with this argument of the Apostle, the conclusion of this james: A man therefore is justified by works and not by faith only, and see how much it differeth; whereas he should more rightly have concluded thus, etc. This and other more such stuff hath this Sacramentary Doctor against S. james and his Epistle, in which he dissenteth from most of his own company. Doth not also Beza reject, or at the least doubt of the truth of the whole history of the adoulterous woman, recorded by S. john in the eight Chapter of his Gospel, which notwithstanding other Sacramentaries admit as Canonical Scripture? This cannot be denied, and I have before related his words. 
Part. 2. ch. 1. sect. 4. Bible 1592. etc.  Doth not our English Church Mathewe 6. receive as Canonical Scripture those words: For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, which they add at the end of our Lord's prayer? and yet of them Bullinger a Zwinglian writeth thus. There is no reason why Laurentius Valla should take the matter so hotly, as though a great part of the Lords prayer were cut away. Rather their rashness was to be reproved, who durst presume to piece on their own to the Lords prayer: Thus Bullinger. Nay further, some times the same Sacramentary receiveth words into the Canon, which before he had rejected. For example, Beza in one edition of his new Testament in the end of the eight chapter of S. john's Gospel, putteth in these words: 
See the new Testaments translated by Beza of the years 1556. and 1565. And his Testament translated into English by L. T. printed anno 1580.  jesus passing through the midst of them, etc. which in another edition with great vehemency he rejecteth: wherefore although Beza in his edition of the year 1556. leave the said words out, yet in Bezaes' englished Testament of the year 1580. they are admitted. And these things in like sort manifestly convince, that the Sacramentaries in admitting and rejecting books of Scripture, are led by their own judgement and fancy, not by any divine or infallible rule.  
Moreover, divers parcels of holy Scripture (as I have declared above) have been in times passed of doubtful authority; of which most of our adversaries have received some into the Canon, and rejected others. For example, our English Protestant's have received the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse, and rejected the books of the Maccabees, of judith, Tobias, etc. because the authority of these in the primitive Church was called in question. But what reason have they for this fact? have they had any divine testimony or revelation commanding them to admit the first? Surely none, seeing that they contemn the authority of the Church. And wherefore received they not the last, aswell as the first? They will say perhaps, that the first were admitted by divers even in the primitive Church, and doubted off only by some. I reply, that Brentius having named and numbered all of both sorts of them in general, writeth thus: 
Brentius in Apolog. confess. Wittenb.  There are some of the ancient Fathers who receive these Apocryphal books into the number of Canonical Scriptures: and in like sort some Counsels command them to be acknowledge as Canonical. I am non ignorant what was done, but I demand whether it were rightly and Canonically done? Thus Brentius who rejecteth them all alike. And that which he saith may be proved true by the testimony of the third Council of Carthage and S. Augustine, as Field confesseth; 

Concil. Cartag. 3. ca 47. Augustin. de doctrina Christiana, lib. 2. cap. 8.  
Field book 4. chap. 23. §. hence.   and of divers others who received the books of Tobias, judith, and the Maccabees: wherefore it seemeth, that not only in the judgement of Brentius, but also in very deed the doubt of all was almost alike. It is evident therefore in my judgement, that the reason why they rejected and reject those of the old Testament is, because in some points they contrary their new doctrine, which they made and make a rule whereby to discern which books are Canonical. Hence they received those which they could make in outward show seem to favour their opinion, and rejected others: and this is the cause why Luther rejecteth more books than the later Sectaries. For he being the first that began to preach this new Gospel, could not presently forge and invent new glosses and interpretations, upon all the books of Scripture that opposed themselves against the same: wherefore he rejected sundry such books, which afterwards his followers having invented such glosses and interpretations, received. This also moved the same Luther to affirm those to be the best Evangelists, 
Luther tom. 5. praefat. in epist. Petri. fol. 439. Centuriat. 2. ca 4. p. 260.  who most especially and most earnestly teach, that only faith without works doth justify and save us: of which he inferreth, that S. Paul's epistles may more properly be called the Gospel, then either the Gospel of S. Mathewe, S. Mark, or S. Luke. His disciples the Centuriatores likewise yield this reason, wherefore the epistle of S. james is to be rejected; that in the second chapter he affirmeth that Abraham was not justified by faith only, 
Zwinglius in explanat. art 57 tom. 2. fol. 100  but by works. Zwinglius also affirmeth, that although the second book of the Maccabees were in the Canon, yet that the author of it maketh himself suspected by this, that writing an history he doth set down a point of doctrine concerning prayer for the dead. By which it is manifest, that they measure Canonical Scripture by their faith, not their faith by Canonical Scripture.  
But to reject those books of Scripture which made against them, was an old devise among the ancient Heretics, unto whom our adversaries in this also as in other things, conform themselves. For this fault S. Augustine noted in Faustus a Maenichee, and reprehendeth it in him after this sort: Whereas thou sayest this is Scripture, or this is such an Apostles; 
August. contra Faustum, lib. 11. cap. 2. Tertul. lib. de prescript. Epiphan. heres. 30. 42. & 69.  this is not, because this standeth form, and the other against me. Thou than art the rule of faith, whatsoever is against thee is not true: Hitherto S. Augustine. Tertullian in like manner and S. Epiphanius record, that even in their days Heretics rejected certain books of Scripture.  
Unto this their rejecting and admitting of Scripture according to their own fancy, I add also that out of their own judgement without any further warrant, they altar or (as they say) correct the text. For example, although they esteem the Greek text of the new testament above all others, yet Beza in his translation of the same (as it is noted before) doth willingly and wittingly thrust out of it those words (Luke 3. vers. 36) who was of Cainan. Of the same fault I accuse also our English Protestant's in their Bible of the year 1595. And this they do, notwithstanding that all Greek copies both of the old Testament in the book of Genesis, and of the new; and all the Latin of the new conspire against them. If they answer that the Hebrew of the old accordeth with them; I reply that all the Scripture was penned by the instinct of the holy Ghost, and consequently is true: wherefore, if something more be said in one thing more than is in another, the one is not to be corrected or altered by the other, for both may be very well consonant unto truth. Moreover, will these men say that the Hebrew of the old testament is so true and sincere, that itself needeth no correction? what warrant have they more for the sincerity of this, then for the Greek of the new. If it be so sincere, and they have any such warrant; wherefore do they also correct and forsake it in their translations? That they do this, it appeareth by their translation of the 17. vers. of the 22. psalm, where they read: 
Bible 1595.  they pierced my hands and my feet; whereas the Hebrew text word for word ought thus to be englished: As a Lion my hands and my feet. And what divine authority have they for these their actions? certainly none, but they altar the sacred text of holy scripture according to their own private liking and fancies.   

SECTION THE SECOND. The same is confirmed by their translations, and expositions, of holy Scripture.  
AND like as in admitting, rejecting, and altering, so they proceed in translating, and expounding the word of God according to their own judgement. For first it is manifest, 
See before part. 1. ch. 7. sect. 2. part. 2. cha. 5. sect. 4.  that divers sentences of the holy Scripture in the tongues in which they were first written, (the words being either of sundry significations, or the sentences hard, obscure, and doubtful) admit divers translations, yea in all tongues divers interpretations as I have proved before. This I say is manifest, both because no man skilful in the tongues can deny it; and also because our learned sectaries cannot as yet agree, concerning the translation and interpretation of those very books which they all receive. 
Munster in praefat. tom. 1 Bibliorum.  Nay Munster a learned sectary affirmeth, that sometimes even among the Hebrews themselves he findeth divers readings. For sometimes dissensions (saith he) are found among them, some thinking this to be the true reading some thinking contrary: Thus he. And in very deed their translations, even through the variety of the signification of some Hebrew words and their like characters, are very much different in sundry places. 
Alias ps. 110.  I will exemplify in one: Psal. 109. vers. 3. the vulgar edition readeth thus: Tecum principium in die virtutis tuae, etc. Some of them translate it out of the Hebrew thus; 
a English bible of the year 1592.  Thy people shall come willingly at the time of assembling thine army in holy beauty: the youth of thy womb shall be as the morning dew. Others after this sort; 
b Bible 1577. and that commonly read in Churches.  In the day of thy power shall the people offer thee free will offerings, with an holy worship: the dew of thy birth is of the womb of the morning. Others thus: 
c Marloratus in psal. 110. Bucer, Musculus, Caluin & Pomerane.  Thy people with voluntary oblations in the day of thy army, in beauty of sanctity: Of the womb from the morning the dew of thy youth to thee. And how different are these translations? The first saith; youth of thy womb and the morning dew; the second; dew of thy birth, and womb of the morning, etc. For the 
d Lavath. in hist. Sacram. fol. 32. Zwinglius to. 2. in respon. ad Luther. li. de Sacra. Beza in annot. novi testam. passim. Castalio in defen. suae translationis.  Lutherans with Luther reject the translation and interpretation of Zwinglius and the Zwinglians. The Zwinglians with Zwinglius admit not that of Luther and the Lutherans; and the like proceedings are between Beza and Castalio, and other professors of this new religion.  
This therefore being presupposed, that divers sentences admit divers translations, let the new sectary now tell me, what divine authority he hath moving him rather to follow one sense then another, the words receiving and sometimes being indifferent to both? Every private man's understanding is subject to error, and there is but one truth; how then doth every one of them know that truth is on his side? what divine authority doth warrant him this? Surely in following one translation and interpretation, and not admitting others, he must needs follow his own fancy.  
And this is almost in plain terms confessed by Caluin himself concerning his own expositions: for explicating those words of Christ, Math. 26. vers. 26. This is my body: he affirmeth, that having by diligent meditation examined the said sentence, he doth embrace that sense which the spirit telleth him. And leaning to this (saith he) I despise the wisdom of all men which can be opposed against me: Thus Caluin. 
See part. 1. cha. 7. sect. 3. part. 2. ch. 5. sect. 4.  And note well that he preferreth his own private spirit (for the holy Ghost as I have proved, infallibly directeth not every private man's judgement) before the testimony of all other men, and plainly confesseth that he buildeth upon it, not upon the word of God. This also moved the translator of the English Bible printed in the year 1589. 1592. and 1600. to protest in his preface, that in the translating of it, he hath in every point and word according to the measure of his knowledge, faithfully rendered the text; and in all hard places most sincerely expounded the same.  
But to make this the more evident I add further, that they make the self same word sometimes to signify one thing, and at other times another thing, as it best serveth their purpose. For example, our English Protestant's whensoever the Scripture speaketh of evil traditions, as Math. 15. vers. 6. and in other places, 
Bible 1595.  translate the Greek word which signifieth properly a tradition, truly as they ought. But when mention is of Apostolic traditions, they make the self same Greek word signify ordinances, instructions, 
Bible 1595.  preachings, or institutions, as 2. Thess. vers. 15. etc. And this they do to bring traditions into contempt. But of such examples see more in the sixth Chapter before. Besides this, although they undertake to translate the Hebrew text of the old testament, and the Greek of the new; yet when the Hebrew or Greek maketh against them, or not so much for them as the Latin, they forsake the Hebrew and Greek, and follow the Latin: I will bring an example of both. Hieremy 7. vers. 18. and chap. 44. ver. 19 the said Prophet inveigheth against those that offer sacrifice to strange Gods, especially to the Moon. And whereas according to the Hebrew they should read in the first place, The women knead the dough to make cakes to offer to the heavens or planets: they follow the Latin and say thus: 
Bible 1595.  The women knead the dough to make cakes for the Queen of heaven. In like sort they proceed in the second place. And by this means as they imagine, they make a strong argument against us, who honour our blessed Lady and call her Queen of heaven, although we offer up no sacrifice unto her or any other creature. In the new testament whereas the Apostle according to the Greek text saith only: 
Rom. 8. v. 38,  I am probably persuaded that neither death nor life, etc. shall be able to separate us from the charity of God: they read; I am sure that neither death, 
Bible 1595.  etc. And like as after this sort they serve their own turns in their translations, so do they also in their expositions of divers words. One example I have touched above concerning the word Babylon, which in S. Peter's epistle to hinder the proof 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 will have signify the great City called Babylon in Assiria, or Caldea: contrariwise, to make against the honour and dignity of Rome, in the 
* Apocal. 17. vers. 19 Bible 1592.  Apocalypse they affirm the City of Rome by it to be understood.  
Let us also consider that it must needs be granted, that some of the learned sectaries have erred in their translations and interpretations of holy Scripture; for this is evident, because there is but one true word of God, which according to truth admitteth not opposite interpretations. But our adversaries translations and interpretations be divers and much different, yea repugnant one to another: wherefore as I have showed, they reject one another's translation and interpretation, and also allege Scripture for their different doctrine. They cannot therefore all be consonant to the true word of God; which if it be confessed, it must needs follow that some of them in these matters have erred; and if some of them have erred, than some of them (without all doubt) have not built upon divine authority which cannot be the ground of error, but upon their own judgement. And seeing that the warrant which they claim from God, of all of them is the same, and their ground alike; we may well infer, that none of them build upon any other more sure foundation.  
Add unto this, that the self same sectaries oftentimes upon further reading, study, and knowledge, change their translations and interpretations of holy Scripture; which is apparent by the divers editions of the Bibles, and other their works in which Scripture is alleged and interpreted: and of our English sectaries it is granted by the translator of the Bible printed in the year 1585. 1592. and 1600. in the preface of which he confesseth, that the former translations required greatly to be perused, and reform. I have also showed in the sixth chapter, that divers places have been corrected, and that as yet by the judgement of the best, it is faulty: of this followeth not seldom, a change of belief and a difference from themselves in religion, which in the next chapter I will prove to have fallen out in their first Captains themselves. And this is an invincible argument (seeing that the Scriptures remain always the self same) to prove, that they varying build only upon their own fancies, and are never certain that they have attained to the truth.  
But this will be most apparent to him, that shall set before his eyes the manner of proceeding of our said learned sectaries, in their discourses or disputations with their adversaries. For do they in such conferences admit the text of holy Scripture, as a supreme judge of all controversies concerning matters of religion? Surely no: for although they seem to recurre to the holy Scripture and vehemently plead the word of God, and by the authority thereof show themselves desirous to have all difficulties decided; yet in very truth it is not so, as every man may well judge, because the letter of Scripture oftentimes doth not sufficiently interpret itself, and they will admit and allow of no other translation or interpretation but their own: let us declare this a little more at large. It is not unknown that the Catholics receive as Canonical, the Hebrew and Greek text as well as they; and consequently those very places, either in Hebrew, Greek, or both, which they allege to establish their doctrine opposite to the belief of the Catholic Church. Yea, the Catholics attribute more authority to the places alleged as they are penned in the said tongues, and to all books which the new sectaries receive, than they do; and further receive five whole books at the least, and divers other parcels of holy Scripture into the Canon, which they all commonly reject. Wherefore, the controversy is not concerning the authority of the text, either in Hebrew or Greek, whither it be to be believed or no: but whither the Catholics building in this upon the authority of the Church, Traditions, Counsels, and Fathers, have the true translation and exposition of the text; or the Professors of the new religion, who allege no other testimony for themselves then their own private spirit and fancy.  
To make this more evident by an example, let us suppose that a Catholic and a new Sectary fall into disputation concerning Christ's descent into hell. The Catholic usually for proof of the affirmative part, bringeth forth that sentence of holy Scripture: Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; 
Act. 2. v. 27. Psal. 15, 10.  and avoucheth this to be the true translation of those words, especially in this sentence in which they can bear no other sense, seeing that the soul of Christ was not detained in his grave. The Sectary contrariwise affirmeth the words cited not to be truly translated, but will have the true translation of them to be: 
Bible 1589. 1592. 1600.  Thou wilt not leave my soul in grave. And how shall this controversy be decided? The Catholic for his opinion and to prove that Christ truly descended into hell, allegeth all the grounds of Catholic faith above set down. But what can his adversary bring forth in defence of his doctrine? Perhaps he will run to conference of other places of Scripture: but what if those other places admit also divers translations as well as this, and therefore he give one sense of the said places, and the Catholic another? To what other judge will the Sectary appeal? verily to no other but to himself and his own private judgement. This is the ordinary course of proceeding of our adversaries with us, and all others that do impugn them. And do they in this case remit the controversy to holy Scripture? do not the Catholics aswell as they, admit of the text cited both as it is found in the Hebrew in the 15. psalm; and also as it is in the Greek in the second Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles? this cannot be denied. The difference then between us & them, is concerning the translation of the last word which the Catholic affirmeth to signify hell, the Protestant grave. And what moveth the Sectary to admit one translation rather than another? Certainly his own private opinion, which he hath framed to himself contrary to all antiquity, against Christ's descent into hell. 
August. epist. 99  Surely S. Augustine avoucheth: that No man but an Infidel will deny him to have been in that place; and with him the rest of the Father's consent.   

SECTION THE THIRD. Concerning the new exposition of those words, This is my body, in particular.  
BUT if it were not for being overlong in these discourses, I could exemplify in particular concerning sundry new expositions of holy Scripture, invented by our adversaries; and show to every man's eye the inventors of the same, who framed them out of their own brains. One example I will bring among the rest, which shallbe concerning those words of our Saviour: 
Math. 26, 26  This is my body. For who invented in these our days, the first Sacramentary exposition of the said words? verily Carolostadius, as all the writers of his days bear witness. And what was he? He was Archdeacon of Wittenberg, 
Melanct. Sleidan & others  but as Melancthon himself a Sectary reporteth, 
* Melanct. in epist. ad Fredericum Myconium praefat. veterum senten. de coena Domini.  a rude savage man, without wit, without learning, without common sense; in whom never appeared any token or sign of the spirit of God. But how expounded he the said sentence? Certainly not of the Sacrament which Christ delivered to his Apostles, but of the visible person of Christ sitting at the table as if Christ had said: Eat and drink, for I am he that must suffer on the Cross for your redemption; so that he changed the sense of the word This into the word Here. Let us farther demand, what moved him to invent this heresy and false interpretation? Melancton above cited reporteth, that it was only the hatred which he had conceived against Luther, who rebuked and reproved him for breaking down of Images in the Churches of the said City, without his warrant and approbation.  
The second principal Sacramentary was Zwinglius, 
Zwingl. l. de vera & falsa relig.  who first affirmed the body of Christ to be present in the Eucharist, but together with bread and wine; and consequently denied only transubstantiation: afterwards he denied the real presence altogether, and turned the word is, into the words doth signify, and made the sense to be; This doth signify my body. The third was 
* Oecolamp. in li. de genuina expos. horum verborum.  Oecolampadius, who altered the sense of the word body, and would have it signify a figure of the body, and therefore the sense of those words according to his judgement is; This is a figure of my body. The fourth was Caluin, 
a Caluin l. 4. Instit. c. 17. §. 10. 11. 24. 32. Idem lib. de coena Domini  who although he confess that Christ is really only in heaven, yet he will have us truly to receive him on earth in the Eucharist: wherefore he reprehendeth both Luther and Zwinglius, and will have the sense of the said words to be; This bread is a figure of my body, but a figure giving my body itself: so he in effect. How this is brought to pass he confesseth himself ignorant. But what saith Luther their first parent to these his children, he damneth them to the pit of hell, and 
b Luth. thes. 24 cont. Lovaniens. Iten in parva confess. de coena Domini.  telleth us; that they tread under foot and overthrow al. He addeth further, 
c To. 7. in defensor. verb●, coenae, etc. fol. 387.  that the text can admit but one direct and true sense. How then are the said words to be understood in his judgement? Thus he writeth in an epistle to certain of his followers concerning the interpretation of them. Luther the Preacher and Evangelist of Wittenberg to the Christians of Strasburge. 
Luther to. 7. Wittenberg. fol. 502.  Thus much I neither can or will deny, that if Carolostadius or any other man five years since could have persuaded me, that in the Sacrament was nothing else but bread and wine, be truly had bound me unto him, and I would have accepted that as a very great benefit. For in examining and debating that matter I took marvelous pains, and strained every vein of my body and soul to have rid and dispatched myself thereof; because I saw fulwel, that thereby I might have done notable harm and damage to the Papacy. But I see myself taken fast, and that there is no ways to escape▪ For the text of the Gospel is so clear and forcible, which cannot easily be shaken; much less overthrown by words and glosses devised by giddy brains: Hitherto Luther, both declaring the true cause which moved him to set a foot his new Gospel (to wit) the hatred of the See of Rome; and also the force of Scriptures for the real presence. What then believed he touching this point? First, 
Luther lib. de captivit. Babylon. cap. de Eucharist.  although he affirmed it to be no article of faith, whither bread remained or no in the Eucharist together with the body of Christ; yet he esteemed the affirmative part most probable: 
* Idem in serm. de Sacra. coenae Domini. Et in li. quod verba Christi (HOC EST CORPVS MEUM) firmiter stint. & in confess. de coena Domini.  yea, not long after most absurdly he taught and defended, the human nature of Christ to be in every place together with his divine; And this he did to prejudice the Roman Church and Catholic religion. For seeing that the words are so plain that he could not in substance deny the real presence, by these means malice drove him to contrary our doctrine concerning transubstantiation, and the manner of the being present of Christ's body in this dreadful Sacrament.  
These are the principal expositions of those words, to which I could add divers others: for 
a Luther in l. quod verba Christi (HOC EST CORPVS MEUM) firmiter stint.  Luther hath recorded, that in his days there were among the Sacramentaries, about ten divers interpretations of them; and in the year 1577. a book was published, in which two hundred expositions or depravations of the said words are numbered and assigned, all invented or revived by the Professors of this new religion. Now I think, that no man endued with any sense or reason will be so fond, as to affirm that all these expositions have a certain ground in the word of God: for certain it is (as we have hard Luther himself confess) that there is but one true sense of these words; wherefore it must needs follow that all the rest be false and forged. And seeing that the inventor or upholder of one, hath no more reason or divine assurance for his invention or opinion, then hath the inventor or upholder of an other; we may with like probability affirm them all to be human inventions. And certain it is, that whosoever embraceth any one of them, buildeth only upon the erroneous and fallible judgement of man: yea I may truly say, that the ground of his belief is his own fancy, which moveth him to censure one opinion as true, and to condemn all the rest as false. And like as I have discoursed of this one sentence of our blessed Saviour: so could I in like manner discourse of sundry other places of holy Scripture, but I should be over long.  
It may be some for the solutions of all these matters, will fly to private illumination or inspiration of the spirit, and plead that to prove the certain truth of their interpretations of holy Scriptures: but first such persons if we believe Field, 
Field book 4 of the Church chap. 16. See also Whitaker de Ecclesia controvers. 2. q. 4. cap. 3. pag. 278.  are accursed by the common consent of Protestants, if as the Enthusiasts they neglect the common rules of direction.  
Secondly, I have at large 
* Part. 2. chap. 5. sect. 1.  before proved all such illuminations to be uncertain, and that no private man is by any such means, ordinarily directed by God into the truth: something also concerning this point shall be said in the next section.   

SECTION THE FOURTH. That certain rules prescribed by Field for the true understanding of Scripture, of themselves alone without the censure of the Church, are insufficient to assure us, that our exposition made, is of divine truth.  
BECAUSE the doctrine of Field is commonly singular, in so much that I think I may very well in some sort, liken the platform or order, and faith of a Church set down in his books of this argument, to Sir Thomas More's Utopia; for that there neither is, nor ever will be any such Church in the world as he describeth: I am and shall be forced, especially in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church, to dispute against him in particular, and sever him from all his brethren.  

Part. 2. chap. 5. sect. 4.  We have heard him before acknowledging the Scriptures to be hard and obscure: of which it seemeth to follow, that except he assign us some divine rule, whereby we may come to an infallible knowledge of the true sense of them, we can never infallibly assure ourselves of their true interpretation. He telleth us therefore first, that men not neglecting that light of direction which the Church yieldeth, 
Field book 4 chap. 15.  nor other helps and means, may be assured out of the nature of the things themselves, the conference of places, the knowledge of tongues, and the suitable correspondence that one part of divine truth hath with another, that they have found out the true meaning of it; and so be able to convince the adversaries and gainsayers: Thus Field. But how frivolous this his assertion is, it will appear by the confutation of his rules which he will have us observe, and helps which he saith we must trust unto in interpreting the Scriptures. What rules and helps are then assigned by him let us recite, and for avoiding of repetition together confute them: 
Ibid. chap. 19  these are his words. Touching the rules we are to follow, the helps we are to trust unto, and the things required in the interpretation of Scripture, I think we may thus resolve. First, there is required an illumination of the understanding, for the natural man perceiveth not the things of God, for they are spiritually discerned; but the spiritual man judgeth all things, and himself is judged of none. This is the first help, concerning which I first demand; how a man shall infallibly know that he hath such an illumination, or that he is a spiritual man? if he answer that it is known by this, that a man feeleth himself thus and thus affected: I urge further and ask, by what divine testimony or firm reason he knoweth, that a man feeling himself so affected, hath an illumination of the understanding from God, and is a spiritual man? verily, seeing that Luther and Caluin both boasted of such an illumination, and yet one of them was deceived: 
2. Cor. 11, 14  seeing also that the Devil doth often transfigure himself into an Angel of light, as S. Paul warneth us, and as our adversaries will grant it happeneth to the Anabaptists, and others: seeing moreover, 
1. john 4. v. 1. Caluin alleged in the 8. section of this chapter.  that the Apostle S. john biddeth us not believe every spirit, but prove the spirits if they be of God, which Caluin also thinketh necessary; he must allege or know some such testimony or reason, or else he cannot ordinarily have supernatural knowledge of it: which nevertheless at the least is necessarily required to this, that the exposition of the place of Scripture expounded, be an inducement or ground of supernatural faith. And what divine testimony can he allege? no other I think but Scripture, or divine inspiration: if Scripture, than another question may be asked, how he knoweth himself rightly to understand that place of Scripture? if inspiration, I demand in like sort, how he knoweth it to be divine and not diabolical? and so of both these answers will follow a process without end. Secondly, of this rule it may be inferred, not only against Field, but all our adversaries that our faith is not built upon only Scripture, for a man (as Field saith) must be spiritual before he can understand the Scripture: and how spiritual without faith? and whereupon shall this faith be built? upon the Scripture? this cannot be, because without it he cannot understand the Scripture: and how can he build his faith upon Scripture before he understandeth it; of which it followeth (as I have said) that the Scripture is not the first and only rule of our faith, as they affirm. Neither can it be averred, that the first faith is not properly faith; for as they confess it maketh a man spiritual, and is the ground of the understanding the true sense of Scripture, and consequently must be a true faith, and properly so called.  
Secondly Field requireth, a mind free from the thought of other things, depending on God as the fountain of illumination, desi●●●s of the truth, with resolution to embrace it, though contrary to the conceit of natural men. But first this also seemeth to presuppose faith and grace: yea some extraordinary perfection, more than is ordinarily found in the greater part of Christians. Secondly, I dislike those his words (desirous of the truth with resolution to embrace it) if they be understood of matters of faith; for they seem to pretend a certain kind of doubt and staggering, which must not be allowed in such points, especially in spiritual men as before.  
Thirdly, he thinketh the knowledge of the rule of faith formerly set down, necessary; as also of the practice of the Saints according to the same. Of this his rule of faith formerly by him set down, book 3. chap. 4. I have said something before: 
Part. 2. chap. 4.  As touching this his present doctrine it is certain, that most men will not allow of his said rule, but either will condemn it as insufficient, in not containing all things necessary: or as over-large in containing things superfluous: wherefore, this his third rule in this part is very uncertain. But in very deed, that the Scriptures ought to be interpreted according to the rule of faith, that is: the whole sum of Christian religion preserved as a Depositum in the Church, 
Part. 1. chap. 7. sect. 5.  I have proved in the first part of this Treatise. Moreover, as before I argued against the first rules, so I argue against this; that of it may be inferred, that our faith is not built upon the holy Scripture, because the rule of faith must be a rule by which the scriptures are to be expounded: of which it followeth, that itself is not known and believed through the authority of the scripture. Against the second part of this rule I oppose only, 
Part. 2. chap. 4.  that according to his grounds of which I have discoursed before, the practice of the Saints can very hardly be gathered out of the monuments of antiquity, especially concerning such matters as Field denieth to be of the substance of our faith: wherefore, this also maketh every exposition of scripture obscure, and of an uncertain truth.  
Fourthly, is required (saith he) a due consideration, what will follow upon our interpretation, agreeing with, or contrary to the things generally received and believed among Christians: in which consideration the conference of other places of Scripture, and the things there delivered is necessary. To this I say first; that if Luther had well observed this rule, he had never broached new doctrine in the Church. Secondly, the insufficiency of it is evident, 
See before Part. 2. chap. 4.  if Fields doctrine before set down concerning the error of almost all Christians be true.  
Fiftly he requireth, the consideration of the circumstances of the places interpreted, the occasion of the words, the things going before, and following after.  
Sixtly, he also requireth the knowledge of all those Histories, arts, and sciences which may help us. Both these I let pass as necessary, yet not as sufficient to give us infallible assurance.  
seven, he thinketh the knowledge of the original tongues necessary, and of the phrases and Idiotismes of them. To which I say, that although I think this a great help, yea absolutely necessary according to the Protestant doctrine, because they make the scripture the only ground of their faith, and nevertheless have no divine mean or prudent reason, to assure themselves that any one hath translated them truly; yet it cannot be sufficient: Neither is it according to our Catholic proceed so needful: both because we are sure that we have the text truly translated; and also, because we make not the scripture the propounder of our belief, but expound it according to the rule of faith delivered and received. These are M. Fields helps and rules, which he setteth down as a mean where by we may be assured that we have found out the true meaning of scripture. And although every man may perceive by that which I have said against some of them in particular, how weak and doubtful they are; Yet I will add a word or two of them in general. And first I ask M. Field, how he knoweth these his helps and rules to be sufficient? can he prove their sufficiency by any divine testimony or infallible argument? nothing less, and therefore I imagine that in the beginning he doth not so confidently affirm it, but useth these words: I think we may thus resolve; and yet that divine proof or at the least some forcible reason is necessary, it can not be denied, because the true interpretation of Scripture is their principal ground of faith, & no interpretation in a matter doubtful, can be infallibly known otherwise then by the aforesaid means? Are also all these his helps and rules necessary? 
See Willet in his Synopsis controvers. 1. quaest. 7. See also part. 2. chap. 5. sect. 1. before.  neither this will be admitted by his brethren who reject the greater part of them; and he must needs in a matter of such importance as this is according to their principles, condemn them of great ignorance and error, if he absolutely affirm them all necessary.  
Secondly, I gather out of these rules, that no man can divinely or infallibly, assure himself of the truth of any other man's exposition. This is manifest, because no man can by divine testimony or prudential ground, know that any other man hath sufficiently proceeded according to all these rules: nay, what ignorant person can so know the sufficiency of any learned man, that he is sufficiently instructed in the tongues; etc. that he may embrace his opinion as divine? Finally, no man can after this sort assuredly know, that an other hath an illumination of the understanding; and that his mind is disposed according to the second rule; which things nevertheless Field will have required, for the attaining of the right understanding of holy Scripture.  
Thirdly, that appeareth to be very false which is averred by Field, to wit: that a man following such directions as he prescribeth, may not only assure himself of the truth of holy Scriptures, but also convince the adversaries and gainesaiers; for no part of this assertion is true. The first is showed false in my discourse of some particular rules, especially by this; that no man can assure himself that the hath an illumination of the understanding: unto which I here add, that he cannot likewise assure himself that he hath exactly observed such rules, and that he is every way sufficiently disposed in mind, and furnished with learning according as they require; neither can he lastly prove the sufficiency of them, as I have also showed. The second part of his assertion is much less true: for no man can prove the truth of that to an other, of which he cannot be assured himself.  
Fourthly, I may infer, that no man who observeth not these rules hath true faith; and the reason is manifest, because the Scripture thus interpreted (as Field saith) is the ground of their faith; 
Field book 3 chap. 42. §. if this kind.  wherefore whosoever expoundeth it otherwise, is not faithful. By which I exclude from the number of the faithful (according to this rule) not only such men as are carnal, not spiritual; and such as are not disposed in mind according to the second rule: but also all persons unlearned, who have not the knowledge of such histories, arts, and sciences, as may help, nor of the original tongues, according to the two last rules. Neither can it be said that such are to learn of others: for as I have proved in my second illation or collection, no man can infallibly assure himself that another doth interpret truly. And this maketh the matter the more doubtful, that commonly what exposition soever he follow, he hath more even of the new religion itself against him, then with him: yea, he may find the best of them erroneous in some points, and consequently, hath cause to distrust their judgement in others.  
Fiftly out of this discourse it is evident, that although we should grant this to M. Field, that the bare letter of holy Scripture is sufficiently known by such means, as I have before related out of him & confuted: yet, the true interpretation being so obscure, and not certainly to be known by these his rules; it is evident I say, that whosoever grounding upon these only embraceth any interpretation as divine, buildeth upon his own judgement and fancy, not upon divine authority. And of this and that which hath already been said in this chapter and before, I finally infer; that the whole faith of the new sectaries is uncertain, and lastly resolved to their own judgement and fancy. It is uncertain, because they assign no certain and infallible rule, by which they can assuredly know the letter or true sense of holy Scripture, which they make the only ground of their faith: of which (accorning to the judgement of M. Whitaker in the like case, 
Whitaker de Eccles. contra Bellar. controvers. 2. quaest. 4. cap. 3. pag. 278.  as also according to all reason) must needs follow an uncertainty of truth in their whole belief; that their faith is likewise lastly resolved to their own judgement and fancy, it is apparent. For although Field tell us, that 
* Field book 4. chap. 13.  the judgement of God the Father, as supreme; the judgement of the Son, as the eternal word of God; of the spirit, as the fountain of all illumination, making them discern what is true, is that in which they finally rest. And that the judgement or determination of the word of God, is that wherein they rest, as the rule of their faith; and the light of divine understanding, as that whereby they judge of all things. And both he and the rest seem to resolve all to the bare letter of holy Scripture: yet it is evident, that their last resolution is not the letter, both because all Christians as well as they commonly receive the letter; and consequently, if the last difficulty were touching the letter, all would easily be brought to an agreement. And also because as Field very well noteth out of S. Hierome: 
Cha. 18. ibid. Hieron. in epist. ad Galat. cap. 1.  The Gospel consisteth not in the words of Scripture, but in the sense and meaning; not in the outward rind and skin, but in the inward path and marrow; not in the leaves of the words, but in the root and ground of reason: of which it appeareth that the last resolution is to the sense. Seeing therefore, that all our adversaries in translating and expounding the Scripture, build upon their own judgement; it is evident, that in their own judgement not in the holy Scripture, they set up their last resolution in matters of faith. Neither would they obtain any other more sound foundation and stronger stay, if we should grant that they remit all things finally to the letter of holy Scripture: for this also they receive and reject according to their own fancies, as I have proved. And in very truth I cannot sufficiently marvel, that M. Field or any other man of judgement and learning, doth run these courses; I mean impugn our doctrine concerning these points, as absurd and in some sort impossible, which in deed is most prudent and divine; and fall into most gross absurdities and inconveniences themselves. For whereas according to the first opinion above related, we lastly resolve our faith into divine revelation, whereunto we are aided and inclined to give assent by the supernatural light of faith, which with us concurreth to every supernatural act of belief, unto which we are prepared and disposed by most prudential motives and arguments of credibility. And whereas in the first act of faith, we include the belief of a general rule by which we are to be directed, and which we are bound humbly to follow in all particular points of belief, and consequently, for the preservation of unity and deciding of controversies, acknowledge one supreme, divine, and definitive authority on earth: They impugn our assertions, and obtrude unto us for an only ground of our faith and a director of our belief, the holy Scripture; and give us no prudential rules, which may give a prudent man any assured means, how to know which is the true letter, or which is the true sense of the same; Yea, assign such means and rules which are proved insufficient by their own dissension concerning these very points. And besides this, that which we upon such prudential motives give to a general authority: 
Field book 4 cap. 13.  they, rejecting with Field all such general authority, must needs give without all reason to every particular man; which is the root of all pride, and a fountain of discord and division, contrary to experience and not warranted by Scripture; or else grant themselves to have no faith. And this is true, whether they will have themselves secured of the truth of their judgement by particular and extraordinary inspirations of the spirit, or by the light of divine understanding, or grace (as Field calleth it) ordinarily found in every spiritual person. 
See Aberus contra Carolostadian. c. 7.  And in my judgement it is strange how they confess every man although never so much enlightened, to be subject to error; and yet every one assureth himself, having one no more warrant then an other, that he is in the truth. Finally, this doctrine of divine inspirations and illuminations, gave occasion to 
* Frederi. Staphilus l. de concordia discipulorum Lutheri. Petrus Palladius l. de haeresibus. Caluin in Instructorio contra Libert. cap. 9 Willet in his Synops. controuer. 1. q. 1.  Muncerus, and certain Anabaptists his followers, as also to the Zwenckfeldians, and Libertines of their blaspheamous opinions. For like as our Protestant adversaries commonly fly to illuminations for the knowledge of the true text & interpretation of holy Scripture: so these men either because they found it written that 
a 2. Cor. 3, 6.  the letter doth kill, or because they thought the Scriptures not necessary, seeing that the holy Ghost is able to teach men's hearts without any written letters, rejected the Scriptures altogether, and pretended only such illuminations of the spirit. Hence also perhaps proceeded the dreams 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 own fancies; and of their accusations of one another touching these matters.  
IT is moreover a thing most evident, that in the deductions or collections of the articles of their faith and religion out of holy Scripture, they are not only subject to error; but also that they follow their own judgement and inclinations: And this will appear to any man that shall consider the same. One deduction I will here set down, which I myself have heard some of them make, which was this: I urged them to bring forth some authority out of the word of God, for their keeping of the Sunday in stead of the Saturday? and they alleged as a sufficient proof of this matter, those words of S. john in the Apocalypse: 
Apocal. 1, 10.  I was in spirit on the Dominical (or as they say) on the lords day. And what an insufficient deduction is this, if we set aside the authority and tradition of the Church, which they despise? How doth this follow? S. john was in the spirit, or had a revelation on the Sunday: therefore all Christians may lawfully work on the saturday, a day commanded by God himself both in the old and new testament, 
Exo. 20. etc. Math. 19, 17  (if we follow the letter) to be kept holy, and observe the Sunday. I could bring a hundred more such examples, and my reader may gather some out of that which hath been already said, in the first section of the seventh Chapter.  
I add also for the proof of this, that their deductions out of the self same words, be divers and opposite; for every sect like as it hath a particular and proper form 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 belief is different. And to give one instance or two, (but yet to omit the known different collections which are found among Lutherans and Sacramentaries;) Do not some Lutherans gather out of Scripture a necessity of good works; 
See colloquium Altenbergense.  others that such works are not necessary? 
a Bishop Barlow of Rochester in his sermon. Whitgift & others  Do not also some Sacramentaries as our English Protestants, out of scripture deduce their government of the Church by Bishops; others as the Puritans their government by Elders? Do not finally 
b Caluins Institut. book 2 chap. 16. ver. 10.11.12. in Math. 26. & 27. Willet in his Synopsis controvers. 20.  Caluin, Willet and others, gather out of scriptures that Christ suffered in soul the pains of hell, which by others is disallowed? And do not the followers of one part of these collections, condemn them of the other, either as Heretics, or as Schismatics, or as Blaspheamers? These things are most certain. Of which I infer, that all these sectaries deductions cannot be found, but some must needs frame them according to their own fancies; And seeing that we have no infallible reason according to their grounds, to approve the one of them before another, we may with like reason condemn them all, as having no other ground (as they are by them maintained) then human judgement and understanding.  
In defence of the Lutherans of Wittenberg, both concerning the proof 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 confess. sect. 10 pa. 332. 333. Confess. Wittenb. art. 32.  that they hold the Church hath authority to bear witness off, and interpret holy Scripture; as likewise to judge of all doctrines according to that. Try the spirits whither they be of God, and let the other judge. Yea they add, that she hath received of her husband Christ a certain rule, to wit: the Prophetical and Apostolical preaching confirmed by miracles from heaven, according to the which she is bound to interpret those places of the Scripture which seem to be obscure, and to judge of doctrines. I answer and confess, that in very deed this is their doctrine, which maketh not a little against the dreams and inspirations of their brethren; but this can make no infallible ground according to their assertions: for they make both the Church and tradition subject to error; and consequently if we believe them, no man can build upon their authority, an act of divine and supernatural faith.  
Finally hence it proceedeth, that our adversaries themselves accuse and censure one an other to be corrupters of scripture, falsifiers, and liars. If we believe 
* Luth. epist. ad joan. Heruagium typographum Argentinens.  Luther, the Sacramentaries began their opinion of the Sacrament with lies, and with lies they do defend it; and they broached it abroad by the wicked fraud of corrupting other men's works. If Caluin, 
Caluin. admonit. 3. ad Westphalum. Caluin in defence. de Sacram. p. 1085  the Lutherans are nothing else but forgers and falsifiers: and of Westphalus in particular he writeth thus. Westphalus as though he were I know not what Comical jupiter, carrying Minerva in his brain, putteth boldly upon all his fictions the vizard of the word of God: if it had not been now an old thing and commonly known, that the false Prophets did so much the more gloriously pretend the name of God, by how much the further they were from him, by these frights and scarecrows, he would peradventure do something. The word of God doth confidently sound again and again in his mouth, but in word only. And soon after: This profane man doth filthily abuse at his pleasure the sacred sentences, no otherwise then Magicians do wrest holy words to wicked incantations: Hitherto Caluin. If 
a Brent. in recog. prophet. etc. in fine.  Brentius say true, all the Zwinglians works are full of depravations or corruptions, cunning deceits and slanders. If 
b Campanus in colloquijs Latinis Luther. tom. 2. cap. de adversarijs, fol. 354.  johannes Campanus, as certain as it is that God is God, so certain it is that Luther was a devilish liar. If 
c Westphalus in Apologiae contra Caluin pag. 430. cap. 19 pag. 194.  Westphalus deserve credit, Caluins works are stuffed with taunts, curses, and lies: and he (as he saith) is able to show certain pages in Caluins works, of which every one containeth above thirty notable lies and taunts. He addeth moreover, that the Sacramentaries corrupt very many places of Scripture. If 
d Conradus in Theolog. Caluinist. lib. 2. fol. 120. 123. 124. l. 1. fol. 80. & 132.  Conradus, all the Caluinists are compounded of lies, impiety, and impudence. If 
e Oecolampad. in Dialog. contra Melancthonem.  Oecolampadius, the Lutherans bring forth only a colour or shadow (as Heretics commonly are accustomed to do) of the word of God, they bring not the word of God; and yet all (saith he) will seem to build upon the word of God. Of the Zwinglians of Zurick thus writeth 
f Stancarius de Trinitate, lib. 1. d. 5.  Stancarius: These Arians of Zurick maliciously maim and mangle the sentences of the Fathers, and are worthily to be accused and condemned as falsifiers of the truth: and for that grievously to be punished, for they sin against that Commandment of God; thou shalt not bear false witness. These men are altogether Atheists, and allege falsely the Scriptures and the testimonies of holy Fathers, to cast down the Son of God, yea the most holy Trinity, from the throne of his Majesty: Hitherto Stancarius. Our Puritans works (according to the judgement of one of our 
g Survey of the pretended H. discipline cap. 3. p. 56. chap. 5. p. 80. c. 24. p. 307.  Protestants) are full of boldness, sophistications, falsifications, and many such corruptions. The same man accuseth them, that they have perverted the true meaning of certain places both in the Scriptures and Fathers, to serve their own turns: And affirmeth, that the word of God is much troubled with such kind of choppers and changers of it. Every giddy head (saith he) wresteth and wringeth it to serve his own devise. Further, he professeth as in the presence of God, that of all the places of Scripture which they allege against the Protestants, 
Ch. 31. p. 414. See also chap. 35. pag. 463.  he cannot find any one on which they have not cast such a colour, as was never known in the Church of Christ among all the ancient Godly Fathers, from the Apostles times till these our troublesome and presumptuous days. Yea he affirmeth, that all the catterbrawles, pitiful distractions and confusions which are among Puritans, proceed of such intolerable presumption, as is used by perverting and false interpretation of holy Scripture. Listen also, what we read in an other book of theirs concerning this matter: 
Conspiracy for pretended reformation printed, an. 1592. in the end.  last (saith the Author of the history of the Puritan conspiracy) do not the Puritans make great shows and many pretences for their unsound and absurd opinions, that they are taken from the holy and sacred written word of God? which by these means they make to be of private interpretation, and do not reduce their senses unto it when they read, but do wickedly captivate the Scriptures unto their own senses and meanings. Hooker hath the like accusation. 
Hooker in his third book of Ecclesiastical policy, §. 5. pag. 135.  Caluin in like sort noted this fault in the Libertines, for thus he discourseth against them: 
* Caluin in praefat. ad lectores de psychopanychia in tract. theolog. pag 539.  And whereas they are ashamed to be ignorant of any thing, in all things even as oracles they answer most confidently. Hence are so many schisms, so many errors, so many slanders of our faith: by which occasion the name and word of God is blasphemed among the wicked. At length which is the head of all mischief, when as they obstinately defend that which they rashly and foolishly uttered, than they ask council of the oracles of God; out of which they seek protections and safeguards for their errors. O good God what do they not turn upside down! what do not they corrupt, that they may I say not bow it, but by force crook it to their own sense? Doubtless truly said the Poet: Fury findeth weapons. Is this the way to learn to turn and toss the Scriptures to serve our own pleasures and sensuality, that they be made subject to our sense, than which nothing is more foolish? O noisome plague, and most certain cockle of the enemy man, by which he endeavoureth to obscure and cover the true seed! and yet we wonder whence arise so many sects among those, that first embraced the Gospel and the word again springing up: Thus far Caluin. And he concludeth of them in another place with these words: Falsely therefore do they abuse this pretence, and seek to persuade the more simple that they are governed by the prescript or rule of holy Scriptures; when as these being altogether rejected, they follow the imagination of their own brain: Hitherto are Caluins words. And these their accusations of one another convince, not only that in translating and expounding the Scriptures, they frame all things according to their own fancies and imaginations; from whence proceedeth that their assertion, that the Scriptures are easy, because among them it is even as easy to expound Scriptures as to imagine: but also, that they have no other ground whereon they build their faith and religion. And all these reasons proceed principally against the learned sectaries.   

SECTION THE sixth. The unlearned and ignorant sectaries, in receiving and expounding the holy Scriptures, likewise build upon their own fancies and judgements, and have no other ground of their faith and religion.  
THAT the unlearned Sectaries be likewise in the the same case, it is far more easy to prove. For besides that they have no other means to know which books are to be received as Canonical Scripture, & which are to be rejected, but the opinion of their learned Masters, who differ among themselves concerning this matter: of which it followeth, that in following of one and condemning others, they follow their own judgements. Besides this I say it is evident, that they build not their faith and religion upon the pure word of God, as it was first penned by the inspiration of the holy Ghost (for they as I suppose understand not the tongues in which it was so penned) but upon the word of God translated by their learned Captains.  
Now if their translators have erred or may err in their translations, where is their faith? Surely that they are all subject to error, it is proved before? How then can the unlearned know that either through ignorance or malice they have not erred? what divine authority or revelation have they to persuade them this, or to propound unto them their translated Bibles as the true word of God? If the sincerity of the translator be doubtful, and they have no such authority or revelation, how can they know certainly and infallibly by divine warrant, that their Bible's contain the pure and sincere word of God? And if they know not this after this sort, how can they build upon their Bible's true faith, which is a most certain knowledge through divine revelation? without all doubt seeing that they admit no other infallible rule, they must needs confess that they are always uncertain whether their belief be true or no, for their belief can have no further assurance of truth, than they have of the truth of the ground thereof; which they affirm to be the only word of God, contained in their own books. Wherefore, seeing that the truth of these is uncertain, their faith also must needs be uncertain. And this argument is sufficient to prove that the unlearned sectaries have no faith. But I add further, that I have before set down divers places of holy Scripture, which we affirm in very deed to be corrupted by their translations: which our affirmation they may the better believe, because they may also there see, that divers places in the first editions corrupted, are amended in the latter. How then can the unlearned being ignorant in the tongues, discern by the Scripture only whether we say true or no? or whether we or the authors of their translations err? Surely, in judging of this controversy they follow their own fancies, neither have they any sound reason (much less divine authority) that can move them rather to condemn our translation, than their own. Hence also I infer, that our unlearned Sectaries are not yet certain that the English Bibles are the true word of God. This I prove, because they cannot deny but their said bibles were once falsely translated: otherwise wherefore have they been in so many places as I have noted corrected? Doth not every correction suppose a fault? But that they were once false, it is granted in the preface to the Bible of the year 1589. 1592. and 1600. If they were once false, how know they that they are now true? Had the learned Sectary or Sectaries that last amended the Bible, any further warrant from God that they should not err, than they that erred before? what warrant had they that erred? no other certainly but their own knowledge. And what had they that last of all corrected it, but the same? and so the translator of the aforesaid Bible in the preface to the reader protesteth, that according to the measure of his knowledge he hath faithfully rendered the text, and sincerely expounded all hard places; but who knoweth not, that all these men's judgements and knowledges be alike subject to error? If therefore the last translators or correctors had no further warrant (as they had not) than the former, how can it certainly be known that they have not also erred? 
Conference at Hampton-Court, etc.  but this likewise is confessed by the King's Majesty and D. Reinolds, as I have noted before: wherefore as yet the unlearned English sectaries never had, nor have at this present a true and certain ground of their faith; and consequently, they are yet uncertain whither their belief be sound or no, because their Bible on which only they build, containeth not the true word of God. Neither will this be remedied by a new edition of the Bible (which as it is said is now in hand) because the new translators which now endeavour to correct the old, are also subject to error; and therefore the unlearned sectaries can never certainly know whither they have erred or no. Of which I finally infer, that they can never have true faith, which is a most certain and sure knowledge of things revealed by God.  
I will add one other argument most evidently convincing, that none of the unlearned professors of the new religion, can possibly be certain that their translated Bibles are the true word of God, which is this. Every man must needs confess that there is but one true word of God: But our adversaries Bibles be divers and differ much one from another (wherefore as I have showed, every man rejecteth all other Bibles, but that which is translated and approved by those of his own sect:) therefore all of them but one must needs be false; which being presupposed, I demand of any one unlearned sectary what reason he hath to prefer one Bible as true, before all the rest? for example, wherefore doth he reject the Lutheran, or Puritan Bible, and admit that which is authorized to be read in the Churches of England? He cannot say that it is because the one agreeth with the Hebrew and Greek, and the other do not; for this he knoweth not, because he is ignorant of those languages. Perhaps he will say that some learned men told him so; But this is no sufficient ground, both because if he ask a Lutheran, or Caluinist, although even as learned as the English Protestant, they will tell him the contrary; and also, because the judgement of a learned man, yea of all the learned sectaries in the world together, is not sufficient to make any thing so certain, that we may without all doubt admit it, as a sufficient ground of an article of faith. For be they never so learned, yet their sentence may be erroneous, they themselves being subject to error: wherefore the unlearned sectary although he make himself judge of all the learned, yet he can not possibly most assuredly know, which of them have erred in translating the Bible. And therefore in accepting and approving one, and rejecting and condemning the rest, he buildeth only upon his own fancy, which moveth him to accept and approve one edition of holy Scripture, before another: either because it favoureth his own opinions, or because he hath conceived a good opinion of the Translator, or because the translation is allowed in the Country where he dwelleth, or for some other private respect. Moreover, although we should grant to the unlearned and ignorant sectaries, that they most assuredly know that their translated Bibles are the true word of God: yet the interpretations also on which they build, yield us even as forcible an argument as the former. For seeing that the Scriptures are hard and admit divers interpretations (as I have already proved) yea are so diversly expounded by their learned Captains, that all their expositions cannot be true, who seethe not first, that the unlearned and ignorant have little reason to accept more of one interpretation, then of an other. Secondly, that in accepting one and rejecting others, they build not upon any divine authority, but upon their own judgement; by which they are moved to think the doctrine received true, either through the authority of him that teacheth it, or some discourse of their own understanding. Lastly it is also apparent, that in so doing they make themselves judges over their Masters: for understanding of divers opinions among them, they choose and embrace one as true, and condemn all others as false. But if their learned doctors themselves, in their interpretations build upon their own fancies, much more the unlearned: wherefore, I need not use any long discourse of this matter. Only I will add, that it seemeth likewise necessary, that he that will build his faith upon the holy Scriptures, should find his whole belief in the said Scriptures, and know perfectly by his own study, what articles of faith by them are approved; and consequently, that he should read over the whole Bible, and confer one place with another, lest that he be deceived. Otherwise, if he believe others concerning these points, he seemeth to build upon their words, more than upon the word of God; and to fall into that which by his brethren and him, is commonly reprehended as a fault in us. For they reprehend the unlearned Catholics that they rely so much upon the authority of the Church, and read not the Scripture themselves to know what they ought to believe; whereas, if they do not as I have said, they build themselves upon the authority of a few Ministers. And these reasons have more force concerning the ignorant sectaries that cannot read, than the unlearned that can read, especially this last: for the ignorant sort cannot find their belief by their own study in the Bible, and therefore must needs rely wholly upon other men's reports.  
But our English unlearned and ignorant Protestants, (yea some of the learned sort also) recurre to the statutes of the Parliament, and make it as it were an infallible judge of all matters of religion. Against these I reply, that the Parliament hath no such prerogative, 
See Bilson in his treatise of the perpetual government of the church cha. 16. pag. 371. 388. 389.  seeing it hath neither authority from God, after such sort to intermeddle in matters of faith (for this belongeth to the Bishops and Prelates of the Church) nor a warrant from him of not erring: Yea seeing that it hath erred divers times, as our Protestants themselves cannot deny, the judgement of it must needs be very insufficient. That they must needs grant it to have erred, I prove; because it hath now approved some articles of faith, which in former times it condemned. This is evident, because some of the articles of their belief now approved, were censured to be heretical by a Parliament held in the first year of King Richard the second against the Wiccliffians, in the year of our Lord 1380. Also by another act of Parliament, in the second year of King Henry the fourth. Further their whole religion was condemned by act of Parliament in Queen Mary's days; Yea they cannot deny, but some of the chief articles of their new belief, were adjudged heresies by a Parliament held in the latter days of King Henry the eight, even when he used the title of supreme head of the Church of England, by the statute of six articles: upon which divers of their brethren were burned, as Fox their martir-maker recordeth. Wherefore I may well say, that their religion hath been condemned as authentically by act of Parliament, as it hath been approved. And what reason have they to believe more such Parliaments as have made for them, than those that make against them? Moreover, it is a most absurd thing, to condemn the ancient Counsels of the Church of error; and yet to make the judgement of an English Parliament consisting principally of temporal men, of an infallible truth. 
Field book 4 chap. 7. pag. 209.  Finally M. Field affirmeth, that we can never be so well persuaded of any man, or multitude of men, but that we may justly fear, either they are deceived, or will deceive: and therefore (saith he) if our faith depend upon such grounds, we cannot firmly and undoubtedly believe. Which his assertion if we apply to the English Parliament, it must needs be confessed, that according to his judgement we may justly fear, that either it is deceived, or will deceive; and that who builds his faith on that, cannot firmly and undoubtedly believe; and consequently it followeth, he hath no faith.   

SECTION THE seventh. Of the miserable estate of the unlearned and ignorant Sectaries.  
HAVING proved that the unlearned and ignorant Sectaries, build their faith and religion upon their own fancies; I think it not amiss to gather out of that which hath been already said, how miserable their estate is, and upon what weak ground they stand, and venture the everlasting estate of their souls. For the declaration of this let us suppose, that an unlearned sectary being doubtful of his faith, cometh to be resolved to his learned masters; and let us behold what grounds of faith are delivered unto him, by which he may make a steadfast and assured resolution; what then is this man perplexed in his belief, according to our adversaries ordinary manner of proceeding first wished to do? verily first; according to their advise he must take the Bible into his hands, and diligently view what faith is there delivered and prescribed. But what Bible must he take into his hands? no other certainly if he follow their counsel, but that which is translated and corrupted by those of their own sect: not the word of God but the word of men, as I have proved before: and this is the first ground which he receiveth from them. Suppose this be done, and that he being doubtful of this article among others, whither Christ be equal and consubstantial to his Father or no, turn over his Bible and find those words of Christ; The father is greater than I: 
john 14, 29.  But yet finding two natures in Christ, the one of God, the other of man; and not able to judge of which these words were spoken, is not yet satisfied: what more is to be done? He must confer say they this place of Scripture with other such like. Suppose then further, that he turneth to that sentence of our Saviour; 
john 10, 30.  I and the father are one, and pondering upon it findeth that the Father and the Son may be one divers ways; wherefore not understanding of what unity the said sentence is meant, suppose that he remain yet doubtful and cannot resolve himself by his Bible: what must he do more? He must then (say the learned) betake himself to his prayers, and pray unto God that his spirit may by his divine inspiration, teach him the true sense of the aforesaid places of scripture, and resolve him of the truth. Well he doth so: After his prayers either he findeth his mind inclined to one certain interpretation and opinion, or no: If not then he is yet doubtful. But if he doth find his mind so inclined, is he consequently sure that he hath attained to the truth? How knoweth he that this inspiration is from the holy Ghost? what reason, miracle, revelation, or infallible warrant hath he to assure himself of this? where doth he find that God hath promised, that the holy ghost shall assist and preserve every private man's understanding from error, that prayeth for his assistance? How doth he likewise know, that his prayer is good and acceptable in the sight of God? verily this is most uncertain; and yet otherwise by our prayers we obtain not our requests, and that the holy Ghost doth not usually inspire every man that so prayeth for the truth, it is apparent. For suppose that an English Protestant, and a Genevian Puritan be at controversy touching the same sentence; I and the father am one, and after ordinary discourses not agreeing, they betake themselves both to their prayers, and desire God to instruct them of the true sense of the said words. Will they after their prayers forthwith agree and be of one opinion? Certainly this is not their custom. What then? The English Protestant will say, the spirit hath taught me, that the Father and the Son are one in substance: the Puritan contrariwise, according to the doctrine of his master 
a Caluin in joan. 10, 30.  Caluin approved by 
b Whitaker in his answer to Campians eight reason pag. 204.  M. Whitaker, will affirm; that the spirit hath taught him that the aforesaid sentence is to be understood of unity in power & consent, not in substance. The ancient writers or fathers (saith Caluin) abused this place to prove Christ consubstantial to the Father, for neither doth Christ dispute of unity of substance, but of the consent which he hath with the Father: Thus Caluin. Which sense this Puritan may also confirm as whitaker's doth with that sentence of our Lord, used when he prayed for his Disciples that they might be one. 
john 17, 21.  That they all may be one (said he) as thou O father art in me, and I in thee? And be not these inspirations contrary? did the holy Ghost in this case inspire them both? Truly it is impossible. And thus the Lutherans and Sacramentaries, the Protestants and Puritans with divers other sectaries, after many prayers used on every side, remain yet at mortal jars concerning divers matters in controversy between them. Neither can it be said, that one part without all doubt is assured of the truth; for one hath no more warrant for his assurance then another; and consequently, seeing that they cannot be all assisted with divine inspiration, we may well affirm; that none of them are certain that they enjoy this prerogative, yea we may very well deny it unto them all: but of this matter I have treated above. For mine intent at this present it is sufficient, that by prayer the unlearned sectary without some special revelation or warrant from God, which none of them receive, cannot assure himself that his opinion is true. Wherefore let us yet further suppose, that he remain hitherto doubtful, as upon these grounds he should; Is there now any other thing to be done for his better resolution? If all this (say his advisers) suffice not, he must repair for his better instruction to the learned, and ask their counsel. If he demand whither the learned may not err in their counsel, they grant it. If he urge them, to give him a certain and infallible rule whereby to discern in their doctrine, truth from falsehood; they tell him, that when the learned speak according to the word of God, they say true; otherwise, when they serve and stray from the said word. 
Sutcliffe against the wardword encont. 2. pag. 54.  So our countryman Sutcliffe plainly affirmeth, that we are to believe every thing which our Pastors teach us, but as far as they teach the doctrine of Christ JESUS. Nor are we (saith he) absolutely to obey them, but when they teach according to the law: Wherefore, one of our Arch-puritans, of Caluin whom the followers of his sect esteem above all others writeth thus: We receive M. Caluin and weigh of him, 
T. Cartwright in D. Whitgifts' defence tract. 2. cap. 4. pag. 111.  as of the notablest instrument that the Lord hath stirred up for the purging of his Churches, and restoring of the plain and sincere interpretation of the Scriptures, which hath been since the Apostles time: and yet we do not so read his works, that we believe anything to be true, because he saith it; but so far as we can esteem that which he saith doth agree with the Canonical scriptures: And this is their common doctrine. Behold therefore this poor perplexed man is sent back again to the Scripture. And is not this a palpable circle? First, they sent him to his Bible, then to conference with one place of Scripture with another; thirdly to his prayers, afterwards to the learned, and now to his Bible again to know the true doctrine of the learned from the false; neither can they assign any other rule whereby this may be known. Of which followeth moreover this absurdity, that they make him judge over the learned; for he is to accept and refuse their doctrine, according as he judgeth it consonant or dissonant from the word of God.  
But let us suppose notwithstanding these absurdities and inconveniences, that the unlearned sectary for his better instruction goeth to the learned; and coming first to an English Protestant, demandeth of him the true sense of the said sentence so often alleged: I and the father are one. The Protestant telleth him (according to the assertion of all the ancient fathers, who by this sentence commonly refuted the Arians) that Christ by these words giveth us to understand, that he as he is God, and his father have the very self same substance. This not satisfying him, he goeth further to a Caluinist, who being demanded the same question answereth, that the true sense of those words is: That Christ and his father agree together, 
Caluin in joan. 10, 30.  and are of one consent. What is this poor man the near for all this? One telleth him one thing, another another thing: and how shall he discern and judge of the truth? Doth not this commonly happen? do not the Professors of the new religion disagree among themselves, both concerning the translation, and also the interpretation of the word of God? Doth not each one of them invite every man to his sect, bear the world in hand that he hath the truth, and condemn all others, oppugning his opinions of error and falsehood? what is more manifest than this.  
What instructions then can this unlearned sectary receive of the learned? Hath he not cause to be more perplexed and doubtful than he was before? what therefore shall he finally do? Certainly, I cannot see what other grounds he can receive from those Doctors: wherefore, if he will not go to the pillar of truth the Catholic Church, which is guided by the holy Ghost, and of he● receive a divine and infallible resolution; without all doubt he must either remain still doubtful in this principal article of Christian religion, or else going back to his Bible again, out of his own judgement he must resolve to follow one of the aforesaid interpretations, and to condemn the other as contrary to the word of God. And what a slender ground of faith is this? yea, seeing that he hath no divine authority whereon he buildeth, I may boldly say that he hath no faith at all, but only a kind of opinion.  
And like as I have exemplified in this particular controversy, so could I do concerning the real presence, and the true sense of those words; This is my body, or any other matter or place of Scripture in question between us, as my reader will easily grant, for there is the like reason of them all: and thus much concerning the unlearned sectary that can read.  
But what shall we say of him that is altogether ignorant and cannot read? The learned sectaries cannot send him to their Bible to search out the truth: He cannot likewise confer one place of scripture with another; his prayers be of no greater force than his be that can read; wherefore he hath no other mean left, but the advise of the learned and his own judgement: and what will the advise of the learned help and avail him, if he find among them possibility of error and dissension? These things he cannot but find, yea, concerning that very text first alleged: The father is greater than I; they are at variance; for whereas some restrain it only to the human nature of Christ, Caluin saith, He doubteth not to extend it to the whole complexum, 
Caluin epist. 2. ad Polonos seu in admonitione ad Polonos.  or person of God and man. And certain it is, that if this ignorant person embrace any one opinion as certain, concerning a matter of which he was before doubtful; that he must either build upon his own judgement, or otherwise he must take the word of some learned man, that the opinion which he followeth is true, and upon it ground his faith, religion, and salvation. But what reason hath he to accept rather of the word of one minister, then of another? For example, what reason hath he in the exposition of those words: This is my body, rather to follow the Sacramentaries, than the Lutherans? are they not all alike subject to errors? he cannot say that the scripture moveth him so to do, because he knoweth the Scripture only by the report of others. Neither hath he any infallible rule whereby to discern the true sense: wherefore, it is his own fancy which persuadeth him to accept of the one exposition, and to reject the other.  
And doth not also this sectary although altogether unlearned, take upon him to judge the learned? Can he possibly believe the Sacramentary, except he judge his doctrine to be true, & condemn all the learned Lutherans? Can he follow the Protestants and not condemn the Puritans? etc. verily he cannot. And what a simple judge is he, being a man ignorant, void of learning, and commonly of a slender wit and judgement? And like as every unlearned sectary condemneth all the rest that dissent from him in opinion; so all the rest condemn him. For if he follow the Protestants, all the Puritans tell him that he is deceived: if the Puritans, the Protestants tell him the like tale: If he believe Zwinglius, Luther condemneth him to the pit of hell: if Luther, Zwinglius pronounceth the same judgement against him, etc. And of what opinion soever he be, certain it is, that more of his own brethren condemn, then approve his belief. He is therefore in a most miserable and lamentable case, both because he hath no ground of his faith, but the word of a few ministers, and his own weak judgement: and also, because he is condemned of error, even by those of his own profession; even as learned and as wise as they whom he followeth, and far exceeding himself in all such qualities.  
And this is the ordinary manner of proceeding of the learned sectaries, with the unlearned and ignorant: these grounds of faith and no others they receive from them: If any man doubt of the truth of this discourse, let him exactly and strictly examine either the learned, what grounds of faith they can afford the unlearned and ignorant; or these, what grounds they receive; and why they believe thus and thus touching any article of religion; and their own confession will teach him, that all which hath been said; is true; and that the last and chiefest cause of this or that belief in the unlearned and ignorant, is their own judgement, or the opinion of the learned, liking their own fancy.   

SECTION THE EIGHT. That the new sectaries allege Scriptures to confirm their new doctrine, it is no certain argument that they build their faith and religion upon the said Scriptures.  
TO prove that the professors of the new religion ground their faith and religion upon the holy Scripture, some will say; that they allege sentences of the said Scripture in great abundance, in confirmation of their doctrine: unto whom I answer that true it is, that so they do. But I add, that this is no sufficient argument to prove that which is intended. And first, let every man deluded by such their proceed consider, that all the ancient Heretics have done the like. Did not Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutiches, and other arch-heretics together with their followers, for proof of their heresies bring forth divers places of holy Scripture? Of this Vincentius Lirinensis who flourished almost twelve hundred years since, 
Vincent. Lirinens. adverse. prophanas haeresum novitates, c. 35.  is a sufficient witness; for of the ancient Heretics alleging of the word of God, he writeth thus: Here perhaps some man may demand, whether Heretics also do use the testimony of holy Scripture? To which I say, that they do, and that very earnestly; for a man may behold them ranging and coursing in every part of the Bible, in Moses, in the books of the Kings, in the Psalms, in the Apostles, in the Gospels, in the Prophets. For whether they be among their own brethren, or with strangers; whether in private or in public; whether in talking or in writing; whether in the house a feasting, or abroad in walking: they almost never allege any thing of their own, which they do not pretend to shadow with the sacred word of Scripture. Read the pamphlets of Paul as Sumosatenus, of Priscillian, Eunomius, jovinian and the rest of such like pestilent Heretics, and you shall find through all their works an huge heap of examples, almost no page omitted, which is not coloured and painted with the sayings of the old and new Testament: thus far Vincentius Lirinensis. 
Origen. tom. 1 homil. 7. in Ezechiëlem.  Of this point also Origenes discourseth after this sort: When to defend false opinions we say, it is written in the Prophet, Moses testifieth this, the Apostle speaketh it: What other thing do we but taking the bread of truth, propound or offer it up to the Idols which we have feigned or made to ourselves? Martion maketh an Idol, and offered up to it the bread of Scriptures; Valentinus, Basilides, and all Heretics have done the like: hitherto Origenes.  
The same is affirmed but in fewer words by S. Augustine, who telleth us; 
Aug. lib. 1. de Trinit. cap. 3. see him also epist. 222.  that All Heretics endeavour to defend their false and deceitful opinions out of the same Scriptures. And in another place he recorcordeth; 
a Idem in breviculo collat. 3. cap. 8.  that the Donatists alleged many testimonies of holy Scripture. S. Hillary biddeth us 
b Hillar. orat. 2. contra Constantium.  remember, that there is no Heretic which doth not feign, that the blaspheamies which he preacheth are according to the Scriptures. And long before all these Tertullian noted, that 
c Tertul. de prescript. cap. 15.  the Heretics even in his days, pretended to bring Scriptures for themselves, and that with such their impudence forthwith they did shake some.  
But of whom learned Heretics after this sort to allege Scripture? Surely of the Devil himself their grandmaster; for did not he likewise tempting Christ, confirm his wicked temptations with the testimony of holy Scripture? it cannot be denied. 
d Math. 4. vers. 6. etc.  If thou be the Son of God (said he) cast they self down: and why? he addeth a reason: for it is written, that he hath given his Angels charge of thee: and in their hands shall they hold thee up, lest perhaps thou knock thy foot against the stone. Lo the Devil hath scripture at hand to confirm his temptations, as well as his scholars to confirm his doctrine their heresies; and the scholars follow the example of their master. Hence proceed these words of S. Hierome in his Dialogue against the Luciferians: Let not Heretics flatter themselves, 
Hieron. contra Lucifer, in fine.  if they seem in their own conceit, to affirm that which they say out of the chapters of Scripture: whereas the Devil also spoke some things out of the Scriptures, and the Scriptures consist not in the reading, but in the understanding: Hitherto S. Hierome. And certain it is, that any Heretic whatsoever, if licence be given him to translate and expound the Scriptures as he pleaseth, may wrist some places to his own foolish fancies; yea this may be done by any man, although he would set a broach some strange and absurd doctrine, that was never heard of in the world before.  
But let us add to these testimonies of the ancient Fathers the confession of Caluin, who against the Anabaptists discourseth thus: 
e Caluin in tract. Theolog pag. 571.  Because silly Christians who have some zeal towards God, can be seduced by no show or appearance more fair, then when the word of God is pretended and alleged: The Anabaptists against whom we now write, have it always in their mouths, and they always solemnly recite it. And soon after having delivered, that the highest place is to be given to the word of God, and that they press it against us. He addeth this exception, or moderation against the Anabaptists: But as it is our part to give ear to those things which are said, until we know of what force or quality everything is: so it is necessary that we prudently discern truth and falsehood. And we must judiciously consider, whether the word of God be truly or falsely alleged unto us: for we are commanded to try the spirits and to consider whether they are of God; which how necessary it is, the thing itself teacheth us. For the Devil himself armed himself with the word of God, and girded himself with that sword, to invade and assault Christ; and we find true by experience, that he doth daily use these guiles or arts by his organs or instruments to deprave the truth, and so to lead miserable souls to destruction: Hitherto are Caluins words; in which (as we see) he is forced to plead that against the Anabaptists, which we even with as good reason and as forcibly do plead against him, and all other sectaries alleging falsely the Scriptures. Neither do the Anabaptists only cite the scriptures plentifully; but also the Arians, Trinitarians, Familists, and other such like whom our adversaries commonly censure to be Heretics. The like report we have heard him above make of Westphalus a Lutheran: yea there he telleth us, 
Sect. 5. of this chapter.  that the false prophets in old times, by how much the more further they were from God, by so much the more gloriously did pretend his holy name.  
But did the Devil or any ancient Heretic, or do the new sectaries in these our days, bring forth scriptures in their true sense and meaning? God forbidden: for the scripture confirmeth nothing but truth. They falsely therefore wrested and wrest the scripture to a wrong sense, to the end to make it seem to favour their blaspheamies, and wicked doctrine. Neither can our adversaries at this time in excuse of themselves truly say, that the ancient Heretics alleged Scripture without any colour or probability of truth, which as they themselves think is not their custom: for this is most false, as it will appear to any scholar that shall consider the proofs of holy Scripture, which ancient Heretics brought for their pestiferous opinions, and confer them with the testimonies which are ordinarily used by the professors of the new religion.  
Let us declare this by one or two examples: the Arians as every one of any reading knoweth, made the Son of God inferior to his Father; and what could be brought more plausible for this in outward show, than that sentence of Christ: 
john 14, 29.  The father is greater than I? especially if we admit of that exposition of Caluin upon those words of Christ; I and the father are one: 
john 10. v. 3.  who as I have showed before, will have them spoken of unity in consent.  
The Novatians taught, that none falling into mortal sin after baptism, could be received again to mercy or penance in the Church; and what apparent testimonies at the first sight out of the word of God, did they also bring to confirm this falsehood? Doth not the Apostle even as plainly, yea more plainly teach this than he doth, that faith only doth justify? 
Hebr. 6. v. 4.  It is impossible (saith he) for them that were once illuminated, have tasted also of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the holy Ghost; have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, and are fallen: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery. Again; 
Hebr. 10, 26.  If we sin willingly after knowledge of the truth received, now there is not left an host for sins: Thus far the Apostle. And what such places have our new adversaries for their justifying faith? Surely they have no such. But did these Heretics allege these places in their true sense? nothing so, as S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria delivereth unto us, discoursing of the aforesaid words of the Apostle after this sort. 
Ciril lib. 5. in joan. cap. 17.  Penance (saith he) is not excluded by these words of S. Paul, but the renewing by the laver of regeneration. He doth not here take away the second or third remission of sins (for he is not such an enemy to our salvation;) but the host which is Christ he denieth that it is to be offered again upon the Cross: Hitherto S. Cyril, with whom agree S. Chrysostome, 
Chrisost. homil. 9 in cap. 6. ad Hebr. Ambros. de penitent. lib. 2. cap. 2.  S. Ambrose and the rest of the holy Fathers. And like as these Heretics falsely interpreted these places of scripture: so do the sectaries of our days, divers others.  
This our English Protestant's with Caluin will easily grant of the Anabaptists, whom they censure to be Heretics; and yet these sectaries have as evident places out of the word of God to confirm their own doctrine, as our Protestants can allege for their particular opinions. For example, the Anabaptists defend that children ought not to be baptised before they come to years of discretion, and can actually believe: And what Scriptures do they bring for proof of this their doctrine? 
Mark. 16, 16  It is written (say they) He that shall believe and be baptised shall be saved, but he that shall not believe shall be condemned. Lo (say they) it is necessary to believe before baptism, and the one is even as necessary as the other to salvation: and upon this ground principally (although they allege thirty other places) because infants cannot actually believe, 
Caluin admo. vlt. ad Westphalum. pag. 1116. 1129.  they build their aforesaid doctrine. And they so press the Protestants who deny habitual faith, with this sentence of Christ; that they forced the Lutherans to affirm, 
* Luther. lib. count Cochlaeum Lutherani in Synodo Wittenberg. anno 1536.  that infants actually believe when they are baptised, which opinion is now earnestly defended by 
a Lucas Osiander in Enchirid. count. Anabaptist. cap. 2 printed Wittenberg. anno 1607.  Lucas Osiander a Lutheran superintendant. In like sort they affirm all oaths to be unlawful, and this they gather out of those words of our Saviour, Math. 5. vers. 33. Again you have heard that it was said to them of old, thou shalt not commit perjury, but thou shalt perform thy oaths to our Lord. But I say to you not to swear at all, neither by heaven, etc. And soon after. Let your talk be, yea, yea; no, no; and that which is over and above these is of evil. These and other such like testimonies are alleged by the Anabaptists, which if we reject the censure and interpretation of the Church, make even as apparently for these Heretics, as any other used by the new sectaries for proof of their new doctrine. Hence Caluin himself writing against the Lutherans telleth us, that if it be so, we are bound with this law, that it is necessary we receive whatsoever the words (of Scripture) sound, there will be no kind of absurdity, by which profane men may not reprove and defame the doctrine of the Gospel, that is to say: there will be nothing so absurd, which profane men to the infamy of the Gospel will not gather out of it. Again; if the Scripture be so violently pressed as these men will have it, it will be as full of absurdities as it hath verses: 
Survey of the pretended holy discipline chap. 31 pag. 414. 415.  Thus Caluin. In like sort the Author of the Survey of the Puritan discipline, against the Puritans affirmeth, that it is not enough for men to allege Scriptures, except they bring the true meaning of the Scriptures. And all this discourse convinceth, that the allegation of Scripture is no certain proof, that the Scripture is the ground of his belief by whom it is alleged.  
But for a farther proof of all this in our new sectaries, let us also consider, that they do not only bring forth Scriptures against the Catholics, but also against one another: For although their opinions be never so divers, yet they cite places of Scriptures out of the self same books, aswell for the confirmation of their own, as the confutation of their adversaries doctrine. And further, all are (as they say) contented to have the Scripture decide and end the controversy. 
Fox p. 1097. 987. anno 1536. pag. 1591. col. 2. pag. 1094. col. 2.  Hence on the self same day three sectaries were burnt in Smithfield, Barret, Garret, and Hierome, of which the first was a Lutheran, the other two Zwinglians; and yet they all (as Fox reporteth) protested at their death, that they taught nothing but that which was contained in the Scripture. In like sort the Puritans of this realm of England, now 
* See a christian and modest offer of a most indifferent conference, tendered by the late silenced and deprived Ministers to the Archbishops printed anno 1606.  offer to prove all their Puritanical assertions out of the word of God, which nevertheless our Protestants taught (as they say) by the same word of God, reject. Of which I infer, that whosoever weigheth a little and looketh into the matter, may see first; that they cannot all truly allege Scripture, & build upon the same, for the Scripture approveth not contrary doctrine: and therefore he may imagine that they may even as well err in bringing forth Scripture against us, as against their own brethren; and consequently be persuaded, that their alleging of Scripture is no certain argument of truth. Secondly he shall likewise find, that in their alleging the word of God, both against us and those of their own company, they remit not the controversy to the bare words of Scripture, but unto the words of scripture translated & expounded by themselves, wherefore they differ in the translation and interpretation of holy Scripture; for every one of them rejecteth all other translations & interpretations but his own, upon which (being his own fancy) not upon the Scripture he buildeth his opinion. But wherefore do Heretics covet so plentifully to allege the word of God? the reason of this is notably well declared by Vincentius Lirinensis in this his discourse: They know fulwel (saith he) that their stinking and unsavoury drugs, be not likely almost to please any, 
Vincent. Lirinens. ca 35.  if simply and nakedly they be set forth: and therefore they do temper them as it were with the sweet powder of God's word, that he which quickly would have contemned man's erroneous invention, dare not so readily reject Gods divine Scripture; wherein they are like to those which minding to minister bitter potions to young children, first anoint the brims of the cup with honey, that thereby unwary youth feeling sweetness, may nothing fear the bitter confection. This devise also practise they, who upon naughty herbs and hurtful juices, writ the names of good & wholesome medicines; whereby almost no man reading the good superscription, any thing suspecteth the lurking poison of the self same thing. 
Math. 7.  Likewise our Saviour crieth out to all Christians: take ye heed of false prophets, which come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. What is meant else by sheeps clothing? but the sayings of the Prophets and Apostles, which they with sheepe-like sincerity did wear, etc. And soon after: But to the end they may more craftily set upon the sheep of Christ mistrusting nothing; remaining still cruel beasts, they put of their wolvish weed, and shroud themselves with the words of Scripture, as it were with certain fleeces; whereby it happeneth, that when the silly sheep feel the soft wool, they little fear their sharp teeth: 
Ambros. in cap. vlt. ad Tit.  hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis. S. Ambrose likewise telleth us, that impiety seeing authority to be esteemed, covereth herself with the vail of Scriptures: that whereas by herself she is not acceptable, by Scriptures she may seem most commendable: And of this matter I need say no more.    

Chapter 9 In which is proved by the new Sectaries forsaking their own supposed ground and flying to others, also by their dissension and inconstancy, that they build their faith and religion only upon their own fancies.  

SECTION THE FIRST. Concerning their flying to other grounds by themselves rejected, and their dissension.  
I HAVE now sufficiently proved, that our adversaries build not their faith and religion upon any one of those particular grounds, which are found in the Church of Christ; yea that in all matters, the rule of their belief is principally their own judgement and fancy.  
For the confirmation of all which my discourse, I purpose in this chapter to set down three manifest tokens and signs of this their weak foundation, to wit: their forsaking of their own ground and flying to others when they confute their adversaries; their dissension or division; and their inconstancy. Concerning the first, it is a thing most evident in all their proceedings, that although disputing against us they plead and demand only Scriptures, and commonly reject all authority of the Church, Counsels, and Fathers: yea, when they come to confute other Sectaries like unto themselves, they refuse such trial by scriptures, and sometimes fly to other such grounds. Thus Caluin although he refer all matters sometimes to Scripture, affirming that we ought to hearken to the voice of Christ alone, and that it is meet the mouths of all men be shut, after that our Lord hath once spoken: 
Caluin lib. 4. instit. cap. 8. § 7. 8.  which by his ordinary courses he seemeth to approve as a sufficient argument, to show that the words themselves of Scripture as they are expounded by himself, are without contradiction to be applauded and reverenced; yet at other times he desireth all sorts diligently to ponder and examine whether the word of God be truly or falsely alleged; and to try the spirits whether they be of God or no, because the Devil assaulted Christ by Scripture, and his instruments daily practise the same art to deprave the truth, and seduce silly souls. This course he taketh against the Anabaptists, as I have showed a little before. 
See before chap. 8. sect. 5.  Nay discoursing against the Lutherans he useth these words: Now again I turn my speech to you godly readers, whom I earnestly beseech, that you suffer not your senses to be astonished with that tinkling, wherein the Magdeburgians boast. This voice always soundeth in their mouths, 
Caluin admonit. ultima ad Westphalum, pag. 1147.  that we must not dispute where Christ the only master and doctor, hath clearly taught what is to be believed; that we must not contend where the same supreme judge hath pronounced a plain sentence: thus Caluin to the Lutherans, pleading hardly the scriptures against him in proof of the real presence. After this sort also Beza against the Arians, Trinitarians, Nestorians, and Eutychians pleaded the authority of general Counsels, as I have else where showed. 
Part. 1. chap. 9  Westphalus likewise wrote to 
a calvini ibid. pag. 1098.  Caluin, that the consent of many Churches condemning him, should satisfy him. Finally our English Protestant's although they pronounce so hard a censure against general Counsels themselves, and are so earnest for the sufficiency of only Scripture, as we have seen before; yet against the Puritans plead hardly the authority of the Church, Counsels, and Fathers, as every man may behold in their works of this argument, 
Whitgift in his defence. Belson in his treatise of the perpetual government of the Church.  and such other examples are not wanting.  
Touching their dissension and division 
a Tertul lib. de prescript.  Tertullian affirmeth, that we may lawfuly judge that there is adulteration both of Scripture and expositions, where there is found diversity of doctrine. And the reason of this is manifest, because the truth unto which the Scriptures and their true interpretation is consonant and give testimony, is one: wherefore they cannot approve divers and opposite doctrines. Now that division is found among our adversaries, no man of any sense and reading can deny. 
b Stanislaus Rescius lib. de Acheismis & Phalerismis haereticorum nostri temporis.  Stanislaus Rescius numbereth of them an hundred & scutcheon distinct sects, of which 
c Caspar Vlenbergius li. 22. Causarun causae, 9  Caspar Vlenbergius reciteth divers principal: 
* See Hedio a Zwinglian epist. ad Melancthonem.  others reckon far more. And this every man may the better believe if he consider, that it is a very hard matter to find any two of the learned sort of them, of one opinion touching all matters of religion. Hence ariseth dissension in their Churches, in which they proceed so far, that they fear not to censure and condemn one another of heresy. If we believe 
d Luther thes. 27. cont. Lovaniens. tom. 7. in defence. verborum coenae, etc.  Luther and the Lutherans; Zwinglius, Caluin, and all the Sacramentaries are damned Heretics: If we credit 
e Zwinglius tom. 2. in respons. ad Luth. l. de Sacram. fol. 411. 401. Caluin admonit. 3. ad Westphalum.  Zwinglius, Caluin, and other Sacramentaries; Luther and the Lutherans are guilty of the same crime. And the like dissensions are between the inventors and followers of other sects. But of this matter I shall have a more fit opportunity to discourse in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church: wherefore in this place passing over altogether with silence, the domestical discord which is between our Protestants and Puritans; touching the Lutherans and Caluinists abroad I will recite this only testimony of an 
f Relation of the state of religion in the West parts of the world, §. 45. written (as said by Sir Edwine Sans) printed in the year 1605.  English Protestant, who having travailed in those parts, of their dissension writeth thus: The Lutheran preachers rage hitherto in their pulpits against the Caluinists as much as ever, and their Princes and people have them in as great detestation, not forbearing to profess openly, that they will return to the Papacy, rather than ever admit that Sacramentary and predestinary pestilence. For these two points are the ground of the quarrel, and the later more scandalous at this day, than the former: thus he writing as it is probable, of things which he saw and heard with his own eyes and ears.  
And what is the offspring and fountain of this their division and dissension, but the want of a certain infallible rule to direct them? for because they all seem with one consent to accept of the bare words of Scripture, for the only ground of their faith and religion; and the said words admit sundry expositions, every man among them (whose wit by any means can reach to the invention, either of a new translation or interpretation of the word of God, or of some new opinion, which by wresting and wring he can in outward show, confirm by the authority of the same) foundeth a new sect. Hence are these words of Luther: 
Luther. epist. ad Antuerp. tom. 2. Germ. ●en. fol. 101.  There be almost so many sects and religions among us, as there be men. There is no Ass in this time so sottish and blockish, but will have the dreams of his own head, and his opinion accepted for the instinct of the holy Ghost, and himself esteemed as a Prophet. And again in an other place thus he complaineth: The peace and concord of the Church being once broken (that is to say the pillar of truth, and the infallible rule of our faith being once forsaken) there is no mean or end of dissensions. 
Luther in ca 5. ad Galat. tom. 5. Wittenb. fol. 416  In our time first the Sacramentaries forsook us, afterwards the Anabaptists. Of these neither agree among themselves. So always one sect bringeth forth another, and once condemneth another: Hitherto Luther the ringleader of all the dance himself. And thus much of their division and dissension in this place.  
I know that some of our adversaries are so bold (I might say so impudent) as to deny there is any great or material dissension in their Churches. And among others M. Field writeth, 

Field book 3 ch. 42. p. 170. See also ibid. pag. 169.  
Where he saith there is a full consent in their public confessions of faith.   that it so fell out by the happy providence of God, when there was a reformation made (by his brethren) that there was no material or essential difference among them, but such as upon equal scanning, will be found rather to consist in the divers manner of expressing one thing, and to be but verbal upon the mistaking, through the hasty and inconsiderate humours of some men than any thing else. He addeth further; Yea I dare confidently pronounce, that after due and full examination of each others meaning, there shall be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament, the ubiquitary presence, or the like; between the Churches reform by Luther's ministry in Germany, and other places, and those whom some men's malice called Sacramentaries: that none of the differences between Melancthon and Illiricus, (except about certain ceremonies) were real: that Osiander held no private opinion of justification, howsoever his strange manner of speaking, gave occasion to many so to think and conceive. And this shall be justified against the proudest Papist of them all: Thus Field. But how untrue this his assertion is, all the world knoweth; and it might be easily here demonstrated, did not the matter belong properly to an other place. I have partly also showed the falsehood of it already: Nevertheless, to add a word or two against this doctor in particular; how doth this agree with the beginning of the Epistle Dedicatory of his book? 
See his words cited at large in the preface of this treatise. See also in his third book, ch. 13. pag. 86.  Doth he not there complain of unhappy divisions in the Christian world, and of infinite distractions of men's minds, not knowing in so great variety of opinions what to think or to whom to join themselves? every faction (saith he) boasting of the pure and sincere profession of heavenly truth, challenging to itself alone the name of the Church, and fastening upon all that dissent or are otherwise minded, the hateful note of schism and heresy? There he affirmeth, that the controversies of religion in our time are grown in number so many, and in nature so intricate, that few have time and leisure, fewer strength of understanding to examine them. And therefore he concludeth, that nothing remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out the Church, that so they may embrace her communion, follow her directions, and rest in her judgement: Thus he discourseth in his Epistle dedicatory. And how can these things be made consonant and agreeable to his other words, even now alleged? Truly I think an indifferent reader will hardly excuse him from contradiction. Besides this he telleth us, there is no difference touching the Sacrament, the ubiquitary presence and the like, between the Lutherans and the Sacramentaries: 
Caluin Instit. book 4. chap. 17 §. 16. etc.  but Caluin avoucheth, that by the ubiquitary presence, Martion an ancient Heretic is raised up out of hell. The Caluinists also in the Preface to the Harmony of confessions (although a book published to show a consent among the followers of the new religion) exclaim in like manner against it: and a thousand other books written on both sides, convince him of falsehood. Field saith, none of the differences between Melancthon and Illiricus, except about certain ceremonies, were real: but whosoever readeth the acts of Synod held by Lutherans at Altenburge, and the public writings of the Flaccians (so called of Flaccus Illiricus) against the Synergists and Adiaphorists, two other sects of Lutherans, and of these against them; shall find dissensions touching greater matters. Field avoucheth, that Osiander held no private opinion of justification: but Caluin in his Institutions, 
Caluin Instit. book 3. chap. 11. §. 5. etc. Heshusius l. count Osiand. Schlusselbur. in Catalogo haereticorum lib. 6.  spends almost one whole Chapter in the confutation of osiander's opinion concerning this article, which at his very entrance to this point, he calleth be wots not what monster of essential righteousness. Heshusius a Lutheran in like sort condemneth his brother osiander's doctrine touching this. And Conradus Schlusselburge an other of that sect, placeth him and his followers in the Catalogue of Heretics. Such are Fields rare & singular proceedings, in which he feareth not to affirm things most apparently false, and confessed untrue by all his brethren. And truly a man of small learning reading his books of the church, may first find that he hath a good opinion of himself, of his own wit and learning; then, that having learned a few school distinctions, by them he thinketh he can make whatsoever of any thing, and so reconcile opinions and assertions be they never so contrary. By which his dealings a man may well gather that it is no hard matter for Heretics after such sort, to draw and wrist the sacred text of holy Scripture to their own fancies. And thus much of the new Sectaries division and dissension for this present.   

SECTION THE SECOND. Concerning the inconstancy of the Professors of the new religion.  
OUT of the same root or weak foundation of our adversaries faith, springeth inconstancy: for they do not only dissent from one another, but also at sundry times from themselves. Let us declare the truth of this especially in the principal sectaries, and begin with Martin Luther the first unhappy father of them al.  
Luther therefore began to preach new and strange doctrine, 
See Sleidan, Surius, Lavatherus, and others.  in the year of our Lord 1517. and went on forward adding, altering, chopping, and changing for divers years together, in such sort that no man could know any certainty of his belief. That I wrong him not in this accusation, his own works will testify to any indifferent reader: for he fell by little and little into his sundry heresies, not into all at once. It is manifest in his books yet extant, that after his Apostasy from us, he granted 
a Luther de 1. precept. in purgat. quorundam articul. tom. 6 Germ. f. 21. de praeparat. ad mortem.  invocation to Saints; 
b Idem in declare. quorundam articul.  allowed of Miracles done at Saints relics; 
c In defension. count. Eckium.  affirmed the Commandments to be possible, yea easy through the grace of God; 
d Thesi. 10. Wittenb. an. 1517. & in epist. ad joan. Moguntinum.  taught that no man was certain of his own salvation; 
e Ep. ad Leonem 10. in commemora. rerum quae Augustae an. 1518. actae sunt in resolute. al●arum propos. an. 1518. in res●lut. de Indulgen. conclus 69.  acknowledged the Pope's supremacy; 
f In explicat. orat. Domini.  granted free-will; 
g Lib. de potest. Papae.  confessed seven Sacraments; and in particular 
h In visita●. Saxonica contra articul. Lovaniens. cap. 35. serm. de Poenit. to. 7. Germ. fol. 3.  approved Penance to be a Sacrament, and taught 
i In concione de poen●t. concione. de confess. praepar. ad mortem concio. de praeparat. Sacra. tom. 7. Germ. fol. 11.  Confession to be necessary; he 
k Sermo. de Eucharist. & serm. de venerabili Sacramento & fraternitat. tom. 7. Germ. fol. 20.  allowed of Transubstantiation; 
l De 3. precept. serm. de Indulgent. in resolute. de Indulg. conclus. 26.  commended the Mass; 
m In disput. Lipsica cap. de purgat. in resolute. de Indulg. concl●s. 16. adversus Bullam, tom. 7. fol. 132.  granted Purgatory; and 
n Concione de Indulg. disput. Lipsica cap. de purgat.  liked of Prayer for the dead: wherefore Vrbanus Regius his disciple telleth us, 
o Regius 1. part. eperum informata caute loquea●●, fol. 86.  that The man of God Martin Luther his master ever to be reverenced, thought it nothing against Christian piety, if of free devotion we pray once or twice for our dead. This I say was sometimes Luther's doctrine even after his fall from us. Al which he at other times contraried as I could easily show, if it were not both for overcharging my margins with allegations of his works, and also because I think that our adversaries will easily grant, that he denied before his death these our Popish propositions, as they term them.  
One example only of his inconstancy I will bring at large, to give the more credit to the rest, which shallbe touching his contradictory opinion of free-will; for against free-will thus he writeth: 
p Luther in assert. articul. 36.  free-will is a forged or feigned thing in things, and a title without a substance; because it is in no man's power to think any good or evil, but all things fall out of absolute necessity. And soon after: There is no doubt but this word free-will, came from the Devil, and that he was master of it. Again. The levity and foolishness of the Pope and his followers, is to be borne withal in other articles of the Popedom, of Counsels, of indulgences, and other unnecessary trifles: but in this article of the bondage (servitude or slavery) of the will, which is the best of all others, it is a thing to be lamented and be wailed with tears, that the miserable men are so mad: thus much Luther against free-will.  
But listen how he recanteth this doctrine in a book which afterwards he published: thus he discourseth. 
Luther in visitat. Saxoni.  Many speak indiscreetly of free-will, wherefore we have adjoined this brief information. Man being compelled by law and penalties, hath of his own proper strength free-will to do or not to do external works; wherefore he may attain to secular or civil honesty, and do good works of his own proper strength, given and obtained from God to do these things. For Paul calleth that justice, justice of the flesh: that is to say, which the flesh or man hath of his own proper strength. So therefore a man worketh of his own strength some justice. Verily he hath choice and liberty both to fly evil, and to do good. Again: The will of man is in such sort a free power, that it may do the justice of the flesh or civil justice, where it is compelled by law and force: as not to steal, not to kill, not to commit adultery, etc. Hitherto Luther expressly contradicting his former doctrine. The reason as I imagine of this contradiction was, that he saw his Saxonian disciples by his former opinion grown to all looseness of life, and abomination of vice: 
Erasmus in epist. ad fratres inferioris Germaniae.  wherefore he was forced (as Erasmus recordeth) to send visitors to reduce them from Paganism, into which they were falling headlong; unto whom for the better effecting of the matter, he gave among other instructions, a recantation of his absolute denial of free-will. Unto this I could add his inconstancy touching the real presence: for besides that, he sometimes allowed of Transubstantiation, and at other times denying it affirmed Christ to be really present, together with bread and wine; he also at the length affirmed the human nature of Christ to be present in every place, together with his Godhead: but of Luther enough. This only I will add, that this inconstancy of Luther was even when he lived, noted and reprehended by Zwinglius, who then told the whole world: 

Zwingl. tom. 2. respon ad confess. Lutheri fol. 454 458. 460. 514.  
Zwingl. ibid. in praef f. 417 see also f. 449 in respons. ibid.   that Luther not seldom was found contrary to himself within the space of four or five lines: and that pronouncing now this, now that of the same thing, he was never constant to himself; but thought that such levity and inconstancy might be used in the word of God, as shameless jesters commonly use, playing at dice. Again, Luther (saith he) doth not only bring his former doctrine in suspicion: but also giveth the Papists a most fit occasion to condemn him, by sending in this present controversy his reader only to those books, which he wrote within four or five years before. For who having heard or read these things will not say? that if so be that we expect other five years, without all doubt they being past, he will call into doubt those books which he wrote in these last five years: Thus far Zwinglius of Luther's inconstancy. Erasmus also, 
Whitaker in his answer to Campians reason, 8. p. 208.  a man denied by whitaker's, to be a writer of our side, and by the martir-maker Fox canonised for a Saint of the new religion, of Luther & his disciples writeth after this sort: 
* Erasmus lib 3. de libero arbitrio.  What should I recount here the dissension that is among these Gospelers? their bloody hatred? their bitter contentions? nay their singular inconstancy? Luther himself having changed his opinion so often; and yet new paradoxes springing up from him daily: Hitherto Erasmus. Finally Field, although he extol Luther for a worthy divine, as ever the world had any in those times wherein he lived, 
Field book 3 c. 24. p. 170.  or in many ages before; yet confesseth, that by degrees he saw and descried those Popish errors (I use his words) which at first he discerned not. But to excuse the matter he first avoucheth, that in sundry points of greatest moment, as of the power of nature, of free-will, grace, justification, the difference of the law and the Gospel, faith, and works, Christian liberty, and the like, he was ever constant. Which assertion of his how false it is, that which I have before said touching free-will doth demonstrate. An other of his excuses is, that it is not so strange a thing as his adversaries would make it seem to be, that herein Luther proceeded by degrees, and in his later writings disliked that which in his former he did approve. And his reason is, because S. Augustine wrote a whole book of retractations. S. Ambrose complained that he was forced to teach before he had learned, and so to deliver many things that should need a second review. And S. Thomas of Aquine in his sum corrected and altered many things which he had written before. Against this I first reply, that it excuseth not Luther's building of his new belief upon his own judgement: nay it proveth manifestly, that he came not to it by the infallible direction of any external guide, but by the discourse and search of his own wit; and moreover, 
Caluin Instit. book 4. ch. 3. The Apology of the church of England part. 4. p. 123 124. etc.  that he was not extraordinarily by internal inspirations instructed and sent by the spirit of God, as divers of these men seem plainly to affirm, (for the works of God are perfect, and they whom he immediately sendeth & directeth in faith, err not in any point of that argument) but that his inconstant reason, was the principal ground on which he built his said faith and religion. Secondly I add, that the examples brought by Field in excuse of Luther, make nothing for his purpose. For what if S. Augustine writing, when he was yet a novice in Christian religion, and not fully instructed, erred in some points; which errors having received better instructions he reclaimed? What if the like happened to S. Ambrose, being miraculously chosen to be a Bishop and a teacher, before he was a Christian? What if S. Augustine before some articles of Christian religion were so thoroughly discussed and defined in the Church, as afterward upon the rising of new heresies, spoke not so aptly and properly as was needful in succeeding times, and therefore retracted what he had uttered? What if he and S. Thomas of Aquin in divers matters disputable and not determined by the Church, altered and corrected their former opinions? So hath Cardinal Baronius now done, who hath run over the first ten tomes of his Ecclesiastical history, and made as it were a book of retractations, recalling such things as he judged amiss. What I say if also these things be so, as without doubt they were no otherwise, shall it therefore be lawful for Luther or any other person to leap up and down, hither and thither, and to chop and change his faith according as his fancy leadeth him, in any articles of Christian religion? verily I think, to no man of judgement such a fault will seem excusable. But was Zwinglius, who as we have seen so peremptorily reprehendeth Luther for his inconstancy, himself free from this crime? Truly he was not: and because brevity suffereth me not to run through his works, and to show the change and alteration of his opinion concerning all particular points, in which he showed himself inconstant, I will only convince him of inconstancy touching one or two, and that by his own confession. It cannot be denied, but before his fall from us he held the Catholic doctrine concerning the baptism of infants, otherwise, without all doubt his novelty would have been noted and censured. His first alteration therefore concerning this matter, was from us to Anabaptisme; his second from Anabaptisme in some sort to our belief again. That he was once an Anabaptist thus he confesseth. Wherefore, I myself also confess frankly (saith he) that a few years since, I being deceived with this error, thought it better to defer the baptism of young children, until they come to perfest age: thus Zwinglius. That he partly recanted afterwards this heresy, he declareth in the same place: I say partly, because he always denied the necessity of baptism to salvation. That he was likewise inconstant in his belief of the Eucharist, these his own words testify: 
Zwingl. tom. 2. comment. de vera & salsa religione, cap de Eucharist. fol. 202.  We have written two years since of the Eucharist, where we have written many things rather according to the time, than the truth of the matter. And soon after: If (reader) thou find certain things here otherwise then in the former books, do not thou wonder we would not give food out of season, nor set pearls before swine. Finally, We retract therefore (saith he) and revoke those things which we have said there, in such sort that those which we set forth in the two and fortieth year of our age, counterpoise those which we set forth in the fortieth; when as we said we served more the time than the truth of the matter, that we might by that means the more edify: thus Zwinglius of himself. Who then can deny but he also was inconstant, and at the least in outward show altered his belief? yea, doth he not confess to excuse his inconstancy, that sometimes contrary to his own conscience and opinion? he oppugned the truth and seduced men with falsehood: truly this his own words testify and it cannot be denied. But what doctrine doth he here recant? certainly Luther's not ours. For he first fell from us to Lutheranisme, and defended Luther's opinion concerning the real presence, but within few years profiting to the worse, he became a Sacramentary, and affirmed the Eucharist to be a bare figure only of the body & blood of Christ. Unto these three I may very well join john Caluin, as every man will grant that shall view the first edition of his Institutions, set forth at Strasburge, where he professed himself first a Lutheran; and confer it with the last editions of the same, and with other of his works.  
The disciples and followers of these four principal Captains, most constantly followed the inconstancy of their masters. And first it is a strange matter and almost incredible, how wonderful inconstant the Lutheran professors of the confession of Ausburge, have always showed themselves in their proceedings. For the declaration of which I must give my reader to understand, that this confession above all others penned in those days by our adversaries, was both permitted by the imperial laws of Germany, in such sort as the professors thereof were freed from all punishment by the laws due unto Heretics, and also by divers esteemed as a fift Gospel. Hence it proceeded, that all sectaries of what new sect soever, professed themselves followers of this confession. And because the words themselves could not sound well on every side, they added also their Commentaries upon the same; and like as the sentences of holy Scripture, so of this every man endeavoured to draw to his divers fancies. Unto this mischief an other soon after was adjoined, to wit: the change and alteration of the Confession itself. For Melancthon the first penner of it, falling by little and little from Lutheranisme to Zwinglianisme, framed a new Confession according to his new faith, and published it under the name of the Confession of Ausburge: Neither was this practised only by Melancthon, but also (as it seemeth) by others. Hence farther among sundry other contentions among the professors of this new faith, there arose no small controversy even among the Lutherans themselves, who were the true followers of the Confession of Ausburge. And whosoever is desirous to see a part of this conflict, let him read a book entitled Colloquium Altenbergense, in which the acts and opinions of certain Lutheran Divines, which met in the said town for the decision of this matter and others, are set down. And among other things in it he shall find, not only their dissension concerning the true copy or authentical edition of this Confession: but also understand, that some of these divines accused their fellow Lutherans of Wittenberg, that they were miserably turned round like a wheel, in their faith; that they were as it were violently carried with contrary winds; and that they varied without end and measure the Confessions of their faith. This perhaps caused George that most noble Duke of Saxony, being demanded touching the new sectaries faith what it was, to make answer; that he knew very well what they believed this year, but that it was impossible to know what they would believe the next. This also moved the Lutheran Historiographers, 
Centur. 9 in praefat.  to term all the followers of the Confession of Ausburge, Ecebolios; and to liken them to the fish Polipus or Pourcountrel, which changeth often his colour; and to the old Pagan God Vertumnus, who could turn himself into all shapes. They affirm finally, that they now approve the true doctrine, and presently after condemn the same; now calling that heresy, which before they preached as an unconquered truth: Thus far the Centuriators. They might likewise have added, that they embraced sometimes that doctrine as true and evangelical, which before they censured to be heretical. For an example of this their manner of proceeding we have from Dresda in Misina, where in a Synod held anno 1571. certain Lutherans condemned the opinion of Brentius and Illiricus their fellows, 
In lib. concordiae.  concerning the person of Christ; which opinion nevertheless after some few years, to wit: Anno 1580. they publicly embraced as true. And these contrary opinions were published in the self fame City, by the authority of the self same Prince, within so short a time. The Zwinglians have showed themselves even as inconstant, as appeareth by this, that the inhabitants of the County Palatine turned from Catholic religion to Zwinglianisme; from Zwinglianisme to Lutheranisme; and from Lutheranisme in a short time again to Zwinglianisme. 
Simlerus in vita Bullingeri fol. 15.  Add also, that the Earl of Wittenberg in the year 1535. with his whole Country embraced Zwinglianisme: but he being dead the religion was soon changed again, as Simlerus a Zwinglian reporteth. Other Cities likewise of high Germany as long as Bucer a Zwinglian lived, 
Fol. 15.  followed his doctrine: but soon after his death (as the same Author testifieth) they condemned the Zwinglians, as the most wicked men living.  
I cannot but say a word or two of Melancthon in particular, both because sometimes he was a man of great estimation among the professors of the new religion, and also because his inconstancy was most notorious. He is called by Beza 
* Beza in Iconibus.  the setter up of evangelical doctrine, and the singular ornament of our age; by 
a Lauather. in histor. Sacram. fol. 47.  Lavatherus, and 
b Martyr contra Gardiner. par. 4. p. 468  Peter Martyr, a man incomparable, and thoroughly instructed with all kind of virtue and learning; by certain other Ministers, 
c Minist. Pinzoniensis apud Stancarum. M. 8.  the Doctor of Doctors, and the Divine of Divines; who being one (say they) is better than a hundred Augustine's: Thus these sectaries commend him. But how inconstant a man he was in his belief, all the world knoweth; and every man may easily perceive, by the conferring of the divers editions of his 
d See Colloq. Altemb. f. 520. 503. 463. 425. 424.  Apology and book of common places together: wherefore for this vice he is reprehended by divers of his own company. Yea concerning his Apology this is plainly confessed by Melancthon himself, who in his second epistle to Luther writeth thus: In the Apology we daily alter many things; For they are ever now and then to be changed, and to be accommodated or conformed to occasions: Thus he. The like discourse I could make of the inconstancy of Peter Martyr, who is accused of this fault by 
e Bullinger in firmamento firmo, c. 4. f. 127.  Bullinger: but I should be overlong.  
Our English sectaries at home have not been free from the same crime: for how often did they change during the reign of King Edward the sixth? The first statute made in a Parliament held in the first year of his reign, seemeth principally to condemn the Sacramentaries, who deny the real presence; wherefore Lutheranisme then seemed to prevail: Communion also under one kind in time of necessity is in it approved. By another law enacted in the second year of the said King, Zwinglianisme was set up, 
An. 2. Edwardi vi. cap. 1.  and a book of common prayer allowed and established as the said act pretendeth, not only according to the most sincere and pure Christian religion taught by the Scriptures: but also according to the usages of the primitive Church. Which book notwithstanding hath been thrice reviewed and altered, and still according to the self fame word of God: once in the same King Edward's days, secondly by the direction of Queen Elizabeth, and lastly by his Majesty that now reigneth. 
See the book of common prayer turned into latin by Thomas Vautrollerus, printed at London an. 1574. cum privilegio Regiae Majestatis, touching private baptism administered in houses by laymen or women: as also some others printed in English before the last corrected by his Majesty who now reigneth and confer them with the said last corrected.  And yet it is much disliked by the Puritans, and censured to be contrary to the said word. And like as their book of common prayer hath been altered: so also have their opinions concerning some points of religion, as I could easily show if time suffered me. If any man be desirous to behold the like proceeding among our Puritans, let him read the Survey of their religion. If I should descend to the inconstancy of particular men of our English nation I should never make an end: yet one example I will not omit, which is as followeth. During the reign of Queen Mary a Catholic Prince, divers sectaries from hence fled to Geneva, and there in the year 1558. printed sundry books, in which by divers testimonies of holy Scripture they endeavoured ●o prove, the government of women even in temporal matters to be monstrous, unnatural, against the law of God and man; and therefore not to be suffered. But the next year following Queen Elizabeth coming to the crown, the same men found it agreeable to all Scripture and all laws, that a woman might have supreme authority in things also spiritual, and be supreme head of the Church.  
And do all our adversaries acknowledge this their levity as a fault? verily no: Yea Caluin approveth it, and endeavoureth to defend it from all suspicion of a vice. Thus he discourseth: 
* Caluin de scandalis pag. 135.  Many complain that they are scandalised, that they saw not all things together in the same moment; that so hard a work was not thoroughly and perfectly polished the first day: How importune and out of season these delicacies are, who seethe not? for they do as if a man should accuse us, that at the first breaking of the day we see not as yet the Sun shining at noon day. And soon after: There is nothing more common than these complaints; wherefore was not that which we ought to follow presently exactly prescribed unto us? wherefore did this lie hidden more than other things? will there be at the length any end, if it shall be permitted ever now and then to go further? Certainly they that speak after this sort, either envy the profit of the servants of God, or are sorry that the Kingdom of Christ is promoted to the better: Hitherto are Caluins words. Concerning the same matter in another place he hath this censure: 
Caluin admonit. 3. ad Westphalum.  A law over hard (saith he) is prescribed to learned men, if after a proof of their wit and learning published, it may not be lawful to them to profit any thing during their life: Thus Caluin. In which his discourses, he doth not only confess himself, and his brethren to have been inconstant: but also seeketh a defence of this inconstancy. But how absurdly he reasoneth every man of sense may easily perceive; for our Christian faith and religion depend not (as he seemeth here to imagine) upon the wit and learning of any man: neither is it lawful for any man be he never so wise or learned, to call any one article by any means into doubt; for all the articles of our faith are revealed by God, who is truth itself. But Caluin here plainly granteth, that he and his fellows build their belief upon their own fancies and judgements, not upon any certain and infallible ground: and consequently, that they vary and alter the same according to their progress in learning, and other motives of their understanding, like as Philosophers do their opinions concerning matters of philosophy; indifferent, and doubtful. And this is the principal ground of our adversaries inconstancy: Some other causes there may be assigned why they are inconstant, to wit; that some of them make their temporal Princes their absolute guides, and immediate heads in Ecclesiastical matters: wherefore, as often as upon any consideration of policy or any other respect, the Prince changeth his mind; so often also is religion altered. But whether this alteration in any man proceedeth from the authority of the Prince, or the judgement of the learned, or any other such cause; certain it is, that it argueth and proveth no certain foundation of faith, to be in him that so changeth. And besides this, he doth also approve this or that belief or religion, because for some one or other respect it pleaseth his own fancy. And like as these sectaries, so were all the ancient Heretics inconstant, especially the Arians; 
Socrates lib. 2. hist. ca 32.  who as Socrates reporteth altered their Creed or form of belief no less than ten times. Hence it proceedeth that none of these new sectaries can ever be certain, that they have attained to the truth, and of this their inconstancy is a most manifest argument. For I think that every one of them, that have changed his belief, will easily grant that once he lived in error. And it must be confessed, that every one altering, condemneth his former faith; which if it be so, how can such men certainly know that they are not in error still? what warrant have they after their change, more than they had before? But besides this reason, every one of them hath other motives to make him uncertain of the truth of his own religion, to wit: that the most learned of his company, Luther, Zwinglius, Caluin, and the rest, have erred; and consequently, that he also may err: that as wise and as learned men as he is himself, censure his belief to be false and erroneous, etc. He that is unlearned may also consider, that if he build upon the judgement of the learned, he cannot possibly assure himself that they do not err: yea, seeing that every one of them affirmeth his doctrine to be true, and yet they disagree in faith, he may well assure himself that some of them do err; for contraries cannot both be true.  
And how can he certainly judge who followeth the truth, and who is guilty of error? I add likewise that he must needs confess, that both Luther, Zwinglius, and all the principal sectaries have erred in some one point or other, (for I think that there is almost no man that followeth either of them in all things:) how then can any man be assured, that they have not likewise erred in other articles, in which he followeth them? Surely a possibility of error in one point, argueth a possibility of error in all other of that kind. But these matters have been touched before.    

Chapter 10. Containing the Conclusion of this Treatise.  
LET us now draw forth of the long discourse of this treatise, some brief conclusions; and so make an end. First therefore out of that which hath been here said I gather, that the Catholics build their faith and religion upon far more sound and firm grounds than the professors of the new doctrine. This is manifest, because there is not so much as one ground among all those, which I have set down in the first part of this treatise, on which the Catholics build, which doth not far excel any ground whatsoever of the new sectaries: yea, I dare yet go a little farther and affirm, that although I should set aside the authority of the Church (of which as I have above declared, all our particular grounds receive their strength and force) and consider our grounds only as they are in themselves, without any other authority annexed; and also grant unto our adversaries that they build upon the bare letter of holy Scripture: yet I say I dare affirm, that we build upon the holy Scripture far more sound and more firmly, than they. Consider a little, that the Catholics receive the bare letter of holy scripture in the tongues in which these sacred books were first penned, as well as the sectaries: let us therefore suppose, that in this they are equal. But what a great difference shall we find, between the proofs of the truth of their translation and interpretation, and the proof of ours?  

Hieron. in praefat. in evang. ad Damasum, Item in Catalago.  The Catholics have the old Testament translated by S. Hierome: their translation of the new Testament although it was used in the Latin Church before S. Hieromes days, yet it was by him corrected and amended. And what was S. Hierome? He was first a marvelous holy man of life, as all antiquity giveth testimony; he flourished in the Church above eleven hundred years since, and therefore he lived near unto the Apostles days, that is, within the first five hundred years after Christ: wherefore, the said Apostles doctrine being then something fresh in memory, he could with greater ease attain to the true sense and meaning of holy Scripture, than any interpreter of our age. In his days there was no question or doubt moved in the church, concerning the especial points now in controversy between us & the new sectaries; I mean touching the real presence, justification and such like points: wherefore he was a man indifferent, not partial of either side, but he followed that sense which was then commonly approved by the consent of the whole Church. Of his great learning thus writeth S. Augustine in his first book against julian the Pelagian: 
Aug. lib. 1. contra julianum cap. 7.  Neither do thou think that S. Hierome because he was only a Priest, is to be despised; who being skilful in the Latin, Greek, and moreover in the Hebrew tongue, passing from the west Church to the East, lived in the holy places (in jewrie) and in study of holy Scripture until he was a very old man. This man read all or almost all, that before him had written of Ecclesiastical doctrine in both parts of the world: This is the testimony of S. Augustine. The like he hath in an 
a Idem li. 18. de civit. c. 43.  other place of his works, and 
b See also Cassianus l. 7. de verbi Incarn. count Nestor. Prosp. de ingrat. Cassiodor. divinar. Lect. ca 21. and others.  other approved authors give him as great a commendation. Add unto this, that for the better understanding of the Hebrew text; he 
c Hieron. epist. 4. et 125  took instructions concerning that tongue of the most learned of the jews. Hence Illiricus a learned Lutheran, having found fault with the Church of the four first ages after Christ for ignorance in the Hebrew tongue, of S. Hierome writeth as followeth: Only my countryman Hierome was marvelous cunning in the tongues, he endeavoured to illustrate the Scriptures, both by his translations and commentaries. But he indeed being ignorant of man's sickness, and Christ the physician, and wanting the key which openeth the Scripture, that is, the difference between the law and the Gospel; being also destitute of Christ who openeth the door, did little good: hitherto are his words. Of which it is manifest, 
d Illiricus in Clavi part 1. proefat.  that according to this Protestants judgement no skill in the tongues was wanting to this holy doctor. And although I confess, that the knowledge of the rule of faith believed in the Church, and the assistance of Christ and the holy Ghost are necessary to this, that a man truly translate or interpret Scripture; yet I also first affirm, that any man of sense will rather yield these prerogatives to S. Hierome a man so holy and ancient, then to any new sectary whatsoever. Secondly, I cannot see how according to the Protestant grounds, these conditions or qualities can be prerequired in a translator or interpreter of such divine books: for if the Scripture be the foundation and only rule of faith, as they teach; and out of it only true belief is to be learned; how is it possible but a man first beginning to translate, read, or interpret Scripture, shall want true belief? How can Scripture be the only ground of our faith, and yet true faith be prerequired to the true translation and interpretation of Scripture? Besides this, out of the words of Illiricus alleged it may well be gathered, that no skill and knowledge of tongues sufficeth to make a man a sufficient translator or expounder of Scripture, except withal his faith be sound, and he directed by Christ, who openeth the door. Of which it will follow, seeing that no man (as they say) before he readeth and understandeth Scripture can infallibly know, that he himself or any other is endued with such faith, or hath such assistance that no man can infallibly know his own, or an other man's translation to be true and sincere. Verily, if the translators faith must be judged by the conformity which it hath to holy Scripture (as it is by them affirmed) the Scripture must first be known before this conformity can be discerned, and how can this be done by the unlearned sectary, seeing that he cannot otherwise know the Scripture, but by some translator or interpreter? Of which may be inferred, that the unlearned sectaries can never assure themselves that any translation is true: but of these matters before.  
For the authority also of our translation in general, it maketh, that it hath been read and allowed of in the Church above eleven hundred years, and approved by thousands of Saints, and learned men, and by them accepted as the true word of God. The translation of the old testament in particular if we believe S. Augustine, 
Aug. l. 18. de civitat. c. 43.  was acknowledged as true by the very jews themselves then living, who favoured no more us, than the Protestants. That of the new as the same holy Father writeth, was also in those days approved by all Christians. 
Idem epist. 10 ad Hieron.  For it likewise we have the testimony of Beza himself, who among our adversaries is accounted a great linguist, who in commendation of the old translator writeth thus: The old interpreter seemeth to have interpreted (or translated) the holy books. 
Beza in c. 1. Luc. vers. 1. Ibiden in praefat. nou. test. anno 1556. Idem ibid.  with marvelous sincerity and religion. Again, The vulgar edition I embrace for the most part, and prefer it before all other whatsoever. By it in divers places he correcteth the Greek text as may be seen, Luc. 20. vers. 28. Luc. 7. vers. 31. etc. He also blameth Erasmus for reprehending of it as dissenting from the Greek, saying; that he doth it unjustly: I will recite his words which are as followeth; How unjustly and without cause doth Erasmus blame the old interpreter; as dissenting from the Greek? He dissented I grant from those Greek copies which Erasmus had gotten, but we have found out in one place, that the same interpretation which he blameth, is grounded upon the authority of other Greek copies, and those most ancient. Yea in some number of places, we have observed; that the reading of the Latin text of the old interpreter, though it agree not some times with our Greek copies, yet it is much more convenient, for that it seemeth, he followed some truer and better copy: Thus Beza. Unto whom I join Molinaeus an other sectary, as some think to him not inferior, 
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 john calvin's, and all others. He affirmeth, 
Ibidem.  that Erasmus in a certain place did well to follow the old edition, and saith it had been better for Beza to have done so too. He avoucheth further, that Beza did not well in changing the old translation. 
Idem in joan. 3. v. 19 & 43 see also in joan. 7. ver. 35.  He addeth also, 
* Idem part. 30  that he can very hardly departed 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. Humphrey, and 
b Gesnerus in Bibliotheca.  Gesnerus, blameth Beza for finding fault with the old interpreter, 
c Castalio in defence. p. 179 174. 181. 183. 188. 198. 202. 204. 213.  averring that he doth it unjustly, and that the said old interpreter had translated it better before. Yea 
d Humfred. de rat. interpret. lib. 1. pag. 74.  D. Humphrey himself yieldeth the old translator this praise: The old interpreter seemeth sufficiently bend to follow the propriety of words, and he doth in deed over carefully, which notwithstanding I suppose him to have done, not of ignorance but of religion. And in truth that this is no fault I gather out of his own doctrine; for he 
e Ibid. p. 179.  telleth us, that in profane writers a man may range abroad more freely, and departed from the words: but in Canonical scripture (saith he) no such licence is tolerable, for man may not alter the tongue of God. And thus much for the vulgar Latin edition of the new Testament out of our adversaries.  
Further, for the truth of our expositions of the holy Scripture, we have the continual tradition of the Church, and the testimony and suffrage of all the holy Fathers, and of thousands of Saints and learned men, who ever expounded it as we do, and out of it gathered the self same doctrine and belief. For unto them we are all contented to remit the trial of the truth of our cause: and of the ho●y Church and them, we profess ourselves to learn the true sense of the word of God. And thus much the Catholics can allege for the authority of their translation and interpretation of holy Scripture, although they set aside the authority of the Church. Now what can our adversaries say for themselves? what sound testimony or proof can they bring for the truth of their translations and expositions? Surely, every sect at the lest hath a distinct bible, wherefore for the proof of these things, they can only allege the testimony of their sect-master, or translator of their Bible, and his followers.  
And what a goodly matter is this? do not far more of the new sectaries themselves, condemn & reject every one of their Bibles and their particular expositions, than there do approve them? Certainly every Bible is condemned by divers, but approved only by the followers of one sect, and so in like sort are divers particular interpretations. Unto which I add, that the diversity of their Bibles, maketh the truth of them all suspected: for seeing that we have no greater reason to allow of one, then of an other; and all but one without all doubt are false, as they themselves must needs confess, because there is but one true word of God: we may with like reason reject them al. Moreover, is any one of their sect-masters or learned translators or expositors, to be compared with S. Hierome? Is the opinion of a few sectaries touching the translation and interpretation of holy Scriptures, to be preferred before the testimony of all the Saints & learned men, that flourished in the Church in S. Hieromes days, and ever since? yea I may demand, whether their opinion be to be preferred before the testimony of all good Christians, that have lived ever since the beginning of Christianity? For S. Hierome followed the steps of his predecessors, and consented with the universal Church of his age, and the Church ever since hath approved his labours. 
Stancarus de Trinit. & Mediate. M. 4.  Surely, Stancarus himself a Protestant avoucheth, that Peter Lombard (called the master of sentences) is more to be esteemed, than one hundred Luther's, two hundred Melancthons', three hundred bullinger's, four hundred Peter Martyrs, & five hundred Caluins. He addeth, that if all these sectaries named were beaten or pounded together in a mortar, there could not be strained or pressed out of them one ounce of true divinity, especially out of their doctrine concerning the blessed Trinity, the Incarnation, the Mediator, and the Sacraments; which nevertheless be the principal mysteries of Christian religion Wherefore he concludeth, that Peter Lombardes' doctrine is truly golden, theirs dirty and filthy: Thus discourseth Stancarus one of their own company. Yet who knoweth not, that Peter Lombard by the Catholics is accounted but among the middle sort of divines? and who is so bold as to compare him to S. Hierome, especially in translating and expounding the Scriptures? But the more to weaken the credit of their translated Bibles, which they boast to be drawn and featched from the very fountains themselves, to wit: from the Hebrew & Greek text, in which tongues the scriptures were first penned, let us here add; not only that they are not sincerely featched from thence, as hath been sufficiently proved before, even by the testimonies of Protestants themselves: but also that the said fountains and that likewise according to the judgement of Protestants, are not now pure and sincere, but in some places have been corrupted. I have in like sort proved before this last point, as far forth as it concerneth the Greek text of the new testament. And although something hath been said of the Hebrew text of the old: yet in this place I will relate for further proof of the same, certain sentences of Castalio, Conradus Pellicanus, and D. Humphrey, in which this is plainly avouched. For the first of these writing in defence of himself, against one that maintained the sincerity and purity of the Hebrew text, hath these words: 
Castalio in defence. suae translat. pag. 227.  This good fellow seemeth to be of that opinion (as in manner all the jews are, and some Christians drawing near to judaisme or judaizing in this respect) that he thinketh no error ever to have crept into the Hebrew Bibles, that God would never suffer that any word should be corrupted in those sacred books: as though the books of the old testament were more holy than those of the new, in the which new, so many divers readings are found in so many places; or as though it were credible, that God had more regard of one or other little word or syllable, than he had of whole books, whereof he hath suffered many, I say not to be depraved, but to be utterly lost: Thus Castalio. And in his discourse following he calleth this high opinion of the Hebrew text a jewish superstition: 
Conrade. Pellic. tom. 4. in Psal. 85. v. 9 alias 8.  Conradus Pellicanus expounding these words of the 84. Psalm vers. 9 Qui convertuntur ad cor: (which in one of our English Bibles are thus translated; 
* Bibl. 1592. Bible read in Churches.  That they turn not again to folly, and an other; That they turn not again,) writeth after this sort. The old interpreter seemeth to have read one way, whereas the jews now read another; which I say, because I would not have men think, this to have proceeded from the ignorance or slothfulness of the old interpreter. Rather, we have cause to find fault for want of diligence in the Antiquaries, and faith in the jews, who both before Christ's coming & since, seem to have been less careful of the Psalms, then of their Talmudical songs: Hitherto are his words. 
Humfred. lib. 1. de rat. interpret. pa. 178. Idem ibid. lib. 2. pag. 219.  In like sort D. Humphrey telleth us, that the reader may easily find out and judge, how many places the jewish superstition hath corrupted. And again, I like not (saith he) that men should to much follow the Rabbins as many do: for those places which promise and declare Christ the true Messias, are most filthily corrupted by them: Such is the judgement of these sectaries. Perhaps some man will deem these to be men of no account among Protestants, but it is not so. D. Humphrey is well known, 
Humfre. ibid. lib. 1. pag. 62. 63. 189.  and he matcheth Castalio with the best, and affirmeth the Bible by him translated, to be most painful, most diligent, most thoroughly conferred, examined, sifted, and polished. Gesnerus also a sectary of no small fame, giveth him this commendation: Castalio hath translated the Bible so diligently, 
Gesnerus in Bibliotheca.  and with so singular fidelity, according to the Hebrew and Greek, that he seemeth far to have surpassed all translations of all men, whatsoever have hitherto been set forth. Finally, Conradus Pellicanus was Professor of the Hebrew tongue in Zuricke. And out of this whole discourse it is evident, that although we should suppose the authority of the Church not to be infallible, and that both we and our adversaries, build only upon the bare letter of holy Scripture; yet, that the said letter is a far more sound and firm ground as it is translated and expounded by us, than it is as it is translated and expounded by our adversaries. For although we both challenge to ourselves the holy Scriptures, yet our translation and interpretation is of greater authority than theirs. We also for the proof of the sense by us received, offer to be tried by the censure of all our ancestors, from whom together with the letter, we have received also that sense which we embrace: Contrariwise, they both in their translation and exposition, build only upon their own judgement, and have no further proof or authority. And this I say is true, although we should make the Church subject to error, and grant the bare letter of Scripture to be the ground of our adversaries belief. But as I have proved, the authority of the Church is infallible and divine, and besides this, the new sectaries build not upon the letter of holy Scripture. Secondly I infer of that which hath been said, that our adversaries according to their doctrine, have no infallible mean whereby to know what articles of faith have been revealed by God to his Church, and consequently, that they want a condition necessary to true faith. And this is manifest both because they make the Church (which God as I have showed, hath ordained to be the ordinary mean for us to come to the knowledge of such things) subject to error: and also because the bare letter of Scripture which they ordinarily pretend in this case, is insufficient; neither do they build upon it as I have proved. Thirdly I conclude, that absolutely all the professors of the new Gospel, ground their faith and religion upon the judgement and fancy of man, not upon any divine authority. Hence they measure the omnipotent power of God by their own weak understanding, and in those mysteries which being above the reach of reason cannot be by it comprehended, they cry out with the jews; how can this be? 
john 6. v. 52. Ciril. lib. 4. in joan. cap. 13.  which word (how) saith S. Ciril Bishop of Alexandria is a jewish word, and worthy of all punishment. This also was in some sort confessed by king Henry the eight, the first head of our English Church: For being desirous after his denial of the Pope's supremacy, to make some innovation of religion within his dominions, he published (as Hal, Hollinshed, and Stowe report) certain articles, unto which he gave this title; 
In the year of our Lord 1536. of King Henry 28. Stow p. 965. edit. an. 1600  Articles devised by the kings highness: Insinuating thereby, that both the said articles, and all other dissonant from the doctrine of the Church, were and are devices of men. This moved a certain Courtier in those days, discoursing with a Lutheran Lady that found great fault both with this title, and the articles to answer her; that he had rather follow the devices of a King then of a knave (meaning Luther,) if needs new devices in religion were to be admitted: but this illation or conclusion is sufficiently proved before.  
And this weak foundation of our adversaries, was also noted by the ancient Fathers in the ancient Heretics. 
Irinaeus lib. 3 cap. 2.  S. Irenaeus recordeth: that every one of the Heretics of his age and before, averred his own fiction which he had devised, to be wisdom; and that every one of them boasted, that undoubtedly and sincerely he knew the hidden mystery. Tertullian affirmeth that 
a Tertull. de prescript. ca 37. see also cap. 6.  Heretics arise of diversity of doctrine, which every man either inventeth or receiveth at his pleasure. 
b Aug. tom. 6. cont. Faustum l. 32. cap. 29.  All Heretics (saith S. Augustine) that receive the Scriptures as authentical, seem to themselves to follow the said Scriptures: whereas they rather follow their own errors, and are Heretics for this; not for that they contemn them, but because they do not understand them: Hitherto S. Augustine. He affirmeth likewise as I have noted before, 
d Tom. 7. de nuptijs & concupiscentijs lib. 2. cap. 31.  that Heretics make not their faith subject to the Scriptures, but the Scriptures subject to their faith; and that it is the custom of Heretics to wrest the Scriptures to what sense they please: the like sentence hath 
e Hieron. ad Paulam epist 2. siue in prologo Bibliorun.  S. Hierome.  
Hence like as the Apostle termeth covetousness Idolatry, and consequently a covetous man an Idolater, so the 
f See Tertull. de praescr. ca 40. S. Cyprian de unitat. Eccles. Num. 12 S. Hieron. in Osee 11. Amos 8. & Abacuc 2. August. in psal. 8 v. 10. l. 18. de civitat. c. 51. l. de utilitat. jejunij, etc.  ancient Father's term heresy Idolatry, and an Heretic an Idolater; for like as the covetous man his worldly wealth, so the Heretic maketh his own fancies as it were his God.  
Last of all I conclude, that the professors of the new religion are Heretics, and have no faith: They are Heretics, because they obstinately defend doctrine condemned by the Church of Christ as heretical; which doctrine they build principally upon their own fancies: For according to their own private judgements they choose their belief, of which choice as we are taught by 
g Tertul. lib. de prescript. cap. 6.  Tertullian and 
h Hieron. in epist. ad Galat. & habetur 24. q. 3. cap. haeresis.  S. Hierome, such Sectaries are called Heretics, that is to say, choosers. 
i Tertul. de praescrip. c. 6. see also c. 37.  Heresy (saith Tertullian) is so called from the Greek word, signifieth an election or choice, which a man useth either in inventing or receiving it. With him accordeth S. Hierome, whose words be these: 
k Hier. in ep. ad Galatas.  Heresy is a Greek word, and is derived from election or choice, because every man chooseth that doctrine which he thinketh best. And hence it is that the faith of Christians (he meaneth of Catholics) can never truly be called an heresy, for this dependeth not of the fancy of any man, nor was invented by man's wit, but was manifested unto men by the inspiration and revelation of God: thus far S. Hierome. They have likewise no faith, both because they want a condition necessarily requisite to this virtue; and also because faith as I have proved, aught to be built upon divine authority, and therefore cannot be grounded upon any man's opinion and judgement in the world, except it be warranted from error by God himself; which warrant is wanting to all the professors of the new religion as I have declared: wherefore, the fallible and erroneous fancy of men is their only ground. Of which I infer, according to my discourse in the beginning of this 
l Part. 1 ch. 4. pag. 27.  treatise, that they have in like sort no religion, because the root and foundation of Christian religion is faith, 
m Hebr. 11, 6.  without which (as the Apostle saith) it is impossible to please God.  
Hence the ancient Fathers denied Heretics to be Christians. If they be Heretics (saith Tertullian) they cannot be Christians. 
Tertu. de prescript. c. 37. Augustin. in Enchirid. ad Laurentium, cap. 5.  His reason is, because in following their own election and not receiving their doctrine of Christ, they admit the name of Heretics. The name of Christ only (saith S. Augustine) is found among Heretics, who will have themselves called Christians: but Christ in very deed is not among them. S. Cyprian teacheth us the self same lesson, and affirmeth that 
* Cipr. epist. 52. ad Antonianum.  whosoever and whatsoever he be that is not in the Church, he is no Christian. The very self same sentence is also pronounced by 
a Aug. serm. 81. de tempore cap. 12.  S. Augustine in one of his sermons, and other fathers have the like. Finally 
b Beza de haereticis a civili magistratu puniendis, p. 184. 185. see him also pag. 106. 236.  Beza himself censureth such as break due order, & do not subject themselves to the word of God, but according to the property of Heretics endeavour to subject the word of God to themselves, to be idolaters; and in this worse than Infidels, that they shadow their lies with a colour of piety and truth: thus much Beza. And thus I think the argument of this treatise thoroughly proved: wherefore it remaineth only that I exhort every man that hath care of his soul and salvation, and dreadeth the anger of God, and everlasting damnation; if he be a member of the Church of Christ, and a child of his Spouse, there firmly to remain; if he be not, with all speed to incorporate himself to this sacred body, and to fly the fancies of his own judgement, and the erroneous conceits of mortal men. 
Math. 7, 24.  So shall he like unto a wise man, build his house upon a rock, which no storms of winds, rain, or floods can overthrow: not as a foolish man upon the sand of man's imagination, and consequently have it subject to alteration. This Church is a firm and immovable rock, the sure pillar and firmament of truth, on which we may securely build our salvation, and the whole edifice of our faith. She is an invincible Castle and fortress against falsehood, a learned Mistress and guide in all matters doubtful, and a most certain security in all points appertaining to faith and religion. She is finally the ship and skilful pilot, which throughout all the storms and tempests of Schisms and Heresies, will guide us without error to the port of everlasting salvation, and make us fit stones to be placed everlastingly in the triumphant Church of God in heaven.   
FINIS:   

AN APPENDIX TO THIS TREATISE, CONTAINING A BRIEF CONFUTATION OF A BOOK, PUBLISHED IN THE YEAR M. D.C.VI. BY WILLIAM CRASHAW, bearing this title Romish forgeries and falfifications, etc.  
IF all were true which is objected by new sectaries, against the one true Spouse of Christ, the Catholic Church, all men endued with reason might (according to reason) prudently marvel, that any man of common sense doth follow her doctrine, or embrace her communion. Luther exclaimeth against her children, that they make the Virgin Mary a 
* Luther ad evangelium d● festo Annunciationis.  Goddess, giving her omnipotency both in heaven and earth. Caluin 
a Caluin book 3. Instit. c. 20 §. 22. l. de necessit. reformand. Eccles.  that they give the worship of God unto Saints, and honour them and their relics in place of Christ. Luther again, 
b Luth. add c. 50. Genes. in colloq. Germ. c. de Christo.  that they deny justification and salvation through Christ's passion and merits. Caluin, 
c Caluin book 3. Instit. cap. 20. §. 21.  that in their Litanies, Hymns, and Proses there is no mention of Christ: yea, that for the most part, Christ being passed over, God is prayed to by the names of Saints. Luther moreover, 
d Luther ad l. Ducis Georgij scripsit an. 1533. & l. de abrogat. Missae privatae.  that they hold a man may keep the Commandments without the grace of God. Caluin, that they 
e Caluin book 1. Instit. ch. 11. §. 9 and 10.  give Idolatrous worship unto Images. Luther also, that 
f Luther l. de Ecclesia.  the Pope buried the Scripture in dirt and dust: Caluin, 
g Caluin book 4. Instit. ch. 9 §. 24. in antid. Concil. Triden. sess. 7. Canon 1●.  that they make the oracles of God subject unto men; and that they esteem more in baptism of chrism, salt, and such other things, then of the washing with water. Luther finally, 
h Luther lib. de Concilijs.  that they give to Counsels authority to make new articles of faith and change the old; Caluin, that they give the Pope authority to institute new Sacraments, and that the Popes hold there is no God, 
Caluin & alij passim in 2. Thessaly. 2, 4. Caluin Instit. book 4. chap. 7. §. 27.  that all things written and taught of Christ are lies and deceits, that the doctrine concerning the future life, and the last resurrection are mere fables. These and divers other such monstrous untruths, are forged by our adversaries against us; and this course they are constrained to take, that they may have something to impugn. For if they should plainly and sincerely deliver what we hold, the force and brightness of truth itself would easily at her only sight, weaken, yea overthrow all their impugnations. And like as the first beginners of the new religion ran these unconscionable (I may say shameful) courses; so their successors always have continued in the same: and even those of our days, obstinately refusing to accept of any reasonable answer, or to understand the truth, insist in the steps of their predecessors. For whereas if they were but indifferent they might well perceive, that we whom neither fear of death, nor infamy and disgrace, nor loss of liberty, living, and worldly goods, can move to do one act contrary to our religion, will not for all the world deny any one article of our faith: Yet notwithstanding, although we deny their false slanders never so much; yet they will needs have us to hold them as they say, whether we will or no. divers impute unto us daily strange paradoxes in matters of faith: But among others one William Crashaw, 
Anno 1606. In the Epistle Dedicatory.  hath not long since published a book, accusing us of an horrible matter of fact, to wit: of the crime of corruption and forgery in the highest degree; so are his words. His said book beareth this title: Romish forgeries and falsifications, together with Catholic restitutions. By reading of the contents of it, he that is not learned and acquainted with their dealings, may easily be drawn and persuaded, not only to condemn us as notable corrupters and forgers; but further to imagine, that we in former ages have corrupted all the Father's works; and consequently infer, that their testimonies can yield us no firm ground whereon to build our faith, 
Crash. in his preface to the reader. §. see what. see also § will these men.  contrary to that which hath been said in this Treatise. Nay Crashaw himself doth not only affirm, that they have cause to suspect that we have so dealt with the Fathers, because we have not spared (as he saith) some as ancient as some fathers: but also averreth, that it will be proved to the world's view, that we 
* §. But when.  have (de facto) corrupted almost all antiquity, in so much that no man can tell what ground to stand upon, either for Counsels, Fathers, decrees or men's writings. And he addeth, 
§ To end this point.  that he doth not doubt but ere long God will raise up some instruments of his glory, who shall fully discover to the world this treachery of the Romish Church, by making it as apparent they have corrupted the Fathers, as I hope (saith he) to do in this, and the books ensuing that they have corrupted all such late writers, as they imagined any way to make against them: Thus Crashaw. For the resolution of which his false imputation, as also for clearing of our present practice, which may seem to some to tend towards the overthrow of the authority of antiquity; I think it not amiss to spend some few lines in proving these three points. First, that our practice in correcting of books reprehended by Crashaw, is prudent and laudable. Secondly, that our adversaries (if we offend in this) are much more to be condemned for the like proceed in the same kind. Lastly, that the Father's works are sincere and free from all corruption. To declare the first, I must first give my reader to understand, that the Church of Christ now hath and ever hath had, authority to censure and condemn all such books as are published, and contain things any ways opposite to the truth of her faith and religion.  
This first appeareth, because she is supreme judge on earth of all controversies arising touching faith and religion, and hath jurisdiction over every Christian; from which it proceedeth that she condemneth heresies and Heretics: wherefore it cannot be denied, but she hath also authority to condemn the works of any Heretic, or other person whatsoever containing heresies or errors opposite to her faith. For much more it is to condemn an Heretic, or an heresy, then to condemn an heretical or erroneous book.  
Secondly, authority to do this was needful, for the preservation of one true faith and religion in the Church: for what is more dangerous to infect true Christian hearts, then bad books? especially if they be not known and censured to be such, but read by all sorts indifferently; as Catholic and Orthodoxal. Verily, if conference and conversation with Heretics be so straightly 
a Rom. 16, 17. 2. Tim. 3. v. 5. Titus 3. v. 10 2. john v. 10. I●●n. l. 3. c. 3. Cipr. l. 1. ep. 3 Athanas. in vita Antoniuses.  forbidden us, both by the Scriptures and Fathers, as we find; much more are their books to be avoided, which divers times contain poison coloured with eloquence, which may always be had at hand, and are easily dispersed ever in such places unto which Heretics cannot have access.  
Hence the very Heathens themselves, led by reason and the law of nature only, 
b Plato lib. 7. de legibus. Valer. Maxi. lib. 1. cap. 1. Cicero l. 1. de nature. Deorum. Lact. l. de ira Dei cap. 9 Sueton. in August. cap. 31. Dio Cas. l. 54 Titus Livius lib. 39  condemned books hurtful and prejudicial to the religion by them received, as I could prove out of Plato, Valerius Maximus, Cicero, Lactantius, Suetonius, Diocassius, Titus Livius, and others.  
Fourthly, the Church hath in all ages practised such authority, as is evident by Ecclesiastical records: I will name only a few examples, because I will not be over long.  
S. Clement telleth us, that the 
c Clemens lib. 1. Constit. Apostol. cap. 7.  Apostles themselves forbade the faithful to read the books of the Gentiles. About the year 250. Dionysius Alexandrinus (as Eusebius 
d Euseb. lib. 7. hist. cap. 6.  recordeth) was reprehended by other faithful people, for reading the books of Heretics.  

e Ciril. epist. Synod. 1.  In the year 432. the Fathers assembled in the general Council of Ephesus requested of Theodosius then Emperor, that he would take order that the books of Nestorius wheresoever they were found, should be burnt; and according to their request the said Emperor by his imperial constitution 
f L. vlt. de haeret. Cod. Theodos. Laberatus in Breviar. c. 10  willed, that all such books should be diligently sought for, and publicly committed to the fire.  

g Anast. epist. ad joan. Hierosolim.  S. Anastasius the Pope at Rome, and S. Epiphanius in a Synod held at Cyprus, with divers others about the year 402. 
h Socrat. li. 6. cap. 9 see S. Hieron. ep. 26.  condemned the book of Origines called Periarchon, which Ruffinus to the great hurt of the Church had published before in the city of Rome, and Didimus in the East. S. Leo the great burnt great store of the Manichees books in Rome, as 
i Prosper in Chronic. 443  Prosper writeth in the year 443. The fourth Council of Carthage permitteth only Bishops to read heretical books in time of necessity.  
Gelasius the Pope in a Council of scutcheon Bishops held at Rome, in the year 494. 
k Distinct. 15. Can. Sancta Romana.  sentenced divers books and made a certain index of them, as is to be seen in the decree yet extant.  
The fift general Council about the year 553. condemned certain things written by Theodoretus against S. Ciril, and the epistle of Iba. And all those books except those of Nestorius, were thus 
l Socrates lib. 1. cap. 6.  censured long after the death of the authors.  

m See L. Damnato Concil. Chalced. act. 3. L. Quicunque Cod. de haereticis.  The like examples I could bring of the proceedings of Constantine the great against the books of Arius, 
L. vlt. tit. 16. lib. 9 & leg. 24. tit. 4. l. 16 Cod. Theod. Socrat. lib. 2. histor. tripartitae. Liberat. in Breviario cap. 10.  who prohibited them under pain of death; of Valentinian and Martian Christian Emperors against those of Eutiches and Apollinaris; of Honorius and Theodosius against books of art Magic. Yea Arcadius, Honorius and justinian by their laws decreed, that all heretical books should be burnt publicly. And this practice perhaps of burning such books began in the Apostles times, when (as S. Luke writeth in the acts of the Apostles) 
* Act. 19, 19  Many of them that followed curious things, brought together their books, and burned them before al.  
Now, seeing the Church hath authority to condemn or burn heretical books, or others that contain false doctrine opposite to the rule of faith; no man of any judgement will deny, but she hath also authority to correct them, if by that means she can make them profitable for her use, and beneficial to her children: For much less it is to correct, then to condemn and burn; and much better it is in such cases to correct, then clean to abolish. Hence are these words of S. Hierome speaking of the works of Origen: 
Hieron. epist. 76. idem epist. 64. & Apolog. 1. adversus Ruffin.  Neither are his evil opinions to be received for his doctrine, neither are his Commentaries if he wrote any upon the holy Scripture, altogether to be rejected for the wickedness of his opinions: thus S. Hierome, who upon this ground newly translated and amended the book of Origen before mentioned. In like sort, the collations of Cassian were long after his death corrected by divers, as we gather out of Cassiodorus and Ado. And although this authority of the Church be such, 
Cassiod. Institut. divin. lect. cap. 29. Ado in Chronic. an. 425. in fine.  that with discretion and to edification she may execute it against any whatsoever; yet much more reason & right she hath, to execute it upon the works of her children who are her subjects, & submit themselves and their works wholly to her censure. Some man perhaps will say, that every Catholic doth not so submit himself and his works: but it is certain that whosoever doth not so, either expressly or virtually, is no Catholic; because he preferreth his own judgement before the censure of the whole Church. And whosoever doth this, although through ignorance he err as every man may, he is no Heretic according to that of S. Augustine; I may err, I cannot be an Heretic, seeing that the one is proper to a man, the other to a perverse and obstinate wil And out of this discourse I conclude, that if our Church be Catholic as it is, we are not to be blamed for our proceedings in forbidding and correcting such books as oppose themselves any ways against our religion, or may seduce the hearts of their simple readers, or any ways seem to taste of an heretical kind of speech or phrase, although the authors themselves divers times intended no hurt. And this must much more be granted unto us in modern authors, and such as have written in this last age: both because they submitted themselves commonly in express terms to the censure of the Church, and also because by the late orders of the church, nothing must be published in print except it be first viewed, and allowed by men thereunto authorized: wherefore, whatsoever cometh now forth seemeth to be approved by the Church, and consequently a man may well infer, that it containeth no notorious error or heresy. Whereof I infer, that the Church in case that any such errors escape, must be very diligent and vigilant in mending of them, lest that in stead of wholesome doctrine, some ignorantly perhaps and that through her default drink poison.  
But yet to descend a little lower, what books may we correct according to our rules, and of what antiquity? none certainly of any Catholics, but such as lived since the year one thousand five hundred and fifteen, which was the second year before Luther began to fall from us, besides a few other expressly named in our Index of forbidden books. And of such named authors more ancient than Luther how many have we de facto corrected? Verily I do not think that Crashaw can bring forth so much as one. True it is that he useth these words: 
In the Epistle dedicatory fol. 2.  We produce the authors that lived and wrote long before Luther, but we find them so razed and altered, as some that spoke for us, are now silent; yea some that made for us, are now against us: Thus he. But how he will prove it, I do not know: He nameth soon after Vives, Erasmus, Cardinal Cajetane, Ferus, Stella, Espencaeus, Oleaster, and Faber; but all these either lived in Luther's days or since. And for my part I have perused a little his book, and I cannot find any one author named that lived not either in Luther's days or after, 
In his testimonies of john Ferus, D. 3.  only Bertramus and Rampegolus excepted, who (for aught I know) are not yet corrected. He maketh much ado about Ferus, but what was he, and when lived he? He was a Catholic Friar in profession, although divers of his sentences seem to taste of Lutheranisme. He flourished as 
* Crashaw in his testimonies of john Ferus, D. 3.  Crashaw confesseth in the year 1530. that is thirteen years after Luther's first breach from us, which was in the year 1517. Yea in the next leaf he confesseth him to have been alive in the year 1552. more than thirty years after Luther's said beginning. But perhaps some man will say that he published the books which we have corrected before Luther's fall. Neither is this true: for the most ancient copy that he can name of those books he speaketh of, was printed in the year 1555. almost 40. years after that Luther first impugned us, 
Prolegomena. F. 2.  as appeareth by his own grant. And hence a man may both gather; how well he proveth his aforesaid assertion, affirming that they produce the authors that lived and wrote long before Luther, but find them razed, etc. and also perceive, how true that his accusation is; They have corrupted all authors of this last two hundred years: 
Prologo. E. 3.  for (as I have said) I think that he can hardly name one author that we have corrected of any age before Luther's. I can as yet find but one named throughout his book, which was of the age immediately before Luther's departure from us, (and whether he be corrected or no I know not) nevertheless this is one of the two hundred years. Of much less truth is that following in which he saith, we have razed the records of higher antiquity reaching up to some that lived 500 and 800. years ago. 
Ibidem.  For all this is spoken (if it have any colour of truth, for any thing I can find in his book or other where) of one Bertramus whom he averreth that we have altered; 
Ibid. §. C. 2.  but it is more than ever I saw or heard. And yet not contented with this he goeth a great deal further, and avoucheth that our Index expurgatorius hath so used almost all books in the world. I might here use one of his ordinary exclamations, and begin as I find the first words of that page. Oh intolerable injury! For first we have an express inhibition that no man touch the text of the ancient Fathers, 
De correctione librorum, §. 3. & 4.  nor of any Catholics that written before the year 1515. not specified and censured in the Index of forbidden books: then, we meddle not with any books of Archeretikes. or with such as treat professedly of heresy, and so we exclude from our correction all the works of Luther, Zwinglius, Caluin, and a thousand other books of this age. And out of this that in like sort appeareth false, which he saith of corrupting all such late writers as we imagine any way to make against us: so that we only have corrected or intent to correct some few, of which most have written since this new Gospel began to be preached, others very few in number lived in deed before the year 1515. but are named in our Index, and besides these no other can be touched. Neither are all these corrected for heresy, as will appear to the reader by such rules as are to be observed in the correction, of which more hereafter, but they are partly set down by Crashaw towards the end of his Prolegomena. I cannot finally but note, 
Prolegom. E. 3. Gesnerus in Bibliotheca.  that he calleth Ferus an old and famous writer, who according to his own confession was living within these threescore years: nay I think it may be proved out of Gesnerus that he died not forty years since, but to save this he addeth in the margin, that he meaneth old in comparison of the jesuits, who now (saith he) carry all before them; for he was in the ear, when they were in the blade. This is his marginal note, by which he saveth but ill the truth of the text, let his meaning be as it will; for the religion of the jesuits began about the year 1521. And was confirmed by Paulus 3. Pope about the year 1540 long before Ferus died by his own confession. And this it seemeth he well knew; for it may plainly be gathered out of his preface, that the jesuits were before the end of the Council of Trent, which nevertheless was in the year 1563.  
But to clear us further from all blame touching this point, I must also add this in our defence; that this our manner of proceeding is neither to the end to bereave our adversaries of any proof, which our adversaries may bring out of antiquity, or any modern author for the truth of their religion, nor to strengthen our cause. For although I should yield, that all the authors whom Crashaw nameth were Protestant's (which yet he confesseth to be false, for he granteth they were all Catholics,) what should I in effect help their cause, or weaken ours? suppose some named that lived before Luther held some opinions, with Wickliff, Hierome of prague, and john hus; what is this to us? Do we build our faith upon the particular opinions of some few private men, or do we prove the truth of our doctrine by their testimonies? Moreover, suppose some followed those men in some one or two opinions, were they presently in all other points Protestants? or doth it prove the Protestant religion true? 
Treatise of the definition and notes of the Church.  Nothing less: for as I will show hereafter, neither Wickliff, nor Hierome of prague, nor john Husse were Protestants, much less any that were in open profession Catholics. But in very deed, the Church doth not only in modern authors correct propositions that are in plain terms heretical, but also (as appeareth by our rules related by Crashaw) such as be erroneous, taste of heresy, are offensive to godly ears, or temerarious; yea such as are wanton, or dishonest, superstitious, tending to the infamy of any, etc. as I will declare anon.  
Besides this, if our intention were to make the authors seem altogether ours, and to take them as it were from the Sectaries whose doctrine they seem to approve; what reason have we to publish in print to the whole world, what we will have corrected in their works? Is not this a plain confession, that we dislike their manner of speech, or their doctrine? Wherefore, in this we rather help our adversaries cause, if the authority of the said authors be of any moment, then weaken it. And in very truth, if we did it to any such end as they intent, it were no wisdom to make our doings known to the world, but much more policy we should show, if we did it in private and never made any open mention of it but rather did deny it. Why then do we correct such books? in very truth as is apparent, for no other causes than I have partly rehearsed before, to wit: principally that one faith and religion may be preserved among all sorts, and that no man embrace any doctrine as approved or tolerated in the Church, which is not so approved and tolerated; then also to avoid all superstition, witchcraft, corruption of manners, and other such vices as will appear by the rules, of which hereafter.  
But they say that we take upon us to correct Bertramus, an author who lived in the Church 700. years since, and Rampegolus who flourished in the year 1418. I answer that we neither do this to bereave our adversaries of any testimony; for as concerning Bertramus, we commonly grant that book which goeth under his name, to make for their doctrine against the real presence, although some Protestants seem to deny it: nay further, 
See the Century writers, Centur. 9 c. 4 col. 212.  many of the best learned men of our side, acknowledge also in their public writings the book to be his (
* Pantaleon in Chronographia, p. 65  although Pantaleon a Sacramentary number it not among his works) and this is sufficient for our adversaries, although the book be never so much altered: wherefore, for this cause only that some good things are contained in it together with the poison, lest that men suck the one with the other, we think it good to remove away that which is nought, and leave them the good. Rampegolus is nothing like so ancient, and besides it is confessed by Possivinus that his book being written in a time not oppugned by such heresies as since are risen, 
Possivin. to. 1. apparat. q. sacr. pag. 114. 115.  containeth some errors: wherefore neither do we endeavour to conceal, that in some points he seemeth to favour our adversaries. He addeth, that this author hath put into his work certain absurd things, or rather fables out of the master of the Ecclesiastical history, that he hath many things otherwise then they are in the Bible, that the Scripture is not cited so sincerely, yea that sometimes it is alleged falsely, that he hath some things Apocryphal out of the 3. book of Esdras, and out of the epistle of Ciril of Jerusalem to S. Augustine, concerning the death of S. Hierome. Besides this, he accuseth him of false allegations of Doctors, of Solecisms, barbarisms, and obscure phrases. And seeing that it is a book which young preachers would much use if it were not forbidden, and that as it is like without choice of the good from the bad, for want of learning, I hope no man will blame us if we amend that which is amiss. And thus much of the first point. Now to come to the second point, I must needs return M. crashaw's argument upon himself thus: They who raze the records and falsify the monuments of men's writings, altering the books of learned men after they are dead, adding, and taking out at their pleasures, and namely taking out such words, sentences, and whole discourses as make against them, and adding the contrary even whatsoever they can imagine to make for them, incur no less crime than corruption and forgery in the highest degree. This is gathered out of Crashaw in the second page of his epistle Dedicatory: But the followers of the new religion, who are called Protestants, Puritans, etc. have done so; therefore they have incurred the crime of corruption or forgery in the highest degree. M. Crashaw must pardon me if I proceed not in form of law by accusation, declaration, and proof as he doth, because I have never yet been preacher at the Temples. The proof of my minor proposition if I should run through authors which they have corrupted, citing the words and sentences left out or added, would rise to a great volume: wherefore briefly, only I accuse them of corrupting after this sort, the history of Sigonius de regno Italiae; of Osorius de rebus gestis Emanuëlis Regis; and of Castineda who supplied that which wanted for some years after Osorius ended, of the lives of the Emperors and divers others. And for the proof of this, to the unlearned English sectaries I accuse our English Protestants, for corrupting S. Augustine's meditations, his prayers, and Manuel; The Meditations of Granada printed in the year 1602. The conversion of a sinner, the imitation of Christ, the Christian directory, etc.  
It may be said, that in the beginning of the books this correction or alteration is confessed. I reply, that so likewise in our Indices expurgatorij, and also commonly in the beginning of such books as we correct, we acknowledge the correction: but do they this in all their works? surely no. And for example I name the meditations of Granada, in which there is no mention of any alteration; for they are plainly set forth in his name, as though they were truly and sincerely his, whereas the translator or rather the falsifier or corrupter hath left out whole discourses, yea I may almost say whole meditations, and added what pleaseth himself to make him speak like a Protestant. Neither do they deal only so with us, but also with their own brethren, and that sometimes in principal matters. For example, the Lutheran Protestant's in their conference or synod held at Altenburge, accuse one another for corrupting and falsifying the Confession of Ausburge, which is the very ground next unto the holy Scripture of their faith and religion. 
Colloquium Altenberg. fol. 402.  The former copies or examplars (say they) have not the true and sincere confession of Ausburge. For there is another substituted or put in the place of it, which was neither exhibited at Ausburge, or ever approved by the states of the Confession of Ausburge: Thus they. And upon the corruption of this Confession, and of an other book called Corpus doctrinae, containing this, and other treatesies, arose great discord and dissension among them, which is not yet ended: for no man almost can tell which be the true books. But what dissension was there among them in the same conference touching Luther's works corrupted? verily the zealous Lutherans complain after this sort: 
* See 2. respons. ad Hipothes. fol. 284. 290 353. 355. 441. 442. 443. 526.  The Divines of the Prince Elector (who were also Lutherans) do most filthily and beyond all measure deprave Luther's writings, so as since Luther's death there have not been more foul corrupters of Luther's books: Thus they; and this fault each side doth most often object to the other in most spiteful terms. 
a Ibid. Saxon. in respon discessu. fol. 539. 540.  Last of all a promiss is made, that the Duke of Saxony will cause Luther's works to be printed without corruption. And thus much of the Lutherans, whom M. Crashaw (I hope) with the Apology of the Church of England will acknowledge to be his brethren. Now let us behold the dealing of the Sacramentaries, who are more properly of his faith and religion. And first let us look towards Geneva a City most famous for upholding this sect: What then shall we there find for our purpose? Verily Westphalus a Lutheran accuseth the Caluinists even of this very place, that they have corrupted Luther's works; for thus he complaineth. I marvel much that Caluin keeping such ado about this one word, could not see the most filthy mutations and corruptions, of the divine commentary of Doctor Luther upon the Epistle to the Galatians, and translated into French and printed at Geneva. In one place some words are taken away, in an other many more: somewhere whole Paragraphs are lopped off: in the exposition of the sixth Chapter, two pages and a half are left out, etc. at other times they have put in words such as pleased them. And that this was done at Geneva without Caluins' knowledge it is not very likely: Thus Westphalus. But let us hear an other man of more credit among English Protestants make the like complaint, that by the testimony of two witnesses they may be proved falsifiers: M. Morton a famous Protestant writer of this realm now living, set forth in London in the year 1605. the first part of his work called by him a Catholic Apology. But what did they of Geneva? They printed again the said book in their City, putting the name of London to it, as though it had been there printed, and disliking a certain answer by him made in defence of Beza, they put that out, and without any more ado in place of it added an other of their own. This I prove out of M. Mortons' own words, who in certain animadversions upon this first part, printed at the end of the second part published at London in the same year, speaking of the same matter complaineth thus. C. 21. in calumnia 5. Nova impressio Londini dicta, ver'e Genevae facta, totum responsum meum pro Beza penitus expunxit, & responsum suum assuit (prob hominum fidem) doleo equidem tantam cum scriptis meis injuriam factam esse, tum etiam proelo Genevensi tantam corruptelae labem contractam. A new impression said to be at London, truly made at Geneva, put out altogether my whole answer for Beza, and patched in their own (O the faith or falsehood of men) verity I am sorry both that such an injury is offered to my works, and also that the print of Geneva is stained with such a blot of corruption or depraving: Thus Morton. What will M. Crashaw say to this? who are now more to be blamed in this kind, we who correct books by public authority received from a general council, and that publicly making our action known to the whole world in print: or these his brethren who secretly and as it were in corners, get other men's works, corrupt them, and then set them forth to the view of the world as though nothing had been altered. And this is no old matter, but a thing done within these two or three years. I come now nearer home. 
Anno 1606.  This last year was published a book in our language with this title: A Manuel or brief volume of controversies of religion, between the Protestants and the Papists, written in Latin by Lucas Osiander, and now Englished with some additions and corrections. But how doth the translator mangle and tear the poor book? Verily, whereas the author of it being a Lutheran, and a mortal enemy of the Sacramentaries (for he hath published the like book against them) speaketh as a Lutheran, he maketh him speak like unto a good Sacramentary. Hence whereas he hath these words in Latin; 
Chapt. 15.  Alius enim modus a Paulo nobis monstratur, nimirum communicationis. For an other manner (of Christ's being in the Eucharist) is showed us by Paul, to wit, by communication. He meaneth that Christ is there really and substantially together with bread. The English man translateth thus: 
Chapt. 15. pag. 265.  For it was in the Sacrament by sacramental relation and union, and received of the believers spiritually by faith. Again, whereas the Latin is thus: Ergo veré est corpus Christi cum pane visibili; Therefore there is truly in the supper the body of Christ with visible bread: In English he saith thus; 
Ibid. pa. 266.  There is Christ's body, but not after a natural manner of being by transubstantiation, but after a spiritual by faith, and sacramental union. Finally, Osiander in Latin useth these words; Nos quidem ipsum Christum, qui est in Eucharistia, spiritualiter adorandum non negamus. Ipsam vere Eucharistiam adorandam minime concedimus. We truly deny not but Christ himself, who is in the Eucharist, is spiritually to be adored. But we grant not that the Eucharist itself is to be adored. The English translator turneth it thus; We say the Eucharist is to be reverenced as an holy mystery, but not to be adored or worshipped. And divers other such corrections or rather corruptions occur every foot in his English book.  
divers other such like examples there are, which convince the Sacramentaries to be guilty of this crime, which for brevity's sake I omit. Only I add, that this is no new vice in them, but an old and inveterated evil. For if we believe Luther, such were their proceed even at their first arising: his words of them are these. Their opinion of the sacrament they began with lies: 
Luther in epist ad joannem Heruagrum Typographun Argentinum.  and with lies they do defend the same: and they broach it abroad by the wicked favour of corrupting other men's books: hitherto Luther.  
But perhaps my reader may here desire to see some precedent of some Protestant book, corrupted by some English sectaries, and that confessed by a Protstant: behold I have such a precedent or two at hand. The author of the Survey of the pretended holy discipline (a man of good credit among Protestants) having alleged Traverse his Latin book De discipline. 
Survey of the pretended holy discipline printed anno 1593. ch. 19 pa. 224. 225.  Ecclesiast. fol. 119. bringeth forth this reason, why he alleged not the English, translated by some English sectary. But you must remember (saith he) that I do refer you to this latin book: and not to the English translation of it. Why? some may say is it not faithfully translated? Shall we think that such zealous men as had to deal herein, would serve us as the jesuits do? It is we know a practice with that false hypocritical brood (or rather he should have said a false slander imposed upon them) to leave out and thrust in what they list into the writings of the ancient Fathers that thereby in time, nothing might appear, which should any way make against them. But we will never suspect nor believe, that any man who feareth God; and least of all that any of that sort, which are so earnest against all abuses and corruptions, shall play such a prank. Surely we do well to judge the best: and I myself was of your opinian, but now I am clean altered. How were some of Vrsinus works used at Cambridge? and it is true that some other books have been handled vary strangely else where. But concerning the present point, this the truth. The translator of Traverses book, hath quite omitted the words which I have alleged; and all the rest which tendeth to that purpose, even seventeen lines together. So as if you see but the English book, you shall not find so much as one step whereby you might suspect, that ever M. Traverse had carried so hard a hand over the pretended widows. If the translator had received any commission from the author, to have dealt in that sort with his book: yet it should have been signified either in some preface, or in some note, or by some means or other: but to leave luch a matter out, and to give no general warning of it, I tell you plainly it was great dishonesty and lewdness: hitherto are the Protestant authors words in the aforesaid Survey. But to come yet a little nearer to M. Crashaw, what will he say if I find him guilty, of corruption and forgery in this very book, in which he reprehendeth us? This indeed were something to the purpose, but as a discreet man would think hardly to be proved true in him, that so sharply in this very treatise argueth and blameth others for this crime; well I will do my endeavour. And this argument I bring against him: he that taketh upon him to cite the sayings of others, patcheth in & leaveth out words of their said sentences to serve his own turn, is a corrupter, and a forger of other men's sayings; but M. Crashaw doth this in his book made of Romish forgeries and falsifications: therefore he is a corrupter and a forger of other men's sayings. The Major and first proposition cannot be denied by M. Crashaw: For if he incur the crimes of corruption and forgery (as he saith) in the highest degree, that dealeth so with other men's books, how shall we excuse him from them that dealeth so with other men's sayings or sentences? Let us therefore see, whether we can prove the Minor or second proposition? the truth of which I declare after this sort. 
Prologomena T. 3. Thus you, etc.  M. Crashaw in his epistle or preface to his beloved countrymen the seduced Papists of England, contending to prove that the Index of forbidden books, and the Indices expurgatorij are the Pope's work, writeth thus: For your better satisfaction I will set you down briefly the rules to this purpose agreed upon in that Council, and confirmed afterwards by divers Popes: Haereticorum libri ut Lutheri, Zwinglij, calvini, & his similium, cuiuscunque nominis, tituli, aut argumenti existant, omnino prohibentur. The books of Heretics, as Luther, Zwinglius, Caluin, and others like to these, under what name, title, or argument soever they be extant are altogether prohibited: thus Crashaw. And in the margin he hath these words: Regula secunda in concilio Tridentino & Indice Roma. Clementis octavi. The 2. rule in the Council of Trent, and the Roman index of Clement the eight. But in these words he hath corrupted the rule of the Council of Trent, and of the Roman index of Clement the eight, and no such rule is to be found, as he here setteth down: therefore he is a forger and corrupter. I will recite the whole rule as I find it in all those books, to the end that my reader may see I do him no wrong. The books of Heretics, as well of those who found and raised heresies after the aforesaid year 1515. as of those who are or have been heads or captains of Heretics, such as Luther, Zwinglius, Caluin, Balthasar, Pacimontanus, Swenckfeldius, and like unto these are, of what title name or argument soever they be, are altogether forbidden. The books of other Heretics also which treat ex professo of religion (that is whose principal argument is of religion) are altogether forbidden. But such as treat not of religion, examined by the commandment of Bishops, and inquisitors, by Catholic divines, and approved, are permitted: hitherto are the words of the rule. Out of which it is manifest, that M. Crashaw by placing the word (Heretics) in the place of the word Archeretikes, hath falsified the said rule, and turned it to a clean contrary sense. For whereas the rule saith, that certain books of some Heretics are permitted, he maketh it say the books of Heretics under what name, title, or argument whatsoever, are prohibited. And this (as it may seem) he doth to persuade his reader that we are so strict in this matter, that we suffer not any books whatsoever written by Heretics be they never so profitable, to be read; which is false: this is one corruption so palpable that it cannot be denied. I will not urge that in the third rule he nameth junius his translation of the old testament, and Bezaes' of the new; whereas these authors or their translations are not so much as named in the rule, as it is found in our books. And for brevities sake I come to his rehearsal of our instructions, for the purging and correction of books. Before he setteth down such things as are to be amended, translating that which is said in our books before such instructions as are given, he saith: And such things as do require correction or purgation are these: And then he beginneth to rehearse what our Index willeth to be corrected, but so falsely as he may be very well ashamed of his dealing, For whereas the instruction commandeth, that all things that taste of superstition, witchcraft, or divination be rejected; likewise that all be blotted out that make man's free-will subject to destiny, false or deceitful signs, or Ethnic fortune: and that such things as savour of Paganism be abolished; that jests, or merry conceits & quips tossed to the hurt or prejudice of the fame and credit of others, be abandoned; that things wanton and dishonest which may corrupt good manners, be removed; finally, that unseemly and dishonest pictures be defaced: he leaveth out all this, and that without all doubt to make his reader believe, that we correct books for no other matters, but to make them agree with us in religion. And to this end, it may be imagined, that before he left out the seventh and ninth rule wholly, which are against wanton books, books of Chiromancy, Nicromancy, etc. And what false and unconscionable dealing is this? Verily this were a foul fault in any man, but in M. Crashaw, who taketh upon him unjustly to censure others for the like proceedings: This is intolerable, and no man can do less according to his own grounds, then condemn him of corruption and forgery in the highest degree. 
Relation of the state of religion used in the Western parts. §. 36. printed anno 1605. written as is said by Sir Edwine Sans.  Verily a certain Protestant travailer reporteth, that we have our several offices for purging the world from the infection of all the wicked and corrupt books and passages, which are either against honesty or good manners: who indeed (saith he) blot out much impiousness and filth, and therein deserve to be commended and imitated. And thus I think I have sufficiently proved, that our adversaries are rather to be pronounced guilty of such crimes as Crashaw imposeth upon us concerning corruption of books, than we. Touching our prohibition of certain books I add only, that in like manner as we forbid their books, and suffer them not to be read of all sorts: so they forbidden ours, as their statutes testify; and for this also are more to be blamed than we; that our books forbidden by them, maintain and defend an old religion, taught and left us by our forefathers; theirs forbidden by us, a new devised in this last age by Luther, Carolostadius, Zwinglius, Caluin, and such companions.  
I will dispatch the last point in few words; wherefore to prove that the Fathers are not by us corrupted, I bring these three brief reasons. First, this our practice of making such Indices expurgatorij hath been but very late, as Crashaw himself confesseth in those his words: Long was the mother Church of Rome in breeding her Indices expurgatorios; at last she brought them out, 
Crashaw in the beginning of his preface to the reader.  or rather some politic jesuits conceived them, the Fathers of Trent bore them, and the Pope brought them out: thus Crashaw. Out of which it is manifest, that we used no such Indices before the Council of Trent. And hence proceedeth an other reason, to wit: that there was never any general rule or order set down by the Church, for correcting any one Fathers works: this is manifest, because had the Church taken order for any such matters, there can be no doubt made, but such sentences also as favour Millinarisme, Arianisme, Donatisme, Nestorianisme, and other such like heresies, which in those days opposed themselves against the Church, had been put out, rather than such as our adversaries pretend made for them; seeing that we can find no records that any of their sort opposed themselves in those times against us. Further, the art of printing books was unknown at the least to our part of the world, before the year of our Lord 1440. as all histories of that age testify: wherefore, the works of the Fathers before those days were written by divers persons, and in divers places, by divers men that knew not what one another did, which copies are yet extant. Of which I infer, that except some general rule for all had been prescribed, it had been impossible that they should have all conspired to have corrupted the Fathers, by adding or detracting the self same words; and yet nevertheless we see, that all the written copies of the Father's works agree & contain the same sentences: much less could we have corrupted the Father's works, if those of our side were only a faction and divers in faith agreeing with our adversaries who always opposed themselves against us, or at the least secretly retained their belief as Field affirmeth; 
Field book 3 of the Church chap. 6. 7. 8.  for than it is like that some of them preserved the Father's works from corruption. Finally this openeth the way to the Zwenckfeldians & Libertines, who reject all Scriptures; for of the corruption of the Fathers a man may well infer the corruption also of them: neither can these by better reason be freed from such an imputation than those. But here some man will occur and say, 
Perkins in Problem. praepar. add demonst. in Cyprian. pa. 14.  that it is a matter manifest, that we have corrupted S. Cyprian's book of the unity of the Church, to establish the Pope's supremacy: and for the proof of this he will allege that, which M. Thomas james hath written in his 
* Catalogue. Ox onio. Cantabrig. lib. 2. pag. 176.  Catalogue of the Manu-script books of the universities of Oxford. and Cambridge, to wit: that there are four Manu-script copies of S. Cyprian's works in the Libraries of these universities, in which certain sentences are not found, especially such as make for the Pope's supremacy, which are to be seen in all printed copies of this book. Of which he inferreth, that it is like that we have corrupted the said book, and that according to our corruption it is corruptly printed. I answer briefly, first, that although we should grant this to be true which james saith, that such Manuscript copies are found, (which nevertheless I will not believe, except I see or hear it better proved) yet of this it cannot be inferred that the works of S. Cyprian are corruptly printed; first because more credit is to be given to all the Manu-script copies throughout the world, which without doubt be some hundreds, then to these four. And that all others agree with the printed book it seemeth evident by divers reasons, but principally, because no man ever before noted any such diversity: yet it is probable that the Protestants themselves (who as james doth grant have printed his works) would have noted it, if there had been any such matter found in the manu-script copies of the country where his book was published by them. Nay farther, 
Centuriator. 3. cap. 4. colum. 84. Cyprian. epist. 40. 70. 55. 69. 71. 73. see him also in exhortat. ad Martirium cap. 11.  the Century writers who are esteemed very diligent searchers of antiquity, tax S. Cyprian for his doctrine touching the Pope's supremacy. Secondly, the doctrine of S. Cyprian taught in this book, agreeth exceeding well with that which is found throughout all his epistles, in which we find the same sentences almost in the very same words, which james denieth to be in his manuscript copies of the book of the unity of the church, as that there is one God, one Church, and one Chair founded upon Peter; that the Church was built upon S. Peter; that our Lord chose him the first or chiefest; that he instituted the origen of unity from him, etc. Peradventure some man will say these epistles are also corrupted: but first, I think they are not found otherwise in the Manuscript copies mentioned by Master james, than they are in the printed books: For were they, it is like he would not have passed it with silence as he doth. Secondly, neither Perkins, nor any other affirmeth these epistles to be corrupted. thirdly, one of these Epistles in which it is said, that our Lord did choose S. Peter the first or chiefest, and that upon him he built his Church, is cited by S. Augustine, 
August. to. 7. de bapt. count Donat. cap. 1. Cipr. ep. 72. ad Quintum.  who also allegeth those very words as S. Cyprian's, which are in the printed copies, to wit: Nam nec Petrus, quem primum Dominus elegit & super quem edificavit Ecclesiam suam, etc. For neither S. Peter, whom our Lord chose the first or chiefest, and upon whom he built his Church, etc. And moreover after S. Cyprian's words he addeth himself. Behold where Cyprian rehearseth (which also we have learned in holy Scriptures) that the Apostle Peter in whom the Primacy of the Apostles through so excellent grace is higher than others, etc. Thus S. Augustine: of which it is most evident, that this Epistle among all the rest is not corrupted, and yet here is almost said as much in substance of this matter, as is in his book de unitate Ecclesiae. Finally, the words which james will have excluded from S. Cyprian's book de unitate Ecclesiae are so agreeable to this holy Father's style and phrase, and so fitting his discourse, that no man can almost suspect them to be added. But it may be demanded how it falleth out, that they are wanting in the Manu-script copies mentioned by M. james? In very truth if there be such ancient copies, and there be nothing razed out of them, I cannot but think that they were written out before the art of printing was invented, by some Wicliffian Heretic; or if they came out of some foreign country, by some Schismatic or other, that held with some Germane Emperor against the Pope. That the Wicliffians were very potent and prevailed much in our Country, we may gather out of that which is said by Stowe in his Chronicle, and in the years 1414. and 1377. And Walsingham writeth, 
Walsingham anno vlt. Edward. 3.  that the University of Oxford in particular was cold in resisting him.  

Walsingham in vita Richardi 2. anno 1378.  Nay their coldness was such that Gregory XI. Pope in the year 1378. written his Breve to it, and reprehended them of the said University for their coldness and slackness.   

AN INDEX OR TABLE OF ALL THE CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THIS TREATISE.  

The first part of the grounds of the old religion.  

CHAPTER 1. Of the first ground of Catholic religion, to wit: that there is a God, and that God by his providence governeth all things. page 1. 

Section 1. That there is a God. page 2.  
Sect. 2. Almighty God hath care of worldly affairs, and ruleth all things by his divine providence. page 10.    
Chap. 2. Of the second ground of our religion, to wit: that the soul of man is immortal, and that it shall either be rewarded everlastingly in heaven, or punished everlastingly in hell. page 12.  
Chap. 3. Of a third principal ground of our faith, to wit: that Christian religion only is the true worship of God. page 16.  
Chap. 4. That among Christians, they only that profess and embrace the Catholic faith and religion, are in state of salvation, and do truly worship God. page 24.  
Chap. 5. 

Sect. 1. Of the definition and conditions of true faith. p. 28.  
Sect. 2. That faith is a most firm assent of the understanding. page 29.  
Sect. 3. Faith is of things incomprehensible by natural reason, and consequently obscure. page 30.  
Sect. 4. By true Christian faith we believe such mysteries, as God hath revealed to his Church. page 32.  
Sect. 5. That true faith is built upon divine authority. page 34.  
Sect. 6. Besides the revelation of God, some infallible propounder of the articles of our faith is necessary: and that they are propounded unto us by the Catholic Church. page 36.    
Chap. 6. 

Sect. 1. Of the supreme and infallible authority of the Catholic Church. page 38.  
Sect. 2. The whole sum of Christian doctrine (by word of mouth, not by writing) was committed by Christ to his Apostles. page 39  
Sect. 3. The Church cannot stray from the rule of faith received, nor err in matter of faith or general precepts of manners, which is proved first, because the holy Ghost directeth her in all truth. page 42.  
Sect. 4. The same is proved by other arguments. page 44.  
Sect. 5. That the testimonies of holy Scripture, and other proofs brought for the infallible and divine authority of the Church, cannot be applied to the Church, considered as it comprehendeth all faithful Christians, that are and have been since Christ's ascension, or since the Apostles days: but unto the present Church of all ages. page 52.  
Sect. 6. That the same testimonies and proofs, convince an infallible judgement of the Church concerning every article of faith, not only concerning certain of the principal. page 56.  
Sect. 7. That to salvation it is necessary to believe the whole Catholic faith, and every article thereof. page 58.    
Chap. 7. Of the holy Scripture, which is the first particular ground of faith in the Catholic Church. page 61. 

Sect. 1. How the Scripture is known to be Canonical. page 61.  
Sect. 2. Concerning the sense or exposition of holy Scriptures; and first that the Scriptures are hard, and receive divers interpretations. p. 67.  
Sect. 3. The Scriptures may be falsely understood: and that every private man may err in the understanding of them. page 69.  
Sect. 4. That the letter of holy Scripture falsely interpreted, is not the word of God. page 72.  
Sect. 5. The true sense of the holy Scripture, is to be learned of the Catholic Church, who is the true judge thereof. page 75.  
Sect. 6. An objection against the premises is answered, and the question concerning the last resolution of our faith is discussed. page 78.    
Chap. 8. Concerning the second particular ground of Catholic religion, to wit, Apostolic Traditions. page 86. 

Sect. 1. Of Apostolic Tradition in general. page 86.  
Sect. 2. Of unwritten Traditions in particular. page 91.    
Chap. 9 Of general Counsels, which make the third particular ground of Catholic religion. page 97.  
Chap. 10. Of the decrees of the supreme visible Pastor of the Church, which make a fourth particular ground of our faith, and of other grounds hence proceeding. page 108. 

Sect. 1. Containing a brief explication or rehearsal of the Catholic doctrine, concerning the Pope's supremacy. page 108.  
Sect. 2. The aforesaid doctrine is proved. page 113.  
Sect. 3. That the decrees of the Bishop of Rome, when he teacheth the Church as supreme Pastor, are of divine and infallible authority; and of some other grounds 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 ancient Fathers, and the general doctrine of the Catholic Church in all ages. page 140.  
Chap. 12. Containing the conclusion of the first part. page 144.    

THE SECOND PART. In which is proved that the new sectaries build their faith upon no divine authority, but that the ground of all their belief and religion is their own judgement, and consequently that they have neither true faith nor religion.  

CHAPTER 1. That by their doctrine they deny or at the least weaken, the three principal and general grounds of Christian religion, set down 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 given of this impiety. page 1.  
Sect. 2. Of our adversaries doctrine concerning the immortality of the soul, heaven and hell. page 8.  
Sect. 3. Of our adversaries impious assertions concerning Christ, and Christian religion. page 12.  
Sect. 4. That in like sort they weaken the principal proofs of the said three grounds. page 19    
Chap. 2. The new Sectaries debase the true Christian faith, and in place of it, extol a presumptuous faith by themselves invented. page 26.  
Chap. 3. That our adversaries deny the infallible authority of the Church and affirm it to have erred and perished. page 30.  
Chap. 4. They reject all particular grounds of faith above assigned, and proved to be found in the Church of Christ, besides the holy Scriptures. page 32.  
Chap. 5. They build not upon 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 proved, because by Scripture the Scripture itself cannot be proved Canonical. It is also argued, that according to the sectaries grounds there is no Canonical Scripture, and some principal reasons (especially inspiration of the spirit) which they allege for the proof of such Scripture, are refelled. page 47.  
Sect. 2. In which the same argument is prosecuted, and two things principally are proved. First, that the new Testament receiveth small authority (if we believe our adversaries) by this that it was written by the Apostles and Disciples, because they accuse them of error. Secondly, because they confess the text of Scripture to be corrupted. p. 67.  
Sect. 3. The same is proved, because every Christian is bound to admit and believe certain propositions, neither expressly contained, nor (according to some men's judgements) so evidently gathered out of the holy Scripture. page 75.  
Sect. 4. The insufficiency of the bare letter of holy Scripture is proved by other arguments, especially by this; that the true interpretation cannot be infallibly gathered out of the letter. page 78.    
Chap. 6. The new Sectaries Bibles contain not the true word of God. page 83. 

Sect. 1. In which this is first proved concerning all their Bibles in general. page 83.  
Sect. 2. That Luther, Zwinglius, Caluin, and Beza, in particular have corruptly translated the Scriptures. page 84.  
Sect. 3. Our English sectaries also, have falsely 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 justice, justification by good works, Merit of good works, and keeping the Commandments, and in defence of their special ●aith, vain Security, etc. and against free-will, and Merits. page 94.  
Sect. 6. Of their false translations against the Real presence, Priesthood, election of Bishops, single life of Priests, Penance, and satisfaction for Sin; the Sacrament of Matrimony, and some other points. p. 96.  
Sect. 7. That the Professors of the new religion in corrupting the Scriptures, follow the steps of the ancient Heretics, and what followeth of this discourse. page 101.    
Chap. 7. That they build not upon the letter of holy Scripture, contained (as they say) in their own Bibles. page 103. 

Sect. 1. In which this is proved; first, because the propositions (which they term of their faith) are not in express terms contained in the Scripture. page 103.  
Sect. 2. The same argument is confirmed by the testimony of some Protestants, concerning the true sense of some words of Scripture, alleged for our Catholic doctrine touching justification in the Section before. page 106.  
Sect. 3. The like discourse is made concerning a place of Scripture alleged for the real presence. page 114.  
Sect. 4. The followers of the new religion in divers matters observe not the letter of their own Bibles. page 130.    
Chap. 8. In receiving, translating, and expounding the holy Scriptures they only build upon their own fancies and judgement, and that they have no other ground. page 134. 

Sect. 1. In which this is proved by their doctrine and dissension concerning the books 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 new exposition of those words, This is my body, in particular. page 146.  
Sect. 4. That certain rules prescribed by Field for the true understanding of Scripture, of themselves alone without the censure of the Church, are insufficient to assure us, that our exposition made, is of divine truth. page 149.  
Sect. 5. Concerning their deductions out of holy Scripture: that they likewise are framed by them according to their own fancies; and of their accusations of one another touching these matters. page 157.  
Sect. 6. The unlearned and ignorant sectaries, in receiving and expounding the holy Scriptures, likewise build upon their own fancies and judgements, and have no other ground of their faith and religion. p. 161.  
Sect. 7. Of the miserable estate of the unlearned and ignorant Sectaries. page 166.  
Sect. 8. That the new sectaries allege Scriptures to confirm their new doctrine, it is no certain argument that they build their faith and religion upon the said Scriptures. page 172.    
Chap. 9 In which is proved by the new Sectaries forsaking their own supposed ground and flying to others, also by their dissension and inconstancy, that they build their faith and religion only upon their own fancies. page 178. 

Sect. 1. Concerning their flying to other grounds by themselves rejected, and their dissension. page 178.  
Sect. 2. Concerning the inconstancy of the Professors of the new religion. page 183.    
Chap. 10. Containing the Conclusion of this Treatise. page 194.    
LAUS DEO.   

Errors escaped in the printing.  
In the Preface, Page 1. in the title line 6. for three, read two. Ibid. line 10. Lastly, blot it out and that which followeth in the title. page 4. line 30. notable, read not able. pag. 18. lin. 13. in the margin add Caluin Institut. book 2. chap. 16 §. pag. 2●. line 15. Nevertheless, the Protestants themselves do, read Nevertheless, do the Protestants themselves.  
Part. 1. page 19 line 18. which was foretold, read which also was foretold. pag. 22. lin. 1. was, read were. Ibid. in the margin Constantius, read Constantinus. pag. 26. mark Augustinus de unitat. eccles. c. 19 read c. 16. pag. 27. lin. 14 curtsies, read course is. Ibid. lin. 30. and, read an. pag. 36. lin. 19 undoubted ground to this that, read undoubted ground that. Ibid lin. 21. belief) by the habit, read belief to this that by the habit. pag. 38. lin. 31. we must, read we most. pag. 45. mark Aug. in ps. 126. add 127. tract. 9 in joh. & 120. pag. 57 lin. 26. Beza add in the mark Beza lib. de Haeret. a civili Magistrate. puniend. pag. 87. & 97. pag. 64. mark Dardaram, read Dardanum. Ibid. Sess. read Sect. pag. 70. lin. 29. he, read the. pag. 74. lin. 1. add in the mark 2. Corinth. 3. vers. 6. pag 78. pag. 79. lin. 25. mark add Psal. 9 pag. 81. lin. 29. any, read an. pag. 90. lin. 1. unto those whom, read those unto whom. ibid. lin. 18. accuseth, read accurseth. pag. 93. lin. 7. Diosinius, read Dionysius. pag. 95. mark much confession, read much contention. pag. 107. lin. 4. was, read were. pag. 110. lin. 31. a third difference is, read a third difference between Christ and his Vicegerent is. pa. 112. lin. 6. servant, read servants. pag. 116. mark joh. 1. read joh. 10. pag. 117. lin. 6. marg. 1704. read 1074. pag. 118. lin. 27. 28. whatsoever, read soever. pag. 130. marg. 1660. read 1606. pag. 144. lin. 6. immediately, read mediately.  
Part. 2. page 3. lin. 19 no faiths, read more faiths. pag. 5. lin. 5. many for want: add in the margin Powel in thesibus de Adiaphor. pag. 11. lin. 20. by him, read by Brentius. ibid. lin. 14. add in the mark Field book 3. chap. 42. pag. 170. pag. 13. mark indicij, read judicij. pag. 14. lin. 14. Platonist, read Platonists. p. 17. lin. 5. add in the mark Caluin in joan. 10. pag. 29. lin. 37. article, read articles. pag. 34. lin. 31. 32. difference, read indifferency. pag. 40. lin. 10. Synod, read Synods. pag. 45. lin. 14. the Church, read their Church. pag. 49. lin. 34. rejected, read received. pag. 58 lin. 14. denieth, read deemeth. pag 59 lin. 2. if then, read yet then. pag. 64 lin. 6. Apostle, read Apostles. pag. 66. lin. 11. to show, read show. pag. 76. lin. 9 and the Father, etc. blot out that sentence. pag. 80. lin. 21. and the Caluinists a fourth, read and the Caluinists as they say a fourth. pag. 85 lin. 26. Luther, Caluin, and Beza, read Luther, Caluins, and Bezaes'. pag. 89. lin. 29. Zena, read jena. pag. 99 lin. 4. good fellow, read yoke fellow. pag. 112. lin. 18. did not, read I did not. pag. 113. lin. 26. not full, read not so full. pag. 114. lin. 2. build, read built. pag. 120. lin. 36. doth not any where, read doth any where. pag. 141. lin. 9 in one book more then, read in one more then. pag. 142. lin. 20. For the Lutherans, read Hence the Lutherans. pag. 159. lin. 25. Stancarius, read Stancarus. pag. 162 lin. 15. translations, read translators. pag. 176. lin. 3. add in mark Caluin admonit. vlt. ad Westphal. pag. 1116. 1129. pag. 179. lin. 7. yea, read yet. pag. 181. lin. 21. And thus much, etc. blot out that sentence. pag. 187. lin. 15. also read al. pag. 188. lin. 15. opinion? he, read opinion he.  
In the Appendix. page 208. line 1. ever, read even. ibid. lin. 8. Fourthly, read Thirdly. pag. 212. lin. 23. our adversaries may bring, read they may bring. pag. 217. lin. 24. vero, read vere. pag. 218. lin. 4. favour, read fraud. This Paragraphe should have been placed after that following out of the Survey. pag. 219. lin. 35. Heretics, read Archeretikes. pag. 222. lin. 15. who opposed, read opposed. pag. 224. lin. 12. and in the year read in the year.