Mercy & truth. Or Charity maintayned by Catholiques. By way of reply vpon an answere lately framed by D. Potter to a treatise which had formerly proued, that charity was mistaken by Protestants: with the want whereof Catholiques are vniustly charged for affirming, that Protestancy vnrepented destroyes saluation. Deuided into tvvo parts.

CHAP. II. VVhat is that meanes, vvherby the reuealed Truthes of God are con∣ueyed to our Vnderstanding, and vvhich must determine Contro∣uersies in Faith and Religion.

OF our estimation, respect, and reuerence to holy Scripture euen Protestants themselues do in fact giue testimony, while they possesse it from vs, & take it vpon the integrity of our cu∣stody No cause imaginable could auert our wil frō giuing the functiō of supreme & sole Iudge to holy Writ if both the thing were not impos∣sible in it selfe & if both reason & experiēce did not conuince our vnderstanding, that by this assertion Contentions are increased, and not ended. We acknowledge holy Scripture, to be a most perfect Rule, for as much as a writing can be a Rule: We only deny that it excludes ei∣ther diuine Tradition though it be vnwritten, or an externall Iudge to keep, to propose, to in∣terpret

it in a true, Orthodoxe, and Catholique sense. Euery single Booke, euery Chapter, yea euery period of holy Scripture is infallibly true, & wants no due perfection. But must we ther∣fore infer, that all other Bookes of Scripture, are to be excluded, least by addition of them, we may seeme to derogate from the perfection of the former? When the first Bookes of the old & New Testament were written, they did not ex∣clude vnwritten Traditions, nor the Authority of the Church to decide Controuersies; & who hath then so altered their nature, & filled them with such iealousies, as that now they cannot agree for feare of mutuall ••isparagemēt? What greater wrong is it for the written Word, to be compartner now with the vnwritten, then for the vnwritten, which was once alone, to be af∣terward ioyned with the written? Who euer heard, that to commend the fidelity of a Kee∣per, were to disauthorize the thing committed to his custody? Or that, to extoll the integrity and knowledge, and to auouch the necessity of a Iudge in suits of law, were to deny perfection in the law? Are there not in Common wealths besides the lawes written & vnwritten custo∣mes, Iudges appointed to declare both the one, the other, as seuerall occasions may require?

2. That the Scripture alone cannot be Iudge in Controuersies of faith, we gather ve∣ry cleerly. From the quality of a writing in ge∣nerall: From the nature of holy Writ in parti∣culer,

which must be belieued as true, and infal∣lible: From the Editions, & Translations of it: From the difficulty to vnderstand it without hazard of Errour: From the inconueniences that must follow vpon the ascribing of sole Iu∣dicature to it: & finally from the Confessions of our Aduersaries. And on the other side, all these difficulties ceasing, and all other qualities requisite to a Iudge concurring in the visible Church of Christ our Lord, we must conclude, that ••he it is, to whom in doubts concerning Faith and religion, all Christians ought to haue recourse.

3. The name, notion, nature, and proper∣ties of a Iudge cannot in common reason a∣gree to any meere writing, which, be it other∣wise in its kind, neuer so highly qualified with sanctity and infallibility; yet it must euer be, as all writings are, deafe, dumb, and inanimate. By a Iudge, all wise men vnderstand a Person en∣d••ed with life, and reason, able to heare, to exa∣mine, to declare his mind to the disagreeing parties in such sort as that ech one may know whether the sentence be in fauour of his cause, or against his pretence; and he must be applia∣ble and able to do all this, as the diuersity of Controuersies persons, occasions, and circum∣stances may require. There is a great & plaine distinction betwixt a Iudge and a Rule. For as in a kingdome, the Iudge hath his Rule to follow which are the receiued Lawes and customes;

so are not they fit or able to declare, or be Iud∣ges to themselues, but that office must belong to a liuing Iudge. The holy Scripture may be, and is a Rule, but cannot be a Iudge, because it being alwayes the same, cannot declare it selfe any one time, or vpon any one occasion more particularly then vpon any other; and let it be read ouer an hundred times, it wilbe still the same, and no more fit alone to terminate con∣trouersies in faith, then the Law would be to end suites, if it were giuen ouer to the phansy, & glosse of euery single man.

4. This difference betwixt a Iudge and a Rule, D. Potter perceiued, when more then once, hauing stiled the Scripture a Iudge, by way of correcting that terme, he adds or rather a Rule, because he knew that an inanimate writing could not be a Iudge. Frō hence also it was, that though Protestants in their beginning, affirmed Scripture alone to be the Iudge of Controuer∣sies; yet vpon a more aduised reflection, they changed the phrase, and sayd, that not Scrip∣ture, but the Holy Ghost speaking in Scrip∣ture, is Iudge in Controuersies. A difference without a disparity. The Holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to vs, then the Scripture in which he speakes; as a mā speaking only Latin, can be no better vnder∣stood, then the tongue wherein he speaketh. And therefore to say, a Iudge is necessary for deciding controuersies, about the meaning of

Scripture, is as much as to say, he is necessary to decide what the Holy Ghost speakes in Scri∣pture. And it were a conceyt, equally foolish and pernicious, if one should seeke to take away all Iudges in the kingdome, vpon this nicity, that albeit Lawes cānot be Iudges, yet the Law∣maker speaking in the Law, may performe that Office; as if the Law-maker speaking in the Law, were with more perspicuity vnderstood, then the Law wherby he speaketh.

5. But though some writing were granted to haue a priuiledge, to declare it selfe vpon supposition that it were maintayned in being, and preserued entire from corruptions; yet it is manifest, that no writing can conserue it selfe, nor can complayne, or denounce the falsifier of it; and therefore it stands in need of some watchfull and not erring eye, to guard it, by meanes of whose assured vigilancy, we may vn∣doubtedly receiue it sincere and pure.

6. And suppose it could defend it selfe from corruption, how could it assure vs that it selfe were Canonicall, and of infallible Verity? By saying so? Of this very affirmation, there will remaine the same Question still; how it can proue it selfe to be infallibly true? Neyther can there euer be an end of the like multiplyed de∣mands, till we rest in the externall Authority of some person or persons bearing witnes to the world, that such, or such a booke is Scripture: and yet vpon this point according to Protestāts

all other Controuersies in fayth depend.

7. That Scripture cannot assure vs, that it selfe is Canonicall Scripture, is acknowledged by some Protestants in expresse words, and by all of them in deeds. M. Hooker, whome D. Pot∣ter ranketh(a) among men of great learning and iudgement, sayth: Of thinges(b) necessary, the very chiefest is to know what bookes we are to esteeme holy; which point is confessed impossible for the Scri∣pture it selfe to teach. And this he proueth by the same argument, which we lately vsed, saying thas: It is not(c) the word of God which doth, or possibly can, assure vs, that we doe well to thinke it his word. For if any one Booke of Scripture did giue testimony of all, yet still that Scripture which giueth testimony to the rest, would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it. Neyther could we come to any pause whereon to rest, vnles besids Scri∣pture, there were something which might assure vs &c. And this he acknowledgeth to be the(d) Church. By the way. If, Of things necessary the very chiefest cannot possibly be taught by Scripture, as this man of so great learning and iudgment affir∣meth, and demonstratiuely proueth; how can the Protestant Clergy of England subscribe to their sixth Article? Wherein it is sayd of the Scripture: Whatsoeuer is not read therein, nor may be proued thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be belieued as an Article of the fayth, or be thought requisite or necessary to saluation: and, concerning their beliefe and profession of this

Article, they are particulerly examined when they be ordayned Priests and Bishops. With, Hooker, his defendant Couell doth punctually a∣gree. Whitaker likewise confesseth, that the question about Canonicall Scriptures, is defi∣ned to vs, not by testimony of the priuate spirit, which (sayth he) being priuate and secret, is(e) vnfit to teach and refell others; but (as he acknow∣ledgeth) by the(f) Ecclesiasticall Tradition: An argument (sayth he) whereby may be argued, and conuinced what bookes be Canonicall, and what be not. Luther sayth: This(g) indeed the Church hath, that she can discerne the word of God, from the word of men: as Augustine confesseth, that he be∣lieued the Ghospell, being moued by the authority of the Church, which did preach this to be the Gospell. Fulke teacheth, that the Church(h) hath iudgment to discerne true writings from counterfaite, and the word of God from the writing of men, and that this iudgment she hath not of herselfe, but of the Holy Ghost. And to the end that you may not be ig∣norant, from what Church you must receiue Scriptures, heare your first Patriarch Luther speaking against thē, who (as he saith) brought in Anabaptisme, that so they might despight the Pope. Verily (saith he) these(i) men build vpon a weake foundation. For by this meanes they ought to deny the whole Scripture, and the Office of Preaching. For, all these we haue from the Pope: otherwise we must goe make a new Scripture.

8. But now in deedes, they all make good,

that without the Churches authority, no cer∣tainty can be had what Scripture is Canoni∣call, while they cannot agree in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture. Of the Epistle of S. Iames, Luther hath these words: The(k) Epistle of ••ames is contentions, swelling, dry strawy and vn∣worthy of an Apostolicall Spirit. Which censure of Luther, Illyricus acknowledgeth and maintai∣neth. Kemnitius teacheth, that the second Epistle(l) of Peter, the second and third of Iohn, the Epistle to the Hebrewes, the Epistle of Iames, the Epistle of Iude, and the Apocalyps of Iohn are Apocryphall, as not hauing sufficient Testimony(m) of their autho∣rity, and therefore that nothing in controuersy can be proued out of these(n) Bookes The same is taught by diuers other Lutherans: and if some other amongst them be of a contrary opinion since Luthers time, I wonder what new infal∣lible ground they can alleadge, why they leaue their Maister, and so many of his prime Schol∣lers? I know no better ground, then because they may with as much freedome abandon him, as he was bould to alter that Canon of Scripture, which he found receiued in Gods Church.

9. What Bookes of Scripture the Prote∣stants of England hold for Canonicall, is not easy to affirme In their sixt Article they say: In the name of the Holy Scripture, we do vnderstand those Canonicall Bookes of the Old and New Testa∣ment, of whose authority was neuer any doub•••• in the

Church. What meane they by these words? That by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall? This were to make the Church Iudge, and not Scriptures alone. Do they only vnderstand the agreement of the Church to be a probable inducement? Proba¦bility is no sufficient ground for an infallible assent of fayth. By this rule (of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church) the whole booke of Esther must quit the Canon because some in the Church haue excluded it from the Canon, as(o) Melito Asianus,(p) Athana••us, and(q) Gregory Nazianzen. And Luther (if Prote stants will be content that he be in the Church) saith: The Iewes(r) place the booke of Esther in the Canon, which yet, if I might be Iudge, doth rather deserue to be put out of the Canon. And of Ecclesia∣stes he saith: This(s) booke is not full; there are in it many abrupt things: he wants boots and spurs, that is, he hath no perfect sentence, he rides vpon a long reed like me when I was in the Monastery And much more is to be read in him: who(t) sayth further, that the said booke was not written by Salomon, but by Syrach in the tyme of the Ma∣chabees, and that it is like to the Talmud (the Iewes bible) out of many bookes heaped into one worke, perhaps out of the Library of king Ptolomous And further he sayth, that(u) he doth not be lieue all to haue been donne as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is ••••t downe. And he teacheth the(w) booke of Iob to be as it were an argument for a fable (or Come¦dy)

to set before vs an example of Patience. And he(x) deliuers this generall censure of the Pro∣phets Bookes: The Sermons of no Prophet, were written whole, and perfect, but their disciples, and Auditors snatched, now one sentence, and then an∣other, and so put them all into one booke, and by this meanes the Bible was conserued. If this were so, the Bookes of the Prophets, being not written by themselues, but promiscuously, and casually, by their Disciples, will soone be called in question. Are not these errours of Luther, fundamentall? and yet if Protestants deny the infallibility of the Church, vpon what certaine ground can they disproue these Lutherian, and Luciferian blasphemies? ô godly Reformer of the Roman Church! But to returne to our English Canon of Scripture. In the New Testament by the a∣boue mentioned rule (of whose authority was ne∣uer any doubt in the Church) diuers Bookes of the New Testament must be discanonized, to wit, all those of which some Ancients haue doub∣ted, and those which diuers Lutherans haue of late denied. It is worth the obseruation how the before mentioned sixt Article, doth specify by name all the Bookes of the Old Testament which they hold for Canonicall; but those of the New, without naming any one, they shuffle ouer with this generality: All the Bookes of the New Testame•••••• as they are commonly receiued, we do re∣ceiue, and account them Canonicall. The mystery is easily to be vnfolded. If they had descended

to particulers, they must haue contradicted some of their chiefest Brethren. As they are com∣monly receiued &c. I aske: By whom? By the Church of Rome? Then, by the same reason they must receiue diuers Bookes of the Old Testa∣ment, which they reiect. By Lutherans? Then with Lutherans they may deny some Bookes of the New Testament. If it be the greater, or lesse number of voyces, that must cry vp, or downe, the Canon of Scripture, our Roman Canon will preuaile: and among Protestants the Certainty of their Fayth must be reduced to an Vncertaine Controuersy of Fact, whether the number of those who reiect, or of those others who receiue such and such Scriptures, be grea∣ter. Their faith must alter according to yeares, and dayes. When Luther first appeared, he, and his Disciples were the greater number of that new Church; and so this claime (Of being com∣monly receiued) stood for them, till Zvinglius & Caluin grew to some equall, or greater num∣ber then that of the Lutherans, and then this rule of (Commonly receaued) will canonize their Canon against the Lutherans. I would gladly know, why in the former part of their Article, they say both of the Old and New Testament: In the name of the Holy Scripture, we do vnderstand those Canonicall Bookes of the Old and New Testa∣ment, of whose authority was neuer any doubt in the Church; and in the latter part, speaking againe of the New Testament, they giue a far different

rule, saying: All the Bookes of the New Testament, as they are commonly receiued, we do receiue, and ac∣count them Canonicall. This I say is a rule much different from the former (Of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church.) For some Bookes might be said to be Commonly re∣ceiued, although they were sometime doubted of by some. If to be Commonly receiued, passe for a good rule to know the Canon of the New Te∣stament; why not of the Old? Aboue all we de∣sire to know, vpon what infallible ground, in some Bookes they agree with vs against Luther, and diuers principall Lutherans, and in others iump with Luther against vs? But seeing they disagree among themselues, it is euident that they haue no certaine rule to know the Canon of Scripture, in assigning wherof some of them must of necessity erre, because of contradictory propositions both cannot be true.

10. Moreouer the letters, syllables, words, phrase, or matter contained in holy Scripture haue no necessary, or naturall connexion with diuine Reuelation or Inspiration: and therefore by seeing, reading, or vnderstanding them, we cannot inferre that they proceed from God, or be confirmed by diuine authority, as because Creatures inuolue a necessary relation, conne∣xion, and dependance on their Creator, Philoso∣phers may by the light of naturall reason, de∣monstrate the existence of one prime cause of all things. In Holy Writ there are innumerable

truths not surpassing the spheare of humane wit, which are, or may be deliuered by Pagan Writers, in the selfe same words and phrase as they are in Scripture. And as for some truths peculiar to Christians, (for Example, the mystery of the Blessed Trinity &c.) the only setting them downe in Writing is not inough to be assured that such a Writing is the vndoubted word of God: otherwise some sayings of Plato, Trismegistus, Sybills, Ouid &c. must be esteemed Canonicall Scripture, because they fall vpon some truths proper to Christian Religion. The internall light, and inspiration which directed & moued the Authors of Canonicall Scriptures, is a hidden Quality infused into their vnderstan∣ding and will, and hath no such particuler sen∣sible influence into the externall Writing, that in it we can discouer, or from it demonstrate any such secret light, and inspiration; and therefore to be assured that such a Writing is diuine we cannot know from it selfe alone, but by some other extrinsecall authority.

11. And heere we appeale to any man of Iudgement, whether it be not a vaine brag of some Protestants to tell vs, that they wot full well what is Scripture, by the light of Scrip∣ture it selfe, or (as D. Potter word's it) by(y) that glorious beame of diuine light which shines therein; euen as our eye distinguisheth light from dark∣nes, without any other help then light it selfe; and as our eare knowes a voyce, by the voyce

it selfe alone. But this vanity is refuted, by what we sayd euen now; that the externall Scripture hath no apparent or necessary connexion with diuine inspiration, or reuelation. Will D. Potter hold all his Brethren for blind men, for not se∣ing that glorious beame of diuine light which shines in Scripture, about which they cannot agree? Corporall light may be discerned by it selfe a∣lone, as being euident, proportionate, & con∣natural to our faculty of seeing. That Scripture is diuine, and inspired by God, is a truth excee∣ding the naturall capacity and compasse of mās vnderstanding, to vs obscure, and to be belie∣ued by diuine fayth, which according to the A∣postle is; argumentum(z) non apparentium; an ar∣gument, or conuiction, of things not euident: and therefore no wonder if Scripture doe not ma∣nifest it selfe by it selfe alone, but must require some other meanes for applying it to our vn∣derstanding. Neuer theles their owne similitu∣des and instances, make against themselues. For suppose a man had neuer read, or heard of Sunne, Moone, Fire, Candle &c. and should be brought to behold a light, yet in such sort as that the Agent, or Cause Efficient from which it proceeded, were kept hidden from him; could such an one, by only beholding the light, certainly know, whether it were produ∣duced by the Sunne, or Moone &c? Or if one heare a voyce, and had neuer known the spea∣ker, could he know from whome in particuler

that voyce proceeded? They who looke vpon Scripture, may well see, that some one wrote it, but that it was written by diuine inspiration, how shall they know? Nay, they cannot so much as know who wrote it, vnles they first know the writer, and what hand he writes: as likewise I cānot know whose voice it is which I heare, vnles I first both know the person who speakes, & with what voice he vseth to speake; and yet euen all this supposed, I may perhaps be deceyued. For there may be voyces so like, and Hand so counterfaited, that men may be deceyued by them, as birds were by the grapes of that skillfull Painter. Now since Protestants affirme knowledge concerning God as our su∣pernaturall end, must be taken from Scripture, they cannot in Scripture alone discerne that it is his voyce, or writing, because they cannot know from whome a writing, or voyce pro∣ceeds, vnle, first they know the person who speaketh, or writeth Nay I say more: By Scri∣pture alone, they cannot so much as know, that any person doth in it, or by it, speake any thing at all: because one may write without in∣tent to signify, or affirme any thing, but only to set downe, or as it were paint, such chara∣cters, syllables, and words, as men are wont to set copies, not caring what the signification of the words imports; or as one transcribes a writinge which himselfe vnderstands not: or when one writes what another dictates, and

in other such cases, wherein it is cleere, that the writer speakes, or signifies nothing in such his writing; & therefore by it we cannot heare, or vnderstand his voyce. With what certainty then can any man affirme, that by Scripture it self they can see, that the writers did intēd to si∣gnify any thing at all; that they were Apostles, or other Canonical Authours; that they wrote their owne sense, and not what was dictated by some other man; and finally, & especially, that they wrote by the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost?

12. But let vs be liberall, and for the pre∣sent suppose (not grant) that Scripture is like to corporall light, by it selfe alone able to de∣termine, & moue our vnderstanding to assent; yet the similitude proues against thēselues. For light is not visible, except to such as haue eyes, which are not made by the light, but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause. And therefore, to hold the similitude, Scrip∣ture can be cleere only to those who are en∣dewed with the eye of fayth; or, as D. Potter a∣boue cited sayth, to all that haue(a) eyes to dis∣cerne the shining beames thereof; that is, to the be∣lieuer, as immediatly after he speaketh. Fayth then must not originally proceed from Scrip∣ture, but is to be presupposed, before we can see the light thereof; and consequently there must be some other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Fayth, which can be no other then the

Church.

13. Others affirme, that they know Cano∣nicall Scriptures to be such, by the Title of the Bookes. But how shall we know such Inscripti∣ons, or Titles to be infallibly true? From this their Answere, our argument is strengthned, be∣cause diuers Apocryphall writings haue appea∣red, vnder the Titles, and Names of sacred Au∣thours, as the Ghospell of Thomas mentioned by S(b) Augustine: the Ghospell of Peter, which the Nazaraei did vse, as(c) Theodoret witnesseth, with which Scraphion a Catholique Bishop, was for sometyme deceiued, as may be read in(d) Eusebius, who also speaketh of the Apocalyps of(e) Peter. The like may be sayd of the Ghospells of Barnabas, Bartholomew, and other such wri∣tings specifyed by Pope(f) Gelasius. Protestants reiect likewise some part of Esther and Daniel, which beare the same Titles with the rest of those Bookes, as also both wee, and they hould for Apochryphall the third and fourth Bookes which go vnder the name of Esdras, and yet both of vs receiue his first and second booke. Wherefore Titles are not sufficient assurances what bookes be Canonicall: which(h) D. Co∣uell acknowledgeth in these words: It is not the word of God, which doth, or possibly can assure vs, that we doe well to thinke it is the word of God: the first outward motion leading men so to esteeme of the Scripture, is the Authority of Gods Church, which teacheth vs to receiue Marks Ghospell, who was not

an Apostle, and to refuse the Ghospell of Thomas who was an Apostle: and to retaine Lukes Ghospell who saw not Christ, and to reiect the Ghospell of Ni∣codemus who saw him.

14. Another Answere, or rather Obiection they are wont to bring: That the Scripture be∣ing a principle needs no proofe among Christians. So D.(i) Potter. But this neither a plaine begging of the question, or manifestly vntrue, and is di∣rectly against their owne octrine, and practise. If they meane, that Scripture is one of those principles, which being the first, and the most knowne in all Sciences cannot be demonstra∣ted by other Principles, they suppose that which is in question whether there be not some principle (for example, the Church) wherby we may come to the knowledge of Scripture If they intend, that Scripture is a Principle, but not the first, and most knowne in Christianity, then Scripture may be proued. For principles, that are not the first, nor knowne of themsel∣ues may, & ought to be proued, before we can yield assent, either to them, or to other verities depending on them. It is repugnant to their owne doctrine, and practise, in as much as they are wont to affirme, that one part of Scripture may be knowne to be Canonicall, and may be interpreted by another. And since euery scri∣pture is a principle sufficient, vpon which to ground diuine faith, they must grant, that one Principle may, and sometime must be proued

by another. Yea this their Answere, vpon due ponderation, falls out to proue, what we af∣firme. For since all Principles cannot be pro∣ued, we must (that our labour may not be end∣les) come at length to rest in some principle, which may not require any other proofe. Such is Tradition, which inuolues an euidence of fact, and from hand to hand, and age to age, brin∣ging vs vp to the times, and persons of the Apo∣stles, and our Sauiour himselfe cōmeth to be confirmed by all those miracles, and other ar∣guments, whereby they conuinced their do∣ctrine to be true. Wherefore the ancient Fa∣thers auouch that we must receiue the sacred Canon vpon the credit of Gods Church. S.(k) Athanasius saith, that only foure Gospels are to be receiued, because the Canons of the Holy, and Catholique Church haue so determined. The third Councell of(l) Carthage hauing set downe the Bookes of holy Scripture giues the reason, be∣cause, We haue receiued from our Fathers that these are to be read in the Church. S. Augustine(m) spea∣king of the Acts of the Apostles, saith: To which booke I must giue credit, if I giue credit to the Gospel, because the Catholique Church doth a like recōmend to me both these Bookes. And in the same place he hath also these words: I would not belieue the Gospell vnles the authority of the Catholique Church did moue me. A saying so plaine, that Zuinglius, is forced to cry out: Heere I(n) implore your e∣quity to speake freely, whether this saying of Au∣gustine

seeme not ouerbould, or els vnaduisedly to haue fallen from him.

15. But suppose they were assured what Bookes were Canonicall, this will little auaile them, vnles they be likewise certaine in what language they remaine vncorrupted, or what Translations be true. Caluin(o) acknowledgeth corruption in the Hebrew Text; which if it be taken without points, is so ambiguous, that scarcely any one Chapter, yea period, can be securely vnderstood without the help of some Translation. If with points: These were after S. Hierom's time, inuented by the persidious Iewes, who either by ignorance might mistake, or vpon malice force the Text, to fauour their impieties. And that the Hebrew Text still re∣taines much ambiguity, is apparent by the disa∣greeing Translations of Nouellists; which also proues the Greeke for the New Testament, not to be void of doubtfulnes, as Caluin(p) confes∣seth it to be corrupted. And although both the Hebrew and Greeke were pure, what doth this help, if only Scripture be the rule of faith, and so very few be able to examine the Text in these languages. All then must be reduced to the cer∣tainty of Translations into other tongues, wher∣in no priuate man hauing any promise, or assu∣rance of infallibility, Protestants who rely v∣pon Scripture alone, will find no certaine ground for their faith: as accordingly Whitaker(q) affirmeth: Those who vnderstand not the He∣brew

and Greeke do erre often, and vnauoydably.

16. Now concerning the Translations of Protestants, it will be sufficient to set downe what the laborious, exact, and iudicious Au∣thor of the Protestants Apology &c. dedicated to our late King Iames of famous memory, hath to this(r) purpose. To omit (saith he) particu∣lers, whose recitall would be infinite, & to touch this point but generally only, the Translation of the New Testament by Luther is condemned by Andreas, Osiander, Keckermannus, and Zuin∣glius, who sayth hereof to Luther. Thou dost cor∣rupt the word of God, thou art seene to be a manifest and common corrupter of the holy Scriptures: how much are we ashamed of thee who haue hitherto estee∣med thee beyond all measure, and now proue thee to be such a man? And in like māner doth Luther reiect the Translation of the Zuinglians terming them in matter of diuinity, fooles, Asses, Antichrists, deceauers, and of Asse-like vnderstanding. In so much that when Proscheuerus the Zwinglian Printer of Zurich sent him a Bible translated by the diuines there, Luther would not receyue the same, but sending it backe reiected it, as the Protestant Writers Hospinians, and Lauatherus witnesse. The translation set forth by Oecolam∣padius, and the Deuines of Basil, is reproued by Beza, who affirmeth that the Basil Translation is in many places wicked, and altogeather differing from the mynd of the Holy Ghost. The translation of Ca∣stalio is condemned by Beza, as being sacrilegi∣ous,

wicked, and Ethnicall. As concerning Caluins translation, that learned Protestant Writer Ca∣rolus Molinaeus saith thereof: Caluin in his Har∣mony maketh the Text of the Gospell to leape vp and downe: he vseth violence to the letter of the Gospell; and besides this addeth to the Text. As touching Beza's translation (to omit the dislike had ther∣of by Seluccerus the German Protestant of the Vniuersity of Iena) the foresaid Molinaeus saith of him, de facto mutat textum; he actually changeth the text; and giueth further sundry instances of his corruptions: as also Castalio that learned Cal∣uinist, and most learned in the tongues, reprehen∣deth Beza in a whole booke of this matter, and saith; that to note all his errours in translation, would require a great volume. And M. Parkes saith: As for the Geneua Bibles, it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifold errors, which are both in the text, and in the margent, or els vt∣terly prohibited. All which confirmeth your Ma∣iesties graue and learned Censure, in your thin∣king the Geneua translation to be worst of all; and that in the Marginall notes annoxed to the Geneua translation, some are very partiall, vntrue, seditious, &c. Lastly concerning the English Transla∣tions, the Puritanes say: Our translation of the Psalmes comprized in our Booke of Common Prayer, doth in addition, subtraction, and alteration, differ from the Truth of the Hebrew in two hundred pla∣ces at the least. In so much as they do therefore professe to rest doubtfull, whether a man with a

safe conscience may subscribe thereto. And M. Caer∣lile saith of the English Translators, that they haue depraued the sense, obscured the truth, and de∣ceiued the ignorant; that in many places they do detort the Scriptures from the right sense. And that, they shew themselues to loue darknes more then light, fal∣shood more then truth. And the Ministers of Lin∣colne Diocesse giue their publike testimony, terming the English Translation: A Translation that taketh away from the Text; that addeth to the Text; and that, sometime to the changing, or obscu∣ring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost. Not with∣out cause therefore did your Maiesty affirme, that you could neuer yet see a Bible well translated into English. Thus far the Author of the Prote∣stants Apology &c. And I cannot forbeare to mention in particuler that famous corruption of Luther, who in the Text where it is said (Rom. 3. v. 28.) We accompt a man to be instified by faith, without the works of the Law, in fauour of Iustifi∣cation by faith alone, translateth (Iustified by faith A LONE.) As likewise the falsification of Zuinglius is no lesse notorious, who in the Gospels of S. Mathew, Mark, and Luke, and in S. Paul, in place of, This is my Body; This is my bloud; translates, This signifies my Body; This signifies my bloud. And heere let Protestants consider duely of these points. Saluation cannot be hoped for without true faith: Faith according to them re∣lies vpon Scripture alone: Scripture must be deliuered to most of them by the Translations:

Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men, in whom nothing is more certaine then a most certaine possibility to erre, and no grea∣ter euidence of Truth, then that it is euident some of them imbrace falshood, by reason of their contrary translations. What then remai∣neth, but that truth, faith, saluation, & all, must in them rely vpon a fallible, and vncertaine ground? How many poore soules are lamenta∣bly seduced, while from preaching Ministers, they admire a multitude of Texts of diuine Scripture, but are indeed the false translations, and corruptions of erring men? Let them ther∣fore, if they will be assured of true Scriptures, fly to the alwayes visible Catholique Church, against which the gates of hell can neuer so far preuaile, as that she shall be permitted to de∣ceiue the Christian world with false Scriptu∣res. And Luther himselfe, by vnfortunate expe∣rience, was at length forced to confesse thus much, saying: If the(s) world last longer, it will be againe necessary to receiue the Decrees of Councels, & to haue recourse to them, by reason of diuers interpre∣tations of Scripture which now raigne. On the con∣trary side, the Translation approued by the Ro∣man Church, is commended euen by our Ad∣uersaries: and D. Couell in particuler sayth, that it was vsed in the Church, one thousand(t) three hundred yeares agoe, and doubteth not to prefer(u) that Translation before others. In so much, that whereas the English translations be many, and

among themselues disagreeing, he concludeth, that of all those the approued translation authori∣zed by the Church of England, is that which com∣meth nearest to the vulgar, and is commonly called the Bishops Bible. So that the truth of that tran∣slation which we vse, must be the rule to iudge of the goodnesse of their Bibles: and therefore they are obliged to maintaine our Translation if it were but for their owne sake.

17. But doth indeed the source of their ma∣nifold vncertainties stop heer? No! The chiefest difficulty remaines, concerning the true mea∣ning of Scripture: for attayning whereof, if Protestants had any certainty, they could not disagree so hugely as they do. Hence M. Hooker saith: We are(w) right sure of this, that Nature, Scripture, and Experience haue all taught the world to seeke for the ending of contentions, by submitting it selfe vnto some iudiciall, and definitiue sentence, whereunto neither part that contendeth may, vnder any pretence, refuse to stand. D. Fields words are re∣markable to this purpose: Seeing (saith he) the controuersies(x) of Religion in our times are growne in number so many, and in nature so intricate, that few haue time and leasure, fewer strength of vnder standing to examine them; what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out which among all the socie∣tyes in the world, is that blessed Company of holy Ones, that hou••••••ould of Faith, that Spouse of Christ, and Church of the liuing God, which is the Pillar and

ground of Truth, that so they may imbrace her com∣munion, follow her directions, and rest in her iudg∣ment.

18. And now that the true Interpretation of Scripture, ought to be receiued from the Church, it is also proued by what we haue al∣ready demonstrated, that she it is, who must de∣clare what Bookes be true Scripture; wherein if she be assisted by the Holy Ghost, why should we not belieue her, to be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of them. Let Pro∣testants therfore eyther bring some proofe out of Scripture that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost in discerning true Scripture, and not in deliuering the true sense thereof; Or els giue vs leaue to apply against them, the argu∣ment, which S. Augustine opposed to the Ma∣nicheans, in these words: I would not(y) belieue the Gospel, vnles the authority of the Church did moue me. Them therfore whom I obeyed saying, Belieue the Gospell, why should I not obey saying to me, Do not belieue Manichaeus (Luther, Caluin, &c.) Choose what thou pleasest. If thou shalt say, Belieue the Ca∣tholiques; They warne me not to giue any credit to you. If therefore I belieue them, I cannot belieue thee. If thou say, Do not belieue the Catholiques, thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the faith of Manichaeus, because by the preaching of Catholiques I belieued the Gospell it selfe. If thou say, you did well to belieue them (Catholiques) commending the Gospell, but you did not well to belieue them, discommending Manichaeus;

Dost thou thinke me so very foolish, that without any reason at all, I should belieue what thou wilts, & not belieue what thou wilts not? And do not Protestāts perfectly resemble these men, to whom S. Au∣gustine spake, when they will haue men to be∣lieue the Roman Church deliuering Scripture, but not to belieue her condemning Luther, and the rest? Against whom, when they first oppo∣sed themselues to the Roman Church, S. Augu∣stine may seeme to haue spoken no lesse pro∣phetically, then doctrinally, when he said: Why should I not most(z) diligenily inquire what Christ commanded of them before all others, by whose au∣thority I was moued to belieue, that Christ comman∣ded any good thing? Canst thou better declare to me what he said, whom I would not haue thought to haue been, or to be, if the beliefe thereof had been recom∣mended by thee to me? This therefore I belieued by fame, strengthned with celebrity, consent, Antiquity. But euery one may see that you, so few, so turbulent, so new, can produce nothing deseruing authority. What madnes is this? Belieue them (Catholiques) that wrought to belieue Christ; but learne of vs what Christ said. Why I beseech thee? Surely if they (Ca∣tholiques) were not at all, and could not teach me any thing, I would more easily perswade my selfe, that I were not to belieue Christ, then that I should learne any thing concerning him from any other then them by whom I belieued him. If therefore we receiue the knowledge of Christ, and Scriptures from the Church, from her also must we take his do∣ctrine,

and the interpretation thereof.

19. But besides all this, the Scriptures can∣not be Iudge of Controuersies, who ought to be such, as that to him not only the learned, or Ve∣terans, but also the vnlearned, and Nouices, may haue recourse; for these being capable of saluation, and endued with faith of the same nature with that of the learned, there must be some vniuersall Iudge, which the ignorant may vnderstand, and to whom the greatest Clerks must submit. Such is the Church: and the Scri∣pture is not such.

20. Now, the inconueniences which fol∣low by referring all Controuersies to Scripture alone, are very cleare. For by this principle, all is finally in very deed and truth reduced to the internall priuate Spirit, because there is really no middle way betwixt a publique externall, and a priuate internall voyce; & whosoeuer refuseth the one, must of necessity adhere to the other.

21. This Tenet also of Protestants, by ta∣king the office of Iudicature from the Church, comes to conferre it vpon euery particuler mā, who being driuen from submission to the Church, cannot be blamed if he trust himselfe as farre as any other, his conscience dictating, that wittingly he meanes not to cozen himself, as others maliciously may do. Which inference is so manifest, that it hath extorted from diuers Protestants the open Confession of so vast an absurdity. Heare Luther: The Gouernours(a) of

Churches and Pastours of Christs sheep haue indeed power to teach, but the sheep ought to giue Iudgment whether they propound the voyce of Christ, or of Ali∣ens. Lubbertus sayth: As we haue(b) demonstra∣ted that all publique Iudges may be deceiued in inter∣preting; so we affirme, that they may erre in iudging. All faythfull men are prinate Iudges, and they also haue power to Iudge of doctrines and interpretations. Whitaker, euen of the vnlearned, sayth: They(c) ought to haue recourse vnto the more learned, but in the meane tyme we must be carefull not to attribute to them ouer-much, but so, that still we retaine our owne freedome. Bilson also affirmeth; that, The people(d) must be discerners, and Iudges of that which is taught. This same pernicious doctrine is deliuered by Brentius, Zanchius, Cartwright, and others exactly cited by(e) Brereley; & nothing is more common in euery Protestants mouth, then that he admits of Fathers, Councells, Church &c. as far as they agree with Scri∣pture; which vpon the matter is himselfe. Thus Heresy euer fals vpon extremes: It pretends to haue Scripture alone for Iudge of Controuer∣sies, and in the meane time sets vp as many Iudges, as there are men, and women in the Christian world. What good Statesmen would they be, who should idëate, or fancy such a Common wealth, as these men haue framed to themselues a Church? They verify what S. Au∣gustine obiecteth against certaine Heretiques. You sce(f) that you goe about to ouerthrow all au∣thority

of Scripture, and that euery mans mind may be to himselfe a Rule, what he is to allow, or disallow in euery Scripture.

22. Moreouer what cōfusion to the Church, what danger to the Common wealth, this de∣niall of the authority of the Church, may bring, I leaue to the consideration of any Iudi∣cious, indifferent man. I will only set downe some words of D. Potter, who speaking of the Proposition of reuealed Truths, sufficient to proue him that gaine saith them to be an Here∣tique, sayth thus: This Proposition(g) of reuealed truths, is not by the infallible determination of Pope, or Church; (Pope, and Church being excluded, let vs heare what more secure rule he will pres∣cribe) but by whatsoeuer meanes a man may be con∣uinced in conscience of diuine reuelation. If a Prea∣cher do cleare any point of fayth to his Hearers; if a priuate Christian do make it appeare to his Neigh∣bour, that any conclusion, or point of faith is deliuered by diuine reuelation of Gods word; if a man himselfe (without any Teacher) by reading the Scriptures, or hearing them read, be conuinced of the truth of any such coclusion: this is a sufficient proposition to proue him that gain saith any such proofe, to be an Hereti∣que, and obstinate opposer of the faith. Behold what goodly safe Propounders of fayth arise in place of Gods vniuersall visible Church, which must yield to a single Preacher, a Neighbour, a man himselfe if he can read, or at least haue eares to heare Scripture read. Verily I do not see, but

that euery well — gouerned Ciuill Common∣wealth, ought to concur towards the extermi∣nating of this doctrine, whereby the Interpre∣tation of Scripture is taken from the Church, and conferred vpon euery man, who, whatsoe∣uer is pretended to the contrary, may be a pas∣sionate seditions creature.

23. Moreouer, there was no Scripture, or written word for about two thousand yeares from Adam to Moyses, whom all acknowledge to haue been the first Author of Canonicall Scripture: And againe for about two thousand yeares more, from Moyses to Christ our Lord, holy Scripture was only among the people of Israel; and yet there were Gentils endewed in those dayes with diuine Faith, as appeareth in Iob, and his friends. Wherefore during so many ages, the Church alone was the decider of Controuersies, and Instructor of the faithfull. Neither did the Word written by Moses, de∣priue that Church of her former Infallibility, or other qualities requisite for a Iudge: yea D. Potter acknowledgeth, that besides the Law, there was a liuing Iudge in the Iewish Church, endewed with an absolutly infallible direction in cases of moment; as all points belonging to di∣uine Faith are. Now, the Church of Christ our Lord, was before the Scriptures of the New Testament, which were not written instantly, nor all at one time, but successiuely vpon seue∣rall occasions; and some after the decease of

most of the Apostles: & after they were writ∣ten, they were not presently knowne to all Churches: and of some there was doubt in the Church for some Ages after our Sauiour. Shall we then say, that according as the Church by little and little receiued holy Scripture, she was by the like degrees deuested of her possessed In∣fallibility, and power to decide Controuersies in Religion? That some Churches had one Iud∣ge of Controuersies, and others another? That with moneths, or yeares, as new Canonicall Scripture grew to be published, the Church al∣tered her whole Rule of faith, or Iudge of Con∣trouersies? After the Apostles time, and after the writing of Scriptures, Heresies would be sure to rise, requiring in Gods Church for their discouery and condemnation, Infallibility, ei∣ther to write new Canonicall Scripture as was done in the Apostles time by occasion of emer∣gent heresies; or infallibility to interpret Scri∣ptures, already written, or, without Scripture, by diuine vn written Traditions, and affistance of the holy Ghost to determine all Controuer∣sies, as Tertullian saith: The soule is(h) before the letter; and speach before Bookes; and sense before stile. Certainly such addition of Scripture, with de∣rogation, or subtraction from the former power and infallibility of the Church, would haue brought to the world diuision in matters of faith, and the Church had rather lost, then gai∣ned by holy Scripture (which ought to be far

from our tongues and thoughts,) it being ma∣nifest, that for decision of Controuersies, infal∣libility setled in a liuing Iudge, is incomparably more vsefull and fit, then if it were conceiued, as inherent in some inanimate writing. Is there such repugnance betwixt Infallibility in the Church, and Existence of Scripture, that the production of the one, must be the destruction of the other? Must the Church wax dry, by gi∣uing to her Children the milke of sacred Writ? No, No. Her Infallibility was, and is deriued from an inexhausted fountaine. If Protestants will haue the Scripture alone for their Iudge, let them first produce some Scripture affirming, that by the entring thereof, Infallibility went out of the Church. D. Potter may remember what him∣selfe teacheth; That the Church is stil endewed with infallibility in points fundamentall, and consequently, that infallibility in the Church doth well agree with the truth, the sanctity, yea with the sufficiency of Scripture, for all mat∣ters necessary to Saluation. I would therfore gla••ly know, out of what Text he imagineth that the Church by the comming of Scripture, was depriued of infallibility in some points, & not in others? He affirmeth that the Iewish Sy∣nagogue retained infallibility in her selfe, not∣withstanding the writing of the Old Testa∣ment; and will he so vnworthily and vniustly depriue the Church of Christ of infallibility by reason of the New Testament? Especially

of we consider, that in the Old Testament, Lawes, Ceremonies, Rites Punishments, iudg∣ments, Sacraments, Sacrifices &c. were more particulerly, and minutely deliuered to the Iewes, then in the New Testament is done; our Sauiour leauing the determination, or declara∣tion of particulers to his Spouse the Church, which therefore stands in need of Infallibility more then the Iewish Synagogue. D. Potter,(i) against this argument drawne from the power and infallibility of the Synagogue, obiects; that we might as well infer, that Christians must haue one soueraigne Prince ouer all, because the Iewes had one chiefe Iudge. But the disparity is very cleare. The Synagogue was a type, and figure of the Church of Christ, not so their ciuill gouernmēt of Christian Common-wealths, or kingdomes. The Church succeeded to the Synagogue, but not Christian Princes to Iewish Magistrates: And the Church is compared to a howse, or(k) family; to an(l) Army, to a(m) body; to a(n) kingdome &c. all which require one Maister, one Generall, one head, one Magistrate, one spirituall King; as our blessed Sauiour with fiet Vnum ouile,(o) ioyned Vnus Pastor: One sheepe∣fold, one Pastour. But all distinct kingdomes, or Common-wealths, are not one Army, Family, &c. And finally, it is necessary to saluation, that all haue recourse to one Church; but for tem∣porall weale, there is no need that all submit, or depend vpon one temporall Prince, king∣dome,

or Common-wealth: and therefore our Samour hath left to his whole Church, as be∣ing One, one Law, one Scripture, the same Sa∣craments &c. Whereas kingdomes haue their seuerall Lawes, disterent gouernments, diuersi∣ty of Powers, Magistracy &c. And so this obie∣ction returneth vpon D. Potter. For as in the One Community of the Iewes, there was one Power and Iudge, to end debates, and resolue difficul∣ties: so in the Church of Christ, which is One, there must be some one Authority to decide all Controuersies in Religion.

24. This discourse is excellently proued by ancient S. Irenaeus(p) in these words: What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures, ought we not to haue followed the order of Tradition which they deliuered to those to whom they committed the Chur∣ches? to which order many Nations yield assent, who belieue in Christ, hauing saluation written in their harts by the spirit of God, without letters or Inke, and diligently keeping ancient Tradition. It is easy to re∣ceiue the truth from God's Church, seing the Apo∣stles haue most fully deposited in her, as in a rich Storehowse, all things belonging to truth. For what? if there should arise any contention of some small que∣stion, ought we not to haue recourse to the most an∣cient Churches, and from them to receiue what is cer∣taine and cleare concerning the present question?

25 Besides all this, the doctrine of Prote∣stants is destructiue of it selfe. For either they haue certaine, and infallible meanes not to erre

in interpreting Scripture; or they haue not. If not; then the Scripture (to them) cannot be a sufficient groūd for infallible faith, nor a meete Iudge of Controuersies. If they haue certaine infallible meanes, and so cannot erre in their in∣terpretations of Scriptures; then they are able with infallibility to heare, examine, and deter∣mine all controuersies of faith, and so they may be, and are Iudges of Controuersies, although they vse the Scripture as a Rule. And thus, a∣gainst their owne doctrine, they constitute an other Iudge of Controuersies, besides Scripture alone.

26. Lastly, I aske D. Potter, whether this Assertion, (Scripture alone is Iudge of all Contro∣uersies in faith,) be a fundamentall point of faith, or no? He must be well aduised, before he say, that it is a fundamentall point. For he will haue against him, as many Protestants as teach that by Scripture alone, it is impossible to know what Bookes be Scripture, which yet to Prote∣stants is the most necessary and chiefe point of all other. D. Couell expressely saith: Doubtles(q) it is a tolerable opinion in the Church of Rome, if they goe no further, as some of them do not (he should haue said as none of them doe) to affirme, that the Scriptures are holy and diuine in themselues, but so esteemed by vs, for the authority of the Church. He will likewise oppose himselfe to those his Bre∣thren, who grant that Controuersies cannot be ended, without some externall liuing authori∣ty,

as we noted before. Besides, how can it be in vs a fundamentall errour to say, the Scripture alone is not Iudge of Controuersies, seing (not∣withstanding this our beliefe) we vse for inter∣preting of Scripture, all the meanes which they prescribe, as Prayer, Conferring of places, Con∣sulting the Originals &c. and to these add the Instruction, and Authority of God's Church, which euen by his Confession cannot erre dam∣nably, and may affoard vs more help, then can be expected from the industry, learning, or wit of any priuate person: & finally D Potter grants, that the Church of Rome doth not maintaine any fundamentall error against faith; and con∣sequently, he cannot affirme that our doctrine in this present Controuersy is damnable. If he answere, that their Tenet, about the Scriptures being the only Iudge of Controuersies, is not a fun∣damentall point of faith: then, as he teacheth that the vniuersall Church may erre in points not fundamentall; so I hope he will not deny, but particuler Churches, and priuate men, are much more obnoxious to error in such points; and in particuler in this, that Scripture alone is Iudge of Controuersies: And so, the very principle vpon which their whole faith is grounded, re∣maines to them vncertaine; and on the other side, for the selfe same reason, they are not cer∣taine, but that the Church is Iudge of Contro∣uersies, which if she be, then their case is lamen∣table, who in generall deny her this authority, &

in particular Controuersies oppose her defini∣tions. Besides among publique Conclusions de∣fended in Oxford the yeare 1633. to the que∣stions, Whether the Church haue authority to deter∣ment Controuersies in faith; And, To interpret holy Scripture? The answere to both is Affirmatiue.

27. Since then, the Visible Church of Christ our Lord is that infallible Meanes where∣by the reucaled Truths of Almighty God are conueyed to our Vnderstanding; it followeth that to oppose her definitions is to resist God himselfe; which blessed S. Augustine plainely affirmeth, when speaking of the Controuersy about Rebaptiza∣tion of such as were baptized by Heretiques, he saith. This(r) is neither openly, nor euidently read, neither by you nor by me; yet if there were any wise man of whom our Sauiour had giuen testimony, and that he should be consulted in this question, we should make no doubt to performe what he should say, least we might seeme to gainsay not him so much as Christ, by whose testimony he was recommended. Now Christ beareth witnes to his Church. And a little after: Whosoeuer refuseth to follow the practise of the Church, doth resist our Sauiour himselfe, who by his testimony recommends the Church. I conclude ther∣fore with this argument. Whosoeuer resisteth that meanes which infallibly proposeth to vs God's Word or Reuelation, commits a sinne, which, vnrepented, excluds saluation: But who∣soeuer resisteth Christs visible Church, doth re∣sist that meanes, which infallibly proposeth

God's word or reuelation to vs: Therfore who∣soeuer resisteth Christs visible Church, com∣mits a sinne, which, vnrepented, excluds salua∣tion. Now, what visible Church was extant, when Luther began his pretended Reforma∣tion, whether it were the Roman, or Protestant Church; & whether he, and other Protestants do not oppose that visible Church, which was spread ouer the world, before, and in Luthers time, is easy to be determined, and importeth euery one most seriously to ponder, as a thing wheron eternall saluation dependeth. And be∣cause our Aduersaries do heere most insist vpon the distinction of points fundamentall, and not fundamentall, and in particular teach, that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall, it will be necessary to examine the truth, and weight of this euasion, which shall be done in the next Chapter.

Notes

• (a)

  Pag. 131.
• (b)

  In his first booke of Eccles. Policy Sect. 14. pag. 6••.
• (c)

  Ibid. lib. 2. Sect. 4. p. 102.
• (d)

  l. 3. Sect. 8. pag. 1. 146. & alibi
• (e)

  Aduersus Stapl. l. 2. cap. 6. pag. 270 & pag. 357.
• (f)

  Aduersus Stapl. l. 2. c. 4. pag. 300.
• (g)

  lib. de capt. Babyl. tom. 2. Wit∣tomb. fol. 8••.
• (h)

  In his answere to a countefaite Catholique pag. 5.
• (i)

  Epist. cōt. Anabap. ad dnos Paro∣chos tom. 2: Germ. Wit∣temb.
• (k)

  Praefat. in epist. lac. inedit. Ie∣nensi.
• (l)

  In Enchi∣rid. pag. 63.
• (m)

  In exa. min. Conc. Trid. part. 1. pag. 55.
• (n)

  Ibid.
• (o)

  Apud Eus••b. l. 4. hist. cap. 26.
• (p)

  in Synop.
• (q)

  In c••rm. de genu••••••s Scripturis.
• (r)

  lib de ser∣uo arbitr••o contra Eras. tom. 2. Witt. fol. 471.
• (s)

  In latinis Sermonibus conuiuiali∣bus Francof. in 8. impr. Anno 1571.
• (t)

  In Germa¦nicis colloq. Lutheri ab Aurtfabro e∣ditis Franco∣furti tit. de libris veteris & noui Test. fol. 379.
• (u)

  Ibid. tit. de Patriar∣chis & Pro∣phet fol. 282.
• (w)

  Tit de lib. Ʋet. & ••out Test.
• (x)

  Fol. 380.
• (y)

  Pag. 14••.
• (z)

  Heb. v. 1
• (a)

  Pag. 141.
• (b)

  Cont. A∣dimantum c. 17.
• (c)

  l. 2. haere∣tic fab.
• (d)

  lib. 6. cap. 10.
• (e)

  lib. 6. cap. 11.
• (f)

  Dist. Can. Sancta Ro∣mana.
• (h)

  In his de∣fence art. 4. Pag. 31.
• (i)

  Pag 234
• (k)

  In Sy∣nopsi.
• (l)

  Can. 47.
• (m)

  Cont. ep. Funaam. c. 5.
• (n)

  Tom. 1. fol. 135.
• (o)

  Instit. c. 6. §. 11.
• (p)

  Instit. ca. 7. §. 12.
• (q)

  lib. de sancta Scri∣ptura p. 523.
• (r)

  Tract. 1. Sect. 10. subd. 4. ioy∣ned with tract. 2. cap. 2. Sect. 10. subd. 2.
• (s)

  lib cont, Zwingl, de verit. corp. Christi in Euchar.
• (t)

  In his an∣swere vnto M. John Burges pag. 94.
• (u)

  Ibid.
• (w)

  In his Preface to his Bookes of Ecclesiasti∣call Policy. Sect. 6. 26.
• (x)

  In his Treatise of the Church In his Epistle dedicatory to the L. Arch∣bishop.
• (y)

  Cont. ep. Fund. cap. 5.
• (z)

  lib. de vtil. cre. cap. 14.
• (a)

  Tom. 2. Wittemberg. fol. 375.
• (b)

  In lib. de principi••s Christian. dogm. lib. 6. cap. 13.
• (c)

  De Sacra Scriptura pag. 529.
• (d)

  In his true differen∣ce part. 2.
• (e)

  Tract. 2. cap. 1. Sect. 1.
• (f)

  lib 32. cont. Faust.
• (g)

  pag. 247
• (h)

  De test. antm. cap. 5.
• (i)

  Pag. 24.
• (k)

  Heb. 13.
• (l)

  Cant. 2.
• (m)

  1. Cor. 10. Ephes. 4.
• (n)

  Matt. 12
• (o)

  Ioan. c. 10.
• (p)

  lib. 3. c. 4
• (q)

  In his de∣fence of M. Hokers boo∣kes art. 4. p. 31.
• (r)

  Devnit. Eccles. c. 22.