A01332.xml

<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
   <teiHeader>
      <fileDesc>
         <titleStmt>
            <title>A sermon preached vpon Sunday, beeing the twelfth of March. Anno. 1581, within the Tower of London in the hearing of such obstinate Papistes as then were prisoners there: by William Fulke Doctor in Diuinitie, and M. of Penbroke Hall in Cambridge.</title>
            <author>Fulke, William, 1538-1589.</author>
         </titleStmt>
         <editionStmt>
            <edition>
               <date>1581</date>
            </edition>
         </editionStmt>
         <extent>Approx. 149 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 65 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.</extent>
         <publicationStmt>
            <publisher>Text Creation Partnership,</publisher>
            <pubPlace>Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :</pubPlace>
            <date when="2004-08">2004-08 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).</date>
            <idno type="DLPS">A01332</idno>
            <idno type="STC">STC 11455</idno>
            <idno type="STC">ESTC S117689</idno>
            <idno type="EEBO-CITATION">99852900</idno>
            <idno type="PROQUEST">99852900</idno>
            <idno type="VID">18255</idno>
            <availability>
               <p>This keyboarded and encoded edition of the
	       work described above is co-owned by the institutions
	       providing financial support to the Early English Books
	       Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is
	       available for reuse, according to the terms of <ref target="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/">Creative
	       Commons 0 1.0 Universal</ref>. The text can be copied,
	       modified, distributed and performed, even for
	       commercial purposes, all without asking permission.</p>
            </availability>
         </publicationStmt>
         <seriesStmt>
            <title>Early English books online.</title>
         </seriesStmt>
         <notesStmt>
            <note>(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A01332)</note>
            <note>Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 18255)</note>
            <note>Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1475-1640 ; 510:04)</note>
         </notesStmt>
         <sourceDesc>
            <biblFull>
               <titleStmt>
                  <title>A sermon preached vpon Sunday, beeing the twelfth of March. Anno. 1581, within the Tower of London in the hearing of such obstinate Papistes as then were prisoners there: by William Fulke Doctor in Diuinitie, and M. of Penbroke Hall in Cambridge.</title>
                  <author>Fulke, William, 1538-1589.</author>
               </titleStmt>
               <extent>[126] p.   </extent>
               <publicationStmt>
                  <publisher>[At the three Cranes in the Vintree,] by Thomas Dawson, for George Bishop,</publisher>
                  <pubPlace>Imprinted at London :</pubPlace>
                  <date>1581.</date>
               </publicationStmt>
               <notesStmt>
                  <note>Printer's address from colophon.</note>
                  <note>Running title reads: A sermon preached, by M.D. Fulke.</note>
                  <note>Signatures: A-H (-H8 blank?).</note>
                  <note>Reproduction of the original in the Harvard University. Library.</note>
               </notesStmt>
            </biblFull>
         </sourceDesc>
      </fileDesc>
      <encodingDesc>
         <projectDesc>
            <p>Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl,
      TEI @ Oxford.
      </p>
         </projectDesc>
         <editorialDecl>
            <p>EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.</p>
            <p>EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).</p>
            <p>The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.</p>
            <p>Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.</p>
            <p>Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.</p>
            <p>Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as &lt;gap&gt;s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.</p>
            <p>The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.</p>
            <p>Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).</p>
            <p>Keying and markup guidelines are available at the <ref target="http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/docs/.">Text Creation Partnership web site</ref>.</p>
         </editorialDecl>
         <listPrefixDef>
            <prefixDef ident="tcp"
                       matchPattern="([0-9\-]+):([0-9IVX]+)"
                       replacementPattern="http://eebo.chadwyck.com/downloadtiff?vid=$1&amp;page=$2"/>
            <prefixDef ident="char"
                       matchPattern="(.+)"
                       replacementPattern="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/textcreationpartnership/Texts/master/tcpchars.xml#$1"/>
         </listPrefixDef>
      </encodingDesc>
      <profileDesc>
         <langUsage>
            <language ident="eng">eng</language>
         </langUsage>
         <textClass>
            <keywords scheme="http://authorities.loc.gov/">
               <term>Sermons, English --  16th century.</term>
            </keywords>
         </textClass>
      </profileDesc>
      <revisionDesc>
         <change>
            <date>2004-02</date>
            <label>TCP</label>Assigned for keying and markup</change>
         <change>
            <date>2004-03</date>
            <label>Aptara</label>Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images</change>
         <change>
            <date>2004-04</date>
            <label>Emma (Leeson) Huber</label>Sampled and proofread</change>
         <change>
            <date>2004-04</date>
            <label>Emma (Leeson) Huber</label>Text and markup reviewed and edited</change>
         <change>
            <date>2004-07</date>
            <label>pfs</label>Batch review (QC) and XML conversion</change>
      </revisionDesc>
   </teiHeader>
   <text xml:lang="eng">
      <front>
         <div type="title_page">
            <pb facs="tcp:18255:1" rendition="simple:additions"/>
            <gap reason="duplicate" extent="1 page">
               <desc>〈1 page duplicate〉</desc>
            </gap>
            <pb facs="tcp:18255:1"/>
            <gap reason="duplicate" extent="1 page">
               <desc>〈1 page duplicate〉</desc>
            </gap>
            <pb facs="tcp:18255:2" rendition="simple:additions"/>
            <pb facs="tcp:18255:2"/>
            <p>A
<hi>Sermon Preached</hi>
vpon Sunday, beeing the
<hi>twelfth of March. Anno.</hi> 1581.
within the Tower of Lon<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>don: In the hearing of such <hi>obsti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nate
Papistes as then were pri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>soners
there:</hi> By <hi>William Fulke Doctor in</hi>
Diuinitie, and M. of Pen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>broke
Hall in <hi>Cam<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bridge.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>Imprinted at London, by
<hi>Thomas Dawson, for</hi>
George Bishop.
1581.</p>
         </div>
      </front>
      <body>
         <div type="text">
            <pb facs="tcp:18255:3"/>
            <pb facs="tcp:18255:3"/>
            <head>A Sermon preached, by M.
D. Fulke.</head>
            <p>THe place of Scripture, which I haue
chosen to speake of at this time, and
vpon the present occasion, is written in
the 17. Chapiter of the Gospel after Saint
Iohn, and the 17. verse of the same, being
part of the wordes of our Sauiour Christ,
vnto his heauenly Father, in that most ve<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>hement
and heauenly prayer, which hee
maketh for his disciples and his whole
Church, a litle before his Passion.</p>
            <q>
               <bibl>Iohn. 17.</bibl>Sanctifie them in thy trueth, thy word is
the trueth.</q>
            <p>
               <seg rend="decorInit">A</seg>Fter that our Sauiour
Christ had accomplished
his office of preaching,
and sealed the doctrine of
his redemption, by insti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tution
of his holie Sup<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>per,
&amp; finally, as it were
taking his leaue of teaching his Apostles,
had instructed them of pacient bearing of
his Crosse, by setting foorth such comforts,
whereunto they should leane, and by pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mising
<pb facs="tcp:18255:4"/>
the comming of his spirite, lifted
them vp to a better hope, then the present
miseries did portende, discoursing of the
glorie and Maiestie of his kingdom wher<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>of
they should be partakers, as is contei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned
at the full, in the thrée Chapiters go<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing
immediately before: The Euange<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>list
declareth in the beginning of this se<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uenth
Chapiter, howe hée conuerteth him<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>selfe
to prayer, that this his most heauen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly
doctrine might be made effectuall: first
in the heartes of his Apostles which then
were his hearers, and afterwarde in all
true members of his Churche, which by
their Ministerie shoulde bée gathered in
his name. Wherfore among other re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>questes
that hée maketh for his Disciples
in this prayer, this is one especially, that
his father would sa<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ctifie them in his truth,
which is his holie worde, the only out<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>warde
witnesse of his will: which is as
much in effect, as that it woulde please
his Maiestie, of his infinite goodnesse, and
for his sake, who sanctified him selfe for
them, to be a sacrifice propitiatorie to
dedicate them vnto his father: to conse<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>crate
or hallowe them, by his holie spi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rite,
<pb facs="tcp:18255:4"/>
vnto him selfe, as his chosen and pe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>culiar
possession, according to that most
holy trueth, which hée hath reuealed in
his worde and doctrine of saluation, con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>teined
in the Gospell of his sonne, that
béeing truely vnited vnto him, hée may be
glorified in them, and they made by him
partakers if eternall felicitie. Sancti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fie
them O Father (saith hée) in thy truth,
thy worde is the trueth. There are two
speciall reasons, why our Sauiour Christ
commendeth his Disciples, vnto the holie
and sanctifying protection of God his hea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uenly
Father: the one conteined in the
verse going immediately before, the o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
in the verse that followeth immedi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>atly,
the one being the great daunger they
stood in, the other the great and high office
also, that they were called vnto. Concer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ning
the former he said: they are not of the
world, euen am I am not of the worlde. In
that they were not of the worlde, it could
not be auoided, but that they should be ha<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted
of the world, as he said also in expresse
wordes. They therefore that shoulde be
hated of all the worlde, had néede to bée
mightily protected.</p>
            <p>
               <pb facs="tcp:18255:5"/>
They that had so many enemies, must
needes haue a strong defender, and where
should they haue any rest, that had all the
worlde against them, but in God, who
is greater then the worlde? And therefore
in consideration of that great perill they
were in, which must remain in the world,
although they were not of the worlde,
although they were hated and persecuted
of the worlde, our Sauiour Christ com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mitteth
them in this prayer to his fathers
holie tuition: Forasmuch as they are not
of the worlde, but inheritours of heauen,
Sanctifie them in thy trueth. Againe,
co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>sidering how waightie a charge is laide
vpon them, as hée sheweth in the nexte
verse. As thou hast sent mée into the
world, so haue I sent them into the world,
hée desireth his Father, to make them a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ble
to execute that charge, saying, <hi>Sancti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fie
them in thy trueth, thy worde is the truth.</hi>
As though hée should say, Knowing that
they are men in whom naturally dwel<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>leth
the spirit of errour, and not of trueth,
and yet such men, as I haue chosen to te<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stifie
vnto the worlde, the same trueth,
which thou O heauenly Father hast sent
vnto them by mée, I confesse they are not
<pb facs="tcp:18255:5"/>
able of them selues to know the trueth, to
speake the trueth, to loue the trueth, for
that mueterate corruption, that beareth
the sway in all the children of Adam, ther<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
I beséech thee holy Father, to sanctifie
them in thy trueth, euen in thy holy word
which is the witnesse and expresse decla<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ration
of thy reuealed trueth, that by thy
sanctification, they may be renued in the
inner man, to will and loue those things,
which thou commaundest, by thy trueth
they may be deliuered from errour, blind<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nesse,
and ignoraunce, in which they are
holden Captiues, and by thy holy worde
they may be instructed from time to time,
that no forgetfulnesse of thy truth do take
them,<note place="margin">2. Pet, 1.</note> but hauing recourse alwayes vnto
it, as to a light shining in a darke place,
they may be méete to accomplish the work
of so high a calling. And this is generally
the summe and effect of the wordes of our
Sauiour Christ in this his praier. <hi>Sancti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fie,
them in thy trueth, thy word is the trueth.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>But that I may speake of them more
particularly, I will diuide my Treatise
vpon this text, into two parts: In the for<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mer
I wil set foorth the request of our Sa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uiour
<pb facs="tcp:18255:6"/>
Christ, vttered in these wordes,
<hi>Sanctifie them in thy trueth,</hi> in the other,
the exposition whiche hée maketh of the
trueth, when hée saieth, <hi>Thy word is the
trueth.</hi> Concerning the request which
hée maketh for their sanctification, wée
haue to co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>sider, first that it is neither law<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>full,
nor possible, for any man, to haue any
accesse vnto God, to stand before his pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sence,
to looke for any benefit at his hands
without true holinesse. For the Lorde
béeing holie, abhorreth all that is pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>phane,
polluted and defiled, testifiyng both
by <hi>Moses</hi> and by the Apostle Peter, that
if wée will approch or come neare vntoo
him,<note place="margin">Leuit. 11. 19. &amp; 20.</note> wée must be sanctified, wée must be
holie,<note place="margin">1. Pet. 1.</note> be you holie or sanctified saieth the
Lorde, for I am holie. According to
him which hath called you, which is ho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lie,
be you holie, saieth the Apostle. To
shewe that sanctification is necessary, the
Lorde ordeined all the sanctifying rites of
the lawe, by which the Tabernacle, the
Altar, the Priestes, the sacrifices, and
all the people were, first sanctified, and
made holie, before they coulde be accep<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted
of him, to be the Lordes Tabernacle,
<pb facs="tcp:18255:6"/>
his Altar, his Priestes, his sacrifice, his
people. Yea, this light of God shined euen
in the darknesse of naturall vnderstan<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ding,
so that without reuelation from
heauen, the Gentiles acknowledged, that
no man coulde come neare vnto God, no
man coulde please God, no man coulde
looke for rewarde of God, without holi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nesse.
And this they testified, euen in
their manner of worshipping of GOD,
which although it were cleane contrarie
to Gods expresse commaundement, in
visible shapes, and bodily images, yet
they declared by their maner of consecra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tions,
dedications, purifications, and o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
lyke ceremonies of their owne deui<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sing,
that such as will haue any thing to
doe with God, must be hallowed as God
is holie, and all thinges that apperteyne
vnto him. The Papistes also, euen as
the heathen, whose religion and ceremo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nies
in many thinges they followe, in so
many consecrations and sanctifications,
as they vse in their Idolatrous seruice,
meane to signifie euen so much. And
hereof commeth all that preparation,
pompe, and furniture, whiche they
vse in woorshipping of their Images
<pb facs="tcp:18255:7"/>
which they defende by the same reasons,
and worshippe after the same maner as
the Heathen did their Images, although
nothing be more directly contrarie to the
expresse commaundement of God. The
Papistes thinke their idolatrie to bée de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fended,
when they say that they worship
not the stockes and stones, the matter and
fourme of their Images, as Gods, but
worship God in them. And did not the wi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ser
sort of the Gentils bring the same rea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>son
to defende their Idolatrie? Yes verely.
S.<note place="margin">In Psal. 96.</note> 
               <hi>Augustine</hi> testifieth, that one of them
saide: <q>I worship not that stone, nor that
Image, which is without senses, for your
Prophet could not know that it hath eies
and seeth not, and I be ignorant that this
image neyther hath life, nor seeth with
eyes, nor heareth with eares. Therefore
I worship not the thing, but I adore that
which I sée, &amp; serue that which I sée not,
who is this? A certaine inuisible diuine
power which hath the preheminence of
that Image.</q> Behold the Heathen man
affirmeth, that they worshipped not the
Idolles, but God by the Idolles, euen as
the Israelites in worshipping their gol<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>den
<pb facs="tcp:18255:7"/>
Calfe, pretended by it, to worship the
God that brought them out of the land of
<hi>Egypt.</hi> And <hi>Aaron</hi> proclaimed a holie
day to be celebrated vnto <hi>Iehoua,</hi> the on<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly
true God. The multitude of their Gods
which they worshipped also, they excused,
euen as the Papists do, for they acknow<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ledge
but one God, as the principall, high<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>est,
and only gouernour of all the poeticall
Gods, euen as the <hi>Poet Horatius</hi> spea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>keth
of <hi>Iupiter:</hi>
               <q>
                  <hi> Qui res hominum ac deo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rum,
qui mare &amp; terras varijs<expan>
                        <am>
                           <g ref="char:abque"/>
                        </am>
                        <ex>que</ex>
                     </expan> mundum
temperat horis, vnde nil maius generatur
ipso &amp;c:</hi> Which gouerneth all the affaires
of men and Gods, the sea and the lande,
and the whole worlde, with diuers sea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sons,
wherefore nothing is brought forth
greater then hée, neither is ther any thing
like him, or seconde vnto him: yet for all
that <hi>Pallas</hi> hath obtained the next honour
vnto him.</q> Sée what the opinion euen of
the Poets was, concerning the principall
worship due vnto the highest God. But
the Philosophers, and such as by the Chri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stians
were charged with worshipping of
Images, were yet more subtle and came
nearer to the Papistes. For they not
<pb facs="tcp:18255:8"/>
only affirmed, that they worshipped God
by the Images (as <hi>Chrysostome</hi>) witnes<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>seth,<note place="margin">In Epist. ad Eph. hom. 18.</note>
but also béeing further vrged tou<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ching
the multitude of Gods, they answe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>red
that in <hi>Mars</hi> they worshipped the po<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>wer
of God, in <hi>Pallas,</hi> the wisedome of
God, in <hi>Venus,</hi> the loue and pleasure of
God, and so of the rest: yea they doubted
not to affirme, that those pettie Gods,
whom they worshipped (as <hi>Augustine</hi>
sheweth) were the powers and Ministe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ries,
of that great God, and euen the ve<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rie
same which the Christians call An<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gelles.
To whom <hi>Augustine</hi> very well
replyeth and saieth,<note place="margin">In Psal. 9. 6.</note> 
               <q>I woulde you would
truely worship the Angelles, you shoulde
easily learne of them not to worship them:</q>
Euen so I woulde the Papistes woulde
truely worship the Angelles, they should
learne of them not to worship them: wor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ship
God (saieth the Angell to S. Iohn
who fell downe at the Angelles féete to<note place="margin">Apoe. 19. &amp; 20. 22.</note>
worship him) for I am thy fellowe ser<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uant,
and fellowe seruant of all the faith<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>full,
the Prophetes and them that kéepe
the sayinges of this booke. And yet Saint
<pb facs="tcp:18255:8"/>
Iohn was not fallen into so grosse idola<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>trie,
that hée woulde worshippe the An<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gell
as God, but euen as the papistes, he
was deceiued by humane affection, to giue
some parte of the honor which is wholy
dewe to God, to the angell as to a diuine
creature and messenger of God. Yee I
woulde the Papistes woulde ryghtlie
worshippe all the saintes of God, for
then shoulde they learne of them, not
to worshippe them, but God the au<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thoure
of theire sanctification, to whome
all Saynts ascribe all honour, all glo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rye,
all powre, all myght, all riches
all wisedome, all hollynesse,<note place="margin">Apoc. 7.</note> all sal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uation.</p>
            <p>There canne no greater honour
bee giuen vnto Sayntes, then to ho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nor
their Lorde, their Sauioure, their
Redeemer, their God, their Father,
their sanctifyer. And it is greate con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tumely
and iniury to the blessed Saintes,
to robbe God of his glorie, to bestow vpon
them. Wherefore if the Papists woulde
truely honour them, then they woulde
follow their faith, their obedience, their
<pb facs="tcp:18255:9"/>
humilitie, and all their godly vertues.
Whereby they should be sure, to honour
and worship none, with spirituall and re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ligious
worship, but God only, whome
they alone honoured and worshipped, if
they were not deceiued, as Saint Iohn
was in worshipping the Angell. Well it
is plaine enough, by that which hath béen
spoken, that no man can haue accesse vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>to
God, no man can please God, no man
can be ioyned vnto God, without holines,
without the which, as the Apostle saieth,
that no man shall sée God.<note place="margin">Hebr. 12.</note> Séeing ther<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
that sanctification is so necessarie, we
must séeke from whence it is to bee had.
Our Sauiour Christ in the words of this
prayer, doth plainly teach vs, from whe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ce
all true holinesse doeth flow, and by what
meanes wée may bée consecrated, from
whence sanctification is to bée receiued,
namely from God only, the only fountain
of all holines, as of all good things.<note place="margin">Iam. 1.</note> Sancti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fie
them (saith hée) in thy trueth. In vaine
therefore doe men séeke sanctification, but
in him that is all holines. Our Sauiour
Christ by this his prayer, teacheth vs, not
only that holines is necessarie for all the
<pb facs="tcp:18255:9"/>
children of GOD, but also from whence
they must obteine the same. For he de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sireth
not at the handes of God, that thing
which men may either haue of the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>selues,
or of any other Authour then of God only:
Whereof it followeth, that God only san<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctifieth
his elect, by this holy spirite of san<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctification,
through the meditation of his
only sonne our sauiour Iesus Christ, who
as S. Paule saieth, is made vnto vs by<note place="margin">1. Cor. 1.</note>
God, wisedome, righteousnesse, sanctifica<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion,
and redemption. Therefore they that
seeke sanctification in themselues, or by a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ny
meanes of their owne, labour all in
vayne, neyther is it possible for them to
approach neare vnto God. Wherefore
the Gentiles although they did know that
holinesse was necessarie, for them which
should haue to doe with God, or thinges
apperteyning to God, yet whilest they
sought it in themselues, they came not
nearer, but departed further from God.
The Pelagians also, which boasted that
there was matter enough in them selues,
which being stirred vp by their frée will,
might co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>secrate them vnto God, bewray<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed
nothing but their intollerable pryde,
<pb facs="tcp:18255:10"/>
and shamefull ignorance, as for sanctifica<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion
it was not possible for them to attein
to any parte thereof. For by that Hea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thenish
heresie, they placed holinesse in
such thinges, as were in our power, euen
as the Gentiles doe. For all the cere<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>monies
whiche the Gentiles deuised to
consecrate them selues, or any thing that
they woulde dedicate vnto the seruice of
God, are in the power of men to performe
euen as they were of erronious imagina<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion
of men inuented and deuised. But
the Pelagians although they differed fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
the Gentiles in that they confessed, that
not by externall ceremonies and bodely
rites, a man could be sanctified, but by in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>warde
vertues and spirituall puritie, not
by voluntary obseruations and imagined
practises of mens deusing, but by obedi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ence
and practise of Gods lawe and com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>maundements:
yet in this pointe they a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>greed
wholly &amp; altogether with the Gen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tiles,
in that they held that obedience and
practise of Gods lawe, was in our power:
and might be attained vnto by the natu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rall
strength of frée will, without the aide
of Gods grace, although with the aide of
<pb facs="tcp:18255:10"/>
Gods grace they saide a man might more
easily kéepe Gods commaundementes.
The papists also will séeme to depart fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
the <hi>Pelagians,</hi> in that they ascribe not all
vnto the frée will, and the power of natu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rall
strength as they did. But they goe
not so farre from the <hi>Pelagians,</hi> as they
come néere vnto y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> Gentiles, in such points
as the <hi>Pelagians</hi> did iustly differ from the
gentiles. For with the gentiles they attri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bute
some power of sa<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ctificatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>, vnto out<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>warde
Elements, and bodily ceremonies,
and that not onely such as God hath ap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pointed
to testifie his grace of sanctifica<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion
by them, as are the holy sacraments,
but also such, as they themselues haue in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uented,
they themselues haue sanctified,
they themselues haue giuen power of san<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctification
vnto them without any pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>scription,
commaundement or allowance
of God, in his holy Scriptures, such are
these bables, they call their <hi>Agnus Dei,
Hallowed graines, hallowed beades,</hi> co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ming
from his owne holinesse, who is the foun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>taine
of Popish holinesse, beside an<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> hun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dred
of other hallowed creatures, the con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>secration
of which, is described in their ri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tuall
<pb facs="tcp:18255:11"/>
bookes of <hi>Agends</hi> and pontificals, &amp;
practised in their Idolatrous synagogues.
yea and to the <hi>Pelagians</hi> them selues they
approch, while they teache workes prepa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ratorie
vnto the receiuing of grace. which
being such as are able to dispose men, and
make them apt to obteine the grace of
God, of a certaine congruity, they hold to
procéede of the pure naturals, without the
grace of God, or assistance of his holy spi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rite.<note place="margin">2. Cor. 3.</note>
Forgetting vtterly that the Apostle
saith, Wée are not able of our selues, as of
our selues to thinke any thing which is
good, but our aptnes or ablenes <gap reason="foreign">
                  <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
               </gap>
is of God.<note place="margin">Gene. 8.</note> Forgetting also what the Lord
testifieth of all the sonnes of Adam. That
the imagination of mans hearte,<note place="margin">Gene. 6.</note> is euill
eue<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> his youth. And all the imaginatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>s
of the thoughts of mans heart, are onely
euil continually. Forgetting also y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> which
our Sauiour Christ saith to his disciples,<note place="margin">Iohn. 15.</note>
by which saying the <hi>Pelagians</hi> of olde time
were knocked in the head. Without mée
(saith Christe) you are able to do nothing:
yet some of the Popish Doctors, I meane
the schoole men, are neither ashamed, nor
<pb facs="tcp:18255:11"/>
afraide to affirme, that without grace,
that is without Christ, we are able of our
pure naturals to doe some thing, that is,
to prepare our selues, dispose our selues,
vnto a certaine aptnesse to receiue sancti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fication.
And the late Councell of <hi>Trent,</hi>
accurseth y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> man.<note place="margin">Sess. 6. Can. <gap reason="illegible" resp="#OXF" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>.</note> 
               <q>Whosoeuer shall say,
that all workes which are doone before
iustificatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> howsoeuer they are doone, are
sinne, or deserue the hatred of God, or that
the more a ma<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> indeuoureth to dispose him
self to grace, so much y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> more he sinneth.</q>
Do they not therefore affirme, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> without
Christ they may doe some thing whiche
shall please God, or at the least, shall not
bée sinnefull, and deserue the displeasure of
God? Is not this as much as to say, that
all the imaginations of the thoughtes of
mans heart are not only, nor altogether,
nor continually euill: Except they wyll
say, that of euill imaginations and euill
thoughts may procéede good workes, or
that euill works deserue not the hatred of
God, or that the more a man laboureth by
euil workes, as by hypocrisie, superstition,
idolatrie, fals worshipping, to dispose him<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>selfe
<pb facs="tcp:18255:12"/>
to the grace of God, hée is the méeter
to receiue it. For what sparke of true
goodnesse acceptable to God, is in the cor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rupt
nature of man, before hée being pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uented
by the frée mercy and grace of
God, bee indowed with the gift of faith,
through the spirite of sa<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ctification? Séeing
y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> without faith it is not possible to please
God,<note place="margin">Rom. 14.</note> and all that is not of faith, is sinne,
and that no man can haue faith,<note place="margin">Heb. 11.</note> but of the
grace and gift of God.<note place="margin">Ephe. 2.</note> Yet dare they pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nounce
him accursed,<note place="margin">Iacob. 1.</note> that shall say, sinne
is sinne, or that sinne deserueth the hatred
of God, or that hée that by sinne endeuou<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>reth
to winne the fauour of God, doeth so
muche the more sinne and offende God.
So carefull they are to vpholde the power
of man, against the grace of God, that they
defende that some workes doone before
iustification, may bée doone in such sort,
that they shall not bée sinne. As though he
that is impious and vnrighteous altoge<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther,
may after any sort, do such workes,
as be not altogether impious &amp; vnrighte<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ous
in the sight of god, which is all one as
to say, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> without Christ a ma<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> is able to do
som thing. For séeing god is said to iustifie
<pb facs="tcp:18255:12"/>
the impious or vngodly ma<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>, it is manifest
that whosoeuer,<note place="margin">Rom. 4.</note> is not iustified is impious
and vngodly, therefore workes doone be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
iustification, in what sort soeuer they
be <gap reason="illegible" resp="#OXF" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>one, in respect of the doer be y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> workes
of an impious &amp; vngodly man, and ther<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
bée impious and vngodly, bée wicked
and deserue the hatred of God. And how
shall the vngodly man which is not iusti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fied,
but is vtterly voide of grace, dispose
himselfe to grace, that hée shall not more
prouoke the wrath of God? Is there any
better way to dispose himself, then by prai<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>er,
supplications and Sacrifices? But of
them the holy Ghoste testifieth plainely,
that they are abhomination to the Lorde.
The Sacrifice of the vngodly is abhomi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nation
vnto the Lord (saith the wise man)<note place="margin">Prou. 15. &amp; 21.</note>
but the prayers of the righteous are accep<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>table
vnto him. Hée that turneth his eare
from hearing the lawe of God (as euerye
vngodly man doeth, which is not preuen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted
with the grace of God) euen his prayer
is abhominable and execrable. Therefore
shall wée thinke,<note place="margin">Prou. 18.</note> that abhominable prai<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ers,
abhominable supplications, abhomi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nable,
sacrifices, do or may dispose a man
<pb facs="tcp:18255:13"/>
to the grace and fauour of God? That ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ecrable
and accursed praiers, &amp; sacrifices
doe not rather prouoke the wrath of God,
then his fauour? Are not all the wayes of
the impious &amp; vngodly man, abhomina<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion
vnto the Lorde. And howe shoulde
that which God abhorreth, dispose a man,
or how shoulde a man dispose himselfe by
that which God abhorreth, to bée a méete
vessell to receiue the grace and fauour of
God. Forasmuch then as all men are vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>godly
or wicked before they bee iustified
fréely by the grace of God,<note place="margin">Rom. 4.</note> all their works
must needes bée vngodly,<note place="margin">Rom. 3.</note> wicked and vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>iust.
For they are only good and righteous
workes, which came from a righteous
man, from a man made righteous or iu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stified
through faith, by the grace of God
according to the spirit of sa<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ctificatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> which
is giuen to the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> only that are iustified: al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>though
neither al the works of a iustified
ma<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> are good, nor any perfectly good, because
we haue receiued y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> spirit in measure, &amp; our
sanctificatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> is begunne, &amp; not perfected in
this life, &amp; therefore our Sauiour Christe
praieth,<note place="margin">Ioh. 13. &amp; 15</note> that his father would sanctifie his
Apostles in his truth, of who<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> he confessed
before, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> they were holy &amp; cleane, that is,
<pb facs="tcp:18255:13"/>
sa<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ctificatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> was begun in the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>, by his word
which they had hearde, in which worde of
truth, he now praieth, that they may more
&amp; more be sanctified &amp; made holy. Where<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
all Popish preparations vnto sancti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ficatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>,
howsoeuer they denounce the de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nier
of the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> to bee accursed, are in the sight
of God no better, then abhominable &amp; ac<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cursed,
euen by this worde. For God only
is the authour, beginner, continuer, &amp; per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fecter
of sanctification, séeing that our saui<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>our
Christe prayeth for the continuance &amp;
perfection of sanctification, who was alre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dy
begun in his Disciples, who were bap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tised,
who had receiued the holy Ghoste,
who were to bee preserued &amp; increased in
y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> holines which they had receiued. by this
we learne,<note place="margin">Leu. 11.</note> y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> we must daily pray for y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>crease
of sanctification, and séeke it at the
handes of God alone, who hath promised
vpon our earnest prayers, to grau<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t his ho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly
spirite by which wée shalbée daily more
and more renewed in the inner man, to
hate sinne, and to loue righteousnesse, that
the fruites of mortification &amp; renouation:
(which are the two parts of sanctificatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>)
may appeare daily in our life &amp; co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>uersatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>.
<pb facs="tcp:18255:14"/>
For this grace of continua<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ce &amp; increase in
sa<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ctificatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>, y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> apostle boweth his knées to
the father of our Lord Iesus Christ, by the
example of Christ himselfe,<note place="margin">Ephe. 3.</note> for the Ephesi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ans,
that he would giue vnto them accor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ding
vnto the riches of his glory, to bee
strengthened in the inner man, by his spi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rite.
And therefore as the beginning of
sanctification, is only fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> Gods grace with
out all merite or good disposition of ours,
so is also the continuance, increase, &amp; per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fection
of the same, the frée gift of God, gi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uen
vnto vs according to the riches of his
glory, and not procured either in whole, as
the <hi>Pelagia<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>s</hi> say, or in part as the Papists
teach, by the merites and desertes of men.
Wherby they make not God the whole &amp;
only authour &amp; perfector of sa<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ctificatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>, but
ascribe vnto mans merites, a portion of
this his glory, while they affirme, that by
well vsing of the first graces of God, wée
may and do merite and deserue the second
whereas the Lorde God testifieth by the
Prophet Ezechiel,<note place="margin">Ezech. 37.</note> that hee will haue all
nations to know, that it is hée, which san<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctifieth
Israel vnto who<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> also our sauiour
Christe hath recourse in his prayer, when
he saith, <hi>Sanctifie them in thy trueth.</hi> By
<pb facs="tcp:18255:14"/>
this hée declareth y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> he desireth true sancti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ficatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
&amp; not cou<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>terfet hypocrisie, for fained
holines &amp; dissembled sanctificatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>, is wor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thily
saide to bée double iniquitie. The
corrupte nature of man without the
spirit of God, is prone and readie vnto hy<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pocrisie,
and feigned holinesse, but all lying
and dissimulation is abhominable vnto
God, wherefore that his Disciples might
please God, in true holinesse &amp; righteous<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nesse
before him all y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> daies of their liues:
He prayeth vnto his father, to sanctifie the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
in his trueth. So shall they not séeke to
mocke God, with holinesse pretended, and
wickednesse intended: but studie to serue
him with an vpright heart, vnfeignedly
to seeke his honour, &amp; walke in his wayes
all the dayes of their life. Moreouer where
hée saith, Sanctifie them in thy trueth, hée
sheweth euidently, that as there is but
one trueth, which is the trueth of God,
so all other meanes and wayes of sanctifi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cation,
then in his trueth, are false wayes
and meanes, and that no true holinesse is
attained vnto by them, but false holinesse,
false sanctification, although it be neuer so
well intended. For true sanctification
<pb facs="tcp:18255:15"/>
is only in Gods trueth. <hi>Sanctifie them in
thy trueth.</hi> And this is the cause, that
the Gentiles, in all their consecrations
and blessinges, could neuer attaine vnto
true sanctification, but were more &amp; more
polluted in them, because they presumed
to séeke sanctification, without the truth of
God. So that although euery thing which
they tooke in hand, and did, was prophane
&amp; vnholy, yet their Temples, their Gods,
their sacrifices, their ceremonies, their
whole religio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> was most of all vnpure, vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>holy,
vngodly, yea, most of all filthy, dete<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stable,
and abhominable, and of all Chri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stians
to be abhorred &amp; forsaken: because
it was false holinesse, sanctification, and re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ligion,
which they held and practised. Eue<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
so is it in the false religion, holines, &amp; sanc<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tification
of the Popists, nothing is more
abhominable &amp; detestable, then y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> which
hath most of their false consecration, and
is accompted of them most holy, as their
holie water, their holie bread, their holie
Candles, Crosses, and such like, and espe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cially
their holie Masse, wherof they make
greatest account, and their holie Father,
whom they name &amp; affirme, not only to
<pb facs="tcp:18255:15"/>
be most holy, but to be holinesse it selfe.
But they will defend their coniured wa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter,
and other their Popeholy ceremonies,
not to be false holinesse, or vntrue conse<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>crations,
for that they are sanctified in the
trueth of God, which is his worde, for all
the creatures of God are sanctified by the
worde of God and prayer. Thus doth <hi>Bri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stow</hi>
take vpon him to defende, their exor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cising
or coniuring water, salt, and suche
lyke creatures, that they may serue to bee
vnto saluation, both of bodie and soule.
Although I might easily answere, that it
is one thing to consecrate, another thing
to coniure, yet who woulde beléeue, they
should be driuen to such impudent shifts,
and malicious wrestings of the scripture,
if they them selues did not professe it.<note place="margin">1. Tim. 4.</note> For
the sense of the Apostles wordes, in that
place where he saith, that al the creatures
of God are good, and none to be reiected,
being receiued with thanksgiuing, for it is
sanctified by the word of God and prayer:
the sense I say is manifest, to be vttered
of all y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> creatures of God, which are sancti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fied
vnto Christians, by Gods woorde,
<pb facs="tcp:18255:16"/>
and by prayer, in the ordinarie lawfull
vse of them, and especially of meates, for<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bidde<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
by the teachers of deuilish doctrines,
vnder coulour and pretence of holinesse, as
they are of the Papistes, and not of conse<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>crating
or hallowing of creatures to the
vse of religion, that they should be meanes
to sanctifie men, which men (if the Pa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pistes
had any power of sanctifying of all
creatures by that texte, and that coniu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ring
were a way of sanctification, had
more néede to bée exercised and hallowed
in their owne persons, euerie day, rather
then to receiue sanctification at the second
hande, from water, salt, Candles, Ashes,
Frankencense, Garmentes, and suche
lyke: altogether without the worde of
God. For wée haue the worde of God
to sanctifie the ordinarie vse of meates
and drinkes, to nourish vs, of water to
cleanse vs, of Salt to season our victuals,
of Candles to giue light, of Garments
to cloath vs, and so of the rest. But
where haue we any worde of GOD to
sanctifie any externall creatures, that
they may sanctifie vs, excepte in the
<pb facs="tcp:18255:16"/>
vse of the Sacramentes only: Where<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
this is a beastly abusing of the holie
Scripture, to cloake that impietie, which
can not possibly be hid. For the spirit spea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>keth
euidently, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> in the later times, some
shall depart from the fayth, attending to
spirits of errours and doctrine of Deuils,
speaking lyes in hypocrisie, hauing their
owne consciences cauterized, or burned
with a whot iron, forbidding to mary, and
commaunding to abstaine from meates,
which GOD hath created to be receiued
with tha<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>kesgiuing, of them that are faith<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>full
and knowe the trueth, for all the crea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures
of God are good, and so forth. O (say
the Papistes) this is spoken of the <hi>Mani<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ches
Tacianistes, Priscillianistes, &amp;c.</hi>
which affirme that GOD made not the
worlde, nor instituted mariage, and not of
vs. And thinke yée so easily to shift of so
cleare a demonstration: when the spirite
speaking euidently, giueth these euident
markes of erronious &amp; deuillish doctrine,
which are found in you, as wel as in those
olde heretikes. For you also forbid marri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>age
and meates, to some men at al times,
and to all men at some times, therefore at
<pb facs="tcp:18255:17"/>
the least wise, the spirit speaketh euident<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly
of Papists, as well as of <hi>Maniches, Eu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cratites</hi>
and such like. But if the text bée
well marked, the spirite euidently, &amp; prin<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cipally
speaketh of you, and not of those
olde heretikes. For hée saieth, they shall
speake falshood in hypocrisie. But the <hi>Ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>niches</hi>
&amp; such like old heretikes, as denied
God to haue made the world, &amp; affirmed
that mariage was of the institution of the
Deuil, did not speak lies in hypocrisie, but
open &amp; manifest blasphemy. But you Pa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pists,
that forbid mariage and meats, vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>der
coulour of greater holinesse, you I say,
doe speake falshood in hypocrisie, &amp; therfore
of you the spirit speaketh euidently, that
you are Apostates, &amp; haue departed from
the faith, that you attende vnto spirites of
errour, &amp; teach the doctrine of Denils: that
your conscience is cauterized with hypo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>crisie,
while you prete<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>d, that there is grea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter
holines in one kind of meat then in an
other, that fish is more holie then flesh, or
that to eate fish is a more holie abstinence
then to eate fleshe, or that to eate fish on
certaine dayes is a meritorious fasting,
while you pretende abstinence from mar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>riage
to be a necessarie sanctification, re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quired
<pb facs="tcp:18255:17"/>
of the Ministers of the Churche,
which the worde of God requireth not: as
though you could better sée what were co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
               <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uenient
and necessary for the Pastours of
Gods Church, then y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> holy Ghost, which
alloweth them for perfect good Pastours,
which being husbands of one wife, haue al
other qualities &amp; co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ditions by the Apostle
described. This is manifest hyyocrisie, and
fayned holines, &amp; therfore in your prohibi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion
of meates &amp; mariage, you speake fals<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>hood
in hypocrisie, then of you Papists the
holy Ghost most euidently, most directly, &amp;
most properly doth prophecy, &amp; nothing so
euidently, directly &amp; properly of the <hi>Mani<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ches,
Tacianistes,</hi> &amp; such other auncient he<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>retikes,
as did speake falshood in open blas<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>phemy,
in saying, that the creatures of the
world were naught, as made of the euill
God, of whom also they blasphemed, that
mariage was ordeined. Wherfore it will
not serue your turne, to turne it ouer vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>to
such open blasphemers, while you say:
wée acknowledge mariage to be the hono<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rable
institutio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> of God, &amp; a Sacrame<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t, we
co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>fesse Gods creatures to bée good, for this
is to speake falshood in hypocrisie, where
as in déede, you refuse the creatures of
<pb facs="tcp:18255:18"/>
fleshe in your fayned holy fastes, because
the land was cursed, but not the waters,
and while you exercise and coniure them
as though they were possessed of the De<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uill,
and by your exorrisins take vpon you
to adde vnto them an other holines, &amp; po<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>wer
of sanctification, then either god gaue
vnto them by his creation, or doeth allow
to be giuen vnto them by his word and by
prayer. And whatsoeuer like hypocrites
you speake, in the commendation of mar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>riage
you forbid y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> same, to all that receiue
your most holy orders, as vnpure, as vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cleane
for them as y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> which should pollute
&amp; defile those holy orders and ceremonies,
that are ministred by them that are ordei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned,
abusing y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> saying of the Apostle.<note place="margin">Rom. 8.</note> They
that are in y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> flesh cannot please God. Un<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>derstanding
by them that are in the flesh,
maried men, wherof it followeth, that no
maried ma<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> can please God. And this doth
<hi>Syricius</hi> Bishop of <hi>Rome,</hi>
               <note place="margin">In Epist. ad Himer.</note> reason agaynst
mariage, in a certaine Epistle, if it be not
counterfeited in his name. Wherefore to
conclude this matter, the Papistes vnder
coulour of sanctification, which is only in
the trueth of Gods worde, forbidding
<pb facs="tcp:18255:18"/>
meates and mariage, which is contrarie
to Gods worde, doe shewe them selues to
be the verie limmes of Antichrist, vnto
whom that great Apostacy and defection
should be made, from Christ, whereof the
Apostle speaketh in the second Chapiter,
of the second Epistle to the Thessalonia<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>s.
And thus much concerning the first parte.</p>
            <p>Nowe touching the seconde parte, the
wordes are these. <hi>Thy word is the trueth:</hi>
               <note place="margin">2. Thess. <gap reason="illegible" resp="#OXF" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>
               </note>
Which words are néedfully added, by our
Sauiour Christ, that séeing hée prayeth,
that his Disciples might bee sanctified in
y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> trueth, they might know precisely, what
is the trueth. For such is the blindnes, ig<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>norance,
and errour of mans corrupt na<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture,
that although it be confessed, that
GOD requireth trueth in the inwarde
partes, as the Prophete sayeth: yet can
not man sée, knowe, or finde out,<note place="margin">Psal. 51.</note> what is
that trueth of holinesse which pleaseth
God. And yet such is his arrogance, that
notwithstanding it be Gods truth, wher<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>in
wée must be sanctified: man will pre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sume,
to assigne it and determine it, with<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>out
reuelation from God, euen out of the
visions of his owne brayne, euen out of
<pb facs="tcp:18255:19"/>
his owne imagination. So that if hée
once conceiue an opinion, hee will haue
it to bee taken for a certaine trueth, and
vndoubted knowledge. Therefore our
Sauiour Christ, that neither the worlde
should triumph in their blinde errors, nor
his Disciples whom he had chosen out of
the world, should be ignorant of the truth:
doeth in verie plaine termes decyde the
matter, and taketh away all ambiguitie
and doubt, saying. Thy worde is the
trueth.</p>
            <p>By which saying wee learne, that
there is no truth in matters appertaining
to saluation, to Gods glorie, to our sancti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fication,
but that which is reuealed by
God. For although in matters pertai<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ning
to this worlde, and this present lyfe
of man, much truth may be founde out
by studie and sharpenesse of wyt, by ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>perience
and by demonstration, as in the
sciences of <hi>Arithmetike, Geometrie, Phi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>losophie,</hi>
and other Artes: yet this trueth,
whereof our Sauiour Christe speaketh,
wherein hée prayeth, that his Disciples
might bée consecrated, that they might
please God, by no sharpnesse of witte, by
<pb facs="tcp:18255:19"/>
no diligent search, or studie, by no experi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ence,
or demonstration of any science can
be founde out, without the reuelation of
God, and the authoritie of his holy word.
And therefore the Apostle Saint Paule<note place="margin">Rom. 1.</note>
testified of all the wise men and Philoso<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>phers
of the worlde,<note place="margin">1. Cor. 6.</note> that they became
vaine in their disputations, and their ig<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>norant
heart was full of darknesse, and
they became starke fooles. Also that the
worlde by wisedome, knewe not the wis<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dome
of God, as it is written, where is
the wise? where is the learned? where is
the disputer of this worlde? Yea GOD
hath turned the wisedome of this worlde
into foolishnesse: So that although it swel
neuer so greatly in opinion of knowledge,
yet it can not attaine to the knowledge of
this trueth. Wherefore the reuelati<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on
of Gods worde, is necessarie for all
them, that shall bée made partakers of
the trueth, of the lyfe to come. The trueth
of matter perteining to this life, is ope<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned
by GOD in the worlde, and in the
men of this worlde: but the trueth of
the life to come, is not in the power
of man to finde out, but commeth al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>together
<pb facs="tcp:18255:20"/>
by the reuelation of God. For it
is hidden in God, vntill it be vttered by
him, therefore it is only his goodnesse and
mercy to disclose, those secret hidden my<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>steries
of his kingdome vnto his elect and
chosen children outwardly by his worde,
and inwardly by his spirite: of which the
one beareth mutuall testimony vnto the
other, that wée may knowe the worde of
God by his spirite, and his spirite by his
worde. Now séeing the Lord God hath
opened his holie mouth to speake vnto vs,
&amp; declare vnto vs by his holie worde those
thinges, that wée by our wittes could ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer
haue sound out: wee must giue this
honour to his holie worde, that as he hath
vttered thereby nothing but the trueth: so
hee hath vttered thereby the whole &amp; per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fect
trueth. So that whatsoeuer is neces<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sary
for vs to be sanctified vnto gods plea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sure
and our eternall felicitie, all that is
conteined in the trueth of God, and that
trueth of God is none other but euen the
same, which is reuealed by his holy word.
Wherefore as it is damnable curiositie
to enquire of the trueth of God further
then God hath reuealed and shewed by
<pb facs="tcp:18255:20"/>
his worde: so is it execrable blasphemie,
to accuse his worde of imperfection, as to
say, all trueth is not reuealed thereby.
For what great commendation shoulde
our Sauiour Christ in this declaration,
giue vnto the worde of God? if when hée
sayeth. Thy worde is the trueth: hée
shoulde meane no more but that Gods
worde is true, whereof no man that ac<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>knowledged
God did euer doubt. But
when hée saieth, vnto his Father, Thy
worde is the trueth: vndoubtedly hee
meaneth as much, as though hee had said:
There is no trueth in the worlde concer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ning
sanctification, but only in thy truth:
and in thy holie worde, is conteined all
trueth, necessarie for mans sanctificati<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on,
and consequently for his eternall sal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uation.
The worde of God therefore is
a perfect trueth, conteining all trueth,
and teacheth the whole trueth. And
whatsoeuer is not conteined and taught
in the worde of GOD, it is no trueth,
but falshood and errour: which thing the
wise man verie well considered, when hée
saide. Adde nothing vnto his wordes,
left hée reprooue thée,<note place="margin">Prouer. 30.</note> and thou be found
<pb facs="tcp:18255:21"/>
lyar. For seeing euerie man by nature
infected is a lyar, except hée speake agrée<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>able
to the worde of trueth, hée can speake
nothing but a lye. Wherefore no man
can speake the trueth, but hee whiche
speaketh the worde of trueth: So that
to adde vnto the trueth, which is perfect
in it selfe, is to inuent a lye, and to pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uoke
the wrath of God. The wise man
therefore, did wisely ponder the nature of
Gods worde to bée most absolute &amp; per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fect,
wherevnto nothing coulde be added,
but that shoulde deserue reproofe of God,
and argue the Authour of that addition to
be a lyar. So that it is nowe cleare and
out of controuersie, with all them that
haue any sparke of the feare of God: that
the worde of God is most perfect in it self,
and containeth all truth necessarie or con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uenient
for men to knowe. Yea, the Pa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pistes
them selues will not greatly sticke
with vs, in this point, but that all trueth
is taught by the word of God.</p>
            <p>But what vndoubted testimony wée
haue of the worde of GOD, there
is the chiefe pointe of the controuersie
<pb facs="tcp:18255:21"/>
betwéene vs. The Papistes them selues
will not nowe greatly striue with vs, that
the worde of God is perfect, and that all
trueth is taught by the worde of God on<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly:
but they will not acknowledge, that
the holie Scripture of GOD is the only
vndoubted externall testimony of his
worde. And hereof arise contentions
and controuersies, about so many questi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ons
as bée in variance betwéene vs. Be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cause
wee holde that the holie Scriptures
inspired of God, doe containe a full and
perfect enstruction of all things necessary
for vs to knowe, to the attaining of euer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lasting
lyfe. The Papistes holde the
contrarie, that all trueth necessarie to
saluation is not taught, by the worde of
GOD: but that wée haue other testi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>montes
of the worde of GOD beside
the holie Scriptures.</p>
            <p>And herein they are so confident, that
vnder colour of some thinges taught by
other reuelation, then that which is con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tained
in the scriptures, they doubt no<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thing
at all, to thrust vpon vs suche
doctrines as are cleane contrarie to
<pb facs="tcp:18255:22"/>
the scriptures, as the religious vse and
worshipping of Images, the forbidding
of marriage and meates, the robbing of
the laye people of the one halfe of the
Lordes Supper, I meane the Sacrament
of his blood, and suche lyke matters as
bée most directly contrarie, to the word
of God, expressed in the holie scriptures.
As though it were possible, that GOD
shoulde haue one worde written, and
an other vnwritten, which is contrarie
to that which is written, whiche gappe
béeing once layde open, what certeintie
of trueth can wée haue in the worlde?
In vayne was it saide by our Sauioure
Christe, vnto his Father, for our instruc<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion.
<hi>Thy worde is the trueth,</hi> if there
bée not a certayne and perpetuall testi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mony
of that worde, which is alwayes
lyke it selfe, alwayes the same, and
wherevnto all thinges that are good doe
agrée. For vnto trueth all thinges are
consonant in it selfe, but falshoode by
and by is contrarie vnto trueth, and of<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ten
times vnto it selfe. The worde of God
written, saieth expresly, Thou shalte
<pb facs="tcp:18255:22"/>
not make to thy selfe) in the vse of religio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>,
because it is a commandement of the first
Table) Any grauen image, or likenesse of
any thing, thou shalt not fall downe to
them, and worship them. This notwith<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>standing
the Papistes will beare vs in
hand, the worde of God vnwritten saieth
the contrary, thou shalt make to thy selfe
grauen images, for religion, thou shalt fal
downe to them, and worship them. The
Scripture telleth vs, by a cléere renelati<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on
of the spirit, that it was the doctrine of
Diuels to forbidde meate and marriage,
for holinesse, and religion. The Papistes
tell vs that it is the Churches authoritie,
which is equal with the scriptures, which
forbiddeth meats &amp; marriage. The trueth
written saith: Drinke yée all of this, &amp; they
dranke all of it, Let a man examin himself
and let him eate of this bread, &amp; drinke of
this cup: But the vnwritten veritie of the
Papists, saith in the <hi>Constantian</hi> councell.
The laye people shall not drinke of that
cuppe at all, but the Priestes only. These
contradictions cannot possibly bée both
true, wherfore wée must néedes hold it for
an vndoubted principle, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> whatsoeuer is
<pb facs="tcp:18255:23"/>
contrary to the word of god, writte<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> is not
the worde of God, because it is not true.
For although Papists are not so courte<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ous,
to the holy scriptures, to acknowlege
that they are perfect, and doe containe at
the full, all truth neccssary for vs to bée
knwne for our saluation? yet nature her
selfe denieth vnto them this horrible ab<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>surditie,
that any thing contrary to truth,
shoulde bée true. Seeing therefore they
dare not for shame say, the scripture is vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>true:
let them bée ashamed to auouch any
thing for truth, which is contrary to the
Scripture. And albeit it were (as they
say) that they had another worde of God,
beside that which is written in the bookes
of the Canonicall Scripture: yet were it
madnes to make it contrary to the Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture,
and blaspemie to make it of greater
authorie then then the Scripture. For the
worde of God howe euer it bée expressed,
is alwayes of equall authoritie. Ther<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
to boast of suche a worde of God vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>written,
as shoulde bée of authoritie to ab<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rogate
the worde of GOD written, or to
controul the same, or to dispe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>se with any
commaundement of the same, otherwise
<pb facs="tcp:18255:23"/>
then the same written word alloweth: is
a blasphemous bragge of satanicall pride,
and can bée no suer testimonie of y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> truth
of Gods worde. Such is the presumptu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ous
boasting of the Papistes, concerning
the authorie, of their tradition, of their
church, of their Pope, which they aduance
so highly, as y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> they bée of power to change
what pleaseth them in the worde of God
written, to dispose with what preceptes
they list, yea euen those, that nature her
self will not dispense withall: which brag,
what other thing doth it import, but that
they haue a worde of God in their traditi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on,
Church, or Pope, which is of greater
authoritie then the word of God writte<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> in
the holy scriptures, which is plain in that
they challenge authoritie, not only of in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>terpreting
of Scriptures, as they liste, a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gainst
gra<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>mer, against the propertie of the
tongue, against reason, against y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> scripture
it selfe, in other places, against the plaine
circu<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>sta<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ces of the same places: but also to
giue credit &amp; alowa<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ce, euer to y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> holy scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures
the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>selues, w<hi rend="sup">t</hi> should haue no credite
of the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>selues, but by meanes of their appro<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>bation
and authoritie: which is so great,
<pb facs="tcp:18255:24"/>
that it is of power, to giue equall credite
vnto y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> Apocrifall writings of men, which
the holy Scriptures inspired of God, vpon
which ground they haue receiued into the
Cannon of the holy Scriptures, the Apo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>crifall
bookes of <hi>Ecclesiasticus, Tobye, Iu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dith,
Machabees,</hi> and such like, to bée of e<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>quall
authorie and credite, with the bookes
of the Lawe, the Prophetes, and the
Psalmmes, and with the Gospels, and E<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pistles
of the new Testament: although
they confesse that the Church of God be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
the incarnation of Christ, did alwaies
take them for the Apocrifall, and none o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>therwise
were they taken of the Churche
of Christe, for many hundred yeeres after
his passion. But this is to farre out of
square, that they are not content most in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>iuriously
to accuse the holy Scriptures of
imperfection and vnsufficiencie, but they
will glory of Gods worde to be in their
possession, of greater authoritie, then that
which is contained in the holy scriptures.
Well, let that passe, and let vs sée whether
wee haue not sufficient testimonie in the
holy Scriptures, to prooue that they
are perfect and sufficient and that the
<pb facs="tcp:18255:24"/>
word of trueth contained in them, is a full
and absolute rule of all doctrine necessarie
to eternall saluation. The Lorde by
<hi>Moses</hi> chargeth,<note place="margin">Deut. 12.</note> that only which hée com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>maunded,
&amp; <hi>Moses</hi> did write, to bée practi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sed.
Therefore the worde written was a
sufficient instruction for any thing that
shoulde bée doone to the pleasure of GOD
and peoples saluation,<note place="margin">Deut. 4. &amp; 12.</note> Also hée forbid<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>deth
them to adde any thing to it, or to
take any thing from it, which hée had de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>liuered
in writing, wherefore there was
no want, there was no superfluitie in that
written worde. The Prophet Dauid
in an hundred places of his Psalmes, ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tolleth
the vtilitie, sufficiencie, and perfe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ction
of the same lawe of God written.
Euery verse almost of the 119. Psalme
doth set out the excellencie of that doctrine
The prophet <hi>Esay</hi> sheweth y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> the people of
god for al questio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>s must resort to the law<note place="margin">Esaye. 8.</note>
and to the testimonie. The Prophet <hi>Ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lachy,</hi>
which was the last of the Prophets
that god sent to teach by reuelation extra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ordinary,
referreth the people vnto y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> law
of <hi>Moses,</hi> as sufficient to direct them vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>till
the comming of Christe. <hi>Abraham</hi>
               <pb facs="tcp:18255:25"/>
in the parable of <hi>Luke</hi> 16. sendeth the rich
mans fiue brethren vnto the Lawe and
Prophets, as sufficient to teach them, that
they come not into the place of torments.
Our Sauiour Christ himself, willeth the
Iewes and all them that will know him,
to search the Scriptures. Search the scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures
(saith he)<note place="margin">Iohn. 5.</note> for in them looke to haue e<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ternall
life, &amp; the same are they that beare
witnesse of me. But perhaps you wil say,
they were deceiued in that they thought to
attaine eternall life, by the doctrine of the
scriptures, as alone being sufficient. The<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
heare what our sauiour Christ affirmeth
in this samepraier,<note place="margin">Iohn. 17.</note> This is eternall life y<hi rend="sup">t</hi>
they may know thee the only true God &amp;
Iesus Christe whom thou hast sent. But
the knowledge of God &amp; Christ are suffi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ciently
to bée learned out of the holy scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures:
therfore y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> doctrine of the holy scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures
is sufficie<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t, to the attaining of euer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lasting
life. S. Paul saith, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> what thinges
soeuer are written before, they are writte<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
for our learning, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> through patience and
comfort of the scriptures wée might haue
hope. This is little to the purpose, will
some Papist say, that all the scripture is
for our learning, séeing it is not thereby
<pb facs="tcp:18255:25"/>
prooued, that it is sufficient for our lear<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ning.
No sir, but mark the end of this lear<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ning,
that wée may heare by the scripture
this, that we may haue hope. And know
you not, that hope maketh not ashamed?
That by hope we are saued? Séeing then
wee may haue sufficient learning by the<note place="margin">Rom. 5. Rom. 8.</note>
scripture to haue hope, &amp; by hope wée may
haue saluatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>: is it not manifest, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> by holy
scriptures we may be abundantly instru<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cted
vnto saluatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>. And what neede we any
far fetched arguments, when the Apostle
saith in expresse words, the scriptures are
able to make vs wise vnto saluatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>. They
are the very wordes of the holy Ghost, vt<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tered
by S. Paul vnto Timothie,<note place="margin">2. Tim. 3.</note> when
he co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>mendeth, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> from his infancie, he had
learned y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> holy scriptures, which are able
(saith he) to make thée wise vnto saluatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>,
through the faith of Iesus Christ<gap reason="illegible" resp="#OXF" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>. Would
any ma<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> think after so manifest a testimo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nie
of y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> holy scriptures brought foorth for
the sufficie<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>cie of y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> holy scriptures, that the
papists durst for worldly shame, although
they be void of the feare of god, to co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>tinue
in their impude<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t paradoxe y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> all truth is
not taught in the holy scriptures? That
the holy Scriptures, doe not containe the
whole truth of gods word in such perfectio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
               <pb facs="tcp:18255:26"/>
but that wée must receiue some parte of
the worde of God, out of some other testi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>monie,
which cannot bée proued out of the
holy scriptures. There is none so blind
as the obstinate that will not sée. But
who so hath a care of eternall saluation,
will séeke it in none other word, then that
which is comprehended in the holy Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures,
séeing by witnesse of Gods spirite,
they are able to make vs wise vnto salua<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>tion,
which coulde not bée truely saide, if
there were any trueth necessarie to salua<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion,
which were not to bée found and suf<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ficiently
proued by the onely authoritie of
the holy Scriptures.</p>
            <p>Finally, the same Apostle saith in the
same place.<note place="margin">2. Timo. 3</note> All the scripture is inspired of
God, &amp; is profitable to teach, to improue,
to correct, and to instruct, in righteousnes,
that the man of God may bée absolute,
being made perfect vnto euery good work.
Coulde any thing be said more fully to ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>presse
the perfection of the holy scriptures,
or to proue that all true doctrine is contai<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned
in them. Tush say the Papistes: this
is nothing to prooue that the word of God,
or all true doctrine is perfectly contained
<pb facs="tcp:18255:26"/>
in the Scriptures. Hée saith the Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture
is profitable to teach, hée saith not, it
is sufficient to teach. Many thinges are
profitable and good helpes, which yet bée
neither necessary, nor sufficient, and suche
a thing is the scripture without the which
the Church hath co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>tinued néere two thou<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sande
yéeres, and so might haue continued
still, but that God hath added the aide of
the Scriptures as profitable to teache, to
improoue, to correct, and instruct, and yet
it followeth not, that the Scriptures a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lone,
are sufficient and able to instructe,
a Christian man in all thinges that it is
néedefull for him to knowe. But there bée
other testimonies of Gods worde, where<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>by
many thinges are taught, which are
taught in the scriptures, and yet bée as ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cessary
to bée knowne &amp; practised of Chri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stians,
as any taught in the Scriptures.
What things are these I pray you? They
will answere the misterie of the blessed
Trinitie, the sacraments of the Church,
the baptisme of infants, the perpetual vir<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ginitie
of Mary and such like. Concerning
the inysterie of the blessed &amp; euerlasting
Trinitie, if it were not plainely taught, &amp;
<pb facs="tcp:18255:27"/>
inuincibly prooued by the holy scriptures:
the Church in old time labored in vaine
to prooue it and defend it out of the Scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures
against so many heresies as Satan
raised vp against it. But they wil vrge vs
to shew, where we finde the Trinitie once
named in the scriptures? A perillous que<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stion,
wee finde thrée persons of the God<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>head
plainly and perfectly distinguished by
the holy Scriptures: then what vnreaso<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nable
beast is hee that will contend of the
name, whe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> the thing is certain? Likewise
I say of the name of sacrame<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ts, although it
be not applied in the Scripture vnto bap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tisme
&amp; the Lords Supper: yet that which
is the definition of a sacrament, is cléerely
in the scripture aduouched of these misti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>call
actions. The name of Sacrament
is borrowed of the Latine spéech, in which
no part of y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> scripture was first writte<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>. As
for y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> baptism of infa<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ts, I shal haue occasio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
to speak of it héereafter, In y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> meane time,
I say, the papists are very fauourable vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>to
y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> 
               <hi>Anabaptists,</hi> which affirme y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> baptisme
of infants, cannot be prooued out of the ho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly
scriptures, &amp; so strengthen them in their
heresie. Touching the perpetuall virgini<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tie
of Mary, if it be néedful to saluatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> that
<pb facs="tcp:18255:27"/>
it should be knowne of euery Christian,
it is vndoubtedly taught in the scriptures
if it bee not taught in the scriptures,
it is nothing necessary to euerlasting sal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uation.
For to stop the mouth of this im<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pudent
and arrogant cauiller, against the
sufficiencie of the holy scriptures, the holy
Ghoste had immediatly before prouided:
where the Apostle shewing what vtilitie
he spake of, namely that which is both ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cessarie
and sufficient, said that the scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture
was able to make a man wise vnto
saluation. Therefore the Scripture is so
profitable, that it is also necessary to giue
knowledge of saluation. And it is so profi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>table
y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> it is also sufficient, &amp; able to mini<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ster
abundance of heauenly wisedome, to
the attainment of eternall saluation. O
blinde &amp; shamelesse cauillers, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> cannot or
will not sée y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> is written in the verse im<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mediatly
going before, able to put y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> whole
matter out of co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>trouersie. But let vs yet
co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>sider more of their shameles shifts. Ad<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mit
the papists see not these wordes going
before &amp; shoulde not bee vrged with them.
Doth not this very text in w<hi rend="sup">t</hi> the apostle
co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>mendeth y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> vtilitie of y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> holy scriptures?
set foorth also the sufficiencie of the same?
<pb facs="tcp:18255:28"/>
Doth not the Apostle say, the Scripture
is so profitable, that the man of God ther<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>by
may bée perfect and throughly instru<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cted
vnto euery good worke? Who woulde
require greater perspicuitie or plainnes, if
hee meane to set his beleefe, and not to
maintaine his error? Yet see what Cob<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>webs
the spider weaueth to couer y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> light,
of this text from the eyes of the ignorant,
and such as wilfully bée obstinate. The
man of God saith hée, in this place is not
taken generally for euery godly man, but
specially for the Minister of the Churche,
the Minister of God. Therefore although
the Minister of God may bée made perfect
by the doctrine of the Scriptures, it follo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>weth
not that euery man may bée so like<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>wise.
Albeit the Minister hath his whole
duetie taught by the holy Scriptures, yet
hath not euery one of the people his dutie
throughly taught in the Scriptures, that
hée may bée made perfect and prepared to
euery good worke. For euery good
worke in that place, doeth signifie the
whole worke or office of the minister on<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly,
and not of the people also. What
can wée answere to this?
<pb facs="tcp:18255:28"/>
First I am content to vnderstande the
man of God in this text, specially for the
minister of God, as the quarreller saith:
and what haue wée lost therby? The scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture
is sufficient to make the minister of
god perfect, which hath y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> charge of all the
people, to make them perfect, and there<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore,
yea much rather it is sufficient, to
make euery one of the people perfect and
throughly instructed to euery good worke.
For what is the office of the minister of
God, is it not to teach, to improoue, to cor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rect,
to instruct in righteousnesse. The
scripture is profitable for al these purposes
euen vnto the perfection of the man of
God, therefore there wanteth nothing of
sufficiencie in the holy Scriptures. For
what shall hée teach, but true doctrine?
and howe is the Scripture profitable to
make him perfect vnto doctrine, except it
bee able to teache him all true doctrine?
What shall hée reproue but errours, &amp; he<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>resies,
if the Scripture bee not able to con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uince
all heresies and false opnions tou<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ching
religion, how is it able to make him
perfect to that part of his office, which co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
               <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sisteth
<pb facs="tcp:18255:29"/>
in reproouing and conuincing of er<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rors,
and Heretikes. Againe, what
shall hée correct, but vices and sinnes, that
are commmitted against Gods commande<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ments?
But howe shoulde hée bée able to
correct them by the Scriptures, if whatso<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>euer
is sinne may not be reprehended and
condemned by the authoritie of the scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures?</p>
            <p>Finally, howe shall hée instruct in
righteousnesse, to the perfect discharge of
his office, by the proper, ablenesse of the
scriptures, if there bee any works of righ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>teousnes
acceptable vnto God, which are
not commanded or co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>mended in the holye
Scriptures. Thus you sée, the myst easily
driuen away, &amp; the cléere light of the truth
gloriously shining to the shame &amp; confusi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on,
of al the enimies of the holy scriptures
among whom the papists are not the lest,
which in no sauce can abide, that the holy
scriptures inspired of god should bée suffi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cient
to testifie so much of Gods worde
vnto vs, as should be necessary to saluati<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on
of our soules. but being thus shameful<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly
ouerthrowne, &amp; put to flight, will they
giue ouer and yéelde to the truth? No
<pb facs="tcp:18255:29"/>
they are frozen in the dregges of their er<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ror.
They will not cease to quarrell, vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>til
they leaue to liue. For what other star<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ting
hole haue they now trow you, to a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uoide
the force of the truth, inforcing the
sufficiencie of the scriptures by this testi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>monie
of the holy Ghost? For sooth they
say that Saint Paules wordes are not to
bée vnderstood of all the whole Scripture,
but of euery booke, yea of euery text and
sentence of the Scripture, which is profi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>table
to teach, to improoue, to correct, to in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>struct:
but all true doctrine is not taught in
euery booke or sentence of the Scripture.
therefore the sufficiencie of the scripture
is not taught by this text. I maruell they
say not that Saint Paule speaketh of e<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uery
worde, sillable, or letter y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> is written
in the Bible, in which is some profite to
teach, to improoue, to correct, and instruct,
but not to teache all thinges needefull to
bee knowne. They might as well say,
that Saint Paule speaketh of, euery
singular worde, as of euery particu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lar
booke, &amp; seuerall sentence of the scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture.
But howe can it bée prooued that
he speaketh not of euery booke or sentence
<pb facs="tcp:18255:30"/>
seuered from the rest, but of the whole
body of Scripture? Nay, what is more
easie to prooue then that? When hée spea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>keth
of the Scripture, so as it is able to
make the man of God absolute, and per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fectly
instructed vnto euery good worke, or
vnto the whole good worke of his ministe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rie.
Euery seueral booke, and much lesse e<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uery
sentence of the scripture is not able to
make the man of God perfect in all partes
of his office, nor throughly prepared vnto
euery good worke, therefore it is most eui<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dent,
that the Apostle speaketh not of eue<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ry
seuer all booke or sentence, but of the
whole body of the holy Scriptures, in
which <hi>Timothy</hi> was instructed, and which
he said before, was able to make him wise
vnto saluatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>. For neither euery sentence
nor euery booke of the holy scripture, doth
containe sufficient wisedome vnto eter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nall
saluation, but the whole body of
scriptures is able to make any man wise
vnto saluation, through faith in Iesus
Christe. Therefore it is certaine, that
this text is to bée vnderstood of the whole
Scripture, and that worde <gap reason="foreign">
                  <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
               </gap>,
is so to bée translated, the whole scripture
<pb facs="tcp:18255:30"/>
or all the scripture, and not euerie scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture.
But yet blinde malice, cannot cease
to rayse a dust, to blemishe the glorie of
Gods truth perfectly expressed, in his ho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly
scriptures. This text (saieth the Pa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pist)
was written by S. Paule, before the
new Testament was put in writing, and
receiued in the Church. Therefore it must
néedes be vnderstood of the scripture of the
olde Testament only. Wherefore it is
not like, that Saint Paul would affirme,
the olde Testament sufficiently to co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>tain
the worde of God. For then the additi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on
of so many bookes of the newe Testa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment,
were altogether superfluous, which
absurditie that wée may auoide, wée must
néedes say, that Saint Paules meaning
was to teache vs that euerie scripture is
profitable, but not that the whole scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture
as it was at that time, was suffici<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ent.
So that there is no text, to prooue,
that the whole scripture as it is now, con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>taining
both the old and new Testament,
is sufficient for a Christian mans perfect
instruction, but that hee must receiue the
worde of God from the Churches mouth,
although it be not registred in the old Te<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stament
<pb facs="tcp:18255:31"/>
or the newe. This argument be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing
of a late inuention, pieaseth the Pa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pistes
out of measure, insomuch that they
clappe their handes at it, and thinke them
selues clearly discharged of that Terte.
But howe vayne, howe foolishe, howe
ridiculous it is, and vnworthie of any
mans estimation, I will plainly open
vnto you. First it is not denyed but
Saint Paule in this texte, speaketh espe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cially
of the scripture of the olde Testa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment,
not only because all bookes of the
newe Testament were not then written,
although many were, but also because the
apostle speaketh of that scripture in know<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ledge
wherein Timothie had béen brought
vp from his infancy, which should be none
other but the lawe and the Prophets, the
scriptures of the olde Testament. But if
it may bée prooued that the scripture of the
olde Testament did sufficiently containe
the worde of God, as it hath béene proo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ued
alreadie, to make men wise vnto sal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uation,
then much more abundantly the
scripture both of the olde and new Testa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment,
containeth the whole counsell of
<pb facs="tcp:18255:31"/>
God, a perfect truth, euen that worde of
God, which our Sauiour Christ in this
his prayer affirmeth to be the truth. For
of all the reasons that euer I heard, this
that nowe pleaseth them so much, is most
worthie to be laughed at, and hissed out of
all Christian Schooles, not only by lear<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned
men, but euen by women and chil<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dren.
If the scripture of the olde Testa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment
be sufficient (say they) the new Te<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stament
is superfluous. Is there no mean
betwéene sufficiency and superfluitie? A
man that hath wherewith to prouide him
selfe of meate and drink, apparell and lod<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ging
of the meanest sorte, hath sufficient
for his liuing. But if any thing be added
to this sufficiency, wil you say it is super<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fluitie.
Is there no vse of riches, or abun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dance
aboue sufficiency, but it is by &amp; by
superfluitie. The scripture of the olde Te<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stament
co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>taineth the word of God suffi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ciently
for mens saluation, but the newe
Testament added therevnto, containeth
no new substance or matter of doctrine, or
article of beliefe, necessarie to saluation,
but the same auncient and eternall worde
of God most richly, most plentifully, most
abundantly.</p>
            <p>
               <pb facs="tcp:18255:32"/>
Wherefore that the Apostle giueth the
commendation of sufficiency, vnto the
scripture of the old Testament, yet so far
of, that it should hinder the credite of the
whole scripture, which nowe the Church
enioyeth, that it doeth a great deale more
magnifically set foorth the vnsearchable
treasures of Gods wisdom and holy word,
reuealed more at large, more plainly, and
openly set foorth in the time of the Gospel,
then it was reuealed or set forth vnder the
law. Wherfore we may not reason w<hi rend="sup">t</hi> the
papists if the scripture of the old testame<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t
had béen sufficient, the newe should haue
béene superfluous, but contrariwise, if the
olde Testament were sufficient, the scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture
of the newe and olde together must
néedes be abundant. That the scripture
of the old Testament contained sufficient
instruction, vnto eternall life, hath béene
prooued alreadie sufficiently, and yet for
more clearnesse, I will adde other reaso<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>s
and authorities, to prooue the same richly
and abundantly. The whole doctrine of
the Gospell of Christ, is contained in the
scriptures of the olde Testament, which
is sufficient for a Christian mans instruc<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion,
therefore there is no want, nor im<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>perfection,
<pb facs="tcp:18255:32"/>
no vnsufficiency, of the sub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stance
of doctrine, in the scripture of the
olde Testament,<note place="margin">2. Tim. 3.</note> Saint Paule in this ve<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rie
place, exhorteth Timothy to continue
in those thinges whiche hée had learned,
and whiche were committed vnto him:
knowing of whome hée had learned them,
namely of the Apostle, and secondly of
the holy scriptures, in which hée had béene
instructed from an infant, which were a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ble
to make him wise vnto saluation. Sée
you not here most plainly, that the same
thinges which Timothy had learned of
Paule, and which were committed vnto
him, that hée might perfectly fulfill the
worke of an Euangelist (which cannot be
except hée preache the Gospell perfectly)
were contained in the scripture of the olde
Testament, which hée had knowne from
a childe, which Scriptures were not able
to make him or any man wise vnto salua<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion,
excepte they contained all articles of
Christian doctrine, which a christian man
is bound to know and beléeue. And ther<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
vpon this ground, hée inferreth, that
the whole scripture is profitable to furnish
the man of God vnto all partes of his of<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fice,
and to make him perfect vnto euerie
<pb facs="tcp:18255:33"/>
good worke. Beside this, the holy Ghost in
the Actes of the Apostles,<note place="margin">Act. 17.</note> commendeth the
<hi>Berhaeans,</hi> that they receiued the word of
God, with all readines of mind, daily sear<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ching
the scriptures, if these thinges were
so as y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> Apostles preached. Mark this text
diligently, they receiued the word of al re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dines,
as it was preached by the Apostles:
but they admitted nothing for the word of
God, but that they found, to haue grounde
and co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>firmation in y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> scriptures, in y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> law,
&amp; the prophets: wherfore the apostles prea<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>ching
y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> Gospel, preached none other word
of god, but that which was co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>tained in the
scriptures of the old Testame<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t. For if they
had preached any vnwritte<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> verities, howe
should the <hi>Berhaeans</hi> haue found the same
in the scriptures? And what speak I of the
Apostles: euen their lord &amp; maister, y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> sonne
of God, the word of God, the truth of God,
offereth his whole doctrine to be tried by
the scriptures of the old testame<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t.<note place="margin">Ioan. 5.</note> Search
y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> scriptures (saith hée) for in the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> you think
to haue euerlasting life, they are the same,
y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> beare witnes of mée: Hee testifieth also, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi>
all things that are writte<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> of him in y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> law,
&amp; the prophets, &amp; in the psalmes, must be &amp;
were fulfilled.<note place="margin">Luk. 24.</note> And whe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> he authorized his
<pb facs="tcp:18255:33"/>
Apostles to preach y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> Gospel, &amp; performa<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ce
of all things that were written in the law
&amp; the prophets. He openeth their vndersta<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
               <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ding
that they might vndersta<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>d the scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures,
which contained the worde of God
perfectly &amp; sufficiently, although the same
in the new testament &amp; doctrine of fulfil<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ling,
be set forth more richly, more plenti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fully,
&amp; more plainly. And lest you shoulde
think this sufficiency of the scriptures, to
haue béen only after all the bookes of y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> old
testament were written, which were ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ny
hundreth yéeres fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> the first to the last.
So that from Moses vntill <hi>Malachy,</hi> or
from the beginning of the worlde vntill
<hi>Malachies</hi> prophecy, was receiued, there
was no sufficiency of true doctrine contai<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned
in the scripture: I will plainly prooue
vnto you, that fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> the time that the worde
of<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> GOD was first deliuered in writing,
there was sufficiency in that scripture for
the perfect instruction of the church of that
time. And what soeuer bookes of scripture
were afterward added, was but a larger
opening, and playner demonstration of
the same, as GOD in wisedome and
mercy dyd sée it conuenient and necessary,
<pb facs="tcp:18255:34"/>
for euerie age of the Church, and his peo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ple
liuing in those times. The fiue bookes
of Moses was the first scripture, that was
deliuered vnto the Church, which contai<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned
a perfect and most sufficient doctrine
of all thinges to be knowne and done, of
that people, for the attainment of eternall
life: the other bookes that followed, were
but enlargementes and interpretations of
the same doctrine, that was contained in
those fiue bookes. For if they had béene
additions of any newe doctrine, they had
béene contrarie to the prohibition of the
same law, and subiect to the curse of God.
Yea the principall triall of all Prophetes,<note place="margin">Deut. 13.</note>
that succéeded, was by the same lawe. In<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>somuch
that if a Prophet, or dreamer of
dreames did arise, which taught an other
God, or an other worship of God, not set
foorth in the lawe, hée was thereby discry<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed,
to be a false prophet, although he could
tell before of thinges that came to passe<g ref="char:punc">▪</g>
or worke myracles. This argued suffici<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ently
the perfection of the doctrine contai<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned
in that lawe, against which no signes
or miracles, should be credited. Also Io<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sua
in his exhortatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> made vnto y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> people:
<pb facs="tcp:18255:34"/>
after that hée had deuided the lande vnto
them, chargeth them to obserue and doe
all that is written in the booke of the lawe
of Moses, that they turne not there from,
neither to the right hande, nor to the left,
that is they doe neither more nor lesse, but
that is written in the holy scripture, ther<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
the booke of the lawe of Moses was
perfect and sufficient, for the instruction
of that people. And what sayeth our
Sauiour Christ vnto the Saduces which
receiued no parte of the olde Testament
but only the fiue bookes of Moses: Doeth
hée not say, they erred, because they
knowe not the Scriptures and power of
God? And what Scripture? but the
scripture of those fiue bookes, out of which
hée doeth so pithily and effectually prooue
the article of the resurrection of the dead,
that hée stopped the mouthes of those ob<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stinate
and arrogant heretikes. And
who doubteth? but euen as that one ar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ticle
of the resurrection, was by our Sa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uiour
Christ so substantially prooued, so
all other articles of Christian beliefe, by
that diuine wisedome of his, might as
necessarily bée concluded out of those fiue
<pb facs="tcp:18255:35"/>
bookes of <hi>Moses.</hi> This alwayes is to bée
remembred, that it was neither necessarie
nor conuenient, for the Church of those
times, vnto which these bookes alone were
committed: to vnderstand or know, these
articles of our beléefe so plainly, so distinct<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly,
so largely, as they were after reuealed
by the Prophets, &amp; especially by the scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures
of the new Testament. But that al
necessary points of saluatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>, &amp; euery thing
there to belonging, was sufficiently &amp; per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fectly
set foorth in those scriptures, which
the wisdom of God thought to be conueni<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ent
for their instruction: So y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> they shoulde
not depend vpo<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> the vncertain credit of me<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>,
but alwaies haue the touchstone of Gods
word contained in his holy writing inspi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>red
by his spirit, to trye &amp; examine all doc<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>trines
&amp; teachers thereby. But now y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> wée
haue shewed, that the holie scripture is a
sufficient &amp; most ple<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>tifull testimony of the
word of God, let vs sée, what other witnes
of Gods word, the Papists woulde thrust
vpon vs. The word of God (say they,) be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>side
y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> which is contained in the scriptures,
is continued also partly by tradition part<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly
is reuealed by the sentence and oracle of
the church, &amp; of the chiefe shepheard therof
which is the Pope, all which is of equall,
<pb facs="tcp:18255:35"/>
authoritie and certaintie, with that which
is contained in the holie scriptures. And
first concerning tradition: the scripture it
selfe, doth testifie, that it is to be receiued,
whether it be by writing, or vnwritten.
For so the Apostle co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>maundeth the Thes<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>salonians,
saying:<note place="margin">2. Thes. <gap reason="illegible" resp="#OXF" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>.</note> Hold fast the traditio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>s,
which you haue learned, whether it be by
word of mouth, or by our Epistle. So say
they, the scripture it self commandeth vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>written
verities, &amp; traditions, beside the
scripture, to be holden fast, and not to bée
despised: therefore the scripture alone is
not sufficient, to teache vs the worde of
truth, but we must also leane vnto vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>written
traditions. There is no Papist
almost, that openeth his mouth, or setteth
his pen to paper, to defend tradition, but
this is the principall bulwarke, to main<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tain
vnwritten verities receiued by tradi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion.
A sore place I promise you. Out of
which if you will gather rightly, you must
thus co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>clude. Saint Paul had taught the
Thessalonians, partly by preaching, and
partly by writing, and taught the truth in
both necessary to be reteined, therfore the
holy scripture doth not contain al doctine
néedful vnto saluation. Or thus, S. Paule
<pb facs="tcp:18255:36"/>
in one or two Epistles, had not compre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>hended
all necessarie truth, therefore all
necessary truth is not comprehended in
all the bookes of the scripture.</p>
            <p>For hée speaketh not of traditions, that
were no where written, but not writ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ten
in his Epistle. Signifying what<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>soeuer
hée did deliuer vnto them, either
by worde of mouth, or by his Epistle,
was the truth of GOD, whiche they
were bounde to beléeue, and yet hée de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>liuered
nothing for any doctrine of sal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uation
vnto them, but that whiche hée
confirmed by the scriptures of the olde
Testament, as it is manifest by y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> which
S. Luke reporteth of their neighbours
the <hi>Berthaeans</hi> which dayly searched the
scriptures, if those thinges which Saint
Paul taught, were eue<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> so. Wherfore this
place doth nothing fauour vnwritten tra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ditions,
y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> are altogether beside the holie
scripture, but only such as are not contai<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned
in the first &amp; second Epistle to y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> Thes<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>salonians,
but were preached by S. Paul,
and tried by the scriptures. The strongest
bulwarke being thus rased &amp; made euen
with the ground: what force can there bée
<pb facs="tcp:18255:36"/>
in their other féeble fortresses? why do you
so exclaime against tradition, &amp; vnwritten
veritie, &amp; striue so much for your Castle of
only scripture say they? know you not that
the Churche of God continued more then
two thousand yeares without any worde
of the Bible written: &amp; how was the word
of God then continued, but by vnwritten
traditio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>: There is not therfore such neces<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sitie
of the scriptures, seeing y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> church could
so long continue the pillar &amp; stay of truth,
without the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>, but y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> nowe hauing the scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures
for witnesse of some parte of Gods
word, shée may co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>tinue the rest y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> is neces<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sary,
for the instruction of Gods people by
tradition only, w<hi rend="sup">t</hi> out the scriptures. Heere
is a godly shew for traditio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>, but indéed no<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thing
els but a vain shew, w<hi rend="sup">t</hi>out any pithe
of matter: yea, containing manifest vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>truth
&amp; false matter. For the word of God
was not so long co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>tinued only by traditio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
of men, but by a much more certain testi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mony
of truth, namely by diuine reue<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>latio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
from god, which was renued in eue<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ry
age, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> the word of God might not stand
vpon the bare credite of men, or be left to
the vnsure &amp; deceiueable deliuery of men,
<pb facs="tcp:18255:37"/>
from hand to hand, but be euermore con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>firmed
by heauenly oracle, that y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> Church
might be certaine, not to be carried away
by vntrue reports of deceueable men, but
to depend alwaies vpon the mouth of god.
For in al that time, the lord had a regard,
that his people should not be like children
wauering, &amp; carried about with the wind
of euery doctrine, by the deceit of men, and
by their craftinesse which haue a methode
of errour,<note place="margin">Ephes. 4.</note> as the Apostle saith of the church
of Christ since his ascention, &amp; therfore hée
did in all generations, beside the tradition
and deliuerie of the doctrine of truth, from
the parentes to their children, &amp; posteritie,
s<gap reason="illegible" resp="#OXF" extent="2 letters">
                  <desc>••</desc>
               </gap>rre vp Prophets &amp; Preachers co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>firmed
by extraordinary &amp; wonderful reuelatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>s
and gifts of his holy spirite, which testified
of that truth, &amp; word of God that was con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tinued
by tradition, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> it should neither bée
doubted of, among so many errors as Sa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tan
raysed vp, nor be corrupted, either by
the subtletie of the deuil, or by the infirmi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tie
&amp; forgetfulnes of men. Wherefore the
tradition being thus co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>tinued &amp; co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>firmed,
was not a bare traditio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>, &amp; deliuery of me<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>,
such as the Papists would draw vs vnto,
<pb facs="tcp:18255:37"/>
from the holie scriptures: but a most cer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>taine
and vndoubted testimony of Gods
word, &amp; his truth, such as he in wisdome,
did sée to be most co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>uenient for his church
in that season. Beside this heauenly &amp; di<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uine
reuelation, which alwaies waighted
vpon Gods word, in those times continu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed
by tradition: The very tradition it self,
was farre vnlike to the pretended traditi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on,
of the Papists. For the Lord God, who
in that time, would haue his holy word to
be preserued from generation to generati<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on,
by tradition without writing, commit<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted
the same to faithfull witnesses, whose
liues he enlarged vnto so many yeares, as
we read of in the holic scriptures, not on<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly
for propagation of their kinde, but also,
and especially, that they might continue
the doctrine of his word, which he had de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>liuered
vnto them, vnto many generati<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ons,
&amp; to a long posteritie after them. For
this cause <hi>Adam</hi> liued, 930. yeares. <hi>Seth,</hi>
912. yeares <hi>Methusalach, 969. Noach,</hi>
950. yeares. So that <hi>Adam,</hi> which first
receiued the doctrine of GOD, both of
the lawe &amp; the Gospell, and also the exter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nal
forme of worshipping god by sacrifice,
which hée taught his sonnes, insomuch
<pb facs="tcp:18255:38"/>
that <hi>Abell</hi> by fayth offered an acceptable<note place="margin">Hebr. 11.</note>
sacrifice vnto God,<note place="margin">Rom. 10.</note> which coulde not bée
without hearing of the worde of God, as
the holie Ghost witnesseth: continued a
faithfull witnesse and teacher of the same
doctrine, vnto many thousandes of his
posteritie, by the space of 930. yeares,
beside his godly sonne <hi>Seth,</hi> and other of
his after commers. And whereas by
the wicked generation of <hi>Cain,</hi> the true
inuocation of God was prophaned in the
dayes of his Nephew <hi>Enoch,</hi> which vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>godly
broode dayly increased in wickednes<note place="margin">Gen. 4.</note>
corrupting many euen of the posteritie of<note place="margin">Gen. 5.</note>
               <hi>Seth.</hi> The Lorde stirred vp an extraor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dinarie
Prophet <hi>Enoch,</hi> to confirme the
true doctrine taught by <hi>Adam, Seth, E<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>noch,</hi>
and other of his godly posteritie,
and tooke him our of the worlde miracu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lously,
both to confirme the faithfull in the
hope of the resurrection, and to confound
the reprobate, that despised his holy cor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rection
and discipline. Now let vs con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sider
the certaintie of this tradition. <hi>No<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ach,</hi>
was 600. yeare olde, before the Lord
God sent the floode to destroye those im<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pudent
contemners, So that of his
<pb facs="tcp:18255:38"/>
father <hi>Lamech,</hi> and of his granfather <hi>Me<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thushalech</hi>
which might sée and heare, The
first of the worlde <hi>Adam,</hi> which <hi>Seth, Enoch</hi>
and all the godly Patriarkes that were
before him, did receiue the doctrine of
Gods worde, as it was deliuered by God
himselfe vnto them, without any addition
or corruption. Besides that <hi>Noach,</hi> which
receiued the tradition, but from the second
mouth, of them which receiued it from the
mouth of God, is againe confirmed with
diuine reuelation, with whom, and his
posteritie, the couenant of God is againe
renewed: so that it appeareth howe for
the space of a thousande and sixe hundred
yéeres, the worde of God, and doctrine
of saluation, was continued in the church
by tradition, without any danger, or
doubt of corruption from <hi>Adam</hi> to <hi>Noach.</hi>
            </p>
            <p>Nowe let vs sée howe this tradition
was maintained after the flood, vntill the
time of <hi>Moses,</hi> which was the first writer
of the Canonicall Scripture. First it
is certaine by the computation of the age
of <hi>Sem,</hi> the sonne of <hi>Noach.</hi> who was one of
them that were preserued in the Ark, and
with whom the couenant was renewed,
<pb facs="tcp:18255:39"/>
that hée liued vnto the time of <hi>Abraham,</hi>
yée vntill <hi>Isaac</hi> was 50. yéere olde &amp; more,
for hée liued 502. yéeres after the flood. So
that all this time, there continued a faith<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>full
and credible witnesse of the worde of
God and historie of the world restored, of
who<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> the people might learne the certain<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tie
of the doctrine, without any perill or
doubt of corruption. But when the Lorde
called <hi>Abraham,</hi> and seuered him and his
posteritie for his peculiar people, and cho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sen
congregation, and that the age of man
was nowe contracted, and drawne vnto a
much shorter time of life: that the certein<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tie
of his heaue<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ly truth should not be com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mitted
to vncertaine tradition of many
generations, hée renewed his couenaunt
with <hi>Abraham, Isaac,</hi> and <hi>Iacob,</hi> and euery
one of them, and confirmed the same to
their children in euery age by diuine reue<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lation,
vntill it was his pleasure to record
the same, in the most certaine Tables of
the holy Scriptures. For from the death
of <hi>Ioseph</hi> one of the twelue Patriarkes,
which liued after the comming of <hi>Iacob</hi> in
to <hi>Egypt</hi> thréescore &amp; ten yéeres, there pas<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sed
but thréescore yéeres vntill y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> birth of
<pb facs="tcp:18255:39"/>
               <hi>Moses. Leui</hi> an other of the xii. Patriarks,
liued 23. yeres after <hi>Ioseph,</hi> whose daughter
<hi>Iacobed</hi> was mother vnto <hi>Moses.</hi> And <hi>Mo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ses</hi>
long time before hee brought the people
out of <hi>Egypt</hi> receiued diuine reuelation as
S. Steeuen testifieth, so that hee thought
his brethren shoulde haue acknowledged
that God had appointed him to bee there
deliuered,<note place="margin">Acts. 7.</note> by killing the <hi>Egyptian</hi> that op<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pressed
them. So that the certaintie of
this tradition appeareth from the begin<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ning
of the worlde, vnto the wri<gap reason="illegible" resp="#OXF" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>ing of
the holy Scriptures, to haue béen confir<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>med,
in euery age by reuelation from god
and by witnesses aboue all exception, such
as receiued the Oracles and confirmati<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>of
them, from God him selfe: whose life
was prolonged into such number of yéeres
that the Church might neuer lacke a pro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>phet
inspired of God, of whom they might
hée instructed in truth of Gods worde.</p>
            <p>So that the Lorde did neuer permit his
worde to bare tradition of men, suche
as the Papistes affirme the tradition
of the Apostles to haue béene, whiche
shoulde haue deliuered the doctrine
<pb facs="tcp:18255:40"/>
to their successors, without writing, and
they to their successours, and so from age
to age, without any assurance of the fideli<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tie
of al their successours, through an hun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dred
handes before it come vnto vs. By
whiche vncertaintie of the Tradition, a
wyde gate is opened vnto Satan, to bring
in any falshood &amp; strange error, &amp; to father
it vpon the tradition of the Apostles. As
it is manifest, he did in y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> heresie of the <hi>Va<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>le<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>tinia<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>s,
Maniches, Montanistes,</hi> &amp; such other
monstrous heresies, who had none other
refuge to couer y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> noueltie of there strange
opinions, but a secret tradition, beside the
Scriptures, according to which the <hi>Valen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tinians,</hi>
               <note place="margin">Lib. 3. Cáp. 2.</note>
iumpe with the Papists, as <hi>Irenae<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>us</hi>
testifieth, they affirmed the Scriptures
were to bée interpreted, &amp; not otherwise.
But when <hi>Irenaeus</hi> not content to confute
them by Scriptures, seeketh to ouerthrom
them also by tradition what certaintie of
truth findeth he in the traditio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> of the apo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stles
as it was receiued in his time? And
a man woulde thinke, hée being so néere
the time of the Apostles, so that hee had
séene them, which had heard the Apostles,
shoulde haue had a much greater certain<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tie
<pb facs="tcp:18255:40"/>
and assurance of their traditions, then
we can haue in these times, after so many
heresies, corruptions, alterations, perse<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cutions,
contentions, which take away al<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>certaintie
from such vnwritten traditio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>s.
Yet eue<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> this godly father <hi>Irenaeus,</hi> whiles
hee striueth to beare downe the Heretikes
not only by scriptures, but also by traditi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on,
in which they gloried: was deceiued
by a false and counterfet tradition contra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ry
to the Scriptures, by which it was af<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>firmed
that our sauiour Christ liued more
then fortie yéeres in the fleshe. And yet to
iustifie this tradition, hée alleadgeth for
witnesses, all the elders of <hi>Asia,</hi> which had
conuersation with S. Iohn the Disciple
of our Lorde, who liued with them vntill
the time of <hi>Traianus</hi> the Emperour,<note place="margin">Lib. 2. Cap. 35</note> all
which affirmed, that Saint Iohn deliue<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>red
the same thing vnto them. Yea some
of them had séene, not only Iohn, but other
Apostles also, and hearde the same things
of them, &amp; testified of such report. What
a godly shew of truth hath this tradition?
Yea what woulde a man require almost
for greater certaintie of such a tradition,
then the vniforme consent of al them that
<pb facs="tcp:18255:41"/>
had séene and hearde the Apostle, of which
some had hard y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> other apostles also. What
like assurance can the Papistes make vs
for their pretended traditions of the Apo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stles?
And yet this traditio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> which <hi>Iraeneus</hi>
aduoucheth, with such shew of credit to be
a true tradition, is a very falshood and vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>truth
contrary to the Historie of the Go<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>spell,<note place="margin">Luke. 3.</note>
which expresly affirmeth that Christ
was but 30. yéeres olde when hee began
to teache in the 15. yéere of the Emperour
<hi>Tiberius,</hi> after which time hee liued not a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>boue
3. yéeres and an halfe. You sée there<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
what it is to leaue the holy scriptures
&amp; to follow vnwritten traditions, where<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>of
what certaintie can there bée, when
they that liued so néere the time of the A<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>postles
were so grossely deceiued with im<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>pudent
lyes and fables, and yet coloured
with such shewe and appearance of cre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dite.
And no maruell if <hi>Irenaeus</hi> which
receiued this tradition at the second hand
was beguiled with a fained vntruth whe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
euen they that were the schollers of the
Apostles them selues coulde not agrée a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bout
their traditions which were beside
their holy writinges.<note place="margin">Lib. 2. Ca. 26</note> 
               <hi>Eusebius</hi> out of <hi>I<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>renaeus</hi>
               <pb facs="tcp:18255:41"/>
testifieth that when <hi>Polycarpus</hi> Bi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>shop
of <hi>Smyrna</hi> came to Rome in the time
whe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> 
               <hi>Anicetus</hi> was bishop there, they could
not agrée about the tradition of the Apo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stles,
concerning the celebratio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> of Easter.
For neither coulde <hi>Anicetus</hi> persuade <hi>Po<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lycarpus,</hi>
to alter that which hee had seene
Saint Iohn and other of the Apostles
to practise, neither coulde <hi>Polycarpus</hi>
persuade <hi>Anicetus</hi> to forsake that, whiche
hée had receiued of his predicessors who
pretended to haue receiued the same, of the
Apostles Peter &amp; Paule. So that when
the first and immediate successors of the
Apostles, cannot agrée vpon their traditi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ons:
What hope of certaintie can wee
haue after so many generations? These
were both auncient fathers, both godly
fathers, which acknowledged y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> all things
necessary to saluation were contained in
the holy Scriptures, and therefore, al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>though
they coulde not agrée in the vse
of a Ceremonie, yet they dyd not
breake Christian vnitie for that diuer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sitie.
Whereas if they had thought
vnwritten Traditions necessarie, as
<pb facs="tcp:18255:42"/>
               <hi>Victor</hi> that was after successor to <hi>Anice<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tus</hi>
séemeth to haue thought, they woulde
not haue so brotherly communicated the
one with the other, as they did, but rather
as <hi>Victor,</hi> erroniously and presumptuously
tooke vpon him, to excommunicate the
churches of <hi>Asia</hi> that agréed not with him
they woulde haue detested the one the o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther.
This story also doeth plentifully
witnesse, that the Bishop of Romes au<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thoritie
in the beginning of the primitiue
Church, was not reputed to bée a matter
of such certaintie, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> all me<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> must obey his
censure, and no man gainesay, or thinke o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>therwise
then hée doeth, in any case of reli<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gion.
For <hi>Polycarpus</hi> doubteth nothing
at all, to dissent from <hi>Anicetus</hi> Bishop of
Rome, where hée thought hée had better
grounde, neither doeth <hi>Anicetus</hi> obiect the
necessitie of obedience vnto Saint Peters
chayre, as the Pope nowe a daies preten<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>deth,
but when hée coulde not perswade
<hi>Polycarpus</hi> to consent with him, in a mat<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>of
small importance, and which is beside
the holy Scripture, hée is content, that hée
shall dissent from him, both in opinion,
and in practise, But howe farre from
<pb facs="tcp:18255:42"/>
this modestie, is y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> Pope of Rome in these
dayes, which though hée can tollerate di<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uersitie
of Ceremonies, as the Papistes
say, to colour this matter, yet will he not
tollerate that any man shall dissent in o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pinion
&amp; iudgeme<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>t fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> him, in any of those
things, for which he hath no grou<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>d out of
the holy scriptures, but only a counterfet
&amp; falsly prete<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ded tradition of the apostles.
Well, you sée by the example of <hi>Polycarpus</hi>
and <hi>Anicetus,</hi> that there is no certaintie in
vnwritten traditions, when they y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> were
the next and immediate successors of the
Apostles, were not resolued vpon the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>, but
continued in contrary iudgementes of
them. And no maruell, when Iohn him
selfe testifieth, that euen among the ve<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ry
Disciples of Christe, there went a
wrong tradition, concerning the death of
Saint Iohn: which hauing no ground vp<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on
the wordes of our sauiour Christe, but
being cleane contrary to the truth of the
holy Scriptures, was yet receiued from
an vnwritten veritie, vntill by the writ<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ten
Gospell of Saint Iohn it was plain<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly
confuted. But it will bée obiected,
that the auncient fathers.
<pb facs="tcp:18255:43"/>
               <hi>Tertullian, Epiphanius, Basilius,</hi> and such like
doe maintaine that there were some vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>written
Traditions of the Apostles in
their times, which were necessary to bée
obserued.</p>
            <p>I answere, although the auncient fa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thers,
and euen these before named, doe
sometime auouch the sufficiencie of y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> ho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly
scriptures, yet it must bée confessed, that
otherwhile they ascribed too much to vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>written
traditions, wherein what cer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>taintie
it was likely for them to haue, you
may consider by that whiche hath béene
saide alreadie, beside that they agrée not a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bout
their Traditions, either with the
papists, or with vs, or among themselues
altogether. Therefore very wisely and
like an Apostolike man, y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> holy worthy <hi>Ig<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>natius</hi>
(as <hi>Eusebius</hi> writeth)<note place="margin">Lib. 3. Cap 3<gap reason="illegible" resp="#OXF" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>
               </note> when hée was
trauelling through <hi>Asia,</hi> towarde his mar<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tyrdome,
which hée suffered at Rome, and
in euery Citie where hée came, exhorted
the people to continue in the faith of the
gospell, &amp; to beware of heresies, which the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
beganne to spring and multiplie, in clea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uing
fast to the Tradition of the apostles,
<pb facs="tcp:18255:43"/>
hée testified, that the same Tradition, that
it might bée certaine and vndoubted, was
already committed to writing: for by
that time all the bookes of the new Testa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment
were written. And that tradition
so written, hée thought it necessary to bee
plainly taught, and set foorth vnto the peo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ple.</p>
            <p>This sounde and vncorrupted iudgement
of <hi>Ignatius,</hi> a most auncient father &amp; next
successor vnto Peter in the Church of <hi>Antiochia,</hi>
concerning the Apostles tradition
if they which came after him, had retei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned,
they had neither so easily béene
drawen into errour themselues,<note place="margin">
                  <gap reason="illegible" resp="#OXF" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>usch. lib. Cap. vlt.</note> as <hi>Papias</hi>
A great admiror of tradition, vnwritten
was, <hi>Irenaeus, Tertullian</hi> and other: nor gi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uen
occasion to heretikes by alleadging
the insufficiencie and imprefection, of the
holy Scriptures, to cloke their new here<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sies
vnder the name of auncient traditi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ons.</p>
            <p>Thus you haue hearde, that the worde
of truth, is not to be sought in the vnwrit<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ten
traditions, but in the vndoubted wri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tings
of the prophets &amp; apostles vpo<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> which
<pb facs="tcp:18255:44"/>
foundation the Churche of Christ is buil<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ded,
as Saint Paule testifieth,<note place="margin">Ephe. 2.</note> and not
vpon the vncertaine reportes of forgetfull
and deceiueable men.</p>
            <p>Now must wée examine the tow other
pretended recordes of the word of GOD.
The Churche and the principall Pastor
thereof, which they say, is the Pope, Con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cerning
the Church, the Apostle seemeth
to giue a cléere testimonie, that the an<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>swere
thereof, is an infallible Oracle of
Gods worde, when he saith, It is y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> piller
and stay of truth, whereof it may bée in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ferred,
that the Church alone, whiche as
the holy Scriptures, is sufficient to vp<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>holde
and stay the truth, that it should ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer
faile nor decay in the worlde. Much
rather when it hath the assistance of the
Scriptures in some part, is the Church
able to maintaine an other part of truth,
without the Scriptures. After this ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ner,
the Papistes reason out of this text,
to prooue that all truth is not conteined
in the holy Scriptures. But this is
a very féeble kinde of reasoning.</p>
            <p>For graunting that the Church is y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> pil<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ler
and the stay of truth, as it is in déede,
<pb facs="tcp:18255:44"/>
it followeth not thereof, that it vpholdeth
any truth which is not comprehended in
the holy Scriptures. But contrari<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>wise,
séeing it hath béen ple<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>tifully prooued,
that all true doctrine is taught in the holy
Scriptures, euen to the perfection of the
man of God, it followeth that the Church
is the piller and stay of that true doctrine
which is taught in the Scriptures, and
not of any truth beside the Scriptures:
For when all truth is taught in the scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tures,
it followeth that whatsoeuer is
not taught in the Scriptures is not truth.
But if this be y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> proper note of y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> Church
to bee the piller of truth (say they) it is
prooued thereby, that the Churche can<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>not
erre, so that if it set foorth any thinge
beside the Scriptures, the same muste
needes bée true. I answere, this Sophi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>strie,
is already confuted, for it it bée
graunted, that the Church cannot erre, as
in matters necessary to saluation the
whole Churche of God cannot erre, to
continue therein, it is because the Church
cannot depart from the doctrine contai<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ned
in the Scriptures, which are able to
<pb facs="tcp:18255:45"/>
make a man wise vnto saluation. But
admit it were graunted, that the Churche
cannot erre at all, what shoulde that a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uaile
the Papistes: verily nothing, but to
prooue that they are not the Churche.</p>
            <p>For if this be a proper &amp; inseparable note
of the Churche, that it cannot erre, what
companie soeuer doth erre is not the
Churche. But the Papistes whose do<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctrine
containeth so grosse contradiction of
the worde of GOD doe shamefully and
abhominably erre from the truth, there<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
the Popishe faction is not the Church
which is the piller and stay of truth. Thou
shalt make no images for religion saith
the worde of God. Thou shalt make
some images for religion saith the Popish
Churche. Thou shalt not fall downe
to them, nor worship them, saith Gods
commaundement. Thou shalt fall downe
and worship them, saith the popish Sina<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gogue.
Thou shalt worship the Lorde thy
God, &amp; him only shalt thou serue, saith our
Sauiour Christ. When hée was tempted
to fall downe and worship the Diuell,
not as GOD, but as Gods Minister
<pb facs="tcp:18255:45"/>
to whom the kingdomes of the worlde
were committed to dispose: The Pope
saith, thou shalt worship and serue other,
beside the Lorde thy God, so thou wor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ship
them not, and so thou serue them not
as Gods. I might runne ouer a whole
hundreth of contradictions, which the pa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pistes
doe holde and teach contrary to the
worde of truth written in the Scriptures
by which it is more then manifest, that
they holde and teache damnable errours,
therefore they are not the Churche of the
liuing God, which is the piller and stay
of truth, at the least wise in matters ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cessary
to eternall saluation.</p>
            <p>But let vs sée whether the Apostle by
these wordes, intended to priuiledge the
Churche of God, from all possibilitie of
erring in any matter, albeit the Church
should departe from the certaine direction
of the holye Scriptures in any thing.
Firste it muste bee remembred, that
Saint Paule in the Chapter 1. Timo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thie
3. describeth the persons and offices
of Christian Bishoppes and Deacons,
<pb facs="tcp:18255:46"/>
which doone, he addeth immediatly. These
thinges doe I write vnto thée, hoping to
come vnto thee shortly, but if I tarry
long, that thou mayst knowe howe it be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>houeth
thée to bée conuersant in the house
of God, whiche is the Churche of the
liuing God, the piller and stay of truth:
In which wordes wée haue to note, first
that the Apostle hath written briefly that
which hée purposed (if they met shortly,)
more at large to set foorth and confirme:
Secondly that if he were disapointed, so
that hée coulde not come shortly, that Ti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mothie
might haue a sufficient direction
howe to behaue himselfe for ordering of
the Church of god in appointing the mini<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sters
of the same. By which it is mani<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fest
that this which hée speaketh of the pil<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ler
and stay of the truth, is meant in re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>spect
of the Pastors and Teachers of the
Churche, by whom the truth of heauenly
doctrine is vpholden and continued in the
worlde, which without their ministery
woulde vtterly fall to the grounde and de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cay.
For euen as hée writeth to the Ro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mans:<note place="margin">Rom. 10.</note>
séeing faith commeth by hearing of
<pb facs="tcp:18255:46"/>
Gods word, of them that are sent, of faith
commeth inuocation, and from thence sal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>,
if none be sent, there can be no prea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ching,
no hearing, no faith, no innocation,
no saluation: So the Church of the liuing
God, in respect of the faithfull Ministers
of the same, which teach the truth to the
saluation of Gods people,<note place="margin">1. Tim. 4.</note> in which respect
they are said to saue themselues, and them
that heare them: is rightly called the pil<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ler
and stay of truth, which Ministery if it
be taken away, the truth also is taken a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>way,
Euen as the remoouing of the Can<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dlesticke
in the reuelation, signifieth the
ouerthrowe of the Church of <hi>Ephesus,</hi>
               <note place="margin">Apoc. 2.</note> vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>to
whom it is threatned if they doe not re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pent.
The Candlesticke which signifieth
the Church, vpholdeth the light of the gos<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pell,
by the continual preaching of the Mi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nisters
thereof: so is it a piller and stay of
the truth, so long as preaching of the Go<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>spell
is continued, which if it cease, then
followeth darknes, blindnes, ignorance,
errour, and destruction. This is the true
and plaine meaning of the Apostle, where
hée saith, The church is the piller and stay
of truth. Not that it is vnpossible for the
<pb facs="tcp:18255:47"/>
church to erre at any time, or in any mat<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter,
or that the determination of y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> church,
without the scripture, is a sufficient te<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stimony
of Gods worde, or of the truth in
any cause, as the Papists maintaine. For
Paule instructeth Timothy by writing,
howe hée ought to behaue him selfe in the
Church of God, which is the piller &amp; stay
of truth, although hée should haue no fur<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
conference with him in the matter:
These thinges doe I write vnto thée (saith
he) y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> thou maist know &amp; so forth, whereas
if in calling the church the piller of truth,
hée had meant that the church without the
scripture was able to haue instructed him,
hée would haue said. If any thing want in
my writing, thou maist aske the determi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nation
of the church, which is the piller
and stay of truth. But S Paul saith, that
hée had written: that Timothie might
know, &amp; be able to instruct the church of
God, that it might be the piller of truth,
not that the church, as the piller of truth,
should instruct him. For, Timothie was
to teach the truth of Gods worde vnto the
church, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> the church might be the piller of
truth, he was not to learne of y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> church, as
<pb facs="tcp:18255:47"/>
of a teaching piller, in which sense Iames
and Peter &amp; Iohn are called pillers.<note place="margin">Gal. 2.</note> And
no doubt but they wer pillers of y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> church,
and of the truth: yet they were not priui<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ledged
thereby, but that they might erre
in some parte, as the errour of Peter is
declared in the same place. Againe it is
certaine, that the Apostle in saying the
church is the piller and stay of truth: spea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>keth
of the church of <hi>Ephesus,</hi> in which
hée had lefte Timothie. And the same is
true of euerie particular church of God, in
any place, that it is the house of God, the
piller and stay of truth, so long as it is the
church of the liuing God. For hée tea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cheth
not Timothie by this writing, how
to be conuersant in the whole vniuersall
church of Christ, but namely in that par<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ticular
church, vnto which Saint Paule
hoped to come vnot him, and by example
thereof, in any other particular church,
wheresoeuer vpon like occasion hée should
be placed by the Apostle. Now the papists
them selues doe confesse, that euery parti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cular
church may erre, but it is, the catho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>like
and vniuersall church which they say
can not erre.</p>
            <p>
               <pb facs="tcp:18255:48"/>
But séeing that whiche the Apostle here
speaketh, is principally spoken of a parti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cular
Church, and is true of euerie parti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cular
Church, that it is the piller and stay
of truth, as well as of the vniuersall and
Catholike Church: The catholike church
is no more priuiledged from erring, by
this texte of scripture, then any particu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lar
Church in the worlde. But this que<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stion
of the Church is so intricate, and vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>certaine
among the Papists themselues,
that although they holde this as a princi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ple,
that the Church can not erre, yet
they can not define what they meane by
the Church, in this proposition. For if you
aske them whether you meane by the
Church, all and euerie member of the bo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>die,
they will deny it. Where shal we then
haue the determination of the truth ma<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ny
doubtfull cause? They will answere of
the generall Councell, which is the Ca<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tholike
Church represented. But here if
they are not resolued, what maketh the
generall Councell. For some holde, that
the Councell is aboue the Pope, and may
determine without him &amp; against him. O<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
hold, that the pope is aboue the coun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cell,
and that the councell may determine
<pb facs="tcp:18255:48"/>
nothing, either against him, or with<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>out
him. But contrariwise, that the
Pope without the councel, hath al lawes,
right, and truth in the closet of his brest,
so that hée may determine of any doubt,
and that all men are bound to beléeue his
determination, as procéeding from him
which can not erre. The most of our eng<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lish
Papistes at this time, doe holde that
the Pope is aboue the Councell, and that
the determination of the Councell with<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>out
the Popes approbation, is nothing to
build vpon: So that when they haue pra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted
neuer so long of the authoritie of the
Church, the ende of all the talke commeth
to this point, that the Church is not all
the faithfull, but the generall Councell,
only, the Councel is not all the Prelates,
but the Pope only, without whom they
can determine no truth, and who without
them may determine all truth, &amp; can de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>termine
no errour. So that against this
secte of Papistes, it shall be sufficient to
prooue, that the Popish Church may erre,
if I can prooue that the Pope which is the
only piller and stay of truth, therein may
erre. But séeing wée knowe the Pope to
be a meere mortall man, howsoeuer some
<pb facs="tcp:18255:49"/>
of them haue made him more the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> a man,
yea, a GOD aboue all Gods, some nei<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
GOD nor man, but a newter be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>twéene
both, as if any of them will de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ny,
I can bring their owne sayinges
to their shame:<note place="margin">Rom. 3.</note> and séeing the scripture
pronounceth of euerie man which is but
a man, that hée is a lyar, and that God
only is true: let vs consider, what im<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>pudent
shifte they haue to iustifie their
Pope from errour, that God only should
not bée true.</p>
            <p>Some of the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> say, the Pope may erre
as a man, but not as a Pope, other say the
Pope may erre as Pope also, but not in
matters of faith: others séeme to say, if
they durst speake out, that the Pope may
erre also in faith, but not to induce any ma<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
into a false faith by his error. Thus are
they at variance among them selues, and
mince the matter so small, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> at length it
co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>meth to as good as nothing at all, that
they brag of the spirit of truth giuen to the
Pope in suche measure, that hée cannot
erre.</p>
            <p>But how do they assure them selues, that
<pb facs="tcp:18255:49"/>
the Pope hath such a priuiledge that hée
cannot erre in matters of faith? Our Sa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uiour
Christ (say they) praied for Peter,
th<gap reason="illegible" resp="#OXF" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>t his faith should not faile: willing him
after his conuersion to confirme his bre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thren.</p>
            <p>And what in Gods name, maketh
this to prooue that the Pope cannot erre?
Yes forsooth: hée prayed for Peter, that is
for him &amp; all his successors, because he was
the rocke of the church, that none of their
faith might faile, that is, they might not
erre.</p>
            <p>This is a very strange interpretation.
For the naturall sense of that place, is
manifest by that hée said before, <hi>Simon, Si<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mon,</hi>
behold satan hath desired to winow
you, as wheat. But I haue prayed for thée
that thy faith should not faile.</p>
            <p>By whiche wordes hée signifieth, that
the desire of Satan was vtterly to di<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sperse
the Churche, that it might ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer
bee gathered together, and Pe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter
was in greatest daunger of all
the Apostles, through his shamefull
<pb facs="tcp:18255:50"/>
and cowardly deniall, and forswearing of
his maister, howbeit, hée declareth that
hée hath obtained by his prayer, that Pe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ters
faith should not be altogether qu<gap reason="illegible" resp="#OXF" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>n<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ched
but that hée shoulde by repentance,
take holde of Gods mercy, and be resto<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>red,
willing him after his conuersion and
experience of Gods mercy, to strengthen
his brethren which likewise were weake
in fayth, though none so néere to falling a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>way,
as hée. So that the effect of Christes
praier was, that Peter through the great<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nes
of his sinne, should not dispaire of for<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>giuenesse,
but by faithfull repentance, bée
renued and conuerted, not that Peter
should neuer erre in his owne person and
much lesse, that none of Peters successors
should erre in any master of faith: which
thing by no logike in the worlde can possi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bly
be concluded out of this place: For
what kinde of reasoning is this? Christ
prayed that Peters fayth should not faile,
<hi>Ergo,</hi> Peter had suche a prerogatiue by
Christes prayer, that hée could not erre,
neyther hée nor any of his successours.
Christ prayed not only for Peter, but for
all his Apostles, &amp; in this my text, praieth
<pb facs="tcp:18255:50"/>
for them all, that his father would sancti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fie
them in y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> truth: shal wée therfore say,
it was not possible for them to erre in a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ny
matter? The Papistes will not so
reason of all the Apostles, for then the like
would follow of all their successours. And
yet Christ obtained the effect of his pray<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>er,
that all his Apostles were sanctified in
Gods truth. Yea hée prayeth not this, for
his Apostles and other Disciples of that
time only, but for all them that should be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>léeue
in him through their preaching, for
all true Christians are sanctified in Gods
truth, that they should not erre finally fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
the way of saluation. But hereof it cannot
be gathered, that all true Christians, no
not after their calling to the knowledge of
truth, ca<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>not erre or be deceiued in matters
of faith and doctrine, although they cannot
continue in errour of any thing that is ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cessarie
for the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> rightly to know vnto eter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nall
saluation. Christ promiseth to sende
the comforter, eue<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> the spirit of truth, vnto
all his Apostles, &amp; to his whole church,<note place="margin">Ioan. 16.</note> to
supply y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> want of his bodily prese<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ce which
should lead the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> into al truth: &amp; yet it were
no good conclusion to gather, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> none of the
<pb facs="tcp:18255:51"/>
Church of Christ might erre in any thing,
as it is a sure argument, that they cannot
finally erre, in any point necessarie to sal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uation.
Peter him selfe, whose faith was
specially prayed for, as there was speciall
cause, for his greatest perill, after his con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uerson,
&amp; after he had long time exercised
his Apostleship, was ignorant, &amp; of igno<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rance
erred, co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>cerning the admission of the
Gentiles into the fellowship of the gospel,
vntill hée was reformed by the heauenly
vision.<note place="margin">Act. 10.</note> Yea long after this: Peter did erre
in seperating him selfe from the Gentiles
by dissimulation, for feare of them of y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> cir<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cumcision,
when I saw that they did not
walke aright (saith S. Paul) according to
the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
them all.<note place="margin">Gal. 2.</note> I know the Papists wil say
this was an error of conuersation and of
fact only, not an error in faith &amp; doctrine.
But this is a vaine deuise to escape. For
Peter erred not in <gap reason="illegible" resp="#OXF" extent="1 word">
                  <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
               </gap> only, but in a mat<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter
of doctrine and faith also against the
truth of the Gospell. For he counterfaited
before the Iewes, for no worldly respect,
but because hée thought it was his duetie
before God to so doe, rather then to offend
<pb facs="tcp:18255:51"/>
the Iewes. And where as some of them
say, the Pope cannot induce any other
men into error, although he erre him self,
let the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>sider this example of Peter, who
not only erred himselfe, but also brought,
yea co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>pelled others to Iudaize with him,
insomuch that <hi>Barnabas</hi> also was carried
with them into the same dissimulation:
wherefore although Christ prayed for Pe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ters
faith, that it might not faile, yet Pe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter
both erred, &amp; induced other into error
with him: although being admonished by
Paul, he did willingly reforme his error.
Wherfore this matter is cleare, that the
establishing of Peters faith from fayling,
was not to priuiledge him from erring,
but from dispairing, &amp; therfore can not ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tend
to his successours, in as much as it is
but a personal benefit, obtained for Peter,
except you wil say by analogie of the scrip<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ture,
that the like praier is made for euery
one of gods elect, which in this sence I co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
               <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fesse
to be true, but yet it followeth not,
that they are discharged of the frayletie of
man in falling into error, much lesse any
one order of men, which should be Peters
successours.</p>
            <p>
               <pb facs="tcp:18255:52"/>
And if wée should graunt that this priui<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ledge
was giuen to Peter that hée shoulde
not erre, and so should be deriued vnto all
his successours, many other intricate que<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stions,
and in extricable doubtes woulde
grow, before wee could be resolued who
were Peters successours. For séeing all
Bishops be successours of the Apostles,
as <hi>Cyprian</hi> saith, all Bishoppes are succes<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sours
also of Peter, for if you should say,
that none were successors of the Apostles,
but suche as bee ordained in those places
where y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> Apostles did teach, it could not be
truely said of <hi>Cyprian,</hi> that all Bishops be
successors of the Apostles. But admit that
they be only Peters successours, that sit in
Peters seat, séeing the stories affirme that
Peter had two seats, at <hi>Antioche,</hi> and at
<hi>Rome:</hi> why should not his successours at
<hi>Antioch,</hi> enioy this prerogatiue as wel as
his successors at <hi>Rome?</hi> That Peter was
at <hi>Antioch,</hi> wée finde in the scripture, that
hée was at <hi>Rome,</hi> wée finde not, but least
of all that he bequeathed this priuiledge to
<hi>Rome,</hi> and not to <hi>Antioch.</hi> Well let that
also be admitted, that the bishops of <hi>Rome</hi>
are the only successours of Peter, howe
<pb facs="tcp:18255:52"/>
is it verified of them, that their faith ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer
fayled: The Papistes them selues
doe confesse, and the stories are to many to
denye, that there haue beene no wickeder
men on the earth, then many Popes haue
béen in all kind of sin and vngodlines. Yea
what for all y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> (say they,) their maners fai<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>led
fro<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> gods law, but their faith neuer fai<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>led
from his truth. I think in déed y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> many
of their faithes did neuer faile, for they ne<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uer
had any, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> it might faile, who brought
foorth no fruites, but of infidelitie and cor<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ruption.
For of such wicked persons the<note place="margin">1. Tim. 5.</note>
scripture saith, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> they haue denied y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> faith,
&amp; are worse the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> infidels, &amp; y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> they which co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
               <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mit
such things, shall not inherit y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> kingdo<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
of Christ &amp; God. Tush they say, you mi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stake
the matter,<note place="margin">Ephes. 5.</note> we deny not, but y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> they
might and did faile from the faith which
worketh by loue, and by which a man is
iustified, for many of them are damned
spirites in hell.<note place="margin">Gal. 5.</note> Uerie well, then I per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceiue,
y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> you take not faith in this palce,<note place="margin">Rom. 3.</note>
for a sure trust in the mercyes of God, by
which a man is iustified and assured of e<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ternall
life, but for a bare knowledge
of the truth, such as the Deuilles haue
<pb facs="tcp:18255:53"/>
and tremble suche as Saint Iames cal<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>leth
a dead faith, which is voide of good
works.<note place="margin">Iac. 2.</note> And did our Sauiour Christ, pray
that a dead, fruitlesse, barren, and Deuils
faith might co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>tinue in Peters successors?
was this y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> effect of our sauiour Christes
prayer? A goodly priuiledge of the Bishops
of <hi>Rome,</hi> that they shuld haue knowledge
of the truth &amp; yet goe vnto the Deuill. I
know you will reply, that although they
through their owne defalt, take no benefit
by this priuiledge, yet it is very necessary
for the whole Church, to kéepe it in vnitie
of faith. But that our sauiour Christ prai<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed
not for the continuance of such a fruit<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>lesse
faith, it is plaine by this reason, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>though
Peters successours shoulde be ad<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mitted
vnto the participation of this be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nefite,
yet Peter him selfe might not be
excluded. But what a miserable comforte
was this for Peter, if after his maister
had shewed him in what daunger he &amp; all
his fellows stood, through the malice of sa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tan,
which desired them to winnow or sift
the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>, as wheat is scattered abroad in win<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nowing,
insomuch that before the crow<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing
of the Cocke, hée shoulde denye him
<pb facs="tcp:18255:53"/>
thrise, our Sauiour Christ should tel him
no more, but that at this prayer &amp; request,
hée should retaine such a faith as the De<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uill
hath, so that hee should know y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> truth
in his conscience, although hée did deny it
with his mouth? What comfort coulde
Peter haue by this faith? which rather
did increase his sinne, in that hee was not
ignorant of the truth, then help his weak<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nes
whereby he was afraid to confesse the
truth. Wherfore seeing Peters faith, for
confirmation wherof our Sauiour Christ
did pray, was that true &amp; liuely faith by
which Peter was raysed vp from weake<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nes
to a trust in Gods mercy, and a sure
hope of saluation: it is manifest that hee
prayed, not for the sayth of such successors
of Peter<g ref="char:punc">▪</g> as succeeded only in place, not in
true faith, but continuing in wickednes,
and refusing a good conscience, m<gap reason="illegible" resp="#OXF" extent="1 letter">
                  <desc>•</desc>
               </gap>de ship<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>wrack
of the faith, and are thrown down
into euerlasting condemnatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>. Well this
notwithstanding, let vs imagine, y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> Christ
prayed for the continuance of a dead &amp; de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uilish
faith in Peter &amp; his successours, that
is such a gift of knowledge, that they can
not erre in any question of fayth: shall
<pb facs="tcp:18255:54"/>
that bée found in all the Bishops of <hi>Rome</hi>
that glorie in the succession of Peter: No
verely. For many times the Pope is a
man voide of learning, and knowledge of
diuinitie, as most of y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> Cardinals are, out
of which order hée is co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>monly chosen, and
euen this Pope that nowe raigneth, Gre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gorie
the 13. by reporte of them that haue
séene him and heard him speake, is not
greatly learned. And oftentimes as the
storie reporteth of them, they haue béene
but pelting Canonistes, comming vp of
Scribes and Notaries, neuer professing
nor taking vpon the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> knowledge of diui<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nitie.
And shall wée thinke, that he which
is this day an vnlearned man, not able to
decyde a meane question in diuinitie, bée<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ing
to morow chosen Pope, and set in Pe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ters
chayre, is sodainly endued with such
knowledge, that hée cannot erre in any
thing, or rather that the spirite of Prophe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cie
commeth vpon him, as it did vpon <hi>Cai<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>phas,</hi>
which spake the truth, without his
skill and against his will, because he was
high Priest of that yeare? Uerely I will
not deny, but God may direct the tongue
<pb facs="tcp:18255:54"/>
of the Romish <hi>Caiphas,</hi> that hée may vtter
at one breath, both a blasphemie, and a pro<g ref="char:EOLunhyphen"/>phesie,
as that Iewish <hi>Caiphas</hi> did, but al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>beit
hée were able to prooue, that hée sitteth
in Peters chaire, aswell as the other could
prooue, that he sate in <hi>Aarons</hi> chayre, &amp; that
Peters chayre is set vp by God, aboue all
other Bishops chayres, as well as <hi>Aarons</hi>
chayre was set vp aboue all the Iewishe
Priestes stooles: yet shoulde not the Pope
haue greater Priuiledge then the High
Priest had. For the best high Prieste
that euer was of <hi>Aarons</hi> order, might bee
deceiued, and many were Heathenish I<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dolaters,
as <hi>V<gap reason="illegible" resp="#OXF" extent="1 letter">
                     <desc>•</desc>
                  </gap>ias, Menelaus, Alcinus, Iason,</hi>
and other wicked Saduces, as <hi>Annas</hi> and
<hi>Caiphas,</hi> which denied the resurrection and
immortalitie of the soules: Such as Pope
<hi>Iohn</hi> the 2. was, who was conuicted of
that heresie in the Councell of <hi>Constance.</hi>
For such hell houndes our sauiour Christ
prayed not, that their faith might not
faile, nay rather hée saith expressely in the
17. of Iohn, That hée prayeth not for this
worlde, but for those whom his father had
giuen him out of the worlde. Séeing ther<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
a number of Popes, haue been by the
<pb facs="tcp:18255:55"/>
Papists owne confession, children of this
worlde, and not children of light, no true
members of Christe, it is certaine that
hée prayeth not for them, and therefore
whe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> he praied for Peter, he praied not for
all his successours. Yes say the Papistes,
y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> the Church may alwayes haue one that
may confirme or strengthen the weak bre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>thren,
or as though one singular person,
were able to confirme all the brethren in
all places of the worlde, aswell as Peter
was able to strengthe<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> his fellow disciples
at Ierusalem. Beside that the very words
of Christ are plainly directed vnto the per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>son
of Peter, with suche a circumstance,
as cannot agrée to all his successours, ad<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mitting
y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> Bishops of Rome were the on<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly
successours of Peter. And the<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> (saith he)
after thou art conuerted, strengthen thy
brethren. All the Bishops of Rome haue
not denied Christe as Peter did, that they
might bée conuerted: Wherefore it is
spoken singularly vnto Peter in respect
of his fall, that hée shoulde bée conuerted
and by experience of Gods mercie bée bet<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter
able to strengthen his weake brethren
<pb facs="tcp:18255:55"/>
who were in dau<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>ger to fall as déepe as he,
if Gods goodnesse had not vpholden them.
Hether to therfore we haue not found such
assurance of truth in y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> successio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> of Peter,
that we should acknowledge any vndoub<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted
witnesse thereof, beside the holy
Scriptures, which although the Papistes
woulde miserably racke out of all ioynte
and order, to establish the dignitie of their
popedome: yet can they finde nothing
which is not by the onely testimonie and
authorite of Scriptures, prooued to stand
against them. Let vs nowe see what
experience saith, of the failing of Pe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ters
faith in his Successours, and the
certaintie of truth in the determination of
Councels confirmed by the Pope, for the
most of our English papistes, as I said be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore,
acknowledge no councell to bée law<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>full
and frée from error, except if bée con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>firmed
by the Pope: if experience there<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
doe prooue, that Councels and Popes
haue shamefully erred, it is manifest, that
they ought to be no rule of truth vnto chri<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stians,
as they are pretended to deface the
only infallible rule of the holy scriptures.
<pb facs="tcp:18255:56"/>
To prooue the error of the Popes, I will
not beginne w<hi rend="sup">t</hi> 
               <hi>Marcellinus,</hi> which offered
Sacrifice vnto idols, for it will be quickly
answered, that his faith failed of infirmi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tie,
&amp; not of ignorance of the truth, being
ouercome with the terror of persecution,
not beeing deceiued with the error of the
Gentiles. Neither will I stande vpon
the presumptuous censure of <hi>Victor,</hi> who
for difference in a Ceremonie, tooke vpon
him to excommunicate all the Churches
of <hi>Asia,</hi> for which hée was sharpely reproo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ued
by <hi>Irenaeus, Polycrates,</hi> &amp; other as <hi>Eu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sebius</hi>
               <note place="margin">Lib. 5. Cap. 26</note>
testifieth, &amp; by the Bishops of <hi>Asia,</hi>
which countermaunded him in his proud
and vncharitable excommunication. I am
able to iustifie my terme of countermaun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ding,
<gap reason="foreign">
                  <desc>〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉</desc>
               </gap>.
They did countermaund him (saith <hi>Euse<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>bius.)
Victor</hi> commaunded them to al stain
from the Communion, and they on the
contrary side commaunded him to be qui<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>et.
By which is manifest that the bishops
of Rome, vsurped authoritie, was resisted
euen in the first claime and practise of it.
For as I declared before, <hi>Anicetus</hi> dissen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ting
from <hi>Polycarpus</hi> in the same question,
<pb facs="tcp:18255:56"/>
offered him no discourtesie, but brotherly
did communicate with him, yea permit<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted
him his place to celebrate for honors
sake. well although the error of <hi>Victor</hi> is
héere reproued by <hi>Irenaeus</hi> and many other
holy Bishops, yet I will not vrge it, be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cause
they will say, it was an error in dis<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cipline,
rather then in faith, although it
was such an error in discipline, as gaue
the onset to one of the greatest errors of y<hi rend="sup">e</hi>
pope, I meane his supremacie: which then
was reiected and countermaunded of all
sides.</p>
            <p>Therefore I will come to Pope <hi>Libe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rius,</hi>
who at the first manfully resisted the
<hi>Arrians,</hi> insomuch that for his constancie,
hée was by the Emperor <hi>Constantius</hi> put
out of his Bishopricke, and driuen into
banishment: But afterward being ouer<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>come
with tediousnes of banishment, and
seduced by one <hi>Fortunatianus</hi> as <hi>S. Hierome</hi>
affirmeth, he subscribed to the <hi>Arrian</hi> here<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sie,
and was restored to his See at Rome,
from whence he chased <hi>Foelix</hi> that occupi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ed
the place in his absence.</p>
            <p>Thus haue you a Pope deniyng the e<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ternal
diuinitie of our sauiour Christ con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>uicted
<pb facs="tcp:18255:57"/>
of heresie, by y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> testimonie of <hi>Hiero<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nime,</hi>
one that liued in the same Churche,
not long after.</p>
            <p>Héere the Papistes stampe and starcle,
denying the testimonie of <hi>Hieronyme</hi> as
sufficient. Yet thus muche at least is
gayned that <hi>Hieronyme</hi> beleeued not this
Popishe principle, The Pope cannot
erre, for then hee woulde not haue affir<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>med,<note place="margin">In Catalog. 5. Cap.</note>
that Pope <hi>Liberius</hi> subscribed vnto
hereise. But yf <hi>Hieronyme</hi> alone bée not
sufficient, what say you to <hi>Anthanasius?</hi>
Is hée a credible witnesse? Hée liued
in the time of <hi>Liberius</hi> and knewe him,
hee affirmeth the same of him.</p>
            <p>But if <hi>Athanasius</hi> bée not great e<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nough
to carry away the matter, what
say you to Pope <hi>Damasus</hi> one of his succes<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sours,<note place="margin">Inpatifi.</note>
coulde hée erre or no? Uerily
Pope <hi>Damasus</hi> chargeth him with reuol<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ting
vnto heresie, saying, That hée
subscribed, but yet hee was not rebap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tised,
and entred into Rome like a Con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>querour,
holding councell with the he<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>retikes.</p>
            <p>I knowe the impudent Papistes
<pb facs="tcp:18255:57"/>
when they are driuen to the wall by this
example of <hi>Liberius,</hi> for their last re<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fuge,
doe say that hee subscribed in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>deede
to the condemnation of <hi>Athanasi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>us,</hi>
but not to the Heresie of <hi>Arries,</hi>
which is a shamelesse lye, <hi>Ad subscriptio<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>onem
Haereseos,</hi> to the subscription of
heresies saith Saint <hi>Hierome.</hi> The like
dothe both <hi>Athanasius</hi> and <hi>Damasus</hi> af<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>firme.</p>
            <p>Therefore wée haue founde one
Pope falne into a damnable errour. After
him wée finde, that Pope <hi>Innocentius</hi>
erred, although not in so waightie a
matter. For <hi>Innocentius</hi> defined a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gainst
the <hi>Pelagians,</hi> that it was as
necessary for infantes to eate the fleshe
of Christe and drinke his blood in the
Communion, as to bee Baptised.
As testifieth of him Saint <hi>Augustine,</hi>
               <note place="margin">Contra. <gap reason="illegible" resp="#OXF" extent="1 word">
                     <desc>〈◊〉</desc>
                  </gap> lib. 1. Cap. 2.</note>
saying: <hi>Qui parvulis definiuit &amp;c.</hi>
Whiche hath defined, that little chil<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dren
can by no meanes haue life except
they eate the fleshe of the Sonne of
Man.</p>
            <p>
               <pb facs="tcp:18255:58"/>
Some Papistes cauill, that although the
Pope may erre, yet hée cannot erre in his
definitiue sentence. Beholde <hi>Augustine</hi>
saith, that <hi>Innocentius</hi> hath héere desined of
this matter, and yet it is an error, which
the Papistes them selues doe not holde at
this day. And yet <hi>Augustine</hi> affirmeth
that this was the errour of all the We<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sterne
Churches in his time.</p>
            <p>But if any man thinke Saint <hi>Augu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stine</hi>
no sufficient witnesse, to depose a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gainst
Pope <hi>Innocentius,</hi> let him take
paines to reade the Epistle of Pope <hi>Inno<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cent</hi>
himself, sent vnto the Bishop of <hi>Africa</hi>
assembled in councell. Where y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> words of
<hi>Augustine</hi> cited out of him, are plainely set
downe. But héere I knowe the vaine
replie of the Papistes, will bée readie to
obiect, that Pope <hi>Innocent</hi> and <hi>Augustine,</hi>
with the rest of the Catholike Bishops in
that time, did practise in déede to minister
the communion to infantes, as soone as
they were baptised, but that was no error
so long as they did not hold it to bée neces<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sary
for infants to receiue the Communi<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>on.</p>
            <p>Thus they graunt the practise, and denie
<pb facs="tcp:18255:58"/>
the errour, eyther in the opinion or in
the practise of those times.</p>
            <p>But if they were not so impudent,
y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> they had framed their foreheads not to
blushe at any lye, they woulde neuer a<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gainst
so cléere testimonies both of <hi>Augu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stine</hi>
and <hi>Innocentius,</hi> séeke to excuse them
of that opinion, which they doe so willing<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly
maintaine.</p>
            <p>The <hi>Pelagians</hi> denied that Baptisme
was necessary for the saluation of infants
whcih they said were without sinne: both
<hi>Augustine</hi> and <hi>Innocentius</hi> prooue the neces<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sitie
of Baptisme, by the necessitie of com<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>municating,
which may bot be graunted
to any that is not Baptized. Therefore,
saith <hi>Innocentius</hi> in his diffinitiue Epistle
to the <hi>Affricane</hi> Bishops. <hi>Illud vero
quod eos vestra fraternitas asserit praedicare,
paruulos aeternae vitaepraemiis etiam sine bap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tismatis
gratia posse donari, perfatuum est
&amp;c.</hi> But that thing which your brother<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>hood
affirmeth them to preach, that young
children may obteine the rewards of eter<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nall
life, euen without the grace of Bap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tisme,
it is a very foolishe thing. For ex<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cept
they shall eate the fleshe of the Sonne
<pb facs="tcp:18255:59"/>
of man and drink his blood, they shall haue
no life in themselues. But they whiche
defende this vnto them: without regene<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ration,
seeme to mée that they will make
fustrate Baptisme it selfe: Beholde saith
<hi>Augustine</hi> vpon these wordes, Pope <hi>Inno<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cent</hi>
               <note place="margin">Contra. du. Epist. Pelag. lib. 2. Cap. 4.</note>
of blessed memory (euery Bishop was
called <hi>Papa</hi> in his time) saith, that little
children cannot haue life, without the
baptisme of Christ, and without the par<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ticipation
of the body and blood of Christ.
By which saying you sée they affirme as
well the necessitie of the one Sacrament
as of the other. For what other thing
mooued them to giue the Communion to
infants, but because they thought it neces<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sary
to saluation, while they missevnder<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stoode
those wordes of Christ in the sixt of
Iohn, as though they had béene spoken of
Sacramentall eating of Christes body,
as they did the other in the third of Iohn
as though Chirst had spoken of the sacra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ment
of Baptisme, whiche hee saith of the
necessitie of regeneration.</p>
            <p>Furthermore where the Papists are
inforced to affirme, that it was not erro<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nious,
<pb facs="tcp:18255:59"/>
but a laweful practise, to minister
the Communion to infants, as to baptise
them, although the one bée not so necessa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ry
as the other, the plaine doctrine of the
Scripture doth confute them.<note place="margin">1. Cor. 11.</note> For S.
Paule forbiddeth any man or woman, to
presume to the Lordes Table without
examination and iudging of themselues,
which thinges because infantes cannot
performe, it can be none other, but a méere
prophanation of the Lordes Supper, to
minister it vnto young infants, euen as it
was of them which ministred it vnto dead
bodies vpon the same erronious persuasio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
of the necessitie thereof vnto eternall life.
And whereas the blinde Cardinall <hi>Hosius</hi>
affrmeth, that infants may aswell exa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mine
themselues by other men as in bap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tisme
they beléeue by other men, and ther<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
by the Churches authoritie without
grounde of Scripture, are baptized. I
answere, if wee had not better grounde of
Scripture, then either the authoritie, or
reason of the Popishe Churche, for the
baptisme of infants, wée woulde not pra<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ctise
if any more then we doe minister the
<pb facs="tcp:18255:60"/>
Communion to infants. But wée baptise
them not for the faith of other me<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>, but for
the couenant of God which exte<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>deth euen
to the séede of the faithfull, so that there
children are holy and not vncleane, as the
children of Paganes and Infidels, as we
sée by manifest Analogie and proportion,
that the Sacrament of baptisme, hath vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>to
the Sacrament of Circumcision, which
was the Sacrament of regeneration, vn<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>to
the Iewes, as baptisme is vnto vs, and
was commaunded to bée ministred vnto
infants, therefore the Sacrament of bap<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tisme
is likewise commaunded vnot in<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fants.</p>
            <p>Also by Analogie which the Lords Sup<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>per
hath vnto the Pascall lambe, wée doe
plainely perceiue, that it ought not to bée
ministred vnto infants. For in the insti<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tution
of the Sacrament of Passeouer,
the Parents were commaunded to teache
their children the right vse thereof, beside
that many things were to bée doone in the
celebration of it, as it was first instituted,
which coulde not bée doone of infants, as
to eate in standing, with staues in their
handes, yea the meate it selfe which was
<pb facs="tcp:18255:60"/>
rosted flesh with sowre or bitter hearbes,
and vnleauened bread, colde not bée eaten
of young infants, therefore neither the
Lordes Supper which is succéeded in the
place of the Passeouer, ought to bee mini<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stred
to infants. It was therefore an
errour in <hi>Innocentius</hi> and the Church of y<hi rend="sup">t</hi>
time, to thinke it lawefull for infants to
communicate, although they had not
thought it necessary: as I haue plainely
prooued that they thought both: and ther<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>fore
erred in both points. But this you
will say was no damnable heresie. I
will therefore leaue <hi>Innocentius</hi> and come
to Pope <hi>Honorius,</hi> which was condemned
in the sixt generall Councell, holden at
<hi>Constantinople</hi> for defending the heresie of
the <hi>Monochelites,</hi> which affirmed that our
Sauiour Christ had but one will as God,
which was all one in effect, as if they had
denied him to consist of two natures, for
if hée had an humane nature hée must al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>so
haue an humane will, though alwayes
subiect to his diuine will, as is prooued
plainely by many places of the scriptures.
This heresie did pope <hi>Honorius</hi> hold while
<pb facs="tcp:18255:61"/>
hée liued, as was prooued by his owne
writings vnto <hi>Sergius</hi> Bishop of <hi>Constan<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tinople,</hi>
so that both the Popes of both the
Romes (for <hi>Co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>sta<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>tinople,</hi> was called new
Rome) were at once infected with that
horrible heresie, and therefore they were
condemned by that councell and accursed.
The like censure is thundred against him
in the second of <hi>Nice.</hi> What can you nowe
say, why the Pope shoulde not bée burned
for an Heretike? Peraduenture you
will say, those Councels were not confir<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>med,
by the Pope, yes verily, the one by
<hi>Leo</hi> the seconde, the other by Pope <hi>Adrian</hi>
the first, yet saith one, you cannot prooue
that any Pope although hee erred himself
went about to seduce other, or to chaunge
the auncient Catholike faith, which was
alwayes helde in the Churche of Rome,
yes that I can. And that by suche a wit<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nesse,
as you may not refuse. For I will
bring foorth no lesse witnesse, then Pope
<hi>Leo</hi> the second himselfe, which in his Sy<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nodall
Epistle, by which hée confirmeth
the decrées of the sixt Councell of <hi>Constan<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tinople,</hi>
as you may reade in the 18. actio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> of
<pb facs="tcp:18255:61"/>
that Councell, hath these wordes. <q>
                  <hi>Pari<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ter<expan>
                        <am>
                           <g ref="char:abque"/>
                        </am>
                        <ex>que</ex>
                     </expan>
anathematizamus noui erroris inuen<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tores.
Nec non &amp; Honorium qui hanc
Apostolicam sedem, non Apostolicae tradn io<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nis
doctrina lustrauit, sed prophana proditio<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>one
immaculatam fidem subuertere conatus
est?</hi> Likewise (saith hée) wée doe accurse
the inuentors of the newe errour (and so
nameth a number of heretikes) and also
<hi>Honorius,</hi> which did not lighten this Apo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stolike
Churche, with the doctrine of A<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>postolike
tradition, but went aboute to
subuert the immaculat faith by prophane
Treason.</q> Beholde the Pope condem<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>neth
and accurseth the Pope, for an here<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tike:
and yet men are not ashamed to af<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>firme
in these dayes, that the Pope can<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>not
erre. The Pope condemneth the
Pope, for labouring to subuert the fayth,
of the Churche, with hereticall treason:
and yet the Papistes nowe a dayes, for a
miserable shift, say, that the Pope al<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>though
hée might himselfe bée deceiued, yet
cannot attempt any alteratio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> in the faith
of the Church. Well, to be briefe I will o<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>mit
Pope <hi>Vigillius</hi> which was priuily an
<hi>Eurichian,</hi> as <hi>Liberatus</hi> chargeth him, by an
<pb facs="tcp:18255:62"/>
Epistle that hee write to the heretikes at
the instinct of the Empresse which fauou<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>red
them: hée was also condemned and
accursed by Pope <hi>Syluerius.</hi> I will come
to the councell of <hi>Constance,</hi> at which time
there were no lesse then thrée Popes at
once. Iohn the 23. of some called 24. <hi>Gre<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>gory</hi>
the 12. and <hi>Benner</hi> the 13. All which
by authoritie of the Councell being depo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sed,
a Decrée or Canon was made, decla<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ring
that the generall councell was aboue
the Pope, &amp; that the Pope may erre, but y<hi rend="sup">t</hi>
the generall Councell cannot erre. In this
councell Pope <hi>Iohn,</hi> among other horrible
crimes was conuicted &amp; condemned for an
heretike, of y<hi rend="sup">•</hi> sect of the Saduces, because
he denied the resurrection of the dead, and
immortalitie of y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> soule, as it is to be séene
in the 11. Session of y<hi rend="sup">e</hi> Councell. This de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>crée
and condemnation of the Pope, and
Popes was then counted Catholike. But
what saith the Popish Catholikes of our
time? There wanted the approbation of
the Pope. No forsooth, for <hi>Iohn</hi> the 23. the
person condemned, who of the Councell
of <hi>Constance</hi> was taken for the right
Pope, because the other were deposed
<pb facs="tcp:18255:62"/>
before in a counsell holden at <hi>Pise,</hi> by all
the Cardinalles, although they would not
yéeld vnto it, nor leaue their papacy: Pope
Iohn I say, in the next Session, acknow<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ledged
that the Councel of <hi>Constance</hi> was
a most holie Councell, affirming that it
could not erre. But least this approba<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tion
might be thought to be extorted by
feare, because hée was imprisoned or of
hope that hee might be restored and confir<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>med
in his papacy: there wanteth not a
more authenticall approbation of Pope
<hi>Martine</hi> the fifte, who in the ende of the
Counsell, and before the dissolution ther<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>of,
solemnely approoued all thinges decréed
in that Councell <hi>Conciliariter,</hi> that is, in
the forme of a Councell: and in his Bull
charged all persons suspected of heresie, to
be examined vpon this interogatory, whe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ther
they did acknowledge that the gene<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rall
Councell coulde not erre, &amp; whether
they did acknowledge the Councel of <hi>Co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
                  <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stance</hi>
to be such a Councell as coulde not
erre, which Councell decreed, that the
Pope was inferiour to the Councell, and
condemned the Pope for errour. Thus
the Pope him selfe confesseth, that the
<pb facs="tcp:18255:63"/>
Pope may erre, and the Councell confir<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>med
by the Pope, decreeth the same. And
not one Councell only. But the generall
Councell of <hi>Basill,</hi> made euen the same
Cannon and decrée of the Councels supe<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rioritie
aboue the Pope. Then belyke it
will be cleare, that although the Pope bée
not alwayes a certaine witnesse of truth,
yet the general Councell can not erre. No
surely, wée are neuer the neare of certain<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tie
of truth, in the generall Councels de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>termination:
For at the same time, that
the Councell of <hi>Basill,</hi> was held in <hi>Ger<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>many,</hi>
the Councell of <hi>Ferraria</hi> and <hi>Flo<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>rentia,</hi>
was held in <hi>Italy,</hi> that was of the
cleane contrarie iudgement concerning
the Popes superioritie to that of <hi>Basill</hi> and
<hi>Constance.</hi> But it will be obiected, that
the Councell of <hi>Basill</hi> lacked the Popes
confirmation. No truely, for although I
might alledge the confirmation of Pope
<hi>Foelix,</hi> whiche was chosen by the same
Councell after they had deposed <hi>Eugeni<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>us</hi>
for his contumacy, &amp; the Bull of Pope
<hi>Nicholas</hi> the fift, which succéeded Pope
<hi>Eugenius,</hi> and confirmeth all thinges de<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>creed
in the Councell of <hi>Basill,</hi> yet I will
<pb facs="tcp:18255:63"/>
stande vpon the very same <hi>Eugenius</hi> the
fourth, which gathered &amp; held the Coun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cell
of <hi>Ferraria</hi> and <hi>Florentia</hi> against the
Councell of <hi>Basill.</hi> For euen the same <hi>Eu<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>genius,</hi>
after he had in thrée solemne Buls,
in which hée complayned that the Coun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cell
of <hi>Basill</hi> vsurped authoritie aboue the
Pope, decreed the dissolution of the same,
condemning all the doings thereof: at the
length, was compelled to reuoke his own
Bulles, and to declare, that the Councell
was lawfully co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>tinued, notwithstanding
his Bulles and decrees to the contrarie.
His Bull of reuocation is to be seene in
the 16. Session of the Councell of <hi>Basill.</hi>
Beside this, in the nexte Session, hée was
sworne by his legates, when they were
incorporated into the Councell, to defende
that Councell, and by especiall wordes, to
defend the decrée of the Councell of <hi>Con<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stance,</hi>
made in the fourth Session therof:
by which, the Councell is decreed to bée
aboue the Pope, and the Pope bounde to
obey the Councell, and the decrées therof.
Last of all, by his Presidentes, hée accep<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ted
such presidency of the Councell, as the
councell would graunt, which was with<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>out
<pb facs="tcp:18255:64"/>
all iurisdiction of compulsion, béeing
him selfe compelled to retaine that order
of proceeding, with the councell before
his presidency was admitted, had obser<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ued
and woulde not change: now that
they were content to make him in his
legates there president. What certain<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tie
of truth therefore may bee looked for
in the determinations of Popes and ge<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>nerall
councelles, you may easily per<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ceiue.
You haue heard the cou<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>cell against
the pope, and the pope against the Coun<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cell,
Councell against Councell, one pope
against another pope, and the same pope
against himselfe, and all this is one que<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>stion,
whether the pope or the generall
Councell ought to bée taken as an infalli<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ble
rule of truth, that cannot erre. Out of
which contrarie decréees, no other certain<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>tie
can bée concluded, but y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> it is certaine
they may both erre, and therfore it is eui<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>dent,
that there is none other certaine and
vndoubted recorde, of the worde of truth,
but onely the newe Testament and the
olde, the holy Canonicall bookes of the ho<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ly
Scriptues, as it were easie to confirme
euen by the iudgement of the most aunci<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ent
<pb facs="tcp:18255:64"/>
and best approoued Fathers, but that
I haue alreadie helde you so long, as I
may not procéede any further. After
the sufficiencie of the holy Scriptures to
teach vs al truth, being thus maintained,
and the obiections made by the aduersa<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>ries
co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>futed: I had thought to haue added
an other discourse, concerning the right &amp;
certain way of interpretation and vnder<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>standing
of the holy Scriptures, but be<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>cause
the time is so far spent, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> I shall not
be able to go through it, I will altogether
omitt it, desiring God of his infinite
mercy, that as hee hath testified by his
sonne our sauiour Christ Iesus, y<hi rend="sup">t</hi> we can
haue no accesse vnto his Maiestie, with<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>out
sanctificatio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g> in the word of truth: so it
would please him by his holy spirit, to co<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
               <g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>secrate
&amp; dedicate vs wholy vnto his plea<g ref="char:EOLhyphen"/>sure,
that following the infallible rule of
truth described in his holy word, we may
glorifie his name in this life, and after be
partakers of eternall felicitie, purchased
vnto vs by the only merites of our Lord &amp;
Sauiour Iesus Christ, vnto whome with
the father &amp; the holy Ghoste, one eternall
God, be al honor, glory, power, &amp; dominio<g ref="char:cmbAbbrStroke">̄</g>
now and euer. Amen.</p>
         </div>
      </body>
      <back>
         <div type="colophon">
            <p>
               <pb facs="tcp:18255:65"/>
¶<hi>Imprinted at London at</hi>
the three Cranes in the Vintree, by
<hi>Thomas Dawson, for George</hi>
Bishop. 1581.</p>
            <pb facs="tcp:18255:65"/>
         </div>
      </back>
   </text>
</TEI>