that have been borne of Adam it may be said which humbly and truly sayeth he David sayeth of himselfe I was shapen in iniquity and in sinne did my mother conceive me and therefore in the same place he calleth the feast of her conception without sin a presumptious noveltie the mother of rashnes the sister of superstition and daughter of inconstancie whosoever denyeth that all others without exception except Christ are conceived in sin he is found sayeth Augustin lib. 5. conâ— Iulian. cap. 9. to be a detestable heretick because herby as Salmeron testifies in Rom. 5. disp 49. Aquinas sayeth that this were to equal the virgin Mary with Christ himselfe And yet notwithstanding of so cleare a place of scripture so unanimously expounded by all the ancient fathers which Billarmin Salmeron calleth a sure inevitable argument of catholick verity and soundexposition of scripture Yet for al this sayeth Bellarmin coÌ„tradicting himselfe lib. 4. de amissa gratia cap. 15. § ab hac seing the Councell of Trent hath decreed the contrary as likewise Pope Sextus 4. and Pius 5. they are not to be accounted catholicks that esteemes this an errour and consequently all the ancient fathers are not to be accounted Catholicks nor Cardinal Cajetan bishop Canus nor ther master of sentences and canonized Aquinas and many more besides VVee see then howsoever they pretend traditioÌ„ or the unanimous consent of fathers to be the rule of faith or exposition of the scripture yet when they please and findeth the same displeasing to them they vilyfie and rejects the same therefore thus sayeth the Iesuit Valentia in the last chapter of the 5. booke of his analysis that any by gone tradition without the authority of the present Church is not a sufficient â—udge â—f controversies of faith So also speakes Cardinall Cajetan in the begining of his comentars on Genesis as also Baronius tom 1. annal anno 34. num 213. And if we will consider what certainty or rather what fluctuating uncertantie is in the moderne sense or exposition that the present Roman Church now puts upon scripture whereon to build their faith Let Cardinall Cusanus words testyfie epist 2. ad Bohemos pag. 833. and 838. who sayeth That one time the Church iuterprets the Scripture one way and at another tyme another way and that the understanding of the scripture must follow her practise when she changeth her judgement God also changeth his then which I know not what can be grearer blasphemy Next for answere to that testimonie which he brings out of Tertullian where he sayth we admit not our Adversaries to dispute out of scripture till thy can show who their ancessors were and from whom they received thâ— scriptures These words of Tertullian makes no wayes against us whereby he denieth not that the scripture is the rule of faith or of disputes concerning the same as he showeth against hermogenes cap. 22. saying let these of Hermogenes shop show that it is written and if it be not written let them feare that woe which is allotted to such as adde or take away but he showeth only that Apostolicall churches not Rome only which were founded by them and to that time had keeped the truth which they had delivered in the scriptures committed to them could only lay best claym to them which hereticks who dissented from these scriptures and apostolical churches of these primitive times could not do As for Ireneus whom only he citeth but not his words he hath nothing in that place that favoureth tradition as an unwritten rule of faith for so he should not agree with himselfe who sayeth lib. 3. cap. 2. that these things which are to be shown in the scriptures can not be made manifest but by the scriptures themselves and lib. 3. cap. 1. That the scriptures is that which is the foundation and pillar of our faith and not tradition or any unwritten rule Tertullian also that he is of the same mynd I have shown out of the forâ—cited testimonie concerning Hermogenes and who in that same 22. Chapter sayeth that he adoreth the fullnes of scripture Chrisostome also hom 3. in 2. cor calles it a most exact rule and ballance which it could not be if either it wer A partiall rule onely as Bellarmin calleth it or that tradition were the rule of faith Aâ—gustin also de bono viduitatis cap 1. calleth it a fixed and sure rule in opposition as it were to unsure tradition Yea Bellarmin himselfe lib. 1. de verbo cap. 2. haveing showne that the rule of our faith should have these two properties first that it should be most sure which tradition can not be luke 1. 4. 2. pet 1. 19. and 2. most known he concludeth that the scripture is the most sure and best knowne rule both of faith and manners But what shall I speake of a Cardinall when a Pope to wit Clement in his first booke of recognitions cited dist 37. cap. relatum calleth the scripture a firm and sound rule of faith Basill also hom 13. in Genesis sayeth thes things which may seem to be ambiguous and obscure in some places of the holy scripture must be explained by these which elswhere are more plaine and manifest Augustin likewise cont Crescon Lib. 2. cap. 31. speaking of an epistle of Ciprians I am not bound sayeth he to the authority of this epistle because I account not Ciprians writting as canonicall but I examine them by these that are canonicall and that which is agreable in them to the authority of divine scriptures I receive and that which is not agreeable I refuse Heer then we see that Augustin would have the scriptures only to be the rule of faith and of divine authoritie 2 THat in matters of faith we must not relye on the judge-ment of the Church or her Pastours VVHich he sayeth is contrary to Math. 23. 2. Where the jewish people are commanded by Christ To obserue all whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees did bidd theÌ„ obserue not only sayeth hee in some principall matters but in all whatsoever without distinction or limitation For answere to whom I can not admire enough the mans impudencie or ignorance seing First our Saviour himself showeth the contrary where Math. 16. 6. 12. lie biddeth his disciples and others Beware of their leaven which be expoundeth to be their false doctrine 2. The Authour of the ordinarie gloss with whom agreeth Lyra on Deut. 17. 10 sayeth Note that the Lord requireth that whatsoever the Priest doth teach thee according to the Law do thou because otherwise thou art not to obey them Ferus also a spanish Frier and Preacher at Mentz on this place speaketh thus Christ would not that they should receive all the doctrines of the Pharisees sayeth hee but so farre only as they agreed with Gods Law else they should haue admitted all the false glosses which our Saviour refuteth Math. 5. from verse 21. to the end To this also agreeth the Iesuite Maldonat
agreable to their doctrine nor yet was it in the tyme of the primitive Church his words are these It is manifest sayeth he by the doctrine of the Apostle Col. 3. 16. and by the practise of the primitive church that of old the reading of the scripture was permitted to people As for the testimonies of fathers which he bringeth none of them doeth prove his point for 1. in Irenus there is no speach at all to his point or purpose nor tels he in what booke of Origen any such thing is to be found and as to Ambrose testimony which calleth the scripture a sea and depth of propheticall ridles I answer that no man denyeth but that as Gregorie also speaketh in his epistle to Leander it is as a sea and deepe wherein an Elephant may swime as also so shallow wherein a Lamb sayeth he may wade containing both high mysteries for exercising the most learned as also most easie instructions as David speaketh psal 119. 130 To give understanding to the simple Next to Augustins testimony where he sayeth that the things in scripture which he knew not were much more then these which he knew I answer that this showeth onely his humility as the Apostle also professeth that in this life he knew but in part but this neither maketh for proving the obscurity of scripture the contrary whereof he affirmeth in the place forecited de doct Christ lib. 2. cap. 9. not yet maketh it against the peoples reading of scripture whereunto so earnestly he exhorts them Serm. 55. de tempore and as for Gregorie we differ no wayes from him in the place forecited As for S. Dennis testimony as he calleth him where he sayeth that the matter of the scriptures was farre more profound then his wit could reach unto I answere that by nature it is true of all except as David prayes psal 119. 18. The Lord open mens eies that they may understand the wonders of his Law But this proveth not that therefore the scriptures are not to be read or are every where obscure 4. THat apostolicall traditions and ancient customes of the Church not found written in the word are not to be received nor do obleidge us VVHich he sayeth is expresly contrary to 2. Thess 21. 5. where the Apostle biddeth them Hold fast the traditions which they had beene taught whether by word or Epistle and which traditions by word he sayeth are of equall authoritie with what was written if not more because first named I answere Nicephorus and Theodoret on that place showeth that the Apostle speaketh not of divers doctrines of faith some written by him others not written but left to verball tradition but he speaketh of the same doctrines diverslie onely delivered to wit first by word when he was present with them the same thereafter by Epistle being absent from them even as he speaketh Philip. 31. saying To writ the same things to you to wit which he had preached before To me indeed is not greevous but for you it is safe which Bellarmin also confirmeth lib. 4. de verbo cap. 11. while he grants That al things were writen by the Apostles which they preached to the people or which was necessar sayeth he to salvation whence it followeth that what was not written by the Apostle thereafter to the Thessalonians was not taught to them before by word as also what was not written by the Apostles that the same is not necessar to salvation and consequently that uuwritten doctrinall traditions are not necessary to salvation for of such onely is the question and not of any other sort of traditions rituall historicall or explicatory which doeth not derogate from the perfection of scripture The second place which he bringeth is 2. Thess 3. 6. Where the Apostle commands TheÌ„ to withdraw themselves from every brother that walks disorderly and not after the tratradition which they received of him to which I answer that Cardinall Cajetan on the 14. verse showeth that what he calleth tradition in the 6. verse he calleth the same his word by Epistle in the 14. verse and therfore written Aquinas likewise on this 6. verse showeth that the same is meaned by tradition which is meaned 2 Thess 2. 15. which we have already cleared to wit that doctrine which was delyvered both by word and writ by word first and by writ after but the most simple exposition is this sayeth their Estius that the Apostle speaketh in generall of the institution of a Christian life The derection whereof no man can say but is set downe in scripture The third place which he bringeth is 1. Cor. 11. 2. where the Apostle praiseth them that they keeped the traditions which hee had delivered them whereunto I answere that in that text ther is not a word of tradition but as their owne vulgare and Rhemes Translation hath is that they keeped his Precepts where the deceatfulnes of this PaÌ„pleter is to be noted that to seduce the simple when hee pleaseth hee departeth from the vulgare Translation which at other times hee so magnifieth as onlie authentick and doeth idolize As for the testimonie which hee bringeth out of Basil where hee sayeth Some things we have froÌ„ scripture other things from the Apostles both which haue alike force unto godlinessis I answer First that the most learned except against this Booke as corrupted as B. Andrewes showeth opose conâ— Peron p. 9. 2. he speaketh of these that were received froÌ„ the Apostles and not of such as the Romanists theÌ„selves acknowledge not to haue ben taught by the Apostles neither by word nor write as the invocatioÌ„ of saynts is coÌ„fessed to be by their owne Ecksê° Enchird c. 15. many more such 3 he speaketh not of doctrines of faith necessary to salvatioÌ„ all which Bellaer himself granteth to be written l. de verbo c. 11 but of things relating to order decencie in celebration of holy mysteries according to that general rule 1. Cor. 14. 40. the Apostles speech cap. 11. 34. wher he sayth The rest I will set in order wheÌ„ I come wherby he understandeth sayth Estiê° such things as belong to a worthie honest and orderlie celebratioÌ„ of holy mysteries so speaketh also Lombard Aquinas Cajetan and the Iesuite A lapide OF ANCIENT CUSTOMES Next to traditions he would haue the ancieÌ„t customes of the Church equally to be received though hee bringes no proofe froÌ„ scripture or fathers for the same Wherin tho I might answere with Cyprian epist 63. saying we must not taek heed what any hath done before us or hath thought meete to be done but what Christ hath done who is before all men for we must not follow the custome of men sayeth he but the truth of God For as in his 74. ep to Pompeius he sayth Custom without truth is nothing else but inveterate errour As also sayth Basil ep 80. We think it not just that custome which hath prevailed be held for a law or rule of true
another is given the gift of prophecie or interpretation of scripture as also which is contrary to 2. Pet. 1. 20. wher its said That no prophecie of Scripture is of private interpretation as also is contrary to 1. Iohn 4. 1. where the Apostle biddeth Try the spirits whether they bee of God For answere to whom 1. We disclaime any such Assertion as the harmonie of confessions witnesseth and ours in particulare 1581. art 20. And so the places which hee adduceth maketh no wise against us For we put a distinction between a private man a private spirit and of a private man we say that somtimes such a maÌ„ may haue more knowledge of the true meaning of scripture that publick persons as ignorant Bishops such as their owne Stella on Luke 6. p. 184 telleth wer at the late Councell of Trent yea then Popes themselves who pretend infallibilitie of whom their owne Alfonsus à Castro speaketh thus lib. 1. adv heres cap. 4. Seing it is certain that many of them were so unlearned sayeth hee that they were altogether ignorant of the graÌ„mer how could thy then interpret Scripture sayth he But wee say that such knowledge private men haue not from their owne private spirit but from the spirit of God speaking in his word comparing Scripture with Scripture obscurer places with playner and with David psal 119. â—8 using prayer for illumination and such other meanes as conduce to that end and that this is not onely our doctrine but the doctrine also of most famous Romanists wee may see in Panormitan cap. Significasti de electione and in Gerson parte 1. de examinatione doctrinarum who say That one private mans opinion is to be preferred even to the Popes a whole Councell if that private man be moved by better authoritie of the old new Testament the practise wherof Gratian showeth 36. q. 2. c. ultimo That Ierome by authority of the scripture withstood a whole Councell and had his judgement preferred before them as Paphuntius also had done before in the Councell of Nice in the matter of Priests marriage 6. THat Peter's Faith failled VVHich is contrary sayeth hee to Luke 22. 32. where Christ sayeth to PETER I prayed for thee that thy faith faill not To whom I answere first That wee hold no such Assertion contrary to this Text which speaketh of Peters owne particulare saving grace of faith which never failed and not of his infallibilitie of professioÌ„ wherein he failed when after this he denyed his Master 2. If hee would haue Peters infallibilitie to be grounded on these words There is no doubt sayeth their owne Carthusian But he prayed there for all other his Apostles having also said Satan hath desired to vinnow you 3. The exposition of the parisian Doctors as Gerson Almain Alfonsus also à Castro and Pope Adrian the 6. is That in the person of Peter as a figure the Lord prayed for his universall Church as Bellarmin acknowledgeth lib. 4. de pont cap. 3. and therefore it inferreth no more infallibilitie of Peter in particular than it doth of the whole Church in generall and the members therof And giving that it inferreth onlie Peters infallibilitie who was an Apostle and Pen-man of scripture yet it inferres nothing of the popes infallibilitie as his pretended Successour this being personal to him but not transmitted to others His next Testimony that he bringeth is Math. 16. 18. where our Saviour sayeth Thou art Peter and upon this rock I wil build my Church To which I shall answere in their owne Cardinall Cusanus words lib. 2. de coÌ„cord Cath. cap. 13. whoÌ„ Ferus also on this place followeth and both of theÌ„ the streame of ancient Fathers who speaketh thus Tho it was said to Peter upon this rock I will build my Church yet by the rock sayeth he wee understand Christ himself whom he confesseth if Peter were to be understood by this rock as a groundstone of the Church are not the other Apostles according to S. Ierome groundstones sayeth hee His third place of scripture which he bringeth is Math. 23. 2. to which I haue already answered in the second Assertion but cannot passe by this that he matcheth the Pope sitting in Peters Chayre with the Scribes and Pharisees Christs greatest enemies sitting in Moses Chayre and indeed heerein they fitly agree The last place which he bringeth is Iohn 11. 49. where speaking of Caiphas words it is said That hee spake not this of himself but being High-Priest that yeare he prophecied that Jesus should die for the Nation which hee sayeth the High Priest spake-truly-speaking out of Moses Chayre which Christ commanded to be heard and obeyed touching matters of faith To whom I answere first That his alleadged speaking trulie in this point cannot be attribute to the Chaire of Moses nor to him as High-Priest who sate therin for then he had not erred so groslie there-after in it when he pronunced Christ to be a blasphemer But 2. Cardinal Tolet answeres for us clearly saying Remarke that Caiphas sentence in that sense which he conceived it was both wicked and false False because it was neither lawfull nor expedient to kill an innocent maÌ„ for the teÌ„porall safety of a Republick And Wiked because it was against justice to kil an innoceÌ„t thersore Caiphas sayth he sinned most grievouslie therein and all who consented with him Let any then consider how this maketh for the Popes infallibilitie 7 THat the Church can erre and hath erred VVHich he sayeth is expreslie contrary to Isai 59. 21. To which before I answer I will state the question and showe what is trulie to be held of the Churches infallibilitie to wit as their owne Cardinall Turrecremata in his summa de Ecclesia lib. 2. cap. 91. declareth saying That the Church cannot erre is so to be taken that GOD doth so assist her even to the the end of the World that there are ever some albeit not all who haue true faith which worketh by charitie and who holdeth the true profession thereof As were the 7000. in Israel who had not bowed their knee to Baal and the few orthodox when as Lyrnensis speakeh The whole world groaned and wondred that it was become Arrian But when the papists speak of the Churches infallibilitie they understand not the universal church but the Roman and westerne part thereof Next they distinguish the Roman Church into the Collective Church which is the whole number of Teachers and professours And into the Representative which is Bishops and others assembled in a generall Councell And thirdlie into the Virtuall Church which they call the Pope and to whom onlie in end they ascribe infallibilitie as Bellarmin teacheth lib. 4. de pont cap. 2. and 3. And with him Suarez Valentia and others Now to come to the places of scripture which he adduces First I answere to them generallie that none of them proveth the Popes infallibilitie to whom only they ascribe the same 2. I answere to
That God was sitting on a Throne and Dan. 7. 9. whose garments were whyte as snowe the haire of his head like pure wool Whence hee gathereth that as hee was seene therefore he may be â—o pictured To which I answer That it followeth not for before that time he appeared to Moses in the bush in the forme of fire and yet their own Richeom tract 3. c. 9. saith To picture him so wer to favour the pagaÌ„s who worshiped the fire so may we say that to picture God as an old man as the papists do is to favour hereticks called the Anthropomorphits who made him to haue the shape and members of a man Therfore Augustin de fide symbolo cap. 7. giveth this reasone why it is not lawful to any Christian to make any such image Lest we fall into the same sacrileâ—ge saieth he whereby the Apostle maketh them execrable who turne the glorie of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a corruptible man Rom. 1. 23. 51 THat blessing or signing with the signe of the Crosse is not founded on holie scripture VVHich he saieth is contrarie to Revel 7. 3. Where it is said Hurt not the earth nor the sea nor the trees till I haue sealed the servants of GOD in the foreheads To which I answere 1. That there is no word heere of signing farre lesse with the signe of the Crosse but as the originall hath of sealing and what this sealing is is exprest 2. Tim. 2. 19. The foundation of the Lord standeth sure having this seale the Lord knoweth them that are his let every one that nameth the Name of Christ depart from iniquitie So that it is sanctification departing from iniquititie which manifesteth their election that such ar the Lords 2. If this were the signing with the signe of the Crosse then none that did signe themselves so would perish for none of these that were sealed heere did perish The other two places Mark 10. 16. Luke 24. 50. which speaketh onlie of Christ and his disciples their blessing of Children maketh no mention of any signing them with the signe of the Crosse but onlie of blessing them And so are alleadged unto no purpose As for Fathers he setteth downe none of their words Therfore wee passe by theÌ„ yet with this answer that none of them proves his point 52 THat the publick service of the Church ought to be said a language that al the people may unstand VVHich he sayeth is contrarie to Luke 1. 8. where it is said That Zacharte was burning incense in the temple the whole people were praying without where sayeth he hee being within and the people without then how did they understand him To which I answer 1. There is no word of his speaking words to be understood but of burning incense for he was strickeÌ„ dumb 2. He being within and the people without it was not marvell that they did not understand in what language he had spokeÌ„ wheras the question is Whither that divine service which is performed in the sight audience of the people which should be to edification according to 1. Cor. 14. should be in a language unknown to the people which is against the Apostles directioÌ„ for saith CajetaÌ„ on that place out of this doctrine of Paul it is gathered sayeth he That it is better for edifying of the Church that publick prayers which are said in the peoples hearing be said in the vulgar tongue known to the people Clergie nor in latine or an unknoweÌ„ language And that this was the practise of the primtive Church Aquinas on 1. cor 14. granteth as also saith their own Lyra. In the primitive church thanksgivings and all other common service was performed sayth he in the vulgar tongue The second place is Levit. 16. 17. wher it is said That there shall be no man in the tabernicle of the Congregation when he goeth in to make an attoniment in the holie place till he to wit the High-priest come out again Which maketh no more to prove that publick divine service before the people should be done in an unknowne tongue to them then it proveth Rome to be in Vtopia For 1. This place speaketh onlie of the High-priests entrie into the most holie place with blood to make attoniment once onlie a yeare which was an action betweene God and him and no mention of speech in whatsoever language 2. Which was to be performed in that place when ther should be no man in the Tabernacle of the Congregation and therefore private without any assistance or presence of any who might either heare or see him 3. This was a jewish and typicall service abrogat froÌ„ whence to draw this consequence Ergo the publick service of the Church under the gospell ought to be said now in a language that people understands not is as coherent as fire and yâ—e or followeth aswell in Logick as to say that the Authour of this Touch-stone is an Animal Ergo Bos cornutus You may see likewise how impudent and ignorant this man is to alleadge as he doth in his preface and whole Tenour of this Touch-stone To convince us that our doctrine is against the expresse words of our own Bible whereas let any indifferent man judge beside a number of the like impertinencies if these two alleadged places of Luke 1. 8. and Levit. 16. 17. be contradicted any wise by this our assertion That the publick service of the Church ought to be said in a language which all the people may understand FINIS AN Advertisment to the READER IN Respect of that craftie cruell practise even to the dead let be to deceive the living which our Adversaries haue used of late in purging both out of fathers and others their own moderne writters what they find to be against themselves or for witnessing the Truth as their Index expurgatorius showes Lest that the Reader of this my answere to that popish PAMPHLET should light on such purged books as I cite and not finding the words at all orelse far changed as I can instance should think that I had cited them at randon Therefore having the uncorrupted copyes beside me I haue set down with their Names the place where and the time when they wer printed That if the Reader find not the words cited by me or find them altered in a later impression he may know that they haue passed thorow that popish firie purgatorie of bookes ordained at Trent and which indeed is no new trick of the Devill and his supposts but hath ben used by Hereticks of old as Vincentius Lyrinensis testifieth who lived in the yeare 430. And examplifieth the same in Origens works that so by his authoritie hereticks might perswade men of their errours which Origen never knew AND therefore he showeth us that for old and farre spread heresies such as these of poperie are they ar not to be confuted so much by the authoritie of fathers ancient writters in respect by vitiating their bookes they haue stollen out of them what was for trueth what they found to bee against themselves or to use his owne words Eo quod prolixo temporum tractu longae his furandae veritatis patuerit occasio and therefore for confuting such hee sayeth wee must use aut sola scripturarum authoritate orelse with the same the authority of the most ancient and general Councels such as wee see that of the first of Nice for peoples reading of Scripture the lawfululnes of churchmeÌ„s marriage for which that famous Paphnutius so much stood the paritie of patriarchall jurisdiction against papall supremacie which in the three succeeding Councels was also decreed against beside the coÌ„demning of prayer to Angels decreed against in the Councell of Laodicea can 35. and the having of images in Churches let be their adoration condeÌ„ned in the Councell of Eliberis Can. 36. and the like THE NAMES of the Authours whom I cite are A Augustin printed at Paris 1541. Ambrose at Paris 1529. Aquinas at Paris 1529. Alfonsê° a CastrÌ„o at Paris 1534. Arboreus at Paris 1551. B Basil Basileae 1540. Bernard at Paris 1527. Bellarmin Coloniae 1615. C Chrisostome at Paris 1554. Cyprian Lugduni 1537. Carthusian at paris 1536. Cajetan at Paris 1532. Cusanus Basileae 1565. Catharinus Venetiis 1551. D Decretalia Lugduni 1517. DuraÌ„di rationale Lugduni 1515. E Estius at Paris 1616. Erasmê° Antuerpiae 1538 F Fulgentius NuruÌ„bergae 1520. Fasciculus Temporum Coloniae 1479. Ferus at Paris 1559 G Gabr. Biel Lugduni 1517. Gregorius 1. at Paris 1518. Gratian. Lugduni 1517. Georgiê° CassaÌ„der at Paris 1616. H Hieronimus at Paris 1546. Hilarius Basileae 1570. Haymo at Paris 1538. Hugo Cardinalis at Paris 1532. I Ireneus Basileae 1548. Ignatius at Paris 1540. Ianseâ—iê° Muguntiae 1624. L Lyra at Paris 1501. Lombard at paris 1528. Lipomani Catena at Paris 1550. M Mâ—lchiâ—r Canus Coloniae 1605 Missale RomanuÌ„ at Paris 1532. Mercerus at Paris 1563. Maldonat Moguntiae 1624. O Origenes at Paris 1537. P Platina Nurimbergae 1481. Peresius at Paris 1605. Petrus de Aliaco Coloniae 1500. Perusin Perusiae 1608. R Roffensis Londini 1533. Ribera Antuerpiae 1603. S. Sigebert at Paris 1513. Stella Antuerpiae 1608. T Theophylact aâ— Paris 1515. V Vincentius Lyrinensis at Paris 1560. Errata In the Epistle Dedicatory pag. 2. linea ult hands almost for hands almost And To the Reader p. 6. l. 11. Nicen for Nissen p. 13. â—2 Ecuminicall for O Ecumenicall p. 24. l. 11. Doway for Duay p. 33. l. 20. nf for in p. 74. l. 2. Lyrin for Jerome p. 103. l. antepenult Gelasuis for Gelasius p. 220. l. 3. a whol line in the copy omitted the words are these because it feemes to be broken to whoÌ„ it is objected what Ambrose saies that no falshood should be thought to bee in the sacrifice of truth p. 128. l. 3. after the words amongst us is omitted whoÌ„ they call Calvinists l. 19. de ecclesia for de notis ecclesiae p. 132. l. 20. donation for domination p. 272. l. 14. young for youngmaÌ„ p. 180. l. 6. virginitie for virgin p. 191. l. 19. one of for of one p. 353. l. 17. circuÌ„sion for circumcision p. 299. l. 9. wheÌ„ it is taken for when it is not taken