knowne proued by the authority of the Church as by a diuine propounder Neither doe I imagine that the followers or maintainers of this opinion doe intend to affirme that in euery processe of beliefe touching any article it is necessarie that we resolue it lastly to the holy Scripture for I thinke that notwithstanding that which hath beene said if we be asked why we beleeue the whole summe of Christian doctrine or any point thereof we may wel answere because it is reuealed by God And if further we be demaunded how infallibly and diuinely we knowe it to be so reuealed we may answere because it is propounded by the Church Neuerthelesse the first opinion of it selfe is sufficient although this may seeme more exact especially in Schooles Neither doe I or any Catholike affirme the knowledge of these pointes to be neccessary to euery faithful Christian for it is sufficient that they beleeue al such things as are propounded by the Church because they are reueled by God which is done by the helpe of supernatural faith Nay I doe not think it is needful that they expresly knowe this infallible authority of the Church as propounder of such verities or al such prudential motiues as are before mentioned But I deeme it sufficient that they beleeue such reuealed verities as they are bound to knowe expresly and others virtually moued thereunto by the authority of their predecessors or the asseueration of other faithful people for this is sufficieint in them either for the obtaining or preseruing the gift of supernatural faith Let vs now see in few words what solutions may be giuen to the objection made in the beginning of this Section First therfore according to the doctrine of the first opinion touching the last resolution of our faith I answere that in very deed the canonical Scriptures and their true sense are knowne by the infallible authority of the Church as by the propounder of such particuler matters belonging to our faith and religion as we are bound to beleeue Neuerthelesse it is lawful to proue the authority of the Church out of holy Scripture against such aduersaries of the truth as admit the said authority of holy Scripture but deny the authority of the Church So did S. Augustine against the Manichees Aug. cont epist Mā quā vocāt Fundam ca. 4. et 5. Id. de vnitate Eccle. cap. 19. et tract 13. in Ioānem Field book 4. cap. 7. § There is no questiō who approued the authority of miracles and denied the authority of Scriptures proue by miracles the Church and by the Church the Scriptures Contrariwise against the Donatists who allowed the Scriptures and boasting of their visions rejected miracles by Scriptures he proued the Church and by the Church the truth of miracles but that this manner of proceeding is lawful it is granted by Field therfore I need say no more Secondly I answere according to the other opinion that the canonical Scriptures and their true interpretation are infallibly proued knowne by the authority of the Church as by a condition necessarie propōuding them vnto vs but the authority of the Church is proued knowne to be infallible by the testimony of holy Scriptures as by diuine reuelations approuing the said authority And to affirme this as I haue shewed is no more absurd then to say that two causes may be causes of one another Neither doe I think this manner of proofe more to be blamed then the proofe of a cause by the effect and of the effect by the cause as of fire by smoke and of smoke by fire of the bignesse proportion of a mans foote by his steppe in dust or sand and of this againe by that Thus also the Philosophers proue a man reasonable because he is risible or hath power to laugh and againe demonstrate that he hath power to laugh because he is reasonable which kind of argumentation is not called circulation but a demonstratiue regresse Chapter 8. Concerning the second particuler ground of Catholike religion to wit Apostolike Traditions SECTION THE FIRST Of Apostolike Tradition in general THAT I may the better declare the authority and dignity of Apostolike vnwritten Traditions of which I am principallie to intreate in this chapter I thinke it not amisse to say a worde or two of Apostolike Tradition in general and although though I shal repeate some things which haue been already said yet I hope my reader wil pardon me seing that a just occasion of so doing is offered me I haue aboue affirmed Cap. 6. sect 2. that the whole summe or corps of Christian religion was deliuered by Christ to his Apostles not in writing but by word of mouth and that the principal meane for the entire preseruation of it in the Church without corruption or deprauation ordained by God almighty is the continual assistance and direction of the holy Ghost who alwaies remaineth in the Church and directeth her in al truth Of which I now gather that although neuer any scripture of the newe Testament had been written yet that the doctrine of Christ by Tradition had stil remained the selfe same entire and whole in the Church to the end of the world This is so manifest out of that vvhich hath been already said that it needeth no proofe in this place yet I wil repeate a word or two of that and adde a litle more to make it the more apparant I proue it therefore because our blessed Sauiour neuer penned the summe of his doctrine himselfe neither is it recorded that euer he comaunded any one of his Apostles or Disciples in expresse tearmes to write but only to preach and teach according to his owne and the holy Ghost instructions And hence it is that none of the said Apostles or Disciples wrote any parcel of the newe Testament presently after the ascension of Christ and consequently that the whole summe of Christian doctrine was published some time before any such scripture was penned and that the Church of Christ was some yeares without it S. Mathew the first Euangelist Euseb in Chronic. anno 41. published his Gospel as Eusebius recordeth some six yeres after our Sauiours ascension Hence also it proceeded that neuer any one of the Apostles or Disciples vndertooke the setting downe in writing of the whole sūme of Christian doctrine this is manifest because the three first Euangelists deliuered vnto vs very litle touching the diuinity of Christ one of the chiefe and highest misteries of Christian religion Neither had the fourth which was S. Iohn the Apostle any intention to set downe al that the other three had omitted for he wrote his Gospel directly against certaine Heretikes who denied the diuinity of Christ and that not by the commandement of Christ but by the intreaty of the bishops of Asia as a Atha in sinopsi S. Athanasius S. Hipolitus bishop and martir b Epipha haeres 51. S. Epiphanius and c Hieron praefat in Mat. et
judgment I may adde the whole Protestant Church of England who in their sixt article agreed vpon in their conuocations of the yeares 1562. and 1604. affirme that in the name of holy Scripture they vnderstand those Canonical books of the old and newe Testament of whose authority was neuer any doubt in the Church for they seeme to make the authoritie and Tradition of the Church the meane and rule vvhereby to knowe the diuine Scriptures Field booke 4. chap. 14. Yea Field himselfe in another place telleth vs that we cannot knowe the Scriptures to be of God without the knowledge of such principal articles as are contained im the Creed of the Apostles Of vvhich it may seeme laweful to conclude against him that some other thing is necessarie besides diuine inspiration and other motiues aboue by him assigned The Lutherans of Wittenberg confesse the Church to haue authority to judge of doctrines Harmonie of confess sect 10. p. 332. Author of the treatise of the scripture and the church c. 15. p. 72. see also c. 19. p. 74. 75. BulleÌ„ger in the praeface before that booke according to that Try the spirittes whether they be of God Another Protestant in a treatise of the Scripture and the Church highly commended by Bullenger plainely telleth vs that we could not beleeue the Gospel were it not that the Church taught vs and witnessed that this doctrine vvas deliuered by the Apostle and thus much against this opinion But it may be here objected against vs that we also according to the second opinion deliuered in the first part of this treatise concerning the last resolution of our faith allowe a supernatural gift or light by the concourse and help of vvhich vve firmely assent to Christian beliefe as reuealed by God and that therefore there is no cause wherefore we should so earnestly impugne the like assertion in others I answere that there is great difference betweene vs and our aduersaries concerning this point for whereas I haue shewed that they require a particular illumination and immediate instruction from God himselfe concerning euerie particuler booke and sentence of holy Scripture yea touching the exposition of euerie sentence as I vvil declare hereafter and by no prudential groundes or arguments of credibility are ordinarilie induced to this perswasion But seing that diuers of their owne company and those of the principal thinking themselues to be inspired haue erred haue rather according to prudence just cause not to stand vpon such illuminations We assigne the the light of faith for the beliefe of a common guide and general directour and so require not a particuler instruction for the beliefe of this and that particuler matter but hauing beleeued the said general guide of it receiue infallible and diuine instructions what particulerlie is to be beleeued Neither doe vve this vvithout any prudential motiue or credible reason but induced thereunto by most strong arguments of credibility Râ—chardus de S. Victore l. 1. de Trinit cap. 2. insomuch as vve may wel say with Richardus de sansto Victore that If we be deceiued God hath deceiued vs. Neither are vve by this perswaded arrogantlie to followe a priuate rule which is a fountaine of dissention and contrarie to the vsual proceedings of God but humblie to submit our selues and our vnderstanding to the authority of a general guide which is a preseruatiue of vnity and according to the common courses of that heauenlie King But before I passe from this matter I must needes haue a word or two with M. Field in particuler vvho requireth more then humane inducements or motiues as reasons by force whereof we are perswaded first to beleeue Field book 4. chap. 7. 8. and seemeth to require a diuine reason or testimonie conuincing that which is beleeued to be of diuine authoritie and so to impugne the first opinion of Catholikes concerning the last resolution of faith Part 1. chap. 7. sect 6. deliuered in the first part of this treatise For vvhereas the followers of that opinion assigne humane motiues as the first inducements to our beliefe or as causes vvhy we first accept of the same and bring no other external proofe that the misteries of our faith are reuealed by God book 4. chap. 8. § The opinion he exacteth of vs a diuine proofe of this these are his words The opinion of the ordinary Papists is that the things pertaining to our faith are beleeued because God reuealeth and deliuereth them to be so as we are required to beleeue but that we know not that God hath reuealed any such thing but by humane conjecture and probabilities so weake doe they make our faith to be grounded thus Field Concerning which his imputation I must first request my reader if he be any thing moued by these his words to turne to the explication and proofe of the Catholike opinion set downe before in the first part of this treatise Chapt. 7. sect 6. because I thinke it needlesse to repeate one thing twice Secondly I cannot but wish him also to note howe diuersly Field reporteth our opinions for although he plainly here affirme that our ordinary opnion is that the articles of our faith are beleeued because God reuealeth and deliuereth them to be so yet in another place he writeth thus Our aduersaries fal into two dangerous errors the first Booke 4. c. 6. that the authority of the Church is Regula fidei et ratio credendi the rule of our faith and the reason why we beleeue The second is that the Church may make newe articles of faith And like as he himselfe in the words euen now alleaged freeth vs from the first of these dangerous errours Book 4. chap. 12. § Our aduersaries so likewise in another place he freeth vs from the second But as concerning my present purpose out of his aforesaid wordes I gather that if he wil not fal into the same fault for vvhich he blameth vs he must not only assigne such a diuine formal cause of his beliefe concerning euery point as we teach the reuelation of God to be but also adde some diuine proofe prouing this formal reason to be diuine and not only humane probabilities And vvhat such diuine proofe doth he assigne surelie none that I can finde he telleth vs in deed that in some things the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto vs Book 4. chap. 8. § thus theÌ„ and in others the authority of God discerned to speake in the word of faith is the formal cause of their faith or inducing them to beleeue But I finde no diuine proofe no not so much as a wise reason I adde moreouer not so much as a foolish reason brought neither for the one nor for the other nay he expresly telleth vs Book 4. chap. 20. § Much coÌ„tention see also chapt 7. § Thus then Book 4. chap. 7. § Surely See hiÌ„ also § There is c. that The bookes of Scripture winne credit
of his knowledge faithfully rendred the text and in al hard places most sincerely expounded the same But to make this the more euident I adde further that they make the selfe same vvord sometimes to signifie one thing and at other times another thing as it best serueth their purpose For example our English Protestants whensoeuer the Scripture speaketh of euil traditions as Math. 15. vers 6. and in other places Bible 1595. translate the Greeke vvord vvhich signifieth properly a tradition truly as they ought But when mention is of Apostolike traditions they make the selfe same Greeke vvord signifie ordinances instructions Bible 1595. preachings or institutions as 2. Thess vers 15. c. And this they doe to bring traditions into contempt But of such examples see more in the sixt Chapter before Besides this although they vndertake to translate the Hebrewe text of the old testament and the Greeke of the newe yet vvhen the Hebrewe or Greeke maketh against them or not so much for them as the Latin they forsake the Hebrewe and Greeke and followe the Latin I vvil bring an example of both Hieremy 7. vers 18. and chap. 44. ver 19. the said Prophet inueigheth against those that offer sacrifice to strange Gods especially to the Moone And whereas according to the Hebrew they should read in the first place The women kneade the dowe to make cakes to offer to the heauens or planets they followe the Latin and say thus Bible 1595. The women kneade the dowe to make cakes for the Queene of heauen In like sort they proceede in the second place And by this meanes as they imagine they make a strong argument against vs vvho honour our blessed Lady and cal her Queene of heauen although we offer vp no sacrifice vnto her or any other creature In the newe testament whereas the Apostle according to the Greeke text saith only Rom. 8. v. 38 I am probably perswaded that neither death nor life c. shal be able to seperate vs from the charity of God they reade I am sure that neither death Bible 1595. c. And like as after this sort they serue their owne turnes in their translations so doe they also in their expositions of diuers wordes One example I haue touched aboue concerning the vvord Babilon which in S. Peters epistle to hinder the proofe of the said Apostles being at Rome 1. Pet. 5 13. Euseb lib. 2. histor c. 14. Hieron in li. descript Eccles verbo Marcus contrary to Eusebius and S. Hierome they vvil haue signifie the great City called Babilon in Assiria or Caldea contrariwise to make against the honour and dignity of Rome in the * Apocal. 17. vers 19. Bible 1592. Apocalipse they affirme the City of Rome by it to be vnderstood Let vs also consider that it must needes be granted that some of the learned sectaries haue erred in their translations and interpretations of holy Scripture for this is euident because there is but one true vvord of God which according to truth admitteth not opposite interpretations But our aduersaries translations and interpretations be diuers and much different yea repugnant one to another wherefore as I haue shewed they reject one anothers translation and interpretation and also alleage Scripture for their different doctrine They cannot therefore al be consonant to the true word of God vvhich if it be confessed it must needes follow that some of them in these matters haue erred and if some of them haue erred then some of them without al doubt haue not built vpon diuine authority which cannot be the ground of errour but vpon their owne judgement And seing that the warrant which they claime from God of al of them is the same and their ground alike we may wel inferre that none of them build vpon any other more sure foundation Adde vnto this that the selfe same sectaries oftentimes vpon further reading study and knowledge change their translations and interpretations of holy Scripture vvhich is apparent by the diuers editions of the Bibles and other their workes in which Scripture is alleaged and interpreted and of our English sectaries it is granted by the translatour of the Bible printed in the yeare 1585. 1592. and 1600. in the preface of which he confesseth that the former translations required greatly to be perused and reformed I haue also shewed in the sixt chapter that diuers places haue beene corrected and that as yet by the judgement of the best it is faulty of this followeth not seldome a change of belief and a difference from themselues in religion vvhich in the next chapter I vvil proue to haue fallen out in their first Captaines themselues And this is an inuincible argument seing that the Scriptures remaine alwaies the selfe same to proue that they varying build only vpon their owne fancies and are neuer certaine that they haue attained to the truth But this vvil be most apparent to him that shal set before his eies the manner of proceeding of our said learned sectaries in their discourses or disputations vvith their aduersaries For doe they in such conferences admit the text of holy Scripture as a supreame judge of al controuersies concerning matters of religion Surely no for although they seeme to recurre to the holy Scripture and vehemently pleade the word of God and by the authority thereof shewe themselues desirous to haue al difficulties decided yet in very truth it is not so as euery man may vvel judge because the letter of Scripture oftentimes doth not sufficiently interpret it selfe and they wil admit and allowe of no other translation or interpretation but their owne let vs declare this a litle more at large It is not vnknowne that the Catholikes receiue as Canonical the Hebrewe and Greeke text as wel as they and consequently those very places either in Hebrewe Greeke or both vvhich they alleage to establish their doctrine opposite to the beliefe of the Catholike Church Yea the Catholikes attribute more authority to the places alleaged as they are penned in the said tongues and to al bookes vvhich the newe sectaries receiue then they doe and further receiue fiue whole bookes at the least and diuers other parcels of holy Scripture into the Canon which they al commonly reject Wherefore the controuersie is not concerning the authority of the text either in Hebrewe or Greeke whither it be to be beleeued or no but vvhither the Catholikes building in this vpon the authority of the Church Traditions Councels and Fathers haue the true translation and exposition of the text or the Professours of the newe religion vvho alleage no other testimony for themselues then their owne priuate spirit and fancy To make this more euident by an example let vs suppose that a Catholike and a newe Sectary fal into disputation concerning Christs discent into hel The Catholike vsually for proofe of the affirmatiue part bringeth forth that sentence of holie Scripture Thou wilt not leaue
doubtful authority For it is recorded by Ecclesiastical vvriters and also confessed by our aduersaries that there hath beene controuersie and doubt in the Church concerning the authority of the b Euseb li. 3. hist ca. 3. 25. 28. Hier. de viris illust in Paulo Petro c. Hāmer in his notes vpon Eusebius lib. 2. cap. 23. epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrues the epistles of S. Iames S. Iude the second of S. Peter and the second of S. Iohn Howe doubtful the authority of the c Euse l. 3. cap. 28. Hier. epist 129. ad Dardarā Apocalipse was among many euery man may see in S. Hierome and Eusebius and in the Councel of Laodicea which numbred it not among other Canonical bookes And who hath taken vp and ended these controuersies by declaring these parcels of Scripture to be Canonical but our holy mother the Church Verily this is so true and euident that it is confessed euen by some of our d Obseruations vpon the Harmonie of cōfessions vppon the 1. Section aduersaries themselues Thus she receiued in the first general councel of Nice the booke of Iudith about the yeare of our Lord 325. if we beleeue e Hier. praefat in Iud. Idē in prolo Galeato in prol Prouer. in praefat in Iudith S. Hierome who before he heard of this decree of the said Councel rejected the said booke but vnderstanding of it admitted it forthwith as Canonical Let vs confirme al this with the testimony of S. Augustine whome f Caluin li. 4. Instit c. 14. sess 25 Caluin acknowledgeth to be the most faithful witnes of al antiquity g Beza in cap. 3. ad Rom. v. 12. Beza calleth him the prince of al ancient Diuines both Greeke and Latin as concerning dogmatical pointes of religion h Gomarus in speculo verae Ecclesiae pag. 96. Gomarus saith that according to the common opinion he is accounted most pure This then is one of his notable sentences touching this matter i Aug. contra epistol Manichaei quam vocant fundamentum cap. 5. I would not beleeue the Gospel saith he except the authority of the Catholike Church did moue me thereunto Those therefore whome I obeied saying Beleeue ye the Gospel why shal I not obey them saying vnto me Beleeue thou not Manichaeus Choose which thou wilt If thou shalt say beleeue the Catholikes they admonish me that I beleeue not you If thou shalt say beleeue not the Catholikes thou shalt not doe wel to constraine me by the Gospel to beleeue Manichaeus because I haue beleeued the Gospel it selfe through the preaching of the Catholikes Thus S. Augustine But here k Field booke 4. chap. 4. M. Field in his fourth booke of the Church occurreth and saith that the sense and meaning of S. Augustine in those his wordes I would not beleeue the Gospel except the authority of the Church did moue me thereunto is that he had neuer beleeued the Gospel if the authority of the Church had not beene an introduction vnto him I reply that he vvresteth this holy Fathers vvordes to a vvrong sense yea to such a sense as his discourse it selfe wil not beare and for proofe of this I desire no more of my reader but to marke the force of the reason vsed by S. Augustine which is this Manichaeus in the beginning of his epistle which this most learned Doctor confuteth called himselfe an Apostle of Iesus Christ S. Augustine requireth a proofe of his Apostleship and vrgeth if perhaps he alleage some authority out of the Gospel what he would doe to him that should deny the Gospel whereunto he adjoineth the wordes rehearsed I trulie would not beleeue the Gospel c. if the authority of the Church did not moue me thereunto And out of this that the Gospel is beleeued by the authoritie of the Church he proueth that Manichaeus is not to be beleeued because the same authoritie which commaundeth to doe the one forbiddeth to doe the other Of which it followeth that if it erre in the last it may also erre in the first and so no firme argument can be brought out of it for the proofe of the Apostleship of Manichaeus Hence S. Augustine doth not say I had not beleued the Gospel except the authority of the Church had moued me thereunto as he should haue said if he had meant as Field pretendeth but I would not beleeue the Gospel c. taking his argument from the motiue of his present beliefe of the Gospel and in this sence his reason is of great force and not otherwise But that which I say is yet more confirmed by that which followeth For S. Augustine addeth But if peraduenture thou canst finde something in the Gospel most apparant for the Apostleship of Manichaeus thou shalt weaken vnto me the authority of the Catholikes who commaund me that I shal not beleeue thee which being weakned now neither can I beleeue the Gospel because through them I beleeued it So whatsoeuer thou shalt bring me from thence shal be with me of no force wherefore if nothing manifest be found in the Gospel for the Apostleship of Manichaeus I wil beleeue the Catholikes rather then thee But if thou bring any thing from thence manifest for the Apostleship of Manichaeus I wil neither beleeue them nor thee not them because they haue lied to me concerning thee not thee also because thou bringest me forth that Scripture which I beleeued through them whome I haue found liars But God forbid that I should not beleeue the Gospel Hitherto are S. Augustines words by which I thinke euerie man may perceiue how greatly M. Field doth wrong him For we see plainly that he confesseth the authority of the Church to haue beene the cause of his present beliefe of Scripture yet not the formal cause but the conditional as is declared before And al that I haue here related out of this holy Father Aug. tom 6. li. cont Epist quā vocāt fundamenti cap. 5. may be as wel vrged against any Sectarie whatsoeuer of our time as against Manichaeus for whosoeuer affirmeth the Church to haue erred in condemning any one of their Heresies by weakning and ouerthrowing her authoritie weakeneth also and ouerthroweth the authoritie of the whole Bible Neither doth that which he alleageth out of Waldensis make any waies for him for as this learned man plainely in that very place declareth he vnderstandeth S. Augustine as I haue deliuered These are his wordes Waldensis lib. 2. doctrinalis fidei artic 2. ca. 21. Without the authority of the vniuersal Church no scripture can be read or bad for certaine And this S. Augustine vnderstood when he said I would not beleeue the Gospel did not the authority of the Church moue me thereunto Thus Waldensis The point which Field toucheth is in his discourse following but it maketh nothing against vs for he only saith that which I haue before deliuered to wit that by the proposition of
then before and by which our mindes are so diuinely lifted vp and affected as it were by a diuine testimonie that through it farre more strongly then by any humane motiues we are inclined to beleeue and made most firmly to rest in the diuine reuelation and so by this assistance of God together with the concourse of our vnderstanding an act of supernatural faith is produced by which we firmely beleeue the articles of Christian faith taught and propounded by the Catholike Church not for such and such motiues as before proued them credible but for that they are reuealed by almighty God And because one of these articles is that the Church in propounding particuler misteries of our faith cannot erre this also is beleeued among the rest vpon which as a common rule and guide we ground our beliefe as vpon a sure propounder of such thinges as we are bound to beleeue touching euerie other particuler article Hence ariseth a great difference betweene vs and some of the most learned of our aduersaries touching the decision of this question for although we both seeme to admit some supernatural aide light or habite to this that our vnderstanding produce an act of supernatural faith yet we differ much concerning the object of this act as also in the motiues or arguments of credibility which first induce vs to accept of the same For whereas we include in the first act of faith into which we are induced by the said motiues the beliefe of an infallible guide touching al particuler pointes they include no such matter but for their ground and guide in this act beleeued acknowledge only the letter of holy Scripture which verilie although we also in our aforesaid act include yet we giue it no such sole preheminence as is before declared And of this followeth a farre greater difference couching the arguments and proofes of our propounder and ground for whereas althe argumentes of credibility perswading vs that Christian religion is credible perswade vs also that the authority of the propounder of our faith I meane of the Catholike Church according to prudence may be beleeued infalliblie the said arguments are not sufficient in a wise mans judgement setting aside the said authoritie of the Church to make it credible vnto vs that euerie booke and parcel of holy Scripture commonly admitted is canonicall and diuine much lesse that euerie particuler exposition of Scripture by euerie priuate man accepted is diuine true And of this it proceedeth that they alleage no such forcible arguments of credibility for the proofe of this and that booke of Scripture nor for the truth of their interpretation of this and that sentence but for the first vsually flie to diuine illumination only joyned with the majestie of the letter or some such thing vvhich be no such arguments of credibility as I wil proue hereafter Part. 2. Chap. 5. and for the last some of them assigne certaine rules to be obserued vvhich in verie deede are insufficient as shal likewise hereafter be proued Hence they assigne no prudent motiues Ibid. c. 8. which perswade them to concurre with the supernatural helpe of God to a supernatural act of faith 2. Cor. 10. verse 5. Rom. 12. verse 1. Whereas God although he require of men an humble obsequie or obedience to faith yet propoundeth nothing to be beleeued which in the judgement of wise men is not credible and therefore also requireth a reasonable obsequie Verily if there were no other reason to perswade a man the truth of our doctrine this only would suffice that God doth vsually teach al by some common rule or meane which draweth men to vnity and humility not euerie one by priuate illumination or inspiration which is commonlie a motiue to pride and a fountaine of discord But Field vrgeth Field book 4. cap. 7. that by this doctrine we lastly resolue our faith to humane motiues and inducements I answere that concerning this matter two questions may be demaunded very much diuers First what moueth men to accept of the beliefe of such obscure articles as are those of Christian religion vnto which I make this answere that vnto this they are moued by such prudential or humane motiues as I haue assigned before Secondly it may be asked concerning the formal cause of faith it selfe why men now actually beleeue such obscure misteries And vnto this I say that the cause of their present beliefe is the reuelation of God or vvhich is al one the authority of God reuealing And because they are not sufficient of themselues supernaturally to beleeue such articles as so reuealed their vnderstanding is aided and inclined to this by the diuine gift of supernatural faith like as their wil by charity is aided and inclined to any act of supernatural loue which gift of faith together with their vnderstanding as I haue said produceth a supernatural act of beliefe wherfore we assigne not humane inducements as the formal cause but as the cause of the first acceptaunce of our faith and as into the formal cause we lastly resolue our faith into diuine reuelation And so I thinke this opinion sufficiently explicated But before I passe any further Field ibid. § Surely Stapheton in his Triplic contra Whitaker pag. 188. I cannot there but aduertise my reader that Field discoursing of this point wrongeth D. Stapleton very much For whereas he accuseth him as though in his Triplication against Whitaker he should affirme Other matters to be beleeued because contained in the Scripture and the Scripture because it is the word of God and that it is the word of God because the Church deliuereth it so to be and the Church because it is led by the spirit and that it is led by the spirit because it is so contained in the Scripture and the Creed Stapleton in verie deed in this last place hath no mention of the Scripture but of the Creed only True it is that he proueth against Whitaker out of the Scriprture a certaine internal motion of God by which we are moued to assent to this first proposition as he saith of our faith I beleeue the Catholike Church is infallibly gouerned by the holy Ghost and that she is to be heard and her voice obeyed but this is not to say that we beleeue the Church to be led by the spirit because it is so contained in the Scripture I come now to the second opinion Others therefore besides this diuine affection or inclination proceeding from the peculiar assistance of God in the act of faith being desirous also to assigne some other diuine and infallible reason mouing vs to beleeue affirme both that we beleeue the authority of the Church to be infallible because it is so reuealed in holy Scripture and also that we infalliblie knowe the Scriptures to be canonical because as canonical they are propounded vnto vs by the Church Neither doe they as they say in this kinde of proceeding commit anie absurd or vitious
circle because these two thinges are not motiues or reasons of the beliefe of one another after the selfe same manner but in two sundrie respects being so that we yeeld the reason why the Church cannot erre by the Scriptures as by a diuine reuelation approuing it For although we formally beleeue this because it is reuealed by God yet this reuelation vve proue by other reuelations contained in holy Scripture but that the Scripture is canonical although we formallie beleeue because God hath so reuealed yet this reuelation we proue not by any other reuelation but by the authority of the Church as a condition only requisite propounding it infallibly vnto vs. To make this assertion a little more plaine we must presuppose the truth of two propositions commonly held certaine in Philosophy the one is that two causes may for diuers respects be causes of one another so say the Philosophers the efficient cause is the cause of the being or existence the final cause and the final cause of the causality of the efficient For example when a Phisition doth administer phisicke to one that is sicke the final cause or end why he administreth phisicke is the health of the patient and the administring of the phisicke is the efficient cause of the sicke-mans health In like sort when the winde openeth a window it openeth it by entring in and entereth in by opening it so that the efficient cause of the opening the window is the motion of the entrance of the winde and the material cause and meane by which the winde entreth is the opening of the window because vnlesse the window be opened the winde cannot enter in Secondly it is also certaine that a meere condition necessarily requisite is no cause for example wood cannot be burned except it be put neare or in the fire and yet this approximation as I may cal it is not the cause to speake properly why the wood is burnt but a condition necessarie In like sort a lawe doth not binde except it be promulgated and yet the promulgation is not the cause why the law doth binde but a condition c. Now to come to the matter If two causes in some sort may be causes of one another wherefore may not we proue two propositions for diuers respects by one another That these respects be diuers in the proofe of the infallible authority of the Church by Scripture and of Scripture by the infallible authority of the Church it is manifest because the infallible authority of the Church is proued by Scripture as by a diuine reuelation the Scripture by the infallible authority of the church as by a condition requisite and that a cause and a condition be different I haue shewed We say therefore that Christ departing out of this vvorld left the whole summe of Christian doctrine with his holy spouse the Church and made her the infallible propounder of the same And being so that among other articles left this was one that she should not erre in executing her office this also she was to propound and her children by the diuine precept of God were bound to beleeue it Wherefore if in those daies before any Scripture of the new Testament was written a man had asked a Christian why he beleeued the misteries of Christian religion he might truly haue answered because they were reuealed by God If he had beene further demaunded how he knew such and such articles to be reuealed he might haue answered because the Church propounded them to be beleeued so that the cause why he beleeued such misteries was the reuelation of God the meane whereby he knew them infallibly to be reuealed was the propounding of the Church If he had bin vrged further why he beleeued that the Church in propounding such matters could not erre Surely he might haue said that this was before included in the beliefe of the misteries of Christian religion in general and consequently was beleeue because God so reuealed but let vs come to the succeeding ages The Apostles disciples of Christ whiles they liued wrote the holy Scriptures of the new Testament and left them to the Church in which among other misteries they confirmed vnto vs the authority of the Church and the Church propounded the said Scriptures vnto her children as Canonical Now then wherefore beleeue we or how doe we proue the Church cannot erre I answere by the reuelation of God contained in holy Scripture If it be demaunded further howe vve knowe such a reuelation to be diuine I answere not by any other diuine reuelation because this is the last and beleeued for it selfe but by the proposition or propounding of the Church which is only a condition requisite for the beliefe of it and yet a diuine proofe So that the reason or cause why we beleeue the Church cannot erre is the reuelation of God contained in holy Scripture the cause vvhy vve beleeue such a reuelation is no other reuelation but it selfe the meane whereby vve come to knowe that this reuelation is from God is the proposition of the Church wherefore the respects are diuers and also the objects of these assertions The respects because when we assigne the diuine reuelations contained in holy Scripture as the reason of our beliefe concerning the infallible authority of the Church we assigne a reason as it were by the cause of our said beliefe which is diuine reuelation But when assigne the propounding of the Church as that which moueth vs to beleeue the Scripture we assigne not a reason by the cause of this our beliefe which is diuine reuelation but by a conditon infallibly guiding vs as is aforesaide The objects also of these two reasons yeelded of our beliefe are diuers For the object of the diuine reuelations contained in holy Scripture assigned as the reason of our beliefe of the Church are the verities or thinges themselues reuealed and beleeued but the object of the propounding or proposition of the Church requisite for our beliefe of Scripture are the reuelations themselues contained in the saide Scripture For by it we are taught that the Scripture containeth diuine reuelations and is the true word of God And thus much of the second opinion concerning the solution of the question propounded which in truth giueth vs a very good method how to answere the cauils our aduersaries and rather addeth something to the former then is otherwise different from it For the authors following this opinion to this that we beleeue or accept of Christian faith as true require also the aforesaide inducements or arguments of credibility but moreouer they assigne a diuine proofe or reason built vpon diuine authority which moueth vs to the saide act of beliefe For as I haue declared they affirme that the infallible authority of the Church which is the general propounder of al particuler articles of faith is knowne and proued by holy Scripture as by a diuine reuelation they adde also that the truth of holy Scripture is as certainly
in li. de scriptor Eccl. in Ioan. S. Hierome testifie And that al is not by him recorded it is manifest because those speeches which our Sauiour had with his Apostles during the fourty daies betweene his resurection and ascension are almost altogether omitted Neither did he write this Gospel at the beginning of the Church but many yeares after to wit about threescore and six yeares after our Sauiours ascension And like as S. Iohn so did the rest of the Apostles and Disciples leaue vnto vs such parcels of scripture as vve haue receiued from them some extraordinary occasions mouing them thereunto as I could easily declare and proue See Euse hist li. 3. Chrisost hom 1. in Mat. Epipha haeres 51. Baronius to 1. au 45. et 58. out of Eusebius Saint Hierome and others I know that * Field booke 4. cap. 20. § For first Field maketh shewe as though it were a plaine matter that the Euangelists in their Gospels S. Luke in the acts of the Apostles and S. Iohn in the Apocalipse Meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine and direction of Christian faith but vvhat reason he bringeth for it of any moment I cannot see And besides it is certaine that no one of them intended to set downe al because no one of them hath so done wherfore if they haue set downe al as he affirmeth either it hath proceeded from some common deliberation or consultation had among themselues in which they determined what euery one should rehearse or else from the disposition and direction of the holy Ghost who inspired them to write Not the first because no man euer made mention of such a deliberation or consultation and moreouer they wrote vpon diuers occasions in diuers Countries and at diuers times as Ecclesiastical histories testifie Not the second because Field himselfe graunteth that something is vvanting in these bookes which the Church beleeueth which would not haue beene if the holy Ghost had intended that al should haue beene set downe for he addeth that The epistles of the Apostles were occasionallie written yet so saith he as by the prouidence of God al such thinges as the Church beleeueth not being found in the other parts scripture purposedly written are most clearly and at large deliuered in these epistles Marke wel gentle reader this doctrine he told vs before that the Apostles and Euangelists in the Gospels acts of the Apostles and the Apocalipse meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine direction of Christian faith nowe he telleth vs that the Church beleeueth some things which are deliuered in the Apostolical epistles not being found in the other parts of scripture purposedly written Of which I inferre both that the holy Ghost intended not that the penners of the Gospels of the actes of the Apostles and the Apocalipse should deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine and also that he thinketh the writers of these books to haue missed of their intended purpose verily this last pointe seemeth to me no very sound doctrine And besides how wil M. Field proue that the Apostles in their epistles supplied al this want especially seing that the Apostles and Euangelists in the other books although intending to write al yet in his opinion omitted something and the authours of the epistles intended no such matter but vvrote them as he saith occasionally wherefore there is farre greater likelihood that these omitted something then they Further one Apostolical epistle at the least to the Laodicians hath perished Coloss 4.16 see 1. Cor. 5 9. Chrisost hom 9. in Math. et homil 7. in 1. Cor. of which is mention in the epistle of S. Paul to the Colossians And who can absolutely say that nothing necessary was contained in it which is not in any other part of the newe Testament Finally Field himselfe confesseth some vnwritten Traditions as I will declare in the next Section What then did the Apostles and Disciples expresly set downe in those their monuments which are contained in the newe Testament a part only without al doubt of the whole summe of Christian beliefe in which part they ratified and confirmed the supreame and infallible authority of the Church of whome the rest was to be learned and to whose custody they committed their said monuments so that the whole summe or depositum hath beene kept and preserued in the Church not al only in expres termes in the holy scripture but the whole by Tradition a part of that whole also by writing another part by only Tradition by which likewise the said scripture it selfe came to our hands And after this sort the whole corps of Christian religion without any alteration descended vnto vs. This may be proued by that which hath been already said concerning the true sense exposition of holy scripture Chap. 7. sect 5. for as I haue shewed the scripture ought to be interpreted according to the Analogie or rule of faith that is to say according to that beliefe which the Church by Tradition hath receiued from Christ and his Apostles wherefore the letter of the holy scripture is not the whole direction of the faith of the Church but the faith of the Church the perfect and ful direction of the said letter of holy scripture of which it followeth that the faith of the holy Church might haue remained sound and entire by Tradition although no such letter had beene published But let vs confirme this by the testimony of the ancient Fathers Irenae lib. 3. cap. 4. Among the rest S. Irenaeus discourseth thus What saith he if neither the Apostles had left vs scriptures ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they deliuered vnto those whome they committed Churches vnto which order many barbarous nations beleeuing in Christ assent without letter or incke that is without any written word of God hauing saluation written in their hearts by the holy Ghost and diligently keeping the ancient Tradition Hitherto S. Irenaeus And note wel that he affirmeth some to haue beene Christians without any scripture guided only by the Tradition of the Church He telleth vs moreouer that by this order of Tradition from the Apostles al Heretikes are conuinced in such sort that Catholiks shut vp their eares assoone as they heare them vtter any thing repugnant to the said order Finally he addeth that al that are desirous to heare the truth may see in the Church the Tradition of the Apostles made manifest through the whole world And we can number those saith he who are instituted Bishops in Churches by the Apostles and their successors euen vnto vs who taught no such thing as these men Heretikes dreame of Thus farre S. Irenaeus Tertul. de praescrip cap. 19. 20. 21 who suffered martirdome in the yeare of our Lord 205. Tertullian also affirmeth that by this rule of Tradition or prescription of Catholike doctrine Heretikes are to be conuinced And hence it proceedeth that the Apostle vvith
Diosinius the Patriark of Alexandria men of great estimation in their daies with diuers other Bishops in sundry prouincial Councels decreed the baptisme of Heretiks to be of no force therefore to be reiterated They confirmed this their definition or sentence with many testimonies of holy scripture seeming at the first sight of no smal force and moment for their purpose but al these their decrees were ouerthrowne And how surely by the contrary Tradition of the Church for b see Vinc. Lir. ca. 9. Cipr. ab epist 70. ad 77. Aug de bapt cont Donat. et cōt Cresc Hierō cōtra Lucif S. Steuen Pope of Rome pleading Tradition against them condemned their doctrine as heretical and pronounced this renowmed sentence Let no newe thing be brought into the Church let nothing be done but that which was deliuered vnto vs thinking it altogether vnlawful to transgresse the rule of faith by succession and Tradition receiued from the Apostles This is recorded by diuers authors of great fame and antiquity By Tradition the Pelagian heresie vvas confuted as is affirmed by S. c Caelesti epist 8. Caelestinus Pope and S. Augustine By Tradition only the same d Aug. de bapt li. 2. cap 7. S. Augustine and others condemned Heluidius the heretike for denying the perpetual virginity of our blessed Ladie Yea e Basil de spir sācto ca. 27. See Aug. epist 118. ad Iā Leo ser 2. de jeiunio S. Basil telleth vs that if we reject Tradition we shal endomage the whole principal parts of our faith and without it bring the preaching of the Gospel to a naked name I could bring forth diuers other such like examples and testimonies were it not that I should be ouer long But how shal we come to the knowledge of these Traditions S. Augustine giueth vs this most certaine rule f Aug. to 7. de bapt cōt Dona. l. 4. c. 24. see ibi c. 6 That saith he which the whole Church holdeth and hath not beene instituted by any Councel but alwaies hath beene obserued is most truly beleeued to haue beene deliuered by no other but Apostolike authority Such a Tradition saith the same g Aug de Genes ad lit c. 23. et con Dona. l. 4. c. 24. Orig. in c. 6. ad Rom. S. Augustine and Origenes is the baptisme of infants Such Traditions according to h Ba. de spi sāct c. 27. S. Basil are the signe of the Crosse praying towards the East the words spoken at the eleuation of the Eucharist with diuers ceremonies vsed before and after consecration the hallowing of the font before baptisme the blessing of the oile or chrisme the annointing of the baptized with the said oile the three immersions into the font the words of abrenuntiation and exorcismes of the partie which is to be baptized c. What scripture saith he taught these and such like thinges none truly al comming of secrete and hidden Tradition wherewith our fore-fathers thought it meete to couer such misteries Hitherto S. Basil It is an Apostolical Tradition as we are taught by a Dionis de Eccles hierarc cap. 7. S. Dionisius of Areopagus b Tertul. in exhort ad castita tem c. 11. et de corona militis cap. 3. Tertullian c Chrisos homi 69. ad populum S. Iohn Chrisostome and S. Augustine to pray and make a memory of the soules departed in the Masse It is an Apostolical Tradition saith d Hieron epist 54. ad Marc. S. Hierome and e Epiphā haeres 75. Aerij S. Epiphanius to keepe certaine appointed fasting-daies especially the Lent the same is affirmed by f Aug. epi. 118. ad Ia nu cap. 1. S. Augustine concerning the obseruation of certaine holy-daies and by g Damas li. 4. de ortho fide c. 17. et l. de Imagini See Ter. de coron mil. S. Iohn Damascene concerning the adoration of Images These and diuers other such like Apostolike Traditions are sette downe by the auncient Fathers and are to be found in the Church of Christ And vpon these if they bee of matters of faith seeing that they haue diuine authority both from Christ and the Apostles vvho deliuered them to the Church and from the Church it selfe which being the piller of truth hath accepted and approued them euerie Christian may securelie build his faith and beliefe If they be concerning preceptes of moral actions vve are bound to obey them and may doe it with like security wherefore h Origen tract 29. in Math. Origen giueth vs this learned counsaile As often saith he as Heretiks alleage Canonical scriptures in which al Christians consent and beleeue they seeme to say * Mat 24. verse 26. Behold in houses is the word of truth but we ought not to beleeue them nor to goe forth from the first Ecclesiastical Tradition nor beleeue otherwise but as the Church of God by succession hath deliuered vnto vs. Thus farre Origen wishing euery one in the interpretation and sense of holy scripture to follow the Tradition of the Church as also in the beliefe of al such matters as are called in question by Heretikes Vnto these proofes I adde that i Barlow B. of Rochester in his sermon preached at Hampton Court Sept. 21. 1606. Barlowe and Field two famous English Protestants admit of certaine Apostolike Traditions k Field booke 4. cap. 20. § Much contention Field telleth vs that they reject not al vnwritten Traditions yea he alloweth of the rule of * Chap. 21. S. Augustine before mentioned for decerning Apostolical Traditions from others as also doth l Whitgift in his defence pag. 351. 352. Whitgift But Field addeth moreouer this other that whatsoeuer al or the most famous and renowmed in al ages or at the least in diuers ages haue constantly deliuered as receiued from them that went before them no man contradicting or doubting of it may be thought to be an Apostolical Tradition thus Field I confesse that this notwithstanding he affirmeth Ibid. cap. 20. § Out of this No matter of faith to be deliuered by bare and onlie Tradition But why not such as wel as those which concerne the manners conuersation of men and are by him allowed as for example Why may we not as assuredly receiue by Tradition our beliefe concerning some article of faith as to vse his owne words concerning the obseruation of the Lordes day Ibid. That the Apostles Field book 4. ca. 20. § Much confession Ibidem § The secōd kinde Doth not the allowance of these also according to their common doctrine prejudice the sufficiencie of holy scripture But he graunteth further that They receiue the number names of the Authours and integrity of the parts of bookes diuine and Canonical as deliuered by Tradition He admitteth as a second Tradition That summary comprehension of the chiefe heads of Christian doctrine contained in the Creed of the Apostles which was deliuered to the Church
life and when he hath done al he is almost neuer the nearer for he cannot deny but he may be deceiued in his judgment and consequently his faith is but an opinion And thus we see that although Field make a great shewe of yeelding great authority to the Fathers yet in very deed he bereaueth them almost of al partly by rejecting their testimonies concerning al other matters but certaine principal and substantial points partlie by requiring such a general consent as can hardly be proued concerning the principal articles themselues partlie by his doctrine concerning the errour of the whole Church and partlie by other meanes Let vs therefore Conclude that al our aduersaries reject al particular groundes of faith which are found in the church of Christ besides the holy scripture and make them al subject to error and falshood And this is almost in flat tearmes confessed by our English Protestants who in the Apologie of the Church affirme Apologie of the church of England part 2. pag. 58. that In the scriptures only mans hart can haue setled rest and that in them be abundantly and fully comprehended al things whatsoeuer be needful for our health The same doctrine vvas established in their conuocations held at London in the yeares 1562. and 1604. vvhere vve finde these wordes Holy scripture containeth althinges necessary for saluation Article 6. so that whatsoeuer is not read therin nor proued thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be beleeued as an article of the faith or be thought necessarily requisite to saluation Hence a Will. in his Sinops p. 38. Willet affirmeth that the scripture is not one of the meanes but the sole whole and only meanes to worke faith And this is the common doctrine of them al as wil appeare in the next chapter But in it as in other points the Sectaries of our daies follow the steps of the auncient Heretikes for they in like sort as it is recorded by auncient b Iren. l. 3. c. 2. Tertull. de praesript Ciprianus de vnit Ecclesiae August l. 32. cōtra Faustū et lib. 2. cōtra Maximinū Hooker ī the praeface to his book of Ecclesiastical policie prīted an 1604. p. 36. authors rejected the authority of Traditions Councels and Fathers and in matters of controuersy appealed to the scriptures only Yea in this they conforme themselues to the Anabaptists whome they censure to be Heretikes of this age for they also as Hooker a Protestant recordeth admit no other disputation against their opinions then onlie by allegation of scripture But they object that euerie one of the Fathers was subject to error I confesse it but yet God according to his promise as I haue aboue declared was so to direct gouerne them that they should not al erre wherefore they vvere not men guided altogether by their owne judgements and hauing no surer rule but men directed by the holie Ghost of which their consent in one true doctrine is a most manifest token And whiles these professors of the new religion contemne and reject these mens authoritie what greater authority doe they bring vs Surelie none so great for they bring vs only their owne opinions and perhaps the testimony of their chief ring-leaders who were and are men directed only by their owne judgments and fantasies of vvhich their dissention and diuersitie of doctrine is euen as an apparant proof They say that they bring vs the authoritie of the worde of God but the Fathers embraced and reuerenced the word of God more then they doe Neither is the controuersie between the word of God and the Fathers for these two were neuer repugnant the one to the other as the newe Sectaries vvould haue it but betweene the newe Sectaries themselues and the Fathers who of them expound the vvord of God more trulie as it vvil appeare by my discourse ensuing Wherefore seing that none of them are to be compared with the Fathers neither for learning sanctity of life nor any other good and vertuous condition but are in euerie wise-mans judgement farre more subject to errour then they of whome they make themselues judges we are not to be blamed if we preferre the translation and interpretation of holie scriptures left vnto vs by the said auncient fathers before theirs Chapter 5. They build not vpon the holy Scripture and first that the bare letter of holy Scripture only is not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion SEGTION SHE FIRST In which this is proued because by Scripture the Scripture it selfe cannot be proued Canonical It is also argued that according to the sectaries groundes there is no Canonical Scripture and some principal reasons especially inspiration of the spirit which they alleage for the proofe of such Scripture are refelled OVR aduersaries as I haue shewed haue alreadie bereaued themselues of al Catholike grounder of religion except the holie Scripture And this ground their Captaines euen now cited not only chalenge to themselues as vvholy and properlie theirs but also seeme to make the onlie foundation and piller of their newe beliefe and doctrine But seing that they vvillingly depriue themselues of al other groundes we must of necessity depriue them against their wils of this for it is a thing most manifest and easily to be proued that they build not vpon the Scripture but vpon their owne fancies and judgement And first I must here presuppose as certaine that they deny the Church to haue any extraordinarie authority for the true translation or interpretation of holy Scripture and that they admitte of no Tradition of the true sense thereof preserued alwaies in the same Church together with the letter This is apparant by their making the church subject to error by their denying her authority by their rejecting al vnwritten traditions among which we number the true exposition of the word of God by their daily inuenting of new and strange interpretations in former ages vnheard off by their rejecting the testimonies and expositions of the auncient Fathers and by their alleaging no other authoritie for their owne expositions but their owne judgements Hence it is affirmed Harmony of confes sect 1. in the confession of Heluetia that the interpretation of Scripture is to be taken only from her selfe and that her selfe may be the interpreter of her selfe the rule of charity and faith being her guide And in the confession of Wittenberge that the true meaning of Scripture is to be sought in the Scripture it selfe and among those that being raised vp by the spirit of God expound Scripture by Scripture I adde also that their expositions being diuers and opposite they cannot al descend by Tradition from the Apostles and seing that one of them hath no more reason to challenge this tradition then another vve may in like sort deny it to them al wherefore that which they make the only ground of their faith and religion is the bare word of holie Scripture interpreted by
themselues and of this their ground because the matter is of great importaunce I purpose to discourse something at large And first I wil shewe in this chapter that the bare and naked letter onlie of holie Scripture is not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion Then in the chapters following I wil proue that although we should grant the letter to be a sufficiēt ground yet that their bibles containe not the true letter Thirdly that although this were also granted yet that they build not vpon the letter contained in their owne Bibles Lastly that in translating and expounding the holie Scriptures they followe their owne fancies and judgement and that they haue no other certaine and infallible ground Caluin de ve ra Eccles reform ratione pag. 473. Apologie of the Church of Englād pag. 58. Articles of faith agrreed vpō the cōuocations of the yeares 1562. 1604. I come to the first It is a common maxime or principle among al newe Sectaries that the scriptures only containe al thinges necessary to our saluation and that nothing is to be beleeued or necessarily to be obserued vvhich is not expresly taught commaunded or allowed in the same or as some of them adde manifestlie gathered out of them * Harmony of confes sect 1. In controuersies of religion saith the confession of Heluetia or matters of faith we cannot admit any other judge then God himselfe pronouncing by the holy scriptures what is true what false what is to be followed or what auoided Al thinges ought to be tried by the rule and square of holy scripture saith the French confession Al things which are needful to be knowne to saluation are contained in the Prophets and Apostles writings saith that of Wittenberg And out of this ground they argue against vnwritten traditiōs ceremonies positiue lawes of the Church c. But that this doctrine is false euen according to their owne proceedings supposing that to be true vvhich they affirme concerning the infallible authority of the Church to wit that it is not expressed in the said scripture nor out of it deduced it is an easie matter to demonstrate to euerie mans eie for first this authority of the Church being set aside by vvhat Scripture can they proue the Scripture it selfe to be Canonical And seing that I am to discourse of this argument and their assertions be intricate I wil not only proue that according to this ground they haue no canonical Scripture but also absolutely that by no other means they giue it any infallible or diuine authority First therefore I may very wel frame this argument against the whole Bible out of their aforesaid ground Nothing is to be beleeued but that which is expresly taught in the written word of god or manifestly gathered out of the same but that the Bible is canonical Scripture it is neither taught in the written word of God nor manifestly gathered out of the same therfore it is not to be beleeued that the bible is canonical Scripture The major or first proposition containeth their aforesaid ground the minor or second is approued by Hooker who writeth thus Of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what books we are bound to esteeme holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And this afterwards he confirmeth with this reason For saith he if any one book of scripture did giue testimony to al yet stil that Scripture which giueth credit to the rest would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it neither could we euer come into any pause whereon to rest our assurance this way so that vnlesse besides Scripture there were something which might assure vs that we doe wel we could not thinke we doe wel no not in being assured that Scripture is a sacred and holy rule of wel-doing thus Hooker And this argument is of such force that it hath constrained some of them and among the rest the said a Hooker in his treatis of lawes of ecclesiastical policy booke 1. p. 84. book 2. § 4. p. 100. 102 Zauch in his confessiō c. 1. Brent in prolog Kemn in exam Concil Tridentini Hooker Zauchius Brentius and Kemnitius to flie from Scriptures vnto tradition for the proofe of this matter yea b Hook book 3. § 8. p. 146. See Whitak contr Staple l. 2. c. 4. pag. 298. 300. some of them affirme that this only tradition concerning canonical Scripture is to be rejected c Obseruations vpon the Harmonie of confessiōs published by those of Geneua fol. 593. Others and among them the Geneuian doctors affirme that some books of which there was heretofore some doubt among the ancient doctors of the church were receiued as Canonical by the common consent of the whole Catholike Church and therefore that they are not to be refused But who seeth not First that these men bewray the weaknes of the aforesaid general ground concerning the sufficiency of holy Scripture alone then that if the tradition of the Church yea the Church it selfe in her judicial sentence as they al affirme may erre in one point that it may also erre in al others of the same quality and consequently that the authority or tradition of the Church cannot infallibly argue the Scriptures to be of diuine authority Caluin instit book 1. cap. 7. § 1.2.4 et 5. Caluin answereth that the holy books of Scripture by them that haue the spirit are easily discerned from others by themselues as light from darknesse and sweetnes from sowrenes or bitternes And this his opinion is embraced by diuers and among the rest by Whitakers Thomas Rogers and Field and therefore is with some diligence to be refelled But before I enter into the confutation of it I must affirme as certaine that al these authors require in euery man to this that assuredly he beleeue the holy scriptures to be from God a supernatural inspiration of the holy ghost That Caluin doth so his sentences hereafter alleaged plainly declare * Whit. ī his answ to Campians first reason pag. 47. Whitakers hauing affirmed That it is euen as euidēt the scriptures be from god as that the sunne is the sun or that god is God and also said that there are in the books themselues proofs inough to demonstrate it yet finally concludeth that the inward hidden testimony of the spirit must be bad that men may firmly rest in the scriptures Againe Then only doe we attaine a certaine sauing ful assurance when the same spirit which writ published them doth perswade our harts of the credit of them Rogers writeth thus a Rogers ī his discourse vpō the articles of faith agreed vpon in the conuocations of the years 1562. 1604. art 6. p. 31. 32. printed anno 1607. We judg these books before mentioned Canonical not somuch because learned and godly men in the Church so haue and doe receiue and allow of them as for that the holy spirit in our harts doth
precisely as they are the object of our faith they al haue no other euidence then diuine reuelation as is proued before which is alwaies obscure What then is this medium or meane according to Field Is it any humane conjecture motiue or probability This cannot be according to his owne doctrine as appeareth in the same place and the chapter before Nay in another place he telleth vs Book 4. chap. 20. § Much contention that the books of Scripture winne credite of themselues and yeeld sufficient satisfaction to al men of their diuine truth and therefore he seemeth to exclude al external proofe Is it then any thing contained in the things themselues Neither can this be said for euery thing contained in the thinges themselues belonging to their essence is as obscure as the things themselues be and consequently no such thing contained in the things themselues can be such a meane to manifest themselues vnto vs. And vvhat accident he vvil assigne in the articles of our faith making them manifest vnto vs I cannot imagine Secondly I cannot see how this assertion of Field doth agree with that his common principle Field book 4. chap. 13.8 book 3. chap. 42. auouching that the Scripture is the Canon and ground of their beliefe and that they rest in the determination of the word of God as in the rule of their faith For how can this be if the euidence of the things appearing vnto vs be sometimes the formal reason of our faith as is in like sort by him auerred But to make this discourse a litle more manifest let vs demaund a question or two in particuler of M. Field and see howe he vvil resolue them according to his doctrine deliuered I aske therefore of him why he beleeueth there be three persons and one God two natures in Christ and one person and the resurrection of our bodies Wil he answere that the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto him is the formal cause of his faith or inducing him to beleeue these misteries If he doe not he contradicteth his own doctrine If he doe he contradicteth both al sense and reason and also himselfe making the Scripture the ground of faith except he affirme these misteries to be euident not in themselues but in the medium or meane by force whereof they are beleeued For which medium if he wil be constant to himselfe he must assigne the holie Scripture vvhich Scripture he must say is beleeued through the authority of God himselfe whome vve doe most certainly discerne to speake in the word of faith which is another cause of beliefe assigned by him for such thinges as we beleeue and doe not knowe so that this authority of God is the last motiue not the holy Scripture and what other processe he wil make I cannot perceiue But what doth he and Caluin vnderstand by that other reason which he tearmeth The authority of God himselfe whome we doe certainly discerne to speake in the word of faith which is preached vnto vs and Caluin The majesty of God which doth present it selfe vnto vs What is this authority and majesty of God and how doe we so certainly discerne it Verily for my part I am so farre from knowing how to discerne it as I cannot vvel imagine vvhat they meane by it yet if I be not deceiued they affirme that the authority of God or his majestie is seene in the letter of holie Scripture vvhich moueth vs by a supernatural and most infallible assent to acknowledge it to be his holy word But first this is said gratis and vvithout any ground or reason for what authority or majesty can a man discerne in such bookes as our aduersaries receiue as Canonical more then in those which they reject For example what appeareth to vs more diuine in the bookes of Ecclesiastes then in the bookes of Ecclesiasticus surely nothing much lesse so much as may be an infallible and knowne meane to moue vs to beleeue the one as diuine and to reject the other as Apocriphal Moreouer howe doe vve knowe that this representation of diuine majestie or this diuine authoritie vvhich as vve conceaue doth represent it selfe vnto vs is not either some illusion of the Deuil or some strong imagination of our owne proceeding onlie from some affection which vpon some other motiues we beare to such and such bookes of Scripture Trulie we haue great cause to feare that it may proceed from some such affection seeing that Luther and most of al his Lutherans confesse al the Sacramentaries generallie to be deceaued in such their apprehensions concerning the epistle to the Hebrewes the epistle of Saint Iames the Apocalipse of S. Iohn and other parcels of Scripture And why not concerning others as vvel as these Vnto vvhich I adde that they commonly make their doctrine a rule whereby to try which is Scripture and vvhich is not as I vvil demonstrate hereafter and appeareth by the causes assigned by Luther vvhich moued him to reject the epistle of Saint Iames. It may also be objected against this their doctrine that of it it seemeth to followe that no man can be assured of the diuine authority of any other bookes of Scripture then of those which he hath read himselfe or heard others read For first no man can possibly proue to another that in reading such and such books he did discerne in then the authority of God himselfe speaking or that the diuine majesty did in them present it selfe vnto him vvherefore vnto this that a man may judg of holy Scripture he must himselfe read or heare the words and sentences read and this he must doe before he can haue any faith For seeing that they make the Scripture the rule and ground of their beliefe the Scripture must first be knowne before they can beleeue and seeing that no one booke containeth al things necessary to be beleeued but such things are dispersed through al it is necessarie that he know the whole Canon of Scripture and consequentlie that he reade or heare it al rehearsed sentence by sentence And what a Laborinth is this how can the vnlearned that cannot reade doe it Nay how many Protestants in the world haue euer performed it Wherefore I conclude that this rule or meane how to know holy Scripture is neither easie plaine certaine nOr vniuersal Perhaps it may be thought by some that Field assigneth the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto vs in holy Scriptures as the formal cause of our beleefe concerning their authority but this cannot be both because our beleefe concerning their Canonical authority seemeth to be concerning a matter of fact to wit vvhether they vvere penned by the instinct of the holie Ghost or no as also because a great part of them rehearseth matters of fact which Field denieth to be knowne by the authority of God himselfe whome we doe certainly discerne to speake in the word of faith Field book 4. chapt 15. Adde likewise that by his confession
of themselues and yeeld sufficient satisfaction to al men of their diuine truth wherefore he seemeth contrary to that which he had said before to require no other reason by force whereof the spirit moueth him to beleeue the Scripture but the Scripture Neither should he only bring a diuine proofe for these matters but also to shewe the certaintie of his supernatural illumination of vvhich al these depend And howe wil he doe this vvil he proue it by Scripture This cannot be done least that he fal into a circle and according as he maketh the Psalme say of the vvicked Runne round til he be giddie and be at the end where he was when he beganne for by this illumination he is come to the knowledg of Scripture and consequently it must not be proued out of Scripture and vvhat other diuine proofe he wil assigne for my part I cannot imagine Neither can he say that this illumination is beleeued for it selfe for then he both graunteth that something must be beleeued without diuine proofe and also that al thinges are not beleeued because they are contained in the Scripture and consequently that the Scripture is not the onlie ground of our faith Many places of Scripture are alleaged out of the vvritten vvord of God by our aduersaries to proue the certainty of priuate illuminations and seing that I can not stand to giue the true sense of them I desire my reader only to consider in general that such sentences as they alleage if they proue any thing for them and are to be vnderstood as they pretend proue the judgement of euerie Christian man or at the least of euery spiritual man to be infallible vvhich being false as appeareth both in the auncient Fathers and also in themselues vve may vvel inferre that they haue some other sense Field affirmeth that Saint Augustine in a certaine place doth fully agree vnto his opinion shewing that the authority of the Church is but an introduction to the spiritual discerning of thinges diuine I answere that Saint Augustine in the chapter by him cited only affirmeth that because al men are not capable at the first to vnderstand the sincere wisedome and truth taught in the Church God hath ordained in it two motiues vvhich may first moue them to seeke it to wit miracles and multitude of beleeuers Aug. de vtilitate credendi cap. 16. Authoritas saith he praesto est quam partim miraculis partim multitudine valere nemo ambigit The authority of the Church is at hand which no man doubteth partly through miracles partly through multitude to be of force viz. to moue men Field to make this sentence seeme the better for his purpose Booke 4. c. 8. translateth the vvord valere standeth vpon and maketh Saint Augustine say that the authority of the Church standeth vpon two thinges c. but howe truly euerie grammer scholler may discerne That vvhich he alleageth out of Hugo de sancto Victore is as litle to the purpose but as I thinke farre more falsly translated for if in the English immediately following the Latin in the same different letter he doth intend a translation of the Latin going before as euerie man vvil judge he doth he dealeth in it most corruptly and vntruely and so I leaue him for this present SECTION THE SECOND In which the same argument is prosecuted and two thinges principallie are proued First that the newe Testament receiueth smal authority if we beleeue our aduersaries by this that it was written by the Apostles and Disciples because they accuse them of errour Secondlie because they confesse the text of Scripture to be corrupted HAVING euidentlie confuted in the section next before the chiefest and most common reasons by which the Sectaries of our daies endeuour to proue the diuine authority of holie Scripture let vs now behold such other reasons as may be brought according to their principles and together insinuate some other their assertioÌ„s which diminish the credit of these holy books And to passe ouer as a thing manifest that the authority of 〈◊〉 newe Testament cannot sufficientlie and infalliblie be proued â—uine by the testimony of the old some perhaps wil say that the authority of the old is confirmed and ratified by the newe But how is the newe it selfe proued to be Canonical which prerogatiue if we deny it the old wil receiue but litle credit from it Peraduenture they wil answere that they knowe the newe to be Canonical because it vvas vvritten by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ inspired by the holy Ghost I reply and demaund first how they can proue this to be true by canonical Scripture What canonical Scripture for example if we deny the said Gospel to be Canonical telleth vs that S. Mathew the Apostle wrote that Gospel which vve terme S. Mathewes Gospel Secondly although we suppose it to be true that the Apostles and Disciples were the authours of the newe Testament yet howe can they proue that in penning it they haue not erred What canonical Scripture haue they for this Certainely our aduersaries make al their successours subject to errour wherefore it seemeth that they wil not be very scrupulous to graunt it of the Apostles and Disciples themselues Luther tom 5. in c. 1. ad Galath fol. 290. Act. 7. v. 14. Luther in cap 46. Genes But doe they not moreouer in expresse tearms condemne them of errour Who can deny this Luther himselfe after that he had affirmed that he would not submitte his doctrine to the censure of the Fathers no not to the censure of S. Peter nor S. Paul nor of any Angel from heauen addeth in defence of this his action that S. Peter did liue and teach besides the word of God In another place in plaine tearmes he accuseth S. Steuen of errour in following the 70. Interpreters vvho as he saith erred concerning the number of those that went downe into Egipt Nay moreouer discoursing of extreame vnction Luth. de captiuita Babil c. de extrema vnctione Luther iÌ„ Isai 64. Martir in 1. Corinth 2. fol. 46. Centur. 1 lib. 2 c. 10. Col. 1600. 180. he telleth vs that Although the epistle said to be of S. Iames were in deed and truly his yet he vvould say that it was not lawful for an Apostle of his owne authority to institute a Sacrament By which he seemeth plainly to confesse that the Apostles in their Apostolike writings were subject to such faults finally he telleth vs that S. Paul 1. Corinth 2. vers 9. doth finely wreth or wrest a certaine sentence of the Prophet Isay but Peter Martir auoucheth that he mistooke the Hebrewe word Hence the Centuriatores his schollers note certaine Naeui or lapsus so they tearme them that is freckles or moles and falles of S. Peter S. Paul and S. Iames Apostles as that of S. Peter at Antioch for vvhich he vvas reprehended by S. Paul of which also a Calu. in ca. 2. ad Galat. et in Mat. 26.
the newe religion prefer the Hebrew of the old Testament and the Greeke of the new farre before it And as concerning the Greeke translation of the old by the 70. Interpreters Luther in ca. 40. Genesis Mūst in bibl Hebraicis Act. 7. v. 14. Caluī in Antid Sinodus Trident. sess 4. pag. 372. Luther and Munster plainely condemne it of errour and the first of them in particuler affirmeth the text alleaged of it by S. Steuen in the seauenth chapter of the acts of the Apostles as he citeth it to be erroneous our Latin bibles are also censured by Caluin to be most corrupt vvherefore they alwaies where they can translate the Hebrew of the old and the Greek of the new rejecting as it were the Greek of the old and the Latin of the newe but that both the Hebrewe of the old and Greeke of the newe be corrupted it is manifest by their owne confession And first it cannot be denied but that they some times correct both the Hebrewe and Greeke text as for example in the Hebrewe psalme 22. vvhereas the Hebrewe word for word ought thus to be translated As a lion my hands my feete they translate according to the Greek and vulgar Latin thus They haue peirced my hands and feete The examples of the Greeke in the newe which principally pertaineth vnto Christians are almost infinite I wil only set downe a fewe out of Beza and our English translatours If then the Greeke text be not corrupted wherefore doe these translatours whereas Hebrewes 9. verse 1. the Greeke text hath the first tabernacle reade the first couenant Againe Rom. 11. ver 21. they translate not according to the Greeke text eruing the time but according to our vulgare Latin seruing our Lord. Apoc. 11. vers 2. their translation is not according to the Greeke The court which is within the temple but according to the Latin The court which is without the temple 2. Tim. 1. vers 14. they adde the word but out of the Latin Iames 5. vers 12. they forsake the Greeke and follow our Latin reading Least you fal into condemnation In these and other places they correct the Greeke text and consequently confesse it to be corrupted But as touching Beza in particular I should make a long discourse if I should recite al such places as in the Greeke he accuseth of corruption Act. 13. vers 20. He calleth it a manifest errour that in the Greeke we reade foure hundred yeares as he saith for three hundred Act. 7. vers 18. He maketh a whole Catalogue of corruptions In S. Matthewes Gospel as he confesseth in his Preface to the newe Testament he corrected diuers errours and sundry other such testimonies he giueth of the corruption of the Greeke text of the new Testament But doth not he moreouer besides these his general corruptions vvhich he thinketh perhaps not done of malice also suspect that we haue euen of malice willingly and wittingly falsified the Scriptures verily he doth And to bring fourth three or foure examples to proue this his assertion Beza in annotat noui Testament an 1556. Math. 10. vers 2. the Greeke text hath The first Simon who is called Peter But what saith Beza he telleth vs that he thinketh the word first to haue beene added to the text by some that sought to establish Peters primacy Againe Luke 22. vers 20. according to the Greeke text we read This is the Chalice the new Testament in my bloud which shal be shedde for you In which sentence the Relatiue which according to the Greeke is not gouerned by the Noune bloud but by the word Chalice to signifie vnto vs that the bloud of Christ as the contents of the Chalice or as in the Chalice was shedde for vs. But what saith Beza he affirmeth it to be most probable that the vvordes which is shedde for you being sometime but a marginal note came by corruption out of the margent into the text Act. 7. vers 43. the Greeke hath Figures which you made to adore them It may be suspected saith Beza that these wordes to adore them as many others haue crept by corruption out of the margent into the Text. 1. Cor. 15. vers 57. He thinketh that the Apostle said not Victorie as it is in al Greeke copies but Contention And thus much concerning the corruption of the text of holy Scripture And out of this discourse it is euident first that our aduersaries cannot proue by Canonical Scripture that the Scripture it selfe is Canonical secondly that they cannot proue that the newe Testament was written by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ thirdly that although this be admitted yet that they cannot proue that the said Apostles and Disciples in penning it did not erre lastly that they cannot proue the Scriptures to remaine sincere and not corrupted yea I haue declared that they confesse that the Apostles and Disciples were subject to errour and that the Hebrewe and Greeke text which they esteeme aboue al others is corrupted Out of al vvhich positions so manifestly proued I conclude that the bare vvordes of Scriptures are not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion And although this argument concerning the vvhole Bible and in particular touching the new Testament be inuincible and insoluble yet a farre greater difficulty there is according to their ground mentioned that nothing is to be beleeued but that which is expresly contained in the Scripture or gathered out of the same concerning those bookes of Scripture which haue long after the Apostles daies beene in the Church of doubtfull authority of which before and yet are now receiued by our aduersaries into the Canon For vvhat one sentence of the vvord of God remouing al doubt declared their authority to be diuine Surely after the doubt had of them there was no Scripture written and before the matter in the said Scripture was not decided wherefore if we allowe the Scriptures only to be a sufficient judge of such controuersies our aduersaries themselues contrary to their owne proceedings must of necessity be forced to confesse such parcels of Scripture to be as yet of doubtful authority And this is not only graunted by a Brentius in confess Wittenberg cap. de sacra Scriptura anno 1552. Brentius and certaine other Lutherans who acknowledge those bookes of Scripture only to be Canonical of whose authority there was neuer any doubt made in the Church but also may seeme to be confessed by our countriman M. Whitaker vvho touching the Epistle of S. Iames receiued telleth vs that he doth b Whitaker against Campian reason the first p. 28. not enquire howe justly that might be receiued in a succeeding age which once was rejected yea our vvhole Church of c Conuocat Lon. an 1562. 1604. ar 6 England alloweth of the position of d Brentius in Apolog. confess Wittenb Brentius euen nowe mentioned Wherefore these sectaries must reject out of the Canon if they vvil be constant to themselues
not only the Epistle of S. Geneuain obseruat vpon harmony of cōfess sect 1. Paul to the Hebrewes the Epistles of S. Iames and S. Iude the second of S. Peter and the second and third of S. Iohn togither with the Apocalipse whose authority as is confessed by the Doctors of Geneua by Brentius and al the Lutherans yea as it is recorded by diuers Fathers as I haue shewed before nay further as it is graunted by Thomas Rogers an English Protestant Thomas Rogers vpon the 6. Artic. Propos 4. pa. 31. See also Whitaker before cited and the disputat had in the Tower with F. Campian in the 4. daies cōferen in his discourse vpon the Articles of Religion of the yeare 1562. and before him by Whitakers and others hath beene sometimes doubtful but also certaine other parcels of Scripture by them likewise receiued as I could declare out of diuers approued Authors The Doctors of Geneua to proue the bookes named to be Canonical flie to the authority of the Church for they wil haue them admitted as such because they were receiued and acknowledged as Canonical by the consent of the whole Catholike Church although some doubt were made of them sometimes by the auncient Doctors but this according to their owne ground is to giue them no diuine authority as I haue already noted And before I end this section I cannot but adde that I vvould wish M. Rogers whome I euen now named to looke a little better into his bookes if hereafter he chaunce to publish any with such approbations as he doth pretend in the beginning of this For I cannot see but writing in defence of the sixt Article he ouerthroweth the same by graunting that which I haue alleaged him confessing To make this a little seene vnto him thus I argue In the name of the holy Scripture we doe vnderstand those Canonical bookes of the old and new Testament of whose authority was neuer doubt in the Church These are the wordes of the Article Page 26. but of some bookes of the new Testament there hath beene doubt in the Church as appeareth by those M. Rogers wordes Some of the auncient Fathers and Doctors accepted not al the bookes Pag. 31. propos 4. contained within the volume of the new Testament for Canonical therefore al the bookes contained in the volume of the new Testament are not vnderstood in the name of holy Scripture This conclusion necessarily followeth of the premisses graunted as euery man seeth and yet is directly contrary to the last wordes of the same Article Page 26. Pag. 31. propos 4. in which they professe themselues to receiue and account as Canonical al the bookes of the new Testament as Rogers himselfe affirmeth SECTION THE THIRD The same is proued because euery Christian is bound to admit and beleeue certaine propositions neither expresly contained nor according to some mens judgements so euidently gathered out of the holy Scripture SECONDLY it is apparant that the bare letter of holy Scripture and conclusions out of it manifestly deduced by euery priuate man setting a side the authority of the Church as aboue are not a sufficient ground or rule of Christian beliefe and religion because euery true Christian is bound to admit and beleeue certaine propositions concerning the misteries and articles of our faith which are not expresly contained in the letter nor as some of them thinke so euidently deduced out of the same especially if we allow of our aduersaries Commentaries The first is easily proued for where doe we finde in the vvhole Bible the wordes Trinity person and consubstantial and yet most of the Professors of the new religion vvil not denie but that euery Christian vnder paine of damnation is bound to beleeue and admit in expresse tearmes these propositions following There is a Trinity there be three persons in the blessed Trinity the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost are consubstantial the one to the other and such like yea Beza himselfe confesseth that without the vse of these wordes Beza lib. de hereticis a ciuili magistratu puniendis pag. 51. also in Ep. Theol. 81. pag. 334. 335. See part 1. chap. 9. the truth of those misteries cannot be explicated nor the deniers of them confuted And it is manifest that whosoeuer rejecteth these wordes doth open the gappe to Iudaisme Arianisme and Turcisme But some of them flie to deduction out of Scriptures and answere that although the wordes are not expresly found in the Bible yet that the misteries themselues are expresly in it contained and deliuered and conseqnently that the wordes aptly signifying the said misteries and deduced out of the word of God it selfe may very wel and conueniently be vsed I reply that this is not sufficient for euery priuate mans deduction is subject to errour except it be by an infallible argument and euery proposition be most euidently true in that sense in which it is alleaged wherefore such deductions as our aduersaries commonly vse make no articles of faith Secondly the collections themselues of these high misteries by reason of the obscurity and diuersity of senses of the holy Scripture are not seldome obscure and therefore those collections vvhich to some seeme euident by others are judged false Hence the collection of those very misteries which I haue named by diuers of our aduersaries is denied as by Valentinus Gentilis and his followers a Valent. Gentilis in cōfess apud Caluin pag. 930. in Prothes Pastor Bremēsis in hist. Valēt Gentil who affirme the three persons to haue three distinct natures or essences and the Father to haue beene before the Sonne and the Sonne before the holy Ghost Who make also the one inferiour to the other c. The same collection is likewise denied by Seruetus and his disciples b Seruetus li. de erroribus Trinitatis who acknowledged no distinction of persons in God made Christ a pure man and denied him to haue beene before his incarnation Finally by Georgius Blandrata Paulus Alciatus and other Schollers of these men who c Greg. Paul apud Hosium in judicio cēsura de adoranda Trinitate See Hooker booke 5. of eccles policy §. 42. affirmed that Luther beganne to pul downe the roofe they raised the foundations of Popery who condemned al the auncient Councels and Fathers reuerenced by al Christians of d Beza epist Theolog. 81. tritheisme or making of three Gods tearmed S. Athanasius Sathanasius auouched the blessed Trinity vvhich most blasphemously they called Cerberus and the tripartited God to be an inuention of his and called the Fathers of the first Nicene Councel blinde Sophists Ministers of the Beast slaues of Antechrist bewitched with his illusions c. yea some of these newe sectaries vvent so farre in this matter that they forsooke Christ altogither and became Turkes among vvhome were e Simlerus in praefat lib. de aeterno Dei filio Gregor Paulus lib. de Trinitat Volanus in
trust I haue shewed sufficiently by these tenne Chapters of S. Mathewe in which notwithstanding I haue omitted very many thinges which justly I might haue reprehended what a long register of his errors I could gather out of his whole worke For this is true that oftentimes he erreth not only in wordes which is not so dangerous and might be tollerated but also in thinges and the same most waighty and often times be enforceth by wresting not the sentences only but also the wordes of the holy writers to serue his error So Iohn the 1. vers 12. he corrupteth a most notable place and of greatest moment touching free wil c. Thus Castalio Before this he affirmeth that to note al Bezaes errors in translating the newe Testament Ibid. pa. 170. would require a volume ouer great Contrariwise Beza to requite Castalio condemneth his translation of holy Scripture which is very highly praised by D. Humfrey and Gesnerus euen nowe alleaged not only as false Beza in Testament anno 1556. in Praefat. in Marc. cap. 3. 1. Cor. 1. Math. 4. Luc. 1. Act. 8. 10. corrupt and peruerse but also as pestilent sacrilegious Ethnical and Turkish he auoucheth it to be such a translation as containeth the very seede and laieth open the high way to manifest Apostasie from Christ The like censure he pronounceth against the newe Testament set forth by Oecolampadius as is supposed and the other Diuines of Basil for he auoucheth it to be in many places * Beza in respons ad defens respōs Castalionis vvicked and altogither disagreeing from the minde of the holy Ghost But of these forraigne sectaries enough SECTION THE THIRD Our English Sectaries also haue falsly and corruptly translated the Scriptures BVT doe our English sectaries although they followe not as I haue shewed some corruptions of Beza yet commit no wilful errors and falsifie nothing themselues Truly they are farre from this sincerity Carlile in his booke that Christ went not downe into hel printed anno 1582. fol. 116. 144 c. Carlile an English Sectarie hauing discouered many faults in the English Bible of them inferreth that our English Protestants in many places detort the Scriptures from the right sense and shewe themselues to loue darknesse more then light and falshood more then truth he saith they haue corrupted and depraued the sense obscured the truth deceiued the ignorant supplanted the simple c. M. Broughton one of the greatest Linguists of our English precisians wrote not many yeares since an Epistle to the Honourable Lordes of the Councel which is yet extant desiring them to procure speedily a newe translation of the Scripture because said he that vvhich is nowe in vse in England is ful of errors The same request was made of late by Doctor Reynolds in the conference held at Hampton-Court betweene the Protestants and the Puritans yea Barlow in his relatiō of cōferēce held at Hampton-Court pag. 45. 46. Lindanus in Dubitantio Fox pa. 981. the King himselfe as it is recorded by M. Barlowe auouched that he could neuer yet see a Bible wel translated in English but the worst of al he affirmed to be that of Geneua vvherefore by his Majesties order another translation as is said is nowe in hand And this may very vvel be beleeued For Bishop Tonstal as it is recorded by Lindanus noted no lesse then two thousand corruptions in Tindals translation only of the newe Testament vvhich assertion of his may be confirmed by the authoritie of a statute made by the first head of our English Church King Henry the eight For notwithstanding that Fox tearmeth Tindal not only the true seruant and martir of God but the Apostle also of England in our later age Idem pa. 732 and painteth the said King with the Gospel in his lappe and his sword in his right hand lifted vp for defence of the same yet certaine it is that King Henry in the 34. or 35. yeare of his raigne not long before his death togither vvith the vvhole Court of Parliament An. 34. 35 Henri 8. c. 1. by statute condemned the translation of Tindal as a craftie false and an vntrue translation and also commanded it to be vtterly abolished and extinguished and forbadde it to be kept or vsed within any of his Dominions These thinges are to be seene in the statute it selfe yet extant Finally that the English Bible it selfe set forth vnder King Henry the eight was corrupt it is confessed by D. Humfrey And no doubt Humfred de ratione interpret lib. 3. pag. 523. but although many of the said corruptions be amended in the latter editions yet the multitude of them through the whole Bible is al most infinite For besides those vvhich are reprehended by M. Broughton and D. Reynolds which as I suppose were none wilfully committed in prejudice of our religion and in defence of their owne against vs because they being of our preciser sort of enemies vvould not as I imagine acknowledge any such errors M. Gregory Martin a learned man of our side hath also made a whole booke concerning such corruptions as haue beene made in their English Bibles of set purpose to drawe the text from the true sense to impugne vs and fauour their newe opinions I cannot stand to repeate them al vvherefore referring my reader to the said booke of M. Gregory Martin entituled a discouery of the false translations c. I vvil only note a fewe yet in such order that euery man may see that this hath beene done of malice concerning euery article betweene vs in controuersie Neither doe I speake of their forsaking and corrupting of the true sense of the Latin vulgare edition but of the Hebrewe and Greeke text it selfe which they professe to followe But before I come to this matter I must forewarne my reader that although our English sectaries haue set forth diuers Bibles in their vulgar tongue yet I intend especially to speake of three of the principal of which the first vvas authorised by Cranmer called Arch-bishop of Canterbury and read during al King Edwards raigne in their Churches and as it seemeth by the newe printing of it in the yeare 1562. during a great part also of the raigne of Queene Elizabeth The second vvas printed in the yeare 1577. and againe as I thinke in the yeare 1595. and is authorised likewise to be read in their Churches at this present The third is that which was lately printed in the yeare 1600. vvhich as I imagine is the selfe same vvith that vvhich vvas printed not long before in the yeare 1589. and 1592. let vs nowe come to see a fewe of their corruptions SECTION THE FOVRTH Containing false translations against the authority of the Church Traditions honour of Images Purgatory and the honour of Saints FIRST to improue the supreme authority of the Church they banished the vvord Church cleane out of their Bible printed in the yeare 1562. and in place of
it vsed the vvord congregation but in the later editions since that they began to haue a certaine forme of a Church this fault is amended Secondly to make weake the authority of Traditions vvheresoeuer in the Scripture speach is of euill Traditions they translate the Greeke vvord truly Traditions but when mention is of Apostolike Traditions they cannot endure this vvord but force the same Greeke vvord to signifie ordinances instructions preachings or institutions yea they translate Tradition in il part vvhere it is not found in the Greeke For example the Apostle saith Colos 2. vers 20. according to the Greeke Why doe you yet decree They translate Why are you yet ledde with traditions and in an other edition Bible 1600. 1595. Why are you yet burthened with traditions Thirdly against the honour of Images they translate the Greeke vvord vvhich signifieth Idolatrie and an Idolater worshipping of images and a worshipper of Images 2. Cor. 6 16. Coloss 3. v. 5. Ephes 5 5. Bible 1577. 1. Cor. 10. Bible 1562. thus they make the Apostle say Howe agreeth the Temple of God with Images couetousnesse is worshipping of Images bee not worshippers of Images c. I adde also that sometimes vvhen neither the vvord Idol nor Image is to be found in the text they thrust it in by force as Rom. 11. vers 4. in steede of Baal they translate Baals Image also 2. Paral. 36. ver 8. they adde these wordes carued Images which were laid to their charge to the text But al these faults are amended in the later editions Bible 1595. Gen. 1. v. 27. Exod. 25.3 Reg. 6. c. and not vvithout cause for if euery Image be an Idol and euery Idol an Image we may say that God created man according to his Idol we may cal such Images as were vsed in the old lawe Idols and finally tearme the Image or Picture of a man the Idol of a man vvhich kinde of speach is not tollerable Fourthly against Purgatory Limbus Patrum and the descent of Christ into hel they make the Hebrewe and Greeke vvordes vvhich signifie hel signifie graue as for example vvith Beza they read Act. 2. vers 27. Thou shalt not leaue my soule in the graue Psal 15. v. 10 Bible 1600. Bible 1595. 1600. See Parkes in his Apologie concerning Christs descēt into hel in his ans to Lim bomast printed an 1607 According to their account Psal 86.49 89 this likewise is corrected in the Bible of the yeare 1595. Also Gen. 37. v. 35. they make the Patriarke Iacob say I wil goe downe into the graue to my Sonne mourning vvhereas in like sort the Hebrewe and Greeke vvord signifieth hel and it is manifest that he could not thinke it possible that he should goe downe into the graue to his Sonne because he thought him deuoured of vvilde beastes not buried The same corruption is sound in diuers other places as Psalm 86. v. 13. vvhere they reade a Bible 1579. 1600. corrected in the Bible of the yeare 1595. Thou hast deliuered my soule from the lowest graue Psal 48. vers 15. vvhere they reade thou shalt deliuer my soule from the power of the graue Osee 13. vers 14. where they reade O graue I wil be thy destruction and in sundrie other places this notwithstanding in b See other such corruptions as these are recited and sharply reprehended by Carlile a man of the English Church in his booke that Christ went not downe into hel fol. 144. other places as Prouerb 15. ver 24. c. vvhere speach is of the hel of the damned they translate the same vvord hel Fiftly to bereaue the Saints of their honour vvhich from mortal men is due vnto them they falsly translate the 17. verse of the 138. Psalm For vvhereas we reade Thy friendes O God are become exceeding honourable their Princedome is exceedingly strengthned They turne it thus Bible 1595. Psal 138. Howe deare therefore are thy Councels vnto me O God O howe great is the summe of them But the Hebrewe maketh for our translation as euery man that vnderstandeth that tongue may see especially by the last vvordes vvhich vvord for vvord are thus to be translated Howe are the heades or Princedomes of them strengthned Againe Hebr. 11. vers 21. according to the Greeke vve reade by faith Iacob dying blessed euery one of the Sonnes of Ioseph and adored the toppe of his rodde Bible 1600. some thing better in the Bible 1595. Luke 1. v. 28. Bible 1600. 1595. They translate the last vvordes thus and leaning on the end of his staffe worshipped God In which translation they adde two vvordes to the text leaning and God and turne the sense vpsi-downe I adde also their translation of those vvordes Haile ful of grace for vvhich they reade Haile thou that art freely beloued and Haile thou that art in high fauour SECTION THE FIFT Of their corruptions against inherent Iustice Iustification by good workes Merit of good workes and keeping the Commandements and in defence of their special Faith vaine Security c. and against Freewil and Merits TO proue their imputatiue justice against inherent justice first vvhereas the Apostle saith Rom. 5. vers 18. Therefore as the offence of one vnto al men to condemnation so also by the justice of one vnto al men to justification of life Bible 1595. worse in the Bible 1600. they reade thus Likewise then as by the sinne of one sinne came on al men to condemnation euen so by the righteousnesse of one good came vpon al men to the righteousnesse of life In vvhich their translation they adde foure vvordes to the text of the Apostle to make him seeme to say that al men be truly sinners and none truly just but so reputed Ephes 1. vers 6. for gratified they reade Bible 1600. made accepted Luke 1. vers 28. for ful of grace they translate freely beloued and in high fauour Dan. 6. vers 22. vvhereas Daniel according to the Chaldee Greeke and Latin said Iustice was found in me they make him say Bible 1600. 1595. my justice or vnguiltinesse according to an other translation was found out before him The like corruption may be seene 2. Cor. 5. vers 21. To proue that good workes done in state of grace concurre not to our justification and that vve reape no grace by obseruing of the Commandements vvhereas the Scripture to signifie the Commandements of God vseth in diuers places the vvord justifications and justices because the keeping of the Commandements is justification and justice and the Greeke vvord is alwaies correspondent to the same they neuerthelesse in al such places suppresse the very name of justification and vse the vvordes ordinances or statutes Bible 1595. 1600. as may be seene in the Psalm 118. in diuers verses Luke 1. vers 6. Rom. 2. vers 26. c. To this end also they auoide in their translations the vvord just and cal a just
Scripture for a man as Field saith must be spiritual before he can vnderstand the Scripture and howe spiritual vvithout faith and vvhereupon shal this faith be built vpon the Scripture this cannot be because without it he cannot vnderstand the Scripture and howe can he build his faith vpon Scripture before he vnderstandeth it of which it followeth as I haue said that the Scripture is not the first and only rule of our faith as they affirme Neither can it be auerred that the first faith is not properly faith for as they confesse it maketh a man spiritual and is the ground of the vnderstanding the true sense of Scripture and consequently must be a true faith and properly so called Secondly Field requireth a minde free from the thought of other thinges depending on God as the fountaine of illumination desiâ—â—â—s of the truth with resolution to imbrace it though contrary to the conceit of natural men But first this also seemeth to presuppose faith and grace yea some extraordinary perfection more then is ordinarily found in the greater part of Christians Secondly I dislike those his vvordes desirous of the truth with resolution to imbrace it if they be vnderstood of matters of faith for they seeme to pretend a certaine kinde of doubt and staggering vvhich must not be allowed in such points especially in spiritual men as before Thirdly he thinketh the knowledge of the rule of faith formerly set downe necessary as also of the practise of the Saints according to the same Of this his rule of faith formerly by him set downe booke 3. chap. 4. I haue said something before Part. 2. chap. 4. As touching this his present doctrine it is certaine that most men wil not allow of his said rule but either vvil condemne it as insufficient in not conteining al thinges necessary or as ouer-large in containing thinges superfluous vvherefore this his third rule in this part is very vncertaine But in very deede that the Scriptures ought to be interpreted according to the rule of faith that is the whole summe of Christian religion preserued as a Depositum in the Church Part. 1. chap. 7. sect 5. I haue proued in the first part of this Treatise Moreouer as before I argued against the first rules so I argue against this that of it may be inferred that our faith is not built vpon the holy Scripture because the rule of faith must be a rule by vvhich the scriptures are to be expounded of which it followeth that it selfe is not knowne and belieued through the authority of the scripture Against the second part of this rule I oppose only Part. 2. chap. 4. that according to his groundes of which I haue discoursed before the practise of the Saints can very hardly be gathered out of the monuments of antiquity especially concerning such matters as Field denieth to be of the substance of our faith vvherefore this also maketh euery exposition of scripture obscure and of an vncertaine truth Fourthly is required saith he a due consideration what wil followe vpon our interpretation agreing with or contrary to the thinges generally receiued and beleeued among Christians in which consideration the conference of other places of Scripture and the thinges there deliuered is necessary To this I say first that if Luther had wel obserued this rule he had neuer broached newe doctrine in the Church Secondly the insufficiency of it is euident See before Part. 2. chap. 4. if Fields doctrine before set downe concerning the errour of almost al Christians be true Fiftly he requireth the consideration of the circumstances of the places interpreted the occasion of the wordes the thinges going before and following after Sixtly he also requireth the knowledge of al those Histories arts and sciences which may helpe vs. Both these I let passe as necessary yet not as sufficient to giue vs infallible assurance Seauenthly he thinketh the knowledge of the original tongues necessary and of the phrases and Idiotismes of them To which I say that although I thinke this a great helpe yea absolutely necessary according to the Protestant doctrine because they make the scripture the only ground of their faith and neuerthelesse haue no diuine meane or prudent reason to assure themselues that any one hath translated them truly yet it cannot be sufficient Neither is it according to our Catholike proceedings so needful both because vve are sure that we haue the text truly translated and also because we make not the scripture the propounder of our beliefe but expound it according to the rule of faith deliuered and receiued These are M. Fields helps and rules which he setteth downe as a meane where by we may be assured that vve haue found out the true meaning of scripture And although euery man may perceiue by that vvhich I haue said against some of them in particular howe vveake and doubtful they are Yet I vvil adde a vvord or two of them in general And first I aske M. Field howe he knoweth these his helps and rules to be sufficient can he proue their sufficiency by any diuine testimony or infallible argument nothing lesse and therefore I imagine that in the beginning he doth not so confidently affirme it but vseth these vvordes I thinke we may thus resolue and yet that diuine proofe or at the least some forcible reason is necessary it can not be denied because the true interpretation of Scripture is their principal ground of faith no interpretation in a matter doubtful can be infallibly knowne otherwise then by the aforesaid meanes Are also al these his helps and rules necessary See Willet in his Synopsis controuers 1. quaest 7. See also part 2. chap. 5. sect 1. before neither this vvil be admitted by his bretheren vvho reject the greater part of them and he must needes in a matter of such importance as this is according to their principles condemne them of great ignorance and errour if he absolutely affirme them al necessary Secondly I gather out of these rules that no man can diuinely or infallibly assure himselfe of the truth of any other mans exposition This is manifest because no man can by diuine testimony or prudential ground know that any other man hath sufficiently proceeded according to al these rules nay what ignorant person can so knowe the sufficiency of any learned man that he is sufficiently instructed in the tongues c. that he may embrace his opinion as diuine Finally no man can after this sort assuredly knowe that an other hath an illumination of the vnderstanding and that his mind is disposed according to the second rule which thinges neuerthelesse Field vvil haue required for the attaining of the right vnderstanding of holy Scripture Thirdly that appeareth to be very false vvhich is auerred by Field to vvit that a man following such directions as he prescribeth may not only assure himselfe of the truth of holy Scriptures but also conuince the aduersaries and gainesaiers for
my judgement it is strange howe they confesse euery man although neuer so much enlightned to be subject to errour and yet euery one assureth himselfe hauing one no more warrant then an other that he is in the truth Finally this doctrine of diuine inspirations and illuminations gaue occasion to * Frederi Staphilus l. de cōcordia discipulorū Lutheri Petrus Palladius l. de haeresibus Caluī in Instructorio cōtra Libert cap. 9. Willet in his Synops controuer 1. q. 1. Muncerus and certaine Anabaptists his followers as also to the Zwenckfeldians and Libertines of their blaspheamous opinions For like as our Protestant aduersaries commonly flie to illuminations for the knowledge of the true text interpretation of holy Scripture so these men either because they found it vvritten that a 2. Cor. 3 6. the letter doth kil or because they thought the Scriptures not necessary seing that the holy Ghost is able to teach mens harts vvithout any vvritten letters rejected the Scriptures altogither and pretended only such illuminations of the spirit Hence also perhaps proceeded the dreames and visions of the Enthusiasts a famous sect of Anabaptists but of this no more SECTION THE FIFT Concerning their deductions out of holy Scripture that they likewise are framed by them according to their owne fancies and of their accusations of one another touching these matters IT is moreouer a thing most euident that in the deductions or collections of the articles of their faith and religion out of holy Scripture they are not only subject to errour but also that they followe their owne judgement and inclinations And this vvil appeare to any man that shal consider the same One deduction I vvil here set downe vvhich I my selfe haue heard some of them make which was this I vrged them to bring forth some authority out of the vvord of God for their keeping of the Sonday in steade of the Saturday and they alleaged as a sufficient proof of this matter those wordes of S. Iohn in the Apocalipse Apocal. 1 10. I was in spirit on the Dominical or as they say on the Lordes day And vvhat an insufficient deduction is this if vve set aside the authority and tradition of the Church vvhich they despise Howe doth this followe S. Iohn vvas in the spirit or had a reuelation on the Sonday therefore al Christians may lawfully worke on the saturday a day commanded by God himselfe both in the old and newe testament Exo. 20. c. Math. 19 17 if we follow the letter to be kept holy and obserue the Sonday I could bring a hundred more such examples and my reader may gather some out of that which hath beene already said in the first section of the seauenth Chapter I adde also for the proofe of this that their deductions out of the selfe same wordes be diuers and opposite for euery sect like as it hath a particular and proper forme of faith so hath it peculiar and proper deductions out of the text of holy Scripture This cannot be denied because the collections of the Lutherans Zwinglians English Protestants Caluinists or Puritans Anabaptists Libertines differ from one another as their beliefe is different And to giue one instance or two but yet to omit the knowne different collections vvhich are found among Lutherans and Sacramentaries Doe not some Lutherans gather out of Scripture a necessity of good vvorkes See colloquiū Altenbergēse others that such vvorkes are not necessary a Bishop Barlow of Rochester in his sermon Whitgift others Doe not also some Sacramentaries as our English Protestants out of scripture deduce their gouernement of the Church by Bishops others as the Puritans their gouernement by Elders Doe not finally b Caluins Institut booke 2 chap. 16. ver 10.11.12 in Math. 26. 27. Willet in his Synopsis controuers 20. Caluin Willet and others gather out of scriptures that Christ suffered in soule the paines of hel which by others is disalowed And doe not the followers of one part of these collections condemne them of the other either as Heretikes or as Schismatikes or as Blaspheamers These thinges are most certaine Of which I inferre that al these sectaries deductions cannot be found but some must needes frame them according to their owne fancies And seing that vve haue no infallible reason according to their groundes to approue the one of them before another vve may vvith like reason condemne them al as hauing no other ground as they are by them maintained then humane judgement and vnderstanding In defence of the Lutherans of Wittenberge both concerning the proofe of the letter and interpretation of holy Scripture and also touching deductions out of the same it may perhaps be said by some man Harmony of cōfess sect 10 pa. 332. 333. Confess Wittenb art 32. that they hold the Church hath authority to beare witnesse off and interpret holy Scripture as likewise to judge of al doctrines according to that Try the spirits whither they be of God and let the other judge Yea they adde that shee hath receiued of her husband Christ a certaine rule to wit the Prophetical and Apostolical preaching confirmed by miracles from heauen according to the which shee is bound to interpret those places of the Scripture which seeme to be obscure and to judge of doctrines I answere and confesse that in very deede this is their doctrine vvhich maketh not a little against the dreames and inspirations of their bretheren but this can make no infallible ground according to their assertions for they make both the Church and tradition subject to errour and consequently if vve beleeue them no man can build vpon their authority an act of diuine and supernatural faith Finally hence it proceedeth that our aduersaries themselues accuse and censure one an other to be corrupters of scripture falsifiers and liers If vve beleeue * Luth. epist ad Ioan. Heruagium typographum Argentinens Luther the Sacramentaries beganne their opinion of the Sacrament with lies and with lies they doe defend it and they broached it abroade by the vvicked fraude of corrupting other mens workes If Caluin Caluin admonit 3. ad Westphalum Caluin in defens de Sacram p. 1085 the Lutherans are nothing else but forgers and falsifiers and of Westphalus in particular he vvriteth thus Westphalus as though he were I knowe not what Comical Iupiter carrying Minerua in his braine putteth boldly vpon al his fictions the visard of the word of God if it had not beene nowe an old thing and commonly knowne that the false Prophets did so much the more gloriously pretend the name of God by howe much the further they were from him by these frights and scar-crowes he would peraduenture doe something The word of God doth confidently sound againe and againe in his mouth but in word only And soone after This prophane man doth filthily abuse at his pleasure the sacred sentences no otherwise then Magitians doe wrest holy
authority of him that teacheth it or some discourse of their owne vnderstanding Lastly it is also apparant that in so doing they make themselues judges ouer their Masters for vnderstanding of diuers opinions among them they choose and imbrace one as true and condemne al others as false But if their learned doctors themselues in their interpretations build vpon their owne fancies much more the vnlearned vvherefore I need not vse any long discourse of this matter Only I wil adde that it seemeth likewise necessary that he that vvil build his faith vpon the holy Scriptures should finde his whole beliefe in the said Scriptures and knowe perfectly by his owne studie what articles of faith by them are approued and consequently that he should reade ouer the vvhole Bible and conferre one place vvith another least that he be deceiued Otherwise if he beleeue others concerning these points he seemeth to build vpon their vvordes more then vpon the word of God and to fal into that which by his bretheren and him is commonly reprehended as a fault in vs. For they reprehend the vnlearned Catholikes that they rely so much vpon the authority of the Church and reade not the Scripture themselues to knowe what they ought to beleeue vvhereas if they doe not as I haue said they build themselues vpon the authority of a fewe Ministers And these reasons haue more force concerning the ignorant sectaries that cannot reade then the vnlearned that can reade especially this last for the ignorant sort cannot finde their beliefe by their owne study in the Bible and therefore must needes rely wholy vpon other mens reports But our English vnlearned and ignorant Protestants yea some of the learned sort also recurre to the statutes of the Parliament and make it as it vvere an infallible judge of al matters of religion Against these I reply that the Parliament hath no such prerogatiue See Bilson in his treatise of the perpetual gouernement of the church cha 16. pag. 371. 388. 389. seing it hath neither authority from God after such sort to enter-meddle in matters of faith for this belongeth to the Bishops and Prelates of the Church nor a vvarrant from him of not erring Yea seing that it hath erred diuers times as our Protestants themselues cannot denie the judgement of it must needes be very insufficient That they must needes grant it to haue erred I proue because it hath now approued some articles of faith which in former times it condemned This is euident because some of the articles of their beliefe nowe approued vvere censured to be heretical by a Parliament held in the first yeare of King Richard the second against the Wiccliffians in the yeare of our Lord 1380. Also by another act of Parliament in the second yeare of King Henry the fourth Further their vvhole religion vvas condemned by act of Parliament in Queene Maries daies Yea they cannot deny but some of the chiefe articles of their newe beliefe were adjudged heresies by a Parliament held in the latter daies of King Henry the eight euen when he vsed the title of supreame head of the Church of England by the statute of six articles vpon vvhich diuers of their bretheren were burned as Fox their martir-maker recordeth Wherefore I may vvel say that their religion hath beene condemned as authentically by act of Parliament as it hath beene approued And what reason haue they to beleeue more such Parliaments as haue made for them then those that make against them Moreouer it is a most absurd thing to condemne the auncient Councels of the Church of errour and yet to make the judgement of an English Parliament consisting principally of temporal men of an infallible truth Field booke 4 chap. 7. pag. 209. Finally M. Field affirmeth that we can neuer be so wel perswaded of any man or multitude of men but that we may justly feare either they are deceiued or wil deceiue and therefore saith he if our faith depend vpon such groundes we cannot firmely and vndoubtedly beleeue Which his assertion if vve apply to the English Parliament it must needes be confessed that according to his judgement vve may justly feare that either it is deceiued or wil deceiue and that vvho builds his faith on that cannot firmely and vndoubtedly beleeue and consequently it followeth he hath no faith SECTION THE SEAVENTH Of the miserable estate of the vnlearned and ignorant Sectaries HAVING proued that the vnlearned and ignorant Sectaries build their faith and religion vpon their owne fancies I thinke it not amisse to gather out of that which hath beene already said howe miserable their estate is and vpon what weake ground they stand and venture the euerlasting estate of their soules For the declaration of this let vs suppose that an vnlearned sectary being doubtful of his faith commeth to be resolued to his learned masters and let vs behold vvhat groundes of faith are deliuered vnto him by which he may make a stedfast and assured resolution vvhat then is this man perplexed in his beliefe according to our aduersaries ordinary manner of proceeding first vvished to doe verily first according to their aduise he must take the Bible into his handes and diligently viewe what faith is there deliuered and prescribed But vvhat Bible must he take into his handes no other certainely if he follow their counsaile but that vvhich is translated and corrupted by those of their owne sect not the vvord of God but the vvord of men as I haue proued before and this is the first ground which he receiueth from them Suppose this be done and that he being doubtful of this article among others whither Christ be equal and consubstantial to his Father or no turne ouer his Bible and finde those vvordes of Christ The father is greater then I Iohn 14 29. But yet finding two natures in Christ the one of God the other of man and not able to judge of vvhich these vvordes were spoken is not yet satisfied vvhat more is to be done He must conferre say they this place of Scripture vvith other such like Suppose then further that he turneth to that sentence of our Sauiour Iohn 10 30 I and the father are one and pondering vpon it findeth that the Father and the Sonne may be one diuers waies vvherefore not vnderstanding of vvhat vnity the said sentence is meant suppose that he remaine yet doubtful and cannot resolue himselfe by his Bible vvhat must he doe more He must then say the learned betake himselfe to his praiers and pray vnto God that his spirit may by his diuine inspiration teach him the true sense of the aforesaid places of scripture and resolue him of the truth Wel he doth so After his praiers either he findeth his minde inclined to one certaine interpretation and opinion or no If not then he is yet doubtful But if he doth finde his minde so inclined is he consequently sure that he hath attained to the truth Howe knoweth
juices write the names of good holesome medicines whereby almost no man reading the good superscription any thing suspecteth the lurking poison of the self same thing Math. 7. Likewise our Sauiour crieth out to al Christians take ye heed of false prophets which come to you in sheepes cloathing but inwardly are rauening wolues What is meant else by sheepes cloathing but the sayings of the Prophets and Apostles which they with sheepe-like sincerity did weare c. And soone after But to the end they may more craftily set vpon the sheepe of Christ mistrusting nothing remaining stil cruel beasts they put of their woluish weed and shroud themselues with the wordes of Scripture as it were with certaine fleeces whereby it happeneth that when the silly sheepe feele the soft wool they litle feare their sharpe teeth Ambros in cap. vlt. ad Tit. hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis S. Ambrose likewise telleth vs that impiety seing authority to be esteemed couereth her selfe with the vaile of Scriptures that whereas by her selfe shee is not acceptable by Scriptures shee may seeme most commendable And of this matter I neede say no more Chapter 9. In which is proued by the newe Sectaries forsaking their owne supposed ground and flying to others also by their dissension and inconstancy that they build their faith and religion only vpon their owne fancies SECTION THE FIRST Concerning their flying to other groundes by themselues rejected and their dissension I HAVE nowe sufficientlie proued that our aduersaries build not their faith and religion vpon any one of those particular groundes which are found in the Church of Christ yea that in al matters the rule of their beliefe is principally their owne judgement and fancy For the confirmation of al vvhich my discourse I purpose in this chapter to set downe three manifest tokens and signes of this their vveake foundation to vvit their forsaking of their owne ground and flying to others when they confute their aduersaries their dissention or diuision and their inconstancy Concerning the first it is a thing most euident in al their proceedinges that although disputing against vs they pleade and demand only Scriptures and commonly reject al authority of the Church Councels and Fathers yea when they come to confute other Sectaries like vnto themselues they refuse such trial by scriptures and sometimes fly to other such groundes Thus Caluin although he referre al matters sometimes to Scripture affirming that we ought to hearken to the voice of Christ alone and that it is meete the mouthes of al men be shut after that our Lord hath once spoken Caluin lib. 4. instit cap. 8. § 7. 8. which by his ordinary courses he seemeth to approue as a sufficient argument to shew that the wordes themselues of Scripture as they are expounded by himself are without contradiction to be applauded and reuerenced yet at other times he desireth al sorts diligently to ponder and examine whether the word of God be truly or falsly alleaged and to try the spirits whether they be of God or no because the Deuil assaulted Christ by Scripture and his instruments daily practise the same art to depraue the truth and seduce silly soules This course he taketh against the Anabaptists as I haue shewed a litle before See before chap. 8. sect 5. Nay discoursing against the Lutherans he vseth these wordes Nowe againe I turne my speech to you godly readers whome I earnestly beseech that you suffer not your senses to be astonied with that tinckling wherein the Magdeburgians boast This voice alwaies soundeth in their mouthes Caluin admonit vltima ad Westphalum pag. 1147. that we must not dispute where Christ the only master and doctour hath clearely taught what is to be beleeued that we must not contend where the same supreame judge hath pronounced a plaine sentence thus Caluin to the Lutherans pleading hardly the scriptures against him in proofe of the real presence After this sort also Beza against the Arians Trinitarians Nestorians and Eutichians pleaded the authority of general Councels as I haue else where shewed Part. 1. chap. 9. Westphalus likewise wrote to a Caluini ibid. pag. 1098. Caluin that the consent of many Churches condemning him should satisfie him Finally our English Protestants although they pronounce so hard a censure against general Councels themselues and are so earnest for the sufficiency of only Scripture as we haue seene before yet against the Puritans plead hardly the authority of the Church Councels and Fathers as euery man may behold in their vvorkes of this argument Whitgift in his defence Belson in his treatise of the perpetual gouernement of the Church and such other examples are not wanting Touching their dissention and diuision a Tertul lib. de praescript Tertullian affirmeth that we may lawfuly judge that there is adulteration both of Scripture and expositions where there is found diuersity of doctrine And the reason of this is manifest because the truth vnto vvhich the Scriptures and their true interpretation is consonant and giue testimony is one wherefore they cannot approue diuers and opposite doctrines Nowe that diuision is found among our aduersaries no man of any sense and reading can deny b Stanislaus Rescius lib. de Acheismis Phalerismis haereticorum nostri tēporis Stanislaus Rescius numbreth of them an hundred seauenty distinct sects of which c Caspar Vlenbergius li. 22. Causarū causae 9. Caspar Vlenbergius reciteth diuers principal * See Hedio a Zwinglian epist ad Melancthonem others reckon farre more And this euery man may the better beleeue if he consider that it is a very hard matter to finde any two of the learned sort of them of one opinion touching al matters of religion Hence ariseth dissention in their Churches in which they proceede so farre that they feare not to censure and condemne one another of heresie If we beleeue d Luther thes 27. cont Louaniens tom 7. in defens verborum coenae c. Luther and the Lutherans Zwinglius Caluin and al the Sacramentaries are damned Heretikes If we credit e Zwinglius tom 2. in respōs ad Luth. l. de Sacram. fol. 411. 401. Caluin admonit 3. ad Westphalum Zwinglius Caluin and other Sacramentaries Luther and the Lutherans are guilty of the same crime And the like dissentions are betweene the inuentours and followers of other sectes But of this matter I shal haue a more fit opportunity to discourse in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church vvherefore in this place passing ouer altogether with silence the domestical discord which is betweene our Protestants and Puritans touching the Lutherans and Caluinists abroad I vvil recite this only testimony of an f Relation of the state of religion in the West parts of the world §. 45. written as said by Sir Edwine Sans printed in the yeare 1605. English Protestant who hauing trauailed in those parts of their dissention writeth
painted reasons make some doubtful who of al these haue right and a just title to the thing challenged yet certaine it is and most easilie to be proued that the first challengers only who through the whole vvorld are tearmed Catholikes haue justice and right on their side The proofe of this would aske a long discourse of the definition and notes of the Church but in this present treatise I purpose only to declare that we Catholikes only haue true faith and build our said faith and religion vpon most sure and firme groundes Contrariewise that al sectaries are bereaued of this supernatural gift and build their whole beleefe and religion vpon their owne fancies Hereafter if it please God shal followe a more ample discourse of the definition and notes of the true Church One reason which moued me to take this course is that the principal controuersie betweene vs and our aduersaries is concerning matters of faith which is manifest because we condemne them of heresie which proceedeth of mis-beleefe in faith for he that erreth not in faith may be a Schismatike but he cannot be an Heretike wherefore if I proue that we Catholikes haue true faith and that our aduersaries haue no faith the controuersie betweene vs and them is after some sort decided An other reason is because faith doth especially incorporate vs in the Church and make vs members of the same It is the lincke and glewe yea the sinnewe which vniteth and bindeth vs to this body It is the roote and foundation of al true religion and justification a Ioh. 3 18 Marc. 16. vers 16. He that beleeueth not according to the verdict of our Sauiour is already judged and shal be condemned and damned b Hebr. 11. vers 6. without faith saith the Apostle it is impossible to please God Wherefore by S. Iohn Chrisostome c Chrisost in serm de Fide Spe Charit faith is called the of-spring of justice the head of sanctity the beginning of deuotion and the ground of religion By S. Ciril Bishoppe of Hierusalem d Ciril catech 5. and eie lighting euery conscience and causing vnderstanding By the other Ciril Bishop of Alexandria e Ciril l. 4. in Ioā c. 9. the doore and way to life also a certaine leading or bringing home againe from corruption to immortalitie With the like titles it is honoured f Aug. ser 38. de Tēpore by S. Augustine and other holie Fathers Like as therefore no material house or Castle can be erected vvithout a foundation first laid vpon vvhich al the burthen of the vvorke may rest so no spiritual edifice can be built in the soule of man vvithout faith the ground of al spiritual vvorkes Hence S. Athanasius that great piller of Christes Church beginneth his Creede which is receiued by the whole Church with this notable and famous sentence Whosoeuer wil be saued before al thinges it is necessary that he hold the Catholike faith which except euery man shal keepe wholy and not corrupted without doubt he shal perish euerlastingly This is the censure of that holy Father The reason of this is because we cannot attaine to a certaine knowledge of the first groundes and principles of Christian religion they being supernatural by the force of our natural and weake vnderstanding wherefore a supernatural knowledge of them being requisite it is necessary that this be done by supernatural faith which giueth vs power and lifting vp our vnderstanding maketh vs able to beleeue them because they are reuealed by God and of this necessity excellency of faith it followeth that without it there can be no true Church or religion for how can the true Church or true religion be without the ground and foundation of al true vertue and Christianity Contrariwise where true faith is found there is the principal ground of true religion of which I inferre that if I proue the new sectaries to haue no faith I likewise proue them to haue no church nor religion but on the other side if I proue our faith to be true I proue also that the ground of al religion is among vs and consequently that if we build hope and charity vpon this foundation we are members of the true Church trulie religious and in the sure way to euerlasting saluation Let vs therefore briefly behold both our groundes and theirs and according to the strength or weakenesse of them decide the whole controuersie betweene vs. But to proceede the more plainely and distinctly I wil first adde a word or two of the nature and conditions of true faith Chapter 5. Of the definition and conditions of true faith SECTION THE FIRST FAITH is a vertue infused by God into our vnderstanding by the helpe and force of which we giue a most firme assent vnto al those thinges which are reuealed by God to the Church because they are so reuealed Wherefore although a Christian should beleeue neuer so firmely any article of his faith vpon any other ground then the authority of almighty God who hath reuealed it yet he should not haue faith because faith biddeth vs beleeue such articles not because reason or any other such motiue perswadeth vs that they are true but because God who being the first verity and truth it selfe cannot deceiue hath so said and reuealed But for the better declaration of this definition or description the nature it selfe of faith let vs treate of it a litle more at large and first shewe that the act of faith is a most firme and certaine assent of the vnderstanding secondly that it is of thinges surpassing the reach of natural reason and consequently obscure Thirdly that by it we beleeue such misteries as haue bin reuealed vnto the Church by God Fourthly that it must needes be built vpon diuine authority Lastly that it is necessary that the articles of our faith be propounded vnto vs by some infallible authority and that the propounder of them is the holy Catholike Church SECTION THE SECOND That faith is a most firme assent of the vnderstanding TO beginne therefore with the first that the act of faith is a most firme assent of the vnderstanding to the thing beleeued without any doubt or feare of falshood or staggering the Apostle himselfe testifieth in this his description of faith Hebr. 11. vers 1. Faith saith he is the substance of thinges to be hoped for the argument of thinges not appearing That is to say faith is the substance or ground of hope a certaine argument or conuiction and most firme perswasion of the vnderstanding through the authority of God of things not appearing to our senses or not knowne by natural reason Verily that the word argument in this place doth not signifie euery kind of argument but an argument certaine and infallible the greeke word it selfe which is here vsed declareth Wherefore a Aug. tom 9. tract 89 in Ioā tom 7. de peccat merit remiss l. 2. ca. 31. 2. Pet.
most firme and certaine assent of the vnderstanding to thinges aboue the reach of reason and the object of it be the misteries of our beleefe it must needes follow that the authority of almighty God whose knowledge and wisdome are infinite and whose sayinges are of infallible truth must cause vs to beleeue the said misteries If any wil denie this I wil demand of him howe we can possibly attaine to a certaine knowledge of so high misteries but by the reuelation of God and this is that which al Christians commonly professe when as being demanded why they beleeue this and that they answere because God hath reuealed such doctrine I confesse that men are commonly first induced to faith by certaine reasons which the Diuines cal arguments of credibility such are miracles vvhich proceeding from God can giue no testimony to falshood the authority wisedome learning and consent of the professors of our religion in al ages since it beganne the strange manner of the propagation of our said religion being so strict throughout the vvhole vvorld by a fewe fisher-men the miraculous preseruation of our Church oppugned by so diuers and mighty enemies the constancy of our Martirs the great change to the better vvhich our religion causeth in those that embrace it the purity of doctrine and sanctity of life shining in the Prelates and Children of our Church the conformity of our faith vvith natural reason in not being contrary to it although aboue it and other motiues which I haue related in the third Chapter of this treatise which make the object of faith in the judgement of any prudent man credible and of which either one some or al induce men first to beleeue But al these arguments are only inducements to the true act of supernatural faith by vvhich the misteries of our beleefe are afterwardes beleeued not for any such reasons but only because they are reuealed by God This moued Saint Basil to describe faith after this sort Basilius in ser de fidei cōfess siue de vera pia fide in Asceticis Faith saith he is an assenting approbation of those thinges which through the benefit of God haue beene preached thus Saint Basil Hence I inferre that although faith and also other arguments haue the same effect in our vnderstanding vvhich is to make it giue a firme assent to some verity which is done by sundry arguments especially by such as are called demonstrations yet there is this difference betweene such arguments and faith that they doe this through euidence of the matter faith doth it through the authority of the reuealer leauing stil the matter obscure And this doctrine is consonant to that of Diuines who hold the first and supreame verity of God to be the formal object of our faith the sence of which their assertion is that the chiefe reason or cause on which as on a foundation the habit of our faith relieth and resteth and into which both it and the assent of it proceeding is lastly resolued is the diuine and infallible reuelation of God or which is al one God infallibly reuealing some truth by some Canonical writer or other lawful definer of faith of which it followeth that faith of his owne nature doth assent to no proposition which is not propounded by diuine reuelation SECTION THE SIXT Besides the reuelation of God some infallible propounder of the articles of our faith is necessary and that they are propounded vnto vs by the Catholike Church IN the precedent sections of this Chapter I haue declared that faith is a most firme assent of the vnderstanding to such misteries as God hath reuealed to al Christians to be beleeued Nowe I must further lay this most certaine and vndoubted ground to this that according to the ordinary proceedings of God besides the reuelation by him heretofore made of the misteries of Christian beleefe by the habit of faith we giue assent to the articles reuealed it is also necessary that the said articles be propounded vnto vs by some infallible authority assuring vs that they are so deliuered This reason it selfe teacheth vs for seing that Christ hath with-drawne his visible presence from vs and he himselfe immediately after a sensible manner instructeth no man but al by some common rule or meanes seing also that the reuelation of such misteries is obscure and no man by the strength and force of natural reason can assure himselfe that such and such articles haue beene reuealed it was necessary that God should ordaine some infallible authority to be the Mistris of faith which might infallibly teach the truth in al such matters doubtful neither had he otherwise sufficiently prouided vs meanes necessary for our euerlasting saluation I adde also that although it were so that we were certaine at the beginning of our beleefe of such a reuelation yet that the weakenesse inconstancy of our vnderstanding is such that without a sure guide and directour it easily erreth and straieth from the truth receiued This notwithstanding we make not this proposition or propounding of such verities as are reuealed by God any essential part of the formal object of faith of which I haue spoken before for we affirme such misteries in themselues before any such proposition to be credible and worthy of beleefe but because this is vnknowne to vs we require such a proposition only as a necessary condition to this that we infallibly knowe that they are so reuealed which must of necessity be knowne before that we can actually assent vnto them by supernatural faith What infallible authority then haue we without al feare and doubt of falshood assuring vs that al the articles of our faith haue beene thus reuealed by God Verily no other but the Spouse of Christ our Mother the Church vvhome our Lord hath made our Mistris and guide in such matters And trulie that we are to learne our beleefe of the Prelates and Pastors of the Church we are aboundantly taught by the sacred word of God For first the Apostle S. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans discoursing of this point vseth these wordes Rom. 10. vers 14. Howe shal they beleeue whome they haue not heard and howe shal they heare without a preacher as though he should say No man can attaine to the knowledge and beleefe of the articles of faith except by some preacher they be propounded vnto him And that these preachers are the Prelates and Pastors of the Church it is manifest because they are the true successors of the Apostles who in the beginning of Christianity from Christ receiued authority commandement Mar. 16. vers 15. Iere. 3. vers 15. to teach al nations through out the whole world For the proofe likewise of this truth it maketh that in the old Testament God promised that in the newe he would giue vs Pastors according to his owne hart vvho should feed vs in knowledge and doctrine Moreouer like as in the old lawe he pronounced this sentence of
the sonnes of Aaron Malac. 2. vers 7. The lippes of the Priest shal keepe knowledge and they shal require the lawe of his mouth so of the Bishops and Priestes of the newe who are to enjoy as great if not a greater prerogatiue the Apostle telleth vs Ephes 4. vers 11. that our Lord hath giuen and euer wil giue as long as the world shal stand some Pastors and Doctors in his Church to direct vs that we be not carried away with euery winde of doctrine And hence proceedeth this notable sentence of the holy Father S. Ireneus vvho for Christian religion suffered Martirdome about the yeare of Christ two hundred and fiue Iren. li. 3. cap. 4. We ought not saith he to seeke among others the truth which we may easilie take and receaue from the Church seing that the Apostles haue most fully laid vp in her as into a rich treasure house or place where the Depositum of the Church is kept of which hereafter al thinges which are of truth that euery man that wil may take out of her the drinke of life For this is the entrance of life but al the rest are theeues and robbers for which cause they are verily to be auoided But those thinges which are of the Church are with great diligence to be loued and the tradition of truth is to be receaued Hitherto S. Ireneus We say therefore that by the Church we learne as certainely what misteries haue beene reuealed by Christ as we should doe by our Lord himselfe if he were conuersant with vs on earth and the truth of this wil be made most apparant by the discourse of the next Chapter following Chapter 6. Of the supreame and infallible authority of the Catholike Church SECTION THE FIRST MY principall intent in this treatise is as I haue before declared to proue that vve Catholikes only haue true faith and that al Sectaries are bereaued of this supernatural vertue vvherefore hauing set downe and made euident in the Chapter next before the nature and conditions of true faith it remaineth that I now beginne in particuler to discourse of these points And seing that it is of the essence of faith that it be most assuredly built vpon diuine authority let vs first behold the groundes of the Catholike Roman beleefe and see whether they are able to make a sufficient foundation for such a faith in the followers of that religion then let vs doe the like concerning the groundes of the newe Sectaries But first I must note that although as I haue proued before we must trulie say that we knowe infallibly the misteries of our faith to be reuealed by God because we are so taught by the Church yet that her authority is not limited to the decision of this matter only for it extendeth it selfe also to the definition of al particuler matters of faith and may haue for her object the verities themselues reuealed It also condemneth heresies and prescribeth general preceptes of manners touching good and il wherefore the ancient Catholike buildeth vpon her authority not only his faith touching the point mentioned but also in some sort his whole beleefe and consequently al his internal vertues grounded vpon the same He relieth likewise on her doctrine for his externall carriage concerning vertue and vice and finally accepteth al her faith as infallibly reuealed by God himselfe who hath made her supreame judge of al controuersies touching matters of religion and assured vs that her judgement is not only certaine and infallible but also through the perpetual assistance and direction of the holy Ghost diuine so that God directeth her in al truth and by her as a sensible guide he bestoweth the same benefit vpon vs in al thinges necessary to saluation wherefore our whole beleefe and religion in such sort dependeth of her infallible authority that if this be proued it conuinceth that to be true sincere and diuine For no man can denie but in building vpon the tradition decision or definition of the Church we ground our faith and religion vpon diuine authority if her decrees be Gods and her doctrine warranted to be his Let vs therefore endeauour to shewe this that so with fewe wordes we may decide the whole question and to auoide confusion let vs diuide the whole discourse of this Chapter into the proofe of some three or foure assertions SECTION THE SECOND The whole summe of Christian doctrine by word of mouth not by writing was committed by Christ to his Apostles FIRST therefore I affirme that Christ cōmitted the whole summe of Christian doctrine by word of mouth not by writing to his Apostles ordained that they should deliuer the same to their successors the Bishops and Pastors of the Church This is manifest both because diuers points of Christian doctrine which the Apostles receaued from Christ are not recorded by the Euangelists in their Gospels and also because S. Luke witnesseth Act. 1. v. 3. that Christ after his passion and resurrection shewed himselfe aliue to his Apostles in many arguments for fortie dayes appearing to them and speaking of the kingdome of God of which his speach litle or nothing is recorded I adde moreouer that not long before his ascention he gaue his Apostles this commission Going said he teach ye al nations Mat. 28. v. 19.20 baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost teaching them to obserue al thinges whatsoeuer I haue commanded you These places I say manifestly proue that Christ by word of mouth instructed his Apostles concerning the misteries and articles of Christian religion and according to his instruction commanded them to teach the whole world Neither is there any record extant that Christ gaue them these instructions in writing or that he commanded them to set them downe and publish them after that sort yea if we wil not say that the Apostles transgressed Christes commandement we must absolutely say that he neuer bid them doe any such thing because neuer any one of them as I wil declare hereafter set downe in writing the whole summe of Christian doctrine No man likewise wil or can deny but that it was the ordination of Christ that the Apostles should deliuer this whole summe of Christian doctrine to their successors for otherwise Christ should haue instituted a Church only for the Apostles daies not to continue to the end of the world according to the predictions of the Prophets And hence this summe of Christian doctrine by the Apostle S. Paul was most earnestly commended to Timothie 1. Tim. vlt vers 20. O Timothie saith he keepe the depositum that is the pledge or pawne left with thee auoiding the prophane nouelties of voices and oppositions of falsly called knowledge He calleth it depositum or a pledge or pawne because it is as it were a thing laid into the Apostles and Bishops handes and committed vnto them to keepe which euery one of them with great
euident that hel gates doe preuaile against the Church if either she decay or teach false doctrine who then can say that either the hath perished or erred except he wil accuse Christ of falshood in not performing his promise and make him a liar Verily * Chrisost hom 4. de verbis Isaiae vidi Dominum Epiph. in Ancorato S. Iohn Chrisostome affirmeth that heauen and earth shal faile before those wordes of Christ thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I wil build my Church S. Epiphanius also alluding to this promise telleth vs that our Lord appointed Peter the first or cheefest Apostle a firme rocke vpon which the Church of God was built and the gates of hel saith he shal not preuaile against it for the gates of hel are Heretikes and Arch-heretikes c. the like sentences I could alleage out of the rest of the ancient Fathers And vnto this testimonie of our Sauiour I could likewise adde that he hath warranted the faith of S. Peter and in him the faith of his successor the Bishop of Rome who is ministerial head of Christes Church on earth Luc. 22. vers 31. that it shal not faile and consequently that the body ruled by the head shal enjoy the same prerogatiue but of this hereafter Moreouer our Sauiour made his Church the supreame judge on earth of al controuersies touching matters of religion for it is manifest that from her judgement he graunteth no appeale and that he vvil haue her definitiue sentence so firme and inuiolable among Christians that he vvil not haue him accounted one of that number who shal preuaricate or despise the same This is signified vnto vs in these his wordes Math. 18. vers 17. If he wil not heare the Church let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publican In which sentence he biddeth vs esteeme no more of our brother or neighbour that contemneth or disobeieth the censure of the Church then of a Heathen and Publican of which I gather that the Church in her censure cannot erre For if this might be then vve being bound to condemne whome she condemneth or to condemne him that vvil not listen and obey her counsaile and precepts might together with the Church condemne a man without just cause and that according to Christes commandement It appeareth likewise out of the said vvordes of our Sauiour that he vvil haue the sentence of the Church obeied wherefore he ought in reason to prouide that the said sentence be not erroneous But for the truth of these wordes of our Lord and also for the constant verity of the censure of the Church it maketh first that diuers falshoodes which before her said censure might in times past haue bin beleeued and defended yea were defended beleeued by the members of the true Church without incurring the crime of heresie afterwardes could not be so beleeued and defended as I could exemplifie in the Milinary heresie the opinion of such as held the baptisme of Heretikes to be of no force of others that denied the authority of some Canonical bookes and such like Secondly it maketh also for these her prerogatiues that al such as haue obstinately maintained any opinions condemned by the Church for heresies and consequently haue disobeied her authority decrees and beene by her adjudged Heretikes haue euer by al antiquity beene so accounted August in Enchirid. ad Laurēt cap. 5. Tertul. de pudicitia item li. de praescript Math. 5. v. 13.15 Luc. 10. vers 16. and therefore haue not beene numbred by the ancient Fathers among Christians whose opinions notvvithstanding if vve reject her infallible judgement by vvhich they were condemned and make it subject to errour may be reuiued and called againe in question either as wrongfully and injustly censured or at the least as condemned by a judge whose judgement is subject to errour and falshood The priuileges and prerogatiues graunted by our Sauiour to his Apostles and Disciples confirme the same for they are by him called the salt of the earth and the light of the world and being sent to preach they receaued from him this commission and approbation of their doctrine He that heareth you heareth me and he that dispiseth you dispiseth me Which wordes argue an infallible truth although not in the doctrine of euery particuler Bishop and Prelate of the Church yet in them altogether when they represent the whole Church in a Councel or in the whole number of them although diuided seperated in place For in these like as in Christes Apostles and Disciples as I haue aboue declared the wordes alleaged must be verified which cannot be done if they al in euery sense may erre For how can they then truly be tearmed the salt of the earth and the light of the world and how can it be true that he that heareth them heareth Christ But if we had no other testimony of holy Scripture for this matter fiue or six wordes of the Apostle vsed by him to Timothie in his first epistle 1. Tim. 3. v. 15. c. vvere sufficient to conuince our vnderstanding and make vs yeeld to this truth For in his said Epistle he tearmeth the Church the piller and ground of truth These thinges I write to thee saith he hoping that I shal come to thee quickly but if I tarie long that thou maist knowe howe thou oughtest to conuerse in the house of God which is the Church of the liuing God the piller and ground of truth What could he haue said more euident for the infallible authority of the Church the Church saith he is the piller and ground of truth that is to say the very foundation and establishment of al verity vpon vvhich as vpon a sure foundation and an inuiolable piller a man may securely build the edifice of his faith and religion vvho then vvil say that the Church is subject to errour These considerations moued S. Augustine Aug. lib. 1. cont Cresconium disputing against Cresconius concerning the baptisme of Heretikes to vse this discourse these are his vvordes Although of this that the baptisme of Heretikes is true baptisme there be no certaine example brought forth out of the canonical Scriptures yet also in this we keepe the truth of the said Scriptures when as we doe that which now hath pleased the whole Church which the authority of the Scriptures themselues doth commend That because the Scripture cannot deceaue whosoeuer doth feare least that he be deceaued through the obscurity of this question may aske counsaile touching it of the Church whome without any doubt the Scripture it selfe doth shewe Hitherto S. Augustine Out of which discourse of his we may gather this notable rule that in al thinges doubtful and in al obscure questions concerning faith and religion we ought to enquire and search forth the doctrine and beleefe of the Catholike Church and imbrace the same seeking no further warrant of security because the Scriptures demonstrate her and manifestly declare that
in them so long as he seeth not apparantly his errour condemned by Scripture or plainely proued false by euident deduction out of those articles which are expresly to be knowne and beleeued But the truth of this mine assertion is gathered out of that which hath beene already proued For if the Church be the ground and piller of truth and cannot erre in faith it is manifest that al her beleefe may safely without danger of errour be receiued And moreouer because God hath reuealed such articles to the Church for no other end then that her children by the beleefe of them may attaine to euerlasting blisse it is also euident that euery one is bound to beleeue whatsoeuer she teacheth I adde also that whosoeuer beleeueth not al hath no faith and that he who thinketh it to be sufficient to saluation to beleeue certaine principal articles of Christian religion although the rest be denied must needes accuse the Church of errour and so according to his owne opinion cleane ouerthrowe her The first is easily proued because he that beleeueth not God and his Church in one point certainely beleeueth them in none For howe is it possible that he can reject them in any if he beleeue their authority to be infallible Wherefore by rejecting their judgement and sentence concerning one article he plainely declareth that he beleeueth not the rest because they are propounded vnto him by the Church and reuealed by God but because they please his owne fancy and in his owne judgement he thinketh them true and credible of which it followeth that he hath no faith which as I haue aboue declared maketh vs beleeue the misteries of our beleefe because they are reuealed by God And this we may gather out of those wordes of S. Iames the Apostle He that offendeth in one is made guilty of al. Iames 2. vers 10. For if by committing one mortal sinne we be said to be made guilty of al either because by breaking one commandement we shewe our selues not to regard the rest or else because one mortal sinne is as sufficiēt to bereaue vs of the grace of God as a thousand we may likewise wel inferre of this that a man refusing to beleeue one article of faith sheweth himselfe not to esteeme of the rest and by this only is bereaued of true faith that in very deede he beleeueth none and is guilty of infidelity touching al and consequently is no member of the Church of Christ whose members by faith principally are vnited and lincked together Further that whosoeuer thinketh it sufficient to saluation to beleeue certaine principal articles of Christian religion although the rest be denied accuseth the Church of errour thus I declare Galat. 5. vers 21. Tit. 3. vers 10. The Apostle teacheth vs that they that followe and embrace sectes or heresies shal not possesse the Kingdome of heauen Wherefore either the Church erreth both in defining such articles as some thinke not necessary to be beleeued to belong to the object of faith and also in condemning for heresies such opinions as they thinke may safely be defended or else such as despise her censure and embrace the said opinions are in state of damnation the first as I haue already proued ouerthroweth the Church the second is that which I intend to proue But let vs declare the truth of my first assertion out of the holy Scripture And first it cannot be denied but our Sauiour absolutely and that vnder paine of being censured as Etnickes and Publicans and consequently vnder paine of damnation commandeth vs to heare and obey the Church Math. 18. vers 17. if he wil not heare the Church saith he let him bee to thee as the Heathen and Publican And note that he biddeth vs not beleeue her onelie in principall matters but in all making no limitation or distinction In like sort in general tearmes he telleth vs that he that heareth his Apostles disciples which must be likewise verified in their successors heareth him and he that despiseth them despiseth him Finally he commanded his disciples to preach his Gospel and added that he that beleeueth it not shal be condemned which wordes cannot be vnderstood only of the principal articles of Catholike religion for his Gospel included the whole summe of Christian faith as I haue proued aboue Hence diuers in the first ages of the Church haue beene condemned and accursed as Heretikes for few errours in faith yea some time for one only and that in no principal point of beleef as I could exemplifie in the quarto decimani Epiphan haeres 50. who were so censured for keeping Easter day on the fourteenth day of the moone and others yea I may wel say that almost al Heretikes that euer haue risen haue beleeued certaine principal articles of Christian religion wherefore whosoeuer thinketh it sufficient to beleeue such articles openeth heauen almost to al Heretikes Moreouer howe shal we know which are these principal articles certainely euery man wil affirme if this liberty be giuen that the articles by him denied pertaine not to that number Lastly this errour is condemned by al the ancient Fathers S. Athanasius in his Creed receiued by the whole Church affirmeth that whosoeuer keepeth not entirely wholy without any corruption the Catholike faith without al doubt shal perish euerlastingly Theodor. li. 4. c. 17. Hooker booke 5. of ecclesiastical policy §. 42. pag. 88. Greg. Nazian tract de fide Aug. lib. de haeres in fine S. Basil being requested by the Prefect of Valens an Arrian Emperour to yeeld a litle to the time answered that they which are instructed in diuine doctrine doe not suffer one sillable of the diuine decrees to be corrupted or depraued but for the defence of it if it be needful and required embrace likewise of death Hooker also a Protestant telleth vs that the same S. Basil for changing some one or two sillables in the verse Glory be to the Father and to the Sonne and to the holy Ghost was forced to write apologies and whole volumes in his owne defence S. Gregory Nazianzene hath this notable sentence Nothing can be more dangerous then these Heretikes who when they run soundly through al yet with one word as with a droppe of poison corrupt or staine that true and sincere faith of our Lord and of Apostolike tradition S. Augustine likewise hauing reckoned vp eightie distinct Heresies addeth that there may chance to lurke many other petty heresies vnknowne to him of which heresies saith he whosoeuer shal hold any one shal not be a Catholike Christian. Finally * Hier. li. 3. Apolog. contr Ruf. S. Hierome witnesseth that for one word or two contrary to the Catholike faith many heresies haue beene cast out of the Church This is the opinion of the ancient Fathers Wherefore seing that one only heresie be it neuer so smal bereaueth vs of faith and seperateth vs from the body of Christ his Church which is quickned with
his holy spirit it must needes followe that vvhosoeuer is infected with any one such heresie is void of al spiritual life and in state of damnation and can haue no more life then a mans arme cut off from his body or a bough cut from a tree But of this matter I shal entreate more at large Chap. 1. Sect. 4. in my treatise of the definition and notes of the true Church vvhere I shal proue that the members of Christes Church are lincked together by the profession of the same vvhole summe of Christian doctrine and therefore for this present this shal suffice And lesse I thinke would haue satisfied any reasonable man for seing that there is but one true rule of beleefe Ephes 4. vers 4. and one faith according as vve are taught by the Apostle among Christians and this faith is so necessary to saluation as I haue proued before no wise-man wil prescribe himselfe a rule of faith according to his owne erroneous fancy and neglect the judgement of the Church whome truth it selfe hath warranted that she shal not erre from truth Chapter 7. Of the holy Scripture which is the first particuler ground of faith in the Catholike Church SECTION THE FIRST Howe the Scripture is knowne to be Canonical THE supreame authority and infallible judgement of the Church being thus established and proued it may wel in this place be demanded vvhat particuler groundes decrees or principles the Church doth deliuer vnto vs or we finde in the Church whereupon we may securely build our faith For the resolution of this question I haue affirmed in the title of this Chapter that the first such particuler ground is the holy Scripture And although there be no controuersie betweene vs and our aduersaries concerning the authority of diuers bookes of the said holy Scripture for most of them by vs al are confessed to be Canonical yet much difference there is betweene vs concerning the meanes by vvhich vve knowe the holie Scripture and euery parcel thereof to be the true vvord of God and vvho is to be judge of the true sence of these diuine volumes vvherefore these points are briefly to be handled and discussed Howe then doe vve knowe that the old and newe Testament are Canonical howe can vve certainely assure our selues that the Apostles and Disciples vvrote the newe vvhat proofe likevvise haue vve to perswade vs that no part of the holie Scripture hath beene in times past corrupted or depraued I answere in fewe vvordes that al this is infallibly knowne vnto vs by the authority and judgement of the Catholike Church vvho hath adjudged al such bookes to be Canonical and as Canonical receiued them and deliuered them to her children I denie not but the Scriptures before the definition and censure of the Church vvere true and contained the certaine and sincere vvord of God but this only I say that this truth and authority was first infallibly knowne vnto vs by the Church vvho adjudged and censured them to be as they are and as such commanded al Christians to esteeme and reuerence them Neither is this any waies prejudicial to the dignity and authority of the holie Scripture for this notwithstanding vve confesse that the said Scripture is of farre greater authority then the Church or her definitions be vvhich is manifest because although the holie Ghost assist and direct both the vvriters of holie Scripture and the Church yet certaine it is that hee hath assisted and directed the first after a farre more excellent manner then he doth the second because his assistance and direction in penning those sacred bookes vvas such that euery sentence in them contained is of most certaine verity but his assistance vnto the Church vvhether it be in a general Councel or otherwise in the decrees of the Bishop of Rome maketh only that vvhich the said Councel or Bishop intend to define of such an infallible truth Wherefore then doe vve proue the Scripture to be Canonical by the authority of the Church Surely for no other reason then because the Church is better knowne vnto vs then the Scripture For the Church hath alwaies beene as I vvil proue hereafter most visible and apparant to the vvhole vvorld euery man also before that the newe Testament vvas written before that it vvas generally receiued by the Church might haue knowne the Church for she vvas before any part of it was penned and consequently by her infallible judgement euery one might with farre more ease and certainety haue come to the knowledge of such bookes then by any other meanes or industry Wherefore to conclude although the Church maketh not Scripture yet of her we learne most certainely which is Scripture And this is no more disgrace vnto Scripture then it was vnto Christ that the Apostles gaue testimony of him because they were better knowne then he I adde also that euery one of them who aboue al others reprehend this our assertion taketh vpon himselfe as great authority ouer Scriptures as vve giue to the whole Church See part second chap. 5. Sect. 1. For euery newe sectarie out of his owne fancy judgeth this to be Scripture that to be none c. vvhich must needes be in euery mans judgement farre more absurd This assertion being thus explicated let vs nowe briefly proue the same And first because vve can assigne no other meanes by vvhich vve may say that vve certainely knowe the Scripture to be Canonical but the authority of the Church And as concerning the old Testament although vve graunt that the authority thereof vvas first partly approued by miracles partly by the testimony of Prophets and partly by the authority of the Church in those daies yet howe doe vve nowe infallibly knowe that it vvas so approued and that it is the selfe same nowe that vvas then approued but by the relation tradition and censure of the Church But let vs come to the newe Testament and demand vvho hath receiued it into the Canon of holie Scripture vvhat miracles haue beene vvrought to proue it Canonical who doth assure vs that it vvas penned by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ and that since their daies it hath not beene corrupted Verily the Church only resolueth vs of al these questions and telleth vs vvith assurance of truth that the said newe Testament vvas vvritten by the said sacred authours inspired and directed by the holy Ghost and that euer since their daies it hath beene preserued in her sacred bosome vvithout corruption And no other answere hauing any probability of truth and sufficient to satisfie a reasonable mans vnderstanding can be made This may also be confirmed by the continual practise of the Church For no man can deny but it vvas her doing that the foure Gospels of S. Mathewe Marke Luke and Iohn See part 2 chap. 5. Sect. 2. were receiued and the Gospel called of Nicodemus with others rejected She hath likwise now receiued as Canonical diuers bookes in times past of
difficulties of holy scriprure are onlie to tame our vnderstanding and increase our merit But like as these places are brought to accord so likewise are those and euen with as great case which they alleage to disproue the authority of those bookes vvhich they reject and vve receiue Neither can an Atheist desirous to impugne both discerne any difference wherefore I conclude that by this manner of proceeding they vveaken the authoritie of the vvhole Bible and offer an occasion to Atheists of rejecting the whole Vnto this I may adjoine that Beza rejecteth or at the least doubteth of the truth of the whole historie of the adulterous woman recorded in the eight chapter of S. Iohns Gospel And why so Beza in cap. 8. Ioan. he yeeldeth these reasons The great variety of reading maketh me doubt of the whole matter To speake opinion I doe not dissemble that to be by me worthily suspected which those auncient writers with so great a consent either rejected or were ignorant off Furthermore that the storie reporteth that Iesus alone was left in the temple with the woman I know not how probable it is and that it writeth that Iesus wrote with his finger in the ground seemeth to me nouum et insolitum a thing strange and not accustome neither can I conjecture howe it can fitly be explicated thus Beza But if these reasons be sound and sufficient the same may justlie be pleaded against diuers other parcels of holie scripture and consequently Beza by this his manner of arguing weakneth the authority of the same Secondly they laugh and scoffe at the ceremonies vsed in the Catholike Church by which they induce their followers to think euen as basely of diuers ceremonies prescribed by God in the old lawe Leuit. 16. vers 21. c. As of that for example that the high Priest should put both his hands vpon the head of a liue goate and confesse ouer him the sinnes of the childeren of Israel and then should send away the said goate into the desert bearing vpon him al their iniquities The like may be said of the water of aspertion vvith vvhich the vncleane vvere sprinckled which was made of running water Numer 19. the ashes of a red cow burned scarlet cedar and bishop and a thousand other ceremonies far more reprehensible in an Atheists judgement then those which in our Church they cal Idolatrous and superstitious I adde also that by the same rule they giue an Atheist licence to scoffe at diuers actions of the old Prophets as of that of Ahias Selonites 3. Reg. 11. verse 29. 1. of Kings who to signifie to Ieroboam that he should be king of ten Tribes of the twelue Cut a newe cloake which he wore into twelue pieces and deliuered him ten of them yea by the same rule he may also laugh at diuers precepts of God himselfe to the said Prophets As for example at that of God to Ezechiel Ezech. 4. when he had him take a bricke and drawe in it the figure of the citty of Ierusalem he commaunded him likewise to sleep on his left side three hundred and ninety daies and and in the meane time to eate daylie a certaine quantitie of bread made of diuers sorts of graine and baked in the dung of buls then to take a rasor and shaue off al the haire of his head and beard Ezech. 5. and by weight to deuide it into three parts of which the first part he willed him to burne in the middest of the citty the second he willed him to choppe with a knife and the last he willed him to scatter in the winde And truly I see no reason in the things themselues why an Atheist should thinke himselfe more vvorthie of reprehension for scoffing at these actions then our aduersaries for running the like course against our ceremonies Nay I adde further that by their scoffing at our ceremonies they offer euil persons an occasion to scoffe at certaine ceremonies vsed euen by our Lord himselfe and recorded by the Euangelistes I wil exemplifie in one particular Caluin calleth our ceremonie of touching vvith spitle the nostrils and eares of one that is to be baptised before baptisme Caluī de Eccle reformat Willet in his āswere to the Apolog. epist sect p. 106. Mark 7 33. Iohn 9 6. absurd and ridiculous and Willet calleth it an interpretiue toy But who doth not see that this may be a motiue to others to pronounce the same censure against certaine like actions of Christ as that when healing a man deafe and dumbe spitting he touched his tongue or that when giuing sight to a blinde man He spit on the ground made clay of spitle and spred the clay vpon his eies I could produce other such examples Thirdly I haue declared aboue that miracles proceeding from God himselfe vvho can neither deceaue nor be deceaued are a principal motiue to induce vs to beleeue the supernatural misteries of our faith But the authority of these also is weakned by our aduersaries for although they cānot deny but that a Iob. 14.12 Mark 16 17 Christ bestowed vpon his Apostles their successors the gift of working miracles yet because such miracles in euery age since the first beginning of christianity haue bin done by those of our church as testimonies of their doctrine sanctity of life they either b See Abbot ī his ans co D. Hils sixt reason Fulk vpō the Rhems testam 2. Thes 2.9 Willet in his Sinop controu 2. qu. 3. deny that such miracles were euer wrought notwithstāding that they are recorded by al historians yea euen by eie witnesses of the same of great credit or else they attribute the working of thē to the deuil or to natural causes The first two shifts are vsed by the c Ceturiat in singulis fere Centurijs Cent. 5. c. 10. col 1393. Ceturiators who among the rest of S. Martins miracles written by S. Sulpitius Seuerus an author of great credit renoune a disciple of the same S. Martin whiles he liued giue this cēsure that either they were false or els that S. Martin was a conjurer The same deuises are approued by d Calu. in prae fat Inst Fox p. 204. col 2. Num. 7. Hastīgs in his Apolog agaīst the Waraw encoūt 2. See also Sutcl in his ans to Kellisons Suruey cap. 11. p. 99. Caluin Fox others The third is added by Sir Francis Hastings But euerie man may easily perceaue that the same shifts may be vsed by an Atheist for the ouerthrow of al miracles whatsoeuer although expressed in the scripture it selfe wrote by Christ his Apostles for exāple in the life of S. Martin mētioned writtē by Sulpitius Seuerus we read that S. Martin raised 3. dead men to life cast deuils out of men possessed that a woman was cured of an issue of bloud by touching of his garment c. These things say the new sectaries are either fables
of errour in al and consequentlie taketh from her al infallible authority and maketh her a fallible and vncertaine ground Chapter 4. They reject al particuler groundes of faith aboue assigned and proued to be found in the Church of Christ besides the holie Scriptures LET vs now descend to the particuler groundes of faith which we haue aboue proued to be found in the Church of Christ And although our aduersaries denial of the infallible authority of the Church and her assistance by the holy ghost on which the certainty of al such particuler groūds dependeth as I haue shewed before be a sufficient proofe not onlie that they reject them but also that according to their doctrine they haue no infallible meane to know what articles haue beene by God reuealed to his Church yet let vs declare the matter more in particuler and at large But concerning vnwritten traditions the decrees of the Pope the doctrine of the Romane Church yea of the whole Church of Christ I need say nothing because they al with one consent and voice exclaime against these groundes as superstitious friuolous and of no moment The difficulty therefore is onlie concerning holie Scriptures general and prouincial Councels and the vniforme consent of Fathers of vvhich the first is challendged by them al the other two by some of them only I wil beginne with the two last And concerning general Councels a Luther lib. de Concilijs Luther doth not only reprehend the first councel held by the Apostles at Hierusalem of which we read in the b Act. 15. acts of the Apostles and affirme that the decrees thereof bound no man in conscience but also calleth the Fathers which afterwards assembled themselues in Councels sicophants and flatterers of the Pope In particuler he calleth the Canons of the first general Councel of Nice celebrated in the daies of Constantine the great Emperour whom our c Barlow in his relatiō of the conferēce held at Hāpt Court p. 69. King by no meanes wil haue appreached of Poperie bay straw wood stuble and demandeth whether the holy Ghost hath nothing else to doe in Councels but to binde and burden his ministers with impossible daungerous and vnnecessarie lawes such according to him were decreed in that Councel I think he meaneth concerning the chaste and single life of Bishops and ministers The like censure he pronounceth against al other general Councels and concludeth his discourse in that place that more light is brought to Christian doctrine by that Catechisme which children learne then by al the Councels In another place he addeth that d Luth. in prologo li. contra statuta Ecclesiae he wil not haue his doctrine judged by any neither by Bishops nor by al the Angels but that be wil by his doctrine judge the Angels Caluin giueth leaue to euerie priuate man to examine the decrees of Councels by the exact rule of holie scripture e Caluin book 4. Instit cap. 9. § 8. 11. see also § 9. Let no names saith he or authorities of Councels Pastours Bishops hinder vs but that we may examine the spirits of al men by the rule of the word of God He likewise calleth the Fathers of the first general Councel of Nice f Idem lib. de vera ecclesiae reformatione opuscul pag. 480. see him also booke 4. of his Instit chap. 9. § 10. Phanatices that is men phanatical or deluded by the devil g Bez. in praefat noui test anno 1565. Beza telleth vs that in the best times such was partlie the ambition of Bishops partlie their foolishnes and ignorance that the verie blinde may perceiue sathan verilie to haue beene President of their assemblies the like censure is pronounced by Musculus h Vrbā Regi 1. part operū de eccl fo 51. Vrbanus Regius and others The ministers of the church of Scotland in the confession of their faith write thus i Cōfess of the faith of Scotl. prīt at the ēd of the harm of cōfess p. 19. See the said Harmonie of cōfessiōs sect 1. pag. 14. Without just examinatin we doe not receiue whatsoeuer is obtruded vnto men vnder the name of a general Councel for plaine it is that as the men assembled were men so haue some of them manifestlie erred and that in matters of great weight importance So farre then as the Councel proueth the determination and commandement that in giueth by the plaine word of God so soone doe we reuerence and embraces the same hitherto the confession of Scotland Out of which their vvordes as also out of the like assertions of others I gather that our aduersaries commonlie giue no more creditte to general Councels and consequently to the whole church of Christ which they represent then is to be giuen to the worst and meanest man liuing yea then may be giuen to the deuil himselfe For these may also be beleeued if they proue that true which they affirme by the authority of holy scripture which they al require as necessary before the decree of councel be beleeued Secondly I gather that according to their assertions we may likewise lawfully examine these their sentences or decrees whether they be according to the rule of scripture or no for they were also men subject to errour and moreouer because vve finde them not so as appeareth by that which hath beene already said we may also reject them as repugnant to the said scripture The like leaue they giue in like sort to those of their owne company yea to euerie priuate man whatsoeuer concerning al their canons and constitutions wherefore their followers or subjects are not to be reprehended according to these opinions and decrees if they examine their sentences and canons by the word of God and reject them if in their conscience according to their owne judgement they finde them not conformable to the same But what an absurd thing is it that a fewe ministers should presume to pronounce so seuere a censure against such auncient venerable and learned assemblies highly of esteemed by al true Christians in al ages euen since the beginning of Christianity whence wil they haue these errours to haue proceeded Certainly they must needs attribute them either to ignorance or malice of the Bishops and Prelates assembled But are they either for number learning or piety to be compared with them They are not without doubt as wil easily appeare vnto any learned man that shal with any difference read the Ecclesiastical histories and viewe the vvorkes of both sides Neither haue ministers being combred for the most part with wiues children and such other impediments that opportunity of giuing themselues to studie and deuotion as the auncient Bishops had who liued a chast and single life and gaue them selues altogether to spiritual affaires and vvere commonly verie holy men Wherefore seing that they also liued nearer to the Apostles daies it is verie probable yea certaine that they better vnderstood and knewe the
testifie that they are from God they cary a sacred and diuine authority with them and they doe also agree in al points with the other books of god in the old testament hitherto are his words b Field booke 3. cap. 44. §. The errour Field if I doe not mistake him differeth only from others in this that whereas most of them reject al supernatural habits in our soules and attribute our beleeuing to supenatural inspiratiōs of the spirit he acknowledgeth a supernatural habit of faith which he calleth also a potential ability c Book 4. c. 13. § This judgment the light of diuine vnderstanding d Book 4. c. 8. § Thus then and the light of grace And moreouer he doth explicate himselfe a litle more in particuler then others for he distinguisheth two sorts of thinges beleeued e Book 4. c. 8. § The schoole men whereof some saith he are such as are beleeued and neuer knowne as al the matters of fact that are reported in the Scripture which we can neuer know by the immediate euidence of the things themselues but mediatly in that we knowe they are deliuered vnto vs by him that cannot lie Others are first beleeued Ibidem § Thus then and afterwards the vnderstanding being enlightned and the heart clensed they are discerned of vs to be true And he concludeth that in thinges of the first sort the formal reason of our faith or inducing vs to beleeue is the authoritie of God himselfe whome we doe most certainelie discerne to speake in the word of faith which is preached vnto vs. But in thinges of the second kinde he vvil haue the said formal reason to be the euidence of the things appearing vnto vs being enlightened by the light of grace this is the opinion of Field But in which of these two sortes of thinges he placeth the knowledge of the authority of holie Scripture I cannot so plainelie as I vvould discerne by his words this onlie I gather as certaine out of his discourse Book 4. c. 7. § Thus then first that the principal cause of our knowledge and beliefe concerning the Canonical bookes proceedeth from the habite or light of faith For this al his assertions insinuate and principally these The spirit induceth moueth and perswadeth vs to beleeue By the light of diuine vnderstanding Chapt. 13. § This judgement Chap. 7. § Thus then Chapt. 8. § Thus then Chapt. 8. Caluī book 1. of Institut chap. 7. § 4. we judge of al thinges c. Secondlie he affirmeth in plaine vvordes that besides the habit of faith or light of diuine grace are required some reasons or motiues or some reason or motiue by force whereof the spirit setleth the minde in the perswasion of the truth of thinges vvhich were formerly doubted of And this reason as we haue heard him say before in some thinges is the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto vs in others the authority of God He explicateth himselfe more plainely by these sentences of Caluin If we bring pure eies and perfect senses the majesty of God presently presenteth it selfe vnto vs in the diuine Scripture and beating downe al thoughts of contradicting or doubting of thinges so heauenly forceth vs to obey Againe After we are enlightned by the spirit we doe no longer trust either our owne judgement or the judgement of other men that the Scriptures are of God But aboue al certainty of humane judgment we most certainly resolue as if in them we saw the majesty glory of God as Moises saw in the mount that by the ministery of men they came vnto vs from Gods owne most sacred mouth Thirdlie We finde a greater light of vnderstanding shining vnto vs in this doctrine of faith then is found within the compasse of nature a * I finde not these wordes following in Caluin satisfaction touching manie thinges which humane reason could not satisfie vs in a joy and exultation of the heart such and so great as groweth not out of nature hitherto Field out of Caluin He addeth that this maketh vs assure our selues the doctrine which so affecteth vs is reuealed from God That they are the only people of God and haue the means of happinesse where this treasure of heauenly wisdome is found that these books are the richest jewel that the world posesseth and ought to be the Canon of our faith which this people deliuereth vs as receiued from them to whome these thinges were first of al made knowne and reuealed thus Field And this is the common doctrine of diuers of our Sectaries To ouerthrow this opinion I must first lay this ground To moue vs to beleeue any article of Christian religion ordinarily besides the habite of faith or some supernatural illumination of the spirit some other reasons or motiues must of necessity concurre by force of which our vnderstanding may be perswaded that the thinge propounded is credible and according to prudence may be beleeued This may be proued by authoritie of Scriptures for if no such motiues are necessary to what end did our Lord during the time of his being here on earth work such strange miracles Surely of them he saith Iohn 5 36. Iohn 10 25. Iohn 15 24. The very works themselues which I doe giue testimony of me that the Father hath sent me Againe The works that I doe in the name of my Father they giue testimony of me Finally If I had not done among them workes that no other man hath done they should not haue sinne Out of which places I may wel infer both that our Sauiour propounded his doctrine with sufficient arguments of credibility and also that if he had not so done the Iews generally had not offended God in refusing to beleeue it which is expresly affirmed by S. August tract 91. in Ioānē Augustine I adde generally because vnto the learned sort it was otherwise sufficiently proued therefore they had sinned although Christ had done no miracles yet not so grieuously This caused him likewise Mark 3 15. Luk 9 10. Mark 16. v 20. See also v. 17. 18. to giue his Apostles disciples power to doe miracles and they as S. Mark reporteth after his ascētion going forth preached euery where our Lord working withal confirming the word with signes that followed Moreouer commonly al that are said in the Gospels to haue beleeued beleeued vpon some credible motiue as the Centurion Luke 23. the Lord whose sonne was cured at Caphernaum Iohn 4. verse 46.53 and diuers others And so those wordes of S. Rom. 10.14 Paul are vnderstood Howe shal they beleeue him whom they neuer heard and howe shal they heare without a preacher that is without one both expounding the rule of faith vnto them and also propounding such reasons as are sufficient to moue them to beleeue This also al the Apostles practised as appeareth by their sermons recorded in the acts of the Apostles Nay further in the old
Testament as it is euident by holy Scriptures and granted by our * Melācht in corpo doctri Germa et in examine ordi nand cap. de definit c. Oecolampad in Isa 23 21. Aug. lib. 1. ad Simplicianū quest 2. Lib. de spirit et litt c. 34. Freder Staphil l. de cōcord disci Luther Petrus Paladius l. de heres Caluin in Inst contr Liberti c. 9. aduersaries the Prophets that were extraodinarily sent confirmed their mission by miracles and why so if not to yeeld men sufficient prudent motiues to beleeue them Hence are these vvords of S. Augustine It is commaunded that we beleeue to this that hauing receiued the gift of the holy Ghost we may be able to worke wel by loue but who can beleeue except he be touched by some vocation that is by some testification or testimony of thinges Againe A reasonable soule cannot beleeue by her freewil if there be no vocation or perswation vnto which it may beleeue hitherto Saint Augustine Finally the truth of this appeareth by the ordinarie manner of proceeding of God with mortal men vvhich is not altogether by internal illuminations as the Swencfeldians Libertines and some Anabaptists dreame but by some common and external rule and seing that according to the Apostle he requireth of vs only * Rom. 12 1. Field booke 4. chapt 7. § Thus then a reasonable obsequy seruice or obedience it can not be said that he commaundeth vs to beleeue any thing which is not propounded vnto vs and made credible by prudential motiues In this sense I take Field who telleth vs as I haue partly set downe before that three thinges concurre to make vs beleeue that whereof we are doubtful the light of diuine vnderstanding as that whereby we apprehend the things of God the spirit as the authour of this illumination and the reasons and motiues by force whereof the spirit induceth moueth and perswadeth vs. And in particular he affirmeth that it is not sufficient for Stapleton to say that he beleeueth the Church to be guided by the spirit because the spirit moueth him so to beleeue but saith it is moreouer necessary that he declare those reasons or motiues by force whereof the spirit setleth his minde in the perswasion of the truth of those thinges he formerly doubted of Some man perhaps wil object that no miracles or at the least very fewe are nowe wrought in the vvorld vvherevpon it may seeme to followe according to this discourse that Christian Catholike religion is not nowe sufficiently propounded as credible I answere that although God doth alwaies cause his true religion to be sufficiently propounded in such sort that any vvise man may prudently embrace it and beleeue it true yet as is aboue insinuated he doth not in euerie respect make it so credible as is in his power to doe and that for our greater merit humiliation And from this it proceedeth that among Christians miracles are not nowe so frequent as they were in the primatiue Church because they haue nowe not only other sufficient motiues which may perswade al men of the truth of their religion but also sufficient prudential reasons and marks by which they may discerne the true Church from al false sinagogues as I haue partly declared before and wil declare at large in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church This then being thus proued let vs behold what prudential arguments our aduersaries bring to proue the Scriptures to be canonical by force of vvhich the spirit induceth moueth and perswadeth them to beleeue them Field as I euen nowe related assigneth two motiues of our beliefe vvhich are causes of it in two distinct sorts of things the one the euidence of the things appearing vnto vs the other the authoritie of God himselfe vvhome we doe most certainly discerne to speake in the vvord of faith vvhich is preached vnto vs. Caluin seemeth to assigne the majesty of God which presenteth it selfe vnto vs in the diuine Scriptures Rogers saith The Scriptures cary a diuine and sacred authority with them and agree in al points with other bookes of the old Testament But that none of these motiues are sufficiēt to perswade a prudent man that these books are according to the rules of wisedome most certainely to be accounted diuine and canonical it is easily proued For first if they were so it vvould followe that euerie prudent man reading these books by this only according to prudence should be moued to giue euery one of them this prerogatiue but this experience among our aduersaries themselues vvho are at variance touching some books whether they be canonical or no proueth false therefore these motiues are not sufficient Field booke 4. chapt 7. § There is Moreouer No man as Field telleth vs proueth a thing doubtful by that which is as much doubted of as it selfe For this saith he is as if one taking vpon him to be a law-giuer whose authority is doubted of should first make a law and publish his proclamation and by vertue thereof giue himselfe power to make lawes his authority of making the first lawe being as much doubted of as the second Wel then this being supposed true let vs see whether the truth of al such motiues as are assigned by our aduersaries mouing them as they say to beleeue the holy scripture be not as obscure as the diuine truth of the Scripture it selfe And first this appeareth in those which are brought by Rogers for it is euen as obscure a matter and as hardly to be proued that generally al the bookes of Scripture and euery sentence of them cary an extraordinary or diuine authority with them aboue al others as it is that they are Canonical so is likewise their agreement with the books of the old testament wherefore letting them passe let vs behold whether this be not also true in such formal reasons of our faith as according to Caluin and Field moue vs to beleeue And first vvhence proceedeth that euidence vvhich Field vvil haue in some thinges beleeued to appeare vnto vs Are the articles of our faith euident in them selues this he denieth of some for Field book 4. Chapter 8. § The opinion We confesse saith he that faith may rightly be said to be a firme assent without euidence of many of the things beleeued in themselues but the medium by force whereof we are to beleeue must be euident vnto vs as Durandus doth rightly demonstrate thus Field But can he make it good that any such articles are in themselues euident vnto vs as they are the object of our faith It is plaine that most of them yea almost al considered howsoeuer haue not so much of themselues in respect of our vnderstanding as euidence and certainety of credibility that is they appeare not so certaine and credible vnto vs as a prudent man would beleeue them setting aside the medium or meane supernatural by vvhich they are propounded But if vve consider them
priuate inspirations of the spirit And hence it is that the Prophet Ezechiel saith * Ezechielis 13. verse 3. August tract 45. in Ioan. Woe to the foolish Prophets who followe their owne spirit and see nothing Finally the auncient Heretikes as S. Augustine doth testifie boasted of such illuminations There are innumerable saith he who doe not only boast that they are videntes or Prophets but wil seeme to be illuminated or enlightened by Christ but are Heretikes And thus much against the infallible truth of illuminations in general Let vs nowe apply some of these general reasons to the knowledg of Scripture by illumination in particuler and also vrge them a litle further First therefore I demaund whether this illumination concerning the authority of Scriptures be common to al or particuler to some If common to al it consequentlie followeth that al men reading the Scriptures are thus infalliblie and super-naturally inspired of their truth but that al men are not thus generally and infallibly led to the knowledge of such diuine bookes it is apparant by our aduersaries dissention not only from the auncient fathers but also among themselues touching this very point For did none of the Fathers judge such bookes Canonical as al Protestants commonly reject it cannot be denied but they did for it is euident Field book 4. chap. 23. concil Carthag 3. canon sess 47. See also S. Aug. de praedest cap. 14. Cap. 8. sect 1. and plainely gathered out of Field himselfe that the third councel of Carthage in which as he truly saith S. Augustine was present numbred the bookes of Tobias Iudith Wisedome Ecclesiasticus and of the Machabees in the Canon Doe they also among themselues al admitte and reject the same bookes nothing lesse Luther and his Lutherans reject some which Caluin our English Protestants and others auouch to be Canonical and this shal at large be proued hereafter But they vvil say this inspiration is particular only to some that are enlightened by the spirit or as Caluin insinuateth only to the elect Caluī Instit book 1. chap. 7. § 5. and this seemeth to be their common opinion Against which I oppose first that of this would followe that there is no certaine rule in the Church whereby al men may come to a certaine knowledge of Gods word which assertion is verie absurd especially if the written vvord of God be the only rule of faith as they contend Secondly the Scripture yeeldeth vs no warrant for a diuine assurance of any such inspiration that there is any such in the Church They wil say that diuers sentences of the vvord of God plainely approue it but the contrary is already shewed and besides this is to fal into a circle by prouing the truth of Scriptures by diuine inspirations or illuminations and the truth of this againe by Scripture Thirdly it cannot be proued by Scripture that this inspiration if there be any such is particular to some and not common to al. Fourthly although we should grant this to some yet no man can by any warrant of Scripture or prudential ground assuredlie knowe that he hath such an inspiration especially considering first that diuers sectaries haue beene deceiued falsly pretended such inspirations as appeareth by their contrariety Nay I may further adde that either al Protestants are now deceiued in their judgement concerning certaine bookes or els that S. Augustine with the whole Councel of Carthage erred touching them in times past as appeareth by that which is said a litle before and no man wil deny but an error in either of these giueth a man just cause to mistrust his owne illumination For certaine it is that S. Augustine was guided by the spirit as farre forth as any Sectarie Secondly his judgement may also growe doubtful out of this that the same man may haue as they say a diuine inspiration touching one booke and be deceiued touching another Stocke and Whitakers in the answer to Duraeus the first reason pag. 48. for so saith Stocke out of Whitakers who telleth vs that Al thinges are not reuealed to al alike and that al haue not the same measure of the spiritte Out of vvhich he draweth an excuse of the Lutherans if they beleeued vvel of some and rejected not vvel other bookes of Scripture and this likewise seemeth to be gathered out of Caluin aboue cited Fiftlie others haue no meanes to knowe vvho receiueth such an inspiration and consequently it only profiteth the man himselfe who hath it and no other person this cannot be denied for Luther boasted of the spiritte as farre forth as Caluin yet they disagreed concerning the Canonical books and were of different faiths And what reason haue we either to graunt or deny this inspiration more to the one then to the other or vvhat arguments can be brought by the one which cannot be vsed by the other yea of this I infer further that neither of them had any such diuine inspiration for seeing that both were not inspired with the holy Ghost and one of them had no stronger proofes for his inspiration then the other we ought to giue no more credit to the one then to the other and seing that we cannot beleeue them both vve cannot according to reason credit either of them And in very deed neither of them is able to bring any certaine reason or authority able to perswade any other that he hath a supernatural inspiration shewing that this and that is holy scripture Finally of this whole opinion follow two other great inconueniences or absurdities first it giueth euery man licence to reject and admit books of holy Scripture out or into the Canon at his pleasure according to his fancy for there is no Sectary but may alleage the maiesty of the letter the euidence of thinges contained in it pure eies and perfect senses the light of grace or internal inspiration for the proof of his owne particuler opinion concerning canonical Scripture that with as great probability as any other Sectary be he Lutheran Sacramentary or of what other sect soeuer Neither can this refel him vnlesse they refute themselues In like sort if he deny these proofes to any book whatsoeuer no man can conuince him of error and of this may follow without any certainty almost as many opinions of this matter as there be heads Secondly by this allowance of an inspiration for the proofe of the letter of canonical Scripture the way is opened to the allowance of priuate inspiration also for the knowledg of the true sense and exposition of the same vvhich is denied by Field Field booke 4. chap. 16. and is in very deed a very fountaine of discord and confusion But what proofs can they bring for the one which cannot be applied to yea not aswel proue the other And these reasons as I imagine moued the authors before named to flie from this priuate inspiration to Tradition and the authority of the Church Vnto whome in my
Cipriā epist 40. 70. 55. 69. 71. 73. see him also in exhortat ad Martirium cap. 11. the Century writers who are esteemed very diligent searchers of antiquity taxe S. Ciprian for his doctrine touching the Popes supreamacy Secondly the doctrine of S. Ciprian taught in this booke agreeth exceeding wel with that which is found throughout al his epistles in vvhich vve finde the same sentences almost in the very same wordes which Iames denieth to be in his manuscript copies of the booke of the vnity of the church as that there is one God one Church and one Chaire founded vpon Peter that the Church was built vpon S. Peter that our Lord chose him the first or chiefest that he instituted the origen of vnity from him c. Peraduenture some man wil say these epistles are also corrupted but first I thinke they are not found otherwise in the Manuscript copies mentioned by Master Iames then they are in the printed bookes For vvere they it is like he vvould not haue passed it vvith silence as he doth Secondly neither Perkins nor any other affirmeth these epistles to be corrupted Thirdlie one of these Epistles in vvhich it is said that our Lord did choose S. Peter the first or chiefest and that vpon him he built his Church is cited by S. Augustine August to 7. de bapt cont Donat. cap. 1. Cipr. ep 72. ad Quintum vvho also alleageth those very vvordes as S. Ciprians which are in the printed copies to vvit Nam nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit super quem edificauit Ecclesiam suam c. For neither S. Peter whome our Lord chose the first or chiefest and vpon whome he built his Church c. And moreouer after S. Ciprians vvordes he addeth himselfe Behold where Ciprian rehearseth which also we haue learned in holy Scriptures that the Apostle Peter in whome the Primacy of the Apostles through so excellent grace is higher then others c. Thus S. Augustine of which it is most euident that this Epistle among al the rest is not corrupted and yet here is almost said as much in substance of this matter as is in his booke de vnitate Ecclesiae Finally the vvordes vvhich Iames vvil haue excluded from S. Ciprians booke de vnitate Ecclesiae are so agreeable to this holy Fathers stile and phrase and so fitting his discourse that no man can almost suspect them to be added But it may be demanded howe it falleth out that they are wanting in the Manu-script copies mentioned by M. Iames In very truth if there be such auncient copies and there be nothing razed out of them I cannot but thinke that they were written out before the art of printing was inuented by some Wicliffian Heretike or if they came out of some forraine country by some Schismatike or other that held with some German Emperor against the Pope That the Wicliffians vvere very potent and preuailed much in our Country we may gather out of that vvhich is said by Stowe in his Chronicle and in the yeares 1414. and 1377. And Walsingham vvriteth Walsingham anno vlt. Edward 3. that the Vniuersity of Oxford in particular vvas cold in resisting him Walsingham in vita Richardi 2. anno 1378. Nay their coldnesse vvas such that Gregory XI Pope in the yeare 1378. vvrote his Breue to it and reprehended them of the said Vniuersity for their coldnesse and slacknesse AN INDEX OR TABLE OF AL THE CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THIS TREATISE The first part of the groundes of the old religion CHAPTER 1. Of the first ground of Catholike religion to wit that there is a God and that God by his prouidence gouerneth al thinges page 1. Section 1. That there is a God page 2. Sect. 2. Almighty God hath care of worldly affaires and ruleth al things by his diuine prouidence page 10. Chap. 2. Of the second ground of our religion to wit that the soule of man is immortal and that it shal either be rewarded euerlastingly in heauen or punished euerlastingly in hel page 12. Chap. 3. Of a third principal ground of our faith to wit that Christian religion only is the true worship of God page 16. Chap. 4. That among Christians they only that professe and embrace the Catholike faith and religion are in state of saluation and doe truly worship God page 24. Chap. 5. Sect. 1. Of the definition and conditions of true faith p. 28. Sect. 2. That faith is a most firme assent of the vnderstanding page 29. Sect. 3. Faith is of thinges incomprehensible by natural reason and consequently obscure page 30. Sect. 4. By true Christian faith we beleeue such misteries as God hath reuealed to his Church page 32. Sect. 5. That true faith is built vpon diuine authority page 34. Sect. 6. Besides the reuelation of God some infallible propounder of the articles of our faith is necessary and that they are propounded vnto vs by the Catholike Church page 36. Chap. 6. Sect. 1. Of the supreame and infallible authority of the Catholike Church page 38. Sect. 2. The whole summe of Christian doctrine by word of mouth not by writing was committed by Christ to his Apostles page 39. Sect. 3. The Church cannot stray from the rule of faith receaued nor erre in matter of faith or general precepts of manners which is proued first because the holy Ghost directeth her in al truth page 42. Sect. 4. The same is proued by other arguments page 44. Sect. 5. That the testimonies of holy Scripture and other proofes brought for the infallible and diuine authority of the Church cannot be applied to the Church considered as it comprehendeth al faithful Christians that are and haue beene since Christes ascention or since the Apostles daies but vnto the present Church of al ages page 52. Sect. 6. That the same testimonies and proofes conuince an infallible judgement of the Church concerning euery article of faith not only concerning certaine of the principal page 56. Sect. 7. That to saluation it is necessary to beleeue the whole Catholike faith and euery article thereof page 58. Chap. 7. Of the holy Scripture which is the first particular ground of faith in the Catholike Church page 61. Sect. 1. Howe the Scripture is knowne to be Canonical page 61. Sect. 2. Concerning the sense or exposition of holy Scriptures and first that the Scriptures are hard and receiue diuers interpretations p. 67. Sect. 3. The Scriptures may be falsly vnderstood and that euery priuate man may erre in the vnderstanding of them page 69. Sect. 4. That the letter of holy Scripture falsly interpreted is not the word of God page 72. Sect. 5. The true sense of the holy Scripture is to be learned of the Catholike Church who is the true judge thereof page 75. Sect. 6. An objection against the premises is answered and the question concerning the last resolution of our faith is discussed page 78. Chap. 8. Concerning the second particular ground of Catholike
religion to wit Apostolike Traditions page 86. Sect. 1. Of Apostolike Tradition in general page 86. Sect. 2. Of vnwritten Traditions in particular page 91. Chap. 9. Of general Councels which make the third particular ground of Catholike religion page 97. Chap. 10. Of the decrees of the supreame visible Pastour of the Church which make a fourth particular ground of our faith and of other grounds hence proceeding page 108. Sect. 1. Containing a briefe explication or rehearsal of the Catholike doctrine concerning the Popes supreamacy page 108. Sect. 2. The aforesaid doctrine is proued page 113. Sect. 3. That the decrees of the Bishop of Rome when he teacheth the Church as supreame Pastour are of diuine and infallible authority and of some other groundes of faith flowing out of these page 127. Sect. 4. The opinion of some sectaries that the Pope is Antechist is briefly confuted and two objections against the premises are answered p. 133. Chap. 11. Of the consent of the auncient Fathers and the general doctrine of the Catholike Church in al ages page 140. Chap. 12. Containing the conclusion of the first part page 144. THE SECOND PART In which is proued that the newe sectaries build their faith vpon no diuine authority but that the ground of al their beliefe and religion is their owne judgement and consequently that they haue neither true faith nor religion CHAPTER 1. That by their doctrine they deny or at the least weaken the three principal and general groundes of Christian religion set downe in the three first chapters of the first part page 1. Section 1. The number of Atheists among them is great and of the causes by them giuen of this impiety page 1. Sect. 2. Of our aduersaries doctrine concerning the immortality of the soule heauen and hel page 8. Sect. 3. Of our aduersaries impious assertions concerning Christ and Christian religion page 12. Sect. 4. That in like sort they weaken the principal proofes of the said three groundes page 19. Chap. 2. The newe Sectaries debase the true Christian faith and in place of it extol a presumptuous faith by themselues inuented page 26. Chap. 3. That our aduersaries deny the infallible authority of the Church and affirme it to haue erred and perished page 30. Chap. 4. They reject al particular groundes of faith aboue assigned and proued to bee found in the Church of Christ besides the holy Scriptures page 32. Chap. 5. They build not vpon the holy Scripture and first that the bare letter of holy Scripture only is not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion page 47. Sect. 1. In which this is proued because by Scripture the Scripture it selfe cannot be proued Canonical It is also argued that according to the sectaries groundes there is no Canonical Scripture and some principal reasons especially inspiration of the spirit which they alleage for the proofe of such Scripture are refelled page 47. Sect. 2. In which the same argument is prosecuted and two things principally are proued First that the newe Testament receiueth smal authority if we beleeue our aduersaries by this that it was written by the Apostles and Disciples because they accuse them of errour Secondly because they confesse the text of Scripture to be corrupted p. 67. Sect. 3. The same is proued because euery Christian is bound to admit and beleeue certaine propositions neither expresly contained nor according to some mens judgements so euidently gathered out of the holy Scripture page 75. Sect. 4. The insufficiency of the bare letter of holy Scripture is proued by other arguments especially by this that the true interpretation cannot be infallibly gathered out of the letter page 78. Chap. 6. The newe Sectaries Bibles containe not the true word of God page 83. Sect. 1. In which this is first proued concerning al their Bibles in general page 83. Sect. 2. That Luther Zwinglius Caluin and Beza in particular haue corruptly translated the Scriptures page 84. Sect. 3. Our English sectaries also haue falsly and corruptly translated the Scriptures page 90. Sect. 4. Containing false translations against the authority of the Church Traditions honour of Images Purgatory and the honour of Saints page 92. Sect. 5. Of their corruptions against inherent Iustice Iustification by good workes Merit of good workes and keeping the Commandements and in defence of their special â—aith vaine Security c. and against Freewil and Merits page 94. Sect. 6. Of their false translations against the Real presence Priest-hood election of Bishops single life of Priests Penance and satisfaction for Sinne the Sacrament of Matrimony and some other points p. 96. Sect. 7. That the Professors of the newe religion in corrupting the Scriptures followe the steps of the auncient Heretikes and what followeth of this discourse page 101. Chap. 7. That they build not vpon the letter of holy Scripture contained as they say in their owne Bibles page 103. Sect. 1. In which this is proued first because the propositions which they tearme of their faith are not in expresse tearmes contained in the Scripture page 103. Sect. 2. The same argument is confirmed by the testimonie of some Protestants concerning the true sense of some wordes of Scripture alleaged for our Catholike doctrine touching justification in the Section before page 106. Sect. 3. The like discourse is made concerning a place of Scripture alleaged for the real presence page 114. Sect. 4. The followers of the newe religion in diuers matters obserue not the letter of their owne Bibles page 130. Chap. 8. In receiuing translating and expounding the holy Scriptures they only build vpon their owne fancies and judgement and that they haue no other ground page 134. Sect. 1. In which this is proued by their doctrine and dissention concerning the bookes of Canonical Scripture and their altering of the text of the same page 134. Sect. 2. The same is confirmed by their translations and expositions of holy Scripture page 141. Sect. 3. Concerning the newe exposition of those wordes This is my body in particular page 146. Sect. 4. That certaine rules prescribed by Field for the true vnderstanding of Scripture of themselues alone without the censure of the Church are insufficient to assure vs that our exposition made is of diuine truth page 149. Sect. 5. Concerning their deductions out of holy Scripture that they likewise are framed by them according to their owne fancies and of their accusations of one another touching these matters page 157. Sect. 6. The vnlearned and ignorant sectaries in receiuing and expounding the holy Scriptures likewise build vpon their owne fancies and judgements and haue no other ground of their faith and religion p. 161. Sect. 7. Of the miserable estate of the vnlearned and ignorant Sectaries page 166. Sect. 8. That the newe sectaries alleage Scriptures to confirme their new doctrine it is no certaine argument that they build their faith and religion vpon the said Scriptures page 172. Chap. 9. In which is proued by the newe Sectaries
the euent of particuler assemblies of Lutherans only concerning some difference found among themselues any better In the yeare one thousand fiue hundred threescore eight as Chitraeus himselfe a famous writer of this sect recordeth was that famous assemblie of Lutherans held at Altenberg concerning the necessity of good workes and free wil which as he telleth vs was dissolued without any hope of concord and saith he the actes were set out on both sides and not only the diuines did contend with publike inuectiues but also most bitter hatred was raised betweene the Princes themselues who caused this assembly Yea another Lutheran of the same meeting writeth thus This whole conference was not only dissolued without fruite but also the estate of the whole cause became worse The like hath happened in other of their Sinodes For I finde it not recorded that euer hitherto two nations or different Churches of these sectaries were vnited together by any councel held among them But vnto the Lutherans aboue cited I adde also the authority of Whitakers who graunteth Whitaker li. de consilijs p. 56. that without authority no Councel can be assembled And seeing that no one according to Protestants hath authority ouer the whole world it followeth that in their judgement no Councel can be assembled of al the Prelates of the world And out of this doctrine of our aduersaries joined vnto that maintained by diuers of them concerning the necessity of general Councels vvhich is likewise strongly by me proued before I inferre that it was necessarie that God should appoint some one general visible head ouer his Church which illation is very euident For if general Councels be necessary and they cannot be had without a head it must needs followe that Christ who is not wanting to his Church in thinges necessarie ordained some such head Andraeas Fricius de Ecclesia l. 2. cap. 10. pag. 570. Hence Andraeas Fricius although a Protestant and a man bearing deadlie hatred to the Bishoppe of Rome yet thought it needful that one head should be appointed ouer al the euangellical Churches to keepe them in vnity which he deemed otherwise would neuer be and handling that matter he also truly answereth that common objection of Protestants touching the title of vniuersal Bishoppe out of S. Gregorie of which before But the Lutherans as vve haue seene auerre that it vvas in times past the proper office of the Roman Emperours to cal general Councels I reply first it is euident that Christ bequeathed not this office to the Emperor both because the office being necessarie in the Church Christ if he had so done should haue taken order that euer there should haue bin some one Emperor ouer the whole world to discharge the same which as is euident he did not And also because many of the Emperors haue beene Infidels some Heretiks and therefore in al reason not capable of any such preheminence in the Church Secondly it is very wel proued by Catholike authors that there neuer hath beene any one lawful general Councel assembled in the Church by the Emperour alone without the consent and authority of the Bishoppe of Rome which I confirme only in this place by an Ecclesiastical canon alleaged by Socrates which as he saith forbiddeth Socrates lib. 2. cap. 13. that decrees be made in the Church without the consent of the Bishoppe of Rome And seing that this canon was not made by any Councel it is apparant that it descended from the Apostles themselues But of this point enough Some of our aduersaries deny the Pope to be the successor of S. Peter because say they S. Peter was neuer at Rome I reply that nothing not most plainely expressed in the word of God or not knowne by diuine reuelation can be more certaine then that S. Peter liued in Rome and was Bishoppe of Rome for this is affirmed by al auncient and moderne writers Luther in colloquijs mensalibus cap. de Antichristo Peter 5. verse 13. See CaluiÌ„ l. 4. Instit ca. 6. § 15. and Bilson in his treatise of the perpetual gouernemeÌ„t of the Church cap. 13. Psal 47. besides a fewe newe sectaries Hence are these words of Luther Al histories testifie that Peter was the first Bishoppe of Rome but they are meere fables And why doe our aduersaries deny so manifest a truth truly for no other cause but to prejudice and weaken the Popes authority by which they are condemned Neither is there any auncient authour that euer called the matter in question as doubtful and the monuments themselues of Rome most euidently conuince our assertion to be true yea it is gathered out of S. Peters owne words in his first epistle and confessed by the best learned of our aduersaries Others say that the priuiledge of S. Peter mentioned perished together with him and was not deriued to his successours But certaine it is that the vertue of Christs promise made to this blessed Apostle together with his office descended to al the Bishoppes of Rome his successours This I haue partly proued in the second section of the sixt chapter before vvhere I haue declared that the promises made by Christ to his Apostles concerning the assistance of the holy Ghost in the Church c. were to be verified in the Bishoppes of the Church during al ages ensuing In this place I wil only repeate that no man of sense wil imagine that Christ building his Church for euer prouided Pastours and Apostolike officers onlie for it during the life of S. Peter and the Apostles For certaine it is that like as the same Church so the same gouernours though not in person yet in power are alwaies extant in the world Euseb lib. 5. cap. 22. 24. 25. AthaÌ„ l. de sent Dionisij Alexandrini Cipr. l. 3. epist 13. Athan. Apolog 2. et in epist ad â—olitarios Socrates l. 2. cap 11. Hence the Bishoppe of Rome hath alwaies exercised his authoritie throughout al Countries and Nations in the world Pope Victor without any note or censure of passing the bounds of his authority about the yere one hundred fourescore eighteene excommunicated the Churches of Asia S. Dionisius Bishoppe of Alexandria was accused not long after before Pope Dionisius as S. Athanasius telleth vs And neither did the Pope although himselfe also a Saint refuse the office of a judge or the Bishopp accused his judgement S. Ciprian requested Pope Steuen to de pose Martianus Bishop of Arles in Fraunce and to ordaine another in his place S. Athanasius reporteth that he himselfe being condemned and depriued of his Bishopricke of Alexandria in the yeare three hundred thirty and sixe by a false Sinode held at Tirus and hauing receiued the same censure of condemnation by such another Sinode assembled at Antioch in the yeare 341. was absolued by Pope Iulius and restored againe to his Bishoprick notwithstaÌ„ding these former sentences pronounced against him The same Pope if we beleeue Socrates restored Paul Bishop of
Constantinople and Asclepas Bishop of Gaza in like sort to their Churches who being wrongfully depriued appealed to his supreme authority S. Damasus the Pope about the yere three hundre seauenty seauen restored in like sort Peter Patriarcke of Alexandria to his seate from which he was likewise vnjustly expelled by the Arians as witnesses are Zozomenus and * Socrates li. 4 c. 30. Socrates a Chrisos ep ad Inno. Theodorus Rom. diac apud Pallad ī dial Inno. Papa ī literis ad Archad apud Gena Nicepho et Glica S. Iohn Chrisostome Bishop of Constantinople in the yeare foure hundred and foure being by Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria and other Bishops in a Councel deposed appealed to S. Innocentius Pope who not only made voide the sentence pronounced against him but also excommunicated and deposed the said Theophilus b Calest epi ad Nestor et ad Ciril ep 3. Pope Caelestinus not long after in a Councel held at Rome first of al condemned the Nestorian heresie allotting Nestorius him selfe then Bishop of Constantinople only ten daies within which if he did not repent he should receiue the same censure from S. Ciril Bishop of Alexandria his Legate c Liberatus ca. 12. S. Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople condemned in the Pseudosinod of Ephesus by Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria and others appealed to S. Leo the great Bishop of Rome So did also d Theodor. epist 113. Theodoretus Bishop of Cirus at the same time And diuers other such like examples might be alleaged The testimonies of the auncient Fathers approuing the same superiority of the Pope are almost infinite but I can not stand to recite them only this I note that almost the same titles of primacie and dignity vvere giuen in auncient ages to S. Peter and the Bishop of Rome For like as S. Peter by e Euseb in Chronic. an 44. et lib. 2. hist cap. 14. Eusebius is called The first Bishoppe of the Christians the greatest of the Apostles the prince and captaine of the chiefest and the master of the warfare of God by f Orig. homil 2. in diuersos Euangel Origenes The top of the Apostles by g Epiphā haeres 51. S. Epiphanius Captaine of Christes disciples by h Cir. hierosol catech 2. S. Ciril Bishop of Hierusalem Most excellent prince of the Apostles by i Ciril Alex. l. 12. in Ioā S. Ciril Bishop of Alexandria Prince and head of the rest by k Chrisos in 1. Cor. 15. et hom 11. in Mat. S. Crisostome Prince of the Apostles pastor and head of the Church by l Cipr. l. de vnit Eccles S. Ciprian The head fountaine and roote of the whole Church c. So the Bishop of Rome by a See Cip. epi. 46. ad Cornel. et li. de vnit Eccle. l. 1. epist 3. ad Corn. et ep 8. ad plebē et l. 2. epi. 10. ad eun dē Corne. S. Ciprian is tearmed Bishoppe of the most holie Catholike Church by b Amb. in c. 3. 1. Tim. et epi. 81. ad Siriciū S. Ambrose Rector of the Church of God by c Steph. episco Carthag epist ad Dama Steuen Bishop of Carthage Father of Fathers and chiefe or highest priest by d Hieron praefat Euangel ad Damasum S. Hierome highest or chiefest priest by the general Councel of e Conciliū Chalced. epi ad Leō Chalcedon head of the Bishops of the Church and the keeper of our Lords vineyard and by f Aug. epist 157. S. Augustine Bishop of the Apostolike See c. Finally our aduersaries themselues seeme to grant that al antiquity acknowledge this superiority Bucer writeth thus * Bucerus in praeparatorijs ad Cōcilium We plainly confesse that among the ancient Fathers of the Church the Roman Church obtained the primacie aboue others as that which hath the Chaire of S. Peter and whose Bishops almost alwaies haue beene accounted the successors of Peter g Cētur 2. c. 4. col 63. Cēt. 3. c. 4. col 8. Cent. 5. c. 4. col 512. 520. The Centurie writers who are commonly accounted the most diligent and learned Protestant historians censure S. Irenaeus S. Ignatius Tertullian S. Ciprian Origenes S. Leo and S. Ciril as maintainers of this supreamacie h Cent. 4. c. 10. col 1010. 1249. 1074. 1100. They note S. Ephrem and S. Hierome for affirming the Church to be built vpon S. Peter i Cēt. 5. c. 6. col 728. Arnobius for calling S. Peter the Bishop of Bishops Optatus for extolling ouermuch the chaire of Peter Gelasius the Pope for excommunicating the Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople c. Besides this diuers of the Sectaries and among the rest k Beza cited in the suruey of the pretēded holy disci c. 27. p. 343. Beza l Cartw. l. 2. p. 507. 508. l. 1. p. 97. Cartwrighte and m Fulk against Saūd. Rock p. 248. 271. vpō the Rhems test in 2. Thes 2 9. See also Dan. in respō ad Bell. disp part 1. p. 275. 276. Fulk confesse that the Fathers in the first Councel of Nice began the foundation of the Popes primacy yea some of them say it was begun long before Their discord concerning the time of the beginning of this superioritie doth also testifie this as I could easile shewe if it were not that I haue already beene ouer-long in this section Lastly I adde that neither n Wicl in ep ad Vrbā 6. Wickclif nor o Luth. in resollut priorū disput ad Leon. 10. in declarat quorūd artic Luther who in sundry ages vvere the first raisers of rebellion against the See of Rome denied the Popes superiority before that he condemned their doctrine For the vvorkes of them both are yet extant written after their fal to preach nouelties in which they most apparantly and plainely submit themselues and their doctrine to his censure and acknowledge his primacy Of Luther diuers p Sleid. l. 1. fol. 10. Fox act mon. p. 404. Osiander in epist Cent. 16. p. 61. 62. 68. Cowper in his Chronic. fol. 278. Protestants testifie the same and this is a manifest signe that they opposed themselues against him for no other cause then that he condemned their opinions and proceedings SECTION THE THIRD That the decrees of the Bishop of Rome when he teacheth the Church as supreame Pastour are of diuine and infallible authority and of some other groundes of faith flowing out of these HAVING already proued that the Bishop of Rome is the true successour of S. Peter and ministerial head of Christs Church it remaineth that now we see what authority and credit is to be giuen to his decrees I affirme therefore that the Pope when teaching the vvhole Church as ministerial head of the same he defineth anie matter concerning faith and general preceptes of vice or vertue cannot erre I adde those vvords when teaching the whole Church as ministerial head c.