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
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
stil doubtful in this principal article of Christian religion or else going back to his Bible againe out of his owne judgement he must resolue to followe one of the aforesaid interpretations and to condemne the other as contrary to the vvord of God And vvhat a slender ground of faith is this yea seing that he hath no diuine authority vvhereon he buildeth I may boldly say that he hath no faith at al but only a kinde of opinion And like as I haue exemplified in this particular controuersie so could I doe concerning the real presence and the true sense of those vvordes This is my body or any other matter or place of Scripture in question betweene vs as my reader wil easily graunt for there is the like reason of them al and thus much concerning the vnlearned sectarie that can reade But what shal we say of him that is altogether ignorant and cannot reade The learned sectaries cannot send him to their Bible to search out the truth He cannot likewise conferre one place of scripture vvith another his praiers be of no greater force then his be that can reade wherefore he hath no other meane left but the aduise of the learned and his owne judgement and what wil the aduise of the learned helpe and auaile him if he finde among them possibility of errour and dissention These thinges he cannot but finde yea concerning that very text first alleaged The father is greater then I they are at variance for vvhereas some restraine it only to the humane nature of Christ Caluin saith He doubteth not to extend it to the whole complexum Caluin epist 2. ad Polonos seu in admonitione ad Polonos or person of God and man And certaine it is that if this ignorant person imbrace any one opinion as certaine concerning a matter of which he was before doubtful that he must either build vpon his owne judgement or otherwise he must take the vvorde of some learned man that the opinion which he followeth is true and vpon it ground his faith religion and saluation But vvhat reason hath he to accept rather of the word of one minister then of another For example what reason hath he in the exposition of those wordes This is my body rather to followe the Sacramentaries then the Lutherans are they not al alike subject to errors he cannot say that the scripture moueth him so to doe because he knoweth the Scripture only by the report of others Neither hath he any infallible rule whereby to discerne the true sense wherefore it is his owne fancy which perswadeth him to accept of the one exposition and to reject the other And doth not also this sectary although altogether vnlearned take vpon him to judge the learned Can he possibly beleeue the Sacramentary except he judge his doctrine to be true condemne al the learned Lutherans Can he follow the Protestants and not condemne the Puritans c. verily he cannot And vvhat a simple judge is he being a man ignorant voide of learning and commonly of a slender vvit and judgement And like as euery vnlearned sectary condemneth al the rest that dissent from him in opinion so al the rest condemne him For if he follow the Protestants al the Puritans tel him that he is deceiued if the Puritans the Protestants tel him the like tale If he beleeue Zwinglius Luther condemneth him to the pit of hel if Luther Zwinglius pronounceth the same judgement against him c. And of vvhat opinion soeuer he be certaine it is that more of his owne brethren condemne then approue his beliefe He is therefore in a most miserable and lamentable case both because he hath no ground of his faith but the vvord of a fewe ministers and his owne weake judgement and also because he is condemned of errour euen by those of his owne profession euen as learned and as vvise as they whome he followeth and farre exceeding himselfe in al such qualities And this is the ordinary manner of proceeding of the learned sectaries with the vnlearned and ignorant these grounds of faith and no others they receiue from them If any man doubt of the truth of this discourse let him exactly and strictly examine either the learned what grounds of faith they can afforde the vnlearned and ignorant or these vvhat groundes they receiue and vvhy they beleeue thus and thus touching any article of religion and their owne confession wil teach him that al which hath beene said is true and that the last and chiefest cause of this or that beliefe in the vnlearned and ignorant is their owne judgement or the opinion of the learned liking their owne fancy SECTION THE EIGHT That the newe sectaries alleage Scriptures to confirme their newe doctrine it is no certaine argument that they build their faith and religion vpon the said Scriptures TO proue that the professors of the newe religion ground their faith and religion vpon the holy Scripture some wil say that they alleage sentences of the said Scripture in great abundance in confirmation of their doctrine vnto whome I answere that true it is that so they doe But I adde that this is no sufficient argument to proue that which is intended And first let euery man deluded by such their proceedings consider that al the ancient Heretikes haue done the like Did not Arius Macedonius Nestorius Eutiches and other Arch-heretikes together with their followers for proofe of their heresies bring forth diuers places of holy Scripture Of this Vincentius Lirinensis who flourished almost twelue hundred yeares since Vincent Lirinens aduers prophanas haeresum nouitates c. 35. is a sufficient witnesse for of the ancient Heretikes alleaging of the word of God he writeth thus Here perhaps some man may demand whether Heretikes also doe vse the testimony of holy Scripture To which I say that they doe and that very earnestly for a man may behold them ranging and coursing in euery part of the Bible in Moises in the bookes of the Kinges in the Psalmes in the Apostles in the Gospels in the Prophets For whether they be among their owne brethren or with strangers whether in priuate or in publike whether in talking or in writing whether in the house a feasting or abroade in walking they almost neuer alleage any thing of their owne which they doe not pretend to shadowe with the sacred word of Scripture Reade the pamphlets of Paul as Sumosatenus of Priscillian Eunomius Iouinian and the rest of such like pestilent Heretikes and you shal finde through al their workes an huge heape of examples almost no page omitted which is not coloured and painted with the sayings of the old and new Testament thus farre Vincentius Lirinensis Origen tom 1 homil 7. in Ezechiëlem Of this point also Origenes discourseth after this sort When to defend false opinions we say it is written in the Prophet Moises testifieth this the Apostle speaketh it What other thing doe we but taking the
1. vers 19. S. Augustine in place of the word argument vseth the word conuiction affirming faith to be a most firme proofe and demonstration of thinges not appearing Hence S. Peter hauing declared that he sawe with his eies the glory of Christ in his transfiguration and heard with his eares the voice of God the Father addeth these wordes And we haue the prophetical word more sure By which he doth insinuate vnto vs that the knowledge of holie misteries by faith in the Scripture is more certaine then the knowledge which we receiue by the benefit of our senses Basil in ps 115. in moral reg 80. ca. 21. which perhaps moued S. Basil to affirme that no knowledge in vs is so firme and certaine as faith And the reason of this is because as I wil proue in the fift section faith is built vpon the infallible authority of God SECTION THE THIRD Faith is of thinges incomprehensible by natural reason and consequently obscure THE Diuines most trulie affirme that the object or subject of our supernatural faith is God as God because al thinges which by it are knowne and beleeued tend to this that by supernatural and reuealed groundes we attaine to as ful a knowledge of him as can by vs be had in this life Wherefore I may wel say that by faith we beleeue misteries aboue our reason although none cōtrary to our reason for faith only leadeth reason further then of it selfe it can reach and maketh it stoope and submit it selfe to the most certaine reuelation of God notwithstanding that he doth manifest vnto it misteries which in some sort seeme to resist our sense and reason This is signified vnto vs in the description of faith euen nowe alleaged out of the Apostle by those wordes of thinges not appearing for like as a Rom. 8. vers 24. hope according to the same Apostle that is seene is no hope For that which man seeth saith he wherefore doth he hope So faith of thinges seene and most certainely knowne by natural reason is not faith For that which a man seeth knoweth howe can he beleeue Neither doe those wordes of our b Ioh. 20. vers 29. Sauiour to S. Thomas the Apostle because thou hast seene me Thomas thou hast beleeued make against this For S. Thomas c Greg. ho. 26. in Euang as S. Gregory noteth sawe one thing and beleeued an other he sawe Christes humanity and beleeued his diuinity For this cause further the Apostle aboue cited telleth vs d Rom. 10. vers 17. Hebr. 11. vers 3. that faith is by hearing and that by faith we vnderstand that the worldes were framed by the word of God c. S. Augustine also auoucheth that e Aug. tra 79. in Ioā the praise of faith standeth in this that the thing be not seene which is beleeued f Aug. tra 43. in Ioā For what a great thing is it saith he if that be beleeued which is seene Againe faith is to beleeue that which thou seest not truth to see that which thou hast beleeued yea S. Athanasius plainely telleth vs Athanas tract de aduent cont Apol. 1. Cor. 13. vers 12. that faith conceiued of an euident matter cannot be called faith Hence it proceedeth that faith is obscure and cannot be found in heauen where al thinges are seene most clearely We see saith the Apostle nowe by a glasse in darke sort but then face to face nowe I knowe in part but then I shal knowe as also I am knowne And this obscurity of faith proceedeth aswell from the height and sublimitie of the misteries themselues reuealed which are without the compasse of our natural reason as also from the feeblenes and weakenesse of our vnderstanding which in this life being tied to our corporal senses cannot clearely apprehend thinges spiritual but only after a dimme sort by thinges visible commeth to some smal apprehension of thinges inuisible God likewise would haue it so not only to manifest vnto vs his owne Majestie and that he wil be beleeued at his word but also for mans greater humiliation and merit But although the object of faith so farre surpasse our reason and by this meanes cause obscurity in our vnderstanding yet certaine it is that God if he would might haue so declared and apparantly proued the misteries of our faith that the truth of them might haue bin farre more manifest then it is yea he might haue made it so apparant that no man of sense could haue denied them As for example Christ might if it had pleased him haue appeared after his resurrection to the whole Citie of Hierusalem yea to the whole world and by force of miracles perswasions and other such like motiues haue presently made Christian faith seeme euidently true to euery mans eie So likewise at this present it is in his power to doe for the manifestation of the truth of Catholike religion wherefore then did he not in old time and doth he not nowe proceed after this manner wherefore leaueth he the object of faith in this sense also inuironed with some obscurity I answere that most certaine it is that euery man hath or may haue if he please sufficient motiues and reasons to perswade him to imbrace the true religion and beleeue the whole summe of christian doctrine For God requireth only at our handes as the Apostle tearmeth it a reasonable obsequie or obedience Neuerthelesse he hath not vsed Rom. 11. nor doth vse al meanes possible to manifest the truth that man may merit the more by cōcurring by his free wil aided with Gods grace to the beleef of such misteries sufficiētly although not so fully as was possible proued to be reuealed by God himselfe For the more reason and proof that the wil hath to perswade her the lesse thankes she deserueth for obeying and so much the lesse reward shal be reaped by man in heauen by howe much the stronger arguments he hath to moue his vnderstanding to beleeue because one only argument infalliblie prouing any article to be reuealed by God is sufficient to make it the object of faith although the matter seeme neuer so obscure yea although it seeme in some sort repugnant to the ordinary course and nature of sensible creatures and thus much of the second point SECTION THE FOVRTH By true Christian faith we beleeue such misteries as God hath reuealed to his Church THIRDLY I am to proue that by faith we beleeue such misteries as it hath pleased the diuine Majestie of God to reueale vnto his Church and this likewise is easily proued out of the foresaid description of faith deliuered vnto vs by the Apostle For what other thinges are those which not appearing to our senses and vnderstanding faith causeth vs to beleeue but the articles of our faith and what doe these containe but such misteries as God hath reuealed to his Church yet least the peruerse humour of any man might otherwise vnderstand his wordes he hath
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
the truth of Christian discipline and faith is there we shal finde also the truth of Scriptures expositions al Christian traditions Vnto these authorities I adde that the obscuritie of the holy Scriptures the danger of misinterpreting them being presupposed it vvas necessarie that God almightie should prescribe some certaine rule which euery man might follow without danger of error in vnderstanding them otherwise dissension might haue risen concerning their true sense and consequently concerning diuers articles of Christian religion and euery man might would haue expounded them according to his owne fancie although neuer so false and erroneous And what judge can we imagine him to haue appointed but the Catholike Church whom as I haue proued aboue he hath warranted from errour whose authority he hath made the rule of our beliefe who hath the custody of holy Scriptures and from whom we receiue them and infallibly know them to containe the true word of God This finally the practise it selfe of the Church hath confirmed for whensoeuer any controuersy hath risen touching the true sense of holy Scriptures she according to the rule of faith in her preserued and the sense of Scripture vnto her deliuered together with the letter hath defined the truth and decided the same as it appeareth by the condemnation al Heretikes together with their false translations and erroneous expositions of the said Scriptures And whosoeuer forsaketh this rule falleth presently into a laborinth vast Sea of difficulties and is alwaies perplexed and inconstant in his beliefe Contrariwise whosoeuer embraceth this rule buildeth vpon a firme rocke wherefore I say with the Apostle Whosoeuer shall followe this rule Galat. 6. vers 16. peace vpon them and mercy Now let vs in the last place confirme the truth of our principal assertions concerning the letter and interpretation of holy Scripture yea concerning the whole sūme of christian doctrine by vnwriten traditiō preserued in the Church by the confession of our Lutheran aduersaries of Wittenberg For they doe not only confesse Harm of cōfes sect 10. pag. 332. 333. Confession Wittenb artic 32. The Church to haue authority to beare witnesse of the holy Scripture and to interprete the same but also affirme that she hath receiued from her husband Christ a certaine rule to wit the Prophetical and Apostolical preaching confirmed by miracles from heauen according vnto the which she is bound to interprete those places of Scripture which seeme to be obscure and to judge of doctrines This may be seene in the Harmony of confessions Field book 4. ca. 19. 20. §. The secōd Field also acknowledgeth in the Church A rule of faith descending by tradition from the Apostles according vnto which he wil haue the Scriptures expounded I conclude therefore that thus the holy Scripture is a most sure and infallible ground of faith for by this meanes I meane by the diuine censure and approbation of the Church vve are assured that both the letter and sense are of diuine authoritie vvhereas the particuler or priuate approbation of the letter or interpretation or it made by any priuate man being subject to errour cannot possiblie yeeld vs any such assurance SECTION THE SIXT An objection against the premises is answered and the question concerning the last resolution of our faith is discussed BVT here occurreth a difficulty of no smal moment to be resolued For in this chapter I haue affirmed the Canonical Scriptures and their true interpretation to he knowne by the infallible authoritie of the Church whereas before I proued the authority of the Church to be infallible by the testimonie of holie Scripture vvherefore Field book 4. cap. 7. it may seeme that I haue made a circle or as M. Field calleth it a circulation The ful solution of this objection dependeth of the resolution of a question vvhich to some appeareth very intricate and hard to wit vnto what vve lastlie resolue our faith vvhether to the authority of the Church or of the Scripture or to some humane motiues and therefore this must first be discussed before the other can be answered And in verie deede although al Catholike Diuines be of one consent and hold that the cause of our beliefe is the authority of God which hath reuealed such misteries as we beleeue yet concerning the last resolution of our faith which is a schoole question and not a matter of faith I finde among them two opinions The followers of the first declare the matter thus Fiist say they euery man is induced to beleeue Christian religion and to accept of it as true by certaine humane and prudent motiues or reasons which perswade him that such doctrine as is taught in the Church according to the rules of wisedome is credible and worthie of beliefe Such motiues among others are these which followe First that almost al Nations and in them an infinite number of men of greatest authority principal wit excellent vertue and profound learning haue so beleeeued Secondly that innumerable multitudes of people of al sortes sexes and ages vvho vvere most desirous to please God and knowe true religion and vvere exemplars or patterns of probity and sanctitie haue so earnestlie embraced it that they doubted not to preferre the profession of it before goodes liberty fame and life it selfe yea that they chose rather to loose al these and endure vvithal most cruel torments then to depart from it Thirdly that it doth as it vvere miraculouslie and by some diuine meanes change men although habituated in vice vpon the sodaine to be vertuous Fourthly that the propagation of it hath beene by diuine power which appeareth by this that a fewe vnlearned and vveake fisher-men teaching such thinges as are contrarie to flesh and bloud and aboue al reason haue ouercome not by force of armes but by preaching and suffering the vvisest most eloquent most noble and most potent men of the vvorld Finally that this religion hath beene confirmed by an infinite multitude of diuine miracles recorded by famous authors of al ages of vvhich if one only be confessed true Christian religion cannot be false By these and other such like reasons and argumentes which I haue rehearsed before according to the Psalme The testimonies of our Lord are first made vnto wel disposed people ouer or exceeding credible But although these of themselues may vvel make vs accept and beleeue the truth of Christian religion by a natural and humane kinde of beliefe such as the Deuil himselfe hath and is also in Heretikes concerning such articles which they truly beleeue yet can they not alone cause in vs an act of supernatural faith For this as I haue proued before being supernatural can not proceed from a natural cause without some supernatural helpe And vvhat then is done after this perswasion Verily God almighty yeeld eth vs his supernatural helpe and imparteth vnto our soule a diuine light of faith by which our vnderstanding is made more capable of things so high
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
goe on in the first place alleaged And therefore for as much as in these controuersies the Papists and the Prelates goe hand in hand the said Ministers doe in like manner make the like offer to the Priestes and Iesuites promising their reconcilement vnto that See of Rome if they can either by arguments pul them from the aforesaid propositions or can answere such arguments as they shal propound in the defence of them in manner and forme before specified in the offer And therefore it both stands the Ministers vpon to make the aforesaid offer and the Prelates except they wil haue al the world to judge them to be friendes in hart to Popery to accept of the same Thus the Puritan Ministers and no such offer that I finde through the whole booke is made to the Protestants This then is affirmed by these men that if the Protestant doctrine mainetained against them be true and their assertions be false the separation of the newe Sectaries Churches from ours cannot be justified yea they auouch that if this be so that their said Churches are schismatical Vnto which if we adde that in very deede the propositions which the Puritans offer to mainetaine against the Prelates are false and erroneous the truth of which assertion is confessed with great vehemency defended by al the English Protestants and further concerning some of the said propositions very vvel proued by Hooker Whitgift Bilson Couel and others of their company we shal haue our desired conclusion that according to the doctrine of the English Sectaries the Puritans and the Protestants our aduersaries Churches are Schismatical and that ours is the true Spouse of Christ But I must not here omitte by the way to aduertise my reader that in the judgement of any wise and judicious person this argument yeelded vs by our aduersaries cannot but also be a very strong proofe of the truth of our Catholike cause For vvhosoeuer maturely considereth the matter shal finde that the Protestants in rejecting the Puritan propositions followe the prescript and rule of holy Scriptures the decrees of Councels and the tradition of the Church and Fathers He shal also perceiue that the Puritans in auouching that which I haue related build vpon very good reasons flowing out of the very nature of the Protestant religion and taken from the proceedings of the vpholders of the same in defending it because out of the doctrine and practise defended by the Protestants against the Puritans as also out of the proofes and reasons alleaged for themselues very strong arguments may be drawne to confirme the truth of our whole Catholike religion as wil sometimes appeare in my treatise following And to giue here one instance the Protestants for the authority of Arch-bishops bring diuers reasons and among others this one that peace and vnity can otherwise hardly be maintained in the Church But vvhat faith Cartwright Suruay of the pretended holy discipline chap. 8. pag. 125. Truly he affirmeth as is reported by the author of the Suruay of the pretended holy discipline that the Popes authority is more necessary ouer al Churches then the authority of an Arch-bishop ouer a prouince And this his assertion is grounded vpon very good reason as I shal more at large declare hereafter Nowe to prosecute mine intended discourse vvhich is to proue some errours in the English sectaries here occurreth another argument like vnto the former not vnfit for my purpose For like as I haue already demonstrated that if they al say true our Church is the true Church of Christ so it is also euident that if it be so that they al say true it is also needful there be one supreame head of the vvhole Church militant Suruay c. chap. 29. pag. 372. for thus I argue Cartwright a principal Puritan esteemed by those of his owne sect as the aforesaid author noteth one of the only worthies of the world telleth vs that the Popes authority is more necessary ouer al Churches then the authority of an Arch-bishop ouer a prouince but the authority of an Arch-bishop as al our Protestants defend is necessary ouer a prouince therefore the Popes authority is necessary ouer al Churches It may be objected that these arguments are taken from persons of sundry sectes of which the one confesseth the other to erre I grant it but this notwithstanding they proue that either some English sectaries erre or otherwise that our religion by them rejected is true which sufficeth my purpose Neuerthelesse the Protestants themselues doe afford vs no such reasons Truly if I were not here restrained to the vvriting only of a preface I could assigne diuers one I wil set downe for an example Field booke 3 chap. 39. pag. 158. 156. 157. 159. M. Field in his third booke of the Church plainly confesseth that in sundry Churches of the world being of the newe religion diuers worthy Ministers of God were ordained by Presbiters or Priestes sometime of our Church and had no ordination from any Bishop Nay he seemeth apparantly to graunt that none but Presbiters did impose handes in ordaining Ministers or Superintendents in many of the pretended reformed Churches as namely in those of France and others Morton in Apolog. Cathol part 1. lib. 1. cap. 21. which is also insinuated by D. Morton And therefore both these Doctors teach that in time of necessity a Priest or Minister may impose handes and consecrate a Priest and consequently also a Bishop or a Superintēdent Out of this their doctrine I frame this argument seing that diuers Superintendents and Ministers of the newe religion I may say al at the least of some Countries for Field himselfe excepteth only those of England Denmarke and of some other places which places he nameth not haue had their ordination or orders only from Priests it followeth that if Priests haue no power of ordination that is of giuing orders that such Ministers and Superintendents are no true Ministers and Superintendents But Priests according to the assertion of a principal English Protestant haue no power of ordination and can giue no orders therefore such Superintendents and Ministers are no true Superintendents and Ministers Of which I also inferre that such Churches are no true Churches for they want a true ministery and clergy without which as * Field ibid. pag. 154. and booke 2. chap. 6. pag. 51. Field confesseth there can be no Church And this English Protestant is a William L. Bishop of Rochester in his sermon cōcerning the antiquity superiority of Bishops preached before the King at Hampton-Court Sep. 21. 1606 William L. B. of Rochester who in his sermon not long since preached before the Kinges Majesty and afterward printed by his Majesties expresse commandement as the same Bishop b In the epist to the King prīted before the sermon auoucheth affirmeth and proueth out of holy Scripture first that the Apostles kept to themselues ordination or authority to giue holy orders til
whole discourse to certaine principal conclusions of which although some be partly already proued against external Infidels yet I wil briefly proue them againe out of the newe Testament against Heretikes First therefore that Christ is the redeemer of al mankinde and that by his bitter passion and paineful death he hath satisfied for al our sins if we please to apply his merits to our soules 1. Io. 2 2. 1. Io. 1 7. 1. Cor. 6. vers 20. Eph. 2 13. Col. 1 14. Heb. 9 11. euery Christian must needes confesse for this is most plainely affirmed in the holy Scripture in which it is said that Christ is the propitiation for the sinnes of the whole world that his bloud doth cleanse vs from al sinnes and that we are bought and redeemed with his pretious bloud It must likewise be granted by al Christians that Christ by his infinite merits purchased to himselfe a Church on earth that is to say established a newe religion and a newe law among men ordained Apostles Pastors Gouernours of his flocke instituted newe Sacraments by which his faithful people through his merits were to receiue forgiuenes of sinnes and his grace in this world and euerlasting glory if they deserued it in the next This likewise euen in as plaine wordes is deliuered vnto vs in the said word of God in which we read that Christ purchased his Church with his bloud Act. 20. vers 28. Ephes 5 25 26. that he loued her and deliuered himselfe to death for her to sanctifie her cleansing her with the lauer of water in the word of life that he might present to himselfe a glorious Church not hauing spot or wrinckle And al this is also manifest by reason for what other cause can be assigned of the incarnation passion of Christ but the redemption of man the erecting of a Church and religion which may guide him to euerlasting saluation Out of these two assertions I gather a third to wit that there is but one true Chruch of Christ in which true religion is only to be found among Christians and consequently that they only who are members of this Church truly worship God and are in state of grace in this world and in the right way to eternal blisse in the next And first that Christ hath but one true Church on earth it is euident because he according to his owne assertion is the way and the veritie and the life Ioh. 13. vers 6. Wherefore like as there is but one life Christ who by his bitter passion redeemed al mankind from euerlasting death and giueth man true life in heauen so this one life ordained one only way and truth whereby to attaine to the said life and saluation erecting one only Church vnto which the fruit merit of his passion should be deriued Like as therefore God made first but one man Adam and one woman Eue who were the corporal or carnal father and mother of the transitory life of al mankind so he hath constituted but one spiritual father Christ and one spiritual mother which is his only Spouse the Church who are the spiritual parents of the spiritual life of his true children Moreouer like as God hath giuen one only corporal body although adorned with variety of members to one head to be gouerned so he hath framed one only mistical body for one mistical head which is Christ which he only as supreame head directeth and gouerneth Cant. 2. vers 6. Ephes 4. vers 2. Hence we are told by Salomon in the Canticles that the Doue of Christ is one perfect and chosen to her mother The Apostle likewise telleth vs that there is one Lord one Faith and one Baptisme and consequently one Church Finally whosoeuer affirmeth that Christ hath erected more Churches then one impugneth al sense and reason seing that vnitie is to be preferred before diuision and discord and no cause can be assigned why two Churches should be founded Of this it also followeth that out of the one Church of Christ there is no saluation For if our blessed Sauiour by his death established one only Church it is euident that they only are partakers of his holy merits who are members of that Church and that they only are in the true way to saluation who imbrace that doctrine and religion which is taught and prescribed in the said Church Hence proceedeth that famous sentence of S. Ciprian Cipr. de vnitate Ecclesiae c. 5. who affirmeth that he that is not a member of Christ his Church notwithstanding al his good workes and endeauours otherwise shal neuer come to enjoy the promised rewardes of Christ in heauen He is an alien he is prophane he is an enemy saith he he cannot haue God for his Father who hath not the Church for his Mother The same sentence is pronounced almost in the selfe same wordes by S. Augustine Aug. tom 9. de Simbol lib. 4. cap. 10. Aug. de vnitat Eccles c. 19. who auoucheth that he shal not haue God his Father who refuseth to haue the Church for his Mother And this in an other place he proueth because no man commeth to saluation and life euerlasting but he that hath Christ his head and no man can haue Christ his head but he that is in his body the Church of a Ephes 5. vers 23. which according to the Apostle he is Sauiour This also moued Lactantius to discourse after this sort of the excellency and prerogatiues of the Church his wordes are these b Lact. lib. 4. diuin Inst c. vlt. It is the Catholike Church only so he tearmeth the Church of Christ that keepeth the true worship of God this is the fountaine of truth this is the house of faith this is the temple of God Into which whosoeuer doth not enter or out of which whosoeuer doth depart he is an alien stranger from the hope of euerlasting life and saluation No man must by obstinate contention flatter himselfe for it standeth vpon life and saluation Thus farre Lactantius And this was long since figured by the arke of Noe which only saued the men in it contained from the general deluge wherefore in S. Ciprian we find this sentence Cipr. de vnitat Eccles ca. 5. If any man could escape that was without the arke of Noe he also may escape that is out of the Church These and such like considerations induce al those that professe themselues Christians of what religion or sect soeuer they be to challenge to themselues the true Church of Christ This challenge is made by them that professe the Roman faith it is made by the Lutherans it is made by the Zwinglians it is made by the English Protestantes by the Caluinists or Puritans by the Anabaptists by the Libertines it is made finally by al newe Sectaries and hath euer beene made by al Heretikes since the beginning of Christian religion And although the multitude of challengers with their false and
In another place he discourseth thus We are not the seruants of the Fathers but the sonnes When they prescribe vs any thing out of the lawe and diuine authority we obey them as our parents If they enjoyne anything against the voice of the heauenly truth we haue learned not to hearken to them but to God You as vassals and base seruants receiue whatsoeuer the Fathers say without judgement or reason being afraid as I thinke either of the whip or the halter if euerie thing they speake be not Gospel with you thus Whitakers defendeth his rejecting the ancient Fathers and vpbraideth vs for our high estimation of the same But concerning the fathers opinions of particuler points he telleth vs Ibidem in his answer to the 5. reason pag. 129. that Ciprian wrote something of repentance verie vnseasonably and vndiscreetly and not be alone but al the holie Fathers of that time saith he were tainted with that errour That is al the Fathers of the third age after Christ for S. Ciprian suffered martirdome in the yeare two hundred threescore and one Of praier to Saints he hath these wordes Prudentius I graunt Ibidem pag. 140. 141. as a poet sometimes called vpon the Martirs whose actes he describeth in verse and the supertitious custome of praying to Saintes had nowe taken deepe roote in the Church which as a tirant haled sometimes the holie Fathers into the same errour thus he of the beginning of the fift age when Prudentius flourished Lastly Ibid. p. 132. he defendeth the first sentence of Luther before alleaged Abbot in his answ to Hil reason 10. p. 371. Horat. lib. 1. epist 1. see also Morton in Apologia Catholica part 1. lib. 1. cap. 8. With Whitakers agreeth Abbot who touching the Fathers thus deliuereth his opinion vnto vs Where there is just cause we as men Nullius addicti jurare in verba magistri bound to stand to the opinion of none but of the holy Ghost we declining-wise doe leaue them But where they subscribe to the authority of God there we subscribe to them defend them and refuse not to be tried by them so far as we may by any holy and learned men of which sort we hold them but yet stil knowe them to be men hitherto George Abbot And note that these men pretending that they follow the auncient Fathers as farre forth as they followe the lawe or diuine authority or the authority of God endeauour to make shew of an opposition or contrariety betweene the written word of God and the Fathers in al points in which they forsake them whereas in very deed the Fathers vnderstood and followed the scriptures better then they doe and the opposition is not betweene the scriptures and the Fathers but betweeene the Fathers and the Scriptures expounded by these Sectaries vvhich scriptures so expounded they make a rule vvhereby to knowe vvhen the Fathers are to be followed when to be forsaken Our Puritans in this point at the least in wordes got farre beyond our Protestants He who is desirous to vnderstand their opinion may read the seauen and twentith chapter of the Suruay of their pretended holy discipline written by a a Printed anno 1693. Protestant in which he shal finde it set downe at large And among others Cartwright is there accused the places of his bookes being cited for tearming the seeking into the Fathers writings b Pag. 331. 337. See also chap. 4. p. 64. a raking of ditches and the bringing in of their authorities the mouing and summoning of hel c Parks in his preface to his ans of Limbo mastix prīted anno 1607. Henrie Iacob treatise p. 1. 3. 54. 81. 68. cited by him in the margēt see also saith he Bilsons sermons pa. 323. and the answere to M. Broughtons letters p. 17. Parks also a later writer telleth vs that If you alleage the auncient Fathers against them they wil tel you roundly that their opinions are nothing else but the corrupt fancies and vaine imaginations of men toyish fables fond absurd without sense and reason and some saith he sticke not to cal the Fathers of the latine Church the plague of diuinitie Vnto al these proofes I adde likewise that our aduersaries confesse al the auncient Fathers to haue beene of our beliefe touching euery article nowe controuersed betweene vs and them as I vvil proue in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church and yet reject their doctrine as erroneous and repugnant to the word of God vvherefore they must needes confesse al the Fathers to haue erred and so reject their authority Finally none of them wil graunt that any consent of Fathers whatsoeuer be it neuer so general touching any point is of it selfe a sufficient ground of faith without the testimonie of holy scripture which is enough for my purpose But it may be objected by some that diuers of these sectaries alleage in their vvorkes the holie Councels and Fathers abundantly not only against vs but also against their owne brethren dissenting from them in faith or thinges belonging to religion I answere that true it is that they so doe alleage the holy Councels and Fathers But doe they make their testimonie an infallible ground they doe not certainelie For although they approue their doctrine in some points yet in others they presentlie reject them The Centuriatores being Lutherans Centuriat 4. pag. 242. In euery Centurie cap. 4. alleage the Fathers against the Sacramentaries for proofe of the real presence but they reject their testimonie when they affirme this sacrament to be a Sacrifice In like sort our Protestants against our Puritans alleage the authority of S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine condemning Aerius for an Heretike because he acknowledged no distinction betweene a Bishoppe and a Priest See the Suruey of the pretēded holie discipline Whit gift in his defence and others but they reject the authority of the same Fathers in the selfe same places condemning the same Aerius as an Heretike for denying sacrifice and masse for the dead wherefore it is manifest that they onlie as Caluin saith vse the Councels and Fathers to serue their owne turnes not to be ouer-ruled by them In defence of our English Protestants in particular it may first be said that M. Iewel in his challendge doth challendge to their religion al the Councels and Fathers of the first sixe hundred yeares alloweth of their authoritie and offereth to be tried by their censure I answere first that this challendge made by M. Iewel is not general touching al points controuersed betweene vs but concerning a fewe only and those not of greatest moment Secondly I say that M. Iewel did this only to make a shew among the common people as though his religion had beene auncient not that he intended to doe as he promised to wit to subscribe to our religion if this challendge could be shewed false This appeareth to be true both because he maintained his vaine challendge
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
Caluin that of S. Iames at Hierusalem in perswading S. Paul to purifie himselfe according to the lawe of Moises in the b See also the same Caluin touching S. Paulin 2. Cor cap. 1. S. Iames in cap. 21. Act. Act. 21. v. 15. c. temple and lastly they accuse S. Paul of errour in yeelding to the perswasion of S. Iames. The same is affirmed by Brentius diuers others concerning S. Peter and Iames and the whole Church of Hierusalem c Brent in Apolog cōfess Wittenberg c. de cōcilijs Both S. Peter Prince of the Apostles saith he and Barnabas also after the holy Ghost receiued and together with them the whole Church of Hierusalem erred Galat. 2. of the same opinion are other sectaries d Bullēger in Apocalip 19. 22. Bullenger hath the like stuffe touching S. Iohn Doe not also Beza and our English Protestants themselues seeme to confesse that * Luc. 3. v. 36 S. Luke in his Gospel erred in making Arphaxad the father of Cainan and Cainan of Sale whereas in the booke of Genesis Arphaxad is said to haue beene the father of Sale For if S. Luke did not erre vvhy doe e Beza in his translat our Protestāts in their Bible printed anno 1595. authorized to bee read in Chur. they notwithstanding that al copies both Latin and Greeke in this accord thrust out of the text these wordes who was of Cainan and make S. Luke say that Arphaxad was the father of Sale Adde vnto this that f Musculus in locis communibus cap. de Iustificat num 5. Musculus no meane Sectary to the Catholikes objecting the authority of S. Iames against justification by faith only maketh this answere that he whosoeuer he was although the brother of Christ and a piller among the Apostles and a great Apostle aboue measure as g Gal. 2. v. 9. 2. Cor. 12 12. S. Paul saith cannot prejudice the truth of only faith h Molinae in vnione quat Euāg par 64 Another of them testifieth that certaine of his learned brethren limit and restraine those wordes of Christ He that heareth you heareth me that Christ only is to be heard that is to say that his word only is to be preached that the Apostles were subject to errour in going beyond their commission and therefore that they are not to be heard but when they relate vnto vs the very wordes of Christ Thus he vvriteth vpon the said sentence These wordes he that heareth you heareth me limit that Christ only be heard that is that his word only be preached as most learned Philip Melancthon expoundeth c. For so expoundeth Iohn Brentius saying That Christ when he saith He that heareth you heareth me speaketh not of al wordes of the Apostles whatsoeuer but of the prescribed cōmandement of their embassage Thus Carolus Molinaeus From this opinion i Cal. l. 4. Inst c. 8. § 4. 7. Caluin himselfe seemeth not much to dissent vvhose wordes are these The Apostles in their very name shewe howe much is permitted them in their office that is if they be Apostles that they should not babble what they please but should deliuer truly his commaundements by whome they were sent and soone after he plainely insinuateth Modrenius lib. 2. de Eccles cap. 2. that he would haue Christ only heard Further one Fricius a very learned Protestant telleth vs that although he should graunt that S. Iames gaue the communion vnder one kinde only yet that his authority is not to be admitted seing that Christ said Eate and drinke Clebetius in victoria veritatis et ruina papatus Saxoni argumēto 5. Clebetius one of the chiefe ministers of the County Palatine of Rhene graunteth to his aduersary that S. Mathewe and S. Marke in their gospels contradict S. Luke but saith that he hath two against one and that S. Luke was not present at the last supper concerning the history of vvhich the controuersie was betweene him his aduersary as S. Mathew was and therefore that he deserued lesse credit Finally Zuinglius being impugned for denying praier for the dead pressed with the authority of Fathers especially of S. Chrisostome S. Augustine who deriue this custome from the Apostles answered thus Zuing. tom 1. Epicherae de can Missae fol. 186. See him also tom 2. in Eleuch cōt Anabap fo 10. If it be so as Augustine Chrisostome report I thinke that the Apostles suffered certaine to pray for the dead for no other cause then to condiscend to their infirmity hitherto Zuinglius in which words he confesseth that the Apostles wilfully suffered some to erre vvhich could not be done without errour in themselues And out of al these assertions of our aduersaries in which they either accuse the vvriters of holy Scripture of errour or make them subject thereunto I inferre that the newe Testament may containe errours although we should graunt it to be written by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ But let vs also adde that although we should graunt them that the Apostles and Disciples could not erre in penning these sacred bookes yet that it is a hard matter for them to proue that the new Testament since their daies hath not either through negligence or malice beene corrupted For had not the Catholiks their enemies by their owne confession the keeping of it for the space of diuers hundreds of yeares how know they then that the said Catholikes to serue their owne turnes haue not corrupted it Surely they confesse their owne bretheren to haue falsified it vvithin fewe yeares in diuers places wherefore one sect rejecteth the translation of another Doe they then thinke vs and our predecessors more sincere then they are themselues Perhaps some ignorant man wil say that it hath beene alwaies in the custody of those of their religion but it is certaine that they cannot possibly assigne any succession of men of their profession that could alwaies keepe it I demaund also if any man wil needes say that there were such men although invisible in the vvorld and mentioned off by no Authour of anie one age since the Apostles dayes vvhether they were Lutherans Zuinglians or Caluinists or of vvhat other sect If they were Lutherans howe doe the Zuinglians Caluinists and other Sectaries knowe that they kept it sincerely and truly if they were Zuinglians howe doe the Lutherans knowe the same The like question I demaund concerning other Sectaries and none of them I thinke wil be so absurd as to say that al these sects haue euer beene in the world But let vs see whether they doe not plainely confesse that the text of Scripture it selfe hath beene corrupted Beza in praefat noui Test anno 1556. et Annota in 1. Luc. v. 1. Although Beza preferre the vulgar Latin edition which we vse before al other translations and confesseth that the old Interpreter translated very religiously yet both he and al the professours of
no part of this assertion is true The first is shewed false in my discourse of some particular rules especially by this that no man can assure himselfe that the hath an illumination of the vnderstanding vnto vvhich I here adde that he cannot likewise assure himselfe that he hath exactly obserued such rules and that he is euery way sufficiently disposed in minde and furnished with learning according as they require neither can he lastly proue the sufficiency of them as I haue also shewed The second part of his assertion is much lesse true for no man can proue the truth of that to an other of which he cannot be assured himselfe Fourthly I may inferre that no man who obserueth not these rules hath true faith and the reason is manifest because the Scripture thus interpreted as Field saith is the ground of their faith Field booke 3 chap. 42. §. if this kinde wherefore whosoeuer expoundeth it otherwise is not faithful By which I exclude from the number of the faithful according to this rule not only such men as are carnal not spiritual and such as are not disposed in minde according to the second rule but also al persons vnlearned vvho haue not the knowledge of such histories arts and sciences as may helpe nor of the original tongues according to the two last rules Neither can it be said that such are to learne of others for as I haue proued in my second illation or collection no man can infallibly assure himselfe that another doth interpret truly And this maketh the matter the more doubtful that commonly what exposition soeuer he followe he hath more euen of the newe religion it selfe against him then vvith him yea he may finde the best of them erroneous in some points and consequently hath cause to distrust their judgement in others Fiftly out of this discourse it is euident that although we should grant this to M. Field that the bare letter of holy Scripture is sufficiently knowne by such meanes as I haue before related out of him confuted yet the true interpretation being so obscure and not certainely to be knowne by these his rules it is euident I say that whosoeuer grounding vpon these only embraceth any interpretation as diuine buildeth vpon his owne judgement and fancy not vpon diuine authority And of this and that vvhich hath already beene said in this chapter and before I finally inferre that the vvhole faith of the newe sectaries is vncertaine and lastly resolued to their owne judgement and fancy It is vncertaine because they assigne no certaine and infallible rule by vvhich they can assuredly knowe the letter or true sense of holie Scripture which they make the only ground of their faith of which accorning to the judgement of M. Whitaker in the like case Whitaker de Eccles contra Bellar. cōtrouers 2. quaest 4. cap. 3. pag. 278. as also according to al reason must needes followe an vncertainety of truth in their whole beliefe that their faith is likewise lastly resolued to their owne judgement and fancy it is apparant For although Field tel vs that * Field booke 4. chap. 13. the judgement of God the Father as supreame the judgement of the Sonne as the eternal word of God of the spirit as the fountaine of al illumination making them discerne what is true is that in which they finally rest And that the judgement or determination of the word of God is that wherein they rest as the rule of their faith and the light of diuine vnderstanding as that whereby they judge of al thinges And both he and the rest seeme to resolue al to the bare letter of holy Scripture yet it is euident that their last resolution is not the letter both because al Christians as wel as they commonly receiue the letter and consequently if the last difficulty vvere touching the letter al vvould easily be brought to an agreement And also because as Field very vvel noteth out of S. Hierome Cha. 18. ibid. Hieron in epist ad Galat cap. 1. The Gospel consisteth not in the wordes of Scripture but in the sense and meaning not in the outward rinde and skinne but in the inward path and marrowe not in the leaues of the wordes but in the roote and ground of reason of which it appeareth that the last resolution is to the sense Seing therefore that al our aduersaries in translating and expounding the Scripture build vpon their owne judgement it is euident that in their owne judgement not in the holy Scripture they set vp their last resolution in matters of faith Neither would they obtaine any other more sound foundation and stronger stay if we should grant that they remit al thinges finally to the letter of holy Scripture for this also they receiue and reject according to their owne fancies as I haue proued And in very truth I cannot sufficiently meruaile that M. Field or any other man of judgement and learning doth run these courses I meane impugne our doctrine concerning these points as absurd and in some sort impossible vvhich in deede is most prudent and diuine and fal into most grosse absurdities and inconueniences themselues For vvhereas according to the first opinion aboue related vve lastly resolue our faith into diuine reuelation vvhereunto we are aided and inclined to giue assent by the supernatural light of faith vvhich vvith vs concurreth to euery supernatural act of beliefe vnto vvhich we are prepared and disposed by most prudential motiues and arguments of credibility And vvhereas in the first act of faith we include the beliefe of a general rule by vvhich we are to be directed and which we are bound humbly to followe in al particular points of beliefe and consequently for the preseruation of vnity and deciding of controuersies acknowledge one supreame diuine and definitiue authority on earth They impugne our assertions and obtrude vnto vs for an only ground of our faith and a directour of our beliefe the holy Scripture and giue vs no prudential rules which may giue a prudent man any assured meanes how to knowe vvhich is the true letter or which is the true sense of the same Yea assigne such meanes and rules which are proued insufficient by their owne dissention concerning these very points And besides this that vvhich we vpon such prudential motiues giue to a general authority Field booke 4 cap. 13. they rejecting with Field al such general authority must needes giue without al reason to euery particular man which is the roote of al pride and a fountaine of discord and diuision contrary to experience and not warranted by Scripture or else grant themselues to haue no faith And this is true whether they vvil haue themselues secured of the truth of their judgement by particular and extraordinary inspirations of the spirit or by the light of diuine vnderstanding or grace as Field calleth it ordinarily found in euery spiritual person See Aberus contra Carolostadian c. 7. And in
he that this inspiration is from the holy Ghost vvhat reason miracle reuelation or infallible vvarrant hath he to assure himselfe of this vvhere doth he finde that God hath promised that the holy ghost shal assist and preserue euery priuate mans vnderstanding from errour that praieth for his assistance Howe doth he likewise knowe that his praier is good and acceptable in the sight of God verily this is most vncertaine and yet otherwise by our praiers we obtaine not our requests and that the holy Ghost doth not vsually inspire euery man that so praieth for the truth it is apparent For suppose that an English Protestant and a Geneuian Puritan be at controuersie touching the same sentence I and the father am one and after ordinary discourses not agreeing they betake themselues both to their praiers and desire God to instruct them of the true sense of the said vvordes Wil they after their praiers forthwith agree and be of one opinion Certainely this is not their custome What then The English Protestant vvil say the spirit hath taught me that the Father and the Sonne are one in substance the Puritan contrariwise according to the doctrine of his master a Caluin in Ioan. 10 30. Caluin approued by b Whitaker in his answere to Campians eight reason pag. 204. M. Whitaker wil affirme that the spirit hath taught him that the aforesaid sentence is to be vnderstood of vnity in power consent not in substance The ancient writers or fathers saith Caluin abused this place to proue Christ consubstantial to the Father for neither doth Christ dispute of vnity of substance but of the consent which he hath with the Father Thus Caluin Which sense this Puritan may also confirme as Whitakers doth with that sentence of our Lord vsed when he praied for his Disciples that they might be one Iohn 17 21. That they al may be one said he as thou O father art in me and I in thee And be not these inspirations contrary did the holy Ghost in this case inspire them both Truly it is impossible And thus the Lutherans and Sacramentaries the Protestants and Puritans with diuers other sectaries after many praiers vsed on euery side remaine yet at mortal jarres concerning diuers matters in controuersie betweene them Neither can it be said that one part without al doubt is assured of the truth for one hath no more vvarrant for his assurance then another and consequently seing that they cannot be al assisted with diuine inspiration vve may wel affirme that none of them are certaine that they enjoy this prerogatiue yea vve may very vvel denie it vnto them al but of this matter I haue treated aboue For mine intent at this present it is sufficient that by praier the vnlearned sectary without some special reuelation or vvarrant from God which none of them receiue cannot assure himselfe that his opinion is true Wherefore let vs yet further suppose that he remaine hitherto doubtful as vpon these groundes he should Is there now any other thing to be done for his better resolution If al this say his aduisers suffice not he must repaire for his better instruction to the learned and aske their counsaile If he demand whither the learned may not erre in their counsaile they grant it If he vrge them to giue him a certaine and infallible rule whereby to discerne in their doctrine truth from falshood they tel him that when the learned speake according to the vvord of God they say true otherwise when they swarue and stray from the said word Sutcliffe against the wardword encont 2. pag. 54. So our countriman Sutcliffe plainely affirmeth that we are to beleeue euery thing which our Pastors teach vs but as farre as they teach the doctrine of Christ IESVS Nor are we saith he absolutely to obey them but when they teach according to the lawe Wherefore one of our Arch-puritans of Caluin whome the followers of his sect esteeme aboue al others vvriteth thus We receiue M. Caluin and weigh of him T. Cartwright in D. Whitgifts defence tract 2. cap. 4. pag. 111. as of the notablest instrument that the Lord hath stirred vp for the purging of his Churches and restoring of the plaine and sincere interpretation of the Scriptures which hath beene since the Apostles time and yet we doe not so reade his workes that we beleeue anything to be true because he saith it but so farre as we can esteeme that which he saith doth agree with the Canonical scriptures And this is their common doctrine Behold therefore this poore perplexed man is sent back againe to the Scripture And is not this a palpable circle First they sent him to his Bible then to conference with one place of Scripture with another thirdly to his praiers afterwards to the learned and nowe to his Bible againe to knowe the true doctrine of the learned from the false neither can they assigne any other rule vvhereby this may be knowne Of vvhich followeth moreouer this absurdity that they make him judge ouer the learned for he is to accept and refuse their doctrine according as he judgeth it consonant or dissonant from the vvord of God But let vs suppose notwithstanding these absurdities and inconueniences that the vnlearned sectary for his better instruction goeth to the learned and comming first to an English Protestant demandeth of him the true sense of the said sentence so often alleaged I and the father are one The Protestant telleth him according to the assertion of al the ancient fathers who by this sentence commonly refuted the Arians that Christ by these vvordes giueth vs to vnderstand that he as he is God and his father haue the very selfe same substance This not satisfying him he goeth further to a Caluinist vvho being demanded the same question answereth that the true sense of those wordes is That Christ and his father agree togither Caluin in Ioan. 10 30. and are of one consent What is this poore man the neare for al this One telleth him one thing another another thing and howe shal he discerne and judge of the truth Doth not this commonly happen doe not the Professors of the newe religion disagree among themselues both concerning the translation and also the interpretation of the word of God Doth not each one of them inuite euery man to his sect beare the vvorld in hand that he hath the truth and condemne al others oppugning his opinions of errour and falshood vvhat is more manifest then this What instructions then can this vnlearned sectary receiue of the learned Hath he not cause to be more perplexed and doubtful then he vvas before vvhat therefore shal he finally doe Certainely I cannot see what other grounds he can receiue from those Doctors vvherefore if he vvil not goe to the piller of truth the Catholike Church which is guided by the holy Ghost and of heâ— receiue a diuine and infallible resolution without al doubt he must either remaine
that any translation is true but of these matters before For the authority also of our translation in general it maketh that it hath beene read and allowed of in the Church aboue eleauen hundred yeares and approued by thousands of Saintes and learned men and by them accepted as the true vvord of God The translation of the old testament in particular if we beleeue S. Augustine Aug. l. 18. de ciuitat c. 43. was acknowledged as true by the very Iewes themselues then liuing who fauoured no more vs then the Protestants That of the newe as the same holy Father writeth was also in those daies approued by al Christians Idem epist 10 ad Hieron For it likewise we haue the testimony of Beza himselfe who among our aduersaries is accounted a great linguist who in commendation of the old translator writeth thus The old interpreter seemeth to haue interpreted or translated the holy bookes Beza in c. 1. Luc. vers 1. IbideÌ„ in praefat nou test anno 1556. Idem ibid. with marueilous sincerity and religion Againe The vulgar edition I embrace for the most part and preferre it before al other whatsoeuer By it in diuers places he correcteth the Greeke text as may be seene Luc. 20. vers 28. Luc. 7. vers 31. c. He also blameth Erasmus for reprehending of it as dissenting from the Greeke saying that he doth it vnjustly I wil recite his wordes which are as followeth Howe vnjustly and without cause doth Erasmus blame the old interpreter as dissenting from the Greeke He dissented I grant from those Greeke copies which Erasmus had gotten but we haue found out in one place that the same interpretation which he blameth is grounded vpon the authority of other Greeke copies and those most ancient Yea in some number of places we haue obserued that the reading of the Latin text of the old interpreter though it agree not some times with our Greeke copies yet it is much more conuenient for that it seemeth he followed some truer and better copy Thus Beza Vnto whome I joine Molinaeus an other sectary as some thinke to him not inferiour Molinaeus in Luc. 17. who in like sort preferreth this edition before those of Erasmus Bucer Bullinger Brentius Pagnines that of Zuricke yea also before Iohn Caluins and al others He affirmeth Ibidem that Erasmus in a certaine place did wel to followe the old edition and saith it had beene better for Beza to haue done so too He auoucheth further that Beza did not wel in changing the old translation Idem in Ioan. 3. v. 19. 43 see also in Ioan 7. ver 35. He addeth also * IdeÌ„ part 30 that he can very hardly depart from the vulgar and accustomed reading which also I am wont saith he very earnestly to defend Castalio in like sort a man much commended by a Humfredus de rat Interp. lib. 1. pa. 62. 63. 189. D. Humfrey and b Gesnerus in Bibliotheca Gesnerus blameth Beza for finding fault with the old interpreter c Castalio in defens p. 179 174. 181. 183. 188. 198. 202. 204. 213. auerring that he doth it vnjustly and that the said old interpreter had translated it better before Yea d Humfred de rat interpret lib. 1. pag. 74. D. Humfrey himselfe yeeldeth the old translator this praise The old interpreter seemeth sufficiently bent to followe the propriety of wordes and he doth in deede ouer carefully which notwithstanding I suppose him to haue done not of ignorance but of religion And in truth that this is no fault I gather out of his owne doctrine for he e Ibid. p. 179. telleth vs that in prophane writers a man may range abroade more freely and depart from the wordes but in Canonical scripture saith he no such licence is tollerable for man may not alter the tongue of God And thus much for the vulgar Latin edition of the newe Testament out of our aduersaries Further for the truth of our expositions of the holy Scripture we haue the continual tradition of the Church and the testimony and suffrage of al the holy Fathers and of thousands of Saints and learned men who euer expounded it as we doe and out of it gathered the selfe same doctrine and beliefe For vnto them vve are al contented to remit the trial of the truth of our cause and of the hoâ—y Church and them we professe our selues to learne the true sense of the word of God And thus much the Catholikes can alleage for the authority of their translation and interpretation of holy Scripture although they set aside the authority of the Church Nowe what can our aduersaries say for themselues what sound testimony or proof can they bring for the truth of their translations and expositions Surely euery sect at the lest hath a distinct bible wherefore for the proofe of these thinges they can only alleage the testimony of their sect-master or translator of their Bible and his followers And what a goodly matter is this doe not farre more of the new sectaries themselues condemne reject euery one of their Bibles and their particular expositions then there doe approue them Certainly euery Bible is condemned by diuers but approued only by the followers of one sect and so in like sort are diuers particular interpretations Vnto which I adde that the diuersity of their Bibles maketh the truth of them al suspected for seing that we haue no greater reason to allowe of one then of an other and al but one without al doubt are false as they themselues must needes confesse because there is but one true word of God we may with like reason reject them al. Moreouer is any one of their sect-masters or learned translators or expositors to be compared with S. Hierome Is the opinion of a fewe sectaries touching the translation and interpretation of holy Scriptures to be preferred before the testimony of al the Saints learned men that flourished in the Church in S. Hieromes daies and euer since yea I may demand whether their opinion be to be preferred before the testimony of al good Christians that haue liued euer since the beginning of Christianity For S. Hierome followed the steps of his predecessors and consented with the vniuersal Church of his age and the Church euer since hath approued his labours Stancarus de Trinit Mediat M. 4. Surely Stancarus himselfe a Protestant auoucheth that Peter Lombard called the master of sentences is more to be esteemed then one hundred Luthers two hundred Melancthons three hundred Bullingers foure hundred Peter Martirs fiue hundred Caluins He addeth that if al these sectaries named were beaten or pounded together in a morter there could not be strained or pressed out of them one ounce of true diuinity especially out of their doctrine concerning the blessed Trinity the Incarnation the Mediator and the Sacraments which neuerthelesse be the principal misteries of Christian religion Wherefore he concludeth