most firme and certaine assent of the vnderstanding to thinges aboue the reach of reason and the object of it be the misteries of our beleefe it must needes follow that the authority of almighty God whose knowledge and wisdome are infinite and whose sayinges are of infallible truth must cause vs to beleeue the said misteries If any wil denie this I wil demand of him howe we can possibly attaine to a certaine knowledge of so high misteries but by the reuelation of God and this is that which al Christians commonly professe when as being demanded why they beleeue this and that they answere because God hath reuealed such doctrine I confesse that men are commonly first induced to faith by certaine reasons which the Diuines cal arguments of credibility such are miracles vvhich proceeding from God can giue no testimony to falshood the authority wisedome learning and consent of the professors of our religion in al ages since it beganne the strange manner of the propagation of our said religion being so strict throughout the vvhole vvorld by a fewe fisher-men the miraculous preseruation of our Church oppugned by so diuers and mighty enemies the constancy of our Martirs the great change to the better vvhich our religion causeth in those that embrace it the purity of doctrine and sanctity of life shining in the Prelates and Children of our Church the conformity of our faith vvith natural reason in not being contrary to it although aboue it and other motiues which I haue related in the third Chapter of this treatise which make the object of faith in the judgement of any prudent man credible and of which either one some or al induce men first to beleeue But al these arguments are only inducements to the true act of supernatural faith by vvhich the misteries of our beleefe are afterwardes beleeued not for any such reasons but only because they are reuealed by God This moued Saint Basil to describe faith after this sort Basilius in ser de fidei cōfess siue de vera pia fide in Asceticis Faith saith he is an assenting approbation of those thinges which through the benefit of God haue beene preached thus Saint Basil Hence I inferre that although faith and also other arguments haue the same effect in our vnderstanding vvhich is to make it giue a firme assent to some verity which is done by sundry arguments especially by such as are called demonstrations yet there is this difference betweene such arguments and faith that they doe this through euidence of the matter faith doth it through the authority of the reuealer leauing stil the matter obscure And this doctrine is consonant to that of Diuines who hold the first and supreame verity of God to be the formal object of our faith the sence of which their assertion is that the chiefe reason or cause on which as on a foundation the habit of our faith relieth and resteth and into which both it and the assent of it proceeding is lastly resolued is the diuine and infallible reuelation of God or which is al one God infallibly reuealing some truth by some Canonical writer or other lawful definer of faith of which it followeth that faith of his owne nature doth assent to no proposition which is not propounded by diuine reuelation SECTION THE SIXT Besides the reuelation of God some infallible propounder of the articles of our faith is necessary and that they are propounded vnto vs by the Catholike Church IN the precedent sections of this Chapter I haue declared that faith is a most firme assent of the vnderstanding to such misteries as God hath reuealed to al Christians to be beleeued Nowe I must further lay this most certaine and vndoubted ground to this that according to the ordinary proceedings of God besides the reuelation by him heretofore made of the misteries of Christian beleefe by the habit of faith we giue assent to the articles reuealed it is also necessary that the said articles be propounded vnto vs by some infallible authority assuring vs that they are so deliuered This reason it selfe teacheth vs for seing that Christ hath with-drawne his visible presence from vs and he himselfe immediately after a sensible manner instructeth no man but al by some common rule or meanes seing also that the reuelation of such misteries is obscure and no man by the strength and force of natural reason can assure himselfe that such and such articles haue beene reuealed it was necessary that God should ordaine some infallible authority to be the Mistris of faith which might infallibly teach the truth in al such matters doubtful neither had he otherwise sufficiently prouided vs meanes necessary for our euerlasting saluation I adde also that although it were so that we were certaine at the beginning of our beleefe of such a reuelation yet that the weakenesse inconstancy of our vnderstanding is such that without a sure guide and directour it easily erreth and straieth from the truth receiued This notwithstanding we make not this proposition or propounding of such verities as are reuealed by God any essential part of the formal object of faith of which I haue spoken before for we affirme such misteries in themselues before any such proposition to be credible and worthy of beleefe but because this is vnknowne to vs we require such a proposition only as a necessary condition to this that we infallibly knowe that they are so reuealed which must of necessity be knowne before that we can actually assent vnto them by supernatural faith What infallible authority then haue we without al feare and doubt of falshood assuring vs that al the articles of our faith haue beene thus reuealed by God Verily no other but the Spouse of Christ our Mother the Church vvhome our Lord hath made our Mistris and guide in such matters And trulie that we are to learne our beleefe of the Prelates and Pastors of the Church we are aboundantly taught by the sacred word of God For first the Apostle S. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans discoursing of this point vseth these wordes Rom. 10. vers 14. Howe shal they beleeue whome they haue not heard and howe shal they heare without a preacher as though he should say No man can attaine to the knowledge and beleefe of the articles of faith except by some preacher they be propounded vnto him And that these preachers are the Prelates and Pastors of the Church it is manifest because they are the true successors of the Apostles who in the beginning of Christianity from Christ receiued authority commandement Mar. 16. vers 15. Iere. 3. vers 15. to teach al nations through out the whole world For the proofe likewise of this truth it maketh that in the old Testament God promised that in the newe he would giue vs Pastors according to his owne hart vvho should feed vs in knowledge and doctrine Moreouer like as in the old lawe he pronounced this sentence of
prerogatiues vpon his spiritual Body and Spouse but perhaps these prerogatiues redound greatly to the good and benefite of the members and children of the Church Neither this can be auerred true for vvhat are poore Christians the nearer for it howe can such a Church be the director of their faith howe shal they knowe vvhat faith vvas preached by the Apostles and vvhat part taught true doctrine and vvhen and vvhich erred in subsequent ages howe shal vve vnderstand her judicial sentence vvhen controuersies arise and are to be decided surely they that are past and are departed out of this world can performe these thinges by no other meanes but by their writinges left behind them wherefore we can take no other direction and receiue no other judicial sentence from the Church in the first and second acception but by such monuments and bookes as we haue receiued from the Apostles Euangelistes the ancient Fathers and Doctors and other our predecessours And vvhat is this but to reduce al to the letter of holy Scripture and to the workes of antiquity which as I wil prooue hereafter setting aside the authority of the present Church yeelde vs no certaine and diuine argument and to giue nothing at al to the Church it selfe contrary to al the argumentes before made for her infallible authority Finally some of the places of Scripture before aleadged are expresly spoken of the present Church as that tel the Church If he shal not heare the Church let him he to thee as the Heathen or Publican c. SECTION THE SIXT That the same testimonies and proofes conuince an infallible judgement of the Church concerning euery article of faith not only concerning certaine of the principal SECONDLY that the testimonies of holy Scriptures and Fathers with the reasons brought in this Chapter proue the judgement authority of the Church to be of diuine and infallible truth in al points of faith it is euen as easily shewed For are not the vvordes general Is it not said that the holy Ghost shal teach the Church al truth and that she being the house of God is the piller and ground of truth c. And howe can these promises be verified if in some thinges she be subject to errour Field booke 4. chap. 4. Some say these last vvordes of the Apostle are vnderstood of the particuler Church of the Ephesians but first it is not like that God bestowed such an extraordinary priuiledge vpon that Church as to make it the piller and ground of truth Secondly the Apostle calleth that Church vnto which he here giueth these prerogatiues the house of God by which wordes a Cipr. l. 1. epist 6. S. Ciprian b Aug. l. 7. de baptis cōt Donat. ca. 49. 50. 51. Item in psalm 25. enarrat 2. S. Augustine and al the Fathers commonly vnderstand the whole militant Church yea S. Augustine alluding to this sentence and vsing the very vvordes of the Apostle calleth the whole Church * 2. Tim. 2. vers 20. columnam firmamentum veritatis the piller and ground of truth and in the Scripture it selfe the vvhole militant Church is called a great house as a Field booke 1. chap. 11. Field himselfe cōfesseth And because euery particuler Diocesse is a part of this Church the Apostle might very wel vse this kinde of speach vnto Timothie I write to thee that thou maist knowe howe thou oughtest to conuerse in the house of God although the said Timothie was Bishop only of Ephesus Moreouer are vve not absolutely vnder peril of being accounted Heathens and Publicans bound to obey the Church and what reason had our Lord so to binde vs if in some thinges her judgement may be erroneous for howe shal we discerne which those articles be in which she cannot erre and in which she may erre Further vvhat profit if this vvere so shal vve receaue from her for the preseruation of vnitie and ending of al controuersies verily this assertion is euen as prejuditial to the good of vnitie as that which affirmeth the Church to haue no warrant of truth at al. For what dissention and diuision would arise of this might not euery man contradict the rule of faith in any matter whatsoeuer and affirme his contradiction to be in a matter of smal moment who shal judge which matters be of great and which of smal importance For example diuers sectaries tel vs See Couel in defence of Hooker artic 11. Fox pag. 942. c. that the question concerning the real presence of Christ in the blessed Sacrament whether he be there really and substantially by transubstantiation as the Catholikes affirme or together with bread as the Lutherans say or only figuratiuely as is affirmed by the Sacramentaries is a question of smal importance not any essential point belonging to the substance of Christian religion But howe wil these men refute Castalio who addeth if Beza say true that the controuersies touching the blessed Trinity the estate and office of Christ and howe he is one with his father are concerning no essential points of Christian religion certainely they cannot wel ouerthrowe his opinion And this is that which was in old time and is at this present affirmed by some See Theodoretus lib 2. hist cap. 18. 19. 21. Trip. hist lib. 5. cap. 21. 33. that so that Christ be beleeued to be God it skilleth not whether he be beleeued to be equal or not equal consubstantial or not consubstantial to his father Wherefore this assertion of our aduersaries that the rule of faith may in some points be denied first openeth the gappe to al dissention then to al impiety and ouerthrowe of Christianity which thinges be sufficient to perswade euery Christian to abhorre and detest it SECTION THE SEAVENTH That to saluation it is necessary to beleeue the whole Catholike faith and euery article thereof CONCERNING the third point vvhich I intended to proue I affirme that it is necessary to saluation to beleeue and hold either expresly or virtually euery article of faith which is propounded by the Church to her children to be beleeued I adde those wordes expresly or virtually because I say not that euery man is bound expresly to knowe al the articles of Christian religion For it is held by vs sufficient if the ruder sort knowe expresly certaine of the principal as are they that concerne the Trinity and the incarnation passion resurrection and ascension of Christ c. if they virtually beleeue al the rest that is if they beleeue concerning al such points as they are not bound expresly to know whatsoeuer according to the doctrine of the church ought to be beleeued and be of contrary beleefe in no one point propounded vnto them and knowne to be propounded as an article of faith We differ therefore from our aduersaries in this that some of them hold a man is not bound to belieue any such articles not necessarily to be knowne by al others say a man may erre
vvith so manie thousand lies and vntruthes set downe by Catholike authors to the view of the whole world as for example doctor * Harding in his Rejoinder to M. Iewels reply touchīg priuate masse printed anno 1566. Harding anoucheth that the number of his lies in fiue of the six and twenty articles of his replie to the said doctor Hardings answere to his Apologie In his epistle to the reader discouered by himselfe and others amounteth to a thousand and odde and also because the falshood of his said challenge being shewed by diuers learned of our side he neuer was so good as his word Humfred in vita Iuelli Hence is this complaint of doctour Humfreis Iewel hath graunted you he speaketh to the Catholikes ouer much and was to sore an enemy to himselfe that rejecting the meane by which he might more firmly easily haue vpholden his cause he spoiled himselfe the Church for what haue we to doe with the Fathers with flesh and bloud Or what doth it appertaine vnto vs what the false sinode of Bishops so he tearmeth the ancient Councels doe ordaine or decree thus much D. Humfrey Secondly it may also be alleaged that Field a late Protestant writer alloweth of diuers other rules or directions of our faith besides the holie scripture Field book 3. chap. 33. § 1. and of the Fathers in particuler he affirmeth that they reuerence and honour them much more then vve doe I answere that in very deede Field maketh a great shew of allowance of the testimonie of antiquity and may perhaps seeme to one that looketh not wel into his wordes to approue the authority of of the auncient Fathers as farre forth as any Catholike whereas in very truth there is no such thing And to make this matter manifest let vs briefly behold his rules assigned whereby as he saith we are to judge of particuler things contained within the compasse of Christian faith Field book 4. chapt 14. which are as followeth First the summary comprehension of such principal articles as are the principles whence al other things are concluded and inferred these are contained in the Creed of the Apostles Secondly al such thinges as euery Christian is bound expresly to beleeue which are rightly said to be the rule of faith Thirdly the Anologie due proportion and correspondence that one thing in this diuine knowledge hath with another Fourthly whatsoeuer books were deliuered vnto vs a written by them to whome the first and immediate reuelation of diuine truth was made Fiftly whatsoeuer haue beene deliuered by al the Saints with one consent which haue left their judgment and opinion in writing book 4. cap. 5. because saith he in another place it is not possible that they should al haue written of any thing but such as touche the very life of Christian faith generally receiued in al their times Sixtly whatsoeuer the most famous haue constantly and vniformly deliuered as a matter of faith no man contradicting though many other Ecclesiastical writers be silent and say nothing of it Seueanthly that which the most and most famous in euery age constantly deliuered as matter of faith and as receiued from them that went before them in such sort that the contradictors and gaine-saiers were in their beginnings noted for singularity noueltie and diuision Ibid. cap. 7. and afterwards in processe of time if they persisted in such contradiction charged with heresie He addeth else where that this consent of the most famous must be touching the substance of Christian faith And vnto these his three last rules I adde that vvhich he hath in the second chapter before in these vvordes Booke 4. c. 2. Though al whose writings remaine haue not written of a thing yet if al that mention it doe constantly consent in it and their consent be strengthned by vniuersal practise we dare not charge them with errour yea though their consent be not strengthned by such practise if it be concerning thinges expressed in the word of truth or by necessary and euident deduction to be demonstrated from thence we thinke that no errour can be found ill al them that speake of thinges of that nature that is of matters of substance as in the fift chapter if in euery age of the Church some be found to haue written of them But in thinges that cannot be clearly deduced from the rule of faith and word of diuine and heauenly truth we thinke it posible that al that haue written might erre and be deceiued hitherto Field And these are the rules which he prescribeth to be followed in our judgment concerning truth falshood in matters of our beleife but that none of these besides the holy scripture of which hereafter according to his owne doctrine are sufficient in al matters of faith to make an infallible or prudential ground of beleife it is easily proued And to begin with his three first how wil he proue that they be infallible how can he shewe them to be of diuine authority if the present church in al ages as he saith may erre and it be true which he affirmeth Field book 4. chapter 20. § Thus hauing Ibidem § The second kinde Caluin booke 2. Instit cap. 16 § 18. Hūn ī theseb de coloq cum pōtis ineūdo thes 54. that it is not safe in things concerning faith to rely vpon traditions are not the two first rules at the least receiued by tradition surely he confesseth it himself Further doe not some of his brethren cal the creed of the Apostles in question and make it a doubtful matter whether it were deliuered to the Church by the said Apostles or no he that knoweth not this let him reade Caluin and Hunnius Is it in like sort agreed vpon among our aduersaties what articles euery Christian is bound expresly to beleeue and which are contained in the rule of faith It is not without doubt and I verily thinke that scarse any one learned Protestant wil admit that euery point vvhich is assigned by M. Field in the fourth chapter of his third booke Moreouer how obscure is the Analogie or proportion which one thing in matters of faith hath with another and generally what man wil admit these three rules or any one of them as sufficient to make an end of al controuersies in the Church In very deede although they were al admitted by al sorts as true yet very fewe articles can be gathered out of them by such euident deduction as is able to conuince the vnderstanding of al men and consequently they are no general and sufficient directions for al points of our faith Neither are the three last rules of themselues at the least as they are deliuered by Field of any greater force or sufficiency First because Field doth not only make the present Church in al ages subject to errour for he freeth it only from damnable and pertinacious errour Field book 4. chap. 13. and book 1. c. 10.
religion to wit Apostolike Traditions page 86. Sect. 1. Of Apostolike Tradition in general page 86. Sect. 2. Of vnwritten Traditions in particular page 91. Chap. 9. Of general Councels which make the third particular ground of Catholike religion page 97. Chap. 10. Of the decrees of the supreame visible Pastour of the Church which make a fourth particular ground of our faith and of other grounds hence proceeding page 108. Sect. 1. Containing a briefe explication or rehearsal of the Catholike doctrine concerning the Popes supreamacy page 108. Sect. 2. The aforesaid doctrine is proued page 113. Sect. 3. That the decrees of the Bishop of Rome when he teacheth the Church as supreame Pastour are of diuine and infallible authority and of some other groundes of faith flowing out of these page 127. Sect. 4. The opinion of some sectaries that the Pope is Antechist is briefly confuted and two objections against the premises are answered p. 133. Chap. 11. Of the consent of the auncient Fathers and the general doctrine of the Catholike Church in al ages page 140. Chap. 12. Containing the conclusion of the first part page 144. THE SECOND PART In which is proued that the newe sectaries build their faith vpon no diuine authority but that the ground of al their beliefe and religion is their owne judgement and consequently that they haue neither true faith nor religion CHAPTER 1. That by their doctrine they deny or at the least weaken the three principal and general groundes of Christian religion set downe in the three first chapters of the first part page 1. Section 1. The number of Atheists among them is great and of the causes by them giuen of this impiety page 1. Sect. 2. Of our aduersaries doctrine concerning the immortality of the soule heauen and hel page 8. Sect. 3. Of our aduersaries impious assertions concerning Christ and Christian religion page 12. Sect. 4. That in like sort they weaken the principal proofes of the said three groundes page 19. Chap. 2. The newe Sectaries debase the true Christian faith and in place of it extol a presumptuous faith by themselues inuented page 26. Chap. 3. That our aduersaries deny the infallible authority of the Church and affirme it to haue erred and perished page 30. Chap. 4. They reject al particular groundes of faith aboue assigned and proued to bee found in the Church of Christ besides the holy Scriptures page 32. Chap. 5. They build not vpon the holy Scripture and first that the bare letter of holy Scripture only is not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion page 47. Sect. 1. In which this is proued because by Scripture the Scripture it selfe cannot be proued Canonical It is also argued that according to the sectaries groundes there is no Canonical Scripture and some principal reasons especially inspiration of the spirit which they alleage for the proofe of such Scripture are refelled page 47. Sect. 2. In which the same argument is prosecuted and two things principally are proued First that the newe Testament receiueth smal authority if we beleeue our aduersaries by this that it was written by the Apostles and Disciples because they accuse them of errour Secondly because they confesse the text of Scripture to be corrupted p. 67. Sect. 3. The same is proued because euery Christian is bound to admit and beleeue certaine propositions neither expresly contained nor according to some mens judgements so euidently gathered out of the holy Scripture page 75. Sect. 4. The insufficiency of the bare letter of holy Scripture is proued by other arguments especially by this that the true interpretation cannot be infallibly gathered out of the letter page 78. Chap. 6. The newe Sectaries Bibles containe not the true word of God page 83. Sect. 1. In which this is first proued concerning al their Bibles in general page 83. Sect. 2. That Luther Zwinglius Caluin and Beza in particular haue corruptly translated the Scriptures page 84. Sect. 3. Our English sectaries also haue falsly and corruptly translated the Scriptures page 90. Sect. 4. Containing false translations against the authority of the Church Traditions honour of Images Purgatory and the honour of Saints page 92. Sect. 5. Of their corruptions against inherent Iustice Iustification by good workes Merit of good workes and keeping the Commandements and in defence of their special â—aith vaine Security c. and against Freewil and Merits page 94. Sect. 6. Of their false translations against the Real presence Priest-hood election of Bishops single life of Priests Penance and satisfaction for Sinne the Sacrament of Matrimony and some other points p. 96. Sect. 7. That the Professors of the newe religion in corrupting the Scriptures followe the steps of the auncient Heretikes and what followeth of this discourse page 101. Chap. 7. That they build not vpon the letter of holy Scripture contained as they say in their owne Bibles page 103. Sect. 1. In which this is proued first because the propositions which they tearme of their faith are not in expresse tearmes contained in the Scripture page 103. Sect. 2. The same argument is confirmed by the testimonie of some Protestants concerning the true sense of some wordes of Scripture alleaged for our Catholike doctrine touching justification in the Section before page 106. Sect. 3. The like discourse is made concerning a place of Scripture alleaged for the real presence page 114. Sect. 4. The followers of the newe religion in diuers matters obserue not the letter of their owne Bibles page 130. Chap. 8. In receiuing translating and expounding the holy Scriptures they only build vpon their owne fancies and judgement and that they haue no other ground page 134. Sect. 1. In which this is proued by their doctrine and dissention concerning the bookes of Canonical Scripture and their altering of the text of the same page 134. Sect. 2. The same is confirmed by their translations and expositions of holy Scripture page 141. Sect. 3. Concerning the newe exposition of those wordes This is my body in particular page 146. Sect. 4. That certaine rules prescribed by Field for the true vnderstanding of Scripture of themselues alone without the censure of the Church are insufficient to assure vs that our exposition made is of diuine truth page 149. Sect. 5. Concerning their deductions out of holy Scripture that they likewise are framed by them according to their owne fancies and of their accusations of one another touching these matters page 157. Sect. 6. The vnlearned and ignorant sectaries in receiuing and expounding the holy Scriptures likewise build vpon their owne fancies and judgements and haue no other ground of their faith and religion p. 161. Sect. 7. Of the miserable estate of the vnlearned and ignorant Sectaries page 166. Sect. 8. That the newe sectaries alleage Scriptures to confirme their new doctrine it is no certaine argument that they build their faith and religion vpon the said Scriptures page 172. Chap. 9. In which is proued by the newe Sectaries
written word whereby we are to be directed in faith And this guide is our holy mother the Catholike Church the sacred spouse of Christ and his mistical body Now therefore to proceed in mine intended discourse because it behoueth euery man as appeareth by that which hath bin already said with al speed to order that his beliefe be right and likewise because this may soone be learned of the Catholike Church hence it proceedeth that no treatises touching controuersies of religion are commonly more necessary then such as declare what congregation or company of Christians are the said one holy Catholike and Apostolike Church proue her diuine authority or shew what particuler groundes are found in her by which euery person is to be guided in his beliefe The reason of this is plaine because whosoeuer recurreth to this Church and these groundes may soone and with great ease be resolued concerning al articles vvhatsoeuer to him seeming doubtful whereas if neglecting these he betake him to the study of particular controuersies as of justification free wil merit of good workes the real presence c. he may spend many daies and nights and be nothing the nearer to a setled and sure resolution Nay some of these and other points are so high and difficult that without recourse to some general groundes and the authority of the Church directing al Christians it is impossible that by other meanes a man should euer assure himselfe that he is in the truth Neither is this the opinion only of Catholikes but also of some learned Protestants And among others M. Field esteemed by some one of the greatest schollars of their company Richard Field in the beginning of his Epistle Dedicatory before his fiue bookes of the Church writeth thus The consideration of the vnhappy diuisions of the Christian world and the infinite distractions of mens mindes not knowing in so great variety of opinions what to thinke or to whome to joine themselues euery faction boasting of the pure and sincere profession of heauenly truth challenging to it selfe alone the name of the Church and fastning vpon al that dissent or are otherwise minded the hateful note of schisme and heresie hath made me euer thinke that there is no part of heauenly knowledge more necessary then that which concerneth the Church For seing that controuersies of religion in our time are growen in number so many and in nature so intricate that few haue time and leasure fewer strength and vnderstanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in thinges of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst al the societies of men in the world is that blessed company of holy ones that house-hold of faith that spouse of Christ and Church of the liuing God which is the pillar and ground of truth that so they may embrace her communion followe her directions and rest in her judgement Hence it commeth that al wise and judicious men doe more esteeme bookes of doctrinal principles then those that are written of any other argument and that there was neuer any treasure holden more rich and pretious by al them that knewe howe to price and value thinges aright thou bookes of prescriptions against Heretikes for that thereby men that are not willing or not able to examine the infinite differences that arise among men concerning the faith haue general directions what to followe and what to auoide Hitherto are M. Fields vvordes And like as this Protestant Doctor yeeldeth this reason among others for the publication of his bookes of the Church so in very truth the same motiue hath partly moued me to publish some of my labours to the viewe of the world We Catholikes haue a long time wished and endeauoured to bring the controuersies of these times to certaine general groundes and doctrinal principles and haue fought by al meanes to drawe our aduersaries to this issue to which M. Fields vvordes seeme to tend I meane to perswade them to acknowledge a judicial infallible authority in the Catholike church which euery Christian may securely followe and is bound to obey and then by most sure notes of the same Church deliuered by God in the holy Scripture which be so pregnant in the old testament it selfe August in psalm 30. Conc. 2. that S. Augustine feareth not to affirme that the Prophets haue spoken more plainely of the Church then of Christ to search forth whether ours or any other congregation of them be the Catholike Church but those of our side could neuer hitherto obtaine so much at their handes And although this man doth so gloriously here extol the judgement of the Church as it seemeth touching al controuersies which may arise in so much as he telleth vs that men desirous of satisfaction may followe her directions and rest in her judgement vvhich they could not safely and securely doe if her direction and judgement could be erroneous yet in his fourth booke following he bereaueth her of almost al such prerogatiues for he saith that general Councels which be the highest courts of the Church Field booke 4 chap. 5. §. thus touching may erre in matters of greatest consequence and freeth the Church her selfe from errour * Ibid. and cha 2. before only in certaine principal articles of Christian religion But of these matters more hereafter Only this nowe sufficeth for my purpose that according to his testimony al wise and juditious men doe more esteeme bookes of doctrinal principles then those that are written of any other argument vvhich if it be true I hope the argument both of this my Treatise following and also of an other which I haue lying by me wil not be vngrateful but pleasing and acceptable to al vvise and juditious persons Moreouer an other writer of the English Church auoucheth that in this our last age Parkes in the Preface to the reader before his Apologie of three testimonies of scripture c. printed anno 1607. Heresie and Infidelity joining their desperate forces together labour mightily to subuert and ouerthrowe al the groundes of Christian religion vvhich if it be likewise truly affirmed a discourse discouering the fountaine of this euil and establishing such groundes as Heretikes and Infidels seeke to impugne cannot be thought vnprofitable Only my rashnesse in vndertaking such great matters and my want of wit and learning shewed in performing them may seeme worthy of blame But pardon me gentle Reader it was as I may say by chance both that I entered into discussing such thinges and also that my writings euer came to light Some fewe yeares since a Catholike gentleman being entred into some communication with a Protestant minister requested me to set him downe some briefe reasons for the Catholike part vpon vvhich he might stand I did so and I comprehended some twelue reasons in some three sheets of paper vvhich al vvere drawne from general groundes and doctrinal principles Not very long after I giuing my selfe alwaies to the
study of controuersies and hauing no learned friend at hand with whome I might conferre the more to perfect my selfe in such kinde of arguments vvhich vvithout conference or vvriting can hardly be done it came into my minde to enlarge my selfe much more vpon the said reasons And truly so much matter occurred vnto me being busied in these exercises that I thought it meete to deuide my twelue reasons into two treatises of vvhich the one I called a treatise of the groundes of the old and newe religion the other a treatise of the definition and notes of the Church Hauing finished the first I communicated it to some one or two of my familiar friends who were desirous to see it and so by some meanes it came to the sight of some persons esteemed learned and judicious who thought it might profit many if it were more common and therefore were desirous to haue it printed This was the beginning of my writing in this kinde and thus the one of these treatises besides my first intention or expectation is nowe passed the print I trust without any rash presumption or boldnes in me seing that I rather haue yeelded to the desire and aduise of men thought to be of mature judgement discretion and learning then for any other respect haue followed my owne fancy or inclination Nowe to giue my reader here a certaine taste of the contents of that which I intend here to publish as also of my manner of proceeeding I thinke it meete to aduertise him that in it I haue principally by apparant arguments proued two thinges the one that we Catholikes ground our faith and religion vpon the diuine authority of God the other that our aduersaries I meane the newe sectaries build their faith and religion I take these vvordes in an ample signification vpon their owne judgments The first is performed in the first part in which I haue shewed such groundes as the Catholikes build on to be of diuine authority The second in like sort is conuinced to be true in the second part vvhere I haue declared euen to the eie that the followers of the newe religion reject al other such groundes besides the holy Scripture vvhich also I haue proued them to reject and receiue translate and expound not according to any diuine ground but as it liketh their owne fancies consequently I haue demonstrated that in summe they haue no other foundation whereon they build but this that their beliefes seeme true to their owne natural reason It may be demanded what proofes I vse in these my discourses I answere in fewe vvordes that I bring forth proofes out of the holy Scripture I alleage the auncient Fathers and vvriters such as liued and wrote within the first sixe hundred yeares after Christ which some Protestants challenge to haue beene of their faith and religion and therefore allowe of their testimonies I cite moreouer the sentences of diuers Sectaries of these our daies vvho confesse that to be true which I endeauour to proue not the testimonies of Anabaptists Libertines Tritheists Trinitarians or of any others commonly by Protestants censured to be Heretikes but of such as are vsually by al sorts accknowledged to be writers of their Protestant family and members as they say of their reformed Churches In alleaging of which sentences of our aduersaries for the benefit of those that vnderstand not the Latin tongue I haue obserued this as much as I could that I haue taken them out of bookes either written in English or translated into English that so euery person might easily turne vnto them Neither ought the testimony of such sectaries to be thought by any man a weake argument for what proofe almost being not diuine can be of greater force then the confession of an aduersary or enemy touching the truth of that which is censured false by his doctors and the innocency of him whome he hateth and impugneth or the falsehood of his owne chiefemasters doctrine and the guiltinesse of himselfe or such as he loueth or are of his owne brotherhood And hence it is that M. Whitakers a Protestant of no meane fame Whitaker de Eccles controuers 2. cap. 14. pag. 366. graunteth that argument to be strong which is drawne from the confession of aduersaries Finally sometimes I bring forth some natural reasons and congruences prouing the conueniency of that which is auouched For we may wel assure our selues so if I doe not forget my selfe saith S. Augustine that God hath done vvhatsoeuer in right reason vve shal finde to be best These be the proofes of mine assertions and others then these I seldome or neuer vse But the better to declare my sincere dealing herein and also to shew the force of such testimonies of auncient Authors as I alleage I haue added before this treatise a table of al such Councels extant as I finde celebrated within the said first sixe ages as likewise of al the writers of those times which I finde to haue left any workes commonly alleaged in schooles to their posterity I haue moreouer noted out of good and approued authors the yeare in vvhich such Councels were celebrated and in which such writers either flourished or departed out of this world Al these things I haue performed with as great sincerity as the want of bookes hath suffered me And in very deede I may truly protest that willingly and wittingly I haue wronged no one writer in misalleaging his wordes or meaning be he Catholike or be he Protestant be he Auncient or be he Moderne It may be some faults haue escaped me but against my wil. Neither doth our Catholike cause neede any such jugling or false dealing the truth is so manifest on our side and the proofes of the same so many and pregnant But before my reader enter into the viewing of these my discourses that he may reape the greater profit of his labour I must earnestly craue one thing at his handes to wit that if he be of an other religion then is here defended before hand he doe not harden his hart and vvith obstinacy determine not to change his opinion or practise whatsoeuer he heare reade or vnderstand said against it or in proofe of an other way It behoueth euery Christian to be of a right hart and a good wil. Much is said in the holy Scripture both in commendation of the one and of the other The Prophet Dauid in the Psalmes often commendeth them that are recti corde right in hart and in particular inuiteth them to the praise of almighty God The Angels at the birth of our Lord did sing this Hymne Luke 2. v. 14. Gloria in altissimis Deo in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis Glory in the highest to God and in earth peace to men of good wil. And who hath a right hart and is of good wil Verily he that doth not obdurate himselfe against God but is desirous and by al meanes seeketh to conforme his wil to Gods wil
the sonnes of Aaron Malac. 2. vers 7. The lippes of the Priest shal keepe knowledge and they shal require the lawe of his mouth so of the Bishops and Priestes of the newe who are to enjoy as great if not a greater prerogatiue the Apostle telleth vs Ephes 4. vers 11. that our Lord hath giuen and euer wil giue as long as the world shal stand some Pastors and Doctors in his Church to direct vs that we be not carried away with euery winde of doctrine And hence proceedeth this notable sentence of the holy Father S. Ireneus vvho for Christian religion suffered Martirdome about the yeare of Christ two hundred and fiue Iren. li. 3. cap. 4. We ought not saith he to seeke among others the truth which we may easilie take and receaue from the Church seing that the Apostles haue most fully laid vp in her as into a rich treasure house or place where the Depositum of the Church is kept of which hereafter al thinges which are of truth that euery man that wil may take out of her the drinke of life For this is the entrance of life but al the rest are theeues and robbers for which cause they are verily to be auoided But those thinges which are of the Church are with great diligence to be loued and the tradition of truth is to be receaued Hitherto S. Ireneus We say therefore that by the Church we learne as certainely what misteries haue beene reuealed by Christ as we should doe by our Lord himselfe if he were conuersant with vs on earth and the truth of this wil be made most apparant by the discourse of the next Chapter following Chapter 6. Of the supreame and infallible authority of the Catholike Church SECTION THE FIRST MY principall intent in this treatise is as I haue before declared to proue that vve Catholikes only haue true faith and that al Sectaries are bereaued of this supernatural vertue vvherefore hauing set downe and made euident in the Chapter next before the nature and conditions of true faith it remaineth that I now beginne in particuler to discourse of these points And seing that it is of the essence of faith that it be most assuredly built vpon diuine authority let vs first behold the groundes of the Catholike Roman beleefe and see whether they are able to make a sufficient foundation for such a faith in the followers of that religion then let vs doe the like concerning the groundes of the newe Sectaries But first I must note that although as I haue proued before we must trulie say that we knowe infallibly the misteries of our faith to be reuealed by God because we are so taught by the Church yet that her authority is not limited to the decision of this matter only for it extendeth it selfe also to the definition of al particuler matters of faith and may haue for her object the verities themselues reuealed It also condemneth heresies and prescribeth general preceptes of manners touching good and il wherefore the ancient Catholike buildeth vpon her authority not only his faith touching the point mentioned but also in some sort his whole beleefe and consequently al his internal vertues grounded vpon the same He relieth likewise on her doctrine for his externall carriage concerning vertue and vice and finally accepteth al her faith as infallibly reuealed by God himselfe who hath made her supreame judge of al controuersies touching matters of religion and assured vs that her judgement is not only certaine and infallible but also through the perpetual assistance and direction of the holy Ghost diuine so that God directeth her in al truth and by her as a sensible guide he bestoweth the same benefit vpon vs in al thinges necessary to saluation wherefore our whole beleefe and religion in such sort dependeth of her infallible authority that if this be proued it conuinceth that to be true sincere and diuine For no man can denie but in building vpon the tradition decision or definition of the Church we ground our faith and religion vpon diuine authority if her decrees be Gods and her doctrine warranted to be his Let vs therefore endeauour to shewe this that so with fewe wordes we may decide the whole question and to auoide confusion let vs diuide the whole discourse of this Chapter into the proofe of some three or foure assertions SECTION THE SECOND The whole summe of Christian doctrine by word of mouth not by writing was committed by Christ to his Apostles FIRST therefore I affirme that Christ cōmitted the whole summe of Christian doctrine by word of mouth not by writing to his Apostles ordained that they should deliuer the same to their successors the Bishops and Pastors of the Church This is manifest both because diuers points of Christian doctrine which the Apostles receaued from Christ are not recorded by the Euangelists in their Gospels and also because S. Luke witnesseth Act. 1. v. 3. that Christ after his passion and resurrection shewed himselfe aliue to his Apostles in many arguments for fortie dayes appearing to them and speaking of the kingdome of God of which his speach litle or nothing is recorded I adde moreouer that not long before his ascention he gaue his Apostles this commission Going said he teach ye al nations Mat. 28. v. 19.20 baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost teaching them to obserue al thinges whatsoeuer I haue commanded you These places I say manifestly proue that Christ by word of mouth instructed his Apostles concerning the misteries and articles of Christian religion and according to his instruction commanded them to teach the whole world Neither is there any record extant that Christ gaue them these instructions in writing or that he commanded them to set them downe and publish them after that sort yea if we wil not say that the Apostles transgressed Christes commandement we must absolutely say that he neuer bid them doe any such thing because neuer any one of them as I wil declare hereafter set downe in writing the whole summe of Christian doctrine No man likewise wil or can deny but that it was the ordination of Christ that the Apostles should deliuer this whole summe of Christian doctrine to their successors for otherwise Christ should haue instituted a Church only for the Apostles daies not to continue to the end of the world according to the predictions of the Prophets And hence this summe of Christian doctrine by the Apostle S. Paul was most earnestly commended to Timothie 1. Tim. vlt vers 20. O Timothie saith he keepe the depositum that is the pledge or pawne left with thee auoiding the prophane nouelties of voices and oppositions of falsly called knowledge He calleth it depositum or a pledge or pawne because it is as it were a thing laid into the Apostles and Bishops handes and committed vnto them to keepe which euery one of them with great
his holy spirit it must needes followe that vvhosoeuer is infected with any one such heresie is void of al spiritual life and in state of damnation and can haue no more life then a mans arme cut off from his body or a bough cut from a tree But of this matter I shal entreate more at large Chap. 1. Sect. 4. in my treatise of the definition and notes of the true Church vvhere I shal proue that the members of Christes Church are lincked together by the profession of the same vvhole summe of Christian doctrine and therefore for this present this shal suffice And lesse I thinke would haue satisfied any reasonable man for seing that there is but one true rule of beleefe Ephes 4. vers 4. and one faith according as vve are taught by the Apostle among Christians and this faith is so necessary to saluation as I haue proued before no wise-man wil prescribe himselfe a rule of faith according to his owne erroneous fancy and neglect the judgement of the Church whome truth it selfe hath warranted that she shal not erre from truth Chapter 7. Of the holy Scripture which is the first particuler ground of faith in the Catholike Church SECTION THE FIRST Howe the Scripture is knowne to be Canonical THE supreame authority and infallible judgement of the Church being thus established and proued it may wel in this place be demanded vvhat particuler groundes decrees or principles the Church doth deliuer vnto vs or we finde in the Church whereupon we may securely build our faith For the resolution of this question I haue affirmed in the title of this Chapter that the first such particuler ground is the holy Scripture And although there be no controuersie betweene vs and our aduersaries concerning the authority of diuers bookes of the said holy Scripture for most of them by vs al are confessed to be Canonical yet much difference there is betweene vs concerning the meanes by vvhich vve knowe the holie Scripture and euery parcel thereof to be the true vvord of God and vvho is to be judge of the true sence of these diuine volumes vvherefore these points are briefly to be handled and discussed Howe then doe vve knowe that the old and newe Testament are Canonical howe can vve certainely assure our selues that the Apostles and Disciples vvrote the newe vvhat proofe likevvise haue vve to perswade vs that no part of the holie Scripture hath beene in times past corrupted or depraued I answere in fewe vvordes that al this is infallibly knowne vnto vs by the authority and judgement of the Catholike Church vvho hath adjudged al such bookes to be Canonical and as Canonical receiued them and deliuered them to her children I denie not but the Scriptures before the definition and censure of the Church vvere true and contained the certaine and sincere vvord of God but this only I say that this truth and authority was first infallibly knowne vnto vs by the Church vvho adjudged and censured them to be as they are and as such commanded al Christians to esteeme and reuerence them Neither is this any waies prejudicial to the dignity and authority of the holie Scripture for this notwithstanding vve confesse that the said Scripture is of farre greater authority then the Church or her definitions be vvhich is manifest because although the holie Ghost assist and direct both the vvriters of holie Scripture and the Church yet certaine it is that hee hath assisted and directed the first after a farre more excellent manner then he doth the second because his assistance and direction in penning those sacred bookes vvas such that euery sentence in them contained is of most certaine verity but his assistance vnto the Church vvhether it be in a general Councel or otherwise in the decrees of the Bishop of Rome maketh only that vvhich the said Councel or Bishop intend to define of such an infallible truth Wherefore then doe vve proue the Scripture to be Canonical by the authority of the Church Surely for no other reason then because the Church is better knowne vnto vs then the Scripture For the Church hath alwaies beene as I vvil proue hereafter most visible and apparant to the vvhole vvorld euery man also before that the newe Testament vvas written before that it vvas generally receiued by the Church might haue knowne the Church for she vvas before any part of it was penned and consequently by her infallible judgement euery one might with farre more ease and certainety haue come to the knowledge of such bookes then by any other meanes or industry Wherefore to conclude although the Church maketh not Scripture yet of her we learne most certainely which is Scripture And this is no more disgrace vnto Scripture then it was vnto Christ that the Apostles gaue testimony of him because they were better knowne then he I adde also that euery one of them who aboue al others reprehend this our assertion taketh vpon himselfe as great authority ouer Scriptures as vve giue to the whole Church See part second chap. 5. Sect. 1. For euery newe sectarie out of his owne fancy judgeth this to be Scripture that to be none c. vvhich must needes be in euery mans judgement farre more absurd This assertion being thus explicated let vs nowe briefly proue the same And first because vve can assigne no other meanes by vvhich vve may say that vve certainely knowe the Scripture to be Canonical but the authority of the Church And as concerning the old Testament although vve graunt that the authority thereof vvas first partly approued by miracles partly by the testimony of Prophets and partly by the authority of the Church in those daies yet howe doe vve nowe infallibly knowe that it vvas so approued and that it is the selfe same nowe that vvas then approued but by the relation tradition and censure of the Church But let vs come to the newe Testament and demand vvho hath receiued it into the Canon of holie Scripture vvhat miracles haue beene vvrought to proue it Canonical who doth assure vs that it vvas penned by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ and that since their daies it hath not beene corrupted Verily the Church only resolueth vs of al these questions and telleth vs vvith assurance of truth that the said newe Testament vvas vvritten by the said sacred authours inspired and directed by the holy Ghost and that euer since their daies it hath beene preserued in her sacred bosome vvithout corruption And no other answere hauing any probability of truth and sufficient to satisfie a reasonable mans vnderstanding can be made This may also be confirmed by the continual practise of the Church For no man can deny but it vvas her doing that the foure Gospels of S. Mathewe Marke Luke and Iohn See part 2 chap. 5. Sect. 2. were receiued and the Gospel called of Nicodemus with others rejected She hath likwise now receiued as Canonical diuers bookes in times past of
grounds hence proceeding IN the three precedent Chapters I haue treated of three principal groundes on which with al security we may build our faith and religion I wil now adde vnto them certaine others commonly by al Catholikes esteemed also to be of infallible authority And in the first place I assigne the decrees and definitions of the supreame visible Pastour of the Church millitant but for a ful explication and plaine proofe of this ground I wil deuide this chapter into certaine sections SECTION THE FIRST Containing a briefe explication or rehearsal of the Catholike doctrine concerning the Popes supremacie BECAVSE our beliefe concerning the primacie of the Bishop of Rome is diuersly slaundered by our aduersaries I thinke it not amisse before I come to the proofe of it briefly to explicate what our doctrine is For true it is that our assertion being explicated to them that are misinformed is halfe proued We hold therefore that the supreame power which our Sauiour Christ euen according to his humane nature receiued of his Father before his ascention ouer al his Church of which are these his wordes Mat. 28. verse 18. Ephes 1 22. 1 Pet. 5 4. Heb. 5.6 Al power is giuen to me in heauen and in earth vvas neuer resigned or giuen by him to any mortal creature Wherefore as yet he remaineth supreame head of his Church prince of Pastours and Priest according to the order of Melchisedech Neuerthelesse because he vvas to withdrawe his visible corporal presence from the Church millitant and therefore could not himselfe decree and giues sentence or aduise in matters doubtful like as Kinges or Princes not being resident in their dominions for the good and peaceable gouernment of their subjects appoint Viceroies or Vicegerents Luke 19. vers 12. so he departing from his Church as the scripture saith into a farre Countrie like as he appointed diuers vicars for the administration of the sacraments so he ordained one for the gouernment of the whole Church to wit S. Peter who immediately receiued such jurisdiction and authority from him and therefore during his mortal life was his Vicegerent on earth ministerial head of his Church and chiefe gouernour Pastour and Prelate of the same And hence proceedeth the first difference betweene Christ and S. Peter touching the supremacie ouer the Church For although they be both termed supreame heads of the same yet the last of them is subordinate dependeth of the first and the first only is the supreame independent the last was the supreame visible ministerial dependent head Of which it appeareth that the authority and jurisdiction of the second was nothing prejudicial to that of the first for they may stand very wel together seing that the one was subordinate to the other Neither doe Christ and his vicar properly make two heads of the Church but one like as a King and his viceroy make not properly two Kings but one For like as the King notwithstanding his viceroy is the one chiefe prince gouernour and head of his country so is Christ the chiefe Prelate and head of his Church S. Peter vvas his vicar and vicegerent and so is at this present his successour the Bishop of Rome For the proofe of the truth of this doctrine it maketh that like as Christ in the holy scripture is called Head of the Church so he is likewise called a Apoc. 17 14. ca. 19 16. King Lord b 1. Pet. 2 25. Bishop Pastour c Heb. 3 1. cap. 5. vers 6. Apostle and Priect Wherefore like as this notwithstanding others may be Kinges Lords Bishops Pastors Apostles and Priests so another may be although not absolute yet subordinate and ministerial head of the Church After this sort also our Sauiour and S. Peter are both rocks for although Christ be the chiefe rock and stone on which the Church was built yet S. Peter was the ministerial or secondary rock made by Christ a rocke and the principal stone next vnto himselfe in the edifice of his Church In vvhich sense by S. Paul and S. Iohn Eph. 2 20 Apoc. 21. verse 14. Basil hom de poenitē quae est vltima inter varias homilias Math. 5. verse 14. Leo serm 3. āniuersario Assumptionis suae although Christ be the principal foundation of his Church yet the Apostles are likewise termed the foundation of the same This which I haue said is most learnedly and euidently declared by the holy father S. Basil in these his wordes Although S. Peter saith he be a rocke yet he is not a rocke as Christ is for Christ is the true immoueable rocke of himselfe Peter is immoueable through Christ the rocke For Iesus doth impart and communicate his dignities not voiding himselfe of them but holding them to himselfe he bestoweth them also vpon others He is the light and yet you saith he are the light He is the Priest and yet he maketh Priests He is a Rocke and yet be maketh a Rocke thus farre S. Basil The like discourse vve finde in S. Leo for expounding those vvordes of our Sauiour Thou art Peter thus he speaketh in the person of Christ to the said Apostle Whereas I am an inuiolable Rocke I the corner stone who make both one I the foundation besides which no man can lay another yet thou also art a rocke because by my power thou art made firme and strong to the end that those thinges which are proper to me by power be made common to thee by participation hitherto S. Leo. And thus much of the first difference betweene Christ and S. Peter touching their superiority ouer the Church An other difference betweene them is that the authority of Christ vvas euer absolute of S. Peter limited for our Sauiour deriued not vnto him al his authoritie but a part onlie of the same Hence it proceedeth that although Christ instituted sacraments forgaue sins vvithout the vse of anie sacraments c. yet neither S. Peter nor any of his successours euer had anie such power or authority The reason is because euery man but Christ hath alwaies beene bound to vse the meanes by him instituted and left vnto his Church Of vvhich it appeareth howe false their slaunder is vvho affirme the Pope to pardon sinnes by his Indulgences or Pardons for certaine it is that by such indulgences no sinnes are forgiuen but men are onlie released of such temporal paine as is due vnto them It is also confessed by al Catholikes that no man as long as he is guilty of mortal sinne and out of the state of grace can receiue anie benefite from any such pardon A third difference is that our Sauiour being the way the truth and life yea the sonne of God himselfe could neither erre in judgement nor in manners that is he could neither haue any false or erroneous opinion in his vnderstanding nor sinne or erre from reason and right in his wil and actions Contrariewise his vicar although as I vvil proue
Doctors who planted ruled and instructed the Church presently after Christs Ascention are to beleeued and obeied but also that the like credit is to be giuen to their successors who in al ages following haue supplied and shal euer vntil the day of judgment supply their places and consequently that they also haue beene and are directed in al truth otherwise they might haue wauered and erred themselues and so haue drawne the vvhole Church to such inconueniences Seing therefore that the fathers of the Church in their ages haue supplied such places it must needs followe that they haue enjoyed the like priuiledges and prerogatiues Moreouer the Iewes were bound to heare and obey the Scribes Pharisees of the old law as we are taught by these wordes of Christ Math. 23. v. 2. 3. Vpon the chaire of Moises haue sitten the Scribes and Pharisees al things therefore whatsoeuer they shal say to you obserue ye and doe ye Who then wil be so impudent as to say that Christians are not bound to heare and obey the prelates of the Church Luke 10. see also Math. 10. Ioh. 13. Iren. li. 4. cap. 4. especially seing that of them Christ hath said He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me which wordes argue as great truth in their doctrine as there is in the doctrine of Christ who is truth it selfe Hence S. Irenaeus telleth vs that we ought to obey those who haue succession from the Apostles who together with the succession of their Bishopriks haue receiued the gifts or priuiledges of truth And although these sentences are principallie verified in the prelates of the Church assembled in a general Councel yet they must needs also be confessed true in the whole body of them in al ages dispersed through the vvhole world and in euerie one of them vvhen he teacheth and deliuereth vs the doctrine of the vniuersal Church Finally the ancient Fathers are most pregnant and faithful witnesses of that Depositum or summe of Chistian doctrine which they receiued from their predecessors and deliuered to their successours They are also most indifferent judges of al controuersies after their daies arising in the Church because they liued before euer any such controuersie was moued and therefore are partial of no side Aug. cont Iulianuni li. 2. c. 10. Hence are these vvords of S. Augustine to the Pelagians concerning this matter They he speaketh of the Fathers that liued before him were angry neither with you nor with vs they fauoured neither you nor vs That which they found in the Church they held fast that which they learned they taught that which they receiued of their Fathers they deliuered to their children Hitherto S. Augustine This moued the same holie Father and diuers others to appeale so often to the judgment of their predecessours and to cite their testimonies And these arguments in like manner proue that the truth of faith and religion alwaies and in al ages remaineth among the true Bishops and Pastors of the Church and consequentlie that at al times euen at this present a man may securelie followe their beliefe and doctrine This I say the authorities alleaged testifie for the Church must neuer erre her prelates are alwaies to stay vs from wauering in faith c. 1. Cor. 11. verse 16. August epist 118. cap. 5. Idē epist 86. ad Casulā And it is moreouer insinuated vnto vs by the Apostle in these words But if a man seeme contentious we haue no such custome nor the Church of God for as we see in them he pleadeth the custome of the Church against the contentious And this moued S. Augustine to tearme it most insolent madnes to dispute against that which the whole church holdeth he telleth vs also that the custom of the people of God or the ordināces of our ancestors are to be held as a law in those things in which the diuine scripture prescribeth nothing certaine S. Hierome is of the same opinion for in his dialogue against the Luciferians he bringeth in the Heretike affirming that the consent of the whole world hath the force of a lawe although it be in a matter not to be proued by scripture Epiphani haeres 75. and maketh the Catholike assent to his assertion The like hath S. Epiphanius who disputing against Aerius in defence of certaine fasting-daies obserued in the Church vseth this argument The Church receiued them and the whole world in it consented before Aerius was and they which of him are called Aerians the same is affirmed by the rest of the Fathers In the last place for a ground of our faith I must adde such propositions as are deduced out of these most certaine grounds by an euident and infallible argument For although it is commonly held that in a sillogisme of one proposition of faith and another knowne onlie by the light of natural reason the conclusion is not properly of faith but Theological that is a conclusion in diuinity held most true yet certaine it is See Greg. de Valētia in secūda secūdae disput 1. qu. 1. pūcto 2. that a conclusion following in a silogisme of two propositions of faith is indirectly and as the diuines say immediatelie de fide or of faith as also that proposition is which is inferred by good and euident consequence of a proposition of faith because whosoeuer denieth the proposition inferred wil be constrained to deny the proposition or propositions of which it is inferred But concerning such propositions the vnlearned if occasion be offered must craue instructions of the learned Chapter 12. Containing the conclusion of the first part THESE be the immoueable and most firme grounds which we finde in the Church of Christ whereon vve build our faith and religion Vpon these sure foundations as vpon a firme rock euery Catholike buildeth his beliefe and saluation And although the articles deliuered vnto vs by the Church be not apparant to our senses nor for the most part comprehensible by reason yet in al such matters according to the saying of the Apostle We make our reason and vnderstanding captiue vnto the obedience of Christ 2. Corint 10. vers 5. 1. Corint 2. vers 5. and acknowledge with the same Apostle that our faith is not in the wisedome of men but in the power of God And therefore that in such misteries aboue reason we cannot shew our selues more reasonable then to leaue off reasoning Genes 18. vers 14. Luk. 1 37. Math. 19 26. Mat. 16 17. Verily we are taught by the scripture that nothing is hard much lesse impossible vnto God yea that al things are possible with him although with men impossible And if scripture had not taught vs this reason it selfe would easily perswade vs to assent vnto it because by nature he is omnipotent We know also that it is not flesh and bloud that hath reuealed such things vnto vs but God himselfe who being eternal wisdome truth can
neither be deceiued nor deceiue wherefore although the misteries be obscure let vs alwaies be mindeful by whom we are informed of their truth and not make the depth of our owne capacity the rule and measure of Gods power and of our faith but beleeue them When either the diuel or his instruments object any thing against our beliefe let vs say with S. Augustine Aug. serm 147. de tempore Ambrose in cap. 5. Lucae Ambr. de Abraham cap. 3. Why doe we wonder why doe we not beleeue it was God that did it and with S. Ambrose If we beleeue not God whom wil we beleeue If a grauâ—â—onourable personage I vse the same holy Doctors comparison in this life especially if he be of high degree and our better would scorne to be asked of vs a proofe for that which he affirmeth how much more ought God to be credited without proofe of humane reason when he propoundeth vnto vs a matter aboue mans reason and capacity thus in effect S. Ambrose And howe weake and feeble our reason and vnderstanding is vve may easilie perceiue by this that it is not able to comprehend the nature or causes of diuers thinges vvhich we daily behold with our eies Hence arise so many intricate difficulties in natural philosophy which the deepest wits and most learned philosophers could neuer hitherto vnfold For example what philosopher hath euer hitherto yeelded a certaine cause without any contradiction of the ebbing and flowing of the Sea Yea howe manie thinges are there in mans bodie it selfe vvhich moue no smal difficulties to philosophers as the forming of it in the mothers vvombe the concoction and distribution of nourishment the growing of it to a due proportion and stature c. What shal we say of the fiue senses by which our vnderstanding cometh to the knowledg of external and corporal thinges howe strange is their operation vvhat great and huge bodies are together truely represented in the litle compasse of the aple of the eie But I can not stand to discourse of them in particuler If we looke vp to the heauens howe can we conceiue the huge bodies of the planets seeming to our senses so smal their certaine and swift motion and their nature it selfe most admirable And if we cannot without great difficulty and discourse comprehend these ordinarie matters how dare we by our weake wit measure the omnipotent power of God and think him able to doe no more then we can conceiue Moreouer if God had not made al thinges of nothing by his onlie word we should hardly imagine such a creation to be possible seing that it is a rule among natural ageÌ„ts that of nothing nothing is made If God himselfe had not reuealed vnto vs that in the most blessed Trinitie the same simple essence or substance is in three persons vvhich therefore make but one God we should hardly haue beleeued it seing that among vs euery person hath a distinct substance or essence If faith did not teach vs that in Christ two natures the one of God the other of man make one person it would seeme incredible seing that among vs eâ—â—â—ie nature maketh a distinct person Come a litle lower if our Sauiour had not told vs Mat. 19. verse 26. Iohn 20 19. 26. that a camel by the power of God may be made to passe through the eie of an needle who would haue beleeued it If Christ had not entred into his disciples the dores being shut vvho would haue thought it possible If then our vnderstanding can not naturally comprehend these misteries which neuerthelesse euery Christian must confesse to be true we may very wel thinke vvith our selues that other such like which Heretiks deny may likewise be euen as certaine although our vnderstanding can not reach to the apprehension of them seing that they are no more repugnant to reason then the former but like as they aboue reason and proceed from the same omnipotent power of God Certainly The workes of God as we are taught by S. Gregory if they were comprehensible by reason Gregor hom 26. in Euan. were not admirable neither hath faith saith he any merit when humane reason yeeldeth an experiment or maketh the thing euident for the lesse euidence that our reason hath in matters of faith so that the things be propounded vnto vs vvith sufficient prudential motiues prouing diuine reuelation the more we merit in beleeuing according to those wordes of our Sauiour Iohn 20. verse 29. Blessed are they who haue not seene and haue beleeued And therefore concerning those workes of God principally which by faith vve are bound to beleeue Chrisost homil 21. in Genes let vs followe the learned aduise of S. Iohn Chrisostome contained in these his words following When God doth any thing saith he doe not thou examine those thinges which are done by human reason for they exceed our vnderstanding and mans thought or imagination can not reach and comprehend the reason of those thinges which are made and done by God Wherefore it is meet that we hearing what God commaunded obey and beleeue those thinges which are said by him for seing that he is the founder of nature he doth order and transforme al thinges as he thinketh good hitherto Saint Iohn Chrisostome FINIS THE SECOND PART OF THIS TREATISE SHEWING THE GROVNDES OF the newe religion In which is proued that the newe Sectaries build their faith vpon no diuine authority but that the ground of al their beliefe and religion is their owne judgement and consequentlie that they haue neither true faith nor religion Chapter 1. That by their doctrine they deny or at the least weaken the three principal and general groundes of Christian religion set downe in the three first chapters of the first part SECTION THE FIRST The number of Atheists among them is great and of the causes by them giuen of this impiety IN the three first chapters of the first part of this treatise I haue proued three principal grounds of our religion to wit the being of God and his diuine prouidence the immortallity of the soule of Man and the truth of Christianity Now perhaps the title of this chapter to some may seeme verie strange and my accusation of our aduersaries that by their doctrine they denie or vveaken these grounds verie slanderous and injurious but I desire no more credit in this matter then the reasons I shal bring wil yeeld which if I obtaine of my reader I doubt not but I shal free my selfe of al suspition of offering them any wrong But first I must declare that in this section I intend not to accuse al the newe Sectaries of Atheisme for I know very wel that they teach commonly beleeue there is a God neither doe I intend to affirme that the same man can properly be termed a newe sectarie and Atheist but mine assertion onlie is that a great number of such as are in outward shewe professours of the newe religion are
of errour in al and consequentlie taketh from her al infallible authority and maketh her a fallible and vncertaine ground Chapter 4. They reject al particuler groundes of faith aboue assigned and proued to be found in the Church of Christ besides the holie Scriptures LET vs now descend to the particuler groundes of faith which we haue aboue proued to be found in the Church of Christ And although our aduersaries denial of the infallible authority of the Church and her assistance by the holy ghost on which the certainty of al such particuler groūds dependeth as I haue shewed before be a sufficient proofe not onlie that they reject them but also that according to their doctrine they haue no infallible meane to know what articles haue beene by God reuealed to his Church yet let vs declare the matter more in particuler and at large But concerning vnwritten traditions the decrees of the Pope the doctrine of the Romane Church yea of the whole Church of Christ I need say nothing because they al with one consent and voice exclaime against these groundes as superstitious friuolous and of no moment The difficulty therefore is onlie concerning holie Scriptures general and prouincial Councels and the vniforme consent of Fathers of vvhich the first is challendged by them al the other two by some of them only I wil beginne with the two last And concerning general Councels a Luther lib. de Concilijs Luther doth not only reprehend the first councel held by the Apostles at Hierusalem of which we read in the b Act. 15. acts of the Apostles and affirme that the decrees thereof bound no man in conscience but also calleth the Fathers which afterwards assembled themselues in Councels sicophants and flatterers of the Pope In particuler he calleth the Canons of the first general Councel of Nice celebrated in the daies of Constantine the great Emperour whom our c Barlow in his relatiō of the conferēce held at Hāpt Court p. 69. King by no meanes wil haue appreached of Poperie bay straw wood stuble and demandeth whether the holy Ghost hath nothing else to doe in Councels but to binde and burden his ministers with impossible daungerous and vnnecessarie lawes such according to him were decreed in that Councel I think he meaneth concerning the chaste and single life of Bishops and ministers The like censure he pronounceth against al other general Councels and concludeth his discourse in that place that more light is brought to Christian doctrine by that Catechisme which children learne then by al the Councels In another place he addeth that d Luth. in prologo li. contra statuta Ecclesiae he wil not haue his doctrine judged by any neither by Bishops nor by al the Angels but that be wil by his doctrine judge the Angels Caluin giueth leaue to euerie priuate man to examine the decrees of Councels by the exact rule of holie scripture e Caluin book 4. Instit cap. 9. § 8. 11. see also § 9. Let no names saith he or authorities of Councels Pastours Bishops hinder vs but that we may examine the spirits of al men by the rule of the word of God He likewise calleth the Fathers of the first general Councel of Nice f Idem lib. de vera ecclesiae reformatione opuscul pag. 480. see him also booke 4. of his Instit chap. 9. § 10. Phanatices that is men phanatical or deluded by the devil g Bez. in praefat noui test anno 1565. Beza telleth vs that in the best times such was partlie the ambition of Bishops partlie their foolishnes and ignorance that the verie blinde may perceiue sathan verilie to haue beene President of their assemblies the like censure is pronounced by Musculus h Vrbā Regi 1. part operū de eccl fo 51. Vrbanus Regius and others The ministers of the church of Scotland in the confession of their faith write thus i Cōfess of the faith of Scotl. prīt at the ēd of the harm of cōfess p. 19. See the said Harmonie of cōfessiōs sect 1. pag. 14. Without just examinatin we doe not receiue whatsoeuer is obtruded vnto men vnder the name of a general Councel for plaine it is that as the men assembled were men so haue some of them manifestlie erred and that in matters of great weight importance So farre then as the Councel proueth the determination and commandement that in giueth by the plaine word of God so soone doe we reuerence and embraces the same hitherto the confession of Scotland Out of which their vvordes as also out of the like assertions of others I gather that our aduersaries commonlie giue no more creditte to general Councels and consequently to the whole church of Christ which they represent then is to be giuen to the worst and meanest man liuing yea then may be giuen to the deuil himselfe For these may also be beleeued if they proue that true which they affirme by the authority of holy scripture which they al require as necessary before the decree of councel be beleeued Secondly I gather that according to their assertions we may likewise lawfully examine these their sentences or decrees whether they be according to the rule of scripture or no for they were also men subject to errour and moreouer because vve finde them not so as appeareth by that which hath beene already said we may also reject them as repugnant to the said scripture The like leaue they giue in like sort to those of their owne company yea to euerie priuate man whatsoeuer concerning al their canons and constitutions wherefore their followers or subjects are not to be reprehended according to these opinions and decrees if they examine their sentences and canons by the word of God and reject them if in their conscience according to their owne judgement they finde them not conformable to the same But what an absurd thing is it that a fewe ministers should presume to pronounce so seuere a censure against such auncient venerable and learned assemblies highly of esteemed by al true Christians in al ages euen since the beginning of Christianity whence wil they haue these errours to haue proceeded Certainly they must needs attribute them either to ignorance or malice of the Bishops and Prelates assembled But are they either for number learning or piety to be compared with them They are not without doubt as wil easily appeare vnto any learned man that shal with any difference read the Ecclesiastical histories and viewe the vvorkes of both sides Neither haue ministers being combred for the most part with wiues children and such other impediments that opportunity of giuing themselues to studie and deuotion as the auncient Bishops had who liued a chast and single life and gaue them selues altogether to spiritual affaires and vvere commonly verie holy men Wherefore seing that they also liued nearer to the Apostles daies it is verie probable yea certaine that they better vnderstood and knewe the
themselues and of this their ground because the matter is of great importaunce I purpose to discourse something at large And first I wil shewe in this chapter that the bare and naked letter onlie of holie Scripture is not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion Then in the chapters following I wil proue that although we should grant the letter to be a sufficiēt ground yet that their bibles containe not the true letter Thirdly that although this were also granted yet that they build not vpon the letter contained in their owne Bibles Lastly that in translating and expounding the holie Scriptures they followe their owne fancies and judgement and that they haue no other certaine and infallible ground Caluin de ve ra Eccles reform ratione pag. 473. Apologie of the Church of Englād pag. 58. Articles of faith agrreed vpō the cōuocations of the yeares 1562. 1604. I come to the first It is a common maxime or principle among al newe Sectaries that the scriptures only containe al thinges necessary to our saluation and that nothing is to be beleeued or necessarily to be obserued vvhich is not expresly taught commaunded or allowed in the same or as some of them adde manifestlie gathered out of them * Harmony of confes sect 1. In controuersies of religion saith the confession of Heluetia or matters of faith we cannot admit any other judge then God himselfe pronouncing by the holy scriptures what is true what false what is to be followed or what auoided Al thinges ought to be tried by the rule and square of holy scripture saith the French confession Al things which are needful to be knowne to saluation are contained in the Prophets and Apostles writings saith that of Wittenberg And out of this ground they argue against vnwritten traditiōs ceremonies positiue lawes of the Church c. But that this doctrine is false euen according to their owne proceedings supposing that to be true vvhich they affirme concerning the infallible authority of the Church to wit that it is not expressed in the said scripture nor out of it deduced it is an easie matter to demonstrate to euerie mans eie for first this authority of the Church being set aside by vvhat Scripture can they proue the Scripture it selfe to be Canonical And seing that I am to discourse of this argument and their assertions be intricate I wil not only proue that according to this ground they haue no canonical Scripture but also absolutely that by no other means they giue it any infallible or diuine authority First therefore I may very wel frame this argument against the whole Bible out of their aforesaid ground Nothing is to be beleeued but that which is expresly taught in the written word of god or manifestly gathered out of the same but that the Bible is canonical Scripture it is neither taught in the written word of God nor manifestly gathered out of the same therfore it is not to be beleeued that the bible is canonical Scripture The major or first proposition containeth their aforesaid ground the minor or second is approued by Hooker who writeth thus Of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what books we are bound to esteeme holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And this afterwards he confirmeth with this reason For saith he if any one book of scripture did giue testimony to al yet stil that Scripture which giueth credit to the rest would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it neither could we euer come into any pause whereon to rest our assurance this way so that vnlesse besides Scripture there were something which might assure vs that we doe wel we could not thinke we doe wel no not in being assured that Scripture is a sacred and holy rule of wel-doing thus Hooker And this argument is of such force that it hath constrained some of them and among the rest the said a Hooker in his treatis of lawes of ecclesiastical policy booke 1. p. 84. book 2. § 4. p. 100. 102 Zauch in his confessiō c. 1. Brent in prolog Kemn in exam Concil Tridentini Hooker Zauchius Brentius and Kemnitius to flie from Scriptures vnto tradition for the proofe of this matter yea b Hook book 3. § 8. p. 146. See Whitak contr Staple l. 2. c. 4. pag. 298. 300. some of them affirme that this only tradition concerning canonical Scripture is to be rejected c Obseruations vpon the Harmonie of confessiōs published by those of Geneua fol. 593. Others and among them the Geneuian doctors affirme that some books of which there was heretofore some doubt among the ancient doctors of the church were receiued as Canonical by the common consent of the whole Catholike Church and therefore that they are not to be refused But who seeth not First that these men bewray the weaknes of the aforesaid general ground concerning the sufficiency of holy Scripture alone then that if the tradition of the Church yea the Church it selfe in her judicial sentence as they al affirme may erre in one point that it may also erre in al others of the same quality and consequently that the authority or tradition of the Church cannot infallibly argue the Scriptures to be of diuine authority Caluin instit book 1. cap. 7. § 1.2.4 et 5. Caluin answereth that the holy books of Scripture by them that haue the spirit are easily discerned from others by themselues as light from darknesse and sweetnes from sowrenes or bitternes And this his opinion is embraced by diuers and among the rest by Whitakers Thomas Rogers and Field and therefore is with some diligence to be refelled But before I enter into the confutation of it I must affirme as certaine that al these authors require in euery man to this that assuredly he beleeue the holy scriptures to be from God a supernatural inspiration of the holy ghost That Caluin doth so his sentences hereafter alleaged plainly declare * Whit. ī his answ to Campians first reason pag. 47. Whitakers hauing affirmed That it is euen as euidēt the scriptures be from god as that the sunne is the sun or that god is God and also said that there are in the books themselues proofs inough to demonstrate it yet finally concludeth that the inward hidden testimony of the spirit must be bad that men may firmly rest in the scriptures Againe Then only doe we attaine a certaine sauing ful assurance when the same spirit which writ published them doth perswade our harts of the credit of them Rogers writeth thus a Rogers ī his discourse vpō the articles of faith agreed vpon in the conuocations of the years 1562. 1604. art 6. p. 31. 32. printed anno 1607. We judg these books before mentioned Canonical not somuch because learned and godly men in the Church so haue and doe receiue and allow of them as for that the holy spirit in our harts doth
precisely as they are the object of our faith they al haue no other euidence then diuine reuelation as is proued before which is alwaies obscure What then is this medium or meane according to Field Is it any humane conjecture motiue or probability This cannot be according to his owne doctrine as appeareth in the same place and the chapter before Nay in another place he telleth vs Book 4. chap. 20. § Much contention that the books of Scripture winne credite of themselues and yeeld sufficient satisfaction to al men of their diuine truth and therefore he seemeth to exclude al external proofe Is it then any thing contained in the things themselues Neither can this be said for euery thing contained in the thinges themselues belonging to their essence is as obscure as the things themselues be and consequently no such thing contained in the things themselues can be such a meane to manifest themselues vnto vs. And vvhat accident he vvil assigne in the articles of our faith making them manifest vnto vs I cannot imagine Secondly I cannot see how this assertion of Field doth agree with that his common principle Field book 4. chap. 13.8 book 3. chap. 42. auouching that the Scripture is the Canon and ground of their beliefe and that they rest in the determination of the word of God as in the rule of their faith For how can this be if the euidence of the things appearing vnto vs be sometimes the formal reason of our faith as is in like sort by him auerred But to make this discourse a litle more manifest let vs demaund a question or two in particuler of M. Field and see howe he vvil resolue them according to his doctrine deliuered I aske therefore of him why he beleeueth there be three persons and one God two natures in Christ and one person and the resurrection of our bodies Wil he answere that the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto him is the formal cause of his faith or inducing him to beleeue these misteries If he doe not he contradicteth his own doctrine If he doe he contradicteth both al sense and reason and also himselfe making the Scripture the ground of faith except he affirme these misteries to be euident not in themselues but in the medium or meane by force whereof they are beleeued For which medium if he wil be constant to himselfe he must assigne the holie Scripture vvhich Scripture he must say is beleeued through the authority of God himselfe whome vve doe most certainly discerne to speake in the word of faith which is another cause of beliefe assigned by him for such thinges as we beleeue and doe not knowe so that this authority of God is the last motiue not the holy Scripture and what other processe he wil make I cannot perceiue But what doth he and Caluin vnderstand by that other reason which he tearmeth The authority of God himselfe whome we doe certainly discerne to speake in the word of faith which is preached vnto vs and Caluin The majesty of God which doth present it selfe vnto vs What is this authority and majesty of God and how doe we so certainly discerne it Verily for my part I am so farre from knowing how to discerne it as I cannot vvel imagine vvhat they meane by it yet if I be not deceiued they affirme that the authority of God or his majestie is seene in the letter of holie Scripture vvhich moueth vs by a supernatural and most infallible assent to acknowledge it to be his holy word But first this is said gratis and vvithout any ground or reason for what authority or majesty can a man discerne in such bookes as our aduersaries receiue as Canonical more then in those which they reject For example what appeareth to vs more diuine in the bookes of Ecclesiastes then in the bookes of Ecclesiasticus surely nothing much lesse so much as may be an infallible and knowne meane to moue vs to beleeue the one as diuine and to reject the other as Apocriphal Moreouer howe doe vve knowe that this representation of diuine majestie or this diuine authoritie vvhich as vve conceaue doth represent it selfe vnto vs is not either some illusion of the Deuil or some strong imagination of our owne proceeding onlie from some affection which vpon some other motiues we beare to such and such bookes of Scripture Trulie we haue great cause to feare that it may proceed from some such affection seeing that Luther and most of al his Lutherans confesse al the Sacramentaries generallie to be deceaued in such their apprehensions concerning the epistle to the Hebrewes the epistle of Saint Iames the Apocalipse of S. Iohn and other parcels of Scripture And why not concerning others as vvel as these Vnto vvhich I adde that they commonly make their doctrine a rule whereby to try which is Scripture and vvhich is not as I vvil demonstrate hereafter and appeareth by the causes assigned by Luther vvhich moued him to reject the epistle of Saint Iames. It may also be objected against this their doctrine that of it it seemeth to followe that no man can be assured of the diuine authority of any other bookes of Scripture then of those which he hath read himselfe or heard others read For first no man can possibly proue to another that in reading such and such books he did discerne in then the authority of God himselfe speaking or that the diuine majesty did in them present it selfe vnto him vvherefore vnto this that a man may judg of holy Scripture he must himselfe read or heare the words and sentences read and this he must doe before he can haue any faith For seeing that they make the Scripture the rule and ground of their beliefe the Scripture must first be knowne before they can beleeue and seeing that no one booke containeth al things necessary to be beleeued but such things are dispersed through al it is necessarie that he know the whole Canon of Scripture and consequentlie that he reade or heare it al rehearsed sentence by sentence And what a Laborinth is this how can the vnlearned that cannot reade doe it Nay how many Protestants in the world haue euer performed it Wherefore I conclude that this rule or meane how to know holy Scripture is neither easie plaine certaine nOr vniuersal Perhaps it may be thought by some that Field assigneth the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto vs in holy Scriptures as the formal cause of our beleefe concerning their authority but this cannot be both because our beleefe concerning their Canonical authority seemeth to be concerning a matter of fact to wit vvhether they vvere penned by the instinct of the holie Ghost or no as also because a great part of them rehearseth matters of fact which Field denieth to be knowne by the authority of God himselfe whome we doe certainly discerne to speake in the word of faith Field book 4. chapt 15. Adde likewise that by his confession
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
followeth the truth and who is guilty of errour I adde likewise that he must needes confesse that both Luther Zwinglius and al the principal sectaries haue erred in some one point or other for I thinke that there is almost no man that followeth either of them in al thinges howe then can any man be assured that they haue not likewise erred in other articles in which he followeth them Surely a possibility of errour in one point argueth a possibility of errour in al other of that kinde But these matters haue beene touched before Chapter 10. Containing the Conclusion of this Treatise LET vs now drawe forth of the long discourse of this treatise some briefe conclusions and so make an end First therefore out of that which hath beene here said I gather that the Catholikes build their faith and religion vpon farre more sound and firme groundes then the professors of the newe doctrine This is manifest because there is not so much as one ground among al those which I haue set downe in the first part of this treatise on which the Catholikes build vvhich doth not farre excel any ground whatsoeuer of the newe sectaries yea I dare yet goe a litle farther and affirme that although I should set aside the authority of the Church of which as I haue aboue declared al our particular groundes receiue their strength and force and consider our groundes only as they are in themselues vvithout any other authority annexed and also graunt vnto our aduersaries that they build vpon the bare letter of holy Scripture yet I say I dare affirme that we build vpon the holy Scripture farre more soundly and more firmely then they Consider a litle that the Catholikes receiue the bare letter of holy scripture in the tongues in which these sacred bookes were first penned as wel as the sectaries let vs therefore suppose that in this they are equal But what a great difference shal we finde betweene the proofs of the truth of their translation and interpretation and the proofe of ours Hieron in praefat in Euang ad Damasum Item in Catalago The Catholikes haue the old Testament translated by S. Hierome their translation of the new Testament although it was vsed in the Latin Church before S. Hieromes daies yet it vvas by him corrected and amended And what was S. Hierome He was first a marueilous holy man of life as al antiquity giueth testimony he flourished in the Church aboue eleauen hundred yeares since and therefore he liued neare vnto the Apostles daies that is vvithin the first fiue hundred yeares after Christ wherefore the said Apostles doctrine being then something fresh in memory he could with greater ease attaine to the true sense and meaning of holy Scripture then any interpreter of our age In his daies there was no question or doubt moued in the church concerning the especial points now in controuersie betweene vs the new sectaries I meane touching the real presence justification and such like points wherefore he was a man indifferent not partial of either side but he followed that sense which was then commonly approued by the consent of the whole Church Of his great learning thus vvriteth S. Augustine in his first booke against Iulian the Pelagian Aug. lib. 1. contra Iulianum cap. 7. Neither doe thou thinke that S. Hierome because he was only a Priest is to be despised who being skilful in the Latin Greeke and moreouer in the Hebrewe tongue passing from the west Church to the East liued in the holy places in Iewrie and in study of holy Scripture vntil he was a very old man This man read al or almost al that before him had written of Ecclesiastical doctrine in both parts of the world This is the testimony of S. Augustine The like he hath in an a Idem li. 18. de ciuit c. 43. other place of his workes and b See also Cassianus l. 7. de verbi Incarn cont Nestor Prosp de ingrat Cassiodor diuinar Lect. ca. 21. and others other approued authors giue him as great a commendation Adde vnto this that for the better vnderstanding of the Hebrewe text he c Hieron epist 4. et 125 tooke instructions concerning that tongue of the most learned of the Iewes Hence Illiricus a learned Lutheran hauing found fault with the Church of the foure first ages after Christ for ignorance in the Hebrewe tongue of S. Hierome vvriteth as followeth Only my countrieman Hierome was marueilous cunning in the tongues he endeauoured to illustrate the Scriptures both by his translations and commentaries But he indeed being ignorant of mans sicknesse and Christ the phisition and wanting the key which openeth the Scripture that is the difference betweene the lawe and the Gospel being also destitute of Christ who openeth the dore did litle good hitherto are his vvordes Of which it is manifest d Illiricus in Claui part 1. proefat that according to this Protestants judgement no skil in the tongues was wanting to this holy doctour And although I confesse that the knowledge of the rule of faith beleeued in the Church and the assistance of Christ and the holy Ghost are necessary to this that a man truly translate or interprete Scripture yet I also first affirme that any man of sense wil rather yeeld these prerogatiues to S. Hierome a man so holy and auncient then to any newe sectary whatsoeuer Secondly I cannot see how according to the Protestant grounds these conditions or qualities can be pre-required in a translator or interpreter of such diuine bookes for if the Scripture be the foundation and only rule of faith as they teach and out of it only true beliefe is to be learned how is it possible but a man first beginning to translate read or interprete Scripture shal vvant true beliefe Howe can Scripture be the only ground of our faith and yet true faith be prerequired to the true translation and interpretation of Scripture Besides this out of the wordes of Illiricus alleaged it may wel be gathered that no skil and knowledge of tongues sufficeth to make a man a sufficient translatour or expounder of Scripture except vvithal his faith bee sound and he directed by Christ who openeth the dore Of which it vvil followe seing that no man as they say before he readeth and vnderstandeth Scripture can infallibly knowe that he himselfe or any other is indued with such faith or hath such assistance that no man can infallibly knowe his owne or an other mans translation to be true and sincere Verily if the translators faith must be judged by the conformity which it hath to holy Scripture as it is by them affirmed the Scripture must first be knowne before this conformity can be discerned and howe can this be done by the vnlearned sectary seing that he cannot otherwise knowe the Scripture but by some translator or interpreter Of which may be inferred that the vnlearned sectaries can neuer assure themselues
A TREATISE OF THE GROVNDES OF THE OLD AND NEWE RELIGION DEVIDED INTO TWO PARTS ¶ Whereunto is added an Appendix containing a briefe confutation of WILLIAM CRASHAW his first Tome of Romish forgeries and falsifications MATH 7. VERS 24. ¶ A wise man buildeth his house vpon a rocke a foolish man vpon the sand ANNO DOMINI M. D.C.VIII THE PRINTER TO THE READER I Desire thy fauourable censure and pardon CVRTEOVâ— READER in regard that diuers faults haue escaped in printing this Treatise of which I may justly excuse and free my selfe from those of greatest moment for that the Authour through most earnest occasions contrary to his expectation could not be neare at hand whereby to haue had such due perusal thereof as was most meete and requisite before it passed through my handes Moreouer concerning the Preface in particular I am to aduertise thee that it is with his direction made more briefe then it was first penned and that thereby through the messengers fault in forgetfulnesse the said Preface performeth not that which is mentioned in the third point of the argument before it which should haue beene left out As thy experience wil I doubt not moue thee to consider with what difficulties our writers as also our selues put any thing to the presse so I hope hereafter their endeauours and mine also shal be in such thinges amended In the meane space referring thee to the Errata I humbly request thee againe not to blame vs altogither but pray for vs. Your poore Catholike Countriman THOM. R. THE PREFACE TO THE READER In which the occasions of the penning and publishing this Treatise as also the argument of the same are briefly deliuered Moreouer to free the Protestant readers minde before hand from obstinacy three points are proued euen out of writers of the newe religion first that more of the said religion condemne euery particular persons beliefe of that profession then approue it secondly that manifest truthes are denied and falshoods mainetained by the chiefe sectaries lastly that according to the confession of the same Authours our religion and faith is true their 's false IF justly he be judged by our Lord and Sauiour vvorthy of reproach CHRISTIAN READER vvho minding to build a towre Luke â—eâ— 28. c. doth not first sit downe and reckon the charges that are necessary whether he haue to finish it but after that he hath laid the foundation for want of ability is constrained to leaue his worke imperfect I knowe not howe diuers of this our vnhappy time can be excused from blame vvho spend al the daies of their liues in laying the foundation of a towre and neuer come so far as to place one stone there-vpon Our principal endeauour in this vvorld ought to be to erect in our soules a towre or spiritual edifice of vertue the ground of vvhich edifice is faith and such is the misery of these our daies 1. Corinth 3. vers 12. that diuers persons are so farre from building vpon this foundation gold siluer or pretious stones that they doe nothing else but alwaies busie themselues about the said foundation my meaning is that they so occupy or rather vexe themselues continually in discussing matters concerning their beliefe that they either remaine alwaies wauering without any sure ground of faith or at the least if not altogether verily for the most part wholy neglect their spiritual progresse in vertues of higher perfection In which their manner of proceeding I say they cannot be censured lesse faulty then he who consumeth the whole course of his life in laying the foundation of a house or sumptuous pallace and neuer goeth or seeketh to goe so farre as to build the walles or any other part of the same Nay the first must needs be deemed much more faulty then this fond builder because their edifice is of greater importance then the setting vp of any such material house or pallace I intend not hereto shew by the authority of the holy Scripture and the testimonies of the auncient Fathers both which yeeld me most plentiful proofes in this matter that faith is only the foundation and not the whole cause of our justification neither is there any great neede in this place of entering into any such discourse For besides that no man according to the rules of reason can esteeme him a perfect Christian vvho doth only beleeue rightly without proceeding any further because certaine it is that faith of it selfe doth only perfect the vnderstanding and not the vvil and that a right vnderstanding profiteth litle except the wil be conformable it is euen as apparant moreouer this assertion as far forth as it conduceth to my purpose seemeth to be granted euen by our aduersaries the followers of the newe religion For they distinguish especially two sorts of faith See part 2. of this Treatise chap. 2. the one they cal a faith historical the other a faith justifying the first they confound vvith that which we hold being joyned with hope and charity to justifie vs and this they deny not to be the ground not the vvhole cause of our justification for this effect and prerogatiue they attribute to the second of vvhich hereafter vvherefore euen according to their doctrine the truth of that vvhich I haue auerred must be admitted Notwithstanding it may be objected against it that the misteries and articles of our faith are diuers aboue the reach of our natural reason and therefore that a great time is requisite to this that the truth of euery one of them be throughly searched a certaine resolution concerning euery point setled I answere that this in very deede if al be true which is taught by the said followers of the new religion cannot be denied for they making the bare letter of holy Scripture the only rule and guide of their faith must consequently in like sort affirme that no man can euer come to a certaine knowledge what is to be beleeued touching the articles of religion except by diligent discussion he plainely and infallibly drawe the truth from the said letter of holy Scripture which if he could by any meanes compasse yet he cannot doe vnlesse among other thinges he reade ouer the whole Bible conferre one place vvith another c. and so in this study consume almost al the daies of his life But according to the truth God who is goodnesse it selfe hath farre otherwise and better prouided for those that are desirous to serue him and more richly to adorne their soules with vertue For he hath ordained a visible guide indued vvith life and reason and therefore apt to instruct and judge vvhose doctrine and judgement he hath warranted from errour and falsehood of whome euery person vvith diuine assurance of truth in a very short time may perfectly be taught what he is to beleeue For the better effecting of this he hath also left in her sacred bosome other more particuler but diuine and infallible grounds besides his holy
Tridentinus flourished an 480. Vincentius Lyrinensis flourished an 434. Z ZEno Veronensis Martir flourished about the yeare 258. Zeno alius flourished about the yeare 390. THE FIRST PART OF THE GROVNDES OF THE OLD RELIGION Chap. the first Of the first ground of Catholike religion to wit that there is a God and that God by his prouidence gouerneth al thinges BEFORE I come to intreate of the particuler groundes of Catholike religion which are rejected by our aduersaries I thinke it not amisse briefly to discourse of certaine general groundes of the same which although I confesse to be admitted by diuers newe sectaries yet in very deede by some are denied and after some sort as I wil proue hereafter impugned and ouerthrowne by the common doctrine of them al. The Apostle S. Paul praerequireth the beleefe of two thinges principally in him that is to come to the seruice of almighty God first that he beleeue that there is a God secondly that he likewise beleeue that the said God wil rewarde those that serue him Hebr. 11. vers 6. He that commeth to God saith he must beleeue that he is and is a rewarder to them that seeke him Wherefore grounding vpon this sentence of the Apostle I place the beleefe of one God and of his diuine prouidence for the first ground of our religion For a second I wil assigne that we ought to beleeue God to be a rewarder of our actions in the world to come of which reward the Apostle here principally speaketh For the declaration of which I purpose to proue the soule of man to be immortal and that most certainly according to the deserts thereof it shal either be rewarded euerlastingly in heauen or punished euerlastingly in hel SECTION THE FIRST That there is a God THE auncient Philosophers ledde only by the force of natural reason to conuince this truth reasoned after this sorte we perceiue said they diuers motions of natural bodies in the world but especially of the heauens which motions of necessity proceede from some cause mouer which mouer either in essence or vertue motiue dependeth of some other mouer or no. If he dependeth not then he is God If he depend of some other it is likewise demanded of that other whether he be independent or dependent If the first then we must needes acknowledge him to be God who only in his essence and vertue motiue is independent of al others if the second then of him the same question may be moued and so of al others vntil we come to some one that is independent and of whome al the rest doe depend which we must of necessity affirme to be God The same also is proued by the diuers sortes degrees of creatures as are first the foure elements fire aire water and earth secondly thinges mixt imperfect as snowe raine haile c. Thirdly thinges mixt perfect as stones and diuers sortes of mettals Fourthly thinges which haue life vegetatiue only as trees hearbes c. Fiftly thinges which haue life vegetatiue and sensitiue as all sortes of beastes foules and fishes Sixtly a thing hauing besides life vegetatiue and sensitiue also reason as man aboue whome we place the Angels Wherefore either in this ascent of the perfections of thinges we shal neuer make an end which is most absurd or else we shal proceede and come to some one thing most perfect which of necessity we must confesse to be God Moreouer the natural inclination of man to the acknowledging and worshipping of God proueth the same for no nation vnder the Sunne hath euer beene found although neuer so barbarous which hath not acknowledged and worshipped either the true God or else some other thing by it so esteemed yea euery man naturally in his distresses and miseries flieth vnto God and craueth helpe and succour of his diuine Majestie But seing that I write this treatise for the vnlearned sort of people omitting to discourse at large of these reasons although most forcible yea inuincible I wil vse especially this argument following which euery man although very simple may for the most part apprehend and conceiue taken from the admirable constitution order harmony beauty and greatnesse of the world And first let euery man lift vp his eies to the heauens and behold those incorruptible bodies Let him consider not only the wonderful beauty light and variety of those celestial orbes but also their strange order and motions and aboue al their constancy in their said motions that in so many thousandes of yeares as haue passed since their first being they haue not missed or erred so much as one minute of an houre of their assigned accustomed time From which it proceedeth that Astronomers can so longe before most certainely and infallibly foretel Ecclipses conjunctions and such other accidents of the Planets Among al the ornaments of the heauens the Sunne is the most principal The body or orbe of this Planet by Astronomers is proued to be an hundred sixty and six times greater then the globe of the earth and water wherefore if the compasse of the earth and sea be demonstrated to be about twenty and one thousand six hundred miles what shal we imagine of the greatnesse of the Sunne If we likewise consider what a smal time the Sunne is in rising and setting we shal also perceiue the motion of this Planet to be most swift for the whole body of it although so huge and great commeth wholy to our sight and goeth from the same in a very short time so that it must needes moue diuers miles euery minute of an houre although the motion of it by vs be hardly perceiued The Sunne is the fountaine of light and imparteth it to the Moone and Starres By the variety of his motions we distinguish times as daies nights monethes and yeares The approching and going away of it from vs maketh the spring sommer autumne and winter The Sunne with his presence in the spring as it were reuiueth beastes and plants which seemed before almost dead through his absence and yealdeth them a fit season for generation multiplication and bringing forth their seedes Finally the Sunne principally draweth vp vapors from the sea and land which cause raine by which the earth is strangely watered to make it fruitful Next vnto the Sunne the Moone vnto our sight seemeth beautiful which giueth light vnto the nights when the Sunne is absent And although she be variable yet she is most constant in her inconstancy and alterations She hath a most strange dominion ouer the sea which she draweth and altereth as it were with herselfe for when the moone ascendeth the sea increaseth contrariwise when she descendeth it decreaseth in so much that she causeth as it is probable the flux and reflux or ebbing and flowing of the sea by which the water is preserued from putrefaction and other necessary effects are wrought But who can explicate the variety number beauty and strange effects of the starres Surely their number is
euident that hel gates doe preuaile against the Church if either she decay or teach false doctrine who then can say that either the hath perished or erred except he wil accuse Christ of falshood in not performing his promise and make him a liar Verily * Chrisost hom 4. de verbis Isaiae vidi Dominum Epiph. in Ancorato S. Iohn Chrisostome affirmeth that heauen and earth shal faile before those wordes of Christ thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I wil build my Church S. Epiphanius also alluding to this promise telleth vs that our Lord appointed Peter the first or cheefest Apostle a firme rocke vpon which the Church of God was built and the gates of hel saith he shal not preuaile against it for the gates of hel are Heretikes and Arch-heretikes c. the like sentences I could alleage out of the rest of the ancient Fathers And vnto this testimonie of our Sauiour I could likewise adde that he hath warranted the faith of S. Peter and in him the faith of his successor the Bishop of Rome who is ministerial head of Christes Church on earth Luc. 22. vers 31. that it shal not faile and consequently that the body ruled by the head shal enjoy the same prerogatiue but of this hereafter Moreouer our Sauiour made his Church the supreame judge on earth of al controuersies touching matters of religion for it is manifest that from her judgement he graunteth no appeale and that he vvil haue her definitiue sentence so firme and inuiolable among Christians that he vvil not haue him accounted one of that number who shal preuaricate or despise the same This is signified vnto vs in these his wordes Math. 18. vers 17. If he wil not heare the Church let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publican In which sentence he biddeth vs esteeme no more of our brother or neighbour that contemneth or disobeieth the censure of the Church then of a Heathen and Publican of which I gather that the Church in her censure cannot erre For if this might be then vve being bound to condemne whome she condemneth or to condemne him that vvil not listen and obey her counsaile and precepts might together with the Church condemne a man without just cause and that according to Christes commandement It appeareth likewise out of the said vvordes of our Sauiour that he vvil haue the sentence of the Church obeied wherefore he ought in reason to prouide that the said sentence be not erroneous But for the truth of these wordes of our Lord and also for the constant verity of the censure of the Church it maketh first that diuers falshoodes which before her said censure might in times past haue bin beleeued and defended yea were defended beleeued by the members of the true Church without incurring the crime of heresie afterwardes could not be so beleeued and defended as I could exemplifie in the Milinary heresie the opinion of such as held the baptisme of Heretikes to be of no force of others that denied the authority of some Canonical bookes and such like Secondly it maketh also for these her prerogatiues that al such as haue obstinately maintained any opinions condemned by the Church for heresies and consequently haue disobeied her authority decrees and beene by her adjudged Heretikes haue euer by al antiquity beene so accounted August in Enchirid. ad Laurēt cap. 5. Tertul. de pudicitia item li. de praescript Math. 5. v. 13.15 Luc. 10. vers 16. and therefore haue not beene numbred by the ancient Fathers among Christians whose opinions notvvithstanding if vve reject her infallible judgement by vvhich they were condemned and make it subject to errour may be reuiued and called againe in question either as wrongfully and injustly censured or at the least as condemned by a judge whose judgement is subject to errour and falshood The priuileges and prerogatiues graunted by our Sauiour to his Apostles and Disciples confirme the same for they are by him called the salt of the earth and the light of the world and being sent to preach they receaued from him this commission and approbation of their doctrine He that heareth you heareth me and he that dispiseth you dispiseth me Which wordes argue an infallible truth although not in the doctrine of euery particuler Bishop and Prelate of the Church yet in them altogether when they represent the whole Church in a Councel or in the whole number of them although diuided seperated in place For in these like as in Christes Apostles and Disciples as I haue aboue declared the wordes alleaged must be verified which cannot be done if they al in euery sense may erre For how can they then truly be tearmed the salt of the earth and the light of the world and how can it be true that he that heareth them heareth Christ But if we had no other testimony of holy Scripture for this matter fiue or six wordes of the Apostle vsed by him to Timothie in his first epistle 1. Tim. 3. v. 15. c. vvere sufficient to conuince our vnderstanding and make vs yeeld to this truth For in his said Epistle he tearmeth the Church the piller and ground of truth These thinges I write to thee saith he hoping that I shal come to thee quickly but if I tarie long that thou maist knowe howe thou oughtest to conuerse in the house of God which is the Church of the liuing God the piller and ground of truth What could he haue said more euident for the infallible authority of the Church the Church saith he is the piller and ground of truth that is to say the very foundation and establishment of al verity vpon vvhich as vpon a sure foundation and an inuiolable piller a man may securely build the edifice of his faith and religion vvho then vvil say that the Church is subject to errour These considerations moued S. Augustine Aug. lib. 1. cont Cresconium disputing against Cresconius concerning the baptisme of Heretikes to vse this discourse these are his vvordes Although of this that the baptisme of Heretikes is true baptisme there be no certaine example brought forth out of the canonical Scriptures yet also in this we keepe the truth of the said Scriptures when as we doe that which now hath pleased the whole Church which the authority of the Scriptures themselues doth commend That because the Scripture cannot deceaue whosoeuer doth feare least that he be deceaued through the obscurity of this question may aske counsaile touching it of the Church whome without any doubt the Scripture it selfe doth shewe Hitherto S. Augustine Out of which discourse of his we may gather this notable rule that in al thinges doubtful and in al obscure questions concerning faith and religion we ought to enquire and search forth the doctrine and beleefe of the Catholike Church and imbrace the same seeking no further warrant of security because the Scriptures demonstrate her and manifestly declare that
Canonical without his approbation although the number of Bishoppes vvere neuer so great as appeareth by that of Ephesus vnder Theodosius the younger by that of Constantinople vnder Leo Isaurus and diuers others And out of this discourse I gather that this authority of general Councels if we had no other argument were sufficient to perswade vs to detest and abhorre the condemned doctrine of the new Sectaries For the same Church which in the first general Councel of Nice condemned Aâ—ius and the Arians the same which in the second such Councel held at Constantinople condemned Macedonius and the Macedonians vvhich in the third held at Ephesus condemned Nestorius the Nestorians vvhich in the fourth held at Chalcedon condemned Eutiches and the Eutichians vvhich finally in other general Councels hath condemned other Heretiks and heresies The selfe same Church I say directed in al truth by the holy Ghost hath condemned and accursed Luther and the Lutherans Zuinglius and the Zuinglians vvith al their followers togeather vvith their doctrine in the last general Councel held at Trent But they say that this Councel vvas not laweful nor the judges indifferent I reply first that this hath beene an old cauil of al condemned Heretiks wherefore it may lawefully be suspected in these Moreouer it is sufficiently proued by Catholike authors and the matter is euident in it selfe that nothing necessarie to a laweful general Councel vvas vvanting in this vvherefore it is receiued by the vvhole Church as Canonical and therefore no vvise man seing that saluation and damnation vpon this depend vvil reject it vpon these mens reportes They affirme further that the Church hath no authority in a general Councel to make any newe article of faith To this likewise I answere that the Church properly maketh no newe article of faith for euerie decree by her made concerning such matters is either in expresse tearmes contained in the holie scriptures or gathered out of them by infallible deduction through the direction of the holie Ghost or expresly or virtually approued by the vnwritten Tradition of the Church wherefore the Church neither hath euer taught or shal euer teach any truth so newe that it vvas vnknowne to the Apostles For that which by her is defined and propounded was true before and an article of faith although sometimes not certainelie nor generally knowne before to be of such authority or dignity And that this is our doctrine it is graunted by Field vvhose vvords are these Field book 4. cap. 12. § Our aduersaries Our aduersaries confesse that the approbation and determination of the Church can not make that a truth which was not nor that a diuine or Catholike truth which was not so before thus Field Hence the Catholike diuines affirme that Christian faith neuer since Christs ascention hath increased or beene altered in substance but only in explanation or explication because the Church hath euer since only more plainelie and expresly declared her beliefe and authority to doe this vvas needful in her Vinc. Lir. cap. 28. 29. et 30. for preseruing of peace and ending of al controuersies This Vincentius Lirinensis most elegantly declareth by a similitude taken from the body of man vvhich hath the same members in his infancie youth vvhen he is at mans estate and in his old age and although for the diuersitie of time they are lesse and greater vveaker and stronger yet the body it selfe is not chaunged but augmented so saith he it falleth out in our faith c. They object also the authority of some Fathers but principally those vvordes of S. Gregorie Nazianzene vvho saith as he is alleaged by Whitaker * Whit. in his ans to Camp 4. reasoÌ„ Abbot in his answere to Hils 9 reasoÌ„ Nazianz epist 55. or 42. alias 102. ad Procop. Hist tri part li 9. cap. 9. That he had deliberated with himselfe and fully resolued to auoid Episcopal conuocations because he had neuer seene a good issue of anie Sinode I answere that this holy father doth not deny the authority of lawful general Councels as appeareth by his testimonie before cited and also by this that he vvas a most earnest defender of the Nicene Councel as is testified by Ecclesiastical histories and was himselfe present and subscribed to the second general Councel held at Constantinople He therefore only speaketh of such Sinods as was celebrated in those daies when he wrote that epistle of which fewe were lawful and none had good successe as appeareth by that of Seleucia Ariminum Millan Tirus Sirmium Bilson in his booke of the perpetual gouernment of Christs Church Chap. 16. pag. 396. Athan. li. de sinod et ad Affrican see also S. Ambrose epist 32. c. of vvhich in verie deed he neuer sawe good issue and for that cause he refused to be present to any of them and this solution is approued by M. Bilson a learned Protestant who expresly saith that this Father in these words condemneth not al Councels They bring likewise against vs certaine words of S. Augustine in his booke against Maximinus where he writeth thus as Abbot translateth him But nowe neither should I produce the Nicene Councel nor thou that of Ariminum as meaning to extol it neither am I held with the authority of the one nor thou with the other I answere first that although S. Augustine might haue proued out of S. Athanasius and diuers other authentical authors that the lawful Councel of Ariminum most notably confirmed the Nicene faith and that the Councel alleaged by this Heretike vvas but the supscription of the Bishops to a certaine forme of faith by threatning feare and affliction extorted by Taurus the Emperors officer after that the Councel vvas finished yet in the dispute which he had with Maximinus the said Maximinus opposing the Councel of Ariminum aganst the Councel of Nice he vvould not enter into the proofe of the authority of the one and confutation of the other but hauing most pregnant testimonies of holy scripture he voluntarily in that disputation ceased to vrge the authority of the Councel of Nice and so those his vvordes Neither am I held c. are vnderstood for the sense of them is I vvil not that nowe thou be bound to the one or I to the other Verely that he esteemed highly of the authoritie of general Councels al his workes and proceedings testifie yea his discourse before the vvords alleaged doth proue it as wil appeare to the reader For he saith that in the Councel of Nice the word consubstantial was by the Catholike fathers established by the authority of truth and by the truth of authority And in another place he telleth vs Tom. 7. de baptismo contr Donat li. 7. cap. 53. that we may securely auerre that which is confirmed and roborated by the consent of the vniuersal Church Chapter 10. Of the decrees of the supreame visible Pastour of the Church which make a fourth particuler ground of our faith and of other
Constantinople and Asclepas Bishop of Gaza in like sort to their Churches who being wrongfully depriued appealed to his supreme authority S. Damasus the Pope about the yere three hundre seauenty seauen restored in like sort Peter Patriarcke of Alexandria to his seate from which he was likewise vnjustly expelled by the Arians as witnesses are Zozomenus and * Socrates li. 4 c. 30. Socrates a Chrisos ep ad Inno. Theodorus Rom. diac apud Pallad ī dial Inno. Papa ī literis ad Archad apud Gena Nicepho et Glica S. Iohn Chrisostome Bishop of Constantinople in the yeare foure hundred and foure being by Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria and other Bishops in a Councel deposed appealed to S. Innocentius Pope who not only made voide the sentence pronounced against him but also excommunicated and deposed the said Theophilus b Calest epi ad Nestor et ad Ciril ep 3. Pope Caelestinus not long after in a Councel held at Rome first of al condemned the Nestorian heresie allotting Nestorius him selfe then Bishop of Constantinople only ten daies within which if he did not repent he should receiue the same censure from S. Ciril Bishop of Alexandria his Legate c Liberatus ca. 12. S. Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople condemned in the Pseudosinod of Ephesus by Dioscorus Patriarke of Alexandria and others appealed to S. Leo the great Bishop of Rome So did also d Theodor. epist 113. Theodoretus Bishop of Cirus at the same time And diuers other such like examples might be alleaged The testimonies of the auncient Fathers approuing the same superiority of the Pope are almost infinite but I can not stand to recite them only this I note that almost the same titles of primacie and dignity vvere giuen in auncient ages to S. Peter and the Bishop of Rome For like as S. Peter by e Euseb in Chronic. an 44. et lib. 2. hist cap. 14. Eusebius is called The first Bishoppe of the Christians the greatest of the Apostles the prince and captaine of the chiefest and the master of the warfare of God by f Orig. homil 2. in diuersos Euangel Origenes The top of the Apostles by g Epiphā haeres 51. S. Epiphanius Captaine of Christes disciples by h Cir. hierosol catech 2. S. Ciril Bishop of Hierusalem Most excellent prince of the Apostles by i Ciril Alex. l. 12. in Ioā S. Ciril Bishop of Alexandria Prince and head of the rest by k Chrisos in 1. Cor. 15. et hom 11. in Mat. S. Crisostome Prince of the Apostles pastor and head of the Church by l Cipr. l. de vnit Eccles S. Ciprian The head fountaine and roote of the whole Church c. So the Bishop of Rome by a See Cip. epi. 46. ad Cornel. et li. de vnit Eccle. l. 1. epist 3. ad Corn. et ep 8. ad plebē et l. 2. epi. 10. ad eun dē Corne. S. Ciprian is tearmed Bishoppe of the most holie Catholike Church by b Amb. in c. 3. 1. Tim. et epi. 81. ad Siriciū S. Ambrose Rector of the Church of God by c Steph. episco Carthag epist ad Dama Steuen Bishop of Carthage Father of Fathers and chiefe or highest priest by d Hieron praefat Euangel ad Damasum S. Hierome highest or chiefest priest by the general Councel of e Conciliū Chalced. epi ad Leō Chalcedon head of the Bishops of the Church and the keeper of our Lords vineyard and by f Aug. epist 157. S. Augustine Bishop of the Apostolike See c. Finally our aduersaries themselues seeme to grant that al antiquity acknowledge this superiority Bucer writeth thus * Bucerus in praeparatorijs ad Cōcilium We plainly confesse that among the ancient Fathers of the Church the Roman Church obtained the primacie aboue others as that which hath the Chaire of S. Peter and whose Bishops almost alwaies haue beene accounted the successors of Peter g Cētur 2. c. 4. col 63. Cēt. 3. c. 4. col 8. Cent. 5. c. 4. col 512. 520. The Centurie writers who are commonly accounted the most diligent and learned Protestant historians censure S. Irenaeus S. Ignatius Tertullian S. Ciprian Origenes S. Leo and S. Ciril as maintainers of this supreamacie h Cent. 4. c. 10. col 1010. 1249. 1074. 1100. They note S. Ephrem and S. Hierome for affirming the Church to be built vpon S. Peter i Cēt. 5. c. 6. col 728. Arnobius for calling S. Peter the Bishop of Bishops Optatus for extolling ouermuch the chaire of Peter Gelasius the Pope for excommunicating the Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople c. Besides this diuers of the Sectaries and among the rest k Beza cited in the suruey of the pretēded holy disci c. 27. p. 343. Beza l Cartw. l. 2. p. 507. 508. l. 1. p. 97. Cartwrighte and m Fulk against Saūd. Rock p. 248. 271. vpō the Rhems test in 2. Thes 2 9. See also Dan. in respō ad Bell. disp part 1. p. 275. 276. Fulk confesse that the Fathers in the first Councel of Nice began the foundation of the Popes primacy yea some of them say it was begun long before Their discord concerning the time of the beginning of this superioritie doth also testifie this as I could easile shewe if it were not that I haue already beene ouer-long in this section Lastly I adde that neither n Wicl in ep ad Vrbā 6. Wickclif nor o Luth. in resollut priorū disput ad Leon. 10. in declarat quorūd artic Luther who in sundry ages vvere the first raisers of rebellion against the See of Rome denied the Popes superiority before that he condemned their doctrine For the vvorkes of them both are yet extant written after their fal to preach nouelties in which they most apparantly and plainely submit themselues and their doctrine to his censure and acknowledge his primacy Of Luther diuers p Sleid. l. 1. fol. 10. Fox act mon. p. 404. Osiander in epist Cent. 16. p. 61. 62. 68. Cowper in his Chronic. fol. 278. Protestants testifie the same and this is a manifest signe that they opposed themselues against him for no other cause then that he condemned their opinions and proceedings SECTION THE THIRD That the decrees of the Bishop of Rome when he teacheth the Church as supreame Pastour are of diuine and infallible authority and of some other groundes of faith flowing out of these HAVING already proued that the Bishop of Rome is the true successour of S. Peter and ministerial head of Christs Church it remaineth that now we see what authority and credit is to be giuen to his decrees I affirme therefore that the Pope when teaching the vvhole Church as ministerial head of the same he defineth anie matter concerning faith and general preceptes of vice or vertue cannot erre I adde those vvords when teaching the whole Church as ministerial head c.
vpon this ground in the next chapter Chap. 2. he entereth into a railing and scoffing discourse against the Pope But in verie deed I cannot doe otherwise then meruaile that a man of his place and learning doth not blush to committe such a notorious vntruth to the print and view of the world For not to speake of the falshood of the first part of his assertion because it is in some sort impertinent that which he saith of the Councel of Chalcedon is most vntrue repugnant to al antiquity and not only contrarie to al proceedinges and the historie of the said Councel but also to the wordes of the Canon by him alleaged For in it is decreed onlie that the cittie of new Rome or Constantinople shal haue majestie like as old Rome in Ecclesiastical affaires et secundam post illam existere that is shal be the second or next after it and enjoy certaine priuiledges for the ordination of some Metrapolitans these are the contents of the Canon And what more touching this matter did the Bishops assembled in that Councel in their Sinodical epistle desire S. Leo the great then bishoppe of Rome to confirme then this Concilium Chalcedō sessio 12. alias actione 16. An. Christi 451. Concilium Nice sessio vltim Cōci Chal. actione 1. Actione 3. We haue confirmed say they the rule of the seauenscore and ten holy Fathers which were gathered together at Constantinople vnder Theodosius of happie memorie which commanded that the See of Constantinople which is ordained the second haue second honour after your most holie and Apostolike See trusting that the Apostolical sunne-beame shining with you c. But how can it be the second and next after and also the equal with it as Field affirmeth Besides this in the Councel it selfe those words of the Canon of the Councel of Nice that the Church of Rome euer had the primacie were allowed and the Legates of Pope Leo vvithout reprehension or exception taken said We haue here at hand the commandements of the most blessed and Apostolike man the Pope of the cittie of Rome which is head of al Churches by which his Apostleship hath vouchsafed to commaund c. Againe one of them first subscribed as he said in the place of the most blessed and Apostolike vniuersal Pope of the citty of Rome c. And in the epistle al the Fathers write vnto him thus We craue therefore that you wil honour our decrees with your judgement and like as we desirous haue consented in those things which are good sic et summitas tua so thy chiefedome or preheminence aboue al wil as it is meete accomplish them to his children hitherto are their wordes And vvhat could be said more apparant for the Popes supreamacie Doe not they acknowledge him to be their chiefe and themselues his sonnes and children Gregor li 4. epi. 32. 36. 38. li. 7. epi. 30. See before in the first section of this chapter I could adde to this the authoritie of S. Gregorie the great who liued not long after this Councel who against the ambition of Iohn bishoppe of Constantinople in diuers letters confidentlie affirmeth that the title of vniuersal Bishop by this Councel was offered to Pope Leo. But Field wil vrge that it is gathered out of some Greeke copies of this Councel that by this Canon the Bishop of Constantinople was so made second after the Bishoppe of Rome that equal priuiledges were giuen him I answere that these priuiledges vvere only concerning jurisdiction to order certaine Metrapolitans of the east Church as the Bishoppe of Rome had the like in the west But now suppose I should graunt M. Field that in this Canon the Bishop of Constantinople vvas made in euerie respect equal to the Pope what would he get by this In truth nothing For of what authority is this Canon Surely of none for it vvas cunninglie made by the Grecian bishops after the Councel was risen and the Legates of Pope Leo departed vvho also when it came to their knowledge the next day resisted them in the next Session yea this was neuer confirmed by the Pope without whose confirmation the decrees of general Councels haue neuer had force but vvas by Pope Leo forthwith ouerthrowne and annulled Leo epist 55. 53. 54. 61. We cancel or make voide saith he speaking of that Canon and others then enacted the consent of Bishops repugnant to the Nicene Canons and by the authority of blessed S. Peter the Apostle by a general definition we make them altogether of no force And this his decree was so highly esteemed in the East it selfe Marcian l. 12. c. de sacrosācta Ecclesia that it was confirmed presentlie by an Imperial constitution euen by the Emperour of Constantinople and Anatolius the Patriarcke through vvhose ambition and instigation the said Canon vvas made was constrained to ceasse from such proceedinges to relinquish that dignity vvhich ambitioussie he couered and to take place euen after the other Patriarkes for neither was the constitution of the Councel of Constantinople which preferred him before those of Alexandria and Antioch authentical Iustin nouel 131. cap. 2. Field book 3. cap. 1. Yea Iustinian the Emperor after this euen when Rome vvas most in disgrace and Constantinople flourished long before the daies of Phocas from whome Field would deriue the beginning of the Popes superiority confirmed the primacy to the Bishop of Rome and thus we may see vpon how vveake grounds Field doth venture to passe the bounds of modesty Concerning the point it selfe of the Popes infallible judgment he accuseth vs of contrary doctrine to wit that we al hold at this day Field book 3. cap. 45. the infallibility of the Popes judgment to be the rock on which the Church is builded and therefore build our faith vpon the same whereas the same men sath he that hold this say also it is no matter of faith to acknowledge or not acknowledge the infallibity of the Popes judgment I answere that the infallibility of the Popes judgment without the assent of a general Councel is not the most sure receiued rock on which the Church was built for this is the Popes judgment confirming the decrees of a general Councel or as I may say the definition of a general Councel in which the head confirmeth the verdict of the body and both together infallibly define a truth And in this sense no Catholike nowe affirmeth that it is no matter of faith to acknowledge or not acknowledge the infallibility of the Popes judgment for it is held absolutely to be a matter of faith and consequently our doctrine touching these points is not contrary True it is Bell. li. 4. de Roman pontif ca. 2. in fine Stapleton in Relect. scholast princi controuers 3 quest 4. that some Catholike doctors as Bellarmine and Stapleton thinke not that opinion properly heretical which holdeth that the Pope as Pope may be an Heretike and teach heresie if he
define vvithout a general Councel so farre are vve from making al the Popes wordes diuine oracles as some Protestants falslie pretend but neuerthelesse they deeme this opinion to be erronious and most neere vnto heresie Neither doth this their assertion contradict that commonly auerred that the decrees of the Pope without a general Councel in the sense aboue mentioned are a rock or ground of faith for although the vvhole Church hath not yet authentically defined that the Pope after this sort cannot erre yet the scriptures and other arguments brought in this behalfe are so plaine and forcible and the consent of al learned pious men except some fewe is so consonant and strong for this point that euery man may wel admit his definitions as a ground of supernatural faith And so vve maie truly say both it is no matter of faith to acknoweledge or not acknowledge in this sort the infallibility of the Popes judgment in this sense that the whole Church hath not as yet defined either part to be a diuine truth and yet hold the infallibilitie of the Popes judgement to be a Rocke of faith in this sense that euerie man for the authorities and reasons alleaged may prudently build vpon it an act of supernatural faith And thus much of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and his decrees I haue beene the longer in this discourse Vergerius dialago 1. contra Hosium because some Protestants affirme the denial of this supremacy or superiority to be not only the foundation of their newe religion but also a good part of the edifice built thereupon Chapter 11. Of the consent of the auncient Fathers and the general doctrine of the Catholike Church in al ages CONCERNING the testimonie of antiquitie touching matters of faith and religion found in the works of such ancient doctors as from the Apostles daies haue flourished through al ages in Christs church and haue been are esteemed by her as fathers masters of christian faith learned men giue vs these rules First those things which they say as it were by the way and treating of another thing are to be distinguished from such sentences as they pronounce of such matters as they purposlie handle for their sayings of the first kinde are of smal those of the other of greater authority Secondlie that vvhich is said by anie one of them but once is not so much to be credited as that which is often and constantlie repeated But principally we must make a difference between that which they say in disputation or contention with their aduersaries and that which is affirmed positiuelie as a true conclusion according to the argument of vvhich they treate for an authority of the first sort is litle to be esteemed of the latter greatlie Touching their assertions in general this is to be obserued First when the opinion of any father touching matters of faith is singuler and contradicted by al or most of the rest it is rather to be thought an errour then a truth Secondlie when one or two only affirme a thing of that subject and the rest make no mention of it their testimonies make a probable not a certaine argument Thirdly what doctrine soeuer concerning any point of Christian religion is commonly found in al the auncient Fathers workes where mention is of that point and is held by them as an article of the said religion and contradicted by none of the rest vvithout the note of singularity errour or heresie imposed vpon them by others such doctrine may wel be thought to pertaine to the rule of faith descending by Tradition from the Apostles and is to be embraced as an article of our beliefe The truth of this last rule vvhich toucheth most my purpose is gathered out of that which hath beene already said for I haue declared that neither the Church can erre nor the tradition of Christian faith in it preserued be ouerthrowne or altered but if we admit a possibility of error in al such Fathers workes touching matters of such consequence both of these assertions may be proued false For an errour in faith found in most of the Fathers without contradiction of any other argueth an error in al beleeuers not only of the ages in which those Father 's flourished but also in al times ensuing because that doctrine which is deliuered by most as an article of faith without any opposition of others may wel be demed to be the doctrine of al the faithful who oppose not themselues against it consequently of the whole Church Wherefore if that be proued erroneous of it we may inferre an error in al sorts of christians consequently a change of the rule of faith receiued by tradition Moreouer although we should set aside the warrant of the Church and tradition from errour who wil think it possible that the Fathers should after this sort depart from the truth and conspire in errour without any or at the least without any great contradiction Is not nouelty commonly discouered and oppugned And of this I gather that their agrement semeth an infallible argument of the truth of their doctrine yea that they al held sincerelie the tradition deliuered them by their predecessors And this moued the holie fathers assembled in general Councels as appeareth by the acts of the said councels to make great search into the works of their forefathers and of the ancient doctors as also to vse them as a principal meane to finde out the rule of faith by the said tradition preserued in the church Finally by their testimonies to direct very much their definitions and decrees in particuler S. Athanasius recordeth Athanas epist ad Afros that the Bishoppes who were present in the first Councel of Nice followed the testimonies of the ancient Fathers and that the same was done in those of Ephesus and Chalcedon the bishops themselues assembled also testify who affirme in their definitions yet extant that in them they follow the holy Fathers Ephes 4. v. 11. c. Further we are taught by the Apostle that Christ gaue some Apostles I vse S. Paules vvords and some Prophets and other some Euangelistes and other some Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints vnto the worke of the ministry vnto the edifying of the body of Christ vntil we meete al into the vnity of faith and knowledge of the Sonne of God into a perfect man into the measure of the age of the fulnesse of Christ that nowe we be not children wauering and caried about with euerie winde of doctrine in the wickednesse of men in craftines to the circumuention of errour Hitherto the Apostle In vvhich his discourse in plaine tearmes he telleth vs that Christ appointed Apostles and other such like officers in his Church vntil the day of judgement for the instruction of his people and to keepe them from wauering in faith and errours in religion Of which I inferre that not only the Apostles Prophets Euangelists Pastours and
of Christ contained in the new testament but I should be ouer long yet one for an exaÌ„ple of therest I wil not omit which is touching those words of our Lord * Iohn 10. In disp AlbaÌ„ act 2. diâ—i I and the Father are one vpon which Caluin putteth this blasphemous glosse The ancient writers or Fathers 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 And this his glosse was alleaged by the newe Arians or Trinitarians in defence of themselues in a disputation had between them and other Sectaries The aforesaid Hunnius answereth also very wel two objections which may be made in defence of the said Caluin the one that he approueth sometimes the Euangelical and Christian sense of such testimonies the other that he impugneth in his workes very earnestly the Trinitarians and enemies of Christes diuinity To the first he saith Caluin Iudaizans cap. 2. p. 112. 113. anno 1604. that Caluin obserueth this order in expounding such prophecies first by his Iewish glosses he weakneth bereaueth them of vvhat force he can and shaketh the very foundation and this done he addeth something concerning the sense assigned by the Euangelists and Apostles yet so saith he that he wil haue the first be thought the principal and the other as it were besides the matter And although in his answere to the second he doth not plainly say that Caluin nourished Arian impiety in his hart and that neuerthelesse he impugned it sometimes in outward shewe that he might the better and with lesse appearance of infidelity sow the seeds of the same heresie vvhich euery man would haue abhorred if they had proceeded from an open enemy of Christ yet he affirmeth al those enemies of Christ before mentioned to haue issued out of caluins schooles and vseth these words Pag. 172. Away also with that brag touching Seruetus Gentilis and the companions of their wicked acts Alciatus Blandrata c. sharply repressed by Caluin for it is likewise long since knowne to the Christian world out of what schooles and Churches those cruel monsters issued neither is it obscure that this kind of mocking and shifting the scriptures which is vsed by Caluin is a grateful and wished helpe to the deuil by which the force of one testimony after another is shaken in the hartes of men vntil he bring them thinking nothing lesse to the butte of Arian heresie thus Hunnius And hence also it is Iacob Andrae iÌ„ praefa refut Apol. Danaei that Iacobus Andraeas aâ—â— â—â—heran of no lesse fame affirmeth that it is not to be marueiled that very many Caluinists in Polonia Transiluania Hungaria other places fel to Arianisme some also to Turcisme vnto whose impietie saith he this Caluinian doctrine prepareth the way I wil adde a vvord or two for the confirmation of this whole discourse out of Hooker vvho discoursing against our English Puritans for their dislike of the Creed of S. Athanasius and the verse Glory be to the Father and to the Sonne c. and hauing affirmed that the weeder of heresie growne ripe doe often in the very cutting downe scatter such seedes as for a while lie vnseene and buried in the earth but afterwards freshly spring vp againe no lesse pernicious then at the first Hook book 5. of Ecclesiastical policie § 42. pag. 89. vseth these wordes Which thing they very wel knowe and I doubt not wil easily confesse who liue to their great both toile and greife where the blaspheamies of Arians Samosatenians Tritheits Eutichians and Macedonians are renewed renewed by them who to hatch their heresie haue chosen those Churches as fittest neasts where Athanasius Creed is not heard By them I say renewed who following the course of extreme reformation were wont in the pride of their owne proceedinges to glory that whereas Luther did but blowe away the roofe and Zuinglius batter but the walles of Popish superstition the last and hardest worke of al remained which was to raze vp the verie ground and foundation of Popery that doctrine concerning the deity of Christ which Satanasius for so it pleased those impious forsaken miscreants to speake hath in this memorable Creed explaned hitherto Hooker And marke vvel those vvords who following the course of extreame reformation and haue chosen those Churches as fittest neasts c. for by these he plainely seemeth to taxe the Caluinists or Puritans who so extreamly seeke reformation and besides dispersed themselues into Polonia and Transiluania where they raised some if not al and maintained other of these Heresies But of Caluin and some Caluinists according to the judgement of learned Protestants I need not say more Only I adde this as a thing most certaine that Caluin wrote farre more plainely of these pointes in his epistles to his disciples of Polonia then he did in other his vvorkes In one of them he saith * CaluiÌ„ epist ad Polonos pag. 946. In epist 2. siue iÌ„aamonit ad Polonos One God that is the Trinitie you beleeue in God that is in the Trinity that they may knowe thee one God that is the Trinitie We reject this not only as vnsauourie but also as prophane Againe Although by the auncient Fathers this sentence of our Lord The Father is greater then I was restrained to the humane nature of Christ yet I doubt not to extend it to the whole complexum or person of God and man And thus much of our aduersaries doctrine touching Christ and Christianisme SECTION THE FOVRTH That in like sort they weaken the principal proofes of the said three groundes BESIDES this the Sectaries by their doctrine diminish and shake the credit of the most forcible reasons which are alleaged for the proofe of the aforesaid groundes And first I haue already shewed howe Caluin by his wicked glosses endeauoreth to ouerthrowe the force euen of those prophecies of the old Testament which are alleaged by Christ his Apostles for the proofe of Christianity to which I adde that they nor only bereaue the Church of al infallible meanes to proue the scriptures to be Canonical as I wil declare hereafter but also Cap. 5. sect 1. by their rejecting of certaine books receiued by vs into the Canon partly vnder pretence that they haue been sometimes among christian Catholiks of doubtful authority partly because as they imagine they containe contradictions they seeme to giue others licence vpon the same pretences to pronounce the same censure against other books which they admit but of their rejecting bookes because their Canonical truth vvas sometimes doubted of Cap. 1. sect 2. I shal else-where in a more conuenient place discourse Let vs therefore here only declare by a fewe examples vvhat may followe of their alleaging of contradiction vvhich is the second pretence And first it is wel knowne that they * Fulke vpon the Rhems testamet
but also affirmeth that a right judgment of men by their power of jurisdiction maintaining truth and suppressing errour may be wanting in the Church and that sometimes almost al may conspire against the truth or consent to betray the sincerity of the Christian profession yea that most part of those that hold great places of office and dignity in the Church falling into errour or heresie may depart from the soundnesse of the Christian faiths so that truth be maintained by some few and they molested persecuted and traduced as turbulent and seditious men enemies to the common peace of the Christian world thus Field Which doctrine if we admit as true what authority shal we leaue to the Fathers workes wil not a possibility of errour followe in them al it cannot be denied but I need not dispute any longer of this matter for Field himselfe of these his three rules of beliefe vvriteth thus Field book 4. cap. 14. These three latter rules of our faith saith he we admit not because they are equal with the former and originally in themselues containe the direction of faith but because nothing can be deliuered with such and so ful consent of the people of God as in them is expressed but it must needes he from those authours and founders of our Christian profession Hitherto Field in which words he expresly graunteth that these rules originally in themselues are no directions of faith And truly although we could not ouerthrowe them by his owne sayings this only vvould suffice according to the Protestant groundes to proue them to haue no diuine or infallible authority that he bringeth no one sentence of scripture or other proofe for their truth but only this bare reason that nothing can be delivered with such ful consent but it must needs be from the founders of Christianity For if that be thought or affirmed possible vvhich he deemeth impossible vvhat force or strength wil be left to his rules but euerie man may also perceiue that if we admit his assertions euen nowe related concerning the error of the Church and her Prelats we must needes also graunt that it may be al the Fathers haue conspired in errour For if al the Fathers of the present Church at any time yea although assembled in a general Councel may and that in matters of greatest consequence as he saith erre Field book 4. chap. 5. and 12. who seeth not that it is a thing possible that in al ages they haue al erred This notwithstanding let vs nowe looke a litle into the vvordes themselues of these three last rules and behold concerning what articles of beliefe they are as also what conditions are required in them as necessary to this that out of the Fathers workes according to Fields opinion vve may gather any article of faith The first of them which is the fift in order as the words themselues tel vs requireth that the matter belong to the substāce of our faith by which words he doth abridge and limit the authority of the Fathers to be of force according to this rule onlie concerning certaine principal articles by him set downe vvhich euery man as he saith is bound expresly to knowe and beleeue He prescribeth also in this rule that the consent be general that is not only of al that haue written of that matter but of al that haue left any monuments of learning to their posterity that al make expresse mention of it and without contradiction of any other and that this is his minde he plainly declareth in the second and fift chapter before But what errour or heresie is there which contentious persons either wil not deny to pertaine to the substance of our faith or that al the monuments of antiquity doe positiuely contradict or which Heretikes cannot confirme by some or at the least by one sentence of some auncient writer Verilie if they drawe and pul the holie scriptures in such sort to their priuate fantasies that no sect wil be perswaded but that they fauor the false opinions in it maintained much more may they deale so with the writings of their predecessors which be farre more in number and not also penned as the scriptures are by diuine inspiration The second rule of the three last if M. Field wil not haue it to contradict that which I haue added at the end of them out of the second chapter before must he vnderstood according to it and then how vncertaine it is I wil euen nowe declare but if vve take it as the wordes sound it cannot be vniuersal for the decisions of al points at the least in the judgment of al men for al matters are not deliuered as matters of faith constantly vniformly by the most famous Christian writers and that without contradiction yea a man of a peruerse humour although in very deede it were so yet by wresting and false vnderstanding of ssuch authors would make appearance of the contrary The last may be confuted as insufficient of it selfe for the same reasons for it requireth that the point be of the substance of faith c. The addition out of the second chapter requireth vniuersal practise and necessarie and euident deduction out of the scripture or the rule of faith and as it seemeth that it be a matter of substance that in euerie age some be found to haue written of it c. which be things intricate not easily to be proued in euery matter cōtrouersed But to make al these rules more obscure he addeth in the fift chapter that the writings of the ancient may be much corrupted so that the consent of antiquity cannot alwaies easily be knowne Field book 4. cap. 5. Vincent Liriuens cap. 39. yet saith he there wil be euer some meanes to finde out and descry the errours and frauds of the corrupters And so he affirmeth himselfe to vnderstand that of Vincentius Lirinensis that the judgment of antiquity is to be sought out at the very first rising of heresies not afterwards when they are growne inueterate for that then they wil corrupt the monuments of antiquity Finallie these three rules are not sufficient to direct any man whatsoeuer whether learned or vnlearned to an infallible truth in al articles of faith for seing that euerie priuate man yea the whole visible present Church is subject to errour and al her greatest Prelates to heresie according to the doctrine of M. Field one man cannot build his faith vpon anothers judgement no not vpon the judgement of the whole present visible Church wherefore if we proceed according to M. Fields rules it is not sufficient to cause true faith in vs that others tel vs that the Fathers and writers of former ages say this and that but we must our selues read ouer the workes of al such Fathers and authors And how can the vnlearned doe this Yea if a man be neuer so learned he cannot doe it although he doe nothing else but read al the daies of his
of themselues and yeeld sufficient satisfaction to al men of their diuine truth wherefore he seemeth contrary to that which he had said before to require no other reason by force whereof the spirit moueth him to beleeue the Scripture but the Scripture Neither should he only bring a diuine proofe for these matters but also to shewe the certaintie of his supernatural illumination of vvhich al these depend And howe wil he doe this vvil he proue it by Scripture This cannot be done least that he fal into a circle and according as he maketh the Psalme say of the vvicked Runne round til he be giddie and be at the end where he was when he beganne for by this illumination he is come to the knowledg of Scripture and consequently it must not be proued out of Scripture and vvhat other diuine proofe he wil assigne for my part I cannot imagine Neither can he say that this illumination is beleeued for it selfe for then he both graunteth that something must be beleeued without diuine proofe and also that al thinges are not beleeued because they are contained in the Scripture and consequently that the Scripture is not the onlie ground of our faith Many places of Scripture are alleaged out of the vvritten vvord of God by our aduersaries to proue the certainty of priuate illuminations and seing that I can not stand to giue the true sense of them I desire my reader only to consider in general that such sentences as they alleage if they proue any thing for them and are to be vnderstood as they pretend proue the judgement of euerie Christian man or at the least of euery spiritual man to be infallible vvhich being false as appeareth both in the auncient Fathers and also in themselues vve may vvel inferre that they haue some other sense Field affirmeth that Saint Augustine in a certaine place doth fully agree vnto his opinion shewing that the authority of the Church is but an introduction to the spiritual discerning of thinges diuine I answere that Saint Augustine in the chapter by him cited only affirmeth that because al men are not capable at the first to vnderstand the sincere wisedome and truth taught in the Church God hath ordained in it two motiues vvhich may first moue them to seeke it to wit miracles and multitude of beleeuers Aug. de vtilitate credendi cap. 16. Authoritas saith he praesto est quam partim miraculis partim multitudine valere nemo ambigit The authority of the Church is at hand which no man doubteth partly through miracles partly through multitude to be of force viz. to moue men Field to make this sentence seeme the better for his purpose Booke 4. c. 8. translateth the vvord valere standeth vpon and maketh Saint Augustine say that the authority of the Church standeth vpon two thinges c. but howe truly euerie grammer scholler may discerne That vvhich he alleageth out of Hugo de sancto Victore is as litle to the purpose but as I thinke farre more falsly translated for if in the English immediately following the Latin in the same different letter he doth intend a translation of the Latin going before as euerie man vvil judge he doth he dealeth in it most corruptly and vntruely and so I leaue him for this present SECTION THE SECOND In which the same argument is prosecuted and two thinges principallie are proued First that the newe Testament receiueth smal authority if we beleeue our aduersaries by this that it was written by the Apostles and Disciples because they accuse them of errour Secondlie because they confesse the text of Scripture to be corrupted HAVING euidentlie confuted in the section next before the chiefest and most common reasons by which the Sectaries of our daies endeuour to proue the diuine authority of holie Scripture let vs now behold such other reasons as may be brought according to their principles and together insinuate some other their assertioÌ„s which diminish the credit of these holy books And to passe ouer as a thing manifest that the authority of 〈◊〉 newe Testament cannot sufficientlie and infalliblie be proued â—uine by the testimony of the old some perhaps wil say that the authority of the old is confirmed and ratified by the newe But how is the newe it selfe proued to be Canonical which prerogatiue if we deny it the old wil receiue but litle credit from it Peraduenture they wil answere that they knowe the newe to be Canonical because it vvas vvritten by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ inspired by the holy Ghost I reply and demaund first how they can proue this to be true by canonical Scripture What canonical Scripture for example if we deny the said Gospel to be Canonical telleth vs that S. Mathew the Apostle wrote that Gospel which vve terme S. Mathewes Gospel Secondly although we suppose it to be true that the Apostles and Disciples were the authours of the newe Testament yet howe can they proue that in penning it they haue not erred What canonical Scripture haue they for this Certainely our aduersaries make al their successours subject to errour wherefore it seemeth that they wil not be very scrupulous to graunt it of the Apostles and Disciples themselues Luther tom 5. in c. 1. ad Galath fol. 290. Act. 7. v. 14. Luther in cap 46. Genes But doe they not moreouer in expresse tearms condemne them of errour Who can deny this Luther himselfe after that he had affirmed that he would not submitte his doctrine to the censure of the Fathers no not to the censure of S. Peter nor S. Paul nor of any Angel from heauen addeth in defence of this his action that S. Peter did liue and teach besides the word of God In another place in plaine tearmes he accuseth S. Steuen of errour in following the 70. Interpreters vvho as he saith erred concerning the number of those that went downe into Egipt Nay moreouer discoursing of extreame vnction Luth. de captiuita Babil c. de extrema vnctione Luther iÌ„ Isai 64. Martir in 1. Corinth 2. fol. 46. Centur. 1 lib. 2 c. 10. Col. 1600. 180. he telleth vs that Although the epistle said to be of S. Iames were in deed and truly his yet he vvould say that it was not lawful for an Apostle of his owne authority to institute a Sacrament By which he seemeth plainly to confesse that the Apostles in their Apostolike writings were subject to such faults finally he telleth vs that S. Paul 1. Corinth 2. vers 9. doth finely wreth or wrest a certaine sentence of the Prophet Isay but Peter Martir auoucheth that he mistooke the Hebrewe word Hence the Centuriatores his schollers note certaine Naeui or lapsus so they tearme them that is freckles or moles and falles of S. Peter S. Paul and S. Iames Apostles as that of S. Peter at Antioch for vvhich he vvas reprehended by S. Paul of which also a Calu. in ca. 2. ad Galat. et in Mat. 26.
of his knowledge faithfully rendred the text and in al hard places most sincerely expounded the same But to make this the more euident I adde further that they make the selfe same vvord sometimes to signifie one thing and at other times another thing as it best serueth their purpose For example our English Protestants whensoeuer the Scripture speaketh of euil traditions as Math. 15. vers 6. and in other places Bible 1595. translate the Greeke vvord vvhich signifieth properly a tradition truly as they ought But when mention is of Apostolike traditions they make the selfe same Greeke vvord signifie ordinances instructions Bible 1595. preachings or institutions as 2. Thess vers 15. c. And this they doe to bring traditions into contempt But of such examples see more in the sixt Chapter before Besides this although they vndertake to translate the Hebrewe text of the old testament and the Greeke of the newe yet vvhen the Hebrewe or Greeke maketh against them or not so much for them as the Latin they forsake the Hebrewe and Greeke and followe the Latin I vvil bring an example of both Hieremy 7. vers 18. and chap. 44. ver 19. the said Prophet inueigheth against those that offer sacrifice to strange Gods especially to the Moone And whereas according to the Hebrew they should read in the first place The women kneade the dowe to make cakes to offer to the heauens or planets they followe the Latin and say thus Bible 1595. The women kneade the dowe to make cakes for the Queene of heauen In like sort they proceede in the second place And by this meanes as they imagine they make a strong argument against vs vvho honour our blessed Lady and cal her Queene of heauen although we offer vp no sacrifice vnto her or any other creature In the newe testament whereas the Apostle according to the Greeke text saith only Rom. 8. v. 38 I am probably perswaded that neither death nor life c. shal be able to seperate vs from the charity of God they reade I am sure that neither death Bible 1595. c. And like as after this sort they serue their owne turnes in their translations so doe they also in their expositions of diuers wordes One example I haue touched aboue concerning the vvord Babilon which in S. Peters epistle to hinder the proofe of the said Apostles being at Rome 1. Pet. 5 13. Euseb lib. 2. histor c. 14. Hieron in li. descript Eccles verbo Marcus contrary to Eusebius and S. Hierome they vvil haue signifie the great City called Babilon in Assiria or Caldea contrariwise to make against the honour and dignity of Rome in the * Apocal. 17. vers 19. Bible 1592. Apocalipse they affirme the City of Rome by it to be vnderstood Let vs also consider that it must needes be granted that some of the learned sectaries haue erred in their translations and interpretations of holy Scripture for this is euident because there is but one true vvord of God which according to truth admitteth not opposite interpretations But our aduersaries translations and interpretations be diuers and much different yea repugnant one to another wherefore as I haue shewed they reject one anothers translation and interpretation and also alleage Scripture for their different doctrine They cannot therefore al be consonant to the true word of God vvhich if it be confessed it must needes follow that some of them in these matters haue erred and if some of them haue erred then some of them without al doubt haue not built vpon diuine authority which cannot be the ground of errour but vpon their owne judgement And seing that the warrant which they claime from God of al of them is the same and their ground alike we may wel inferre that none of them build vpon any other more sure foundation Adde vnto this that the selfe same sectaries oftentimes vpon further reading study and knowledge change their translations and interpretations of holy Scripture vvhich is apparent by the diuers editions of the Bibles and other their workes in which Scripture is alleaged and interpreted and of our English sectaries it is granted by the translatour of the Bible printed in the yeare 1585. 1592. and 1600. in the preface of which he confesseth that the former translations required greatly to be perused and reformed I haue also shewed in the sixt chapter that diuers places haue beene corrected and that as yet by the judgement of the best it is faulty of this followeth not seldome a change of belief and a difference from themselues in religion vvhich in the next chapter I vvil proue to haue fallen out in their first Captaines themselues And this is an inuincible argument seing that the Scriptures remaine alwaies the selfe same to proue that they varying build only vpon their owne fancies and are neuer certaine that they haue attained to the truth But this vvil be most apparent to him that shal set before his eies the manner of proceeding of our said learned sectaries in their discourses or disputations vvith their aduersaries For doe they in such conferences admit the text of holy Scripture as a supreame judge of al controuersies concerning matters of religion Surely no for although they seeme to recurre to the holy Scripture and vehemently pleade the word of God and by the authority thereof shewe themselues desirous to haue al difficulties decided yet in very truth it is not so as euery man may vvel judge because the letter of Scripture oftentimes doth not sufficiently interpret it selfe and they wil admit and allowe of no other translation or interpretation but their owne let vs declare this a litle more at large It is not vnknowne that the Catholikes receiue as Canonical the Hebrewe and Greeke text as wel as they and consequently those very places either in Hebrewe Greeke or both vvhich they alleage to establish their doctrine opposite to the beliefe of the Catholike Church Yea the Catholikes attribute more authority to the places alleaged as they are penned in the said tongues and to al bookes vvhich the newe sectaries receiue then they doe and further receiue fiue whole bookes at the least and diuers other parcels of holy Scripture into the Canon which they al commonly reject Wherefore the controuersie is not concerning the authority of the text either in Hebrewe or Greeke whither it be to be beleeued or no but vvhither the Catholikes building in this vpon the authority of the Church Traditions Councels and Fathers haue the true translation and exposition of the text or the Professours of the newe religion vvho alleage no other testimony for themselues then their owne priuate spirit and fancy To make this more euident by an example let vs suppose that a Catholike and a newe Sectary fal into disputation concerning Christs discent into hel The Catholike vsually for proofe of the affirmatiue part bringeth forth that sentence of holie Scripture Thou wilt not leaue
Scripture for a man as Field saith must be spiritual before he can vnderstand the Scripture and howe spiritual vvithout faith and vvhereupon shal this faith be built vpon the Scripture this cannot be because without it he cannot vnderstand the Scripture and howe can he build his faith vpon Scripture before he vnderstandeth it of which it followeth as I haue said that the Scripture is not the first and only rule of our faith as they affirme Neither can it be auerred that the first faith is not properly faith for as they confesse it maketh a man spiritual and is the ground of the vnderstanding the true sense of Scripture and consequently must be a true faith and properly so called Secondly Field requireth a minde free from the thought of other thinges depending on God as the fountaine of illumination desiâ—â—â—s of the truth with resolution to imbrace it though contrary to the conceit of natural men But first this also seemeth to presuppose faith and grace yea some extraordinary perfection more then is ordinarily found in the greater part of Christians Secondly I dislike those his vvordes desirous of the truth with resolution to imbrace it if they be vnderstood of matters of faith for they seeme to pretend a certaine kinde of doubt and staggering vvhich must not be allowed in such points especially in spiritual men as before Thirdly he thinketh the knowledge of the rule of faith formerly set downe necessary as also of the practise of the Saints according to the same Of this his rule of faith formerly by him set downe booke 3. chap. 4. I haue said something before Part. 2. chap. 4. As touching this his present doctrine it is certaine that most men wil not allow of his said rule but either vvil condemne it as insufficient in not conteining al thinges necessary or as ouer-large in containing thinges superfluous vvherefore this his third rule in this part is very vncertaine But in very deede that the Scriptures ought to be interpreted according to the rule of faith that is the whole summe of Christian religion preserued as a Depositum in the Church Part. 1. chap. 7. sect 5. I haue proued in the first part of this Treatise Moreouer as before I argued against the first rules so I argue against this that of it may be inferred that our faith is not built vpon the holy Scripture because the rule of faith must be a rule by vvhich the scriptures are to be expounded of which it followeth that it selfe is not knowne and belieued through the authority of the scripture Against the second part of this rule I oppose only Part. 2. chap. 4. that according to his groundes of which I haue discoursed before the practise of the Saints can very hardly be gathered out of the monuments of antiquity especially concerning such matters as Field denieth to be of the substance of our faith vvherefore this also maketh euery exposition of scripture obscure and of an vncertaine truth Fourthly is required saith he a due consideration what wil followe vpon our interpretation agreing with or contrary to the thinges generally receiued and beleeued among Christians in which consideration the conference of other places of Scripture and the thinges there deliuered is necessary To this I say first that if Luther had wel obserued this rule he had neuer broached newe doctrine in the Church Secondly the insufficiency of it is euident See before Part. 2. chap. 4. if Fields doctrine before set downe concerning the errour of almost al Christians be true Fiftly he requireth the consideration of the circumstances of the places interpreted the occasion of the wordes the thinges going before and following after Sixtly he also requireth the knowledge of al those Histories arts and sciences which may helpe vs. Both these I let passe as necessary yet not as sufficient to giue vs infallible assurance Seauenthly he thinketh the knowledge of the original tongues necessary and of the phrases and Idiotismes of them To which I say that although I thinke this a great helpe yea absolutely necessary according to the Protestant doctrine because they make the scripture the only ground of their faith and neuerthelesse haue no diuine meane or prudent reason to assure themselues that any one hath translated them truly yet it cannot be sufficient Neither is it according to our Catholike proceedings so needful both because vve are sure that we haue the text truly translated and also because we make not the scripture the propounder of our beliefe but expound it according to the rule of faith deliuered and receiued These are M. Fields helps and rules which he setteth downe as a meane where by we may be assured that vve haue found out the true meaning of scripture And although euery man may perceiue by that vvhich I haue said against some of them in particular howe vveake and doubtful they are Yet I vvil adde a vvord or two of them in general And first I aske M. Field howe he knoweth these his helps and rules to be sufficient can he proue their sufficiency by any diuine testimony or infallible argument nothing lesse and therefore I imagine that in the beginning he doth not so confidently affirme it but vseth these vvordes I thinke we may thus resolue and yet that diuine proofe or at the least some forcible reason is necessary it can not be denied because the true interpretation of Scripture is their principal ground of faith no interpretation in a matter doubtful can be infallibly knowne otherwise then by the aforesaid meanes Are also al these his helps and rules necessary See Willet in his Synopsis controuers 1. quaest 7. See also part 2. chap. 5. sect 1. before neither this vvil be admitted by his bretheren vvho reject the greater part of them and he must needes in a matter of such importance as this is according to their principles condemne them of great ignorance and errour if he absolutely affirme them al necessary Secondly I gather out of these rules that no man can diuinely or infallibly assure himselfe of the truth of any other mans exposition This is manifest because no man can by diuine testimony or prudential ground know that any other man hath sufficiently proceeded according to al these rules nay what ignorant person can so knowe the sufficiency of any learned man that he is sufficiently instructed in the tongues c. that he may embrace his opinion as diuine Finally no man can after this sort assuredly knowe that an other hath an illumination of the vnderstanding and that his mind is disposed according to the second rule which thinges neuerthelesse Field vvil haue required for the attaining of the right vnderstanding of holy Scripture Thirdly that appeareth to be very false vvhich is auerred by Field to vvit that a man following such directions as he prescribeth may not only assure himselfe of the truth of holy Scriptures but also conuince the aduersaries and gainesaiers for
proued before Howe then can the vnlearned knowe that either through ignorance or malice they haue not erred what diuine authority or reuelation haue they to perswade them this or to propound vnto them their translated Bibles as the true vvord of God If the sincerity of the translatour be doubtful and they haue no such authority or reuelation howe can they knowe certainely and infallibly by diuine vvarrant that their Bibles containe the pure and sincere vvord of God And if they knowe not this after this sort howe can they build vpon their Bibles true faith vvhich is a most certaine knowledge through diuine reuelation vvithout al doubt seing that they admit no other infallible rule they must needes confesse that they are alwaies vncertaine vvhether their beliefe be true or no for their beliefe can haue no further assurance of truth then they haue of the truth of the ground thereof vvhich they affirme to be the only word of God contained in their owne books Wherefore seing that the truth of these is vncertaine their faith also must needes be vncertaine And this argument is sufficient to proue that the vnlearned sectaries haue no faith But I adde further that I haue before set downe diuers places of holy Scripture vvhich we affirme in very deede to be corrupted by their translations vvhich our affirmation they may the better beleeue because they may also there see that diuers places in the first editions corrupted are amended in the latter Howe then can the vnlearned being ignorant in the tongues discerne by the Scripture only whether we say true or no or vvhether we or the authours of their translations erre Surely in judging of this controuersie they followe their owne fancies neither haue they any sound reason much lesse diuine authority that can moue them rather to condemne our translation then their owne Hence also I infer that our vnlearned Sectaries are not yet certaine that the English Bibles are the true word of God This I proue because they cannot deny but their said bibles were once falsly translated otherwise vvherefore haue they beene in so many places as I haue noted corrected Doth not euery correction suppose a fault But that they were once false it is granted in the preface to the Bible of the yeare 1589. 1592. and 1600. If they vvere once false howe knowe they that they are nowe true Had the learned Sectary or Sectaries that last amended the Bible any further vvarrant from God that they should not erre then they that erred before vvhat vvarrant had they that erred no other certainely but their owne knowledge And vvhat had they that last of al corrected it but the same and so the translatour of the aforesaid Bible in the preface to the reader protesteth that according to the measure of his knowledge he hath faithfully rendred the text and sincerely expounded al hard places but who knoweth not that al these mens judgements and knowledges be alike subject to errour If therefore the last translators or correctors had no further warrant as they had not then the former howe can it certainely be knowne that they haue not also erred Conference at Hampton-Court c. but this likewise is confessed by the Kings Majestie and D. Reinolds as I haue noted before vvherefore as yet the vnlearned English sectaries neuer had nor haue at this present a true and certaine ground of their faith and consequently they are yet vncertaine vvhither their beliefe be sound or no because their Bible on vvhich only they build containeth not the true vvord of God Neither wil this be remedied by a new edition of the Bible which as it is said is nowe in hand because the newe Translatours vvhich nowe indeauour to correct the old are also subject to errour and therefore the vnlearned sectaries can neuer certainely knowe whither they haue erred or no. Of vvhich I finally inferre that they can neuer haue true faith which is a most certaine and sure knowledge of thinges reuealed by God I vvil adde one other argument most euidently conuincing that none of the vnlearned professours of the newe religion can possibly be certaine that their translated Bibles are the true vvord of God which is this Euery man must needes confesse that there is but one true vvord of God But our aduersaries Bibles be diuers and differ much one from another wherefore as I haue shewed euery man rejecteth al other Bibles but that which is translated and approued by those of his owne sect therefore al of them but one must needes be false vvhich being presupposed I demand of any one vnlearned sectary what reason he hath to preferre one Bible as true before al the rest for example vvherefore doth he reject the Lutheran or Puritan Bible and admit that vvhich is authorized to be read in the Churches of England He cannot say that it is because the one agreeth vvith the Hebrewe and Greeke and the other doe not for this he knoweth not because he is ignorant of those languages Perhaps he wil say that some learned men told him so But this is no sufficient ground both because if he aske a Lutheran or Caluinist although euen as learned as the English Protestant they wil tel him the contrary and also because the judgement of a learned man yea of al the learned sectaries in the world togither is not sufficient to make any thing so certaine that vve may vvithout al doubt admit it as a sufficient ground of an article of faith For be they neuer so learned yet their sentence may be erroneous they themselues being subject to errour vvherefore the vnlearned sectary although he make himselfe judge of al the learned yet he can not possibly most assuredly knowe vvhich of them haue erred in translating the Bible And therefore in accepting and approuing one and rejecting and condemning the rest he buildeth only vpon his owne fancy vvhich moueth him to accept and approue one edition of holy Scripture before another either because it fauoureth his owne opinions or because he hath conceaued a good opinion of the Translatour or because the translation is allowed in the Country vvhere he dwelleth or for some other priuate respect Moreouer although vve should grant to the vnlearned and ignorant sectaries that they most assuredly knowe that their translated Bibles are the true vvord of God yet the interpretations also on which they build yeeld vs euen as forcible an argument as the former For seing that the Scriptures are hard and admit diuers interpretations as I haue already proued yea are so diuersly expounded by their learned Captaines that al their expositions cannot be true who seeth not first that the vnlearned and ignorant haue litle reason to accept more of one interpretation then of an other Secondly that in accepting one and rejecting others they build not vpon any diuine authority but vpon their owne judgement by vvhich they are moued to thinke the doctrine receiued true either through the
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 Peter Lombardes doctrine is truly golden their 's dirty and filthy Thus discourseth Stancarus one of their owne company Yet who knoweth not that Peter Lombard by the Catholikes is accounted but among the middle sort of diuines and who is so bold as to compare him to S. Hierome especially in translating and expounding the Scriptures But the more to weaken the credit of their translated Bibles vvhich they boast to be drawne and featched from the very fountaines themselues to wit from the Hebrewe Greeke text in which tongues the scriptures were first penned let vs here adde not only that they are not sincerely featched from thence as hath beene sufficiently proued before euen by the testimonies of Protestants themselues but also that the said fountaines and that likewise according to the judgement of Protestants are not now pure and sincere but in some places haue beene corrupted I haue in like sort proued before this last point as farre forth as it concerneth the Greeke text of the new testament And although something hath beene said of the Hebrew text of the old yet in this place I wil relate for further proofe of the same certaine sentences of Castalio Conradus Pellicanus and D. Humfrey in vvhich this is plainely auouched For the first of these writing in defence of himself against one that maintained the sincerity and purity of the Hebrewe text hath these wordes Castalio in defens suae translat pag. 227. This good fellowe seemeth to be of that opinion as in manner al the Iewes are and some Christians drawing neare to Iudaisme or Iudaizing in this respect that he thinketh no errour euer to haue crept into the Hebrew Bibles that God would neuer suffer that any word should be corrupted in those sacred bookes as though the bookes of the old testament were more holy then those of the newe in the which newe so many diuers readings are found in so many places or as though it were credible that God had more regard of one or other litle word or sillable then he had of whole bookes whereof he hath suffered many I say not to be depraued but to be vtterly lost Thus Castalio And in his discourse following he calleth this high opinion of the Hebrewe text a Iewish superstition Conrad Pellic tom 4. in Psal 85. v. 9. alias 8. Conradus Pellicanus expounding these wordes of the 84. Psalme vers 9. Qui conuertuntur ad cor which in one of our English Bibles are thus translated * Bibl. 1592. Bible read in Churches That they turne not againe to folly and an other That they turne not againe writeth after this sort The old interpreter seemeth to haue read one way whereas the Iewes nowe reade another which I say because I would not haue men thinke this to haue proceeded from the ignorance or slouthfulnesse of the old interpreter Rather we haue cause to finde fault for want of diligence in the Antiquaries and faith in the Iewes who both before Christs comming since seeme to haue beene lesse careful of the Psalmes then of their Talmudical songes Hitherto are his wordes Humfred lib. 1. de rat interpret pa. 178. Idem ibid. lib. 2. pag. 219. In like sort D. Humfrey telleth vs that the reader may easily finde out and judge howe many places the Iewish superstition hath corrupted And againe I like not saith he that men should to much followe the Rabbins as many doe for those places which promise and declare Christ the true Messias are most filthily corrupted by them Such is the judgement of these sectaries Perhaps some man vvil deeme these to be men of no account among Protestants but it is not so D. Humfrey is wel knowne Humfre ibid. lib. 1. pag. 62. 63. 189. and he matcheth Castalio with the best and affirmeth the Bible by him translated to be most paineful most diligent most throughly conferred examined sifted and polished Gesnerus also a sectary of no smal fame giueth him this commendation Castalio hath translated the Bible so diligently Gesnerus in Bibliotheca and with so singular fidelity according to the Hebrewe and Greeke that he seemeth farre to haue surpassed al translations of al men whatsoeuer haue hitherto beene set forth Finally Conradus Pellicanus vvas Professor of the Hebrewe tongue in Zuricke And out of this vvhole discourse it is euident that although vvee should suppose the authority of the Church not to be infallible and that both vve and our aduersaries build only vpon the bare letter of holy Scripture yet that the said letter is a farre more sound and firme ground as it is translated and expounded by vs then it is as it is translated and expounded by our aduersaries For although vve both challenge to our selues the holy Scriptures yet our translation and interpretation is of greater authority then theirs We also for the proofe of the sense by vs receiued offer to be tried by the censure of al our auncestors from vvhome together with the letter we haue receiued also that sense which vve embrace Contrariwise they both in their translation and exposition build onlie vpon their owne judgement and haue no further proof or authority And this I say is true although we should make the Church subject to errour and grant the bare letter of Scripture to be the ground of our aduersaries beliefe But as I haue proued the authority of the Church is infallible and diuine and besides this the newe sectaries build not vpon the letter of holy Scripture Secondly I inferre of that which hath beene said that our aduersaries according to their doctrine haue no infallible meane whereby to knowe what articles of faith haue beene reuealed by God to his Church and consequently that they want a condition necessary to true faith And this is manifest both because they make the Church which God as I haue shewed hath ordained to be the ordinary meane for vs to come to the knowledge of such thinges subject to error and also because the bare letter of Scripture vvhich they ordinarily pretend in this case is insufficient neither doe they build vpon it as I haue proued Thirdly I conclude that absolutely al the professors of the newe Gospel ground their faith and religion vpon the judgement and fancy of man not vpon any diuine authority Hence they measure the omnipotent power of God by their owne weake vnderstanding and in those misteries vvhich being aboue the reach of reason cannot be by it comprehended they cry out vvith the Iewes howe can this be Iohn 6. v. 52. Ciril lib. 4. in Ioan. cap. 13. which word howe saith S. Ciril Bishop of Alexandria is a Iewish word and worthy of al punishment This also vvas in some sort confessed by king Henry the eight the first head of our English Church For being desirous after his denial of the Popes supreamacy to make some innouation of religion within his dominions he published as Hal Hollinshed and Stowe
report certaine articles vnto which he gaue this title In the yeare of our Lord 1536. of King Henry 28. Stow p. 965. edit an 1600 Articles deuised by the Kinges highnesse Insinuating thereby that both the said articles and al other dissonant from the doctrine of the Church were and are deuises of men This moued a certaine Courtier in those daies discoursing with a Lutheran Lady that found great fault both with this title and the articles to answere her that he had rather follow the deuises of a King then of a knaue meaning Luther if needes newe deuises in religion were to be admitted but this illation or conclusion is sufficiently proued before And this vveake foundation of our aduersaries was also noted by the auncient Fathers in the auncient Heretikes Irinaeus lib. 3 cap. 2. S. Irenaeus recordeth that euery one of the Heretikes of his age and before auerred his owne fiction which he had deuised to be wisdome and that euery one of them boasted that vndoubtedly and sincerely he knewe the hidden mistery Tertullian affirmeth that a Tertull. de praescript ca. 37. see also cap. 6. Heretikes arise of diuersity of doctrine which euery man either inuenteth or receiueth at his pleasure b Aug. tom 6. cont Faustum l. 32. cap. 29. Al Heretikes saith S. Augustine that receiue the Scriptures as authentical seeme to themselues to followe the said Scriptures whereas they rather followe their owne errors and are Heretikes for this not for that they contemne them but because they doe not vnderstand them Hitherto S. Augustine He affirmeth likewise as I haue noted before d Tom. 7. de nuptijs cōcupiscentijs lib. 2. cap. 31. that Heretikes make not their faith subject to the Scriptures but the Scriptures subject to their faith and that it is the custome of Heretikes to wrest the Scriptures to what sense they please the like sentence hath e Hieron ad Paulam epist 2. siue in prologo Bibliorū S. Hierome Hence like as the Apostle tearmeth couetousnesse Idolatry and consequently a couetous man an Idolater so the f See Tertull. de praescr ca. 40. S. Cipriā de vnitat Eccles Num. 12 S. Hieron in Osee 11. Amos 8. Abacuc 2. August in psal 8 v. 10. l. 18. de ciuitat c. 51. l. de vtilitat jejunij c. auncient Fathers tearme heresie Idolatry and an Heretike an Idolater for like as the couetous man his worldly wealth so the Heretike maketh his owne fancies as it were his God Last of al I conclude that the professors of the new religion are Heretikes and haue no faith They are Heretikes because they obstinately defend doctrine condemned by the Church of Christ as heretical which doctrine they build principally vpon their owne fancies For according to their owne priuate judgementes they choose their belief of which choise as we are taught by g Tertul. lib. de praescript cap. 6. Tertullian and h Hieron in epist ad Galat. habetur 24. q. 3. cap. haeresis S. Hierome such Sectaries are called Heretikes that is to say choosers i Tertul. de praescrip c. 6. see also c. 37. Heresie saith Tertullian is so called from the Greeke word signifieth an election or choise which a man vseth either in inuenting or receiuing it With him accordeth S. Hierome whose wordes be these k Hier. in ep ad Galatas Heresie is a Greeke word and is deriued from election or choise because euery man chooseth that doctrine which he thinketh best And hence it is that the faith of Christians he meaneth of Catholikes can neuer truly be called an heresy for this dependeth not of the fancy of any man nor was inuented by mans wit but was manifested vnto men by the inspiration and reuelation of God thus farre S. Hierome They haue likewise no faith both because they vvant a condition necessarily requisite to this vertue and also because faith as I haue proued ought to be built vpon diuine authority and therefore cannot be grounded vpon any mans opinion and judgement in the world except it be warranted from error by God himselfe which warrant is wanting to al the professors of the newe religion as I haue declared vvherefore the fallible and erroneous fancy of men is their only ground Of which I inferre according to my discourse in the beginning of this l Part. 1 ch 4. pag. 27. treatise that they haue in like sort no religion because the roote and foundation of Christian relgion is faith m Hebr. 11 6. without which as the Apostle saith it is impossible to please God Hence the auncient Fathers denied Heretikes to be Christians If they be Heretikes saith Tertullian they cannot be Christians Tertu de praescript c. 37. Augustin in Enchirid. ad Laurentium cap. 5. His reason is because in following their owne election and not receiuing their doctrine of Christ they admit the name of Heretikes The name of Christ only saith S. Augustine is found among Heretikes who wil haue themselues called Christians but Christ in very deede is not among them S. Ciprian teacheth vs the self same lesson and affirmeth that * Cipr. epist 52. ad Antonianum whosoeuer and whatsoeuer he be that is not in the Church he is no Christian The very selfe same sentence is also pronounced by a Aug. serm 81. de tempore cap. 12. S. Augustine in one of his sermons and other fathers haue the like Finally b Beza de haereticis a ciuili magistratu puniendis p. 184. 185. see him also pag. 106. 236. Beza himselfe censureth such as breake due order doe not subject themselues to the word of God but according to the property of Heretikes endeuour to subject the word of God to themselues to be Idolators and in this worse then Infidels that they shadowe their lies with a colour of piety and truth thus much Beza And thus I thinke the argument of this treatise throughly proued wherefore it remaineth only that I exhort euery man that hath care of his soule and saluation and dreadeth the anger of God and euerlasting damnation if he be a member of the Church of Christ and a childe of his Spouse there firmely to remaine if he be not with al speed to incorporate himselfe to this sacred body and to flie the fancies of his owne judgement and the erroneous conceits of mortal men Math. 7 24. So shal he like vnto a wise man build his howse vpon a rocke which no stormes of windes raine or flouds can ouerthrowe not as a foolish man vpon the sand of mans imagination and consequently haue it subject to alteration This Church is a firme and immoueable rocke the sure piller and firmament of truth on vvhich vve may securely build our saluation and the whole edifice of our faith She is an inuincible Castle and fortresse against falshood a learned Mistris and guide in al matters doubtful and a most certaine security in
Cipriā epist 40. 70. 55. 69. 71. 73. see him also in exhortat ad Martirium cap. 11. the Century writers who are esteemed very diligent searchers of antiquity taxe S. Ciprian for his doctrine touching the Popes supreamacy Secondly the doctrine of S. Ciprian taught in this booke agreeth exceeding wel with that which is found throughout al his epistles in vvhich vve finde the same sentences almost in the very same wordes which Iames denieth to be in his manuscript copies of the booke of the vnity of the church as that there is one God one Church and one Chaire founded vpon Peter that the Church was built vpon S. Peter that our Lord chose him the first or chiefest that he instituted the origen of vnity from him c. Peraduenture some man wil say these epistles are also corrupted but first I thinke they are not found otherwise in the Manuscript copies mentioned by Master Iames then they are in the printed bookes For vvere they it is like he vvould not haue passed it vvith silence as he doth Secondly neither Perkins nor any other affirmeth these epistles to be corrupted Thirdlie one of these Epistles in vvhich it is said that our Lord did choose S. Peter the first or chiefest and that vpon him he built his Church is cited by S. Augustine August to 7. de bapt cont Donat. cap. 1. Cipr. ep 72. ad Quintum vvho also alleageth those very vvordes as S. Ciprians which are in the printed copies to vvit Nam nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit super quem edificauit Ecclesiam suam c. For neither S. Peter whome our Lord chose the first or chiefest and vpon whome he built his Church c. And moreouer after S. Ciprians vvordes he addeth himselfe Behold where Ciprian rehearseth which also we haue learned in holy Scriptures that the Apostle Peter in whome the Primacy of the Apostles through so excellent grace is higher then others c. Thus S. Augustine of which it is most euident that this Epistle among al the rest is not corrupted and yet here is almost said as much in substance of this matter as is in his booke de vnitate Ecclesiae Finally the vvordes vvhich Iames vvil haue excluded from S. Ciprians booke de vnitate Ecclesiae are so agreeable to this holy Fathers stile and phrase and so fitting his discourse that no man can almost suspect them to be added But it may be demanded howe it falleth out that they are wanting in the Manu-script copies mentioned by M. Iames In very truth if there be such auncient copies and there be nothing razed out of them I cannot but thinke that they were written out before the art of printing was inuented by some Wicliffian Heretike or if they came out of some forraine country by some Schismatike or other that held with some German Emperor against the Pope That the Wicliffians vvere very potent and preuailed much in our Country we may gather out of that vvhich is said by Stowe in his Chronicle and in the yeares 1414. and 1377. And Walsingham vvriteth Walsingham anno vlt. Edward 3. that the Vniuersity of Oxford in particular vvas cold in resisting him Walsingham in vita Richardi 2. anno 1378. Nay their coldnesse vvas such that Gregory XI Pope in the yeare 1378. vvrote his Breue to it and reprehended them of the said Vniuersity for their coldnesse and slacknesse AN INDEX OR TABLE OF AL THE CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THIS TREATISE The first part of the groundes of the old religion CHAPTER 1. Of the first ground of Catholike religion to wit that there is a God and that God by his prouidence gouerneth al thinges page 1. Section 1. That there is a God page 2. Sect. 2. Almighty God hath care of worldly affaires and ruleth al things by his diuine prouidence page 10. Chap. 2. Of the second ground of our religion to wit that the soule of man is immortal and that it shal either be rewarded euerlastingly in heauen or punished euerlastingly in hel page 12. Chap. 3. Of a third principal ground of our faith to wit that Christian religion only is the true worship of God page 16. Chap. 4. That among Christians they only that professe and embrace the Catholike faith and religion are in state of saluation and doe truly worship God page 24. Chap. 5. Sect. 1. Of the definition and conditions of true faith p. 28. Sect. 2. That faith is a most firme assent of the vnderstanding page 29. Sect. 3. Faith is of thinges incomprehensible by natural reason and consequently obscure page 30. Sect. 4. By true Christian faith we beleeue such misteries as God hath reuealed to his Church page 32. Sect. 5. That true faith is built vpon diuine authority page 34. Sect. 6. Besides the reuelation of God some infallible propounder of the articles of our faith is necessary and that they are propounded vnto vs by the Catholike Church page 36. Chap. 6. Sect. 1. Of the supreame and infallible authority of the Catholike Church page 38. Sect. 2. The whole summe of Christian doctrine by word of mouth not by writing was committed by Christ to his Apostles page 39. Sect. 3. The Church cannot stray from the rule of faith receaued nor erre in matter of faith or general precepts of manners which is proued first because the holy Ghost directeth her in al truth page 42. Sect. 4. The same is proued by other arguments page 44. Sect. 5. That the testimonies of holy Scripture and other proofes brought for the infallible and diuine authority of the Church cannot be applied to the Church considered as it comprehendeth al faithful Christians that are and haue beene since Christes ascention or since the Apostles daies but vnto the present Church of al ages page 52. Sect. 6. That the same testimonies and proofes conuince an infallible judgement of the Church concerning euery article of faith not only concerning certaine of the principal page 56. Sect. 7. That to saluation it is necessary to beleeue the whole Catholike faith and euery article thereof page 58. Chap. 7. Of the holy Scripture which is the first particular ground of faith in the Catholike Church page 61. Sect. 1. Howe the Scripture is knowne to be Canonical page 61. Sect. 2. Concerning the sense or exposition of holy Scriptures and first that the Scriptures are hard and receiue diuers interpretations p. 67. Sect. 3. The Scriptures may be falsly vnderstood and that euery priuate man may erre in the vnderstanding of them page 69. Sect. 4. That the letter of holy Scripture falsly interpreted is not the word of God page 72. Sect. 5. The true sense of the holy Scripture is to be learned of the Catholike Church who is the true judge thereof page 75. Sect. 6. An objection against the premises is answered and the question concerning the last resolution of our faith is discussed page 78. Chap. 8. Concerning the second particular ground of Catholike