such vehemencie accuseth him that preacheth other doctrine then that which was before receiued in the Church Gal. 1 9. If any man saith he euangelize to you besides that which you haue receiued be he Anathema or cursed to vvhich sentence alludeth Vincentius Lirinensis in these wordes Vincent Lir. c. 14. To preach vnto Christian Catholikes other doctrine then that which they haue already receiued no where is lawful and neuer shal be lawful and to accurse as Heretikes those which preach other doctrine then that which before hath beene accepted it was neuer vnlawful it is in no place vnlawful and neuer wil be vnlawful Hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis Contrariwise for keeping vndefiled this rule or Tradition the same Apostle highly commendeth the Corinthians saying 1. Corin. 11 2. I praise you brethren that in al things you be mindful of me and as I haue deliuered vnto you you keepe my precepts or according to the Greeke vvord my Traditions And because the Church and aboue al others the Romans most carefully kept these Traditions Iren. lib. 3. cap. 4. S. Irenaeus called it the rich treasure-house of Apostolike Traditions wherefore vvhosoeuer is desirous to discerne a true Christian from a faithles Heretike must behold the doctrine of them both and pronounce him to be the true disciple of Christ who by succession and Tradition hath receiued his beliefe from him and his Apostles For like as a nobleman or gentleman of antiquity is knowne by his pedigree so a true Christian is knowne by the succession and descent of his Prelates and faith from them that first receiued it from our Lord. Neither doth this our doctrine any waies diminish the authority of holy scripture for this notvvithstanding we affirme that the wonderful prouidence of almighty God most wisely ordained that the scriptures of the newe Testament should be written that he moued the penners thereof thereunto and directed them by his diuine inspiration and this both for the cōfirmation and preseruation of the faith Tradition of the Church and also that the said Tradition might with more ease come to euery ones knowledg and that euery one by such monuments might learne to discerne the true Church of vvhich he vvas to be instructed concerning al matters of faith and religion But of our estimation of the holie scripture see more aboue Chap. 7. SECTION THE SECOND Of vnwritten Traditions in particular THis discourse beeing premised concerning the Traditions of the Church in general I come nowe to discourse of that part of the said Traditions vvhich are concerning matters of vvhich there is no expresse mention in the word of God and therefore are called vnwritten Traditions And first that both such Traditions are found in the Church and that the vvhole summe of Christian doctrine is not expresly contained in the vvritten vvord of God I haue already declared Section 1. because none of the Apostles or Disciples euer intended to set downe in any parcel of scripture the said whole summe of Christian doctrine and also proued it out of those words of S. Luke in the Actes of the Apostles in which he telleth vs Acts 1 verse 3. that Christ after his Passion shewed himselfe aliue in many argumentes for forty daies appearing to his Apostles and speaking of the kingdome of God For by this relation it seemeth euident that our Sauiour during the time betweene his resurrection and ascention gaue to his Apostles diuers instructions which are not set downe in particuler in any parte of the newe Testament for no Apostle or Euangelist relateth in particular these discourses of Christ And they vvere without al doubt concerning the sacraments their administration the gouernment of the Church and other such like affaires belonging to Christian religion which for the most part the Apostles left to their successors only by word of mouth and secret Tradition This in plaine termes is auouched by a Epiph. haeres 61. Apostolico rum S. Epiphanius whose words be these We must vse Tradition for the scripture hath not al things And therefore the Apostles deliuered certaine thinges in writing certaine by Tradition The same truth is affirmed by b Basil de spiri sācto cap. 27. S. Basil and the rest of the Fathers yea this we are taught by the Apostle himselfe who in his epistle to the Thessalonians not only commendeth most earnestly to the Church written Traditions but also vnwritten c 2. Thess 2 15. Brethren saith he stand and hold the Traditions which you haue learned whether it be by word or by our epistle Out of which place it is euident that some Traditions by the Apostle were deliuered to the Thessalonians by word And that here he speaketh of such Traditions as we treat of we are taught by al the ancient Fathers Among the rest S. Iohn Chrisostome gathereth out of them this conclusion Hence it is manifest saith he that they videlicet the Apostles deliuered not al thinges by Epistle but many thinges also vnwritten and those thinges likewise are to be beleeued d Chrisost hom 4. in 2. Thessa It is a Tradition seeke thou no further thus S. Chrisostome But that the Fathers admit vnwritten Traditions it is graunted by e Whitak de sacra scrip pag. 678. 668. 681. 683. 685. 690. 695. 696. 670. Whitaker f Rain in his conclusions ānexed to his conferēce 1. conclu pag. 689. Rainolds g Cart. in Whitg defēce p. 103 Cartwrite h Kemnis in exam part 1. pa. 87 89. 90 Kemnisius i Fulk against pur pag. 362. 303. 397. Against Marshal pag. 170. 178. Against Brist motiues pag. 35. 36. Fulke and other Protestants wherefore I neede not alleage any more of their testimonies And this is the reason wherefore we haue no precept in the newe Testament to beleeue or obserue those thinges only which are expresly contained in the said volume Neither doe we finde that euer the Apostles or their followers commended and deliuered to any Church or people the said newe Testament as a booke comprehending in expresse termes the whole summe of Christian doctrine Nay it is certaine that for diuers yeares before the said booke was written the Apostles deliuered al by Tradition and word of mouth Further that the estimation of vnwritten Traditions hath euer beene exceeding great in the Church it appeareth not only by this that diuers of the ancient Fathers as I haue shewed in the * Section 1. chapter next before by Tradition haue proued what scripture is Canonical and pleaded the authority of them against diuers heresies but also by this that diuers heresies haue been by the testimony of them only condemned ouerthrowne In the first general Councel of Nice as a Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 16. et 18. Sozomenus reporteth the Fathers especially endeauoured that nothing should be decreed but that vvhich they had receiued by Tradition from their forefathers S. Ciprian with most of the Bishops of Affrica
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
life and when he hath done al he is almost neuer the nearer for he cannot deny but he may be deceiued in his judgment and consequently his faith is but an opinion And thus we see that although Field make a great shewe of yeelding great authority to the Fathers yet in very deed he bereaueth them almost of al partly by rejecting their testimonies concerning al other matters but certaine principal and substantial points partlie by requiring such a general consent as can hardly be proued concerning the principal articles themselues partlie by his doctrine concerning the errour of the whole Church and partlie by other meanes Let vs therefore Conclude that al our aduersaries reject al particular groundes of faith which are found in the church of Christ besides the holy scripture and make them al subject to error and falshood And this is almost in flat tearmes confessed by our English Protestants who in the Apologie of the Church affirme Apologie of the church of England part 2. pag. 58. that In the scriptures only mans hart can haue setled rest and that in them be abundantly and fully comprehended al things whatsoeuer be needful for our health The same doctrine vvas established in their conuocations held at London in the yeares 1562. and 1604. vvhere vve finde these wordes Holy scripture containeth althinges necessary for saluation Article 6. so that whatsoeuer is not read therin nor proued thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be beleeued as an article of the faith or be thought necessarily requisite to saluation Hence a Will. in his Sinops p. 38. Willet affirmeth that the scripture is not one of the meanes but the sole whole and only meanes to worke faith And this is the common doctrine of them al as wil appeare in the next chapter But in it as in other points the Sectaries of our daies follow the steps of the auncient Heretikes for they in like sort as it is recorded by auncient b Iren. l. 3. c. 2. Tertull. de praesript Ciprianus de vnit Ecclesiae August l. 32. cōtra Faustū et lib. 2. cōtra Maximinū Hooker ī the praeface to his book of Ecclesiastical policie prīted an 1604. p. 36. authors rejected the authority of Traditions Councels and Fathers and in matters of controuersy appealed to the scriptures only Yea in this they conforme themselues to the Anabaptists whome they censure to be Heretikes of this age for they also as Hooker a Protestant recordeth admit no other disputation against their opinions then onlie by allegation of scripture But they object that euerie one of the Fathers was subject to error I confesse it but yet God according to his promise as I haue aboue declared was so to direct gouerne them that they should not al erre wherefore they vvere not men guided altogether by their owne judgements and hauing no surer rule but men directed by the holie Ghost of which their consent in one true doctrine is a most manifest token And whiles these professors of the new religion contemne and reject these mens authoritie what greater authority doe they bring vs Surelie none so great for they bring vs only their owne opinions and perhaps the testimony of their chief ring-leaders who were and are men directed only by their owne judgments and fantasies of vvhich their dissention and diuersitie of doctrine is euen as an apparant proof They say that they bring vs the authoritie of the worde of God but the Fathers embraced and reuerenced the word of God more then they doe Neither is the controuersie between the word of God and the Fathers for these two were neuer repugnant the one to the other as the newe Sectaries vvould haue it but betweene the newe Sectaries themselues and the Fathers who of them expound the vvord of God more trulie as it vvil appeare by my discourse ensuing Wherefore seing that none of them are to be compared with the Fathers neither for learning sanctity of life nor any other good and vertuous condition but are in euerie wise-mans judgement farre more subject to errour then they of whome they make themselues judges we are not to be blamed if we preferre the translation and interpretation of holie scriptures left vnto vs by the said auncient fathers before theirs Chapter 5. They build not vpon the holy Scripture and first that the bare letter of holy Scripture only is not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion SEGTION SHE FIRST In which this is proued because by Scripture the Scripture it selfe cannot be proued Canonical It is also argued that according to the sectaries groundes there is no Canonical Scripture and some principal reasons especially inspiration of the spirit which they alleage for the proofe of such Scripture are refelled OVR aduersaries as I haue shewed haue alreadie bereaued themselues of al Catholike grounder of religion except the holie Scripture And this ground their Captaines euen now cited not only chalenge to themselues as vvholy and properlie theirs but also seeme to make the onlie foundation and piller of their newe beliefe and doctrine But seing that they vvillingly depriue themselues of al other groundes we must of necessity depriue them against their wils of this for it is a thing most manifest and easily to be proued that they build not vpon the Scripture but vpon their owne fancies and judgement And first I must here presuppose as certaine that they deny the Church to haue any extraordinarie authority for the true translation or interpretation of holy Scripture and that they admitte of no Tradition of the true sense thereof preserued alwaies in the same Church together with the letter This is apparant by their making the church subject to error by their denying her authority by their rejecting al vnwritten traditions among which we number the true exposition of the word of God by their daily inuenting of new and strange interpretations in former ages vnheard off by their rejecting the testimonies and expositions of the auncient Fathers and by their alleaging no other authoritie for their owne expositions but their owne judgements Hence it is affirmed Harmony of confes sect 1. in the confession of Heluetia that the interpretation of Scripture is to be taken only from her selfe and that her selfe may be the interpreter of her selfe the rule of charity and faith being her guide And in the confession of Wittenberge that the true meaning of Scripture is to be sought in the Scripture it selfe and among those that being raised vp by the spirit of God expound Scripture by Scripture I adde also that their expositions being diuers and opposite they cannot al descend by Tradition from the Apostles and seing that one of them hath no more reason to challenge this tradition then another vve may in like sort deny it to them al wherefore that which they make the only ground of their faith and religion is the bare word of holie Scripture interpreted by
themselues and of this their ground because the matter is of great importaunce I purpose to discourse something at large And first I wil shewe in this chapter that the bare and naked letter onlie of holie Scripture is not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion Then in the chapters following I wil proue that although we should grant the letter to be a sufficiēt ground yet that their bibles containe not the true letter Thirdly that although this were also granted yet that they build not vpon the letter contained in their owne Bibles Lastly that in translating and expounding the holie Scriptures they followe their owne fancies and judgement and that they haue no other certaine and infallible ground Caluin de ve ra Eccles reform ratione pag. 473. Apologie of the Church of Englād pag. 58. Articles of faith agrreed vpō the cōuocations of the yeares 1562. 1604. I come to the first It is a common maxime or principle among al newe Sectaries that the scriptures only containe al thinges necessary to our saluation and that nothing is to be beleeued or necessarily to be obserued vvhich is not expresly taught commaunded or allowed in the same or as some of them adde manifestlie gathered out of them * Harmony of confes sect 1. In controuersies of religion saith the confession of Heluetia or matters of faith we cannot admit any other judge then God himselfe pronouncing by the holy scriptures what is true what false what is to be followed or what auoided Al thinges ought to be tried by the rule and square of holy scripture saith the French confession Al things which are needful to be knowne to saluation are contained in the Prophets and Apostles writings saith that of Wittenberg And out of this ground they argue against vnwritten traditiōs ceremonies positiue lawes of the Church c. But that this doctrine is false euen according to their owne proceedings supposing that to be true vvhich they affirme concerning the infallible authority of the Church to wit that it is not expressed in the said scripture nor out of it deduced it is an easie matter to demonstrate to euerie mans eie for first this authority of the Church being set aside by vvhat Scripture can they proue the Scripture it selfe to be Canonical And seing that I am to discourse of this argument and their assertions be intricate I wil not only proue that according to this ground they haue no canonical Scripture but also absolutely that by no other means they giue it any infallible or diuine authority First therefore I may very wel frame this argument against the whole Bible out of their aforesaid ground Nothing is to be beleeued but that which is expresly taught in the written word of god or manifestly gathered out of the same but that the Bible is canonical Scripture it is neither taught in the written word of God nor manifestly gathered out of the same therfore it is not to be beleeued that the bible is canonical Scripture The major or first proposition containeth their aforesaid ground the minor or second is approued by Hooker who writeth thus Of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what books we are bound to esteeme holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And this afterwards he confirmeth with this reason For saith he if any one book of scripture did giue testimony to al yet stil that Scripture which giueth credit to the rest would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it neither could we euer come into any pause whereon to rest our assurance this way so that vnlesse besides Scripture there were something which might assure vs that we doe wel we could not thinke we doe wel no not in being assured that Scripture is a sacred and holy rule of wel-doing thus Hooker And this argument is of such force that it hath constrained some of them and among the rest the said a Hooker in his treatis of lawes of ecclesiastical policy booke 1. p. 84. book 2. § 4. p. 100. 102 Zauch in his confessiō c. 1. Brent in prolog Kemn in exam Concil Tridentini Hooker Zauchius Brentius and Kemnitius to flie from Scriptures vnto tradition for the proofe of this matter yea b Hook book 3. § 8. p. 146. See Whitak contr Staple l. 2. c. 4. pag. 298. 300. some of them affirme that this only tradition concerning canonical Scripture is to be rejected c Obseruations vpon the Harmonie of confessiōs published by those of Geneua fol. 593. Others and among them the Geneuian doctors affirme that some books of which there was heretofore some doubt among the ancient doctors of the church were receiued as Canonical by the common consent of the whole Catholike Church and therefore that they are not to be refused But who seeth not First that these men bewray the weaknes of the aforesaid general ground concerning the sufficiency of holy Scripture alone then that if the tradition of the Church yea the Church it selfe in her judicial sentence as they al affirme may erre in one point that it may also erre in al others of the same quality and consequently that the authority or tradition of the Church cannot infallibly argue the Scriptures to be of diuine authority Caluin instit book 1. cap. 7. § 1.2.4 et 5. Caluin answereth that the holy books of Scripture by them that haue the spirit are easily discerned from others by themselues as light from darknesse and sweetnes from sowrenes or bitternes And this his opinion is embraced by diuers and among the rest by Whitakers Thomas Rogers and Field and therefore is with some diligence to be refelled But before I enter into the confutation of it I must affirme as certaine that al these authors require in euery man to this that assuredly he beleeue the holy scriptures to be from God a supernatural inspiration of the holy ghost That Caluin doth so his sentences hereafter alleaged plainly declare * Whit. ī his answ to Campians first reason pag. 47. Whitakers hauing affirmed That it is euen as euidēt the scriptures be from god as that the sunne is the sun or that god is God and also said that there are in the books themselues proofs inough to demonstrate it yet finally concludeth that the inward hidden testimony of the spirit must be bad that men may firmly rest in the scriptures Againe Then only doe we attaine a certaine sauing ful assurance when the same spirit which writ published them doth perswade our harts of the credit of them Rogers writeth thus a Rogers ī his discourse vpō the articles of faith agreed vpon in the conuocations of the years 1562. 1604. art 6. p. 31. 32. printed anno 1607. We judg these books before mentioned Canonical not somuch because learned and godly men in the Church so haue and doe receiue and allow of them as for that the holy spirit in our harts doth
the truth of Christian discipline and faith is there we shal finde also the truth of Scriptures expositions al Christian traditions Vnto these authorities I adde that the obscuritie of the holy Scriptures the danger of misinterpreting them being presupposed it vvas necessarie that God almightie should prescribe some certaine rule which euery man might follow without danger of error in vnderstanding them otherwise dissension might haue risen concerning their true sense and consequently concerning diuers articles of Christian religion and euery man might would haue expounded them according to his owne fancie although neuer so false and erroneous And what judge can we imagine him to haue appointed but the Catholike Church whom as I haue proued aboue he hath warranted from errour whose authority he hath made the rule of our beliefe who hath the custody of holy Scriptures and from whom we receiue them and infallibly know them to containe the true word of God This finally the practise it selfe of the Church hath confirmed for whensoeuer any controuersy hath risen touching the true sense of holy Scriptures she according to the rule of faith in her preserued and the sense of Scripture vnto her deliuered together with the letter hath defined the truth and decided the same as it appeareth by the condemnation al Heretikes together with their false translations and erroneous expositions of the said Scriptures And whosoeuer forsaketh this rule falleth presently into a laborinth vast Sea of difficulties and is alwaies perplexed and inconstant in his beliefe Contrariwise whosoeuer embraceth this rule buildeth vpon a firme rocke wherefore I say with the Apostle Whosoeuer shall followe this rule Galat. 6. vers 16. peace vpon them and mercy Now let vs in the last place confirme the truth of our principal assertions concerning the letter and interpretation of holy Scripture yea concerning the whole sūme of christian doctrine by vnwriten traditiō preserued in the Church by the confession of our Lutheran aduersaries of Wittenberg For they doe not only confesse Harm of cōfes sect 10. pag. 332. 333. Confession Wittenb artic 32. The Church to haue authority to beare witnesse of the holy Scripture and to interprete the same but also affirme that she hath receiued from her husband Christ a certaine rule to wit the Prophetical and Apostolical preaching confirmed by miracles from heauen according vnto the which she is bound to interprete those places of Scripture which seeme to be obscure and to judge of doctrines This may be seene in the Harmony of confessions Field book 4. ca. 19. 20. §. The secōd Field also acknowledgeth in the Church A rule of faith descending by tradition from the Apostles according vnto which he wil haue the Scriptures expounded I conclude therefore that thus the holy Scripture is a most sure and infallible ground of faith for by this meanes I meane by the diuine censure and approbation of the Church vve are assured that both the letter and sense are of diuine authoritie vvhereas the particuler or priuate approbation of the letter or interpretation or it made by any priuate man being subject to errour cannot possiblie yeeld vs any such assurance SECTION THE SIXT An objection against the premises is answered and the question concerning the last resolution of our faith is discussed BVT here occurreth a difficulty of no smal moment to be resolued For in this chapter I haue affirmed the Canonical Scriptures and their true interpretation to he knowne by the infallible authoritie of the Church whereas before I proued the authority of the Church to be infallible by the testimonie of holie Scripture vvherefore Field book 4. cap. 7. it may seeme that I haue made a circle or as M. Field calleth it a circulation The ful solution of this objection dependeth of the resolution of a question vvhich to some appeareth very intricate and hard to wit vnto what vve lastlie resolue our faith vvhether to the authority of the Church or of the Scripture or to some humane motiues and therefore this must first be discussed before the other can be answered And in verie deede although al Catholike Diuines be of one consent and hold that the cause of our beliefe is the authority of God which hath reuealed such misteries as we beleeue yet concerning the last resolution of our faith which is a schoole question and not a matter of faith I finde among them two opinions The followers of the first declare the matter thus Fiist say they euery man is induced to beleeue Christian religion and to accept of it as true by certaine humane and prudent motiues or reasons which perswade him that such doctrine as is taught in the Church according to the rules of wisedome is credible and worthie of beliefe Such motiues among others are these which followe First that almost al Nations and in them an infinite number of men of greatest authority principal wit excellent vertue and profound learning haue so beleeeued Secondly that innumerable multitudes of people of al sortes sexes and ages vvho vvere most desirous to please God and knowe true religion and vvere exemplars or patterns of probity and sanctitie haue so earnestlie embraced it that they doubted not to preferre the profession of it before goodes liberty fame and life it selfe yea that they chose rather to loose al these and endure vvithal most cruel torments then to depart from it Thirdly that it doth as it vvere miraculouslie and by some diuine meanes change men although habituated in vice vpon the sodaine to be vertuous Fourthly that the propagation of it hath beene by diuine power which appeareth by this that a fewe vnlearned and vveake fisher-men teaching such thinges as are contrarie to flesh and bloud and aboue al reason haue ouercome not by force of armes but by preaching and suffering the vvisest most eloquent most noble and most potent men of the vvorld Finally that this religion hath beene confirmed by an infinite multitude of diuine miracles recorded by famous authors of al ages of vvhich if one only be confessed true Christian religion cannot be false By these and other such like reasons and argumentes which I haue rehearsed before according to the Psalme The testimonies of our Lord are first made vnto wel disposed people ouer or exceeding credible But although these of themselues may vvel make vs accept and beleeue the truth of Christian religion by a natural and humane kinde of beliefe such as the Deuil himselfe hath and is also in Heretikes concerning such articles which they truly beleeue yet can they not alone cause in vs an act of supernatural faith For this as I haue proued before being supernatural can not proceed from a natural cause without some supernatural helpe And vvhat then is done after this perswasion Verily God almighty yeeld eth vs his supernatural helpe and imparteth vnto our soule a diuine light of faith by which our vnderstanding is made more capable of things so high
priuate inspirations of the spirit And hence it is that the Prophet Ezechiel saith * Ezechielis 13. verse 3. August tract 45. in Ioan. Woe to the foolish Prophets who followe their owne spirit and see nothing Finally the auncient Heretikes as S. Augustine doth testifie boasted of such illuminations There are innumerable saith he who doe not only boast that they are videntes or Prophets but wil seeme to be illuminated or enlightened by Christ but are Heretikes And thus much against the infallible truth of illuminations in general Let vs nowe apply some of these general reasons to the knowledg of Scripture by illumination in particuler and also vrge them a litle further First therefore I demaund whether this illumination concerning the authority of Scriptures be common to al or particuler to some If common to al it consequentlie followeth that al men reading the Scriptures are thus infalliblie and super-naturally inspired of their truth but that al men are not thus generally and infallibly led to the knowledge of such diuine bookes it is apparant by our aduersaries dissention not only from the auncient fathers but also among themselues touching this very point For did none of the Fathers judge such bookes Canonical as al Protestants commonly reject it cannot be denied but they did for it is euident Field book 4. chap. 23. concil Carthag 3. canon sess 47. See also S. Aug. de praedest cap. 14. Cap. 8. sect 1. and plainely gathered out of Field himselfe that the third councel of Carthage in which as he truly saith S. Augustine was present numbred the bookes of Tobias Iudith Wisedome Ecclesiasticus and of the Machabees in the Canon Doe they also among themselues al admitte and reject the same bookes nothing lesse Luther and his Lutherans reject some which Caluin our English Protestants and others auouch to be Canonical and this shal at large be proued hereafter But they vvil say this inspiration is particular only to some that are enlightened by the spirit or as Caluin insinuateth only to the elect Caluī Instit book 1. chap. 7. § 5. and this seemeth to be their common opinion Against which I oppose first that of this would followe that there is no certaine rule in the Church whereby al men may come to a certaine knowledge of Gods word which assertion is verie absurd especially if the written vvord of God be the only rule of faith as they contend Secondly the Scripture yeeldeth vs no warrant for a diuine assurance of any such inspiration that there is any such in the Church They wil say that diuers sentences of the vvord of God plainely approue it but the contrary is already shewed and besides this is to fal into a circle by prouing the truth of Scriptures by diuine inspirations or illuminations and the truth of this againe by Scripture Thirdly it cannot be proued by Scripture that this inspiration if there be any such is particular to some and not common to al. Fourthly although we should grant this to some yet no man can by any warrant of Scripture or prudential ground assuredlie knowe that he hath such an inspiration especially considering first that diuers sectaries haue beene deceiued falsly pretended such inspirations as appeareth by their contrariety Nay I may further adde that either al Protestants are now deceiued in their judgement concerning certaine bookes or els that S. Augustine with the whole Councel of Carthage erred touching them in times past as appeareth by that which is said a litle before and no man wil deny but an error in either of these giueth a man just cause to mistrust his owne illumination For certaine it is that S. Augustine was guided by the spirit as farre forth as any Sectarie Secondly his judgement may also growe doubtful out of this that the same man may haue as they say a diuine inspiration touching one booke and be deceiued touching another Stocke and Whitakers in the answer to Duraeus the first reason pag. 48. for so saith Stocke out of Whitakers who telleth vs that Al thinges are not reuealed to al alike and that al haue not the same measure of the spiritte Out of vvhich he draweth an excuse of the Lutherans if they beleeued vvel of some and rejected not vvel other bookes of Scripture and this likewise seemeth to be gathered out of Caluin aboue cited Fiftlie others haue no meanes to knowe vvho receiueth such an inspiration and consequently it only profiteth the man himselfe who hath it and no other person this cannot be denied for Luther boasted of the spiritte as farre forth as Caluin yet they disagreed concerning the Canonical books and were of different faiths And what reason haue we either to graunt or deny this inspiration more to the one then to the other or vvhat arguments can be brought by the one which cannot be vsed by the other yea of this I infer further that neither of them had any such diuine inspiration for seeing that both were not inspired with the holy Ghost and one of them had no stronger proofes for his inspiration then the other we ought to giue no more credit to the one then to the other and seing that we cannot beleeue them both vve cannot according to reason credit either of them And in very deed neither of them is able to bring any certaine reason or authority able to perswade any other that he hath a supernatural inspiration shewing that this and that is holy scripture Finally of this whole opinion follow two other great inconueniences or absurdities first it giueth euery man licence to reject and admit books of holy Scripture out or into the Canon at his pleasure according to his fancy for there is no Sectary but may alleage the maiesty of the letter the euidence of thinges contained in it pure eies and perfect senses the light of grace or internal inspiration for the proof of his owne particuler opinion concerning canonical Scripture that with as great probability as any other Sectary be he Lutheran Sacramentary or of what other sect soeuer Neither can this refel him vnlesse they refute themselues In like sort if he deny these proofes to any book whatsoeuer no man can conuince him of error and of this may follow without any certainty almost as many opinions of this matter as there be heads Secondly by this allowance of an inspiration for the proofe of the letter of canonical Scripture the way is opened to the allowance of priuate inspiration also for the knowledg of the true sense and exposition of the same vvhich is denied by Field Field booke 4. chap. 16. and is in very deed a very fountaine of discord and confusion But what proofs can they bring for the one which cannot be applied to yea not aswel proue the other And these reasons as I imagine moued the authors before named to flie from this priuate inspiration to Tradition and the authority of the Church Vnto whome in my
judgment I may adde the whole Protestant Church of England who in their sixt article agreed vpon in their conuocations of the yeares 1562. and 1604. affirme that in the name of holy Scripture they vnderstand those Canonical books of the old and newe Testament of whose authority was neuer any doubt in the Church for they seeme to make the authoritie and Tradition of the Church the meane and rule vvhereby to knowe the diuine Scriptures Field booke 4. chap. 14. Yea Field himselfe in another place telleth vs that we cannot knowe the Scriptures to be of God without the knowledge of such principal articles as are contained im the Creed of the Apostles Of vvhich it may seeme laweful to conclude against him that some other thing is necessarie besides diuine inspiration and other motiues aboue by him assigned The Lutherans of Wittenberg confesse the Church to haue authority to judge of doctrines Harmonie of confess sect 10. p. 332. Author of the treatise of the scripture and the church c. 15. p. 72. see also c. 19. p. 74. 75. BulleÌ„ger in the praeface before that booke according to that Try the spirittes whether they be of God Another Protestant in a treatise of the Scripture and the Church highly commended by Bullenger plainely telleth vs that we could not beleeue the Gospel were it not that the Church taught vs and witnessed that this doctrine vvas deliuered by the Apostle and thus much against this opinion But it may be here objected against vs that we also according to the second opinion deliuered in the first part of this treatise concerning the last resolution of our faith allowe a supernatural gift or light by the concourse and help of vvhich vve firmely assent to Christian beliefe as reuealed by God and that therefore there is no cause wherefore we should so earnestly impugne the like assertion in others I answere that there is great difference betweene vs and our aduersaries concerning this point for whereas I haue shewed that they require a particular illumination and immediate instruction from God himselfe concerning euerie particuler booke and sentence of holy Scripture yea touching the exposition of euerie sentence as I vvil declare hereafter and by no prudential groundes or arguments of credibility are ordinarilie induced to this perswasion But seing that diuers of their owne company and those of the principal thinking themselues to be inspired haue erred haue rather according to prudence just cause not to stand vpon such illuminations We assigne the the light of faith for the beliefe of a common guide and general directour and so require not a particuler instruction for the beliefe of this and that particuler matter but hauing beleeued the said general guide of it receiue infallible and diuine instructions what particulerlie is to be beleeued Neither doe vve this vvithout any prudential motiue or credible reason but induced thereunto by most strong arguments of credibility Râ—chardus de S. Victore l. 1. de Trinit cap. 2. insomuch as vve may wel say with Richardus de sansto Victore that If we be deceiued God hath deceiued vs. Neither are vve by this perswaded arrogantlie to followe a priuate rule which is a fountaine of dissention and contrarie to the vsual proceedings of God but humblie to submit our selues and our vnderstanding to the authority of a general guide which is a preseruatiue of vnity and according to the common courses of that heauenlie King But before I passe from this matter I must needes haue a word or two with M. Field in particuler vvho requireth more then humane inducements or motiues as reasons by force whereof we are perswaded first to beleeue Field book 4. chap. 7. 8. and seemeth to require a diuine reason or testimonie conuincing that which is beleeued to be of diuine authoritie and so to impugne the first opinion of Catholikes concerning the last resolution of faith Part 1. chap. 7. sect 6. deliuered in the first part of this treatise For vvhereas the followers of that opinion assigne humane motiues as the first inducements to our beliefe or as causes vvhy we first accept of the same and bring no other external proofe that the misteries of our faith are reuealed by God book 4. chap. 8. § The opinion he exacteth of vs a diuine proofe of this these are his words The opinion of the ordinary Papists is that the things pertaining to our faith are beleeued because God reuealeth and deliuereth them to be so as we are required to beleeue but that we know not that God hath reuealed any such thing but by humane conjecture and probabilities so weake doe they make our faith to be grounded thus Field Concerning which his imputation I must first request my reader if he be any thing moued by these his words to turne to the explication and proofe of the Catholike opinion set downe before in the first part of this treatise Chapt. 7. sect 6. because I thinke it needlesse to repeate one thing twice Secondly I cannot but wish him also to note howe diuersly Field reporteth our opinions for although he plainly here affirme that our ordinary opnion is that the articles of our faith are beleeued because God reuealeth and deliuereth them to be so yet in another place he writeth thus Our aduersaries fal into two dangerous errors the first Booke 4. c. 6. that the authority of the Church is Regula fidei et ratio credendi the rule of our faith and the reason why we beleeue The second is that the Church may make newe articles of faith And like as he himselfe in the words euen now alleaged freeth vs from the first of these dangerous errours Book 4. chap. 12. § Our aduersaries so likewise in another place he freeth vs from the second But as concerning my present purpose out of his aforesaid wordes I gather that if he wil not fal into the same fault for vvhich he blameth vs he must not only assigne such a diuine formal cause of his beliefe concerning euery point as we teach the reuelation of God to be but also adde some diuine proofe prouing this formal reason to be diuine and not only humane probabilities And vvhat such diuine proofe doth he assigne surelie none that I can finde he telleth vs in deed that in some things the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto vs Book 4. chap. 8. § thus theÌ„ and in others the authority of God discerned to speake in the word of faith is the formal cause of their faith or inducing them to beleeue But I finde no diuine proofe no not so much as a wise reason I adde moreouer not so much as a foolish reason brought neither for the one nor for the other nay he expresly telleth vs Book 4. chap. 20. § Much coÌ„tention see also chapt 7. § Thus then Book 4. chap. 7. § Surely See hiÌ„ also § There is c. that The bookes of Scripture winne credit
it vsed the vvord congregation but in the later editions since that they began to haue a certaine forme of a Church this fault is amended Secondly to make weake the authority of Traditions vvheresoeuer in the Scripture speach is of euill Traditions they translate the Greeke vvord truly Traditions but when mention is of Apostolike Traditions they cannot endure this vvord but force the same Greeke vvord to signifie ordinances instructions preachings or institutions yea they translate Tradition in il part vvhere it is not found in the Greeke For example the Apostle saith Colos 2. vers 20. according to the Greeke Why doe you yet decree They translate Why are you yet ledde with traditions and in an other edition Bible 1600. 1595. Why are you yet burthened with traditions Thirdly against the honour of Images they translate the Greeke vvord vvhich signifieth Idolatrie and an Idolater worshipping of images and a worshipper of Images 2. Cor. 6 16. Coloss 3. v. 5. Ephes 5 5. Bible 1577. 1. Cor. 10. Bible 1562. thus they make the Apostle say Howe agreeth the Temple of God with Images couetousnesse is worshipping of Images bee not worshippers of Images c. I adde also that sometimes vvhen neither the vvord Idol nor Image is to be found in the text they thrust it in by force as Rom. 11. vers 4. in steede of Baal they translate Baals Image also 2. Paral. 36. ver 8. they adde these wordes carued Images which were laid to their charge to the text But al these faults are amended in the later editions Bible 1595. Gen. 1. v. 27. Exod. 25.3 Reg. 6. c. and not vvithout cause for if euery Image be an Idol and euery Idol an Image we may say that God created man according to his Idol we may cal such Images as were vsed in the old lawe Idols and finally tearme the Image or Picture of a man the Idol of a man vvhich kinde of speach is not tollerable Fourthly against Purgatory Limbus Patrum and the descent of Christ into hel they make the Hebrewe and Greeke vvordes vvhich signifie hel signifie graue as for example vvith Beza they read Act. 2. vers 27. Thou shalt not leaue my soule in the graue Psal 15. v. 10 Bible 1600. Bible 1595. 1600. See Parkes in his Apologie concerning Christs descēt into hel in his ans to Lim bomast printed an 1607 According to their account Psal 86.49 89 this likewise is corrected in the Bible of the yeare 1595. Also Gen. 37. v. 35. they make the Patriarke Iacob say I wil goe downe into the graue to my Sonne mourning vvhereas in like sort the Hebrewe and Greeke vvord signifieth hel and it is manifest that he could not thinke it possible that he should goe downe into the graue to his Sonne because he thought him deuoured of vvilde beastes not buried The same corruption is sound in diuers other places as Psalm 86. v. 13. vvhere they reade a Bible 1579. 1600. corrected in the Bible of the yeare 1595. Thou hast deliuered my soule from the lowest graue Psal 48. vers 15. vvhere they reade thou shalt deliuer my soule from the power of the graue Osee 13. vers 14. where they reade O graue I wil be thy destruction and in sundrie other places this notwithstanding in b See other such corruptions as these are recited and sharply reprehended by Carlile a man of the English Church in his booke that Christ went not downe into hel fol. 144. other places as Prouerb 15. ver 24. c. vvhere speach is of the hel of the damned they translate the same vvord hel Fiftly to bereaue the Saints of their honour vvhich from mortal men is due vnto them they falsly translate the 17. verse of the 138. Psalm For vvhereas we reade Thy friendes O God are become exceeding honourable their Princedome is exceedingly strengthned They turne it thus Bible 1595. Psal 138. Howe deare therefore are thy Councels vnto me O God O howe great is the summe of them But the Hebrewe maketh for our translation as euery man that vnderstandeth that tongue may see especially by the last vvordes vvhich vvord for vvord are thus to be translated Howe are the heades or Princedomes of them strengthned Againe Hebr. 11. vers 21. according to the Greeke vve reade by faith Iacob dying blessed euery one of the Sonnes of Ioseph and adored the toppe of his rodde Bible 1600. some thing better in the Bible 1595. Luke 1. v. 28. Bible 1600. 1595. They translate the last vvordes thus and leaning on the end of his staffe worshipped God In which translation they adde two vvordes to the text leaning and God and turne the sense vpsi-downe I adde also their translation of those vvordes Haile ful of grace for vvhich they reade Haile thou that art freely beloued and Haile thou that art in high fauour SECTION THE FIFT Of their corruptions against inherent Iustice Iustification by good workes Merit of good workes and keeping the Commandements and in defence of their special Faith vaine Security c. and against Freewil and Merits TO proue their imputatiue justice against inherent justice first vvhereas the Apostle saith Rom. 5. vers 18. Therefore as the offence of one vnto al men to condemnation so also by the justice of one vnto al men to justification of life Bible 1595. worse in the Bible 1600. they reade thus Likewise then as by the sinne of one sinne came on al men to condemnation euen so by the righteousnesse of one good came vpon al men to the righteousnesse of life In vvhich their translation they adde foure vvordes to the text of the Apostle to make him seeme to say that al men be truly sinners and none truly just but so reputed Ephes 1. vers 6. for gratified they reade Bible 1600. made accepted Luke 1. vers 28. for ful of grace they translate freely beloued and in high fauour Dan. 6. vers 22. vvhereas Daniel according to the Chaldee Greeke and Latin said Iustice was found in me they make him say Bible 1600. 1595. my justice or vnguiltinesse according to an other translation was found out before him The like corruption may be seene 2. Cor. 5. vers 21. To proue that good workes done in state of grace concurre not to our justification and that vve reape no grace by obseruing of the Commandements vvhereas the Scripture to signifie the Commandements of God vseth in diuers places the vvord justifications and justices because the keeping of the Commandements is justification and justice and the Greeke vvord is alwaies correspondent to the same they neuerthelesse in al such places suppresse the very name of justification and vse the vvordes ordinances or statutes Bible 1595. 1600. as may be seene in the Psalm 118. in diuers verses Luke 1. vers 6. Rom. 2. vers 26. c. To this end also they auoide in their translations the vvord just and cal a just
my judgement it is strange howe they confesse euery man although neuer so much enlightned to be subject to errour and yet euery one assureth himselfe hauing one no more warrant then an other that he is in the truth Finally this doctrine of diuine inspirations and illuminations gaue occasion to * Frederi Staphilus l. de cōcordia discipulorū Lutheri Petrus Palladius l. de haeresibus Caluī in Instructorio cōtra Libert cap. 9. Willet in his Synops controuer 1. q. 1. Muncerus and certaine Anabaptists his followers as also to the Zwenckfeldians and Libertines of their blaspheamous opinions For like as our Protestant aduersaries commonly flie to illuminations for the knowledge of the true text interpretation of holy Scripture so these men either because they found it vvritten that a 2. Cor. 3 6. the letter doth kil or because they thought the Scriptures not necessary seing that the holy Ghost is able to teach mens harts vvithout any vvritten letters rejected the Scriptures altogither and pretended only such illuminations of the spirit Hence also perhaps proceeded the dreames and visions of the Enthusiasts a famous sect of Anabaptists but of this no more SECTION THE FIFT Concerning their deductions out of holy Scripture that they likewise are framed by them according to their owne fancies and of their accusations of one another touching these matters IT is moreouer a thing most euident that in the deductions or collections of the articles of their faith and religion out of holy Scripture they are not only subject to errour but also that they followe their owne judgement and inclinations And this vvil appeare to any man that shal consider the same One deduction I vvil here set downe vvhich I my selfe haue heard some of them make which was this I vrged them to bring forth some authority out of the vvord of God for their keeping of the Sonday in steade of the Saturday and they alleaged as a sufficient proof of this matter those wordes of S. Iohn in the Apocalipse Apocal. 1 10. I was in spirit on the Dominical or as they say on the Lordes day And vvhat an insufficient deduction is this if vve set aside the authority and tradition of the Church vvhich they despise Howe doth this followe S. Iohn vvas in the spirit or had a reuelation on the Sonday therefore al Christians may lawfully worke on the saturday a day commanded by God himselfe both in the old and newe testament Exo. 20. c. Math. 19 17 if we follow the letter to be kept holy and obserue the Sonday I could bring a hundred more such examples and my reader may gather some out of that which hath beene already said in the first section of the seauenth Chapter I adde also for the proofe of this that their deductions out of the selfe same wordes be diuers and opposite for euery sect like as it hath a particular and proper forme of faith so hath it peculiar and proper deductions out of the text of holy Scripture This cannot be denied because the collections of the Lutherans Zwinglians English Protestants Caluinists or Puritans Anabaptists Libertines differ from one another as their beliefe is different And to giue one instance or two but yet to omit the knowne different collections vvhich are found among Lutherans and Sacramentaries Doe not some Lutherans gather out of Scripture a necessity of good vvorkes See colloquiū Altenbergēse others that such vvorkes are not necessary a Bishop Barlow of Rochester in his sermon Whitgift others Doe not also some Sacramentaries as our English Protestants out of scripture deduce their gouernement of the Church by Bishops others as the Puritans their gouernement by Elders Doe not finally b Caluins Institut booke 2 chap. 16. ver 10.11.12 in Math. 26. 27. Willet in his Synopsis controuers 20. Caluin Willet and others gather out of scriptures that Christ suffered in soule the paines of hel which by others is disalowed And doe not the followers of one part of these collections condemne them of the other either as Heretikes or as Schismatikes or as Blaspheamers These thinges are most certaine Of which I inferre that al these sectaries deductions cannot be found but some must needes frame them according to their owne fancies And seing that vve haue no infallible reason according to their groundes to approue the one of them before another vve may vvith like reason condemne them al as hauing no other ground as they are by them maintained then humane judgement and vnderstanding In defence of the Lutherans of Wittenberge both concerning the proofe of the letter and interpretation of holy Scripture and also touching deductions out of the same it may perhaps be said by some man Harmony of cōfess sect 10 pa. 332. 333. Confess Wittenb art 32. that they hold the Church hath authority to beare witnesse off and interpret holy Scripture as likewise to judge of al doctrines according to that Try the spirits whither they be of God and let the other judge Yea they adde that shee hath receiued of her husband Christ a certaine rule to wit the Prophetical and Apostolical preaching confirmed by miracles from heauen according to the which shee is bound to interpret those places of the Scripture which seeme to be obscure and to judge of doctrines I answere and confesse that in very deede this is their doctrine vvhich maketh not a little against the dreames and inspirations of their bretheren but this can make no infallible ground according to their assertions for they make both the Church and tradition subject to errour and consequently if vve beleeue them no man can build vpon their authority an act of diuine and supernatural faith Finally hence it proceedeth that our aduersaries themselues accuse and censure one an other to be corrupters of scripture falsifiers and liers If vve beleeue * Luth. epist ad Ioan. Heruagium typographum Argentinens Luther the Sacramentaries beganne their opinion of the Sacrament with lies and with lies they doe defend it and they broached it abroade by the vvicked fraude of corrupting other mens workes If Caluin Caluin admonit 3. ad Westphalum Caluin in defens de Sacram p. 1085 the Lutherans are nothing else but forgers and falsifiers and of Westphalus in particular he vvriteth thus Westphalus as though he were I knowe not what Comical Iupiter carrying Minerua in his braine putteth boldly vpon al his fictions the visard of the word of God if it had not beene nowe an old thing and commonly knowne that the false Prophets did so much the more gloriously pretend the name of God by howe much the further they were from him by these frights and scar-crowes he would peraduenture doe something The word of God doth confidently sound againe and againe in his mouth but in word only And soone after This prophane man doth filthily abuse at his pleasure the sacred sentences no otherwise then Magitians doe wrest holy
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
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
they appointed Bishops vnto whome they conueied it Secondly that the Church of Christ succeeding would not admit any other but Bishops to that businesse as not justifiable for the Presbiters I vse his wordes either by reason example or scripture And hauing proued it concerning reason touching example he telleth vs that c C. 3. not one is to be shewed through the whole story Ecclesiastical that any besides a Bishop did it and that if some of the inferiour ranke presumed to doe it his act was reuersed by the Church for vnlawful which he proued by an example As for scripture he auoucheth there is none either of holy men or of the holy Ghost which doth giue such authority to Presbiters for al the fathers saith he with one consent doe contradict it And among others he alleageth S. Ambrose affirming that it is consonant neither with Gods nor mans lawe that any besides a Bishop should doe it Of the scriptures he writeth thus No scripture of the holy Ghost either anagogically by consequent or directly by precept doth justifie it For analogie none but the Apostles did it or might doe it as before you heard not directly for to what Presbiter was the authority committed as a Presbiter c. Thus the Bishop of Rochester plainely contradicteth the other two English Protestant doctors And hence it manifestly appeareth that either the said Bishop erreth in denying this power to Priests or that the said Doctors are false in yeelding it vnto them and consequently it is plaine that some English sectaries fal into error Moreouer seeing that the Bishop conuinceth by such good proofes the truth of his assertion and the said two Doctors confesse some of their Churches to haue no other Pastors but such as were ordered by Priests or Presbiters it is euen as apparant that such their Churches are in very truth no true Church But it is nowe high time that I end my discourse touching this point yea that I conclude this my preface Being therefore the truth of mine accusation that the learned sectaries as Luther Zwinglius Caluin and others haue notoriously and grosly erred is so euidently demonstrated by a fewe instances which I haue related among diuers others which I haue omitted let me nowe demand of my christian reader what reason he hath to ground the euerlasting estate of his soule either vpon the judgment of his learned masters or vpon his owne And first concerning his learned masters he can not deny but they haue al erred in some point or other and doth not an errour in one thing proue a possibilitie of erring in others of like sort But haue his captaines any further vvarrant concerning one article then touching an other They haue not vvithout al doubt Howe doth he then knowe that they haue not erred in al points in which they dissent from the ancient beliefe of al Christians their predecessours He vvil perhaps answere that he knoweth wel they erre not touching this and that although their opinions be neuer so erroneous touching other points Loe nowe he referreth al to his owne judgement I joine therefore here with him and first I aske vvhat more strong vvarrant he hath that he cannot erre then had his learned masters Is he comparable to them either in wit learning piety or dignity of vocation If he be not then he is much more subject to errour then they vvho notwithstanding haue grosly and palpably erred I adde also that he taketh vpon him ouer-much in judging of such high matters and in censuring his learned Doctors when they say true and when they erre Moreouer I thinke there is no man liuing which hath not in some thinges or others altered his judgement and varied from himselfe insomuch as he hath deemed false some thinges vvhich once seemed to him true and judged others true which once he thought false vvhich if it be so vvhat wiseman in matters of so great moment as are his faith and religion vvil trust his owne judgement For vvherefore may not he erre in one point as vvel as in an other Nowe if he doe erre in matters pertaining to faith and religion vvhat wil be come of his soule euerlastingly if he doth not alter his course But howsoeuer it be euery follower of the newe religion for the reasons assigned hath just cause to mistrust the truth of his owne beliefe or vvhich is yet lesse not to be so peremptory and obstinate in his faith that he vvil not vvith indifferency heare or reade any thing that maketh against it which is as much as I nowe craue of my curteous Reader A CATALOGVE OF THE PRINCIPAL COVNCELS WHICH WERE CELEBRATED WITHIN THE FIRST SIX HVNDRED YEARES AFTER THE BIRTH OF OVR LORD as also of the holy Fathers and most famous Ecclesiastical vvriters vvho flourished vvithin the said tearme of yeares gathered out of the workes of Cardinal BARONIVS and other approued Authours A AFricanum Concilium celebrated anno 403. Agathense Concilium celebrated anno 506. Agathias Hystoricus flourished anno 566. Alexander 1. Papa suffered anno 131. Ambrosius Episcopus Mediolan died an 397. Amphylochius Iconij Episcopus flourished an 394. Ancyranum Concilium celebrated an 314. Andegauense Concilium celebrated an 453. Antiochenum Conciliabulum celebrated an 341. Antisidiorense Concilium celebrated an 590. Antonius Abbas died an 358. Aquileiense Concilium celebrated an 381. Arator Subdiaconus flourished an 544. Aransicanum Concilium 1. celebrated an 441. Aransicanum Concilium 2. celebrated an 463. Arelatense Concilium 1. celebrated an 314. Arelatense Concilium 2. celebrated about the yeare 330. Arelatense Concilium 3. celebrated an 453. Arnobius Rhetor flourished an 302. Athanasius Episcopus died an 372. Aruernense Concilium celebrated an 541. Augustinus Episcopus Doctor died an 430. Auitus Viennensis died about the yeare 516. Aurelianense Concilium 1. celebrated an 507. Aurelianense Concilium 2. celebrated an 536. Aurelianense Concilium 3. celebrated an 540. Aurelianense Concilium 4. celebrated about the yeare 545. Aurelianense Concilium 5. celebrated an 552. B BArcionense Concilium celebrated an 599. Basilius Episcopus Doctor died an 378. Benedictus Abbas died an 543. Boaetius Senator died an 526. Bracharense Concilium 1. celebrated an 563. Bracharense Concilium 2. celebrated an 572. Brennacense Concilium celebrated an 583. Bicharensis Abbas flourished an 590. Byacenum Concilium celebrated an 541. C CAbilonense Concilium celebrated an 582. Caesarius Gregorij Frater died about the yeare 368. Caesarius Arelatensis died an 544. Caesar augustanum Concilium 1. celebrated an 381. Caesar augustanum Concilium 2. celebrated an 592. Carpetoradense Concilium celebrated about the yeare 463. Carthaginense Concilium 1. celebrated an 348. Carthaginense Concilium 2. celebrated an 435. Carthaginense Concilium 3. celebrated an 397. Carthaginense Concilium 4. celebrated an 398. Carthaginense Concilium 5. celebrated an 398. Carthaginense Concilium 6. celebrated an 401. Carthaginense Concilium 7. celebrated about the yeare 416 Carthaginense aliud celebrated about the yeare 418. Cassianus Monachus flourished an 433.
treatise which I intend I wil adde only a word or two of the manner of the nourishing of our bodies To make the foode which we receiue fit for our stomacke we haue in our mouthes two sortes of teeth some sharpe to deuide it others something flatte or plaine to grinde it with the tongue we remoue it from place to place when it is sufficiently chawed through the throate it is conueied into the stomacke where as in a pot or caldron by the heate of the hart and liuer it is boiled and brought al to one kinde of substance from thence the purest and best part thereof by subtil and smal passages is conueied to the liuer the grossest part which is not fit for nutriment is cast out at the fundament The liuer hauing receiued the said substance boileth it againe and turneth it into bloud that which is superfluous it sendeth it to other places as to the spleene and gal the rest it disperseth by the vaines throughout the whole body which is partly turned into flesh and bones a part of it is sent to the hart which being there purified is turned into vital spirits some is sent to the braine and turned into other spirits which we cal animales These considerations are sufficient to perswade euery man that there is one supreame God of infinite power and wisedome who hath created and most wisely and sweetely disposed al thinges Hence the Prophet Dauid cried out unto God in the Psalme Psal 103. ver 24. Howe high or wonderful O Lord are thy workes thou hast made al thinges in wisdome the earth is filled with thy possession or riches Surely if we looke into the nature and condition of any one creature whatsoeuer we shal not only see Eccles 3. ver 14. Galen lib. 3. de vsu partium lib. 5. Psal 99. vers 3. that as the wiseman saith we cannot adde to or take anythinge from the creatures of God and that God as Gallen the prince of al phisitions although a Pagan confesseth hath adorned and beautified the creatures of this world better then by any arte possible it could haue beene imagined but also if we demande of each creature who made it it wil seeme to make answere God made me and I made not my selfe according as the Psalme saith of vs men He made vs and we made not our selues Some Atheist perhaps wil say that al creatures are thus framed and ordered not by any supreame gouernor hauing vnderstanding and power to effect such matters but by chance I reply that like as it is impossible that a number of letters or charecters cast togither without any order of sillables wordes or sentences should make a perfect booke containing most wise learned and methodical discourses so it is impossible that the world should be so exquisitely ordered and thinges so ordained one to another by chance without the wisdome and disposition of almighty God And this confutation of this fond assertion was vsed longe since by Cicero an Ethnicke Wherefore Cicero lib. 3. de natura Deorum like as euery man would worthely account him a foole that should say that a booke containing wise and orderly discourses was made by chance by the casting togither of diuers charecters or letters or that a house most curiously and artificially built was made without the handy worke of any artificer by the accidentary concourse of stones morter timber and other such like stuffe so we may wel esteeme him a foole and voide of al reason and vnderstanding who denyeth that the world was created and ordered by almighty God Hence the Psalme saith The foole said in his hart Ps 13. v. 1 there is no God And note it is not said he said with his mouth but in his hart to signifie that this assertion is so absurde ridiculous and blasphemous that a foole although he thinke it true in his hart yet may be ashamed to vtter it with his mouth To the arguments already brought for the proofe of this matter I adde that this truth is manifestly deliuered vnto vs in the holy Scriptures in which is contained the history of the creation of the world by God and diuers other euident proofes are found of the being of his diuine Majesty This no Atheist wil or can denie But al of them answere that the Scriptures containe but fables and are of no authority I reply that it may easily be shewed that the authority of these diuine bookes ought to be great in any wisemans judgement in the world It is proued by diuers learned authors first by their antiquity for no volumes in the world are so auncient as the bookes of Moyses and consequently we may inferre that Moyses himselfe the first writer receiued the true history of those thinges which were done before his owne dayes by succession and tradition from his predecessors for which it maketh that Abraham the father of the Iewes might wel haue seene Sem the sonne of Noe Of other thinges he was an eie witnesse himselfe Secondly it is proued by the verity of diuers prophesies contained in the holy Scriptures which were fulfilled longe after that the bookes themselues were written which is a manifest demonstration that such thinges were foretold by God who only knoweth and can certainely fortel thinges contingent and depending of mans free wil of which it followeth that such prophesies and the bookes in which they are found were written by diuine inspiration Thirdly it is declared by the wonderful consent of al these bookes for although they were penned by diuers men in diuers places vpon diuers occasions and at sundry times yet no one of them containeth any one thinge contrary to the other Gre. praefat in Iob. Of which S. Gregory wel inferreth that the writers handes were the pennes of the holy Ghost The same is likewise demonstrated by the test mony of diuers miracles which haue beene wrought alwayes in the world for the confirmation of the doctrine which is taught vs in these bookes by the miraculous preseruation of them throughout al ages by the admirable consent of the seauenty two Interpreters which were appointed by Ptólomie King of Aegipt to translate them and sundrie other reasons which I cannot stand to relate Neither doe the miracles and prophesies aboue said and al other such like effects and actions only confirme the authority of the holy Scriptures but also euidently proue that there is a God who only is omnipotent and can worke effects surpassing the power and vertue of natural and created agents Such miracles and prophesies cannot be denied to haue beene found in the world in al ages of which we haue any large recordes except we wil obstinately reject the authority and testimony of al men I may joyne to this that although God be but one in essence yet he is three in persons for although the diuine essence be but one most pure and simple substance not deuided yet the selfe same is in three distinct
persons the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost who are equal and consubstantial one to the other and in euery place by their essence presence and power This is proued by Diuines because God must needes vnderstand and loue himselfe of his vnderstanding the Sonne is begotten of his wil of which is loue proceedeth the holy Ghost And although during the lawe of Moyses and in al former ages this high mistery for some respects especially for feare least that men in those weake daies of the Trinity of persons should inferre three Gods was something concealed from the vulgar sort of people yet it was knowne and beleeued by the learned and is manifestly expressed in the old Testament it selfe see Genes 1. vers 26. where God speaketh in the plural number Let vs make man c. Genes 18. ve 2. where Abraham sawe our Lord as three and adored and spoke vnto one in the singular number Psal 32. vers 6. where the heauens are said to haue beene made firme by the worde of our Lord and al their power by the spirit of his mouth Isa 6. vers 3. where the Scraphins are said to haue cried vnto God holy holy holy vsing the word holy thrice The like testimonies are Isa 34. vers 16. chap. 48. vers 16. chap. 61. vers 1. and in diuers other places wherefore this was acknowledged by the learned a Rabbi Ib ba. in ca. 6 Deâ—ter Rabbi Abbi in Thr. Rabb Ha cadas in c. 9. Isai Paraphras cald in ca. 45. Isai Rab. Abi. Nuzielin Psal 2. Rabbines of the Iewes before the comming of Christ The b Sibil apud Lact. li 4 diuin instit cap. 6. Mercur Tres Dialog Prin. Plat Plótinus li. de tribus hipostas Sibils likewise made mention of it and some of the auncient Heathen Philosophers And thus much of this matter SECTION THE SECOND Almighty God hath care of worldly affaires and ruleth al thinges by his diuine prouidence OTHER Atheists there be who although they confesse that there is a God yet they bereaue him of his diuine prouidence and make him altogither carelesse of worldly affaires and consequently attribute the successe of al matters to fortune and policie These also are easilie confuted by diuers arguments conuincinge them of falsehood and blasphemie And first thus I argue If God hath no prouidence and care of worldly matters either it is because he is not able to discharge that office or else because he refuseth and wil not vndertake the same for no other cause can be assigned but either of these assertions ouerthroweth his diuine nature as is manifest therefore we must needes confesse that by his prouidence he gouerneth the world That the first is contrary to the nature of God it is apparant because God is present in euery place his power also and his wisedome and knowledge is infinite and consequently by reason of his presence he is absent from no creature by reason of his infinite power he is able to doe al thinges and cannot be wearied by reason of his infinite wisedome he knoweth howe al thinges are to be done and he cannot be ouercharged with the multitude of businesses by reason of his infinite knowledge he knoweth the nature and necessities of al creatures and whosoeuer affirmeth the contrary denieth God to be God It appeareth likewise that he is able to vndertake this gouernement by the discourse of the first Section For who wil denie but he that created al thinges in such admirable order is able also to gouerne and haue prouidence ouer the same Hence are these wordes of the Prophet Isay Isa 40. vers 28. God the euerlasting Lord who created the boundes of the earth wil not fainte nor labour neither is there any meane to search out or comprehend his wisdome thus the Prophet The second likewise is repugnant to the nature of God who is infinitely good for if it be the part of a Prince if he obtaine or institute a Kingdome or common wealth to gouerne the same and the neglect of this doth impeach his credit in euery honest or moral mans judgement howe can we say that God who is goodnes itselfe refuseth to haue any prouidence or care ouer the world by him created doth it not appertaine to a creator to preserue and gouerne his worke what workeman neglecteth the excellent workemanship of his handes Hence S. Ambrose affirmeth Ambr. lib. 1. offic ca. 13. that it were great inclemency or cruelty in God not to haue care ouer those thinges which he hath made And of this reason I inferre that it is euen as absurd and blasphemous to denie the prouidence of almighty God as to denie his being for whosoeuer denieth the first impugneth the second because if the denial of this prouidence be prejudicial either to the power or goodnesse of God it is manifest that it is also prejudicial to his nature which must needes be of infinite power and goodnesse This prouidence may likewise be proued by the first creation and constitution of the world for seing that God then out of his infinite wisedome and goodnes as I haue before declared ordained one thing to another and prouided sufficiently for the necessities of al sortes of creatures seing also that his nature remaineth the same it may wel be inferred and supposed that he continueth alwaies the same care But like as among other creatures he had an especial regard of man in the creation of the world for besides that he prouided necessaries for his foode and apparel for him also he produced the beauty and sweete smelles of flowres the pretious stones muske diuers sortes of spices hearbes and rootes medecinable yron lead tinne siluer gold and other sortes of mettals sugar-canes which yeeld vs sugar silke-wormes c. For man also he gaue the loadstone that quality that the needle which it toucheth turneth alwaies to the North poole So likewise it is euident that the eie of Gods prouidence doth principally behold him Moreouer the sodaine change and alteration of worldly estates as the sodaine ruine of most potent empires kingdomes coÌ„mon wealthes cities and the ouerthrowe of armies in the opinion of men inuincible which empires kingdomes common wealthes cities and armies hauing bin miraculously conquered by a few farre inferior to themselues in strength are most firme arguments of the prouidence of God So likewise is the strange punishment of wicked men and tyrants and the reward of the good not seldome in this world recorded in al histories but especially in the old Testament which the greatest Atheist in the world cannot denie to be of great authority for there we may read that the Iewes as long as they serued God enjoyed prosperity and contrariewise when they forsooke him fel into aduersity a thousand calamities The same may be confirmed by diuers prophesies both of holy Scripture the Sibils and others foretelling such thinges vnto men as could not be foreseene in natural causes The like argument
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
forced to acknowledge that the Church hath authority to prescribe orders for her gouernement vvhich euery one is bound to obey Yea Field Hutton and Gabriel Powel seeme to make the constitutions of the Church equal vvith those of the Apostles For the first of them auoucheth that both thinges which c Field booke 4. chap. 20. § that the Apostles the Apostles themselues deliuered by tradition and also such thinges as were deliuered by their next after-commers are dispensable by the authority of the Church And howe so if the Church hath not Apostolike authority surely his reason assigned is because the Apostles and Apostolike men did not deliuer them as reporting the immediate preceptes of Christ himselfe but by vertue of their Pastoral power and office of vvhich it seemeth plainely to followe that he yeelding the Church authority to dispense in them giueth her equal Apostolike power Hutton in his answ to a treatise of the Crosse in baptisme pag. 3. and 59. see also pag. 9. Hutton affirmeth Ecclesiastical constitutions made by the Church of Christ not to be meerely humane but in part diuine And the reason is saith he because the Church is ruled by the spirit of Christ who is the truth Againe if you make your comparison betweene that which God hath commanded and that which the Church of God hath ordained the difference is not so great as you would haue it Let Gods commandement haue worthily the first place and preheminence in al thinges as is meete but let the ordinances of the Church be immediately subordinate vnto Gods commandement and ranged in a second place not only because the Church of God heareth his voice but also because she is ruled by his spirit and by the great and pretious promises of God is made partaker of the diuine nature which no doubt doth assist them euen in the lawes also and constitutions which are made for order and decency in the Church Hitherto are Huttons vvordes Powels wordes are these Those Adiophora or thinges indifferent Gabriel Powellus in the sibus de Adiaphoris ca. 2. §. 7. 8 which are wel and lawfully instituted and approued by the Church are after such sort humane as they are also diuine and therefore they haue authority more then only humane yea they haue authority altogether diuine The reason is because the Church is gouerned by the spirit of Christ who is truth Againe * Ibid. cap. 3. §. 6. 7 God left it in the power and wil of the Chruch to dispose and ordaine for her owne conseruation profit comlinesse order and discipline al thinges indifferent ceremonies and external rites which manifestly appeareth out of the holy Scriptures themselues to haue beene true of the primatiue Church in the Apostles daies neither can any man denie it to be true of the present Church For seing that it is the same spirit gouerning the Church of al times why may it not likewise be lawful for the Church to institute lawes concerning external rites in times ensuing Thus Powel And out of these assertions of our aduersaries I thinke a prudent man wil wel inferre that our doctrine concerning the infallible judgement of the Church in matters of faith euen according to their proceedinges is very reasonable and consonant to holy Scripture For seing that vnitie and consent in faith is farre more necessary then vnity and consent in ceremonies and positiue ordinances for gouernement vve may truly affirme that Christ vvas more careful for the preseruation of the first then of the second Seing further that the reasons and authorities of holy Scripture by them brought and generally al the promises of our Lord concerning the direction of the Church make as much nay commonly more for the first then for the second for they are principally concerning direction in truth we doe followe reason and the holy Scripture in maintaining the first if they are not to be blamed for their maintenance of the second Seing moreouer that Field and Powel giue the present Church in al ages as great authority as it had the Apostles yet liuing and they vvere then not only ordainers of positiue lawes and orders but also infallible propounders of true doctrine and directors in matters of beleefe we haue no reason according to their ground to denie this prerogatiue to the same Church in al future times Seing finally that the Puritans denie the collection or deduction of either of these prerogatiues out of the Scripture and the Protestants auerre the plaine deduction of one and for this the Puritans condemne the Protestants we may wel imagine that the Puritans may erre in denying both and that the Protestants are to graunt the one as wel as the other and consequently that the Catholike truth should be imbraced by al. SECTION THE FIFT 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 ascension or since the Apostles daies but vnto the present Church of al ages BEFORE I end this chapter I thinke it not amisse to confute two or three opinions of our aduersaries of which al seeme in some sort to derogate from the truth of those thinges which I haue here auerred and to weaken their principal proofes Booke 4. chap. 1. 2. 3. 5. 13. The one is of M. Field who telleth vs that we may speake of the Church three manner of waies First as it comprehendeth al the faithful that are and haue beene since Christ appeared in flesh including also the Apostles Secondly as it comprehendeth al that are and haue beene since the Apostles time Lastly as it comprehendeth those only that are liuing at one present time in the world In the first signification he freeth it from ignorance and errour concerning matters of faith in the second from errour only and in the third not from errour in al articles of beleefe but in such only as euery man is bound expresly to knowe and beleeue wherefore Chap. 5. he applieth that promise of Christ aboue mentioned that the holy Ghost should teach the Church al truth to the Church in the first and second signification Another assertion is that the present Church may be said at al times to be the piller of truth and not to erre because it retaineth alwaies as Field speaketh a sauing profession of heauenly truth that is Chap. 4. §. the Church Field booke 3. chap. 4. and 3. true doctrine concerning al such principal pointes as are the substance of faith and needful to be knowne beleeued expresly by euery man Hence they assigne some such principal points and articles which they binde euery person to knowe and beleeue vnder peril of eternal damnation and deny asmuch as the virtual beleefe of others to be necessary which I place as a third absurd opinion To confute these assertions and to cleere the truth
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
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
doubtful authority For it is recorded by Ecclesiastical vvriters and also confessed by our aduersaries that there hath beene controuersie and doubt in the Church concerning the authority of the b Euseb li. 3. hist ca. 3. 25. 28. Hier. de viris illust in Paulo Petro c. Hāmer in his notes vpon Eusebius lib. 2. cap. 23. epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrues the epistles of S. Iames S. Iude the second of S. Peter and the second of S. Iohn Howe doubtful the authority of the c Euse l. 3. cap. 28. Hier. epist 129. ad Dardarā Apocalipse was among many euery man may see in S. Hierome and Eusebius and in the Councel of Laodicea which numbred it not among other Canonical bookes And who hath taken vp and ended these controuersies by declaring these parcels of Scripture to be Canonical but our holy mother the Church Verily this is so true and euident that it is confessed euen by some of our d Obseruations vpon the Harmonie of cōfessions vppon the 1. Section aduersaries themselues Thus she receiued in the first general councel of Nice the booke of Iudith about the yeare of our Lord 325. if we beleeue e Hier. praefat in Iud. Idē in prolo Galeato in prol Prouer. in praefat in Iudith S. Hierome who before he heard of this decree of the said Councel rejected the said booke but vnderstanding of it admitted it forthwith as Canonical Let vs confirme al this with the testimony of S. Augustine whome f Caluin li. 4. Instit c. 14. sess 25 Caluin acknowledgeth to be the most faithful witnes of al antiquity g Beza in cap. 3. ad Rom. v. 12. Beza calleth him the prince of al ancient Diuines both Greeke and Latin as concerning dogmatical pointes of religion h Gomarus in speculo verae Ecclesiae pag. 96. Gomarus saith that according to the common opinion he is accounted most pure This then is one of his notable sentences touching this matter i Aug. contra epistol Manichaei quam vocant fundamentum cap. 5. I would not beleeue the Gospel saith he except the authority of the Catholike Church did moue me thereunto Those therefore whome I obeied saying Beleeue ye the Gospel why shal I not obey them saying vnto me Beleeue thou not Manichaeus Choose which thou wilt If thou shalt say beleeue the Catholikes they admonish me that I beleeue not you If thou shalt say beleeue not the Catholikes thou shalt not doe wel to constraine me by the Gospel to beleeue Manichaeus because I haue beleeued the Gospel it selfe through the preaching of the Catholikes Thus S. Augustine But here k Field booke 4. chap. 4. M. Field in his fourth booke of the Church occurreth and saith that the sense and meaning of S. Augustine in those his wordes I would not beleeue the Gospel except the authority of the Church did moue me thereunto is that he had neuer beleeued the Gospel if the authority of the Church had not beene an introduction vnto him I reply that he vvresteth this holy Fathers vvordes to a vvrong sense yea to such a sense as his discourse it selfe wil not beare and for proofe of this I desire no more of my reader but to marke the force of the reason vsed by S. Augustine which is this Manichaeus in the beginning of his epistle which this most learned Doctor confuteth called himselfe an Apostle of Iesus Christ S. Augustine requireth a proofe of his Apostleship and vrgeth if perhaps he alleage some authority out of the Gospel what he would doe to him that should deny the Gospel whereunto he adjoineth the wordes rehearsed I trulie would not beleeue the Gospel c. if the authority of the Church did not moue me thereunto And out of this that the Gospel is beleeued by the authoritie of the Church he proueth that Manichaeus is not to be beleeued because the same authoritie which commaundeth to doe the one forbiddeth to doe the other Of which it followeth that if it erre in the last it may also erre in the first and so no firme argument can be brought out of it for the proofe of the Apostleship of Manichaeus Hence S. Augustine doth not say I had not beleued the Gospel except the authority of the Church had moued me thereunto as he should haue said if he had meant as Field pretendeth but I would not beleeue the Gospel c. taking his argument from the motiue of his present beliefe of the Gospel and in this sence his reason is of great force and not otherwise But that which I say is yet more confirmed by that which followeth For S. Augustine addeth But if peraduenture thou canst finde something in the Gospel most apparant for the Apostleship of Manichaeus thou shalt weaken vnto me the authority of the Catholikes who commaund me that I shal not beleeue thee which being weakned now neither can I beleeue the Gospel because through them I beleeued it So whatsoeuer thou shalt bring me from thence shal be with me of no force wherefore if nothing manifest be found in the Gospel for the Apostleship of Manichaeus I wil beleeue the Catholikes rather then thee But if thou bring any thing from thence manifest for the Apostleship of Manichaeus I wil neither beleeue them nor thee not them because they haue lied to me concerning thee not thee also because thou bringest me forth that Scripture which I beleeued through them whome I haue found liars But God forbid that I should not beleeue the Gospel Hitherto are S. Augustines words by which I thinke euerie man may perceiue how greatly M. Field doth wrong him For we see plainly that he confesseth the authority of the Church to haue beene the cause of his present beliefe of Scripture yet not the formal cause but the conditional as is declared before And al that I haue here related out of this holy Father Aug. tom 6. li. cont Epist quā vocāt fundamenti cap. 5. may be as wel vrged against any Sectarie whatsoeuer of our time as against Manichaeus for whosoeuer affirmeth the Church to haue erred in condemning any one of their Heresies by weakning and ouerthrowing her authoritie weakeneth also and ouerthroweth the authoritie of the whole Bible Neither doth that which he alleageth out of Waldensis make any waies for him for as this learned man plainely in that very place declareth he vnderstandeth S. Augustine as I haue deliuered These are his wordes Waldensis lib. 2. doctrinalis fidei artic 2. ca. 21. Without the authority of the vniuersal Church no scripture can be read or bad for certaine And this S. Augustine vnderstood when he said I would not beleeue the Gospel did not the authority of the Church moue me thereunto Thus Waldensis The point which Field toucheth is in his discourse following but it maketh nothing against vs for he only saith that which I haue before deliuered to wit that by the proposition of
the Church we first come to a certaine and supernatural knowledge of such bookes as are Canonical and then beleeue the verities in them contained because they are reuealed by God like as the Samaritans first beleeued through the relation of the woman with whom our Sauiour talked Iob. ca. 4. ver 39. c. as the propounder of such things as she had heard of our Lord afterward through the diuine speeches which he vsed to them himself That which Field saith before that S. Augustine according to the opinion of some Diuines speaketh here of the church taken for the whole number of beleeuers that are and haue beene since Christ appeared in the flesh so including the Apostles is friuolous both because S. Augustine neuer vsed the wordes Catholike Church after this sort in that sense and also because the argument had beene of no force See S. August in li. 23. cōtra Faustum cap. 9. vnto which I adde further that S. Augustine speaketh of that Church which commaunded him then not to beleeue Manichaeus which was the presēt Church as appeareth Neither can he as I think alleage any Diuine that euer so interpreted it For that which he citeth in the margent out of Occam is very impertinent and thus much of this testimony of S. Augustine Hieron in simbolo ad Damasum S. Hierome likewise auoucheth himselfe to receiue the old and new Testament in that number of books which the authority of the holie Catholike Church doth deliuer And this reason so infallibly proueth that these diuine bookes containe the true word of God that euery one may most assuredly beleeue it For her censure and declaration cannot be false who by God himselfe is warranted from errour Finally vnto this principal and inuincible argument I might also adde the tradition of the Church and one consent of holy Fathers who haue deliuered to their successors and confirmed by their testimony that these holy bookes were penned by the instinct of the holy Ghost which argument of tradition for the proofe of Canonical bookes was vsed by Serapion Clemens Alexandrinus and Origenes as Eusebius recordeth Eusebius li. 6. hist cap. 10. 11. 18. But this argument is almost the same with the former for the certainty of the tradition of the Church and of the testimony of the ancient fathers dependeth of this that the Church cannot erre For if we make her judgement subject to errour her tradition and the whole consent of fathers may likewise be erroneous but supposing the Church cannot erre this argument is of as great force but almost the same with the first And hence I inferre against our aduersaries that no bookes of the old and newe Testament receiued by the Church as canonical are to be rejected for seing that the same authority hath approued them al they are al with like reason to be admitted neither hath any man more reason to reject one then another And thus much of the letter of holy Scripture SECTION THE SECOND Concerning the sense or exposition of holy Scriptures and first that the Scriptures are hard and receiue diuers interpretations BVT a farre greater controuersie there is betweene vs and the new Sectaries concerning the true sence and interpretation of holie Scripture vvho is the judge thereof and of vvhome vve are to receiue it For the decision of vvhich difficultie before I deliuer the Catholike opinion I must briefly proue two or three conclusions auerred also by vs Catholikes And first that the Scriptures are hard and admit diuers interpretations This is insinuated vnto vs in sundry places of the sacred bookes but for breuities sake 2. Pet. 3. vers 16. Aug tom 2. epistola 119. ad Ia nu ca. vlt. I wil content my selfe with one testimony of S. Peter who telleth vs that in S. Paules epistles There are certaine thinges hard to be vnderstood which the vnlearned saith he and vnstable depraue as also the rest of the Scriptures to their owne perdition The holy Fathers plainly affirme the same Among the rest S. Augustine although a man of rare wit and great learning affirmed that there were far more things in the Scriptures of which he was ignorant then there were that he knewe Idem tom 3. li. 2. de doctrina Christiana cap. 6. Idē epist 3. see him also epist 1. ad Volusium He telleth vs also that they that read the Scriptures rashly are deceiued through many and diuers obscurities and doubtes That through the prouidence of God the Scripture is hard to tame with labour our pride and to recal our vnderstanding from irksomnes vnto which those thinges which are easily found our seeme base and of no moment He affirmeth moreouer in an other place that the depth and profundity of wisedome contained not only in the words of holy Scripture but also in the matter and sense is so wonderful that liue a man neuer so long be he neuer of so great wit neuer so studious and neuer so feruent and desirous to attaine to the knowledge thereof yet that when he endeth he shal confesse that he doth but beginne This moued him in the books of his confessions to crie out vnto God after this sort Aug. lib. 12. confes cap. 14. O wonderful profoundnesse of thy wordes wonderful profoundnesse my God wonderful profoundnes it maketh a man quake to looke on it to quake for reuerence and tremble for the loue thereof Hitherto S. Augustine S. Hierome likewise a man most expert in those tongues the knowledge of which maketh most for the vnderstanding of these sacred bookes and experienced in the translation and interpretation of them aboue others Hieron in cap. 5. ad Galatas witnesseth that the fruite of the spirit is found in the holy Scripture by much labour and industrie and in another place he saith that the Apocalipse of S. Iohn containeth as many misteries as wordes The like sentences are found in the rest of the Fathers And this obscurity of holy Scripture is a thing so euident that diuers euen of our aduersaries themselues although others wil haue them easie are forced in expresse and plaine termes to confesse it Among the rest the translator or corrector of the English bible published in the yeare one thousand six hundred in his preface auoucheth that it is a very hard thing to vnderstand the holy Scriptures and that diuers errours sects and heresies growe daily for lacke of the true knowledge thereof Diuers others haue the like sentences some of which I shal recite in the second part of this Treatise See part 2. cap. 5. sect 4. yea almost al the newe sectaries by their proceedinges seeme to acknowledge this truth for otherwise what meane they to write such great and huge volumes or commentaries vpon the holy Scripture But whence ariseth this difficulty and obscurity surelie of diuers causes First because sundrie wordes of Scriptures admit many senses and the very phrase it selfe is obscure and doubtful Secondly many
matters vve take away al order in the Church and open the gappe to al Heretikes Some say that euerie man by conference of one place of Scripture vvith another See part 2. cap. 5. sect 4. may attaine to the knowledge of the true sense I replie that euery mans discourse in such pointes may be false and erroneous And it is wel knowne that diuers of our aduersaries haue conferred the same places and haue gathered out of them different senses vvhich cannot al be true Yea the same man not seldome at distinst times out of the same places conferred inferreth distinct conclusions and altereth his beliefe touching some article or other vvhich is a manifest proofe that this conference is no infallible rule I adde also that experience teacheth vs that such a conference sometimes encreaseth the difficulty See part 2. cap. 1. sect 4. maketh some shewe of contradiction which before appeared not as I wil declare hereafter Others say that by praier euery man may obtaine of God the direction of the holy Ghost for the finding out of the true sense But where hath God promised this Moreouer our praier is of no force except we pray as we ought And what is more vncertaine then this How then can we certainly knowe when God inspireth vs and much lesse how can we possibly assure others that we haue such a diuine inspiration Further diuers haue vsed likewise this meane and yet haue falne into errour yea after their praiers they haue had different inspirations and one hath affirmed himselfe to haue beene inspired by God thus and another thus c. Finally al Heretikes may challenge to themselues these shiftes for the proofe of their owne priuate and false expositions wherefore we must needes finde out some other rule more certaine SECTION THE FOVRTH That the letter of holy Scripture falsly interpreted is not the word of God THIRDLY I am to proue that a false or wrong exposition erroneously gathered out of the letter of holy Scripture or made vpon the same is not the word of God but the word of man yea sometimes the word of the deuil and consequently that the said letter of Scripture so vnderstood is subject to the same censure This is apparant because the Scripture is the true word of God in that sense only which was intended at the penning of it by the holy Ghost For example like as no Catholike Christian wil deny but those wordes of Christ Ioh. 14. verse 28. The father is greater then I if we vnderstand them in this sense that God the father is greater then Christ according to his humanity containe the true word of God so euery Catholike Christian if they be vnderstood as Arius expounded them that Christ according to his diuinity is inferior to his father wil affirme them to be the word of the deuil Hence proceed diuers notable sentences of the auncient Fathers Tertul. de praescript ca. 17. see him also cap. 9. Hillar li. 2. de Triuitat ad Constantium Ambros lib. 2. ad Gratianū cap. 1. Vincē Lirin li. aduers propha haeres nouitates cap. 37. Math. 4. verse 6 Hieron in dial cōtra Lucifer See Math 10. Luke 10. Hieron in cap. 1. ad Galat. among the rest Tertullian telleth vs that the sense of holy Scripture adultered doth impugne the truth at much as the stile corrupted S. Hillarie affirmeth that heresie ariseth of the vnderstanding not of the Scripture that the fault is in the sense not in the word that there is not one of the Heretikes that doth not lie and say that he preacheth those thinges in which he blasphemeth according to the Scriptures For hence saith he Marcellus when he readeth the word of God knoweth it not hence Photinus c. they all speake Scriptures with out sense they al pretend faith without faith for the Scriptures are not in the reading but in the vnderstanding c. These and other like discourses hath S. Hillary S. Ambrose is of the same opinion for he saith that although the text or letter haue no error yet the Arrian interpretation hath errour Vincentius Lirinensis comparing the Heretikes alleaging Scripture against Catholikes with the deuils alleaging the same to Christ discourseth after this sort And if any man aske any Heretike perswading him such thinges that is to forsake the doctrine and tradition of the Church how prouest thou how declarest thou that I ought to forsake the vniuersal and ancient faith presently he for it is written and forthwith he alleageth out of the lawe the psalmes the Apostles the Prophets a thousand testimonies a thousand examples a thousand authorities by which being interpreted after a new and naughty manner the vnhappy soule may be cast downe head-long from the Catholike tower Thus farre Vincentius Lirinensis But let vs heare the opinion of S. Hierome in this matter who aboue al the rest was conuersant in the holy Scripture these are his wordes The Scriptures consist not in the reading but in the vnderstanding otherwise if we follow the letter we also may frame vnto our selues a new opinion and affirme that they who weare shoes or haue two coates are not to be receiued into the Church He addeth in another place Marcion and Basillides and the other heretical plagues haue not the Gospel of God because they haue not the holy Ghost without which the Gospel which is taught is made humane or of men He telleth vs also that whosoeuer interpreteth the Gospel with another spirit and minde then it was written troubleth the faithful and turneth the Gospel of Christ vpside-downe that we must not thinke that the Gospel is in the wordes of the Scripture It is not saith he in the wordes but in the sense not in the superficies or out-side but in the marrow not in the leaues of the speaches or wordes but in the roote of reason Hence he concludeth with these wordes It is a very dangerous matter to speake or teach in the Church least that by peruerse interpretation the Gospel of Christ be made the Gospel of man or that which is worse the Gospel of the deuil Thus farre S. Hierome And this is that which the Apostle himselfe instructeth vs of when he affirmeth that the letter killeth but the spirit quickneth for the vertue and substance of Scriptures consisteth in their meaning and interpretation and so it is that the bare vvordes thereof are no more Scripture vvithout the spirit that is to say vvithout that sense which vvas intended by the holy Ghost when they were vvritten then the body of man is a man vvithout the soule yea if they be vvrested to a contrary or vvrong sense they kil and become poison vvhereas rightly vnderstood they containe diuine and heauenly doctrine And so this sentence of the Apostle is expounded by S. Augustine in diuers places of his vvorkes but in one place among the rest thus he discourseth a Aug. de spiritu litera c. 4. 5. li.
then before and by which our mindes are so diuinely lifted vp and affected as it were by a diuine testimonie that through it farre more strongly then by any humane motiues we are inclined to beleeue and made most firmly to rest in the diuine reuelation and so by this assistance of God together with the concourse of our vnderstanding an act of supernatural faith is produced by which we firmely beleeue the articles of Christian faith taught and propounded by the Catholike Church not for such and such motiues as before proued them credible but for that they are reuealed by almighty God And because one of these articles is that the Church in propounding particuler misteries of our faith cannot erre this also is beleeued among the rest vpon which as a common rule and guide we ground our beliefe as vpon a sure propounder of such thinges as we are bound to beleeue touching euerie other particuler article Hence ariseth a great difference betweene vs and some of the most learned of our aduersaries touching the decision of this question for although we both seeme to admit some supernatural aide light or habite to this that our vnderstanding produce an act of supernatural faith yet we differ much concerning the object of this act as also in the motiues or arguments of credibility which first induce vs to accept of the same For whereas we include in the first act of faith into which we are induced by the said motiues the beliefe of an infallible guide touching al particuler pointes they include no such matter but for their ground and guide in this act beleeued acknowledge only the letter of holy Scripture which verilie although we also in our aforesaid act include yet we giue it no such sole preheminence as is before declared And of this followeth a farre greater difference couching the arguments and proofes of our propounder and ground for whereas althe argumentes of credibility perswading vs that Christian religion is credible perswade vs also that the authority of the propounder of our faith I meane of the Catholike Church according to prudence may be beleeued infalliblie the said arguments are not sufficient in a wise mans judgement setting aside the said authoritie of the Church to make it credible vnto vs that euerie booke and parcel of holy Scripture commonly admitted is canonicall and diuine much lesse that euerie particuler exposition of Scripture by euerie priuate man accepted is diuine true And of this it proceedeth that they alleage no such forcible arguments of credibility for the proofe of this and that booke of Scripture nor for the truth of their interpretation of this and that sentence but for the first vsually flie to diuine illumination only joyned with the majestie of the letter or some such thing vvhich be no such arguments of credibility as I wil proue hereafter Part. 2. Chap. 5. and for the last some of them assigne certaine rules to be obserued vvhich in verie deede are insufficient as shal likewise hereafter be proued Hence they assigne no prudent motiues Ibid. c. 8. which perswade them to concurre with the supernatural helpe of God to a supernatural act of faith 2. Cor. 10. verse 5. Rom. 12. verse 1. Whereas God although he require of men an humble obsequie or obedience to faith yet propoundeth nothing to be beleeued which in the judgement of wise men is not credible and therefore also requireth a reasonable obsequie Verily if there were no other reason to perswade a man the truth of our doctrine this only would suffice that God doth vsually teach al by some common rule or meane which draweth men to vnity and humility not euerie one by priuate illumination or inspiration which is commonlie a motiue to pride and a fountaine of discord But Field vrgeth Field book 4. cap. 7. that by this doctrine we lastly resolue our faith to humane motiues and inducements I answere that concerning this matter two questions may be demaunded very much diuers First what moueth men to accept of the beliefe of such obscure articles as are those of Christian religion vnto which I make this answere that vnto this they are moued by such prudential or humane motiues as I haue assigned before Secondly it may be asked concerning the formal cause of faith it selfe why men now actually beleeue such obscure misteries And vnto this I say that the cause of their present beliefe is the reuelation of God or vvhich is al one the authority of God reuealing And because they are not sufficient of themselues supernaturally to beleeue such articles as so reuealed their vnderstanding is aided and inclined to this by the diuine gift of supernatural faith like as their wil by charity is aided and inclined to any act of supernatural loue which gift of faith together with their vnderstanding as I haue said produceth a supernatural act of beliefe wherfore we assigne not humane inducements as the formal cause but as the cause of the first acceptaunce of our faith and as into the formal cause we lastly resolue our faith into diuine reuelation And so I thinke this opinion sufficiently explicated But before I passe any further Field ibid. § Surely Stapheton in his Triplic contra Whitaker pag. 188. I cannot there but aduertise my reader that Field discoursing of this point wrongeth D. Stapleton very much For whereas he accuseth him as though in his Triplication against Whitaker he should affirme Other matters to be beleeued because contained in the Scripture and the Scripture because it is the word of God and that it is the word of God because the Church deliuereth it so to be and the Church because it is led by the spirit and that it is led by the spirit because it is so contained in the Scripture and the Creed Stapleton in verie deed in this last place hath no mention of the Scripture but of the Creed only True it is that he proueth against Whitaker out of the Scriprture a certaine internal motion of God by which we are moued to assent to this first proposition as he saith of our faith I beleeue the Catholike Church is infallibly gouerned by the holy Ghost and that she is to be heard and her voice obeyed but this is not to say that we beleeue the Church to be led by the spirit because it is so contained in the Scripture I come now to the second opinion Others therefore besides this diuine affection or inclination proceeding from the peculiar assistance of God in the act of faith being desirous also to assigne some other diuine and infallible reason mouing vs to beleeue affirme both that we beleeue the authority of the Church to be infallible because it is so reuealed in holy Scripture and also that we infalliblie knowe the Scriptures to be canonical because as canonical they are propounded vnto vs by the Church Neither doe they as they say in this kinde of proceeding commit anie absurd or vitious
circle because these two thinges are not motiues or reasons of the beliefe of one another after the selfe same manner but in two sundrie respects being so that we yeeld the reason why the Church cannot erre by the Scriptures as by a diuine reuelation approuing it For although we formally beleeue this because it is reuealed by God yet this reuelation vve proue by other reuelations contained in holy Scripture but that the Scripture is canonical although we formallie beleeue because God hath so reuealed yet this reuelation we proue not by any other reuelation but by the authority of the Church as a condition only requisite propounding it infallibly vnto vs. To make this assertion a little more plaine we must presuppose the truth of two propositions commonly held certaine in Philosophy the one is that two causes may for diuers respects be causes of one another so say the Philosophers the efficient cause is the cause of the being or existence the final cause and the final cause of the causality of the efficient For example when a Phisition doth administer phisicke to one that is sicke the final cause or end why he administreth phisicke is the health of the patient and the administring of the phisicke is the efficient cause of the sicke-mans health In like sort when the winde openeth a window it openeth it by entring in and entereth in by opening it so that the efficient cause of the opening the window is the motion of the entrance of the winde and the material cause and meane by which the winde entreth is the opening of the window because vnlesse the window be opened the winde cannot enter in Secondly it is also certaine that a meere condition necessarily requisite is no cause for example wood cannot be burned except it be put neare or in the fire and yet this approximation as I may cal it is not the cause to speake properly why the wood is burnt but a condition necessarie In like sort a lawe doth not binde except it be promulgated and yet the promulgation is not the cause why the law doth binde but a condition c. Now to come to the matter If two causes in some sort may be causes of one another wherefore may not we proue two propositions for diuers respects by one another That these respects be diuers in the proofe of the infallible authority of the Church by Scripture and of Scripture by the infallible authority of the Church it is manifest because the infallible authority of the Church is proued by Scripture as by a diuine reuelation the Scripture by the infallible authority of the church as by a condition requisite and that a cause and a condition be different I haue shewed We say therefore that Christ departing out of this vvorld left the whole summe of Christian doctrine with his holy spouse the Church and made her the infallible propounder of the same And being so that among other articles left this was one that she should not erre in executing her office this also she was to propound and her children by the diuine precept of God were bound to beleeue it Wherefore if in those daies before any Scripture of the new Testament was written a man had asked a Christian why he beleeued the misteries of Christian religion he might truly haue answered because they were reuealed by God If he had beene further demaunded how he knew such and such articles to be reuealed he might haue answered because the Church propounded them to be beleeued so that the cause why he beleeued such misteries was the reuelation of God the meane whereby he knew them infallibly to be reuealed was the propounding of the Church If he had bin vrged further why he beleeued that the Church in propounding such matters could not erre Surely he might haue said that this was before included in the beliefe of the misteries of Christian religion in general and consequently was beleeue because God so reuealed but let vs come to the succeeding ages The Apostles disciples of Christ whiles they liued wrote the holy Scriptures of the new Testament and left them to the Church in which among other misteries they confirmed vnto vs the authority of the Church and the Church propounded the said Scriptures vnto her children as Canonical Now then wherefore beleeue we or how doe we proue the Church cannot erre I answere by the reuelation of God contained in holy Scripture If it be demaunded further howe vve knowe such a reuelation to be diuine I answere not by any other diuine reuelation because this is the last and beleeued for it selfe but by the proposition or propounding of the Church which is only a condition requisite for the beliefe of it and yet a diuine proofe So that the reason or cause why we beleeue the Church cannot erre is the reuelation of God contained in holy Scripture the cause vvhy vve beleeue such a reuelation is no other reuelation but it selfe the meane whereby vve come to knowe that this reuelation is from God is the proposition of the Church wherefore the respects are diuers and also the objects of these assertions The respects because when we assigne the diuine reuelations contained in holy Scripture as the reason of our beliefe concerning the infallible authority of the Church we assigne a reason as it were by the cause of our said beliefe which is diuine reuelation But when assigne the propounding of the Church as that which moueth vs to beleeue the Scripture we assigne not a reason by the cause of this our beliefe which is diuine reuelation but by a conditon infallibly guiding vs as is aforesaide The objects also of these two reasons yeelded of our beliefe are diuers For the object of the diuine reuelations contained in holy Scripture assigned as the reason of our beliefe of the Church are the verities or thinges themselues reuealed and beleeued but the object of the propounding or proposition of the Church requisite for our beliefe of Scripture are the reuelations themselues contained in the saide Scripture For by it we are taught that the Scripture containeth diuine reuelations and is the true word of God And thus much of the second opinion concerning the solution of the question propounded which in truth giueth vs a very good method how to answere the cauils our aduersaries and rather addeth something to the former then is otherwise different from it For the authors following this opinion to this that we beleeue or accept of Christian faith as true require also the aforesaide inducements or arguments of credibility but moreouer they assigne a diuine proofe or reason built vpon diuine authority which moueth vs to the saide act of beliefe For as I haue declared they affirme that the infallible authority of the Church which is the general propounder of al particuler articles of faith is knowne and proued by holy Scripture as by a diuine reuelation they adde also that the truth of holy Scripture is as certainly
knowne proued by the authority of the Church as by a diuine propounder Neither doe I imagine that the followers or maintainers of this opinion doe intend to affirme that in euery processe of beliefe touching any article it is necessarie that we resolue it lastly to the holy Scripture for I thinke that notwithstanding that which hath beene said if we be asked why we beleeue the whole summe of Christian doctrine or any point thereof we may wel answere because it is reuealed by God And if further we be demaunded how infallibly and diuinely we knowe it to be so reuealed we may answere because it is propounded by the Church Neuerthelesse the first opinion of it selfe is sufficient although this may seeme more exact especially in Schooles Neither doe I or any Catholike affirme the knowledge of these pointes to be neccessary to euery faithful Christian for it is sufficient that they beleeue al such things as are propounded by the Church because they are reueled by God which is done by the helpe of supernatural faith Nay I doe not think it is needful that they expresly knowe this infallible authority of the Church as propounder of such verities or al such prudential motiues as are before mentioned But I deeme it sufficient that they beleeue such reuealed verities as they are bound to knowe expresly and others virtually moued thereunto by the authority of their predecessors or the asseueration of other faithful people for this is sufficieint in them either for the obtaining or preseruing the gift of supernatural faith Let vs now see in few words what solutions may be giuen to the objection made in the beginning of this Section First therfore according to the doctrine of the first opinion touching the last resolution of our faith I answere that in very deed the canonical Scriptures and their true sense are knowne by the infallible authority of the Church as by the propounder of such particuler matters belonging to our faith and religion as we are bound to beleeue Neuerthelesse it is lawful to proue the authority of the Church out of holy Scripture against such aduersaries of the truth as admit the said authority of holy Scripture but deny the authority of the Church So did S. Augustine against the Manichees Aug. cont epist Mā quā vocāt Fundam ca. 4. et 5. Id. de vnitate Eccle. cap. 19. et tract 13. in Ioānem Field book 4. cap. 7. § There is no questiō who approued the authority of miracles and denied the authority of Scriptures proue by miracles the Church and by the Church the Scriptures Contrariwise against the Donatists who allowed the Scriptures and boasting of their visions rejected miracles by Scriptures he proued the Church and by the Church the truth of miracles but that this manner of proceeding is lawful it is granted by Field therfore I need say no more Secondly I answere according to the other opinion that the canonical Scriptures and their true interpretation are infallibly proued knowne by the authority of the Church as by a condition necessarie propōuding them vnto vs but the authority of the Church is proued knowne to be infallible by the testimony of holy Scriptures as by diuine reuelations approuing the said authority And to affirme this as I haue shewed is no more absurd then to say that two causes may be causes of one another Neither doe I think this manner of proofe more to be blamed then the proofe of a cause by the effect and of the effect by the cause as of fire by smoke and of smoke by fire of the bignesse proportion of a mans foote by his steppe in dust or sand and of this againe by that Thus also the Philosophers proue a man reasonable because he is risible or hath power to laugh and againe demonstrate that he hath power to laugh because he is reasonable which kind of argumentation is not called circulation but a demonstratiue regresse Chapter 8. Concerning the second particuler ground of Catholike religion to wit Apostolike Traditions SECTION THE FIRST Of Apostolike Tradition in general THAT I may the better declare the authority and dignity of Apostolike vnwritten Traditions of which I am principallie to intreate in this chapter I thinke it not amisse to say a worde or two of Apostolike Tradition in general and although though I shal repeate some things which haue been already said yet I hope my reader wil pardon me seing that a just occasion of so doing is offered me I haue aboue affirmed Cap. 6. sect 2. that the whole summe or corps of Christian religion was deliuered by Christ to his Apostles not in writing but by word of mouth and that the principal meane for the entire preseruation of it in the Church without corruption or deprauation ordained by God almighty is the continual assistance and direction of the holy Ghost who alwaies remaineth in the Church and directeth her in al truth Of which I now gather that although neuer any scripture of the newe Testament had been written yet that the doctrine of Christ by Tradition had stil remained the selfe same entire and whole in the Church to the end of the world This is so manifest out of that vvhich hath been already said that it needeth no proofe in this place yet I wil repeate a word or two of that and adde a litle more to make it the more apparant I proue it therefore because our blessed Sauiour neuer penned the summe of his doctrine himselfe neither is it recorded that euer he comaunded any one of his Apostles or Disciples in expresse tearmes to write but only to preach and teach according to his owne and the holy Ghost instructions And hence it is that none of the said Apostles or Disciples wrote any parcel of the newe Testament presently after the ascension of Christ and consequently that the whole summe of Christian doctrine was published some time before any such scripture was penned and that the Church of Christ was some yeares without it S. Mathew the first Euangelist Euseb in Chronic. anno 41. published his Gospel as Eusebius recordeth some six yeres after our Sauiours ascension Hence also it proceeded that neuer any one of the Apostles or Disciples vndertooke the setting downe in writing of the whole sūme of Christian doctrine this is manifest because the three first Euangelists deliuered vnto vs very litle touching the diuinity of Christ one of the chiefe and highest misteries of Christian religion Neither had the fourth which was S. Iohn the Apostle any intention to set downe al that the other three had omitted for he wrote his Gospel directly against certaine Heretikes who denied the diuinity of Christ and that not by the commandement of Christ but by the intreaty of the bishops of Asia as a Atha in sinopsi S. Athanasius S. Hipolitus bishop and martir b Epipha haeres 51. S. Epiphanius and c Hieron praefat in Mat. et
in li. de scriptor Eccl. in Ioan. S. Hierome testifie And that al is not by him recorded it is manifest because those speeches which our Sauiour had with his Apostles during the fourty daies betweene his resurection and ascension are almost altogether omitted Neither did he write this Gospel at the beginning of the Church but many yeares after to wit about threescore and six yeares after our Sauiours ascension And like as S. Iohn so did the rest of the Apostles and Disciples leaue vnto vs such parcels of scripture as vve haue receiued from them some extraordinary occasions mouing them thereunto as I could easily declare and proue See Euse hist li. 3. Chrisost hom 1. in Mat. Epipha haeres 51. Baronius to 1. au 45. et 58. out of Eusebius Saint Hierome and others I know that * Field booke 4. cap. 20. § For first Field maketh shewe as though it were a plaine matter that the Euangelists in their Gospels S. Luke in the acts of the Apostles and S. Iohn in the Apocalipse Meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine and direction of Christian faith but vvhat reason he bringeth for it of any moment I cannot see And besides it is certaine that no one of them intended to set downe al because no one of them hath so done wherfore if they haue set downe al as he affirmeth either it hath proceeded from some common deliberation or consultation had among themselues in which they determined what euery one should rehearse or else from the disposition and direction of the holy Ghost who inspired them to write Not the first because no man euer made mention of such a deliberation or consultation and moreouer they wrote vpon diuers occasions in diuers Countries and at diuers times as Ecclesiastical histories testifie Not the second because Field himselfe graunteth that something is vvanting in these bookes which the Church beleeueth which would not haue beene if the holy Ghost had intended that al should haue beene set downe for he addeth that The epistles of the Apostles were occasionallie written yet so saith he as by the prouidence of God al such thinges as the Church beleeueth not being found in the other parts scripture purposedly written are most clearly and at large deliuered in these epistles Marke wel gentle reader this doctrine he told vs before that the Apostles and Euangelists in the Gospels acts of the Apostles and the Apocalipse meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine direction of Christian faith nowe he telleth vs that the Church beleeueth some things which are deliuered in the Apostolical epistles not being found in the other parts of scripture purposedly written Of which I inferre both that the holy Ghost intended not that the penners of the Gospels of the actes of the Apostles and the Apocalipse should deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine and also that he thinketh the writers of these books to haue missed of their intended purpose verily this last pointe seemeth to me no very sound doctrine And besides how wil M. Field proue that the Apostles in their epistles supplied al this want especially seing that the Apostles and Euangelists in the other books although intending to write al yet in his opinion omitted something and the authours of the epistles intended no such matter but vvrote them as he saith occasionally wherefore there is farre greater likelihood that these omitted something then they Further one Apostolical epistle at the least to the Laodicians hath perished Coloss 4.16 see 1. Cor. 5 9. Chrisost hom 9. in Math. et homil 7. in 1. Cor. of which is mention in the epistle of S. Paul to the Colossians And who can absolutely say that nothing necessary was contained in it which is not in any other part of the newe Testament Finally Field himselfe confesseth some vnwritten Traditions as I will declare in the next Section What then did the Apostles and Disciples expresly set downe in those their monuments which are contained in the newe Testament a part only without al doubt of the whole summe of Christian beliefe in which part they ratified and confirmed the supreame and infallible authority of the Church of whome the rest was to be learned and to whose custody they committed their said monuments so that the whole summe or depositum hath beene kept and preserued in the Church not al only in expres termes in the holy scripture but the whole by Tradition a part of that whole also by writing another part by only Tradition by which likewise the said scripture it selfe came to our hands And after this sort the whole corps of Christian religion without any alteration descended vnto vs. This may be proued by that which hath been already said concerning the true sense exposition of holy scripture Chap. 7. sect 5. for as I haue shewed the scripture ought to be interpreted according to the Analogie or rule of faith that is to say according to that beliefe which the Church by Tradition hath receiued from Christ and his Apostles wherefore the letter of the holy scripture is not the whole direction of the faith of the Church but the faith of the Church the perfect and ful direction of the said letter of holy scripture of which it followeth that the faith of the holy Church might haue remained sound and entire by Tradition although no such letter had beene published But let vs confirme this by the testimony of the ancient Fathers Irenae lib. 3. cap. 4. Among the rest S. Irenaeus discourseth thus What saith he if neither the Apostles had left vs scriptures ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they deliuered vnto those whome they committed Churches vnto which order many barbarous nations beleeuing in Christ assent without letter or incke that is without any written word of God hauing saluation written in their hearts by the holy Ghost and diligently keeping the ancient Tradition Hitherto S. Irenaeus And note wel that he affirmeth some to haue beene Christians without any scripture guided only by the Tradition of the Church He telleth vs moreouer that by this order of Tradition from the Apostles al Heretikes are conuinced in such sort that Catholiks shut vp their eares assoone as they heare them vtter any thing repugnant to the said order Finally he addeth that al that are desirous to heare the truth may see in the Church the Tradition of the Apostles made manifest through the whole world And we can number those saith he who are instituted Bishops in Churches by the Apostles and their successors euen vnto vs who taught no such thing as these men Heretikes dreame of Thus farre S. Irenaeus Tertul. de praescrip cap. 19. 20. 21 who suffered martirdome in the yeare of our Lord 205. Tertullian also affirmeth that by this rule of Tradition or prescription of Catholike doctrine Heretikes are to be conuinced And hence it proceedeth that the Apostle vvith
things which were determined out of the scriptures in the Councel at Nice at Ephesus Constantinople Chalcedon adde also the fift and sixt by the godlie Fathers against Arius Samosatenus Apollinaris Nestorius Eutiches the Monotholites Whosoeuer therefore teacheth concerning Christs person against the determinations of those Councels certainelie they doe not rightly hold this principal foundation of Christian religion These are the discourses of Zauchius The like he hath in another place Zauchius in his obseruations vpon his confession vpon the 25. chap. pag. 330 where he expresly saith that The decrees of such Councels come from the holy Ghost and that he cannot disproue them with a good conscience Further if we weaken the authority of such Councels we must needs also make weake the authority of some books of holy scripture as of the a See part 1. chap. 7. sect 1. part 2. chap. 5. sect 2. epistle to the Hebrewes the Apocalipse and other such parcels of the written word of God of which there was some doubt in the Church whether they were Canonical or no vntil the matter was defined by general Councel Finally let vs confirme al that I haue here said by the testimony of b Hooker in the preface to his book of ecclesiastical policy pa. 24. 25. 26. 27. Hooker whom our English sectaries commonly esteeme as highly as any other He then first telleth vs that there are but two certaine waies of peaceable conclusion the one a sentence of judicial decision giuen among our selues the other the like kinde of sentence giuen by a more vniuersal authority and he meaneth by Councels The former of which two waies saith he God in the law prescribeth and his spirit it was which directed the very first Christian Churches to vse the second This he proueth by the proceedings of the Church touching the controuersie about the necessity of circumcision mentioned in the c Act. 15. Acts of the Apostles vvhich after great contention vvas ended by a Councel and he demaundeth of the Puritans whether they are able to alleage any just cause wherefore they should not condescend absolutely in the matter controuersed to haue their judgements ouer-ruled by some such definitiue sentence whether it fal out with them or against them that so saith he these tedious contentions may cease He addeth that without some definitiue sentence it is almost impossible that either confusion should be avoided or hope be had to attaine to peace Againe To smal purpose had the Councel of Hierusalem beene assembled if once their determination being set downe men might afterwards haue defended their former opinions when therefore they had giuen their definitiue sentence al controuersies was at end thinges were disputed before they came to be determined men afterwards were not to dispute any longer but to obey the sentence of judgement finished their strife which their disputers before judgement could not doe This was ground sufficiēt for any reasonable mans conscience to build the duty of obedience vpon whatsoeuer his owne opinion were as touching the matter before in question So ful of wilfulnes selfe-liking is our nature that without some defititiue sentence which being giuen may stand and a necessity of silence on both sides afterwards imposed smal hope there is that strifes thus farre prosecuted wil in short time quietly end thus he And to make this his discourse the stronger he likewise alleageth the authority of Beza Beza praefat tract de excom et presbit who saith he in his last booke saue one written about these matters professeth himselfe to be nowe weary of such combats and encounters whether by word or writing in asmuch as he findeth that controuersies thereby are made brawles and therefore he wisheth that in some common lawful assembly of Churches al these strifes may at once be decided Hitherto Hooker To the same effect he might also Luther li. cōt Zuīg et Oecolā haue alleaged the testimonie of Luther vvho considering the wonderful multitude of dissentions about religion among his sectaries themselues auouched that for the ending of them if the world long indure he saw no other meanes but that they should be forced to haue recourse to general Councels I could alleage the like sentences out of Couel Couel in his defēce of Hooker See before chap. 6. section 4. 50. 51. who wisheth that some general Councel might be assembled for the final end of al controuersies And hither also tend the discourses of those Protestants who as I haue aboue related make the constitutions of the Church diuine But it may perhaps be answered by some man to these testimonies of our aduersaries that notwithstanding al these their assertions they make general Councels absolutely subject to errour I answere and confesse that in very deede they doe so yet I affirme that any wise and discreete man may wel gather out of their sayinges alleaged not only that general Councels are needful in the Church and that al their deuision and dissention proceedeth of their denial of the authority of such Councels But also that it was requisite and necessary that Christ who is neuer wanting to his Church in thinges needful should make the authority of general Councels concerning matters of faith infallible For otherwise if they were subject to errour what reason hath man to obey them in matters of such consequence especially considering that diuers such assemblies vnlaweful consisting of a greater multitude of Bishoppes then some lawful general Councels haue erred and straied from the truth Finally they confesse that the first such Councels assembled in the first ages of Christianity erred not And thus much for the proofe of this matter It may perhaps be here further demaunded what conditions we require to a lawful and authentical general Councel I answere briefly first that such a Councel must either be called expresly by the ministerial head of the Church or at the least with his assent Secōdly the summon must be general of al Bishops throughout the world Thirdly although it be not needeful that al be personallie and reallie present yet a competent number must appeare that is to say some at the least out of the greater part of Christian Catholike prouinces yet if it be assembled in the East a smal number of the West sent to supply the place of al the rest are judged to suffice Contrariwise if in the West a smal number in such sort is sufficient out of the East Fourthly the ministerial head or vicegerent of Christ must either be present in person or by his Legates And finally the decrees of the said Councel must be by him confirmed and this both because the head is chiefe ruler of the body and consequently the body is to doe nothing without the assent of the head and also because he hath singuler priuileges granted him by Christ of not erring as shal be declared in the next chapter Hence it proceedeth that no general Councel hath euer in the Church beene held
pollicy of the Church to auoid scismes and to preserue it in vnity And he proueth this out of the text of the Apostle Corin. 14. God is not the author of confusion or disorder but saith he to haue a populer equallity among ministers were the next way to bring in confusion if none should be ruled or directed Wherefore he addeth in another place that In the calling of Bishops somewhat is diuine and that it is a diuine ordinance that among the ministers of the Church there should be a superioritie For the proofe likewise of the same they bring the testimony of some d Ibid. controuer 16. quest 2. p. 726. edit an 1600. other learned Sectaries especially of f Iacob Andraeas in epistola contra minist Heil derberg Iacobus Andraeas But who seeth not that if a Bishop be necessary ouer Priests and an Archbishop ouer Bishops and a Primate ouer Archbishops for the preseruing of vnity in certaine prouinces nations or kingdomes that ouer sundrie Primates one supreame Primate or head is also needful for the preseruation of the said vnitie through al nations and kingdomes e Suruey of the pretended holy discipl If it be true as Field affirmeth that the vnity of each particuler Church dependeth of the vnity of the Pastour howe much more doth the vnity of the vniuersal Catholike Church depend on the vnitie of one vniuersal Pastour ouer al Yea of these thinges we may wel infer that God who is neuer wanting to his Church in thinges necessary hath ordained some such Prelate For much easier it is to preserue vnitie and vniformity in one kingdome vvithout a Primate or in one prouince without an Archbishop or in one diocesse vvithout a Bishop then it is to preserue the same in al parts of the vvorld vvithout one head ouer al seeing that those of one kingdome prouince or diocesse liue vnder the same lawes haue the same temporal prince and by reason of neighbour-hood may be joyned together in amity and friendship and so one may vnderstand the faith and beliefe of another and confer together concerning such matters vvhich occasions of vnity are wanting to those vvho are of seueral kingdomes or common vvealths Wherefore for the soueraignty of one chiefe Pastour vve haue an expresse warrant of holy scripture whereas there is but litle so expresly vttered for the proofe of the authority of Bishoppes nothing almost for the jurisdiction of Primates and Archbishoppes Neither can this vnity be sufficiently preserued by the letter of holy scripture as it appeareth by the daily dissentions of our aduersaries and I vvil at large declare hereafter Some of the Sectaries seeme to allowe of the authority of a general Councel and to acknowledg it to be a fit meane to end al controuersies as a Hooker in the preface to his book of ecclesiastical policie p. 24. c. Hooker b Couel in his defēce of Hooker Couel c Zauchius in his epistle before his cōfessions p. 12.13 Zauchius d Sutcliffe in his answere to Kellisons Suruey chapter 1. pag. 42. Sutcliffe and others But these may likewise easily be confuted for it is euident euen by the confession of Protestants that no good can be done by such a Councel except one head and superiour in the same be granted About the yeare of our Lord 1585. Henry nowe the French king and a Catholike then king of Nauar and a Caluinist sent his letters to certaine Electours and princes of the Roman Empire being Lutheran Protestants of Germany desiring a concord and reconciliation betweene the Lutherans and Sacramentaries and wishing as it should seeme by the answere that some Councel might be assembled of the learned men of both sortes to that purpose The said Protestants of Germany returned answere that in those daies thinges standing as they did they thought it not necessary that such a course should be taken touching a Councel and vvhy so Verily these reasons are by them alleaged This principally say they seemeth worthy of our consideration whether now betweene the diuines of other Churches and ours any Sinode can be called and assembled For who of vs wil arrogate to himselfe to appoint the place to name the day to cal the diuines of diuers nations Which as histories testifie was the proper office of the Romane Emperours before the Papal tirannie increased Nowe moreouer who shal haue rule or be superior in authority in the Sinode it selfe There can no other haue this office but either one of our side or of our aduersaries but neither we wil suffer a president or chiefe ruler of the aduerse part to the prejudice of ours so neither wil they without doubt endure that one of ours should haue that place But if of both sides some be appointed then each one wil vndertake the patronage of his owne part and so there wil arise dissention betweene the Presidents Further who shal be judge ouer those that varie or contend but let vs put the case or rather faine and imagine that the Sinod is now called that it is sufficiently argued on both sides that the Presidents haue pronounced their sentence that the pertinacious and fanatical are condemned and accursed by the common consent and suffrage of al Who then shal bridle and restraine the clamours of the condemned their complaints their accusations by which they wil exclaime that the proceedings against them haue been vnjust that they were not rightly heard that judgement was giuen rather according to affection then according to the word of God Hence wil arise newe swarmes of contentions and the Sinode being ended the Church wil enjoy no more quietnes tranquillity and peace then was before Thus the aforesaid Princes of Germany in their letter penned without al doubt or at the least viewed and approued by their best diuines The Elector of Saxony the Elector of Brandeburg the Administrator of Magdeburge Philip Lewes Palatine of Rhene Iulius Duke of Brunswich and Luneberg Vdalricus Duke of Mechelburg and Lewes Duke of Wittenberge subscribed vnto it And the letter together with the subscriptions is published in print by Conradus Schusselburg a famous Lutheran diuine at the end of his thirteenth booke of the catologue of Heretikes How then can any person say that controuersies may alwaies be sufficiently decided and ended by a Councel without one head Are not these reasons most true and apparant Nay hath not experience taught vs the truth of these things What successe had the colloquies or conferences held for the reconciliation or vnion of Lutherans Sacramentaries betweene their chiefe doctors at Malbrun in the yeare one thousand fiue hundred threescore and foure See colloquiū Mōt pelgartēse published by Protestants Dauid Chitrae in chron Saxo part 3. ā 1568. p. 440. 441. Iohan. Petraeus admonit quae docet vitādos esse Flaccian or at Montpelgar in the yeare one thousand fiue hundred fourescore and sixe was any vnity or concord made betweene them nothing lesse Neither was
to the greater part that it must be obeied heresies and false doctrine might be established in a Councel without any meanes left vs to knowe when it doth erre and when it defineth a truth to which I likewise adde that it may fal out that both parts be equal And lastlie that we haue no warrant in holie scripture that the one part shal haue infallible directions by Gods spirit more then the other And seing that we haue the most manifest authority of the said scripture warranting vs that the successuor of S. Peter cannot erre neither reason nor scripture wil suffer vs to denie him this prerogatiue But like as I haue declared before the truth of the first part of this reason by the doctrine examples of forraine sectaries so I think it not amis in this place to shew the truth of the last by the positions and proceedinges of some neerer home There came to my handes of late a litle pamphlet bearing this title A Christian and modest offer of a most indifferent conference or disputation about the many and principal controuersies betwixt the Prelates Printed an 1660. and the late silenced and depriued ministers in England tendred by some of the said ministers to the Archbishoppes and Bishoppes and al their adherents At the end of this pamphlet among other objections which these Puritan ministers as making against this conference endeauour to solue this is one That they the said Puritans when they haue beene heard to oppose and answere what they can page 40. name no judge and wil not stand to any mans definitiue sentence but wil continue obstinate stil Vnto vvhich objection they plainly answere that they doe not think it lawful in any matter of religion to setle their consciences vpon the definitiue sentence of any person absolutely yea say they If both sides rest vnsatisfied page 41. and continue perswaded stil that the truth is on their side it were impious for either side in such a case to commit the absolute determination therof vnto the wil and pleasure of any man or men whatsoeuer They adde that it were vnjust for either side to require judges either incompetent or not indifferent And their reason is because as the prelates except they would wilfully betray their owne cause might justly refuse such to be judges as haue in any degree inclined more to the ministers then to them so may the ministers in like manner as justly refuse to stand to the judgement and determination of such as incline more to the Prelates then to them thus they How then wil they haue controuersies ended Surely they tel vs p. 40. 41. that in desiring as they doe before that the whole carriage of this intended conference may be published they make al the world to be judges therof that it should content any Christianly affected man that the ministers are content to offer their defence of these pointes to the view of al to scanne and to weigh them and so farre forth to judge thereof as if their reasons doe not satisfie them to giue them leaue to cendemne them of errour which wil be say they a judgment heauy enough to them if notwithstanding they shal stil persist in their former opinions pa. 41. 42. and that it is needles to name judges because his Majestie the ciuil Majestrates vnder him and the high court of Parliament though the ministers should appeale from them would in this case judge them and their cause whose judgment if it goe against the ministers and it appeare to be righteous the more they shal neglect the same and refuse to submit themselues vnto it the more grosse and refractarie they shal shew themselues to be c. This is the substance of their answere to the aforesaid objection And vvhat prudent man reading these thinges wil not first judge that this course is no sufficient meane to decide matters in question then that one supreame judge whose sentence is of infallible truth is necessary for the final ending of such contentions Who wil not likewise inferre that Christ who is not wanting to his Church in thinges necessarie hath ordained some such supreame judge And like as the Puritanes proceed after this sort so might either side of the Bishops if it should happen they should be diuided among them selues touching any point of religion But although these thinges be so yet we hold not the Bishop of Rome can rashly define what he please for he is bound to proceed maturely and to vse such inquisition arguments aduise of learned men and other meanes as are necessary for the finding out of the truth of the matter which he is to define Neither can he institute any sacrament or make any new article of faith vnknowne altogither to the Apostles or not deliuered by them to the Church as I haue said before of a general Councel Chap. 9. Only touching these points he hath power more plainly and expreslie to explicate to the faithful those verities which the said Apostles either knew or deliuered and to bring them as it were from darkenesse to light Some men perhaps wil admit that S. Peter had a prerogatiue of not erring in faith but wil deny that it was euer deriued to his successors This euasion is fullie aboue confuted yet here I adde further Chap. 6. sect 2. that this vvarrant from errour in faith was more necessarie after S. Peters departure out of the world in his successours then before in himselfe both because the chiefest planters and rulers of the Church the holie Apostles and Disciples were then likewise or soone after deceased and also because persecution daily increased and new heresies in greater abundance began to impugne the rule of faith receiued Moreouer our Sauiour building his Church vpon S. Peter built it especiallie vpon his faith not vpon his flesh as some of the auncient Fathers say neither so vpon his faith that he built it vpon faith separated from S. Peter or being in any other person but vpon faith as being in S. Peter the ministerial head of the Church Wherefore although the flesh of S. Peter be consumed yet seing that his office and dignity is in his successours his faith also through the warrant of Christ stil remaineth in them vvhich is the foundation of the Church and the firme rocke against which Hel-gates shal not preuaile And this may be confirmed because Christ vvhen he praied for the faith of S. Peter obtained and imparted this prerogatiue vnto him as his supreame vicar or by reason of his office Wherefore seing that the office continueth alwaies in the Church the priuiledg likewise must alwaies remaine in the same And this is the doctrine of the auncient Fathers and their exposition of the places of scripture alleaged Hence in the third general a Concil Ephes to 2. cap. 16. Councel the Bishop of Rome is called the ordinary successour and vicar of S. Peter prince of the Apostles And the like
deuised by the said author or done by the power of the deuil or by some natural causes wherfore may not then Atheists say that either it is a fable that e Iohn 11. Act. 9. Math. 9. v. 20. c. Christ raised Lazarus others or S. Peter Tabitha or that our sauiour cast out deuils or that a woman was healed of an issue of bloud by touching the hem of his garmēt or else that these things were done as the Iewes said by the power of Belzebub prīce of the deuils or by the application of some natural causes Surely he wil haue as litle regard of scriptures as they haue of the works of Sulpitius Seuerus and therefore if they grant it of the miracles of S. Martin and others he wil affirme it of al the rest although mentioned in the said scriptures In like sort f August lib. 22. de ciuit cap. 8. S. Augustine in his books de ciuitate Dei which no man wil denie to be of as great authoritie as any other of his vvorks g Sermo de diuersis 31. 32. 33. epist 103. and else where relateth diuers miracles vvrought by the reliques of S. Steeuen the first Martir as that by touching them a blinde vvoman receaued her sight that a Bishop by carying them in procession was cured of a fistula and that two by praying in the place where they were reserued were cured of a palsie And both S. Ambrose and S. Augustine doe the like Ambr. serm 5. de Sāct et l. 7 ep 53. 54. eau Romanae Aug. l. 9. confess c. et l. 22. de ciu c. 8 c. Lib. 4. or 2. Reg. cap. 13. Act. 19. v. 12. concerning the reliques of S. Geruasius and Protasius martirs as that a blind man was cured by touching of the beire or coffin wheron the reliques were caried vvhich miracles with the same answere are rejected by our aduersaries But who seeth not that an Atheist may with the like reason reject the miracle which was done by the reliques or dead body of Elisaeus by the touching of which as we reade in the bookes of the Kinges a dead man was raised to life and others wrought by napkins and handkerchers which had touched the body of S. Paul which are said to haue done miracles in the acts of Apostles The like discourse might be made concerning the cure of Naaman Sirus by washing himselfe seauen times in the riuer of Iordan at the commandment of Elizeus the prophet 4. Reg. 6. the said Prophets making of the iron of an hatchet to swimme vpon the vvater of the said riuer and diuers other miracles recorded both by holy writ the monuments of ecclesiastical writers of al ages against al which our aduersaries offer an occasion to Atheists to pronounce the selfe same censure Moreouer whereas the apparitions of soules departed according to the judgement of al the learned both auncient and moderne yeeldeth a most strong proofe of our soules immortallitie these Sectaries deny that euer there haue beene any such apparitions and consequently seeke to bereaue vs of this important argumēt their words are so plaine that this cannot be denied Luther himselfe writeth thus Luth. in explicat Euangelij de Diuite et Lazaro Idem in Euā dominicae 24. a Trinitate No mans soule euer since the beginning of the world hath appeared for neither doth God permit it Againe There is no doubt but it is wholy the Deuils worke or doing Quic quid vspiam est spirituum apparentium whatsoeuer is any where of soules or spirits appearing Zuinglius is of the same mind for these words he hath in his answere to one Valentinus a zuing resp ad Valentinū comparem Those things which thou babblest of the apparitions of soules are vaine and idle for the soules which are seperated from their bodies are in heauen or in hel Those which dwel in heauen neuer come downe those which are in hel cannot be deliuered the like hath b Bullīger decad 4. ser 10. Bullinger and others Finally their denial of freewil the merit of good works doe weaken the proofe of the immortallity of the soule the doctrine of the Apostle that god is a rewarder of our actions consequētly of the proofe also of heauen hel as euery man wil confes therefore I cōclude the whole discourse of this chapter that these Sectaries Church is a seminarie of Atheisme and that by their doctrine they shake and euen ouerthrowe the verie groundes of al religion vvhich their assertions being supposed as true they can neither proue nor defend against Atheists and enemies of Christianitie Chapter 2. The newe Sectaries debase the true Christian faith and in place of it extol a presumptuous faith by themselues inuented OVR aduersaries doe not only as I haue nowe shewed ouerthrowe or at the least weaken the principal grounds of al religion but also in some sort destroy the verie nature of faith it selfe by which we first come to a supernatural knowledge of God Chap. 5. For wheras in the first part of this treatise I haue proued that faith which concurreth to our justification and saluation and is the ground of religion and the foundation of spiritual life in this world to be a vertue infused by God into our vnderstanding by the helpe and force of which we giue a most firme assent vnto al those thinges vvhich are reuealed by God to his Church because they are so reuealed the followers of the newe religion I thinke partlie because as I haue noted in the chapter next before they haue weakned the authority of miracles which is the principal supernatural proofe of such misteries debase and as it were despise this faith and in place of it magnifie a newe inuention of man a Chimerical kinde of faith ful of presumption which hath neither ground in holy scripture nor in any approued author but is repugnant both to the vvord of God and the authoritie of al antiquity For they distinguish two especial kindes of faith the one say they is historical See Caluī Institut booke 3 § 9. 10. Calu. l. 3. Instit c. 2. § 7. by vvhich we beleeue the blessed Trinity the incarnation passion death resurrection and ascention of Christ and other articles of the Creed the other is a justifying faith vvhich Caluin defineth to be a stedfast and assured knowledg of Gods kindnesse or beneuolence towards vs which being grounded vpon the truth of the free promise in Christ is both reuealed to our minds sealed in our harts by the holy ghost Caluī ibid. § 16. see Luth. ī serm domī 2. quadrages In explicating this more at large the same Caluin affirmeth that there is none truly faithful but he who being perswaded with a sound assurednes that God is his merciful and louing father doth promise himselfe al things vpon trust of Gods goodnesse but he who leaning vpon the assurednesse of his owne saluation doth
confidently triumph vpon the deuil and death Hence proceede these vvordes of Luther Luth. in c. 2. ad Galatas See certaine quest ans touching the doctr of predest printed betweene the newe and old testam of the yeares 1593. and 1601. Beleeue that Christ wil be thy saluation mercy and so it wil be vndoubtedly Our aduersaries workes are ful of such sentences And that they prefer this second kind of faith before the first yea that they attribute vnto it our whole justication it is apparant in al a Luc. OsiaÌ„d iÌ„ Enchirid. coÌ„tra Anabaptistas cap. 2. their discourses of this matter Our b Notes vpon the Eng. test priÌ„t an 1592 and 1600 in 1. Cor. 13 2. Willet coÌ„tro 19. pag. 877 English sectaries cal the first an historical faith and make it common to deuils but Caluin discourseth after this sort c Calu. lib. 3. Institut cap. 2.9 and 10. Ibi. l. 39. c. Many indeed saith he beleeue that there is a God and that the history of the Gospel or other parts of scripture are true c. but this image or shadow of faith as it is of no value so it is not worthy of the name of faith Wherefore according to Caluin although we beleeue the Trinity and al other articles of our faith neuer so firmely yet if we beleeue not that vndoubtedly God is our friend and that we shal most certainly be saued it profiteth vs nothing d Yea saith he who impugne this doctrine slanderously speake against the spirit of God horribly rob God foully stumble in the first principles of religion faine a Christianity that needeth not the spirit of Christ and shewe a token of miserable blindnesse hitherto Caluin But if we beleeue this without any other thing we are secure of our saluation wherefore Luther hath this exclamation e Lut. de cap tiu Babi c. de bapt et iÌ„ ser sic deus dilexit mundum Thou seest how rich a Christian man is who although he wil be cannot by neuer so great sinnes loose his saluation except he refuse to beleeue for of this beliefe he speaketh I intend not here to confute the asurd assertion of our aduersaries that faith only doth justifie which they vnderstand of this their presumptuous faith for this controuersie belongeth not to this place only I wil adde a word or two in disproofe of their said faith and so make an end of this chapter First therefore it is apparant that this faith vvas neuer heard of in the vvorld before Luthers daies for there is no description or mention of it in the holy scripture nor in any authour more ancient then himselfe as I could easily demonstrate by yeelding the true sense of al those testimonies vvhich are by them brought forth for the confirmation of this their doctrine Yea Melanchton himself Luthers scholler seemeth to confesse that it was an inuention of that age Melanchton in praefat in 2. tom Luth. for he telleth vs that Luther learned his opnion of an old Frier of his owne order when as yet he liued in his cloister vvho alleaged for it a certaine sentence of S. Bernard nothing indeede to the purpose wherefore it is very probable that this old Frier gathered his opinion out of certaine wordes of S. Bernard by himselfe falsly vnderstood which Luther vpon discontentment taking from him began to confirme by the authority of holy scriptures by himselfe falsified and corrupted or else wrested to a newe and strang sense Secondly it is also manifest that this faith altogether destroieth hope for howe can hope be together vvith an assurance and certainty of saluation It also taketh away al feare of sinne damnation or losse of the fauour of God which is so highly commended in his holy vvord Phil. 2. v. 12. insomuch as the Apostle himselfe biddeth vs worke our saluation with feare and trembling Nay farther vvhosoeuer is indued with this faith cannot say our Lords praier for he that is assured that his sinnes are forgiuen and thinketh this assurance necessarie to his justification cannot in conscience pray for the forgiuenesse of his trespasses or offences as Christ himselfe taught vs to doe Moreouer this faith is a lying and false faith which I proue after this sort The power of justifying which is in this faith according to Caluin and the rest of his bretheren consisteth not in the worthinesse of the worke which is to beleeue as before hath beene signified See Willet in Sinopsis controuers 19. part 2. pag. 827. neither doth it justifie as our worke for so they confesse it to be a sinne but when this worke of faith is in vs then God of his only mercy through the merits of Christ doth justifie vs and Christes justice is made ours so that faith in their opinion is only the instrument by vvhich vve apprehend Christes justice and his justice is made ours Now thus I argue Either before they beleeue themselues to be just and Christes justice to be theirs they are just in very deede and Christ justice is theirs or no If these thinges be true before then they are not justified by this faith If they be not then their faith is false For they beleeue that which is not true because it must needs be granted that this faith being as it were the instrument by vvhich their justification is vvrought is before their justification and consequently they beleeue themselues â—â—st before they are just Moreouer howe doth this doctrine stand with other their positions for doe not they hold that euery one of the elect being predestinate from al eternity is the friend of God just as soone as he hath his being in his mother wombe Doe not they auerre that the children of the faithful are sanctified for diuers generatioÌ„s If they doe not maintaine these propositions as true vvhy deny they the necessity of baptisme affirming that infants may be saued without it Why doe they make it only a seale of justice not the instrument or cause of justification or sanctification Is it not also a coÌ„mon principle among Protestants that God doth neuer hate whom once he loued or loue whom once he hated these thinges truly be so apparant that they cannot be denied But if they be granted it must needs also be confessed that euery one of the elect who only can according to their doctrine haue justice were euer just and neuer can be wicked Of which it consequently followeth that they are just before they can haue actual faith and consequently that by faith they are not justified I adde also that according to their owne ground nothing is to be beleeued but that which is expresly contained in the scripture or manifestlie gathered out of the same And vvhere doth euery man finde in the Bible that most assuredly he is just elect and shal be saued verilie no such thing is found wherefore they doe contrarie to their owne rule in beleeuing it Finally I haue declared
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
true sence of the word of God then these newe Sectaries doe and seing that their sanctity was so great malice could no vvaies blinde them Verilie any indifferent man if the matter were put to his censure although those ancient Fathers had enjoyed no farther warrant of the assistance of the holie Ghost then these newe Gospellers doe would rather imagine truth to be with them then with these But our aduersaries alleage for themselues that euery particuler man assembled in a general Councel may erre I answere that true it is that euery particuler man the Bishoppe of Rome being excepted is subject to errour but seing that the Popes judgement joyned vvith the assent of the vvhole Church in a general Councel is infallible and in such a case cannot be erroneous and no general Councel is of supreame force without his confirmation it followeth that the decrees of a laweful general Councel cannot be false The reason vvherefore the confirmation of al Councels dependeth so much of the Popes authority is because he is ministerial head of the Church of Christ and consequently the bodie must needs haue his assent and confirmation before the constitutions by it made be of force and certainely knowne to be free from errour and falshood Finallie our Protestants of England concerning general Councels haue decreed as followeth * Articles of faith agreed vppon in the Conuocations of the years 1562. and 1604. art 21. See Fulk vppon the Rhēs testamēt Mathew 8 14. Whitakers in his answer to Campions 4. reason in English pa. 110. Field book 4. of the church chapt 6. pag. 228. General Councels for as much as they be an assembly of men whereof al be not gouerned with the spirit and word of God may erre and sometimes haue erred euen in thinges pertaining vnto God wherefore thinges ordained by them as necessary to saluation haue neither strength nor authority vnlesse it may be declared that they be taken out of holy scriptures The like censure is pronounced by their principal diuines And M. Field telleth vs that Bishops assembled in a general Councel may interpret the scripture and by their authority suppresse al them that shal gainsay such interpretations and subject euery man that shal disobey such determinations they consent vpon to excommunication and censures of the like nature Out of which his assertion it is euident that according to the prouidence and wisedome of almighty god general Councels should not be subject to errour in such matters for otherwise men might be forced and that according to his ordinances to obey such general Councels erring and propounding false doctrine But this notwithstanding the same Field in another place concludeth Lib. 4. cap. 5. pag. 204. Luther tome 2. lib. contra regem Angliae fol. 342. that Councels may erre in matters of greatest consequence Of the testimonie of the auncient Fathers thus writeth Luther in his booke against king Henrie the eight of England In the last place Henry bringeth in for the sacrifice of the Masse the saying of the Fathers Here say I that by this my sentence is confirmed for this is it which I said that the Thomistical asses haue nothing that they can bring forth but a multitude of men and the auncient vse But I as against the sayings of the Fathers of men of Angels of deuils oppose not the auncient consent not a multitude of men but the Gospel the word of the one eternal majesty Here I stand here I sit here I remaine here I boast here I triumph here I insult ouer the sayings of men be they neuer so holy insomuch that I passe not if a thousand Augustines a thousand Tertullians did stand against me Tome 5 The like sentence he hath in his famous commentarie vpon the epistle to the Galathians his wordes are these Some wil say vnto me the Church during so many ages hath so thought and taught al the primitive Churches and doctors most holy men much greater and more learned then thou art Who art thou that darest dissent from al these and obtrude vnto vs a diuers doctrine When Sathan thus vrgeth and conspireth with flesh and reason the conscience it terrified and despaireth vnlesse constantly thou returne to thy selfe and say whether Ciprian Ambrose Augustine or Peter Paul and Iohn yea an Angel from heauen teach otherwise yet this I know for certaine that I counsaile not men humane but diuine things Againe No other doctrine ought to be deliuered or heard in the Church but the pure word of God that is the holy scripture let other doctours or hearers together their doctrine be accursed Hitherto Luther confessing as vve see the vvhole primitiue Church and al the ancient Fathers to contrarie his doctrine and yet rejecting their authority and obstinately persisting and obdurating himselfe in his heretical opinions Zuinglius to 1. ī explanat artic 64. fol. 107. The same course runneth Zuinglius who discourseth thus The Papists say who shal discusse the controuersies and dissentions which are at this present in the Church Who shal judge of them Who shal pronounce sentence I answere the word of God neither wil we allowe of any other judge They affirme we denie the Masse is a sacrifice who shal be judge of the controuersie I say the one and only word of God But presently thou beginnest to cry out the Fathers the Fathers for the Fathers haue so delivered and writ thus But I relate to thee neither fathers nor mothers but require the word by this only it ought to haue beene proued that the Masse is a sacrifice thus Zuinglius The opinion of Caluin is consonant to these Calu. in praefat Instit ad regem Galiae Item booke 3. Instit chapt 4. § 38. Al things saith he discoursing of the works of the ancient Fathers are ours to serue vs not to ouer-rule vs. Againe Those things which every foot occur in the works of the old writers or Fathers touching satisfaction moue me but litle for I see that diuers of them I wil say simply as it is almost al whose works are extant either haue erred in this matter or haue spoken ouer crabbedly and hardly Our English Protestants haue sufficiently declared their opinion touching the authority of the auncient Fathers by pronouncing so hard a censure against general Councels as we haue heard Whitak contra Sander pag. 92. Hence Whitaker one of their principal Champions vseth this discourse If you argue saith he from the testimonies of men be they neuer so learned and auncient we yeeld no more to their words in cause of religion then we perceiue to be agreeable to Scripture neither thinke your selfe to haue proued any thing though you bring against vs the whole swarme of Fathers except that which they say be justified not by the voice of men but by God himselfe this is Whitakers doctrine Whitakers in his answer to Campians 2. reason p. 70. see him also in his answer to the 6. reason pag. 159.
In another place he discourseth thus We are not the seruants of the Fathers but the sonnes When they prescribe vs any thing out of the lawe and diuine authority we obey them as our parents If they enjoyne anything against the voice of the heauenly truth we haue learned not to hearken to them but to God You as vassals and base seruants receiue whatsoeuer the Fathers say without judgement or reason being afraid as I thinke either of the whip or the halter if euerie thing they speake be not Gospel with you thus Whitakers defendeth his rejecting the ancient Fathers and vpbraideth vs for our high estimation of the same But concerning the fathers opinions of particuler points he telleth vs Ibidem in his answer to the 5. reason pag. 129. that Ciprian wrote something of repentance verie vnseasonably and vndiscreetly and not be alone but al the holie Fathers of that time saith he were tainted with that errour That is al the Fathers of the third age after Christ for S. Ciprian suffered martirdome in the yeare two hundred threescore and one Of praier to Saints he hath these wordes Prudentius I graunt Ibidem pag. 140. 141. as a poet sometimes called vpon the Martirs whose actes he describeth in verse and the supertitious custome of praying to Saintes had nowe taken deepe roote in the Church which as a tirant haled sometimes the holie Fathers into the same errour thus he of the beginning of the fift age when Prudentius flourished Lastly Ibid. p. 132. he defendeth the first sentence of Luther before alleaged Abbot in his answ to Hil reason 10. p. 371. Horat. lib. 1. epist 1. see also Morton in Apologia Catholica part 1. lib. 1. cap. 8. With Whitakers agreeth Abbot who touching the Fathers thus deliuereth his opinion vnto vs Where there is just cause we as men Nullius addicti jurare in verba magistri bound to stand to the opinion of none but of the holy Ghost we declining-wise doe leaue them But where they subscribe to the authority of God there we subscribe to them defend them and refuse not to be tried by them so far as we may by any holy and learned men of which sort we hold them but yet stil knowe them to be men hitherto George Abbot And note that these men pretending that they follow the auncient Fathers as farre forth as they followe the lawe or diuine authority or the authority of God endeauour to make shew of an opposition or contrariety betweene the written word of God and the Fathers in al points in which they forsake them whereas in very deed the Fathers vnderstood and followed the scriptures better then they doe and the opposition is not betweene the scriptures and the Fathers but betweeene the Fathers and the Scriptures expounded by these Sectaries vvhich scriptures so expounded they make a rule vvhereby to knowe vvhen the Fathers are to be followed when to be forsaken Our Puritans in this point at the least in wordes got farre beyond our Protestants He who is desirous to vnderstand their opinion may read the seauen and twentith chapter of the Suruay of their pretended holy discipline written by a a Printed anno 1693. Protestant in which he shal finde it set downe at large And among others Cartwright is there accused the places of his bookes being cited for tearming the seeking into the Fathers writings b Pag. 331. 337. See also chap. 4. p. 64. a raking of ditches and the bringing in of their authorities the mouing and summoning of hel c Parks in his preface to his ans of Limbo mastix prīted anno 1607. Henrie Iacob treatise p. 1. 3. 54. 81. 68. cited by him in the margēt see also saith he Bilsons sermons pa. 323. and the answere to M. Broughtons letters p. 17. Parks also a later writer telleth vs that If you alleage the auncient Fathers against them they wil tel you roundly that their opinions are nothing else but the corrupt fancies and vaine imaginations of men toyish fables fond absurd without sense and reason and some saith he sticke not to cal the Fathers of the latine Church the plague of diuinitie Vnto al these proofes I adde likewise that our aduersaries confesse al the auncient Fathers to haue beene of our beliefe touching euery article nowe controuersed betweene vs and them as I vvil proue in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church and yet reject their doctrine as erroneous and repugnant to the word of God vvherefore they must needes confesse al the Fathers to haue erred and so reject their authority Finally none of them wil graunt that any consent of Fathers whatsoeuer be it neuer so general touching any point is of it selfe a sufficient ground of faith without the testimonie of holy scripture which is enough for my purpose But it may be objected by some that diuers of these sectaries alleage in their vvorkes the holie Councels and Fathers abundantly not only against vs but also against their owne brethren dissenting from them in faith or thinges belonging to religion I answere that true it is that they so doe alleage the holy Councels and Fathers But doe they make their testimonie an infallible ground they doe not certainelie For although they approue their doctrine in some points yet in others they presentlie reject them The Centuriatores being Lutherans Centuriat 4. pag. 242. In euery Centurie cap. 4. alleage the Fathers against the Sacramentaries for proofe of the real presence but they reject their testimonie when they affirme this sacrament to be a Sacrifice In like sort our Protestants against our Puritans alleage the authority of S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine condemning Aerius for an Heretike because he acknowledged no distinction betweene a Bishoppe and a Priest See the Suruey of the pretēded holie discipline Whit gift in his defence and others but they reject the authority of the same Fathers in the selfe same places condemning the same Aerius as an Heretike for denying sacrifice and masse for the dead wherefore it is manifest that they onlie as Caluin saith vse the Councels and Fathers to serue their owne turnes not to be ouer-ruled by them In defence of our English Protestants in particular it may first be said that M. Iewel in his challendge doth challendge to their religion al the Councels and Fathers of the first sixe hundred yeares alloweth of their authoritie and offereth to be tried by their censure I answere first that this challendge made by M. Iewel is not general touching al points controuersed betweene vs but concerning a fewe only and those not of greatest moment Secondly I say that M. Iewel did this only to make a shew among the common people as though his religion had beene auncient not that he intended to doe as he promised to wit to subscribe to our religion if this challendge could be shewed false This appeareth to be true both because he maintained his vaine challendge
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
testifie that they are from God they cary a sacred and diuine authority with them and they doe also agree in al points with the other books of god in the old testament hitherto are his words b Field booke 3. cap. 44. §. The errour Field if I doe not mistake him differeth only from others in this that whereas most of them reject al supernatural habits in our soules and attribute our beleeuing to supenatural inspiratiōs of the spirit he acknowledgeth a supernatural habit of faith which he calleth also a potential ability c Book 4. c. 13. § This judgment the light of diuine vnderstanding d Book 4. c. 8. § Thus then and the light of grace And moreouer he doth explicate himselfe a litle more in particuler then others for he distinguisheth two sorts of thinges beleeued e Book 4. c. 8. § The schoole men whereof some saith he are such as are beleeued and neuer knowne as al the matters of fact that are reported in the Scripture which we can neuer know by the immediate euidence of the things themselues but mediatly in that we knowe they are deliuered vnto vs by him that cannot lie Others are first beleeued Ibidem § Thus then and afterwards the vnderstanding being enlightned and the heart clensed they are discerned of vs to be true And he concludeth that in thinges of the first sort the formal reason of our faith or inducing vs to beleeue is the authoritie of God himselfe whome we doe most certainelie discerne to speake in the word of faith which is preached vnto vs. But in thinges of the second kinde he vvil haue the said formal reason to be the euidence of the things appearing vnto vs being enlightened by the light of grace this is the opinion of Field But in which of these two sortes of thinges he placeth the knowledge of the authority of holie Scripture I cannot so plainelie as I vvould discerne by his words this onlie I gather as certaine out of his discourse Book 4. c. 7. § Thus then first that the principal cause of our knowledge and beliefe concerning the Canonical bookes proceedeth from the habite or light of faith For this al his assertions insinuate and principally these The spirit induceth moueth and perswadeth vs to beleeue By the light of diuine vnderstanding Chapt. 13. § This judgement Chap. 7. § Thus then Chapt. 8. § Thus then Chapt. 8. Caluī book 1. of Institut chap. 7. § 4. we judge of al thinges c. Secondlie he affirmeth in plaine vvordes that besides the habit of faith or light of diuine grace are required some reasons or motiues or some reason or motiue by force whereof the spirit setleth the minde in the perswasion of the truth of thinges vvhich were formerly doubted of And this reason as we haue heard him say before in some thinges is the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto vs in others the authority of God He explicateth himselfe more plainely by these sentences of Caluin If we bring pure eies and perfect senses the majesty of God presently presenteth it selfe vnto vs in the diuine Scripture and beating downe al thoughts of contradicting or doubting of thinges so heauenly forceth vs to obey Againe After we are enlightned by the spirit we doe no longer trust either our owne judgement or the judgement of other men that the Scriptures are of God But aboue al certainty of humane judgment we most certainly resolue as if in them we saw the majesty glory of God as Moises saw in the mount that by the ministery of men they came vnto vs from Gods owne most sacred mouth Thirdlie We finde a greater light of vnderstanding shining vnto vs in this doctrine of faith then is found within the compasse of nature a * I finde not these wordes following in Caluin satisfaction touching manie thinges which humane reason could not satisfie vs in a joy and exultation of the heart such and so great as groweth not out of nature hitherto Field out of Caluin He addeth that this maketh vs assure our selues the doctrine which so affecteth vs is reuealed from God That they are the only people of God and haue the means of happinesse where this treasure of heauenly wisdome is found that these books are the richest jewel that the world posesseth and ought to be the Canon of our faith which this people deliuereth vs as receiued from them to whome these thinges were first of al made knowne and reuealed thus Field And this is the common doctrine of diuers of our Sectaries To ouerthrow this opinion I must first lay this ground To moue vs to beleeue any article of Christian religion ordinarily besides the habite of faith or some supernatural illumination of the spirit some other reasons or motiues must of necessity concurre by force of which our vnderstanding may be perswaded that the thinge propounded is credible and according to prudence may be beleeued This may be proued by authoritie of Scriptures for if no such motiues are necessary to what end did our Lord during the time of his being here on earth work such strange miracles Surely of them he saith Iohn 5 36. Iohn 10 25. Iohn 15 24. The very works themselues which I doe giue testimony of me that the Father hath sent me Againe The works that I doe in the name of my Father they giue testimony of me Finally If I had not done among them workes that no other man hath done they should not haue sinne Out of which places I may wel infer both that our Sauiour propounded his doctrine with sufficient arguments of credibility and also that if he had not so done the Iews generally had not offended God in refusing to beleeue it which is expresly affirmed by S. August tract 91. in Ioānē Augustine I adde generally because vnto the learned sort it was otherwise sufficiently proued therefore they had sinned although Christ had done no miracles yet not so grieuously This caused him likewise Mark 3 15. Luk 9 10. Mark 16. v 20. See also v. 17. 18. to giue his Apostles disciples power to doe miracles and they as S. Mark reporteth after his ascētion going forth preached euery where our Lord working withal confirming the word with signes that followed Moreouer commonly al that are said in the Gospels to haue beleeued beleeued vpon some credible motiue as the Centurion Luke 23. the Lord whose sonne was cured at Caphernaum Iohn 4. verse 46.53 and diuers others And so those wordes of S. Rom. 10.14 Paul are vnderstood Howe shal they beleeue him whom they neuer heard and howe shal they heare without a preacher that is without one both expounding the rule of faith vnto them and also propounding such reasons as are sufficient to moue them to beleeue This also al the Apostles practised as appeareth by their sermons recorded in the acts of the Apostles Nay further in the old
Testament as it is euident by holy Scriptures and granted by our * Melācht in corpo doctri Germa et in examine ordi nand cap. de definit c. Oecolampad in Isa 23 21. Aug. lib. 1. ad Simplicianū quest 2. Lib. de spirit et litt c. 34. Freder Staphil l. de cōcord disci Luther Petrus Paladius l. de heres Caluin in Inst contr Liberti c. 9. aduersaries the Prophets that were extraodinarily sent confirmed their mission by miracles and why so if not to yeeld men sufficient prudent motiues to beleeue them Hence are these vvords of S. Augustine It is commaunded that we beleeue to this that hauing receiued the gift of the holy Ghost we may be able to worke wel by loue but who can beleeue except he be touched by some vocation that is by some testification or testimony of thinges Againe A reasonable soule cannot beleeue by her freewil if there be no vocation or perswation vnto which it may beleeue hitherto Saint Augustine Finally the truth of this appeareth by the ordinarie manner of proceeding of God with mortal men vvhich is not altogether by internal illuminations as the Swencfeldians Libertines and some Anabaptists dreame but by some common and external rule and seing that according to the Apostle he requireth of vs only * Rom. 12 1. Field booke 4. chapt 7. § Thus then a reasonable obsequy seruice or obedience it can not be said that he commaundeth vs to beleeue any thing which is not propounded vnto vs and made credible by prudential motiues In this sense I take Field who telleth vs as I haue partly set downe before that three thinges concurre to make vs beleeue that whereof we are doubtful the light of diuine vnderstanding as that whereby we apprehend the things of God the spirit as the authour of this illumination and the reasons and motiues by force whereof the spirit induceth moueth and perswadeth vs. And in particular he affirmeth that it is not sufficient for Stapleton to say that he beleeueth the Church to be guided by the spirit because the spirit moueth him so to beleeue but saith it is moreouer necessary that he declare those reasons or motiues by force whereof the spirit setleth his minde in the perswasion of the truth of those thinges he formerly doubted of Some man perhaps wil object that no miracles or at the least very fewe are nowe wrought in the vvorld vvherevpon it may seeme to followe according to this discourse that Christian Catholike religion is not nowe sufficiently propounded as credible I answere that although God doth alwaies cause his true religion to be sufficiently propounded in such sort that any vvise man may prudently embrace it and beleeue it true yet as is aboue insinuated he doth not in euerie respect make it so credible as is in his power to doe and that for our greater merit humiliation And from this it proceedeth that among Christians miracles are not nowe so frequent as they were in the primatiue Church because they haue nowe not only other sufficient motiues which may perswade al men of the truth of their religion but also sufficient prudential reasons and marks by which they may discerne the true Church from al false sinagogues as I haue partly declared before and wil declare at large in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church This then being thus proued let vs behold what prudential arguments our aduersaries bring to proue the Scriptures to be canonical by force of vvhich the spirit induceth moueth and perswadeth them to beleeue them Field as I euen nowe related assigneth two motiues of our beliefe vvhich are causes of it in two distinct sorts of things the one the euidence of the things appearing vnto vs the other the authoritie of God himselfe vvhome we doe most certainly discerne to speake in the vvord of faith vvhich is preached vnto vs. Caluin seemeth to assigne the majesty of God which presenteth it selfe vnto vs in the diuine Scriptures Rogers saith The Scriptures cary a diuine and sacred authority with them and agree in al points with other bookes of the old Testament But that none of these motiues are sufficiēt to perswade a prudent man that these books are according to the rules of wisedome most certainely to be accounted diuine and canonical it is easily proued For first if they were so it vvould followe that euerie prudent man reading these books by this only according to prudence should be moued to giue euery one of them this prerogatiue but this experience among our aduersaries themselues vvho are at variance touching some books whether they be canonical or no proueth false therefore these motiues are not sufficient Field booke 4. chapt 7. § There is Moreouer No man as Field telleth vs proueth a thing doubtful by that which is as much doubted of as it selfe For this saith he is as if one taking vpon him to be a law-giuer whose authority is doubted of should first make a law and publish his proclamation and by vertue thereof giue himselfe power to make lawes his authority of making the first lawe being as much doubted of as the second Wel then this being supposed true let vs see whether the truth of al such motiues as are assigned by our aduersaries mouing them as they say to beleeue the holy scripture be not as obscure as the diuine truth of the Scripture it selfe And first this appeareth in those which are brought by Rogers for it is euen as obscure a matter and as hardly to be proued that generally al the bookes of Scripture and euery sentence of them cary an extraordinary or diuine authority with them aboue al others as it is that they are Canonical so is likewise their agreement with the books of the old testament wherefore letting them passe let vs behold whether this be not also true in such formal reasons of our faith as according to Caluin and Field moue vs to beleeue And first vvhence proceedeth that euidence vvhich Field vvil haue in some thinges beleeued to appeare vnto vs Are the articles of our faith euident in them selues this he denieth of some for Field book 4. Chapter 8. § The opinion We confesse saith he that faith may rightly be said to be a firme assent without euidence of many of the things beleeued in themselues but the medium by force whereof we are to beleeue must be euident vnto vs as Durandus doth rightly demonstrate thus Field But can he make it good that any such articles are in themselues euident vnto vs as they are the object of our faith It is plaine that most of them yea almost al considered howsoeuer haue not so much of themselues in respect of our vnderstanding as euidence and certainety of credibility that is they appeare not so certaine and credible vnto vs as a prudent man would beleeue them setting aside the medium or meane supernatural by vvhich they are propounded But if vve consider them
precisely as they are the object of our faith they al haue no other euidence then diuine reuelation as is proued before which is alwaies obscure What then is this medium or meane according to Field Is it any humane conjecture motiue or probability This cannot be according to his owne doctrine as appeareth in the same place and the chapter before Nay in another place he telleth vs Book 4. chap. 20. § Much contention that the books of Scripture winne credite of themselues and yeeld sufficient satisfaction to al men of their diuine truth and therefore he seemeth to exclude al external proofe Is it then any thing contained in the things themselues Neither can this be said for euery thing contained in the thinges themselues belonging to their essence is as obscure as the things themselues be and consequently no such thing contained in the things themselues can be such a meane to manifest themselues vnto vs. And vvhat accident he vvil assigne in the articles of our faith making them manifest vnto vs I cannot imagine Secondly I cannot see how this assertion of Field doth agree with that his common principle Field book 4. chap. 13.8 book 3. chap. 42. auouching that the Scripture is the Canon and ground of their beliefe and that they rest in the determination of the word of God as in the rule of their faith For how can this be if the euidence of the things appearing vnto vs be sometimes the formal reason of our faith as is in like sort by him auerred But to make this discourse a litle more manifest let vs demaund a question or two in particuler of M. Field and see howe he vvil resolue them according to his doctrine deliuered I aske therefore of him why he beleeueth there be three persons and one God two natures in Christ and one person and the resurrection of our bodies Wil he answere that the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto him is the formal cause of his faith or inducing him to beleeue these misteries If he doe not he contradicteth his own doctrine If he doe he contradicteth both al sense and reason and also himselfe making the Scripture the ground of faith except he affirme these misteries to be euident not in themselues but in the medium or meane by force whereof they are beleeued For which medium if he wil be constant to himselfe he must assigne the holie Scripture vvhich Scripture he must say is beleeued through the authority of God himselfe whome vve doe most certainly discerne to speake in the word of faith which is another cause of beliefe assigned by him for such thinges as we beleeue and doe not knowe so that this authority of God is the last motiue not the holy Scripture and what other processe he wil make I cannot perceiue But what doth he and Caluin vnderstand by that other reason which he tearmeth The authority of God himselfe whome we doe certainly discerne to speake in the word of faith which is preached vnto vs and Caluin The majesty of God which doth present it selfe vnto vs What is this authority and majesty of God and how doe we so certainly discerne it Verily for my part I am so farre from knowing how to discerne it as I cannot vvel imagine vvhat they meane by it yet if I be not deceiued they affirme that the authority of God or his majestie is seene in the letter of holie Scripture vvhich moueth vs by a supernatural and most infallible assent to acknowledge it to be his holy word But first this is said gratis and vvithout any ground or reason for what authority or majesty can a man discerne in such bookes as our aduersaries receiue as Canonical more then in those which they reject For example what appeareth to vs more diuine in the bookes of Ecclesiastes then in the bookes of Ecclesiasticus surely nothing much lesse so much as may be an infallible and knowne meane to moue vs to beleeue the one as diuine and to reject the other as Apocriphal Moreouer howe doe vve knowe that this representation of diuine majestie or this diuine authoritie vvhich as vve conceaue doth represent it selfe vnto vs is not either some illusion of the Deuil or some strong imagination of our owne proceeding onlie from some affection which vpon some other motiues we beare to such and such bookes of Scripture Trulie we haue great cause to feare that it may proceed from some such affection seeing that Luther and most of al his Lutherans confesse al the Sacramentaries generallie to be deceaued in such their apprehensions concerning the epistle to the Hebrewes the epistle of Saint Iames the Apocalipse of S. Iohn and other parcels of Scripture And why not concerning others as vvel as these Vnto vvhich I adde that they commonly make their doctrine a rule whereby to try which is Scripture and vvhich is not as I vvil demonstrate hereafter and appeareth by the causes assigned by Luther vvhich moued him to reject the epistle of Saint Iames. It may also be objected against this their doctrine that of it it seemeth to followe that no man can be assured of the diuine authority of any other bookes of Scripture then of those which he hath read himselfe or heard others read For first no man can possibly proue to another that in reading such and such books he did discerne in then the authority of God himselfe speaking or that the diuine majesty did in them present it selfe vnto him vvherefore vnto this that a man may judg of holy Scripture he must himselfe read or heare the words and sentences read and this he must doe before he can haue any faith For seeing that they make the Scripture the rule and ground of their beliefe the Scripture must first be knowne before they can beleeue and seeing that no one booke containeth al things necessary to be beleeued but such things are dispersed through al it is necessarie that he know the whole Canon of Scripture and consequentlie that he reade or heare it al rehearsed sentence by sentence And what a Laborinth is this how can the vnlearned that cannot reade doe it Nay how many Protestants in the world haue euer performed it Wherefore I conclude that this rule or meane how to know holy Scripture is neither easie plaine certaine nOr vniuersal Perhaps it may be thought by some that Field assigneth the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto vs in holy Scriptures as the formal cause of our beleefe concerning their authority but this cannot be both because our beleefe concerning their Canonical authority seemeth to be concerning a matter of fact to wit vvhether they vvere penned by the instinct of the holie Ghost or no as also because a great part of them rehearseth matters of fact which Field denieth to be knowne by the authority of God himselfe whome we doe certainly discerne to speake in the word of faith Field book 4. chapt 15. Adde likewise that by his confession
of themselues and yeeld sufficient satisfaction to al men of their diuine truth wherefore he seemeth contrary to that which he had said before to require no other reason by force whereof the spirit moueth him to beleeue the Scripture but the Scripture Neither should he only bring a diuine proofe for these matters but also to shewe the certaintie of his supernatural illumination of vvhich al these depend And howe wil he doe this vvil he proue it by Scripture This cannot be done least that he fal into a circle and according as he maketh the Psalme say of the vvicked Runne round til he be giddie and be at the end where he was when he beganne for by this illumination he is come to the knowledg of Scripture and consequently it must not be proued out of Scripture and vvhat other diuine proofe he wil assigne for my part I cannot imagine Neither can he say that this illumination is beleeued for it selfe for then he both graunteth that something must be beleeued without diuine proofe and also that al thinges are not beleeued because they are contained in the Scripture and consequently that the Scripture is not the onlie ground of our faith Many places of Scripture are alleaged out of the vvritten vvord of God by our aduersaries to proue the certainty of priuate illuminations and seing that I can not stand to giue the true sense of them I desire my reader only to consider in general that such sentences as they alleage if they proue any thing for them and are to be vnderstood as they pretend proue the judgement of euerie Christian man or at the least of euery spiritual man to be infallible vvhich being false as appeareth both in the auncient Fathers and also in themselues vve may vvel inferre that they haue some other sense Field affirmeth that Saint Augustine in a certaine place doth fully agree vnto his opinion shewing that the authority of the Church is but an introduction to the spiritual discerning of thinges diuine I answere that Saint Augustine in the chapter by him cited only affirmeth that because al men are not capable at the first to vnderstand the sincere wisedome and truth taught in the Church God hath ordained in it two motiues vvhich may first moue them to seeke it to wit miracles and multitude of beleeuers Aug. de vtilitate credendi cap. 16. Authoritas saith he praesto est quam partim miraculis partim multitudine valere nemo ambigit The authority of the Church is at hand which no man doubteth partly through miracles partly through multitude to be of force viz. to moue men Field to make this sentence seeme the better for his purpose Booke 4. c. 8. translateth the vvord valere standeth vpon and maketh Saint Augustine say that the authority of the Church standeth vpon two thinges c. but howe truly euerie grammer scholler may discerne That vvhich he alleageth out of Hugo de sancto Victore is as litle to the purpose but as I thinke farre more falsly translated for if in the English immediately following the Latin in the same different letter he doth intend a translation of the Latin going before as euerie man vvil judge he doth he dealeth in it most corruptly and vntruely and so I leaue him for this present SECTION THE SECOND In which the same argument is prosecuted and two thinges principallie are proued First that the newe Testament receiueth smal authority if we beleeue our aduersaries by this that it was written by the Apostles and Disciples because they accuse them of errour Secondlie because they confesse the text of Scripture to be corrupted HAVING euidentlie confuted in the section next before the chiefest and most common reasons by which the Sectaries of our daies endeuour to proue the diuine authority of holie Scripture let vs now behold such other reasons as may be brought according to their principles and together insinuate some other their assertioÌ„s which diminish the credit of these holy books And to passe ouer as a thing manifest that the authority of 〈◊〉 newe Testament cannot sufficientlie and infalliblie be proued â—uine by the testimony of the old some perhaps wil say that the authority of the old is confirmed and ratified by the newe But how is the newe it selfe proued to be Canonical which prerogatiue if we deny it the old wil receiue but litle credit from it Peraduenture they wil answere that they knowe the newe to be Canonical because it vvas vvritten by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ inspired by the holy Ghost I reply and demaund first how they can proue this to be true by canonical Scripture What canonical Scripture for example if we deny the said Gospel to be Canonical telleth vs that S. Mathew the Apostle wrote that Gospel which vve terme S. Mathewes Gospel Secondly although we suppose it to be true that the Apostles and Disciples were the authours of the newe Testament yet howe can they proue that in penning it they haue not erred What canonical Scripture haue they for this Certainely our aduersaries make al their successours subject to errour wherefore it seemeth that they wil not be very scrupulous to graunt it of the Apostles and Disciples themselues Luther tom 5. in c. 1. ad Galath fol. 290. Act. 7. v. 14. Luther in cap 46. Genes But doe they not moreouer in expresse tearms condemne them of errour Who can deny this Luther himselfe after that he had affirmed that he would not submitte his doctrine to the censure of the Fathers no not to the censure of S. Peter nor S. Paul nor of any Angel from heauen addeth in defence of this his action that S. Peter did liue and teach besides the word of God In another place in plaine tearmes he accuseth S. Steuen of errour in following the 70. Interpreters vvho as he saith erred concerning the number of those that went downe into Egipt Nay moreouer discoursing of extreame vnction Luth. de captiuita Babil c. de extrema vnctione Luther iÌ„ Isai 64. Martir in 1. Corinth 2. fol. 46. Centur. 1 lib. 2 c. 10. Col. 1600. 180. he telleth vs that Although the epistle said to be of S. Iames were in deed and truly his yet he vvould say that it was not lawful for an Apostle of his owne authority to institute a Sacrament By which he seemeth plainly to confesse that the Apostles in their Apostolike writings were subject to such faults finally he telleth vs that S. Paul 1. Corinth 2. vers 9. doth finely wreth or wrest a certaine sentence of the Prophet Isay but Peter Martir auoucheth that he mistooke the Hebrewe word Hence the Centuriatores his schollers note certaine Naeui or lapsus so they tearme them that is freckles or moles and falles of S. Peter S. Paul and S. Iames Apostles as that of S. Peter at Antioch for vvhich he vvas reprehended by S. Paul of which also a Calu. in ca. 2. ad Galat. et in Mat. 26.
the newe religion prefer the Hebrew of the old Testament and the Greeke of the new farre before it And as concerning the Greeke translation of the old by the 70. Interpreters Luther in ca. 40. Genesis Mūst in bibl Hebraicis Act. 7. v. 14. Caluī in Antid Sinodus Trident. sess 4. pag. 372. Luther and Munster plainely condemne it of errour and the first of them in particuler affirmeth the text alleaged of it by S. Steuen in the seauenth chapter of the acts of the Apostles as he citeth it to be erroneous our Latin bibles are also censured by Caluin to be most corrupt vvherefore they alwaies where they can translate the Hebrew of the old and the Greek of the new rejecting as it were the Greek of the old and the Latin of the newe but that both the Hebrewe of the old and Greeke of the newe be corrupted it is manifest by their owne confession And first it cannot be denied but that they some times correct both the Hebrewe and Greeke text as for example in the Hebrewe psalme 22. vvhereas the Hebrewe word for word ought thus to be translated As a lion my hands my feete they translate according to the Greek and vulgar Latin thus They haue peirced my hands and feete The examples of the Greeke in the newe which principally pertaineth vnto Christians are almost infinite I wil only set downe a fewe out of Beza and our English translatours If then the Greeke text be not corrupted wherefore doe these translatours whereas Hebrewes 9. verse 1. the Greeke text hath the first tabernacle reade the first couenant Againe Rom. 11. ver 21. they translate not according to the Greeke text eruing the time but according to our vulgare Latin seruing our Lord. Apoc. 11. vers 2. their translation is not according to the Greeke The court which is within the temple but according to the Latin The court which is without the temple 2. Tim. 1. vers 14. they adde the word but out of the Latin Iames 5. vers 12. they forsake the Greeke and follow our Latin reading Least you fal into condemnation In these and other places they correct the Greeke text and consequently confesse it to be corrupted But as touching Beza in particular I should make a long discourse if I should recite al such places as in the Greeke he accuseth of corruption Act. 13. vers 20. He calleth it a manifest errour that in the Greeke we reade foure hundred yeares as he saith for three hundred Act. 7. vers 18. He maketh a whole Catalogue of corruptions In S. Matthewes Gospel as he confesseth in his Preface to the newe Testament he corrected diuers errours and sundry other such testimonies he giueth of the corruption of the Greeke text of the new Testament But doth not he moreouer besides these his general corruptions vvhich he thinketh perhaps not done of malice also suspect that we haue euen of malice willingly and wittingly falsified the Scriptures verily he doth And to bring fourth three or foure examples to proue this his assertion Beza in annotat noui Testament an 1556. Math. 10. vers 2. the Greeke text hath The first Simon who is called Peter But what saith Beza he telleth vs that he thinketh the word first to haue beene added to the text by some that sought to establish Peters primacy Againe Luke 22. vers 20. according to the Greeke text we read This is the Chalice the new Testament in my bloud which shal be shedde for you In which sentence the Relatiue which according to the Greeke is not gouerned by the Noune bloud but by the word Chalice to signifie vnto vs that the bloud of Christ as the contents of the Chalice or as in the Chalice was shedde for vs. But what saith Beza he affirmeth it to be most probable that the vvordes which is shedde for you being sometime but a marginal note came by corruption out of the margent into the text Act. 7. vers 43. the Greeke hath Figures which you made to adore them It may be suspected saith Beza that these wordes to adore them as many others haue crept by corruption out of the margent into the Text. 1. Cor. 15. vers 57. He thinketh that the Apostle said not Victorie as it is in al Greeke copies but Contention And thus much concerning the corruption of the text of holy Scripture And out of this discourse it is euident first that our aduersaries cannot proue by Canonical Scripture that the Scripture it selfe is Canonical secondly that they cannot proue that the newe Testament was written by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ thirdly that although this be admitted yet that they cannot proue that the said Apostles and Disciples in penning it did not erre lastly that they cannot proue the Scriptures to remaine sincere and not corrupted yea I haue declared that they confesse that the Apostles and Disciples were subject to errour and that the Hebrewe and Greeke text which they esteeme aboue al others is corrupted Out of al vvhich positions so manifestly proued I conclude that the bare vvordes of Scriptures are not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion And although this argument concerning the vvhole Bible and in particular touching the new Testament be inuincible and insoluble yet a farre greater difficulty there is according to their ground mentioned that nothing is to be beleeued but that which is expresly contained in the Scripture or gathered out of the same concerning those bookes of Scripture which haue long after the Apostles daies beene in the Church of doubtfull authority of which before and yet are now receiued by our aduersaries into the Canon For vvhat one sentence of the vvord of God remouing al doubt declared their authority to be diuine Surely after the doubt had of them there was no Scripture written and before the matter in the said Scripture was not decided wherefore if we allowe the Scriptures only to be a sufficient judge of such controuersies our aduersaries themselues contrary to their owne proceedings must of necessity be forced to confesse such parcels of Scripture to be as yet of doubtful authority And this is not only graunted by a Brentius in confess Wittenberg cap. de sacra Scriptura anno 1552. Brentius and certaine other Lutherans who acknowledge those bookes of Scripture only to be Canonical of whose authority there was neuer any doubt made in the Church but also may seeme to be confessed by our countriman M. Whitaker vvho touching the Epistle of S. Iames receiued telleth vs that he doth b Whitaker against Campian reason the first p. 28. not enquire howe justly that might be receiued in a succeeding age which once was rejected yea our vvhole Church of c Conuocat Lon. an 1562. 1604. ar 6 England alloweth of the position of d Brentius in Apolog. confess Wittenb Brentius euen nowe mentioned Wherefore these sectaries must reject out of the Canon if they vvil be constant to themselues
trust I haue shewed sufficiently by these tenne Chapters of S. Mathewe in which notwithstanding I haue omitted very many thinges which justly I might haue reprehended what a long register of his errors I could gather out of his whole worke For this is true that oftentimes he erreth not only in wordes which is not so dangerous and might be tollerated but also in thinges and the same most waighty and often times be enforceth by wresting not the sentences only but also the wordes of the holy writers to serue his error So Iohn the 1. vers 12. he corrupteth a most notable place and of greatest moment touching free wil c. Thus Castalio Before this he affirmeth that to note al Bezaes errors in translating the newe Testament Ibid. pa. 170. would require a volume ouer great Contrariwise Beza to requite Castalio condemneth his translation of holy Scripture which is very highly praised by D. Humfrey and Gesnerus euen nowe alleaged not only as false Beza in Testament anno 1556. in Praefat. in Marc. cap. 3. 1. Cor. 1. Math. 4. Luc. 1. Act. 8. 10. corrupt and peruerse but also as pestilent sacrilegious Ethnical and Turkish he auoucheth it to be such a translation as containeth the very seede and laieth open the high way to manifest Apostasie from Christ The like censure he pronounceth against the newe Testament set forth by Oecolampadius as is supposed and the other Diuines of Basil for he auoucheth it to be in many places * Beza in respons ad defens respōs Castalionis vvicked and altogither disagreeing from the minde of the holy Ghost But of these forraigne sectaries enough SECTION THE THIRD Our English Sectaries also haue falsly and corruptly translated the Scriptures BVT doe our English sectaries although they followe not as I haue shewed some corruptions of Beza yet commit no wilful errors and falsifie nothing themselues Truly they are farre from this sincerity Carlile in his booke that Christ went not downe into hel printed anno 1582. fol. 116. 144 c. Carlile an English Sectarie hauing discouered many faults in the English Bible of them inferreth that our English Protestants in many places detort the Scriptures from the right sense and shewe themselues to loue darknesse more then light and falshood more then truth he saith they haue corrupted and depraued the sense obscured the truth deceiued the ignorant supplanted the simple c. M. Broughton one of the greatest Linguists of our English precisians wrote not many yeares since an Epistle to the Honourable Lordes of the Councel which is yet extant desiring them to procure speedily a newe translation of the Scripture because said he that vvhich is nowe in vse in England is ful of errors The same request was made of late by Doctor Reynolds in the conference held at Hampton-Court betweene the Protestants and the Puritans yea Barlow in his relatiō of cōferēce held at Hampton-Court pag. 45. 46. Lindanus in Dubitantio Fox pa. 981. the King himselfe as it is recorded by M. Barlowe auouched that he could neuer yet see a Bible wel translated in English but the worst of al he affirmed to be that of Geneua vvherefore by his Majesties order another translation as is said is nowe in hand And this may very vvel be beleeued For Bishop Tonstal as it is recorded by Lindanus noted no lesse then two thousand corruptions in Tindals translation only of the newe Testament vvhich assertion of his may be confirmed by the authoritie of a statute made by the first head of our English Church King Henry the eight For notwithstanding that Fox tearmeth Tindal not only the true seruant and martir of God but the Apostle also of England in our later age Idem pa. 732 and painteth the said King with the Gospel in his lappe and his sword in his right hand lifted vp for defence of the same yet certaine it is that King Henry in the 34. or 35. yeare of his raigne not long before his death togither vvith the vvhole Court of Parliament An. 34. 35 Henri 8. c. 1. by statute condemned the translation of Tindal as a craftie false and an vntrue translation and also commanded it to be vtterly abolished and extinguished and forbadde it to be kept or vsed within any of his Dominions These thinges are to be seene in the statute it selfe yet extant Finally that the English Bible it selfe set forth vnder King Henry the eight was corrupt it is confessed by D. Humfrey And no doubt Humfred de ratione interpret lib. 3. pag. 523. but although many of the said corruptions be amended in the latter editions yet the multitude of them through the whole Bible is al most infinite For besides those vvhich are reprehended by M. Broughton and D. Reynolds which as I suppose were none wilfully committed in prejudice of our religion and in defence of their owne against vs because they being of our preciser sort of enemies vvould not as I imagine acknowledge any such errors M. Gregory Martin a learned man of our side hath also made a whole booke concerning such corruptions as haue beene made in their English Bibles of set purpose to drawe the text from the true sense to impugne vs and fauour their newe opinions I cannot stand to repeate them al vvherefore referring my reader to the said booke of M. Gregory Martin entituled a discouery of the false translations c. I vvil only note a fewe yet in such order that euery man may see that this hath beene done of malice concerning euery article betweene vs in controuersie Neither doe I speake of their forsaking and corrupting of the true sense of the Latin vulgare edition but of the Hebrewe and Greeke text it selfe which they professe to followe But before I come to this matter I must forewarne my reader that although our English sectaries haue set forth diuers Bibles in their vulgar tongue yet I intend especially to speake of three of the principal of which the first vvas authorised by Cranmer called Arch-bishop of Canterbury and read during al King Edwards raigne in their Churches and as it seemeth by the newe printing of it in the yeare 1562. during a great part also of the raigne of Queene Elizabeth The second vvas printed in the yeare 1577. and againe as I thinke in the yeare 1595. and is authorised likewise to be read in their Churches at this present The third is that which was lately printed in the yeare 1600. vvhich as I imagine is the selfe same vvith that vvhich vvas printed not long before in the yeare 1589. and 1592. let vs nowe come to see a fewe of their corruptions SECTION THE FOVRTH Containing false translations against the authority of the Church Traditions honour of Images Purgatory and the honour of Saints FIRST to improue the supreme authority of the Church they banished the vvord Church cleane out of their Bible printed in the yeare 1562. and in place of
This is a great sacrament or mistery they translate This is a great secret In defence of the Princes supremacie in causes Ecclesiastical in king Henry the eight and king Edward the sixt his daies they read 1. Bible 1539. 1562. Peter 2. vers 13. Submit your selues to al manner of ordinance of men whether tt be to the King as the chiefe head c. whereas the Apostle saith Be subject therefore to euery humane creature for God whether it be to the king as excelling Bible 1595. 1600. c. But nowe the last corruption contained in these wordes as the chiefe head is corrected the first remaineth stil Hebr. 5. v. 7. Bible 1595. 1600. Another corruption is in their translation of these wordes of the Apostle He was heard for his reuerence vvhich vvith Caluin they turne thus He was heard in that which he feared Finally to proue that a man may absolutely finde out the true sense of Scripture by conferring only one place with another Act. 9. Bible 1577. 1595. v. 22. they reade Saul confounded the Iewes prouing by conferring one Scripture with another that this is very Christ whereas the Greeke wordes only tel vs that he affirmed that this is Christ But this is amended in the later Bibles Vnto al these corruptions I adde that our English Sectaries in their translations adde words to the text of Scripture which they print not seldome in a smaller letter then that vvhich containeth the text it selfe And who can say that the said text with such additions is the true word of God seing that such additions are made by man without any warrant from God himselfe SECTION THE SEAVENTH That the Professors of the newe religion in corrupting the Scriptures followe the steps of the auncient Heretikes and what followeth of this discourse I HAVE nowe discouered diuers corrupt and false translations of our English Bibles yet not al but certaine of the principal I haue beene the longer because the Sectaries of our daies as I haue before shewed make the holy Scripture the only Canon and rule of their faith and these Bibles as euery man knoweth are accounted the only ground of our English aduersaries newe beleefe and religion for vnto them as to a touch-stone they alwaies appeale wherefore their Bibles especially were to be impugned They boast truly very much of the word of God but as vve see they haue not the vvord of God among them but are corrupters and falsifiers of the same and in steade of it possesse a deuise of their owne heades In this also as in other thinges they followe vvel the steps of al Heretikes their forefathers vvho to colour their horrible blasphemies and detestable heresies haue alwaies vsed the like deceits Hence Tertullian foureteene hundred yeares since vsed this discourse of the Heretikes of his daies Tertul. lib. de praescript ca. 18. see him also cap. 15. 38. Encountring with such by Scriptures auaileth nothing but to ouerturne a mans stomacke or his braine This heresie receaueth not certaine Scriptures and if it doe receaue some yet by adding and taking away it peruerteth the same to serue her purpose and if it receaue any it doth not receaue them wholy and if it doth exhibite them after a sort wholy neuerthelesse by diuising diuers expositions it turneth them cleane an other way Origen in c. 2 ad Roman Cypr. de vnit Eccl. Nūb. 7. Ambros lib. 2. de Spiritu sancto ca. 11. Hence also Origen vvho flourished soone after called Heretikes theeues and adulterers of the Scriptures S. Cyprian tearmeth them corrupters of the Gospel false interpreters artificers and craft-masters in corrupting the truth S. Ambrose noteth that the Macedonians to ouerthrowe the diuinity of the holy Ghost blotted out of the Gospel those wordes * Ioh. 4. v. 24. Tertul. contra Marcionem lib. 1. in princip lib. de prescript God is a spirit Marcion an auncient Heretike is reprehended for the same fault by Tertullian a and is called Mus Ponticus the mouse of Pontus because vvith his corruptions to serue his owne turne he did as it were gnawe certaine places of Scripture The Arians against the eternal generation of Christ vvhereas the Scripture saith The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his waies Hierom. in c. 26. Isaiae reade as S. Hierome recordeth The Lord created me The like corruptions * August lib. 5. cont Iulianum cap. 2. S. Augustine noteth of the Pelagians and more such complaints may be seene in a Epist 89. lib. de peccatorum meritis cap. 11. Origenes epist ad Alexandrinos Eusebius in Apologia sub nomine Pamphili Ruffinus epist. ad Macarium Euagrius lib. 3. cap. 31. Cassiodorus de diuinis lect cap. 8. Finally b Sutcl in his answ to Kellisons Suruey ch 4. pag. 32. Sutcliffe telleth vs that Heretikes to defend their peruerse and erroneous doctrine are wont to detruncate and by false expositions to peruert holy Scriptures And no maruaile that Heretikes haue alwaies runne this course for howe can falshood being of no force or strength be defended and maintained but by cunning deuises deceits and lies truth being of it selfe inuincible needeth no such deceitful helpe This moued S. Paul of himselfe and other preachers of truth to vse these wordes c 2. Cor. 2 17. We are not as very many adultering the word of God but of sincerity and as of God before God we speake And againe We renounce the secret thinges of dishonesty not walking in craftinesse not adultering the word of God contrary to this are al the proceedings of the patrons of falshood But let vs now gather two briefe conclusions out of the long discourse of this Chapter Of vvhich the first shal be that the controuersie betweene vs and our aduersaries is not touching the authority of the Scriptures themselues but touching the translation and interpretation of the same This is manifest because vve doe not reject the places of Scripture by them corrupted and falsified as they are in the Hebrewe Greeke or vulgar Latin but we argue their translation and interpretation of the said places of corruption and falshood and consequently censure it to be the word of man not the vvord of God Secondly I inferre that our aduersaries translated Bibles containe not the true vvord of God and consequently that although vve should grant vnto them that the bare letter of Scripture is a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion yet that they building vpon their said Bibles haue not this ground or foundation Chapter 7. That they build not vpon the letter of holy Scripture contained as they say in their owne Bibles SECTION THE FIRST In which this is proued first because the propositions which they tearme of their faith are not in expresse tearmes contained in the Scripture LET vs goe on a litle further and proue that although vve should also yeeld to our aduersaries that the letter of holy Scripture is a sufficient
Canonical Scripture But to reject those bookes of Scripture vvhich made against them was an old deuise among the auncient Heretikes vnto whome our aduersaries in this also as in other things conforme themselues For this fault S. Augustine noted in Faustus a Maenichee and reprehendeth it in him after this sort Whereas thou saiest this is Scripture or this is such an Apostles August contra Faustum lib. 11. cap. 2. Tertul. lib. de praescript Epiphan heres 30. 42. 69. this is not because this standeth forme and the other against me Thou then art the rule of faith whatsoeuer is against thee is not true Hitherto S. Augustine Tertullian in like manner and S. Epiphanius record that euen in their daies Heretikes rejected certaine bookes of Scripture Vnto this their rejecting and admitting of Scripture according to their owne fancy I adde also that out of their owne judgement vvithout any further vvarrant they alter or as they say correct the text For example although they esteeme the Greeke text of the newe testament aboue al others yet Beza in his translation of the same as it is noted before doth willingly and wittingly thrust out of it those vvordes Luke 3. vers 36 who was of Cainan Of the same fault I accuse also our English Protestants in their Bible of the yeare 1595. And this they doe notwithstanding that al Greeke copies both of the old Testament in the booke of Genesis and of the newe and al the Latin of the newe conspire against them If they answere that the Hebrewe of the old accordeth with them I reply that al the Scripture was penned by the instinct of the holy Ghost and consequently is true wherefore if something more be said in one thing more then is in another the one is not to be corrected or altered by the other for both may be very vvel consonant vnto truth Moreouer vvil these men say that the Hebrewe of the old testament is so true and sincere that it selfe needeth no correction vvhat warrant haue they more for the sincerity of this then for the Greeke of the newe If it be so sincere and they haue any such warrant wherefore doe they also correct and forsake it in their translations That they doe this it appeareth by their translation of the 17. vers of the 22. psalme vvhere they reade Bible 1595. they pierced my handes and my feete vvhereas the Hebrewe text word for word ought thus to be englished As a Lion my handes and my feete And vvhat diuine authority haue they for these their actions certainely none but they alter the sacred text of holy scripture according to their owne priuate liking and fancies SECTION THE SECOND The same is confirmed by their translations and expositions of holy Scripture AND like as in admitting rejecting and altering so they proceede in translating and expounding the word of God according to their owne judgement For first it is manifest See before part 1. ch 7. sect 2. part 2. cha 5. sect 4. that diuers sentences of the holy Scripture in the tongues in vvhich they vvere first vvritten the wordes being either of sundry significations or the sentences hard obscure and doubtful admit diuers translations yea in al tongues diuers interpretations as I haue proued before This I say is manifest both because no man skilful in the tongues can denie it and also because our learned sectaries cannot as yet agree concerning the translation and interpretation of those very bookes vvhich they al receiue Munster in praefat tom 1 Bibliorum Nay Munster a learned sectary affirmeth that sometimes euen among the Hebrews themselues he findeth diuers readinges For sometimes dissentions saith he are found among them some thinking this to be the true reading some thinking contrary Thus he And in very deed their translations euen through the variety of the signification of some Hebrew wordes and their like characters are very much different in sundry places Alias ps 110. I vvil exemplifie in one Psal 109. vers 3. the vulgar edition readeth thus Tecum principium in die virtutis tuae c. Some of them translate it out of the Hebrewe thus a English bible of the yeare 1592. Thy people shal come willingly at the time of assembling thine army in holy beauty the youth of thy wombe shal be as the morning dewe Others after this sort b Bible 1577. and that cōmonly read in Churches In the day of thy power shal the people offer thee free wil offerings with an holy worship the dewe of thy birth is of the wombe of the morning Others thus c Marloratus in psal 110. Bucer Musculus Caluin Pomerane Thy people with voluntary oblations in the day of thy army in beauty of sanctity Of the wombe from the morning the dewe of thy youth to thee And howe different are these translations The first saith youth of thy vvombe and the morning dewe the second dewe of thy birth and wombe of the morning c. For the d Lauath in hist Sacram. fol. 32. Zwinglius to 2. in respon ad Luther li. de Sacra Beza in annot noui testam passim Castalio in defen suae translationis Lutherans with Luther reject the translation and interpretation of Zwinglius and the Zwinglians The Zwinglians with Zwinglius admit not that of Luther and the Lutherans and the like proceedinges are betweene Beza and Castalio and other professors of this newe religion This therefore being presupposed that diuers sentences admit diuers translations let the newe sectary nowe tel me what diuine authority he hath mouing him rather to followe one sense then another the vvordes receiuing and sometimes being indifferent to both Euery priuate mans vnderstanding is subject to errour and there is but one truth howe then doth euery one of them knowe that truth is on his side vvhat diuine authority doth warrant him this Surely in following one translation and interpretation and not admitting others he must needes followe his owne fancy And this is almost in plaine tearmes confessed by Caluin himselfe concerning his owne expositions for explicating those vvordes of Christ Math. 26. vers 26. This is my body he affirmeth that hauing by diligent meditation examined the said sentence he doth imbrace that sense which the spirit telleth him And leaning to this saith he I despise the wisdome of al men which can be opposed against me Thus Caluin See part 1. cha 7. sect 3. part 2. ch 5. sect 4. And note vvel that he preferreth his owne priuate spirit for the holy Ghost as I haue proued infallibly directeth not euery priuate mans judgement before the testimony of al other men and plainely confesseth that he buildeth vpon it not vpon the vvord of God This also moued the translatour of the English Bible printed in the yeare 1589. 1592. and 1600. to protest in his preface that in the translating of it he hath in euery point and word according to the measure
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
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
authority of him that teacheth it or some discourse of their owne vnderstanding Lastly it is also apparant that in so doing they make themselues judges ouer their Masters for vnderstanding of diuers opinions among them they choose and imbrace one as true and condemne al others as false But if their learned doctors themselues in their interpretations build vpon their owne fancies much more the vnlearned vvherefore I need not vse any long discourse of this matter Only I wil adde that it seemeth likewise necessary that he that vvil build his faith vpon the holy Scriptures should finde his whole beliefe in the said Scriptures and knowe perfectly by his owne studie what articles of faith by them are approued and consequently that he should reade ouer the vvhole Bible and conferre one place vvith another least that he be deceiued Otherwise if he beleeue others concerning these points he seemeth to build vpon their vvordes more then vpon the word of God and to fal into that which by his bretheren and him is commonly reprehended as a fault in vs. For they reprehend the vnlearned Catholikes that they rely so much vpon the authority of the Church and reade not the Scripture themselues to knowe what they ought to beleeue vvhereas if they doe not as I haue said they build themselues vpon the authority of a fewe Ministers And these reasons haue more force concerning the ignorant sectaries that cannot reade then the vnlearned that can reade especially this last for the ignorant sort cannot finde their beliefe by their owne study in the Bible and therefore must needes rely wholy vpon other mens reports But our English vnlearned and ignorant Protestants yea some of the learned sort also recurre to the statutes of the Parliament and make it as it vvere an infallible judge of al matters of religion Against these I reply that the Parliament hath no such prerogatiue See Bilson in his treatise of the perpetual gouernement of the church cha 16. pag. 371. 388. 389. seing it hath neither authority from God after such sort to enter-meddle in matters of faith for this belongeth to the Bishops and Prelates of the Church nor a vvarrant from him of not erring Yea seing that it hath erred diuers times as our Protestants themselues cannot denie the judgement of it must needes be very insufficient That they must needes grant it to haue erred I proue because it hath now approued some articles of faith which in former times it condemned This is euident because some of the articles of their beliefe nowe approued vvere censured to be heretical by a Parliament held in the first yeare of King Richard the second against the Wiccliffians in the yeare of our Lord 1380. Also by another act of Parliament in the second yeare of King Henry the fourth Further their vvhole religion vvas condemned by act of Parliament in Queene Maries daies Yea they cannot deny but some of the chiefe articles of their newe beliefe were adjudged heresies by a Parliament held in the latter daies of King Henry the eight euen when he vsed the title of supreame head of the Church of England by the statute of six articles vpon vvhich diuers of their bretheren were burned as Fox their martir-maker recordeth Wherefore I may vvel say that their religion hath beene condemned as authentically by act of Parliament as it hath beene approued And what reason haue they to beleeue more such Parliaments as haue made for them then those that make against them Moreouer it is a most absurd thing to condemne the auncient Councels of the Church of errour and yet to make the judgement of an English Parliament consisting principally of temporal men of an infallible truth Field booke 4 chap. 7. pag. 209. Finally M. Field affirmeth that we can neuer be so wel perswaded of any man or multitude of men but that we may justly feare either they are deceiued or wil deceiue and therefore saith he if our faith depend vpon such groundes we cannot firmely and vndoubtedly beleeue Which his assertion if vve apply to the English Parliament it must needes be confessed that according to his judgement vve may justly feare that either it is deceiued or wil deceiue and that vvho builds his faith on that cannot firmely and vndoubtedly beleeue and consequently it followeth he hath no faith SECTION THE SEAVENTH Of the miserable estate of the vnlearned and ignorant Sectaries HAVING proued that the vnlearned and ignorant Sectaries build their faith and religion vpon their owne fancies I thinke it not amisse to gather out of that which hath beene already said howe miserable their estate is and vpon what weake ground they stand and venture the euerlasting estate of their soules For the declaration of this let vs suppose that an vnlearned sectary being doubtful of his faith commeth to be resolued to his learned masters and let vs behold vvhat groundes of faith are deliuered vnto him by which he may make a stedfast and assured resolution vvhat then is this man perplexed in his beliefe according to our aduersaries ordinary manner of proceeding first vvished to doe verily first according to their aduise he must take the Bible into his handes and diligently viewe what faith is there deliuered and prescribed But vvhat Bible must he take into his handes no other certainely if he follow their counsaile but that vvhich is translated and corrupted by those of their owne sect not the vvord of God but the vvord of men as I haue proued before and this is the first ground which he receiueth from them Suppose this be done and that he being doubtful of this article among others whither Christ be equal and consubstantial to his Father or no turne ouer his Bible and finde those vvordes of Christ The father is greater then I Iohn 14 29. But yet finding two natures in Christ the one of God the other of man and not able to judge of vvhich these vvordes were spoken is not yet satisfied vvhat more is to be done He must conferre say they this place of Scripture vvith other such like Suppose then further that he turneth to that sentence of our Sauiour Iohn 10 30 I and the father are one and pondering vpon it findeth that the Father and the Sonne may be one diuers waies vvherefore not vnderstanding of vvhat vnity the said sentence is meant suppose that he remaine yet doubtful and cannot resolue himselfe by his Bible vvhat must he doe more He must then say the learned betake himselfe to his praiers and pray vnto God that his spirit may by his diuine inspiration teach him the true sense of the aforesaid places of scripture and resolue him of the truth Wel he doth so After his praiers either he findeth his minde inclined to one certaine interpretation and opinion or no If not then he is yet doubtful But if he doth finde his minde so inclined is he consequently sure that he hath attained to the truth Howe knoweth
juices write the names of good holesome medicines whereby almost no man reading the good superscription any thing suspecteth the lurking poison of the self same thing Math. 7. Likewise our Sauiour crieth out to al Christians take ye heed of false prophets which come to you in sheepes cloathing but inwardly are rauening wolues What is meant else by sheepes cloathing but the sayings of the Prophets and Apostles which they with sheepe-like sincerity did weare c. And soone after But to the end they may more craftily set vpon the sheepe of Christ mistrusting nothing remaining stil cruel beasts they put of their woluish weed and shroud themselues with the wordes of Scripture as it were with certaine fleeces whereby it happeneth that when the silly sheepe feele the soft wool they litle feare their sharpe teeth Ambros in cap. vlt. ad Tit. hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis S. Ambrose likewise telleth vs that impiety seing authority to be esteemed couereth her selfe with the vaile of Scriptures that whereas by her selfe shee is not acceptable by Scriptures shee may seeme most commendable And of this matter I neede say no more Chapter 9. In which is proued by the newe Sectaries forsaking their owne supposed ground and flying to others also by their dissension and inconstancy that they build their faith and religion only vpon their owne fancies SECTION THE FIRST Concerning their flying to other groundes by themselues rejected and their dissension I HAVE nowe sufficientlie proued that our aduersaries build not their faith and religion vpon any one of those particular groundes which are found in the Church of Christ yea that in al matters the rule of their beliefe is principally their owne judgement and fancy For the confirmation of al vvhich my discourse I purpose in this chapter to set downe three manifest tokens and signes of this their vveake foundation to vvit their forsaking of their owne ground and flying to others when they confute their aduersaries their dissention or diuision and their inconstancy Concerning the first it is a thing most euident in al their proceedinges that although disputing against vs they pleade and demand only Scriptures and commonly reject al authority of the Church Councels and Fathers yea when they come to confute other Sectaries like vnto themselues they refuse such trial by scriptures and sometimes fly to other such groundes Thus Caluin although he referre al matters sometimes to Scripture affirming that we ought to hearken to the voice of Christ alone and that it is meete the mouthes of al men be shut after that our Lord hath once spoken Caluin lib. 4. instit cap. 8. § 7. 8. which by his ordinary courses he seemeth to approue as a sufficient argument to shew that the wordes themselues of Scripture as they are expounded by himself are without contradiction to be applauded and reuerenced yet at other times he desireth al sorts diligently to ponder and examine whether the word of God be truly or falsly alleaged and to try the spirits whether they be of God or no because the Deuil assaulted Christ by Scripture and his instruments daily practise the same art to depraue the truth and seduce silly soules This course he taketh against the Anabaptists as I haue shewed a litle before See before chap. 8. sect 5. Nay discoursing against the Lutherans he vseth these wordes Nowe againe I turne my speech to you godly readers whome I earnestly beseech that you suffer not your senses to be astonied with that tinckling wherein the Magdeburgians boast This voice alwaies soundeth in their mouthes Caluin admonit vltima ad Westphalum pag. 1147. that we must not dispute where Christ the only master and doctour hath clearely taught what is to be beleeued that we must not contend where the same supreame judge hath pronounced a plaine sentence thus Caluin to the Lutherans pleading hardly the scriptures against him in proofe of the real presence After this sort also Beza against the Arians Trinitarians Nestorians and Eutichians pleaded the authority of general Councels as I haue else where shewed Part. 1. chap. 9. Westphalus likewise wrote to a Caluini ibid. pag. 1098. Caluin that the consent of many Churches condemning him should satisfie him Finally our English Protestants although they pronounce so hard a censure against general Councels themselues and are so earnest for the sufficiency of only Scripture as we haue seene before yet against the Puritans plead hardly the authority of the Church Councels and Fathers as euery man may behold in their vvorkes of this argument Whitgift in his defence Belson in his treatise of the perpetual gouernement of the Church and such other examples are not wanting Touching their dissention and diuision a Tertul lib. de praescript Tertullian affirmeth that we may lawfuly judge that there is adulteration both of Scripture and expositions where there is found diuersity of doctrine And the reason of this is manifest because the truth vnto vvhich the Scriptures and their true interpretation is consonant and giue testimony is one wherefore they cannot approue diuers and opposite doctrines Nowe that diuision is found among our aduersaries no man of any sense and reading can deny b Stanislaus Rescius lib. de Acheismis Phalerismis haereticorum nostri tēporis Stanislaus Rescius numbreth of them an hundred seauenty distinct sects of which c Caspar Vlenbergius li. 22. Causarū causae 9. Caspar Vlenbergius reciteth diuers principal * See Hedio a Zwinglian epist ad Melancthonem others reckon farre more And this euery man may the better beleeue if he consider that it is a very hard matter to finde any two of the learned sort of them of one opinion touching al matters of religion Hence ariseth dissention in their Churches in which they proceede so farre that they feare not to censure and condemne one another of heresie If we beleeue d Luther thes 27. cont Louaniens tom 7. in defens verborum coenae c. Luther and the Lutherans Zwinglius Caluin and al the Sacramentaries are damned Heretikes If we credit e Zwinglius tom 2. in respōs ad Luth. l. de Sacram. fol. 411. 401. Caluin admonit 3. ad Westphalum Zwinglius Caluin and other Sacramentaries Luther and the Lutherans are guilty of the same crime And the like dissentions are betweene the inuentours and followers of other sectes But of this matter I shal haue a more fit opportunity to discourse in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church vvherefore in this place passing ouer altogether with silence the domestical discord which is betweene our Protestants and Puritans touching the Lutherans and Caluinists abroad I vvil recite this only testimony of an f Relation of the state of religion in the West parts of the world §. 45. written as said by Sir Edwine Sans printed in the yeare 1605. English Protestant who hauing trauailed in those parts of their dissention writeth
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
that any translation is true but of these matters before For the authority also of our translation in general it maketh that it hath beene read and allowed of in the Church aboue eleauen hundred yeares and approued by thousands of Saintes and learned men and by them accepted as the true vvord of God The translation of the old testament in particular if we beleeue S. Augustine Aug. l. 18. de ciuitat c. 43. was acknowledged as true by the very Iewes themselues then liuing who fauoured no more vs then the Protestants That of the newe as the same holy Father writeth was also in those daies approued by al Christians Idem epist 10 ad Hieron For it likewise we haue the testimony of Beza himselfe who among our aduersaries is accounted a great linguist who in commendation of the old translator writeth thus The old interpreter seemeth to haue interpreted or translated the holy bookes Beza in c. 1. Luc. vers 1. IbideÌ„ in praefat nou test anno 1556. Idem ibid. with marueilous sincerity and religion Againe The vulgar edition I embrace for the most part and preferre it before al other whatsoeuer By it in diuers places he correcteth the Greeke text as may be seene Luc. 20. vers 28. Luc. 7. vers 31. c. He also blameth Erasmus for reprehending of it as dissenting from the Greeke saying that he doth it vnjustly I wil recite his wordes which are as followeth Howe vnjustly and without cause doth Erasmus blame the old interpreter as dissenting from the Greeke He dissented I grant from those Greeke copies which Erasmus had gotten but we haue found out in one place that the same interpretation which he blameth is grounded vpon the authority of other Greeke copies and those most ancient Yea in some number of places we haue obserued that the reading of the Latin text of the old interpreter though it agree not some times with our Greeke copies yet it is much more conuenient for that it seemeth he followed some truer and better copy Thus Beza Vnto whome I joine Molinaeus an other sectary as some thinke to him not inferiour Molinaeus in Luc. 17. who in like sort preferreth this edition before those of Erasmus Bucer Bullinger Brentius Pagnines that of Zuricke yea also before Iohn Caluins and al others He affirmeth Ibidem that Erasmus in a certaine place did wel to followe the old edition and saith it had beene better for Beza to haue done so too He auoucheth further that Beza did not wel in changing the old translation Idem in Ioan. 3. v. 19. 43 see also in Ioan 7. ver 35. He addeth also * IdeÌ„ part 30 that he can very hardly depart from the vulgar and accustomed reading which also I am wont saith he very earnestly to defend Castalio in like sort a man much commended by a Humfredus de rat Interp. lib. 1. pa. 62. 63. 189. D. Humfrey and b Gesnerus in Bibliotheca Gesnerus blameth Beza for finding fault with the old interpreter c Castalio in defens p. 179 174. 181. 183. 188. 198. 202. 204. 213. auerring that he doth it vnjustly and that the said old interpreter had translated it better before Yea d Humfred de rat interpret lib. 1. pag. 74. D. Humfrey himselfe yeeldeth the old translator this praise The old interpreter seemeth sufficiently bent to followe the propriety of wordes and he doth in deede ouer carefully which notwithstanding I suppose him to haue done not of ignorance but of religion And in truth that this is no fault I gather out of his owne doctrine for he e Ibid. p. 179. telleth vs that in prophane writers a man may range abroade more freely and depart from the wordes but in Canonical scripture saith he no such licence is tollerable for man may not alter the tongue of God And thus much for the vulgar Latin edition of the newe Testament out of our aduersaries Further for the truth of our expositions of the holy Scripture we haue the continual tradition of the Church and the testimony and suffrage of al the holy Fathers and of thousands of Saints and learned men who euer expounded it as we doe and out of it gathered the selfe same doctrine and beliefe For vnto them vve are al contented to remit the trial of the truth of our cause and of the hoâ—y Church and them we professe our selues to learne the true sense of the word of God And thus much the Catholikes can alleage for the authority of their translation and interpretation of holy Scripture although they set aside the authority of the Church Nowe what can our aduersaries say for themselues what sound testimony or proof can they bring for the truth of their translations and expositions Surely euery sect at the lest hath a distinct bible wherefore for the proofe of these thinges they can only alleage the testimony of their sect-master or translator of their Bible and his followers And what a goodly matter is this doe not farre more of the new sectaries themselues condemne reject euery one of their Bibles and their particular expositions then there doe approue them Certainly euery Bible is condemned by diuers but approued only by the followers of one sect and so in like sort are diuers particular interpretations Vnto which I adde that the diuersity of their Bibles maketh the truth of them al suspected for seing that we haue no greater reason to allowe of one then of an other and al but one without al doubt are false as they themselues must needes confesse because there is but one true word of God we may with like reason reject them al. Moreouer is any one of their sect-masters or learned translators or expositors to be compared with S. Hierome Is the opinion of a fewe sectaries touching the translation and interpretation of holy Scriptures to be preferred before the testimony of al the Saints learned men that flourished in the Church in S. Hieromes daies and euer since yea I may demand whether their opinion be to be preferred before the testimony of al good Christians that haue liued euer since the beginning of Christianity For S. Hierome followed the steps of his predecessors and consented with the vniuersal Church of his age and the Church euer since hath approued his labours Stancarus de Trinit Mediat M. 4. Surely Stancarus himselfe a Protestant auoucheth that Peter Lombard called the master of sentences is more to be esteemed then one hundred Luthers two hundred Melancthons three hundred Bullingers foure hundred Peter Martirs fiue hundred Caluins He addeth that if al these sectaries named were beaten or pounded together in a morter there could not be strained or pressed out of them one ounce of true diuinity especially out of their doctrine concerning the blessed Trinity the Incarnation the Mediator and the Sacraments which neuerthelesse be the principal misteries of Christian religion Wherefore he concludeth
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
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
goe on in the first place alleaged And therefore for as much as in these controuersies the Papists and the Prelates goe hand in hand the said Ministers doe in like manner make the like offer to the Priestes and Iesuites promising their reconcilement vnto that See of Rome if they can either by arguments pul them from the aforesaid propositions or can answere such arguments as they shal propound in the defence of them in manner and forme before specified in the offer And therefore it both stands the Ministers vpon to make the aforesaid offer and the Prelates except they wil haue al the world to judge them to be friendes in hart to Popery to accept of the same Thus the Puritan Ministers and no such offer that I finde through the whole booke is made to the Protestants This then is affirmed by these men that if the Protestant doctrine mainetained against them be true and their assertions be false the separation of the newe Sectaries Churches from ours cannot be justified yea they auouch that if this be so that their said Churches are schismatical Vnto which if we adde that in very deede the propositions which the Puritans offer to mainetaine against the Prelates are false and erroneous the truth of which assertion is confessed with great vehemency defended by al the English Protestants and further concerning some of the said propositions very vvel proued by Hooker Whitgift Bilson Couel and others of their company we shal haue our desired conclusion that according to the doctrine of the English Sectaries the Puritans and the Protestants our aduersaries Churches are Schismatical and that ours is the true Spouse of Christ But I must not here omitte by the way to aduertise my reader that in the judgement of any wise and judicious person this argument yeelded vs by our aduersaries cannot but also be a very strong proofe of the truth of our Catholike cause For vvhosoeuer maturely considereth the matter shal finde that the Protestants in rejecting the Puritan propositions followe the prescript and rule of holy Scriptures the decrees of Councels and the tradition of the Church and Fathers He shal also perceiue that the Puritans in auouching that which I haue related build vpon very good reasons flowing out of the very nature of the Protestant religion and taken from the proceedings of the vpholders of the same in defending it because out of the doctrine and practise defended by the Protestants against the Puritans as also out of the proofes and reasons alleaged for themselues very strong arguments may be drawne to confirme the truth of our whole Catholike religion as wil sometimes appeare in my treatise following And to giue here one instance the Protestants for the authority of Arch-bishops bring diuers reasons and among others this one that peace and vnity can otherwise hardly be maintained in the Church But vvhat faith Cartwright Suruay of the pretended holy discipline chap. 8. pag. 125. Truly he affirmeth as is reported by the author of the Suruay of the pretended holy discipline that the Popes authority is more necessary ouer al Churches then the authority of an Arch-bishop ouer a prouince And this his assertion is grounded vpon very good reason as I shal more at large declare hereafter Nowe to prosecute mine intended discourse vvhich is to proue some errours in the English sectaries here occurreth another argument like vnto the former not vnfit for my purpose For like as I haue already demonstrated that if they al say true our Church is the true Church of Christ so it is also euident that if it be so that they al say true it is also needful there be one supreame head of the vvhole Church militant Suruay c. chap. 29. pag. 372. for thus I argue Cartwright a principal Puritan esteemed by those of his owne sect as the aforesaid author noteth one of the only worthies of the world telleth vs that the Popes authority is more necessary ouer al Churches then the authority of an Arch-bishop ouer a prouince but the authority of an Arch-bishop as al our Protestants defend is necessary ouer a prouince therefore the Popes authority is necessary ouer al Churches It may be objected that these arguments are taken from persons of sundry sectes of which the one confesseth the other to erre I grant it but this notwithstanding they proue that either some English sectaries erre or otherwise that our religion by them rejected is true which sufficeth my purpose Neuerthelesse the Protestants themselues doe afford vs no such reasons Truly if I were not here restrained to the vvriting only of a preface I could assigne diuers one I wil set downe for an example Field booke 3 chap. 39. pag. 158. 156. 157. 159. M. Field in his third booke of the Church plainly confesseth that in sundry Churches of the world being of the newe religion diuers worthy Ministers of God were ordained by Presbiters or Priestes sometime of our Church and had no ordination from any Bishop Nay he seemeth apparantly to graunt that none but Presbiters did impose handes in ordaining Ministers or Superintendents in many of the pretended reformed Churches as namely in those of France and others Morton in Apolog. Cathol part 1. lib. 1. cap. 21. which is also insinuated by D. Morton And therefore both these Doctors teach that in time of necessity a Priest or Minister may impose handes and consecrate a Priest and consequently also a Bishop or a Superintēdent Out of this their doctrine I frame this argument seing that diuers Superintendents and Ministers of the newe religion I may say al at the least of some Countries for Field himselfe excepteth only those of England Denmarke and of some other places which places he nameth not haue had their ordination or orders only from Priests it followeth that if Priests haue no power of ordination that is of giuing orders that such Ministers and Superintendents are no true Ministers and Superintendents But Priests according to the assertion of a principal English Protestant haue no power of ordination and can giue no orders therefore such Superintendents and Ministers are no true Superintendents and Ministers Of which I also inferre that such Churches are no true Churches for they want a true ministery and clergy without which as * Field ibid. pag. 154. and booke 2. chap. 6. pag. 51. Field confesseth there can be no Church And this English Protestant is a William L. Bishop of Rochester in his sermon cōcerning the antiquity superiority of Bishops preached before the King at Hampton-Court Sep. 21. 1606 William L. B. of Rochester who in his sermon not long since preached before the Kinges Majesty and afterward printed by his Majesties expresse commandement as the same Bishop b In the epist to the King prīted before the sermon auoucheth affirmeth and proueth out of holy Scripture first that the Apostles kept to themselues ordination or authority to giue holy orders til