doubtful authority For it is recorded by Ecclesiastical vvriters and also confessed by our aduersaries that there hath beene controuersie and doubt in the Church concerning the authority of the b Euseb li. 3. hist ca. 3. 25. 28. Hier. de viris illust in Paulo Petro c. Hāmer in his notes vpon Eusebius lib. 2. cap. 23. epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrues the epistles of S. Iames S. Iude the second of S. Peter and the second of S. Iohn Howe doubtful the authority of the c Euse l. 3. cap. 28. Hier. epist 129. ad Dardarā Apocalipse was among many euery man may see in S. Hierome and Eusebius and in the Councel of Laodicea which numbred it not among other Canonical bookes And who hath taken vp and ended these controuersies by declaring these parcels of Scripture to be Canonical but our holy mother the Church Verily this is so true and euident that it is confessed euen by some of our d Obseruations vpon the Harmonie of cōfessions vppon the 1. Section aduersaries themselues Thus she receiued in the first general councel of Nice the booke of Iudith about the yeare of our Lord 325. if we beleeue e Hier. praefat in Iud. Idē in prolo Galeato in prol Prouer. in praefat in Iudith S. Hierome who before he heard of this decree of the said Councel rejected the said booke but vnderstanding of it admitted it forthwith as Canonical Let vs confirme al this with the testimony of S. Augustine whome f Caluin li. 4. Instit c. 14. sess 25 Caluin acknowledgeth to be the most faithful witnes of al antiquity g Beza in cap. 3. ad Rom. v. 12. Beza calleth him the prince of al ancient Diuines both Greeke and Latin as concerning dogmatical pointes of religion h Gomarus in speculo verae Ecclesiae pag. 96. Gomarus saith that according to the common opinion he is accounted most pure This then is one of his notable sentences touching this matter i Aug. contra epistol Manichaei quam vocant fundamentum cap. 5. I would not beleeue the Gospel saith he except the authority of the Catholike Church did moue me thereunto Those therefore whome I obeied saying Beleeue ye the Gospel why shal I not obey them saying vnto me Beleeue thou not Manichaeus Choose which thou wilt If thou shalt say beleeue the Catholikes they admonish me that I beleeue not you If thou shalt say beleeue not the Catholikes thou shalt not doe wel to constraine me by the Gospel to beleeue Manichaeus because I haue beleeued the Gospel it selfe through the preaching of the Catholikes Thus S. Augustine But here k Field booke 4. chap. 4. M. Field in his fourth booke of the Church occurreth and saith that the sense and meaning of S. Augustine in those his wordes I would not beleeue the Gospel except the authority of the Church did moue me thereunto is that he had neuer beleeued the Gospel if the authority of the Church had not beene an introduction vnto him I reply that he vvresteth this holy Fathers vvordes to a vvrong sense yea to such a sense as his discourse it selfe wil not beare and for proofe of this I desire no more of my reader but to marke the force of the reason vsed by S. Augustine which is this Manichaeus in the beginning of his epistle which this most learned Doctor confuteth called himselfe an Apostle of Iesus Christ S. Augustine requireth a proofe of his Apostleship and vrgeth if perhaps he alleage some authority out of the Gospel what he would doe to him that should deny the Gospel whereunto he adjoineth the wordes rehearsed I trulie would not beleeue the Gospel c. if the authority of the Church did not moue me thereunto And out of this that the Gospel is beleeued by the authoritie of the Church he proueth that Manichaeus is not to be beleeued because the same authoritie which commaundeth to doe the one forbiddeth to doe the other Of which it followeth that if it erre in the last it may also erre in the first and so no firme argument can be brought out of it for the proofe of the Apostleship of Manichaeus Hence S. Augustine doth not say I had not beleued the Gospel except the authority of the Church had moued me thereunto as he should haue said if he had meant as Field pretendeth but I would not beleeue the Gospel c. taking his argument from the motiue of his present beliefe of the Gospel and in this sence his reason is of great force and not otherwise But that which I say is yet more confirmed by that which followeth For S. Augustine addeth But if peraduenture thou canst finde something in the Gospel most apparant for the Apostleship of Manichaeus thou shalt weaken vnto me the authority of the Catholikes who commaund me that I shal not beleeue thee which being weakned now neither can I beleeue the Gospel because through them I beleeued it So whatsoeuer thou shalt bring me from thence shal be with me of no force wherefore if nothing manifest be found in the Gospel for the Apostleship of Manichaeus I wil beleeue the Catholikes rather then thee But if thou bring any thing from thence manifest for the Apostleship of Manichaeus I wil neither beleeue them nor thee not them because they haue lied to me concerning thee not thee also because thou bringest me forth that Scripture which I beleeued through them whome I haue found liars But God forbid that I should not beleeue the Gospel Hitherto are S. Augustines words by which I thinke euerie man may perceiue how greatly M. Field doth wrong him For we see plainly that he confesseth the authority of the Church to haue beene the cause of his present beliefe of Scripture yet not the formal cause but the conditional as is declared before And al that I haue here related out of this holy Father Aug. tom 6. li. cont Epist quā vocāt fundamenti cap. 5. may be as wel vrged against any Sectarie whatsoeuer of our time as against Manichaeus for whosoeuer affirmeth the Church to haue erred in condemning any one of their Heresies by weakning and ouerthrowing her authoritie weakeneth also and ouerthroweth the authoritie of the whole Bible Neither doth that which he alleageth out of Waldensis make any waies for him for as this learned man plainely in that very place declareth he vnderstandeth S. Augustine as I haue deliuered These are his wordes Waldensis lib. 2. doctrinalis fidei artic 2. ca. 21. Without the authority of the vniuersal Church no scripture can be read or bad for certaine And this S. Augustine vnderstood when he said I would not beleeue the Gospel did not the authority of the Church moue me thereunto Thus Waldensis The point which Field toucheth is in his discourse following but it maketh nothing against vs for he only saith that which I haue before deliuered to wit that by the proposition of
then before and by which our mindes are so diuinely lifted vp and affected as it were by a diuine testimonie that through it farre more strongly then by any humane motiues we are inclined to beleeue and made most firmly to rest in the diuine reuelation and so by this assistance of God together with the concourse of our vnderstanding an act of supernatural faith is produced by which we firmely beleeue the articles of Christian faith taught and propounded by the Catholike Church not for such and such motiues as before proued them credible but for that they are reuealed by almighty God And because one of these articles is that the Church in propounding particuler misteries of our faith cannot erre this also is beleeued among the rest vpon which as a common rule and guide we ground our beliefe as vpon a sure propounder of such thinges as we are bound to beleeue touching euerie other particuler article Hence ariseth a great difference betweene vs and some of the most learned of our aduersaries touching the decision of this question for although we both seeme to admit some supernatural aide light or habite to this that our vnderstanding produce an act of supernatural faith yet we differ much concerning the object of this act as also in the motiues or arguments of credibility which first induce vs to accept of the same For whereas we include in the first act of faith into which we are induced by the said motiues the beliefe of an infallible guide touching al particuler pointes they include no such matter but for their ground and guide in this act beleeued acknowledge only the letter of holy Scripture which verilie although we also in our aforesaid act include yet we giue it no such sole preheminence as is before declared And of this followeth a farre greater difference couching the arguments and proofes of our propounder and ground for whereas althe argumentes of credibility perswading vs that Christian religion is credible perswade vs also that the authority of the propounder of our faith I meane of the Catholike Church according to prudence may be beleeued infalliblie the said arguments are not sufficient in a wise mans judgement setting aside the said authoritie of the Church to make it credible vnto vs that euerie booke and parcel of holy Scripture commonly admitted is canonicall and diuine much lesse that euerie particuler exposition of Scripture by euerie priuate man accepted is diuine true And of this it proceedeth that they alleage no such forcible arguments of credibility for the proofe of this and that booke of Scripture nor for the truth of their interpretation of this and that sentence but for the first vsually flie to diuine illumination only joyned with the majestie of the letter or some such thing vvhich be no such arguments of credibility as I wil proue hereafter Part. 2. Chap. 5. and for the last some of them assigne certaine rules to be obserued vvhich in verie deede are insufficient as shal likewise hereafter be proued Hence they assigne no prudent motiues Ibid. c. 8. which perswade them to concurre with the supernatural helpe of God to a supernatural act of faith 2. Cor. 10. verse 5. Rom. 12. verse 1. Whereas God although he require of men an humble obsequie or obedience to faith yet propoundeth nothing to be beleeued which in the judgement of wise men is not credible and therefore also requireth a reasonable obsequie Verily if there were no other reason to perswade a man the truth of our doctrine this only would suffice that God doth vsually teach al by some common rule or meane which draweth men to vnity and humility not euerie one by priuate illumination or inspiration which is commonlie a motiue to pride and a fountaine of discord But Field vrgeth Field book 4. cap. 7. that by this doctrine we lastly resolue our faith to humane motiues and inducements I answere that concerning this matter two questions may be demaunded very much diuers First what moueth men to accept of the beliefe of such obscure articles as are those of Christian religion vnto which I make this answere that vnto this they are moued by such prudential or humane motiues as I haue assigned before Secondly it may be asked concerning the formal cause of faith it selfe why men now actually beleeue such obscure misteries And vnto this I say that the cause of their present beliefe is the reuelation of God or vvhich is al one the authority of God reuealing And because they are not sufficient of themselues supernaturally to beleeue such articles as so reuealed their vnderstanding is aided and inclined to this by the diuine gift of supernatural faith like as their wil by charity is aided and inclined to any act of supernatural loue which gift of faith together with their vnderstanding as I haue said produceth a supernatural act of beliefe wherfore we assigne not humane inducements as the formal cause but as the cause of the first acceptaunce of our faith and as into the formal cause we lastly resolue our faith into diuine reuelation And so I thinke this opinion sufficiently explicated But before I passe any further Field ibid. § Surely Stapheton in his Triplic contra Whitaker pag. 188. I cannot there but aduertise my reader that Field discoursing of this point wrongeth D. Stapleton very much For whereas he accuseth him as though in his Triplication against Whitaker he should affirme Other matters to be beleeued because contained in the Scripture and the Scripture because it is the word of God and that it is the word of God because the Church deliuereth it so to be and the Church because it is led by the spirit and that it is led by the spirit because it is so contained in the Scripture and the Creed Stapleton in verie deed in this last place hath no mention of the Scripture but of the Creed only True it is that he proueth against Whitaker out of the Scriprture a certaine internal motion of God by which we are moued to assent to this first proposition as he saith of our faith I beleeue the Catholike Church is infallibly gouerned by the holy Ghost and that she is to be heard and her voice obeyed but this is not to say that we beleeue the Church to be led by the spirit because it is so contained in the Scripture I come now to the second opinion Others therefore besides this diuine affection or inclination proceeding from the peculiar assistance of God in the act of faith being desirous also to assigne some other diuine and infallible reason mouing vs to beleeue affirme both that we beleeue the authority of the Church to be infallible because it is so reuealed in holy Scripture and also that we infalliblie knowe the Scriptures to be canonical because as canonical they are propounded vnto vs by the Church Neither doe they as they say in this kinde of proceeding commit anie absurd or vitious
Diosinius the Patriark of Alexandria men of great estimation in their daies with diuers other Bishops in sundry prouincial Councels decreed the baptisme of Heretiks to be of no force therefore to be reiterated They confirmed this their definition or sentence with many testimonies of holy scripture seeming at the first sight of no smal force and moment for their purpose but al these their decrees were ouerthrowne And how surely by the contrary Tradition of the Church for b see Vinc. Lir. ca. 9. Cipr. ab epist 70. ad 77. Aug de bapt cont Donat. et cōt Cresc Hierō cōtra Lucif S. Steuen Pope of Rome pleading Tradition against them condemned their doctrine as heretical and pronounced this renowmed sentence Let no newe thing be brought into the Church let nothing be done but that which was deliuered vnto vs thinking it altogether vnlawful to transgresse the rule of faith by succession and Tradition receiued from the Apostles This is recorded by diuers authors of great fame and antiquity By Tradition the Pelagian heresie vvas confuted as is affirmed by S. c Caelesti epist 8. Caelestinus Pope and S. Augustine By Tradition only the same d Aug. de bapt li. 2. cap 7. S. Augustine and others condemned Heluidius the heretike for denying the perpetual virginity of our blessed Ladie Yea e Basil de spir sācto ca. 27. See Aug. epist 118. ad Iā Leo ser 2. de jeiunio S. Basil telleth vs that if we reject Tradition we shal endomage the whole principal parts of our faith and without it bring the preaching of the Gospel to a naked name I could bring forth diuers other such like examples and testimonies were it not that I should be ouer long But how shal we come to the knowledge of these Traditions S. Augustine giueth vs this most certaine rule f Aug. to 7. de bapt cōt Dona. l. 4. c. 24. see ibi c. 6 That saith he which the whole Church holdeth and hath not beene instituted by any Councel but alwaies hath beene obserued is most truly beleeued to haue beene deliuered by no other but Apostolike authority Such a Tradition saith the same g Aug de Genes ad lit c. 23. et con Dona. l. 4. c. 24. Orig. in c. 6. ad Rom. S. Augustine and Origenes is the baptisme of infants Such Traditions according to h Ba. de spi sāct c. 27. S. Basil are the signe of the Crosse praying towards the East the words spoken at the eleuation of the Eucharist with diuers ceremonies vsed before and after consecration the hallowing of the font before baptisme the blessing of the oile or chrisme the annointing of the baptized with the said oile the three immersions into the font the words of abrenuntiation and exorcismes of the partie which is to be baptized c. What scripture saith he taught these and such like thinges none truly al comming of secrete and hidden Tradition wherewith our fore-fathers thought it meete to couer such misteries Hitherto S. Basil It is an Apostolical Tradition as we are taught by a Dionis de Eccles hierarc cap. 7. S. Dionisius of Areopagus b Tertul. in exhort ad castita tem c. 11. et de corona militis cap. 3. Tertullian c Chrisos homi 69. ad populum S. Iohn Chrisostome and S. Augustine to pray and make a memory of the soules departed in the Masse It is an Apostolical Tradition saith d Hieron epist 54. ad Marc. S. Hierome and e Epiphā haeres 75. Aerij S. Epiphanius to keepe certaine appointed fasting-daies especially the Lent the same is affirmed by f Aug. epi. 118. ad Ia nu cap. 1. S. Augustine concerning the obseruation of certaine holy-daies and by g Damas li. 4. de ortho fide c. 17. et l. de Imagini See Ter. de coron mil. S. Iohn Damascene concerning the adoration of Images These and diuers other such like Apostolike Traditions are sette downe by the auncient Fathers and are to be found in the Church of Christ And vpon these if they bee of matters of faith seeing that they haue diuine authority both from Christ and the Apostles vvho deliuered them to the Church and from the Church it selfe which being the piller of truth hath accepted and approued them euerie Christian may securelie build his faith and beliefe If they be concerning preceptes of moral actions vve are bound to obey them and may doe it with like security wherefore h Origen tract 29. in Math. Origen giueth vs this learned counsaile As often saith he as Heretiks alleage Canonical scriptures in which al Christians consent and beleeue they seeme to say * Mat 24. verse 26. Behold in houses is the word of truth but we ought not to beleeue them nor to goe forth from the first Ecclesiastical Tradition nor beleeue otherwise but as the Church of God by succession hath deliuered vnto vs. Thus farre Origen wishing euery one in the interpretation and sense of holy scripture to follow the Tradition of the Church as also in the beliefe of al such matters as are called in question by Heretikes Vnto these proofes I adde that i Barlow B. of Rochester in his sermon preached at Hampton Court Sept. 21. 1606. Barlowe and Field two famous English Protestants admit of certaine Apostolike Traditions k Field booke 4. cap. 20. § Much contention Field telleth vs that they reject not al vnwritten Traditions yea he alloweth of the rule of * Chap. 21. S. Augustine before mentioned for decerning Apostolical Traditions from others as also doth l Whitgift in his defence pag. 351. 352. Whitgift But Field addeth moreouer this other that whatsoeuer al or the most famous and renowmed in al ages or at the least in diuers ages haue constantly deliuered as receiued from them that went before them no man contradicting or doubting of it may be thought to be an Apostolical Tradition thus Field I confesse that this notwithstanding he affirmeth Ibid. cap. 20. § Out of this No matter of faith to be deliuered by bare and onlie Tradition But why not such as wel as those which concerne the manners conuersation of men and are by him allowed as for example Why may we not as assuredly receiue by Tradition our beliefe concerning some article of faith as to vse his owne words concerning the obseruation of the Lordes day Ibid. That the Apostles Field book 4. ca. 20. § Much confession Ibidem § The secōd kinde Doth not the allowance of these also according to their common doctrine prejudice the sufficiencie of holy scripture But he graunteth further that They receiue the number names of the Authours and integrity of the parts of bookes diuine and Canonical as deliuered by Tradition He admitteth as a second Tradition That summary comprehension of the chiefe heads of Christian doctrine contained in the Creed of the Apostles which was deliuered to the Church
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
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
they are obscure which obscurity partlie as he saith ariseth through the high and excellent nature of the thinges in them contained which if we admit the thinges contained in the Scripture be no good meane for vs to come to the knowledge of Scripture And moreouer certaine it is that the euidence of thinges contained in the Scripture is no more manifest vnto vs then the Scriptures themselues and therefore for this reason also it cannot be any good Medium to proue these Canonical Field and al his fellowes to al these reasons objected against them seeme to answere that in very deede these motiues of themselues are not sufficient to perswade euerie man of the diuine truth of these bookes yet that they are fullie sufficient to perswade him that is endued with the habite of faith or hath a diuine illumination or inspiration of the spirit and commeth to reade the Scriptures vvith pure eies and perfect senses yea Caluin in his whole discourse touching the knowledge of canonical Scripture seemeth altogether to flie to diuine inspiration whence proceed these his sentences Caluin Insâ—it book 1. chap. 7. § 4. and 5. The manner of perswasion touching the diuine truth of Scriptures must be fetched euen from the secret testimonie of the holy Ghost They doe disorderly that by disputation trauaile to establish the perfect credite of the Scripture The word of God shal neuer finde credit in the hearts of men vntil it be sealed vp with the inward witnesse of the holy Ghost They whom the holy Ghost hath inwardly taught doe wholie rest vpon the Scripture Though by the only majesty of it self it procureth reuerence to be giuen to it if then only it throughly pearceth our affections when it is sealed in our hearts by the holy Ghost hitherto are Caluins wordes I reply first that this taketh not away the necessity of reading or hearing read euery sentence of these diuine bookes before we can knowe them to be Canonical or discerne what we are bound to beleeue Secondly of this it followeth that before a man can discerne whether any booke be Canonical or no he must not only haue faith or a supernatural light of the holy Ghost but must also most assuredly and infallibly knowe himselfe to haue such a faith or such an illumination And how wil they make vs beleeue this and also perswade vs that the Scripture is the ground and rule of our beliefe which likewise they euen as earnestly teach can pure eies perfect senses and the light of faith be had without knoweledge of that which is the verie ground and rule of faith Must not the ground be knowne and had before vve can attaine vnto that which is built vpon the said ground If it must and the whole Canon of Scripture be the ground of our faith as they say then must the whole Canon of Scripture be infalliblie knowne before vve can haue such faith and consequently the light of faith cannot be a meane whereby we are to come to the knowledge of the said Canon of Scripture or any parcel thereof But because al Sectaries vsually both in this and other pointes seeme most to relie vpon the inspiration and illumination of the spirit by which as they say al matters are made euident vnto them and they are assured of the diuine truth of them although to others not enlightened the same matters seeme doubtful from vvhence it proceedeth that Field affirmeth themselues to rest in the light of diuine vnderstanding Field booke 4. chapt 13. § This judgement as in that whereby they judge of al things Let vs confute the certainety of this illumination or inspiration concerning such particuler pointes especially touching the knowledge of diuine Scripture a litle more at large And first thus I argue If there be such a certaine illumination or inspiration either God by this illumination or inspiration doth so teach and direct euerie man concerning euery article of faith that they cannot erre or some men only and those only touching some articles That he doth not so direct al concerning al articles it is euident and confessed by our aduersaries who acknowledg some to be Heretiks as the Anabaptists and Swencfeldians others to erre as diuers of sundry sects c. That he doth not likewise direct some concerning al points it is euident for there is no one Sectary can be named but hath erred in some point or other especially if we admit the judgment of other of his brethren to be true yea Caluin himselfe confesseth that euery man is subject to errour Calu. iÌ„ 1. Cor. 2. v. 15. See and no man is exempted from it But euery one saith he as he is regenerated according to the measure of grace giuen him doth judg truly and certainely but no further thus Caluin of the same opinion are others Lubbertus de priÌ„cipijs christian dog p. 563. HieroÌ„ Zauchius de script pag. 411. 412. If some only be so infallibly directed those only concerning some articles first it followeth that god hath not sufficientlie prouided for the direction of men in matters of beliefe for he hath prescribed and giuen no certaine guide in al points or certaine meane to know when their direction is infallible concerning any and when it is not Of vvhich it may secondly be inferred that no man can assure himselfe that he is at any time concerning any point infallibly inspired which vncertainty is also increased not only by this that the deuil doth oftentimes as the Apostle saith transfigure himselfe into an Angel of light 2. Corinth 11. vers 14. but also by the experience of the fal and error of diuers of their owne company and that by their owne confession concerning some when they thought theÌ„selues to be inspired by the spirit as it falleth out in the Anabaptists and diuers others Nay in al the Lutherans if we beleeue the Sacramentaries and in al the Sacramentaries if we may giue credit to the Lutherans but certainly in one side or other of these because their opinions or illuminations be opposite but we may vvel say on both because one bringeth no stronger proofe for his illumination then the other What wise man then wil or can build his faith vpon such an illumination or direction Besides this Part. 1. chap. 7. Sect. 3. I haue shewed in the first part of this treatise that no priuate person or Prelate of the Church is ordinarilie so directed by the holy Ghost that he cannot erre of vvhich it followeth that no man ordinarily hath such a diuine inspiration I adde also that God doth ordinarily proceed in the gouernment and direction of men by common rules directions not by priuate and particuler and not without cause for the first causeth charity vnity order and humility of the other springeth enmity diuision confusion and pride which reason is touched by Hooker a wise and learned Protestant Hooker book 5. of Ecclesiastical policy § 10. who rejecteth such
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
the newe religion prefer the Hebrew of the old Testament and the Greeke of the new farre before it And as concerning the Greeke translation of the old by the 70. Interpreters Luther in ca. 40. Genesis Mūst in bibl Hebraicis Act. 7. v. 14. Caluī in Antid Sinodus Trident. sess 4. pag. 372. Luther and Munster plainely condemne it of errour and the first of them in particuler affirmeth the text alleaged of it by S. Steuen in the seauenth chapter of the acts of the Apostles as he citeth it to be erroneous our Latin bibles are also censured by Caluin to be most corrupt vvherefore they alwaies where they can translate the Hebrew of the old and the Greek of the new rejecting as it were the Greek of the old and the Latin of the newe but that both the Hebrewe of the old and Greeke of the newe be corrupted it is manifest by their owne confession And first it cannot be denied but that they some times correct both the Hebrewe and Greeke text as for example in the Hebrewe psalme 22. vvhereas the Hebrewe word for word ought thus to be translated As a lion my hands my feete they translate according to the Greek and vulgar Latin thus They haue peirced my hands and feete The examples of the Greeke in the newe which principally pertaineth vnto Christians are almost infinite I wil only set downe a fewe out of Beza and our English translatours If then the Greeke text be not corrupted wherefore doe these translatours whereas Hebrewes 9. verse 1. the Greeke text hath the first tabernacle reade the first couenant Againe Rom. 11. ver 21. they translate not according to the Greeke text eruing the time but according to our vulgare Latin seruing our Lord. Apoc. 11. vers 2. their translation is not according to the Greeke The court which is within the temple but according to the Latin The court which is without the temple 2. Tim. 1. vers 14. they adde the word but out of the Latin Iames 5. vers 12. they forsake the Greeke and follow our Latin reading Least you fal into condemnation In these and other places they correct the Greeke text and consequently confesse it to be corrupted But as touching Beza in particular I should make a long discourse if I should recite al such places as in the Greeke he accuseth of corruption Act. 13. vers 20. He calleth it a manifest errour that in the Greeke we reade foure hundred yeares as he saith for three hundred Act. 7. vers 18. He maketh a whole Catalogue of corruptions In S. Matthewes Gospel as he confesseth in his Preface to the newe Testament he corrected diuers errours and sundry other such testimonies he giueth of the corruption of the Greeke text of the new Testament But doth not he moreouer besides these his general corruptions vvhich he thinketh perhaps not done of malice also suspect that we haue euen of malice willingly and wittingly falsified the Scriptures verily he doth And to bring fourth three or foure examples to proue this his assertion Beza in annotat noui Testament an 1556. Math. 10. vers 2. the Greeke text hath The first Simon who is called Peter But what saith Beza he telleth vs that he thinketh the word first to haue beene added to the text by some that sought to establish Peters primacy Againe Luke 22. vers 20. according to the Greeke text we read This is the Chalice the new Testament in my bloud which shal be shedde for you In which sentence the Relatiue which according to the Greeke is not gouerned by the Noune bloud but by the word Chalice to signifie vnto vs that the bloud of Christ as the contents of the Chalice or as in the Chalice was shedde for vs. But what saith Beza he affirmeth it to be most probable that the vvordes which is shedde for you being sometime but a marginal note came by corruption out of the margent into the text Act. 7. vers 43. the Greeke hath Figures which you made to adore them It may be suspected saith Beza that these wordes to adore them as many others haue crept by corruption out of the margent into the Text. 1. Cor. 15. vers 57. He thinketh that the Apostle said not Victorie as it is in al Greeke copies but Contention And thus much concerning the corruption of the text of holy Scripture And out of this discourse it is euident first that our aduersaries cannot proue by Canonical Scripture that the Scripture it selfe is Canonical secondly that they cannot proue that the newe Testament was written by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ thirdly that although this be admitted yet that they cannot proue that the said Apostles and Disciples in penning it did not erre lastly that they cannot proue the Scriptures to remaine sincere and not corrupted yea I haue declared that they confesse that the Apostles and Disciples were subject to errour and that the Hebrewe and Greeke text which they esteeme aboue al others is corrupted Out of al vvhich positions so manifestly proued I conclude that the bare vvordes of Scriptures are not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion And although this argument concerning the vvhole Bible and in particular touching the new Testament be inuincible and insoluble yet a farre greater difficulty there is according to their ground mentioned that nothing is to be beleeued but that which is expresly contained in the Scripture or gathered out of the same concerning those bookes of Scripture which haue long after the Apostles daies beene in the Church of doubtfull authority of which before and yet are now receiued by our aduersaries into the Canon For vvhat one sentence of the vvord of God remouing al doubt declared their authority to be diuine Surely after the doubt had of them there was no Scripture written and before the matter in the said Scripture was not decided wherefore if we allowe the Scriptures only to be a sufficient judge of such controuersies our aduersaries themselues contrary to their owne proceedings must of necessity be forced to confesse such parcels of Scripture to be as yet of doubtful authority And this is not only graunted by a Brentius in confess Wittenberg cap. de sacra Scriptura anno 1552. Brentius and certaine other Lutherans who acknowledge those bookes of Scripture only to be Canonical of whose authority there was neuer any doubt made in the Church but also may seeme to be confessed by our countriman M. Whitaker vvho touching the Epistle of S. Iames receiued telleth vs that he doth b Whitaker against Campian reason the first p. 28. not enquire howe justly that might be receiued in a succeeding age which once was rejected yea our vvhole Church of c Conuocat Lon. an 1562. 1604. ar 6 England alloweth of the position of d Brentius in Apolog. confess Wittenb Brentius euen nowe mentioned Wherefore these sectaries must reject out of the Canon if they vvil be constant to themselues
not only the Epistle of S. Geneuain obseruat vpon harmony of cōfess sect 1. Paul to the Hebrewes the Epistles of S. Iames and S. Iude the second of S. Peter and the second and third of S. Iohn togither with the Apocalipse whose authority as is confessed by the Doctors of Geneua by Brentius and al the Lutherans yea as it is recorded by diuers Fathers as I haue shewed before nay further as it is graunted by Thomas Rogers an English Protestant Thomas Rogers vpon the 6. Artic. Propos 4. pa. 31. See also Whitaker before cited and the disputat had in the Tower with F. Campian in the 4. daies cōferen in his discourse vpon the Articles of Religion of the yeare 1562. and before him by Whitakers and others hath beene sometimes doubtful but also certaine other parcels of Scripture by them likewise receiued as I could declare out of diuers approued Authors The Doctors of Geneua to proue the bookes named to be Canonical flie to the authority of the Church for they wil haue them admitted as such because they were receiued and acknowledged as Canonical by the consent of the whole Catholike Church although some doubt were made of them sometimes by the auncient Doctors but this according to their owne ground is to giue them no diuine authority as I haue already noted And before I end this section I cannot but adde that I vvould wish M. Rogers whome I euen now named to looke a little better into his bookes if hereafter he chaunce to publish any with such approbations as he doth pretend in the beginning of this For I cannot see but writing in defence of the sixt Article he ouerthroweth the same by graunting that which I haue alleaged him confessing To make this a little seene vnto him thus I argue In the name of the holy Scripture we doe vnderstand those Canonical bookes of the old and new Testament of whose authority was neuer doubt in the Church These are the wordes of the Article Page 26. but of some bookes of the new Testament there hath beene doubt in the Church as appeareth by those M. Rogers wordes Some of the auncient Fathers and Doctors accepted not al the bookes Pag. 31. propos 4. contained within the volume of the new Testament for Canonical therefore al the bookes contained in the volume of the new Testament are not vnderstood in the name of holy Scripture This conclusion necessarily followeth of the premisses graunted as euery man seeth and yet is directly contrary to the last wordes of the same Article Page 26. Pag. 31. propos 4. in which they professe themselues to receiue and account as Canonical al the bookes of the new Testament as Rogers himselfe affirmeth SECTION THE THIRD The same is proued because euery Christian is bound to admit and beleeue certaine propositions neither expresly contained nor according to some mens judgements so euidently gathered out of the holy Scripture SECONDLY it is apparant that the bare letter of holy Scripture and conclusions out of it manifestly deduced by euery priuate man setting a side the authority of the Church as aboue are not a sufficient ground or rule of Christian beliefe and religion because euery true Christian is bound to admit and beleeue certaine propositions concerning the misteries and articles of our faith which are not expresly contained in the letter nor as some of them thinke so euidently deduced out of the same especially if we allow of our aduersaries Commentaries The first is easily proued for where doe we finde in the vvhole Bible the wordes Trinity person and consubstantial and yet most of the Professors of the new religion vvil not denie but that euery Christian vnder paine of damnation is bound to beleeue and admit in expresse tearmes these propositions following There is a Trinity there be three persons in the blessed Trinity the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost are consubstantial the one to the other and such like yea Beza himselfe confesseth that without the vse of these wordes Beza lib. de hereticis a ciuili magistratu puniendis pag. 51. also in Ep. Theol. 81. pag. 334. 335. See part 1. chap. 9. the truth of those misteries cannot be explicated nor the deniers of them confuted And it is manifest that whosoeuer rejecteth these wordes doth open the gappe to Iudaisme Arianisme and Turcisme But some of them flie to deduction out of Scriptures and answere that although the wordes are not expresly found in the Bible yet that the misteries themselues are expresly in it contained and deliuered and conseqnently that the wordes aptly signifying the said misteries and deduced out of the word of God it selfe may very wel and conueniently be vsed I reply that this is not sufficient for euery priuate mans deduction is subject to errour except it be by an infallible argument and euery proposition be most euidently true in that sense in which it is alleaged wherefore such deductions as our aduersaries commonly vse make no articles of faith Secondly the collections themselues of these high misteries by reason of the obscurity and diuersity of senses of the holy Scripture are not seldome obscure and therefore those collections vvhich to some seeme euident by others are judged false Hence the collection of those very misteries which I haue named by diuers of our aduersaries is denied as by Valentinus Gentilis and his followers a Valent. Gentilis in cōfess apud Caluin pag. 930. in Prothes Pastor Bremēsis in hist. Valēt Gentil who affirme the three persons to haue three distinct natures or essences and the Father to haue beene before the Sonne and the Sonne before the holy Ghost Who make also the one inferiour to the other c. The same collection is likewise denied by Seruetus and his disciples b Seruetus li. de erroribus Trinitatis who acknowledged no distinction of persons in God made Christ a pure man and denied him to haue beene before his incarnation Finally by Georgius Blandrata Paulus Alciatus and other Schollers of these men who c Greg. Paul apud Hosium in judicio cēsura de adoranda Trinitate See Hooker booke 5. of eccles policy §. 42. affirmed that Luther beganne to pul downe the roofe they raised the foundations of Popery who condemned al the auncient Councels and Fathers reuerenced by al Christians of d Beza epist Theolog. 81. tritheisme or making of three Gods tearmed S. Athanasius Sathanasius auouched the blessed Trinity vvhich most blasphemously they called Cerberus and the tripartited God to be an inuention of his and called the Fathers of the first Nicene Councel blinde Sophists Ministers of the Beast slaues of Antechrist bewitched with his illusions c. yea some of these newe sectaries vvent so farre in this matter that they forsooke Christ altogither and became Turkes among vvhome were e Simlerus in praefat lib. de aeterno Dei filio Gregor Paulus lib. de Trinitat Volanus in
Wherefore in like manner vse they not to wash one anothers feete Iohn 13. Haue vve not for this an expresse example and commandement of our Sauiour vvherefore finally anoint they not their sicke vvith oile Is not this directly commanded by S. Iames Iam. 5. v 14. verily the text according to their owne translation is euident In these and diuers other points they follow not their owne text of holy Scriptures but rejecting both it and al other groundes doe that which pleaseth best their owne fancies and this neglect of the vvord of God among them is so apparent that they are after a sort inforced to confesse it themselues Martir in 1. Cor. 15. v. 5. see also Field of the Church booke 4. c. 20 §. That the Apostles Among the rest Peter Martir auoucheth that the Canons of the Apostles concerning the election of Ministers prescribed by S. Paul 1. Tim. 3. are not alwaies to be obserued with whome accordeth a Beza in praefat noui test dicati Principi Condensi Beza who telleth vs that al rites vvhatsoeuer vsed by the Apostolike Church either as profitable or as necessary for that time are not at al times to be receiued Yea b Caluin in c. 5. vers 14. Brētius in Apolog cōfess Wittenb cap. de Baptis Caluin and Brentius goe further and affirme that Christians are not bound to followe the example of Christ or the Apostles or to obey their doctrine except it can be proued out of Scripture that they did and commanded vvith an intention to be followed and obeyed this is their doctrine And vvho are to be judges vvhat Canons rites examples and doctrine are to be admitted and bind man to the obseruation of them but euery priuate mans judgement and fancy Besides this they obserue diuers rites not prescribed in the Scripture if vve followe the bare letter For vvhere finde they that there be two Sacraments Surely neither Baptisme nor the Eucharist in the vvord of God are called Sacraments Only Matrimony which commonly they esteeme not to be of such dignity is honoured by S. Paul vvith this title Moreouer Ephes 5 32. vvhere are the forme and ceremonies vvhich they obserue in publike Baptisme Communion Marriage and common Praier ordained and set downe in the Scripture What vvarrant haue they in the vvord of God for baptizing of Infants before they actually beleeue did not our Sauiour say He that beleeueth and is baptized shal be saued Mar. 16 16. and howe doe infants according to their doctrine for they vsually denie al habitual faith beleeue verily that vvhich is affirmed by c Luther lib. cont Cochlaeum Lutherani in Sinod Wittenb anno 1536. Luther and some Lutherans to vvit that infants newly borne vvhiles they are baptized haue the vse of reason actually heare and beleeue the vvord of God c. seemeth altogither incredible But d Luther ser contra Anabaptistas Luther else-where plainely confesseth that the Baptisme of infants cannot be proued by Scripture yet saith he e Luther epist. ad duos Parochos it is to be admitted because it is an Apostolical tradition The like questions I could demand concerning the Creede of the Apostles and diuers other obseruations vvherefore I conclude that they both neglect the obseruation of diuers thinges prescribed in the holy Scripture and also obserue sundry rites and ceremonies for vvhich in them they find no vvarrant and consequently that the ground of their faith and religion is not the word of God contained as they say in their owne Bibles Of which I finally inferre that they build not at al vpon the letter of the holy Scripture for certaine it is that their owne translated Bibles fauour more their doctrine then either the Hebrewe or Greeke text as euery man may gather of that vvhich hath beene said in the Chapter next before vvherefore seing that their faith and religion is not al approued in their said Bibles euery man may wel censure it not to be approued at al by the vvord of God And this may be confirmed because they neither build vpon the Hebrewe Greeke or Latin text but in some places reject them al as I haue partly aboue declared and vvil declare also in the next Chapter Chapter 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 SECTION THE FIRST 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 HAVING already proued that our aduersaries build not vpon the bare letter of holy Scripture which they seeme to make the only ground and rule of their faith and religion it remaineth that I nowe declare and make manifest vvhat is the ground and rule vvhich in al such matters they followe And this in the title of this Chapter I haue affirmed to be their owne fancy and imagination by which they either by priuate and erroneous deductions out of the letter of holy Scripture or by falsly vnderstanding of the same frame to themselues a particular and false rule of beliefe or else first frame to themselues out of their carnal faithlesse and feeble vnderstanding such a rule and afterwardes by rejection false translation corruption or erroneous exposition ply and vvrest the word of God to their said rule For the proofe of this I could vse diuers arguments notwithstanding these fewe following for breuities sake shal suffice But before I bring forth any one reason I must here diuide al the Professours of the newe religion into three sorts or companies for some of them read and vnderstand the Scriptures in those tongues in vvhich they were first penned by the instinct of the holy Ghost others there be that reade and vnderstand them only translated into other tongues and others that cannot reade at al. The first for distinctions sake I wil here cal the learned the second the vnlearned and the third the ignorant sectaries In the foure first Sections I wil principally discourse of the learned And first I demand of them howe they proue the Bible to be Canonical Scripture verily this as I haue shewed before cannot be proued by Canonical Scripture neither haue they for it as I haue there also declared any other infallible proofe vvherefore I may truly auouch that euery one of them receiueth and rejecteth Scripture according as he is led by his owne fancy But to make this more euident let vs behold their dissention concerning the Canonical bookes and consider that such as some of them receiue into the Canon others reject and contrariwise such as some reject others receiue Luther telleth vs plainly that he doth not beleeue al thinges were so done as is related in the booke of * Luther in sermonib cōuiualibus titul de Patriarchis Prophetis titul de libris veteris nouitestam Iob and further disgraceth the said booke by
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
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
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
of Christ contained in the new testament but I should be ouer long yet one for an exaÌ„ple of therest I wil not omit which is touching those words of our Lord * Iohn 10. In disp AlbaÌ„ act 2. diâ—i I and the Father are one vpon which Caluin putteth this blasphemous glosse The ancient writers or Fathers abused this place to proue Christ consubstantial to the Father for neither doth Christ dispute of vnity of substance but of the consent which he hath with the Father thus Caluin And this his glosse was alleaged by the newe Arians or Trinitarians in defence of themselues in a disputation had between them and other Sectaries The aforesaid Hunnius answereth also very wel two objections which may be made in defence of the said Caluin the one that he approueth sometimes the Euangelical and Christian sense of such testimonies the other that he impugneth in his workes very earnestly the Trinitarians and enemies of Christes diuinity To the first he saith Caluin Iudaizans cap. 2. p. 112. 113. anno 1604. that Caluin obserueth this order in expounding such prophecies first by his Iewish glosses he weakneth bereaueth them of vvhat force he can and shaketh the very foundation and this done he addeth something concerning the sense assigned by the Euangelists and Apostles yet so saith he that he wil haue the first be thought the principal and the other as it were besides the matter And although in his answere to the second he doth not plainly say that Caluin nourished Arian impiety in his hart and that neuerthelesse he impugned it sometimes in outward shewe that he might the better and with lesse appearance of infidelity sow the seeds of the same heresie vvhich euery man would haue abhorred if they had proceeded from an open enemy of Christ yet he affirmeth al those enemies of Christ before mentioned to haue issued out of caluins schooles and vseth these words Pag. 172. Away also with that brag touching Seruetus Gentilis and the companions of their wicked acts Alciatus Blandrata c. sharply repressed by Caluin for it is likewise long since knowne to the Christian world out of what schooles and Churches those cruel monsters issued neither is it obscure that this kind of mocking and shifting the scriptures which is vsed by Caluin is a grateful and wished helpe to the deuil by which the force of one testimony after another is shaken in the hartes of men vntil he bring them thinking nothing lesse to the butte of Arian heresie thus Hunnius And hence also it is Iacob Andrae iÌ„ praefa refut Apol. Danaei that Iacobus Andraeas aâ—â— â—â—heran of no lesse fame affirmeth that it is not to be marueiled that very many Caluinists in Polonia Transiluania Hungaria other places fel to Arianisme some also to Turcisme vnto whose impietie saith he this Caluinian doctrine prepareth the way I wil adde a vvord or two for the confirmation of this whole discourse out of Hooker vvho discoursing against our English Puritans for their dislike of the Creed of S. Athanasius and the verse Glory be to the Father and to the Sonne c. and hauing affirmed that the weeder of heresie growne ripe doe often in the very cutting downe scatter such seedes as for a while lie vnseene and buried in the earth but afterwards freshly spring vp againe no lesse pernicious then at the first Hook book 5. of Ecclesiastical policie § 42. pag. 89. vseth these wordes Which thing they very wel knowe and I doubt not wil easily confesse who liue to their great both toile and greife where the blaspheamies of Arians Samosatenians Tritheits Eutichians and Macedonians are renewed renewed by them who to hatch their heresie haue chosen those Churches as fittest neasts where Athanasius Creed is not heard By them I say renewed who following the course of extreme reformation were wont in the pride of their owne proceedinges to glory that whereas Luther did but blowe away the roofe and Zuinglius batter but the walles of Popish superstition the last and hardest worke of al remained which was to raze vp the verie ground and foundation of Popery that doctrine concerning the deity of Christ which Satanasius for so it pleased those impious forsaken miscreants to speake hath in this memorable Creed explaned hitherto Hooker And marke vvel those vvords who following the course of extreame reformation and haue chosen those Churches as fittest neasts c. for by these he plainely seemeth to taxe the Caluinists or Puritans who so extreamly seeke reformation and besides dispersed themselues into Polonia and Transiluania where they raised some if not al and maintained other of these Heresies But of Caluin and some Caluinists according to the judgement of learned Protestants I need not say more Only I adde this as a thing most certaine that Caluin wrote farre more plainely of these pointes in his epistles to his disciples of Polonia then he did in other his vvorkes In one of them he saith * CaluiÌ„ epist ad Polonos pag. 946. In epist 2. siue iÌ„aamonit ad Polonos One God that is the Trinitie you beleeue in God that is in the Trinity that they may knowe thee one God that is the Trinitie We reject this not only as vnsauourie but also as prophane Againe Although by the auncient Fathers this sentence of our Lord The Father is greater then I was restrained to the humane nature of Christ yet I doubt not to extend it to the whole complexum or person of God and man And thus much of our aduersaries doctrine touching Christ and Christianisme SECTION THE FOVRTH That in like sort they weaken the principal proofes of the said three groundes BESIDES this the Sectaries by their doctrine diminish and shake the credit of the most forcible reasons which are alleaged for the proofe of the aforesaid groundes And first I haue already shewed howe Caluin by his wicked glosses endeauoreth to ouerthrowe the force euen of those prophecies of the old Testament which are alleaged by Christ his Apostles for the proofe of Christianity to which I adde that they nor only bereaue the Church of al infallible meanes to proue the scriptures to be Canonical as I wil declare hereafter but also Cap. 5. sect 1. by their rejecting of certaine books receiued by vs into the Canon partly vnder pretence that they haue been sometimes among christian Catholiks of doubtful authority partly because as they imagine they containe contradictions they seeme to giue others licence vpon the same pretences to pronounce the same censure against other books which they admit but of their rejecting bookes because their Canonical truth vvas sometimes doubted of Cap. 1. sect 2. I shal else-where in a more conuenient place discourse Let vs therefore here only declare by a fewe examples vvhat may followe of their alleaging of contradiction vvhich is the second pretence And first it is wel knowne that they * Fulke vpon the Rhems testamet
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
judgment I may adde the whole Protestant Church of England who in their sixt article agreed vpon in their conuocations of the yeares 1562. and 1604. affirme that in the name of holy Scripture they vnderstand those Canonical books of the old and newe Testament of whose authority was neuer any doubt in the Church for they seeme to make the authoritie and Tradition of the Church the meane and rule vvhereby to knowe the diuine Scriptures Field booke 4. chap. 14. Yea Field himselfe in another place telleth vs that we cannot knowe the Scriptures to be of God without the knowledge of such principal articles as are contained im the Creed of the Apostles Of vvhich it may seeme laweful to conclude against him that some other thing is necessarie besides diuine inspiration and other motiues aboue by him assigned The Lutherans of Wittenberg confesse the Church to haue authority to judge of doctrines Harmonie of confess sect 10. p. 332. Author of the treatise of the scripture and the church c. 15. p. 72. see also c. 19. p. 74. 75. BulleÌ„ger in the praeface before that booke according to that Try the spirittes whether they be of God Another Protestant in a treatise of the Scripture and the Church highly commended by Bullenger plainely telleth vs that we could not beleeue the Gospel were it not that the Church taught vs and witnessed that this doctrine vvas deliuered by the Apostle and thus much against this opinion But it may be here objected against vs that we also according to the second opinion deliuered in the first part of this treatise concerning the last resolution of our faith allowe a supernatural gift or light by the concourse and help of vvhich vve firmely assent to Christian beliefe as reuealed by God and that therefore there is no cause wherefore we should so earnestly impugne the like assertion in others I answere that there is great difference betweene vs and our aduersaries concerning this point for whereas I haue shewed that they require a particular illumination and immediate instruction from God himselfe concerning euerie particuler booke and sentence of holy Scripture yea touching the exposition of euerie sentence as I vvil declare hereafter and by no prudential groundes or arguments of credibility are ordinarilie induced to this perswasion But seing that diuers of their owne company and those of the principal thinking themselues to be inspired haue erred haue rather according to prudence just cause not to stand vpon such illuminations We assigne the the light of faith for the beliefe of a common guide and general directour and so require not a particuler instruction for the beliefe of this and that particuler matter but hauing beleeued the said general guide of it receiue infallible and diuine instructions what particulerlie is to be beleeued Neither doe vve this vvithout any prudential motiue or credible reason but induced thereunto by most strong arguments of credibility Râ—chardus de S. Victore l. 1. de Trinit cap. 2. insomuch as vve may wel say with Richardus de sansto Victore that If we be deceiued God hath deceiued vs. Neither are vve by this perswaded arrogantlie to followe a priuate rule which is a fountaine of dissention and contrarie to the vsual proceedings of God but humblie to submit our selues and our vnderstanding to the authority of a general guide which is a preseruatiue of vnity and according to the common courses of that heauenlie King But before I passe from this matter I must needes haue a word or two with M. Field in particuler vvho requireth more then humane inducements or motiues as reasons by force whereof we are perswaded first to beleeue Field book 4. chap. 7. 8. and seemeth to require a diuine reason or testimonie conuincing that which is beleeued to be of diuine authoritie and so to impugne the first opinion of Catholikes concerning the last resolution of faith Part 1. chap. 7. sect 6. deliuered in the first part of this treatise For vvhereas the followers of that opinion assigne humane motiues as the first inducements to our beliefe or as causes vvhy we first accept of the same and bring no other external proofe that the misteries of our faith are reuealed by God book 4. chap. 8. § The opinion he exacteth of vs a diuine proofe of this these are his words The opinion of the ordinary Papists is that the things pertaining to our faith are beleeued because God reuealeth and deliuereth them to be so as we are required to beleeue but that we know not that God hath reuealed any such thing but by humane conjecture and probabilities so weake doe they make our faith to be grounded thus Field Concerning which his imputation I must first request my reader if he be any thing moued by these his words to turne to the explication and proofe of the Catholike opinion set downe before in the first part of this treatise Chapt. 7. sect 6. because I thinke it needlesse to repeate one thing twice Secondly I cannot but wish him also to note howe diuersly Field reporteth our opinions for although he plainly here affirme that our ordinary opnion is that the articles of our faith are beleeued because God reuealeth and deliuereth them to be so yet in another place he writeth thus Our aduersaries fal into two dangerous errors the first Booke 4. c. 6. that the authority of the Church is Regula fidei et ratio credendi the rule of our faith and the reason why we beleeue The second is that the Church may make newe articles of faith And like as he himselfe in the words euen now alleaged freeth vs from the first of these dangerous errours Book 4. chap. 12. § Our aduersaries so likewise in another place he freeth vs from the second But as concerning my present purpose out of his aforesaid wordes I gather that if he wil not fal into the same fault for vvhich he blameth vs he must not only assigne such a diuine formal cause of his beliefe concerning euery point as we teach the reuelation of God to be but also adde some diuine proofe prouing this formal reason to be diuine and not only humane probabilities And vvhat such diuine proofe doth he assigne surelie none that I can finde he telleth vs in deed that in some things the euidence of the thinges appearing vnto vs Book 4. chap. 8. § thus theÌ„ and in others the authority of God discerned to speake in the word of faith is the formal cause of their faith or inducing them to beleeue But I finde no diuine proofe no not so much as a wise reason I adde moreouer not so much as a foolish reason brought neither for the one nor for the other nay he expresly telleth vs Book 4. chap. 20. § Much coÌ„tention see also chapt 7. § Thus then Book 4. chap. 7. § Surely See hiÌ„ also § There is c. that The bookes of Scripture winne credit
of 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.
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
he that this inspiration is from the holy Ghost vvhat reason miracle reuelation or infallible vvarrant hath he to assure himselfe of this vvhere doth he finde that God hath promised that the holy ghost shal assist and preserue euery priuate mans vnderstanding from errour that praieth for his assistance Howe doth he likewise knowe that his praier is good and acceptable in the sight of God verily this is most vncertaine and yet otherwise by our praiers we obtaine not our requests and that the holy Ghost doth not vsually inspire euery man that so praieth for the truth it is apparent For suppose that an English Protestant and a Geneuian Puritan be at controuersie touching the same sentence I and the father am one and after ordinary discourses not agreeing they betake themselues both to their praiers and desire God to instruct them of the true sense of the said vvordes Wil they after their praiers forthwith agree and be of one opinion Certainely this is not their custome What then The English Protestant vvil say the spirit hath taught me that the Father and the Sonne are one in substance the Puritan contrariwise according to the doctrine of his master a Caluin in Ioan. 10 30. Caluin approued by b Whitaker in his answere to Campians eight reason pag. 204. M. Whitaker wil affirme that the spirit hath taught him that the aforesaid sentence is to be vnderstood of vnity in power consent not in substance The ancient writers or fathers saith Caluin abused this place to proue Christ consubstantial to the Father for neither doth Christ dispute of vnity of substance but of the consent which he hath with the Father Thus Caluin Which sense this Puritan may also confirme as Whitakers doth with that sentence of our Lord vsed when he praied for his Disciples that they might be one Iohn 17 21. That they al may be one said he as thou O father art in me and I in thee And be not these inspirations contrary did the holy Ghost in this case inspire them both Truly it is impossible And thus the Lutherans and Sacramentaries the Protestants and Puritans with diuers other sectaries after many praiers vsed on euery side remaine yet at mortal jarres concerning diuers matters in controuersie betweene them Neither can it be said that one part without al doubt is assured of the truth for one hath no more vvarrant for his assurance then another and consequently seing that they cannot be al assisted with diuine inspiration vve may wel affirme that none of them are certaine that they enjoy this prerogatiue yea vve may very vvel denie it vnto them al but of this matter I haue treated aboue For mine intent at this present it is sufficient that by praier the vnlearned sectary without some special reuelation or vvarrant from God which none of them receiue cannot assure himselfe that his opinion is true Wherefore let vs yet further suppose that he remaine hitherto doubtful as vpon these groundes he should Is there now any other thing to be done for his better resolution If al this say his aduisers suffice not he must repaire for his better instruction to the learned and aske their counsaile If he demand whither the learned may not erre in their counsaile they grant it If he vrge them to giue him a certaine and infallible rule whereby to discerne in their doctrine truth from falshood they tel him that when the learned speake according to the vvord of God they say true otherwise when they swarue and stray from the said word Sutcliffe against the wardword encont 2. pag. 54. So our countriman Sutcliffe plainely affirmeth that we are to beleeue euery thing which our Pastors teach vs but as farre as they teach the doctrine of Christ IESVS Nor are we saith he absolutely to obey them but when they teach according to the lawe Wherefore one of our Arch-puritans of Caluin whome the followers of his sect esteeme aboue al others vvriteth thus We receiue M. Caluin and weigh of him T. Cartwright in D. Whitgifts defence tract 2. cap. 4. pag. 111. as of the notablest instrument that the Lord hath stirred vp for the purging of his Churches and restoring of the plaine and sincere interpretation of the Scriptures which hath beene since the Apostles time and yet we doe not so reade his workes that we beleeue anything to be true because he saith it but so farre as we can esteeme that which he saith doth agree with the Canonical scriptures And this is their common doctrine Behold therefore this poore perplexed man is sent back againe to the Scripture And is not this a palpable circle First they sent him to his Bible then to conference with one place of Scripture with another thirdly to his praiers afterwards to the learned and nowe to his Bible againe to knowe the true doctrine of the learned from the false neither can they assigne any other rule vvhereby this may be knowne Of vvhich followeth moreouer this absurdity that they make him judge ouer the learned for he is to accept and refuse their doctrine according as he judgeth it consonant or dissonant from the vvord of God But let vs suppose notwithstanding these absurdities and inconueniences that the vnlearned sectary for his better instruction goeth to the learned and comming first to an English Protestant demandeth of him the true sense of the said sentence so often alleaged I and the father are one The Protestant telleth him according to the assertion of al the ancient fathers who by this sentence commonly refuted the Arians that Christ by these vvordes giueth vs to vnderstand that he as he is God and his father haue the very selfe same substance This not satisfying him he goeth further to a Caluinist vvho being demanded the same question answereth that the true sense of those wordes is That Christ and his father agree togither Caluin in Ioan. 10 30. and are of one consent What is this poore man the neare for al this One telleth him one thing another another thing and howe shal he discerne and judge of the truth Doth not this commonly happen doe not the Professors of the newe religion disagree among themselues both concerning the translation and also the interpretation of the word of God Doth not each one of them inuite euery man to his sect beare the vvorld in hand that he hath the truth and condemne al others oppugning his opinions of errour and falshood vvhat is more manifest then this What instructions then can this vnlearned sectary receiue of the learned Hath he not cause to be more perplexed and doubtful then he vvas before vvhat therefore shal he finally doe Certainely I cannot see what other grounds he can receiue from those Doctors vvherefore if he vvil not goe to the piller of truth the Catholike Church which is guided by the holy Ghost and of heâ— receiue a diuine and infallible resolution without al doubt he must either remaine
Cipriā epist 40. 70. 55. 69. 71. 73. see him also in exhortat ad Martirium cap. 11. the Century writers who are esteemed very diligent searchers of antiquity taxe S. Ciprian for his doctrine touching the Popes supreamacy Secondly the doctrine of S. Ciprian taught in this booke agreeth exceeding wel with that which is found throughout al his epistles in vvhich vve finde the same sentences almost in the very same wordes which Iames denieth to be in his manuscript copies of the booke of the vnity of the church as that there is one God one Church and one Chaire founded vpon Peter that the Church was built vpon S. Peter that our Lord chose him the first or chiefest that he instituted the origen of vnity from him c. Peraduenture some man wil say these epistles are also corrupted but first I thinke they are not found otherwise in the Manuscript copies mentioned by Master Iames then they are in the printed bookes For vvere they it is like he vvould not haue passed it vvith silence as he doth Secondly neither Perkins nor any other affirmeth these epistles to be corrupted Thirdlie one of these Epistles in vvhich it is said that our Lord did choose S. Peter the first or chiefest and that vpon him he built his Church is cited by S. Augustine August to 7. de bapt cont Donat. cap. 1. Cipr. ep 72. ad Quintum vvho also alleageth those very vvordes as S. Ciprians which are in the printed copies to vvit Nam nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit super quem edificauit Ecclesiam suam c. For neither S. Peter whome our Lord chose the first or chiefest and vpon whome he built his Church c. And moreouer after S. Ciprians vvordes he addeth himselfe Behold where Ciprian rehearseth which also we haue learned in holy Scriptures that the Apostle Peter in whome the Primacy of the Apostles through so excellent grace is higher then others c. Thus S. Augustine of which it is most euident that this Epistle among al the rest is not corrupted and yet here is almost said as much in substance of this matter as is in his booke de vnitate Ecclesiae Finally the vvordes vvhich Iames vvil haue excluded from S. Ciprians booke de vnitate Ecclesiae are so agreeable to this holy Fathers stile and phrase and so fitting his discourse that no man can almost suspect them to be added But it may be demanded howe it falleth out that they are wanting in the Manu-script copies mentioned by M. Iames In very truth if there be such auncient copies and there be nothing razed out of them I cannot but thinke that they were written out before the art of printing was inuented by some Wicliffian Heretike or if they came out of some forraine country by some Schismatike or other that held with some German Emperor against the Pope That the Wicliffians vvere very potent and preuailed much in our Country we may gather out of that vvhich is said by Stowe in his Chronicle and in the yeares 1414. and 1377. And Walsingham vvriteth Walsingham anno vlt. Edward 3. that the Vniuersity of Oxford in particular vvas cold in resisting him Walsingham in vita Richardi 2. anno 1378. Nay their coldnesse vvas such that Gregory XI Pope in the yeare 1378. vvrote his Breue to it and reprehended them of the said Vniuersity for their coldnesse and slacknesse AN INDEX OR TABLE OF AL THE CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THIS TREATISE The first part of the groundes of the old religion CHAPTER 1. Of the first ground of Catholike religion to wit that there is a God and that God by his prouidence gouerneth al thinges page 1. Section 1. That there is a God page 2. Sect. 2. Almighty God hath care of worldly affaires and ruleth al things by his diuine prouidence page 10. Chap. 2. Of the second ground of our religion to wit that the soule of man is immortal and that it shal either be rewarded euerlastingly in heauen or punished euerlastingly in hel page 12. Chap. 3. Of a third principal ground of our faith to wit that Christian religion only is the true worship of God page 16. Chap. 4. That among Christians they only that professe and embrace the Catholike faith and religion are in state of saluation and doe truly worship God page 24. Chap. 5. Sect. 1. Of the definition and conditions of true faith p. 28. Sect. 2. That faith is a most firme assent of the vnderstanding page 29. Sect. 3. Faith is of thinges incomprehensible by natural reason and consequently obscure page 30. Sect. 4. By true Christian faith we beleeue such misteries as God hath reuealed to his Church page 32. Sect. 5. That true faith is built vpon diuine authority page 34. Sect. 6. Besides the reuelation of God some infallible propounder of the articles of our faith is necessary and that they are propounded vnto vs by the Catholike Church page 36. Chap. 6. Sect. 1. Of the supreame and infallible authority of the Catholike Church page 38. Sect. 2. The whole summe of Christian doctrine by word of mouth not by writing was committed by Christ to his Apostles page 39. Sect. 3. The Church cannot stray from the rule of faith receaued nor erre in matter of faith or general precepts of manners which is proued first because the holy Ghost directeth her in al truth page 42. Sect. 4. The same is proued by other arguments page 44. Sect. 5. That the testimonies of holy Scripture and other proofes brought for the infallible and diuine authority of the Church cannot be applied to the Church considered as it comprehendeth al faithful Christians that are and haue beene since Christes ascention or since the Apostles daies but vnto the present Church of al ages page 52. Sect. 6. That the same testimonies and proofes conuince an infallible judgement of the Church concerning euery article of faith not only concerning certaine of the principal page 56. Sect. 7. That to saluation it is necessary to beleeue the whole Catholike faith and euery article thereof page 58. Chap. 7. Of the holy Scripture which is the first particular ground of faith in the Catholike Church page 61. Sect. 1. Howe the Scripture is knowne to be Canonical page 61. Sect. 2. Concerning the sense or exposition of holy Scriptures and first that the Scriptures are hard and receiue diuers interpretations p. 67. Sect. 3. The Scriptures may be falsly vnderstood and that euery priuate man may erre in the vnderstanding of them page 69. Sect. 4. That the letter of holy Scripture falsly interpreted is not the word of God page 72. Sect. 5. The true sense of the holy Scripture is to be learned of the Catholike Church who is the true judge thereof page 75. Sect. 6. An objection against the premises is answered and the question concerning the last resolution of our faith is discussed page 78. Chap. 8. Concerning the second particular ground of Catholike
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
added soone after that by the faith by him described we vnderstand that the worldes were framed by the word of God that by this faith Noe built the arke c. which effectes cannot be attributed to any other faith then to that by which we beleeue the articles of Christian religion But because our aduersaries seeme so much to impugne this doctrine let vs proue the same out of other places of the newe Testament and first out of these wordes of our Sauiour to his Apostles Mar. 16. v. 15.16 going into the whole world preach the Gospel to al creatures He that beleeueth and is baptized shal be saued but he that beleeueth not shal be condemned In which as we see commission is giuen to the Apostles to preach the Gospel And what Gospel truly no other but the whole summe of Christian doctrine touching the incarnation life passion resurrection ascension other articles of Christian beleefe This Gospel the Apostles preached and as it was then foretold by Christ in the wordes immediately following confirmed with miracles And whosoeuer beleeueth this Gospel and is baptised if to his faith his actions be agreable shal be saued contrariewise who beleeueth it not shal be damned wherefore this faith concurreth to our justification and consequentlie is that faith which is required in al Christians This faith our Lord and redeemer highly commended and rewarded in the holie Apostle S. Peter Math. 16. vers 16.17 c. when as for confessing him to be Christ the sonne of the liuing God he pronounced him blessed and promised to build the Church vpon him and to giue him the keyes of the kingedome of heauen This faith and no other was in S. Martha when to our Sauiour saying I am the resurrection and the life Ioh. 11. vers 25. he that beleeueth in me although he be dead shal liue euery one that liueth beleeueth in me shall not die for euer beleeuest thou this she said to him yea Lord I haue beleeued that thou art Christ the sonne of God that art come into this world And consequentlie this is the faith which maketh vs liue for euer and preserueth vs from eternal death This faith was in S. Thomas the Apostle when touching the woundes of our Sauiour after his resurrection he cried out my Lord and my God Of which I inferre Ioh. 20. v. 28. c. that they are pronounced by Christ blessed that are indued with this faith when he replied to his said Apostle Blessed are they that haue not seene and haue beleeued Act. 2. v. 4.10.13.17 This faith and no other S. Peter and S. Paul preached to the people as appeareth in their sermons recorded in the acts of the Apostles This faith S. Phillip before baptisme required in the Eunuch saying Loe water who doth let me to be baptised S. Phillip answered Act. 8. vers 36. If thou beleeue with al thy hart thou maiest and the Eunuch replied I beleeue that Iesus Christ is the sonne of God vpon which confession he receaued that holie Sacrament Rom. 4. vers 22. Ibid. v. 19. By this faith Abraham as the Apostle testifieth was justified for it was reputed him to justice that he beleeued God promising him that he should be the father of many nations and that not considering to vse the Apostles wordes his owne bodie nowe quite dead and the dead matrice of Sara he staggered not by distrust but according to the promise of God expected a sonne This word of faith the same Apostle according to his owne testimonie preached to the world Rom. 10. vers 8.9 1. Cor. 15. ver 3. c. 1. Ioh. 5. v. 1.4 5. Ioh. 3. ver 36. that who confesseth with his mouth our Lord Iesus Christ and in his hart beleeueth that God hath raised him vp from the dead shal be saued This Gospel he deliuered that Christ died for our sinnes that he was buried and that he rose againe the third day c. Whosoeuer saith S. Iohn beleueth that Iesus is Christ is borne of God againe this is the victorie which ouercommeth the world our faith who is he that ouercommeth the world but he that beleeueth that Iesus is the sonne of God Hitherto S. Iohn the Euangelist And this is to beleeue in the sonne of God which who doth according vnto Christes wordes hath life euerlasting Ioh. 20. vlt. Finally to cause in our soules this faith S. Iohn as he witnesseth himselfe and consequently also the other three Euangelistes wrote his Gospel These thinges saith he are written that you may beleeue that Iesus is Christ the sonne of God and that beleeuing you may haue life in his name Al which sentences of holy Scripture and diuers others which I could produce most euidently demonstrate that the diuinity incarnation passion and resurrection of Christ and other such articles reuealed by God vnto the Church are the object of that faith which concurreth to our justification and is the roote and foundation of al justice and true religion Hence in the Creede of the Apostles which as a Aug. ser 115. de tempore S. Augustine censureth it is a plaine briefe and ful comprehension of our faith we professe our selues to beleeue these articles Of which Creed mention is not only in the said b Aug. ibi ser 181 S. Augustine but also in c Amb. ep 81. ad Siricium S. Ambrose d Hier. ep ad Pama aduersus Ioan. Hieroso S. Hierome e Leo epi. 13. ad Pultheriam ser 11. de Pass S. Leo and diuers others If I should endeauour to recite al the testimonies of the ancient Fathers to the same effect I should neuer make an end for al of them discourse of no other object of faith then this and require only in Christians the beleefe of the articles of our faith mentioned See Ireneus lib. 1. ca. 2. 3. 4. aduersus haereses Tertul. lib. aduersus Praxeam S. Basil in orat de confes fidei where he telleth vs that the faith necessary to saluation and justification is that by which we beleeue those thinges which God hath reuealed The same is taught by S. Ciril Bishoppe of Hierusalem Cateches 5. 18. By S. Leo serm 4. de Epiphania .. This faith and no other is explicated as necessary to saluation by S. Gregory Nazianzene orat in sanctum lauacrum extrema in tract de fide Nicena By S. Chrisostome in duabus homilijs de simbolo By S. Augustine lib. de fide simbolo in lib. de Genes imperfecto cap. 1. in Enchirid. per multa capita and diuers others but of this matter enough SECTION THE FIFT That true faith is built vpon diuine authority I NEEDE not vse many wordes for the proofe of the fourth point to vvit that true faith ought to be built vpon diuine authority because this is easilie gathered out of that which hath beene already said for if faith be a
1. retract cap. 4. Aug. li. 1. ad Simpli cianū c. 1. The lawe of God being read onlie not vnderstood or not fulfilled doth kil for then it is called the letter by the Apostle S. Hierome likewise approueth the same interpretation and to the same effect in the place aboue cited he hath these vvordes b Hier. in c. 1. ad Galat Epist. ad Nepot in li. 3. Reg. c. 1. Then the Scripture is profitable to the bearers when it is not expounded without Christ that is to say not contrary to the rule of faith deliuered by Christ to his Church when it is not spoken without the Father when he that preacheth doth not insinuate it without the spirit otherwise saith he the deuil which alleageth Scriptures and al Heretikes according to Ezechiel of Scriptures make cushions which they may put vnder the elbow of men of al ages Thus much S. Hierome Finally S. Augustine writeth thus c Aug. epist 222. Loue exceedingly the vnderstanding because the Scriptures themselues except they be rightly vnderstood cannot be profitable vnto thee And the reason of this is that which I haue already touched to wit that a false sense or inrerpretation of the letter of the holy Scriptures which was neuer intended by the holy Ghost but erroneously gathered out of the wordes by a mans priuate discourse or deduction putteth as it were another life or soule vpon the said letter and turneth it cleane another vvay vvherefore so vnderstood it is his vvord that so expoundeth it not the word of God who intended altogether another sense Rai in his conferēce with Har. pag. 68. And hence it is that M. Rainolds a Protestant affirmeth that it is not the shewe but the sense of the wordes of Scripture that must decide controuersies SECTION THE FIFT The true sense of the holy Scriptures is to be learned of the Catholike Church who is the true judge thereof NOVVE seing that the Scripture of it selfe is hard and euerie particuler man may erre in the exposition of it seing also that the false vnderstanding of it is so dangerous and the true sense so soueraigne let vs see whether we can finde out any certaine and infallible guide whose judgement we may follow securely and without al feare of errour in this matter I affirme therefore that like as we receiue the letter of the holy Scripture from the Catholike Church and by her censure infallibly knowe it to be Canonical so likewise we are to receiue the sense and exposition of the said letter from the same our holy mother and receiuing and following the sense by her approued we cannot possibly erre wherefore vpon it we may securely build our faith and saluation This may be inferred out of those thinges which haue beene already proued for if the letter it selfe be not properly Scripture without the true sense which is as it were the life and soule of the said letter and the letter be knowne vnto vs by the declaration of the Church it must needes followe that we ought also to receiue the sense from the same Church But let vs proue it out of the holy Scripture First therefore we gather out of the Apostle that Scripture ought to be interpreted according to the rule of faith generally receiued in the Church his wordes are these Rom. 12. verse 6. Hauing giftes according to the grace of God that is giuen vs different either prophecy according to the rule of faith or ministry or he that teacheth in doctrine c. Out of which vve gather the prophecie according to the rule proportion or analogie of faith is one of the gifts vvhich God bestoweth vpon his Church And what is meant by the word prophecy surely nothing else but the interpretation or exposition of the vvord of God this cannot be denied And it is confessed by our aduersaries themselues who in their English newe Testament printed in the yeare 1592. and 1600. in their note vpon those wordes of the Apostle Followe charitie earnestly pursue spiritual things 1. Corin. 14. ve 1. but rather that you may prophecy tel vs that the word prophecy signifieth the exposition of the word of God to the edification of the Church And although in the said English Bible they wil haue the vvord prophecy in the place cited out of the Epistle to the Romans to signifie preaching and teaching yet because al preaching teaching according to their doctrine ought principally to be out of the word of God it al cōmeth to the sel same sense Hence M. Rainolds in the conference held at Hamptō Court betweene Protestants Puritans Barlow in his relatiō of the said conferēce pag. 78. requested that at certaine times there might be prophecying in rural Deanaries But how shal we vnderstand those words according to the Analogie or rule of faith Truly the meaning of them is already explicated for by them we are taught that the exposition of holie Scriptures ought to be conformable to that rule of faith which was deliuered by Christ to his Church and by the assistance and direction of the holy Ghost hath remained in the same euer since vvithout corruption and shal so remaine vntil the end of the world And al this may be confirmed by that sentence of S. Peter before alleaged 2. Pet. 1. vers 20. No prophecy of Scripture is made by priuate intepretation that is to say no exposition of Scripture ought to be made acording to any mans priuate fancie but according to the doctrine sense of the Church And by this rule as I haue before noted S. Iohn the Apostle and Euangelist 1. Iohn 4. verse 1. Luk. 24. vers 45. biddeth vs try our spirits whether they be of God or no. Moreouer S. Luke the Euāgelist recordeth that our Sauiour opened his Apostles vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures Neither did he only giue them the gift of vnderstanding such diuiue bookes but also deliuered vnto them the true sense and meaning of the same I meane of the old Testament which only before the Ascension of Christ was penned And this gift of vnderstanding the Scriptures was perfected in them on the feast of Pentecost Act. 2. When the holy Ghost taught them all truth which gift also the said holy Ghost imparted and they deliuered to their successors and so by succession and tradition the same remaineth alwaies in the Church Iren. li. 4. cap. 45. Tertul. de praescrip cap. 19. Hence S. Ireneus telleth vs that they conserue our faith and expound the Scripture vnto vs without danger with whome the succession of Bishops which is from the Apostles remaineth Tertullian likewise refusing to argue against Heretikes by only Scripture willeth vs first to search out who haue the true faith it selfe whose the Scriptures are from whom and by whom and when and to whom the discipline by which men are made Christians was deliuered For wheresoeuer saith he it shal appeare that
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
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
as a rule of her faith For a third Tradition he acknowledgeth That forme of Christian doctrine and explication of the seueral parts thereof which the first Christians receiuing from the same Apostles that deliuered to them the scriptures commended to posterities Vnto which I adde that which he hath in the fourteenth chapter of the same booke that without the Creed of the Apostles named here in the second place we cannot knowe the scripture to be of God that without the forme of Christian doctrine which is his third Tradition and the Analogie of faith we haue no forme of Christian doctrine by the direction whereof to judge of particular doubts and questions Yea in another place of the said forme of Christian doctrine he hath these wordes Ibidem cap. 19. We confesse that neither conference of places nor consideration of the antedentia consequentia nor looking into the originals are of any force in the interpretation of scripture vnlesse we finde the thinges which we conceiue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant to the rule of faith This is M. Fields doctrine Out of vvhich I inferre contrarie to his owne assertions that according to his owne groundes Tradition is the very foundation of his faith And this is euident For doth it not follow of this that we receiue the number names of the authors and the integritie of bookes diuine by Tradition that without Tradition we cannot knowe such diuine bookes and moreouer that if Tradition may be false that we also concerning such bookes may be deceiued Can it likewise be denied if it be so that vvithout the knoweledge of the creed we cannot know the scripture to be of God the creed also be an Apostolike Tradition that without an Apostolike Tradition vve cannot knowe the scriptures Moreouer although that should be admitted as true which he auoucheth and hardly agreeth with this to wit Chap. 20. § Much contētion See more of this matter part 2. chapter 5. sect 1. and chapter 8. section 4. that The scriptures winne credit of themselues and yeeld satisfaction to al men of their diuine truth which in very deed is false yet seing that the true interpretation of them cannot be knowne as Field saith without the knowledge of this rule of faith it followeth also apparantly that this rule must first infallibly be knowne by Tradition before that we can certainly gather any article of beliefe out of scripture Neither are these things only granted by Field but moreouer he confesseth the baptisme of Infants to be a Tradition and addeth * Field booke 4. chap. 20. § the fourth That it is not expresly deliuered in scripture that the Apostles did baptize Infants and that there is not any expres precept there found that they should so doe And yet I hope that M. Field wil grant that it is a matter of faith that Infants are to be baptized lest that he be censured to be an Anabaptist which if he doe he must needs confesse that some matters of faith are deliuered vnto vs by Tradition And whereas he saith This is not receiued by bare and naked Tradition but that we find the scripture to deliuer vnto vs the grounds of it It is verie certaine that the scripture is so obscure touching this point August de Genes ad litteram l. 10. c. 23 that S. Augustine affirmeth that this custome of the Church in baptizing Infants were not at al to be beleeued were it not an Apostolike Tradition And this obscurity of Scripture is much increased if vvee confesse vvith our aduersaries that Infants may be saued vvithout Baptisme Chap. 20. But they But he doth object against vs that we proue many thinges which vve wil haue to be Apostolical Traditions by the testimony of holy scripture I cannot deny it yet I say it is one thing probably to deduce an article of faith out of the scripture another thing to be expresly and plainely contained in it We only by probable conjectures proue some Traditions out of holy scripture especially against Heretikes which deny Traditions and approue the scripture Neuerthelesse by supernatural faith vve beleeue them because they are such Traditions Booke 4. cap. 20. § For this That vvhich he saith that vve make Traditions Ecclesiastical equal with the vvritten vvord of God is one of his ordinary vntruthes Besides this it is also generally vrged against vs by our aduersaries that diuers such thinges as are affirmed by vs to be Apostolike Traditions are institutions of men and they name the time vvhen such things were instituted and the author that commanded them to be obserued I answere that although touching certaine obseruations and ceremonies vvhich vve affirme to be Apostolike there be some decrees of Councels and Popes yet that the said Councels or Popes instituted not such obseruations and ceremonies but either ratified and confirmed them by their decrees or else caused them to be obserued vniuersally whereas before the vse of them was not general or finally prescribed to al faithful people a certaine and vniforme manner of obseruing them whereas before although the obseruation of them was general yet they were not generally obserued after the same manner in al places The truth of this answere appeareth by this that vve can proue by sufficient testimonies such obseruations and ceremonies to be more ancient then our aduersaries vvil haue their institution I adde also that al the definitions and decrees of Councels and Popes concerning matters of faith are but more perspicuous explications of that rule of faith which by Tardition hath descended from the Apostles as I wil declare in the next chapter wherefore it is no absurdity to affirme the like of such constitutions concerning some obseruations and ceremonies for that some haue beene instituted and ordained by the Church we confesse Neither hath she in this exceeded her authoritie because Christ hath giuen her such power to the end that al thinges might be done vniformallie vvith decencie and as the Apostle saith according to order 1. Corint 14 40. And that she hath such Apostilike authority it is confessed by most English Protestants * see chap. 6. before section 4. pag. 50. as I haue aboue declared Chapter 9. Of general Councels which make the third particuler ground of Catholike religion IN the next place I affirme that euery man may securely build his faith and religion vpon the decrees of a lawful and authentical general Councel concerning that or those matters which the Councel intendeth to define One principal reason conuincing the truth of this may be gathered out of that which hath beene already said of the infallible authority of the Church for I haue proued before not only that it vvas necessary for the preseruation of peace and vnity that Christ should ordaine in his Church some visible supreame and infallible meane to decide controuersies touching matters of religion but also that this prerogatiue was bestowed by
vs that in it the Bishops were assembled by the holy Ghost f Ciril lib. de trinita et dialog cum Hermia et epi. ad Anasta S. Ciril of Alexandria termeth the decree of the same Councel a diuine and most holy oracle also the strong and inuincible foundation of our faith and a faith defined by diuine instinct g Leo epistol 53. ad Anatho et 54. ad Martian et 78 ad Leonem Aug. S. Leo affirmeth that the canons of that Councel and of the Councel of Chalcedon were ordained by the holy Ghost h Constan epist ad EcclesiaÌ„ de habita Nicaenae sinod Receiue saith Constantine the great of the canons of the Councel of Nice with willing mindes this decree as the gift of God and a precept in very deede sent from heauen For whatsoeuer is decreed in the Councels of the Saints must be attributed to the diuine wil. i Gregor li. 1. epist 24. et lib. 2. indict 11 epist 10. S. Gregorie said He honoured the foure first general Councels as the foure Gospels k Iustin authent collat 9. de Ecclesiasticis titulis cap. 1. see Ruffinus in hist lib. 1. cap. 5. We receiue their decrees of faith saith Iustinian the Emperour more auncient then he as the holy scriptures l Caelestinus epist ad sinod Ephesinam Caelestinus the Pope affirmeth that he beleeued the holy Ghost to be present in the Councel of Ephesus And this prerogatiue of the spouse of Christ is also gathered out of those testimonies of the holy scriptures aboue rehearsed prouing that the Church is directed in al truth by the holy Ghost vnto which I joine this taken out of the Acts of the Apostles to wit that the Apostles and auncients assembled together in the first Councel held at Hierusalem in their decision of the matter then in controuersie vsed this stile Act. 15. verse 28. It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs c. giuing vs to vnderstand that in holy Councels the resolution of controuersies and other decrees proceede jointely from the holy Ghost and the Fathers assembled and that he together vvith them propoundeth vnto vs such thinges as are decreed And because al general Councels euer since haue had the same direction and assistance of the holy Ghost they haue likewise euer vsed the same kind of stile Of the authority of the decrees of the said first Councel held by the Apostles at Hierusalem we are sufficiently informed in the said history of the Actes of the Apostles In which S. Luke recordeth Act. 15 41. chap. 16 4. that when S. Paul and Silas passed through the Citties they deliuered vnto the faithful the precepts of the Apostles the ancients that were decreed at Hierusalem and commaunded them to keepe them And like as al faithful Christians embraced those precepts so euer since al Catholikes haue embraced the Creedes and Decrees of general Councels building therein not vpon the authority of men subject to errour but vpon the authority of men directed by the holy Ghost and as I may say vpon the authority of the holy Ghost and men For the holy Ghost is chiefe president in al such general Councels Wherefore although euerie particuler man assembled in the Councel except the Bishop of Rome may erre in his priuate opinion yet certaine it is that in such a Councel confirmed by the Pope they haue not erred and vpon this euery Christian may securely build his faith and saluation Hence the Fathers teach that we ought rather to die then to depart from the decrees of general Councels a Ambros epist 32. I followe saith S. Ambrose the decree of the Nicene Councel from which neither death nor sword shal separate me b Hieron cont Lucif Hilla in fine lib. de sinodis S. Athanasius S. Hillarie and S. Eusebius endured banishment rather then they would contrary the faith of the same Councel c Victor in li. de Vandalica per secutione Victor Affricanus relateth the martirdome of diuers who suffered for the same cause Moreouer if we make the decrees of a general Councel subject to falsehood vve must needes condemne al such Councels euen the most ancient and best of an intollerable errour in this that they propounded thinges to be beleeued as articles of faith of vvhich it is not certaine whether they were true or false and made newe Creeds or formes of faith or at the least added some sentences to the old which they commanded al Christians to embrace as part of their beliefe For how could they doe this if they could haue erred and haue propounded falshood Vnto vvhich I may also adde that if vve bereaue such definitions of diuine truth the condemnation of al heresies condemned in auncient times may be called in question and doubt may be made vvhether they were lawfully and justly condemned or no and so we shal not only open the way to al dissention and deuision in the Church but also bereaue our selues of a principal meane for the condemnation of such newe Trinitarians See Zauchius in the epistle before his confession Beza volumine 3. pa. 190. 195. Hooker booke 5. § 42. Arians Nestorians and Eutichians as haue in this last age sprung vp out of our aduersaries Euangellical or rather Pseudo-euangellical doctrine This forced Beza disputing against such Heretiks to pleade the authority of the Councels of Nice Ephesus and Chalcedon * Beza epist Theâ—log 81 p. 334. 335. Zauchius in his epistle before his confession pag. 12. 13. Then which saith he the Sunne neuer beheld any thing more holy and excellent from the Apostles daies He addeth that Although al vse of newe wordes be diligently to be auoided yet saith he I so define that the difference betweene the essence and hipostasis being taken awaye what wordes soeuer thou vse and the word consubstantial being abrogated which vvords were established in the said Councels the deceits and errours of these Arians and Trinitarians can hardly or not at al be discouered or their errors so clearely confuted I denie also that the words nature propriety hipostatical vnion c. being taken away that the blasphemies of Nestorius and Eutiches can wel be refelled hitherto Beza Hence also Zanchius a Protestant of no smal fame vvriteth thus And because Heretikes when they durst not simply deny these foundations were euer wont to wrest and yet doe wrest and wring the same for the most part by false interpretations to their owne heresies Therefore that the true Churches may be discerned from the conuenticles of Heretikes we must vnderstand and expound those principles and chiefe points of doctrine in no other sense then as the ancient Church agreeably to the scriptures by common consent specially in the best approued Councels expounded them For what to say something for example sake can be more firme certaine and manifestlie spoken for the article in the Creed of the person of Christ then those
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
places reproueable where he ouer-much aduanceth workes against faith but also his doctrine throughout is patched together of diuers pieces wherof no one agreeth with an other this is the general opinion of the Lutherans Among the Sacramentaries Wolfangus Musculus in locis com cap de iustificat num 5. p. 271 Wolfangus Musculus a Zwinglian hauing reprehended S. Iames for alleaging the example of Abraham as he saith nothing to the purpose and for not distinguishing if we beleeue this doctor the true and properly Christian faith from that which is common to Iewes and Christians Turks and Deuils He addeth that the said Iames setteth downe his sentence much different from the Apostolical doctrine wherby concluding he saith you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith only c. I shal recite his words more at large in the next chapter And what greater proofe then the assertion of so many of his learned Masters can a reasonable man of the newe religion require Behold both learned Lutherans with their first beginner Luther and a principal Sacramentarie confesse that we follow the true and litteral sense of S. Iames words It may be replied first that these Sectaries reject this epistle out of the Canon of holy Scripture I confesse it is so but this notwithstanding the Church of England vvith Caluin and the Caluinists and most of the Zwinglians admit it as Canonical and therefore according to the doctrine of the followers of the newe religion we may very vvel frame this argument The Epistle of S. Iames is Canonical Scripture but the Epistle of S. Iames approueth justification by good vvorkes and saith it is not wrought by faith only therefore the Canonical Scripture approueth justification by good vvorkes and saith it is not wrought by faith only The first proposition is affirmed true as is afore said by the Church of England by Caluin and al his Caluinists and by most of the Zwinglians the second by al the Lutherans of which the conclusion necessarily followeth and consequently our doctrine touching justification according to the testimony of our aduersaries is built vpon the letter of holy Scripture Which prerogatiue if it be truly yeelded vnto vs it must needes be denied vnto them for the Scriptures teach not contraries and it is in no place opposite to it selfe Secondly it may be replied and said that the Lutherans doe not vvel vnderstand and apprehend S. Iames his meaning This is likewise easily refelled for vvhat reason hath any indifferent man to preferre the Sacramentaries judgement before that of the Lutherans Doe not these vnderstand the Scriptures as wel as they what priuilege or vvarrant of not erring haue the Sacramentaries aboue the Lutherans In learning without al doubt and other gifts necessary for attaining the true sense of Scripture these were not inferiour to them yea Luther as I haue related in my Preface is extraordinarily commended euen by those Sacramentaries who otherwise expound S. Iames then he doth Their enmity and hatred against vs vvere likewise equal vvherefore it is not like if with any probable glosse they could haue drawne this Apostles sentences to an other meaning that they vvould haue bereaued themselues of such a monument of antiquity and haue confessed it to make against themselues such a monument I say which their bretheren affirme to be Canonical Scripture and they themselues cannot denie to haue beene highly esteemed by al their Christian predecessours nay by most and those of greatest learning and authority to haue beene placed in the sacred Canon of diuine bookes Finally Field booke 1. chap. 18. pag. 35. 36. Field seemeth to confesse that S. Paul sometimes by vvorkes of the lawe vnderstandeth vvorkes of the lawe of Moyses for he telleth vs that this Apostle pronounceth that the Galathians were bewitched Galat. 3. 5. and that if they stil persisted to joyne circumcision and the workes of the lawe with Christ they were fallen from grace c. Nowe if this be so it may also be that in the place which the Lutherans thinke opposite to that of S Iames by vvorkes of the lawe he vnderstandeth vvorkes of the lawe of Moyses vvhich if it be admitted as true the sentences of these blessed Apostles may easily be reconciled although S. Paules vvordes admit also other very good expositions Chap. 6. Sect. 2. Field booke 3 c. 22. p. 118. as I haue before declared The same Field in like manner affirmeth that when we are justified God requireth of vs a newe obedience judgeth vs according to it and crowneth vs for it and that in this sort it is that he wil judge vs in the last day according to our workes By vvhich his assertion he plainely granteth that for good vvorkes men shal be crowned in heauen and consequently that good vvorkes done after justification are meritorious of eternal glory in the next vvorld and vvhy not then also of the increase of grace in this life vvhich is al that by vs is auouched Ibid. chap. 44 pag. 179. Lastly he saith that justification implieth in it selfe Faith Hope and Loue vvhich proposition I see not howe he can verifie if according to the Scriptures faith only doth justifie And thus much out of our aduersaries touching the proofe of justification by vvorkes and not by faith only out of the word of God Neither haue these Protestants only thus vnderstood the holy Scriptures but also as I haue affirmed in the beginning of this Section the auncient Fathers And this I vvil also proue by the like testimonies and confession of our aduersaries The Magdeburgians or Century writers are much commended by al sorts of followers of the newe religion for their diligence vsed and paines taken both in perusing and censuring al Councels and old Authours and also in penning of their Ecclesiastical historie especially of the primatiue Church Let these men therefore declare and tel vs vvhat the auncient Fathers beleeued and taught touching justification Verily they so great and so principal antiquaries being themselues of a contrary beliefe affirme that the said Fathers haue erred in this article by ascribing justification to good vvorkes and denying it to only faith For of the second age after Christ thus they vvrite The doctrine of justification was deliuered more negligently and obscurely Centur. 2. ca. 4. col 60. 61. by the Doctors of this age Againe This article the highest and chiefest of al by litle and by litle through the craft of the Diuel beganne to be obscured Further It appeareth say they out of the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus that in his age the doctrine concerning the end of good workes beganne to be obscured Finally The times ensuing declare sufficiently that the doctrine of faith justifying without workes beganne forthwith to be more and more varied and obscured Centur. 3. ca. 4. col 53. 79. 80. 81. In their history of the third age they tel vs that this article was almost altogither obscured and
contained in the diuine bookes These are his words They object vnto vs the place of Iames Wolfangus Musculus in locis communibus cap. de Iustificat num 5. pag. 271. but he whatsoeuer he was though he speake otherwise then S. Paul yet may he not prejudice the truth And after the disagreement betweene these two Apostles according to his imagination shewed at large he thus breaketh forth into open reproch of S. Iames Wherefore he Iames alleageth the example of Abraham nothing to the purpose where he saith wilt thou knowe O vaine man that faith without workes is dead Abraham our father was he not justified by workes when he offered his sonne Isaac He confoundeth the word faith Howe much better had it beene for him diligently and plainely to haue distinguished the true and properly Christian faith which the Apostle euer preached from that which is common to Iewes and Christians Turkes and Diuels then to confound them both and set downe his sentence so different from the Apostolical doctrine whereby as concluding he saith You see that a man is justified by workes and not by faith alone whereas the Apostle out of the same place disputeth thus c. And hauing made S. Paul to speake as hee thinketh best afterwardes he inferreth Thus saith the Apostle of whose doctrine we doubt not Compare me nowe with this argument of the Apostle the conclusion of this Iames A man therefore is justified by workes and not by faith only and see howe much it differeth whereas he should more rightly haue concluded thus c. This and other more such stuffe hath this Sacramentary Doctor against S. Iames and his Epistle in which he dissenteth from most of his owne company Doth not also Beza reject or at the least doubt of the truth of the whole history of the adoulterous woman recorded by S. Iohn in the eight Chapter of his Gospel vvhich notwithstanding other Sacramentaries admit as Canonical Scripture This cannot be denied and I haue before related his wordes Part. 2. ch 1. sect 4. Bible 1592. c. Doth not our English Church Mathewe 6. receiue as Canonical Scripture those wordes For thine is the kingdome the power and the glory which they adde at the end of our Lords praier and yet of them Bullinger a Zwinglian writeth thus There is no reason why Laurentius Valla should take the matter so hotely as though a great part of the Lords praier were cut away Rather their rashnesse was to be reproued who durst presume to peece on their owne to the Lords praier Thus Bullinger Nay further some times the same Sacramentary receiueth vvordes into the Canon vvhich before he had rejected For example Beza in one edition of his new Testament in the end of the eight chapter of S. Iohns Gospel putteth in these wordes See the newe Testaments translated by Beza of the yeares 1556. and 1565. And his Testament translated into English by L. T. printed anno 1580. Iesus passing through the midst of them c. vvhich in another edition with great vehemency he rejecteth wherefore although Beza in his edition of the yeare 1556. leaue the said vvordes out yet in Bezaes englished Testament of the yeare 1580. they are admitted And these thinges in like sort manifestly conuince that the Sacramentaries in admitting and rejecting bookes of Scripture are led by their owne judgement and fancy not by any diuine or infallible rule Moreouer diuers parcels of holy Scripture as I haue declared aboue haue bin in times past of doubtful authority of which most of our aduersaries haue receiued some into the Canon and rejected others For example our English Protestants haue receiued the Epistle to the Hebrewes and the Apocalipse and rejected the books of the Machabees of Iudith Tobias c. because the authority of these in the primatiue Church was called in question But what reason haue they for this fact haue they had any diuine testimony or reuelation commanding them to admit the first Surely none seing that they contemne the authority of the Church And wherefore receiued they not the last aswel as the first They vvil say perhaps that the first vvere admitted by diuers euen in the primatiue Church and doubted off only by some I reply that Brentius hauing named and numbred al of both sorts of them in general writeth thus Brentius in Apolog. confess Wittenb There are some of the auncient Fathers who receiue these Apocriphal bookes into the number of Canonical Scriptures and in like sort some Councels command them to be acknowledge as Canonical I am non ignorant what was done but I demand whether it were rightly and Canonically done Thus Brentius who reiecteth them al alike And that vvhich he saith may be proued true by the testimony of the third Councel of Carthage and S. Augustine as Field confesseth Concil Cartag 3. ca. 47. Augustin de doctrina Christiana lib. 2. cap. 8. Field booke 4. chap. 23. §. hence and of diuers others who receiued the bookes of Tobias Iudith and the Machabees wherefore it seemeth that not only in the judgement of Brentius but also in very deede the doubt of al was almost alike It is euident therefor◠in my judgement that the reason vvhy they rejected and reject those of the old Testament is because in some points they contrary their newe doctrine which they made and make a rule whereby to discerne which bookes are Canonical Hence they receiued those which they could make in outward shewe seeme to fauour their opinion and rejected others and this is the cause why Luther rejecteth more bookes then the later Sectaries For he being the first that beganne to preach this newe Gospel could not presently forge and inuent newe glosses and interpretations vpon al the bookes of Scripture that opposed themselues against the same vvherefore he rejected sundry such bookes vvhich afterwardes his followers hauing inuented such glosses and interpretations receiued This also moued the same Luther to affirme those to be the best Euangelists Luther tom 5. praefat in epist. Petri. fol. 439. Centuriat 2. ca. 4. p. 260. who most especially and most earnestly teach that only faith without workes doth justifie and saue vs of which he inferreth that S. Paules epistles may more properly be called the Gospel then either the Gospel of S. Mathewe S. Marke or S. Luke His disciples the Centuriatores likewise yeeld this reason vvherefore the epistle of S. Iames is to be rejected that in the second chapter he affirmeth that Abraham vvas not justified by faith only Zwinglius in explanat art 57. tom 2. fol. 100. but by workes Zwinglius also affirmeth that although the second booke of the Machabees were in the Canon yet that the authour of it maketh himselfe suspected by this that writing an history he doth set downe a point of doctrine concerning praier for the dead By which it is manifest that they measure Canonical Scripture by their faith not their faith by
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
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
proued before Howe then can the vnlearned knowe that either through ignorance or malice they haue not erred what diuine authority or reuelation haue they to perswade them this or to propound vnto them their translated Bibles as the true vvord of God If the sincerity of the translatour be doubtful and they haue no such authority or reuelation howe can they knowe certainely and infallibly by diuine vvarrant that their Bibles containe the pure and sincere vvord of God And if they knowe not this after this sort howe can they build vpon their Bibles true faith vvhich is a most certaine knowledge through diuine reuelation vvithout al doubt seing that they admit no other infallible rule they must needes confesse that they are alwaies vncertaine vvhether their beliefe be true or no for their beliefe can haue no further assurance of truth then they haue of the truth of the ground thereof vvhich they affirme to be the only word of God contained in their owne books Wherefore seing that the truth of these is vncertaine their faith also must needes be vncertaine And this argument is sufficient to proue that the vnlearned sectaries haue no faith But I adde further that I haue before set downe diuers places of holy Scripture vvhich we affirme in very deede to be corrupted by their translations vvhich our affirmation they may the better beleeue because they may also there see that diuers places in the first editions corrupted are amended in the latter Howe then can the vnlearned being ignorant in the tongues discerne by the Scripture only whether we say true or no or vvhether we or the authours of their translations erre Surely in judging of this controuersie they followe their owne fancies neither haue they any sound reason much lesse diuine authority that can moue them rather to condemne our translation then their owne Hence also I infer that our vnlearned Sectaries are not yet certaine that the English Bibles are the true word of God This I proue because they cannot deny but their said bibles were once falsly translated otherwise vvherefore haue they beene in so many places as I haue noted corrected Doth not euery correction suppose a fault But that they were once false it is granted in the preface to the Bible of the yeare 1589. 1592. and 1600. If they vvere once false howe knowe they that they are nowe true Had the learned Sectary or Sectaries that last amended the Bible any further vvarrant from God that they should not erre then they that erred before vvhat vvarrant had they that erred no other certainely but their owne knowledge And vvhat had they that last of al corrected it but the same and so the translatour of the aforesaid Bible in the preface to the reader protesteth that according to the measure of his knowledge he hath faithfully rendred the text and sincerely expounded al hard places but who knoweth not that al these mens judgements and knowledges be alike subject to errour If therefore the last translators or correctors had no further warrant as they had not then the former howe can it certainely be knowne that they haue not also erred Conference at Hampton-Court c. but this likewise is confessed by the Kings Majestie and D. Reinolds as I haue noted before vvherefore as yet the vnlearned English sectaries neuer had nor haue at this present a true and certaine ground of their faith and consequently they are yet vncertaine vvhither their beliefe be sound or no because their Bible on vvhich only they build containeth not the true vvord of God Neither wil this be remedied by a new edition of the Bible which as it is said is nowe in hand because the newe Translatours vvhich nowe indeauour to correct the old are also subject to errour and therefore the vnlearned sectaries can neuer certainely knowe whither they haue erred or no. Of vvhich I finally inferre that they can neuer haue true faith which is a most certaine and sure knowledge of thinges reuealed by God I vvil adde one other argument most euidently conuincing that none of the vnlearned professours of the newe religion can possibly be certaine that their translated Bibles are the true vvord of God which is this Euery man must needes confesse that there is but one true vvord of God But our aduersaries Bibles be diuers and differ much one from another wherefore as I haue shewed euery man rejecteth al other Bibles but that which is translated and approued by those of his owne sect therefore al of them but one must needes be false vvhich being presupposed I demand of any one vnlearned sectary what reason he hath to preferre one Bible as true before al the rest for example vvherefore doth he reject the Lutheran or Puritan Bible and admit that vvhich is authorized to be read in the Churches of England He cannot say that it is because the one agreeth vvith the Hebrewe and Greeke and the other doe not for this he knoweth not because he is ignorant of those languages Perhaps he wil say that some learned men told him so But this is no sufficient ground both because if he aske a Lutheran or Caluinist although euen as learned as the English Protestant they wil tel him the contrary and also because the judgement of a learned man yea of al the learned sectaries in the world togither is not sufficient to make any thing so certaine that vve may vvithout al doubt admit it as a sufficient ground of an article of faith For be they neuer so learned yet their sentence may be erroneous they themselues being subject to errour vvherefore the vnlearned sectary although he make himselfe judge of al the learned yet he can not possibly most assuredly knowe vvhich of them haue erred in translating the Bible And therefore in accepting and approuing one and rejecting and condemning the rest he buildeth only vpon his owne fancy vvhich moueth him to accept and approue one edition of holy Scripture before another either because it fauoureth his owne opinions or because he hath conceaued a good opinion of the Translatour or because the translation is allowed in the Country vvhere he dwelleth or for some other priuate respect Moreouer although vve should grant to the vnlearned and ignorant sectaries that they most assuredly knowe that their translated Bibles are the true vvord of God yet the interpretations also on which they build yeeld vs euen as forcible an argument as the former For seing that the Scriptures are hard and admit diuers interpretations as I haue already proued yea are so diuersly expounded by their learned Captaines that al their expositions cannot be true who seeth not first that the vnlearned and ignorant haue litle reason to accept more of one interpretation then of an other Secondly that in accepting one and rejecting others they build not vpon any diuine authority but vpon their owne judgement by vvhich they are moued to thinke the doctrine receiued true either through the
these Heretikes alleage these places in their true sense nothing so as S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria deliuereth vnto vs discoursing of the aforesaid vvordes of the Apostle after this sort Ciril lib. 5. in Ioan. cap. 17. Penance saith he is not excluded by these wordes of S. Paul but the renewing by the lauer of regeneration He doth not here take away the second or third remission of sinnes for he is not such an enemy to our saluation but the host which is Christ he denieth that it is to be offered againe vpon the Crosse Hitherto S. Cyril with whome agree S. Chrysostome Chrisost homil 9. in cap. 6. ad Hebr. Ambros de poenitent lib. 2. cap. 2. S. Ambrose and the rest of the holy Fathers And like as these Heretikes falsly interpreted these places of scripture so doe the sectaries of our daies diuers others This our English Protestants with Caluin wil easily graunt of the Anabaptists whome they censure to be Heretikes and yet these sectaries haue as euident places out of the word of God to confirme their owne doctrine as our Protestants can alleage for their particular opinions For example the Anabaptists defend that children ought not to be baptized before they come to yeares of discretion and can actually beleeue And what Scriptures doe they bring for proofe of this their doctrine Mark 16 16 It is written say they He that shal beleeue and be baptized shal be saued but he that shal not beleeue shal be condemned Loe say they it is necessary to beleeue before baptisme and the one is euen as necessary as the other to saluation and vpon this ground principally although they alleage thirty other places because infants cannot actually beleeue Caluin admo vlt. ad Westphalum pag. 1116. 1129. they build their aforesaid doctrine And they so presse the Protestants vvho denie habitual faith with this sentence of Christ that they forced the Lutherans to affirme * Luther lib. cont Cochlaeū Lutherani in Synodo Wittenberge anno 1536. that infants actually beleeue vvhen they are baptized which opinion is now earnestly defended by a Lucas Osiāder in Enchirid cōt Anabaptist cap. 2 printed Wittenberge anno 1607. Lucas Osiander a Lutheran superintendent In like sort they affirme al oathes to be vnlawful and this they gather out of those vvordes of our Sauiour Math. 5. vers 33. Againe you haue heard that it was said to them of old thou shalt not commit perjury but thou shalt performe thy oathes to our Lord. But I say to you not to sweare at al neither by heauen c. And soone after Let your talke be yea yea no no and that which is ouer and aboue these is of euil These and other such like testimonies are alleaged by the Anabaptists which if vve reject the censure and interpretation of the Church make euen as apparently for these Heretikes as any other vsed by the newe sectaries for proofe of their newe doctrine Hence Caluin himselfe vvriting against the Lutherans telleth vs that if it be so we are bound with this lawe that it is necessary we receiue whatsoeuer the wordes of Scripture sound there wil be no kinde of absurdity by which prophane men may not reproue and defame the doctrine of the Gospel that is to say there wil be nothing so absurd vvhich prophane men to the infamy of the Gospel wil not gather out of it Againe if the Scripture be so violently pressed as these men wil haue it it wil be as ful of absurdities as it hath verses Suruey of the pretended holy discipline chap. 31 pag. 414. 415. Thus Caluin In like sort the Authour of the Suruey of the Puritan discipline against the Puritans affirmeth that it is not enough for men to alleage Scriptures except they bring the true meaning of the Scriptures And al this discourse conuinceth that the allegation of Scripture is no certaine proofe that the Scripture is the ground of his beliefe by whome it is alleaged But for a farther proofe of al this in our newe sectaries let vs also consider that they doe not only bring forth Scriptures against the Catholikes but also against one another For although their opinions be neuer so diuers yet they cite places of Scriptures out of the selfe same bookes aswel for the confirmation of their owne as the confutation of their aduersaries doctrine And further al are as they say contented to haue the Scripture decide and end the controuersie Fox p. 1097. 987. anno 1536. pag. 1591. col 2. pag. 1094. col 2. Hence on the selfe same day three sectaries were burnt in Smithfield Barret Garret and Hierome of which the first was a Lutheran the other two Zwinglians and yet they al as Fox reporteth protested at their death that they taught nothing but that which was contained in the Scripture In like sort the Puritans of this realme of England now * See a christian and modest offer of a most indifferent cōference tendered by the late silenced and depriued Ministers to the Arch-bishops printed anno 1606. offer to proue al their Puritanical assertions out of the word of God vvhich neuerthelesse our Protestants taught as they say by the same vvord of God reject Of vvhich I inferre that whosoeuer weigheth a litle and looketh into the matter may see first that they cannot al truly alleage Scripture build vpon the same for the Scripture approueth not contrary doctrine and therefore he may imagine that they may euen as wel erre in bringing forth Scripture against vs as against their owne brethren and consequently be perswaded that their alleaging of Scripture is no certaine argument of truth Secondly he shal likewise finde that in their alleaging the vvord of God both against vs and those of their owne company they remit not the controuersie to the bare vvordes of Scripture but vnto the words of scripture translated expounded by themselues wherefore they differ in the translation and interpretation of holy Scripture for euery one of them rejecteth al other translations interpretations but his owne vpon vvhich being his owne fancy not vpon the Scripture he buildeth his opinion But wherefore doe Heretikes couet so plentifully to alleage the word of God the reason of this is notably wel declared by Vincentius Lirinensis in this his discourse They knowe fulwel saith he that their stinking and vnsauory drugs be not likely almost to please any Vincent Lirinens ca. 35. if simply and nakedly they be set forth and therefore they doe temper them as it were with the sweete powder of Gods word that he which quickly would haue contemned mans erroneous inuention dare not so readily reject Gods diuine Scripture wherein they are like to those which minding to minister bitter potions to young children first anoint the brims of the cup with hony that thereby vnwary youth feeling sweetnesse may nothing feare the bitter confection This deuise also practise they who vpon naughty hearbes and hurtful
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
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
in them so long as he seeth not apparantly his errour condemned by Scripture or plainely proued false by euident deduction out of those articles which are expresly to be knowne and beleeued But the truth of this mine assertion is gathered out of that which hath beene already proued For if the Church be the ground and piller of truth and cannot erre in faith it is manifest that al her beleefe may safely without danger of errour be receiued And moreouer because God hath reuealed such articles to the Church for no other end then that her children by the beleefe of them may attaine to euerlasting blisse it is also euident that euery one is bound to beleeue whatsoeuer she teacheth I adde also that whosoeuer beleeueth not al hath no faith and that he who thinketh it to be sufficient to saluation to beleeue certaine principal articles of Christian religion although the rest be denied must needes accuse the Church of errour and so according to his owne opinion cleane ouerthrowe her The first is easily proued because he that beleeueth not God and his Church in one point certainely beleeueth them in none For howe is it possible that he can reject them in any if he beleeue their authority to be infallible Wherefore by rejecting their judgement and sentence concerning one article he plainely declareth that he beleeueth not the rest because they are propounded vnto him by the Church and reuealed by God but because they please his owne fancy and in his owne judgement he thinketh them true and credible of which it followeth that he hath no faith which as I haue aboue declared maketh vs beleeue the misteries of our beleefe because they are reuealed by God And this we may gather out of those wordes of S. Iames the Apostle He that offendeth in one is made guilty of al. Iames 2. vers 10. For if by committing one mortal sinne we be said to be made guilty of al either because by breaking one commandement we shewe our selues not to regard the rest or else because one mortal sinne is as sufficiēt to bereaue vs of the grace of God as a thousand we may likewise wel inferre of this that a man refusing to beleeue one article of faith sheweth himselfe not to esteeme of the rest and by this only is bereaued of true faith that in very deede he beleeueth none and is guilty of infidelity touching al and consequently is no member of the Church of Christ whose members by faith principally are vnited and lincked together Further that whosoeuer thinketh it sufficient to saluation to beleeue certaine principal articles of Christian religion although the rest be denied accuseth the Church of errour thus I declare Galat. 5. vers 21. Tit. 3. vers 10. The Apostle teacheth vs that they that followe and embrace sectes or heresies shal not possesse the Kingdome of heauen Wherefore either the Church erreth both in defining such articles as some thinke not necessary to be beleeued to belong to the object of faith and also in condemning for heresies such opinions as they thinke may safely be defended or else such as despise her censure and embrace the said opinions are in state of damnation the first as I haue already proued ouerthroweth the Church the second is that which I intend to proue But let vs declare the truth of my first assertion out of the holy Scripture And first it cannot be denied but our Sauiour absolutely and that vnder paine of being censured as Etnickes and Publicans and consequently vnder paine of damnation commandeth vs to heare and obey the Church Math. 18. vers 17. if he wil not heare the Church saith he let him bee to thee as the Heathen and Publican And note that he biddeth vs not beleeue her onelie in principall matters but in all making no limitation or distinction In like sort in general tearmes he telleth vs that he that heareth his Apostles disciples which must be likewise verified in their successors heareth him and he that despiseth them despiseth him Finally he commanded his disciples to preach his Gospel and added that he that beleeueth it not shal be condemned which wordes cannot be vnderstood only of the principal articles of Catholike religion for his Gospel included the whole summe of Christian faith as I haue proued aboue Hence diuers in the first ages of the Church haue beene condemned and accursed as Heretikes for few errours in faith yea some time for one only and that in no principal point of beleef as I could exemplifie in the quarto decimani Epiphan haeres 50. who were so censured for keeping Easter day on the fourteenth day of the moone and others yea I may wel say that almost al Heretikes that euer haue risen haue beleeued certaine principal articles of Christian religion wherefore whosoeuer thinketh it sufficient to beleeue such articles openeth heauen almost to al Heretikes Moreouer howe shal we know which are these principal articles certainely euery man wil affirme if this liberty be giuen that the articles by him denied pertaine not to that number Lastly this errour is condemned by al the ancient Fathers S. Athanasius in his Creed receiued by the whole Church affirmeth that whosoeuer keepeth not entirely wholy without any corruption the Catholike faith without al doubt shal perish euerlastingly Theodor. li. 4. c. 17. Hooker booke 5. of ecclesiastical policy §. 42. pag. 88. Greg. Nazian tract de fide Aug. lib. de haeres in fine S. Basil being requested by the Prefect of Valens an Arrian Emperour to yeeld a litle to the time answered that they which are instructed in diuine doctrine doe not suffer one sillable of the diuine decrees to be corrupted or depraued but for the defence of it if it be needful and required embrace likewise of death Hooker also a Protestant telleth vs that the same S. Basil for changing some one or two sillables in the verse Glory be to the Father and to the Sonne and to the holy Ghost was forced to write apologies and whole volumes in his owne defence S. Gregory Nazianzene hath this notable sentence Nothing can be more dangerous then these Heretikes who when they run soundly through al yet with one word as with a droppe of poison corrupt or staine that true and sincere faith of our Lord and of Apostolike tradition S. Augustine likewise hauing reckoned vp eightie distinct Heresies addeth that there may chance to lurke many other petty heresies vnknowne to him of which heresies saith he whosoeuer shal hold any one shal not be a Catholike Christian. Finally * Hier. li. 3. Apolog. contr Ruf. S. Hierome witnesseth that for one word or two contrary to the Catholike faith many heresies haue beene cast out of the Church This is the opinion of the ancient Fathers Wherefore seing that one only heresie be it neuer so smal bereaueth vs of faith and seperateth vs from the body of Christ his Church which is quickned with