1. vers 19. S. Augustine in place of the word argument vseth the word conuiction affirming faith to be a most firme proofe and demonstration of thinges not appearing Hence S. Peter hauing declared that he sawe with his eies the glory of Christ in his transfiguration and heard with his eares the voice of God the Father addeth these wordes And we haue the prophetical word more sure By which he doth insinuate vnto vs that the knowledge of holie misteries by faith in the Scripture is more certaine then the knowledge which we receiue by the benefit of our senses Basil in ps 115. in moral reg 80. ca. 21. which perhaps moued S. Basil to affirme that no knowledge in vs is so firme and certaine as faith And the reason of this is because as I wil proue in the fift section faith is built vpon the infallible authority of God SECTION THE THIRD Faith is of thinges incomprehensible by natural reason and consequently obscure THE Diuines most trulie affirme that the object or subject of our supernatural faith is God as God because al thinges which by it are knowne and beleeued tend to this that by supernatural and reuealed groundes we attaine to as ful a knowledge of him as can by vs be had in this life Wherefore I may wel say that by faith we beleeue misteries aboue our reason although none cōtrary to our reason for faith only leadeth reason further then of it selfe it can reach and maketh it stoope and submit it selfe to the most certaine reuelation of God notwithstanding that he doth manifest vnto it misteries which in some sort seeme to resist our sense and reason This is signified vnto vs in the description of faith euen nowe alleaged out of the Apostle by those wordes of thinges not appearing for like as a Rom. 8. vers 24. hope according to the same Apostle that is seene is no hope For that which man seeth saith he wherefore doth he hope So faith of thinges seene and most certainely knowne by natural reason is not faith For that which a man seeth knoweth howe can he beleeue Neither doe those wordes of our b Ioh. 20. vers 29. Sauiour to S. Thomas the Apostle because thou hast seene me Thomas thou hast beleeued make against this For S. Thomas c Greg. ho. 26. in Euang as S. Gregory noteth sawe one thing and beleeued an other he sawe Christes humanity and beleeued his diuinity For this cause further the Apostle aboue cited telleth vs d Rom. 10. vers 17. Hebr. 11. vers 3. that faith is by hearing and that by faith we vnderstand that the worldes were framed by the word of God c. S. Augustine also auoucheth that e Aug. tra 79. in Ioā the praise of faith standeth in this that the thing be not seene which is beleeued f Aug. tra 43. in Ioā For what a great thing is it saith he if that be beleeued which is seene Againe faith is to beleeue that which thou seest not truth to see that which thou hast beleeued yea S. Athanasius plainely telleth vs Athanas tract de aduent cont Apol. 1. Cor. 13. vers 12. that faith conceiued of an euident matter cannot be called faith Hence it proceedeth that faith is obscure and cannot be found in heauen where al thinges are seene most clearely We see saith the Apostle nowe by a glasse in darke sort but then face to face nowe I knowe in part but then I shal knowe as also I am knowne And this obscurity of faith proceedeth aswell from the height and sublimitie of the misteries themselues reuealed which are without the compasse of our natural reason as also from the feeblenes and weakenesse of our vnderstanding which in this life being tied to our corporal senses cannot clearely apprehend thinges spiritual but only after a dimme sort by thinges visible commeth to some smal apprehension of thinges inuisible God likewise would haue it so not only to manifest vnto vs his owne Majestie and that he wil be beleeued at his word but also for mans greater humiliation and merit But although the object of faith so farre surpasse our reason and by this meanes cause obscurity in our vnderstanding yet certaine it is that God if he would might haue so declared and apparantly proued the misteries of our faith that the truth of them might haue bin farre more manifest then it is yea he might haue made it so apparant that no man of sense could haue denied them As for example Christ might if it had pleased him haue appeared after his resurrection to the whole Citie of Hierusalem yea to the whole world and by force of miracles perswasions and other such like motiues haue presently made Christian faith seeme euidently true to euery mans eie So likewise at this present it is in his power to doe for the manifestation of the truth of Catholike religion wherefore then did he not in old time and doth he not nowe proceed after this manner wherefore leaueth he the object of faith in this sense also inuironed with some obscurity I answere that most certaine it is that euery man hath or may haue if he please sufficient motiues and reasons to perswade him to imbrace the true religion and beleeue the whole summe of christian doctrine For God requireth only at our handes as the Apostle tearmeth it a reasonable obsequie or obedience Neuerthelesse he hath not vsed Rom. 11. nor doth vse al meanes possible to manifest the truth that man may merit the more by cōcurring by his free wil aided with Gods grace to the beleef of such misteries sufficiētly although not so fully as was possible proued to be reuealed by God himselfe For the more reason and proof that the wil hath to perswade her the lesse thankes she deserueth for obeying and so much the lesse reward shal be reaped by man in heauen by howe much the stronger arguments he hath to moue his vnderstanding to beleeue because one only argument infalliblie prouing any article to be reuealed by God is sufficient to make it the object of faith although the matter seeme neuer so obscure yea although it seeme in some sort repugnant to the ordinary course and nature of sensible creatures and thus much of the second point SECTION THE FOVRTH By true Christian faith we beleeue such misteries as God hath reuealed to his Church THIRDLY I am to proue that by faith we beleeue such misteries as it hath pleased the diuine Majestie of God to reueale vnto his Church and this likewise is easily proued out of the foresaid description of faith deliuered vnto vs by the Apostle For what other thinges are those which not appearing to our senses and vnderstanding faith causeth vs to beleeue but the articles of our faith and what doe these containe but such misteries as God hath reuealed to his Church yet least the peruerse humour of any man might otherwise vnderstand his wordes he hath
the Church we first come to a certaine and supernatural knowledge of such bookes as are Canonical and then beleeue the verities in them contained because they are reuealed by God like as the Samaritans first beleeued through the relation of the woman with whom our Sauiour talked Iob. ca. 4. ver 39. c. as the propounder of such things as she had heard of our Lord afterward through the diuine speeches which he vsed to them himself That which Field saith before that S. Augustine according to the opinion of some Diuines speaketh here of the church taken for the whole number of beleeuers that are and haue beene since Christ appeared in the flesh so including the Apostles is friuolous both because S. Augustine neuer vsed the wordes Catholike Church after this sort in that sense and also because the argument had beene of no force See S. August in li. 23. cōtra Faustum cap. 9. vnto which I adde further that S. Augustine speaketh of that Church which commaunded him then not to beleeue Manichaeus which was the presēt Church as appeareth Neither can he as I think alleage any Diuine that euer so interpreted it For that which he citeth in the margent out of Occam is very impertinent and thus much of this testimony of S. Augustine Hieron in simbolo ad Damasum S. Hierome likewise auoucheth himselfe to receiue the old and new Testament in that number of books which the authority of the holie Catholike Church doth deliuer And this reason so infallibly proueth that these diuine bookes containe the true word of God that euery one may most assuredly beleeue it For her censure and declaration cannot be false who by God himselfe is warranted from errour Finally vnto this principal and inuincible argument I might also adde the tradition of the Church and one consent of holy Fathers who haue deliuered to their successors and confirmed by their testimony that these holy bookes were penned by the instinct of the holy Ghost which argument of tradition for the proofe of Canonical bookes was vsed by Serapion Clemens Alexandrinus and Origenes as Eusebius recordeth Eusebius li. 6. hist cap. 10. 11. 18. But this argument is almost the same with the former for the certainty of the tradition of the Church and of the testimony of the ancient fathers dependeth of this that the Church cannot erre For if we make her judgement subject to errour her tradition and the whole consent of fathers may likewise be erroneous but supposing the Church cannot erre this argument is of as great force but almost the same with the first And hence I inferre against our aduersaries that no bookes of the old and newe Testament receiued by the Church as canonical are to be rejected for seing that the same authority hath approued them al they are al with like reason to be admitted neither hath any man more reason to reject one then another And thus much of the letter of holy Scripture SECTION THE SECOND Concerning the sense or exposition of holy Scriptures and first that the Scriptures are hard and receiue diuers interpretations BVT a farre greater controuersie there is betweene vs and the new Sectaries concerning the true sence and interpretation of holie Scripture vvho is the judge thereof and of vvhome vve are to receiue it For the decision of vvhich difficultie before I deliuer the Catholike opinion I must briefly proue two or three conclusions auerred also by vs Catholikes And first that the Scriptures are hard and admit diuers interpretations This is insinuated vnto vs in sundry places of the sacred bookes but for breuities sake 2. Pet. 3. vers 16. Aug tom 2. epistola 119. ad Ia nu ca. vlt. I wil content my selfe with one testimony of S. Peter who telleth vs that in S. Paules epistles There are certaine thinges hard to be vnderstood which the vnlearned saith he and vnstable depraue as also the rest of the Scriptures to their owne perdition The holy Fathers plainly affirme the same Among the rest S. Augustine although a man of rare wit and great learning affirmed that there were far more things in the Scriptures of which he was ignorant then there were that he knewe Idem tom 3. li. 2. de doctrina Christiana cap. 6. Idē epist 3. see him also epist 1. ad Volusium He telleth vs also that they that read the Scriptures rashly are deceiued through many and diuers obscurities and doubtes That through the prouidence of God the Scripture is hard to tame with labour our pride and to recal our vnderstanding from irksomnes vnto which those thinges which are easily found our seeme base and of no moment He affirmeth moreouer in an other place that the depth and profundity of wisedome contained not only in the words of holy Scripture but also in the matter and sense is so wonderful that liue a man neuer so long be he neuer of so great wit neuer so studious and neuer so feruent and desirous to attaine to the knowledge thereof yet that when he endeth he shal confesse that he doth but beginne This moued him in the books of his confessions to crie out vnto God after this sort Aug. lib. 12. confes cap. 14. O wonderful profoundnesse of thy wordes wonderful profoundnesse my God wonderful profoundnes it maketh a man quake to looke on it to quake for reuerence and tremble for the loue thereof Hitherto S. Augustine S. Hierome likewise a man most expert in those tongues the knowledge of which maketh most for the vnderstanding of these sacred bookes and experienced in the translation and interpretation of them aboue others Hieron in cap. 5. ad Galatas witnesseth that the fruite of the spirit is found in the holy Scripture by much labour and industrie and in another place he saith that the Apocalipse of S. Iohn containeth as many misteries as wordes The like sentences are found in the rest of the Fathers And this obscurity of holy Scripture is a thing so euident that diuers euen of our aduersaries themselues although others wil haue them easie are forced in expresse and plaine termes to confesse it Among the rest the translator or corrector of the English bible published in the yeare one thousand six hundred in his preface auoucheth that it is a very hard thing to vnderstand the holy Scriptures and that diuers errours sects and heresies growe daily for lacke of the true knowledge thereof Diuers others haue the like sentences some of which I shal recite in the second part of this Treatise See part 2. cap. 5. sect 4. yea almost al the newe sectaries by their proceedinges seeme to acknowledge this truth for otherwise what meane they to write such great and huge volumes or commentaries vpon the holy Scripture But whence ariseth this difficulty and obscurity surelie of diuers causes First because sundrie wordes of Scriptures admit many senses and the very phrase it selfe is obscure and doubtful Secondly many
in li. de scriptor Eccl. in Ioan. S. Hierome testifie And that al is not by him recorded it is manifest because those speeches which our Sauiour had with his Apostles during the fourty daies betweene his resurection and ascension are almost altogether omitted Neither did he write this Gospel at the beginning of the Church but many yeares after to wit about threescore and six yeares after our Sauiours ascension And like as S. Iohn so did the rest of the Apostles and Disciples leaue vnto vs such parcels of scripture as vve haue receiued from them some extraordinary occasions mouing them thereunto as I could easily declare and proue See Euse hist li. 3. Chrisost hom 1. in Mat. Epipha haeres 51. Baronius to 1. au 45. et 58. out of Eusebius Saint Hierome and others I know that * Field booke 4. cap. 20. § For first Field maketh shewe as though it were a plaine matter that the Euangelists in their Gospels S. Luke in the acts of the Apostles and S. Iohn in the Apocalipse Meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine and direction of Christian faith but vvhat reason he bringeth for it of any moment I cannot see And besides it is certaine that no one of them intended to set downe al because no one of them hath so done wherfore if they haue set downe al as he affirmeth either it hath proceeded from some common deliberation or consultation had among themselues in which they determined what euery one should rehearse or else from the disposition and direction of the holy Ghost who inspired them to write Not the first because no man euer made mention of such a deliberation or consultation and moreouer they wrote vpon diuers occasions in diuers Countries and at diuers times as Ecclesiastical histories testifie Not the second because Field himselfe graunteth that something is vvanting in these bookes which the Church beleeueth which would not haue beene if the holy Ghost had intended that al should haue beene set downe for he addeth that The epistles of the Apostles were occasionallie written yet so saith he as by the prouidence of God al such thinges as the Church beleeueth not being found in the other parts scripture purposedly written are most clearly and at large deliuered in these epistles Marke wel gentle reader this doctrine he told vs before that the Apostles and Euangelists in the Gospels acts of the Apostles and the Apocalipse meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine direction of Christian faith nowe he telleth vs that the Church beleeueth some things which are deliuered in the Apostolical epistles not being found in the other parts of scripture purposedly written Of which I inferre both that the holy Ghost intended not that the penners of the Gospels of the actes of the Apostles and the Apocalipse should deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine and also that he thinketh the writers of these books to haue missed of their intended purpose verily this last pointe seemeth to me no very sound doctrine And besides how wil M. Field proue that the Apostles in their epistles supplied al this want especially seing that the Apostles and Euangelists in the other books although intending to write al yet in his opinion omitted something and the authours of the epistles intended no such matter but vvrote them as he saith occasionally wherefore there is farre greater likelihood that these omitted something then they Further one Apostolical epistle at the least to the Laodicians hath perished Coloss 4.16 see 1. Cor. 5 9. Chrisost hom 9. in Math. et homil 7. in 1. Cor. of which is mention in the epistle of S. Paul to the Colossians And who can absolutely say that nothing necessary was contained in it which is not in any other part of the newe Testament Finally Field himselfe confesseth some vnwritten Traditions as I will declare in the next Section What then did the Apostles and Disciples expresly set downe in those their monuments which are contained in the newe Testament a part only without al doubt of the whole summe of Christian beliefe in which part they ratified and confirmed the supreame and infallible authority of the Church of whome the rest was to be learned and to whose custody they committed their said monuments so that the whole summe or depositum hath beene kept and preserued in the Church not al only in expres termes in the holy scripture but the whole by Tradition a part of that whole also by writing another part by only Tradition by which likewise the said scripture it selfe came to our hands And after this sort the whole corps of Christian religion without any alteration descended vnto vs. This may be proued by that which hath been already said concerning the true sense exposition of holy scripture Chap. 7. sect 5. for as I haue shewed the scripture ought to be interpreted according to the Analogie or rule of faith that is to say according to that beliefe which the Church by Tradition hath receiued from Christ and his Apostles wherefore the letter of the holy scripture is not the whole direction of the faith of the Church but the faith of the Church the perfect and ful direction of the said letter of holy scripture of which it followeth that the faith of the holy Church might haue remained sound and entire by Tradition although no such letter had beene published But let vs confirme this by the testimony of the ancient Fathers Irenae lib. 3. cap. 4. Among the rest S. Irenaeus discourseth thus What saith he if neither the Apostles had left vs scriptures ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they deliuered vnto those whome they committed Churches vnto which order many barbarous nations beleeuing in Christ assent without letter or incke that is without any written word of God hauing saluation written in their hearts by the holy Ghost and diligently keeping the ancient Tradition Hitherto S. Irenaeus And note wel that he affirmeth some to haue beene Christians without any scripture guided only by the Tradition of the Church He telleth vs moreouer that by this order of Tradition from the Apostles al Heretikes are conuinced in such sort that Catholiks shut vp their eares assoone as they heare them vtter any thing repugnant to the said order Finally he addeth that al that are desirous to heare the truth may see in the Church the Tradition of the Apostles made manifest through the whole world And we can number those saith he who are instituted Bishops in Churches by the Apostles and their successors euen vnto vs who taught no such thing as these men Heretikes dreame of Thus farre S. Irenaeus Tertul. de praescrip cap. 19. 20. 21 who suffered martirdome in the yeare of our Lord 205. Tertullian also affirmeth that by this rule of Tradition or prescription of Catholike doctrine Heretikes are to be conuinced And hence it proceedeth that the Apostle vvith
Diosinius the Patriark of Alexandria men of great estimation in their daies with diuers other Bishops in sundry prouincial Councels decreed the baptisme of Heretiks to be of no force therefore to be reiterated They confirmed this their definition or sentence with many testimonies of holy scripture seeming at the first sight of no smal force and moment for their purpose but al these their decrees were ouerthrowne And how surely by the contrary Tradition of the Church for b see Vinc. Lir. ca. 9. Cipr. ab epist 70. ad 77. Aug de bapt cont Donat. et cōt Cresc Hierō cōtra Lucif S. Steuen Pope of Rome pleading Tradition against them condemned their doctrine as heretical and pronounced this renowmed sentence Let no newe thing be brought into the Church let nothing be done but that which was deliuered vnto vs thinking it altogether vnlawful to transgresse the rule of faith by succession and Tradition receiued from the Apostles This is recorded by diuers authors of great fame and antiquity By Tradition the Pelagian heresie vvas confuted as is affirmed by S. c Caelesti epist 8. Caelestinus Pope and S. Augustine By Tradition only the same d Aug. de bapt li. 2. cap 7. S. Augustine and others condemned Heluidius the heretike for denying the perpetual virginity of our blessed Ladie Yea e Basil de spir sācto ca. 27. See Aug. epist 118. ad Iā Leo ser 2. de jeiunio S. Basil telleth vs that if we reject Tradition we shal endomage the whole principal parts of our faith and without it bring the preaching of the Gospel to a naked name I could bring forth diuers other such like examples and testimonies were it not that I should be ouer long But how shal we come to the knowledge of these Traditions S. Augustine giueth vs this most certaine rule f Aug. to 7. de bapt cōt Dona. l. 4. c. 24. see ibi c. 6 That saith he which the whole Church holdeth and hath not beene instituted by any Councel but alwaies hath beene obserued is most truly beleeued to haue beene deliuered by no other but Apostolike authority Such a Tradition saith the same g Aug de Genes ad lit c. 23. et con Dona. l. 4. c. 24. Orig. in c. 6. ad Rom. S. Augustine and Origenes is the baptisme of infants Such Traditions according to h Ba. de spi sāct c. 27. S. Basil are the signe of the Crosse praying towards the East the words spoken at the eleuation of the Eucharist with diuers ceremonies vsed before and after consecration the hallowing of the font before baptisme the blessing of the oile or chrisme the annointing of the baptized with the said oile the three immersions into the font the words of abrenuntiation and exorcismes of the partie which is to be baptized c. What scripture saith he taught these and such like thinges none truly al comming of secrete and hidden Tradition wherewith our fore-fathers thought it meete to couer such misteries Hitherto S. Basil It is an Apostolical Tradition as we are taught by a Dionis de Eccles hierarc cap. 7. S. Dionisius of Areopagus b Tertul. in exhort ad castita tem c. 11. et de corona militis cap. 3. Tertullian c Chrisos homi 69. ad populum S. Iohn Chrisostome and S. Augustine to pray and make a memory of the soules departed in the Masse It is an Apostolical Tradition saith d Hieron epist 54. ad Marc. S. Hierome and e Epiphā haeres 75. Aerij S. Epiphanius to keepe certaine appointed fasting-daies especially the Lent the same is affirmed by f Aug. epi. 118. ad Ia nu cap. 1. S. Augustine concerning the obseruation of certaine holy-daies and by g Damas li. 4. de ortho fide c. 17. et l. de Imagini See Ter. de coron mil. S. Iohn Damascene concerning the adoration of Images These and diuers other such like Apostolike Traditions are sette downe by the auncient Fathers and are to be found in the Church of Christ And vpon these if they bee of matters of faith seeing that they haue diuine authority both from Christ and the Apostles vvho deliuered them to the Church and from the Church it selfe which being the piller of truth hath accepted and approued them euerie Christian may securelie build his faith and beliefe If they be concerning preceptes of moral actions vve are bound to obey them and may doe it with like security wherefore h Origen tract 29. in Math. Origen giueth vs this learned counsaile As often saith he as Heretiks alleage Canonical scriptures in which al Christians consent and beleeue they seeme to say * Mat 24. verse 26. Behold in houses is the word of truth but we ought not to beleeue them nor to goe forth from the first Ecclesiastical Tradition nor beleeue otherwise but as the Church of God by succession hath deliuered vnto vs. Thus farre Origen wishing euery one in the interpretation and sense of holy scripture to follow the Tradition of the Church as also in the beliefe of al such matters as are called in question by Heretikes Vnto these proofes I adde that i Barlow B. of Rochester in his sermon preached at Hampton Court Sept. 21. 1606. Barlowe and Field two famous English Protestants admit of certaine Apostolike Traditions k Field booke 4. cap. 20. § Much contention Field telleth vs that they reject not al vnwritten Traditions yea he alloweth of the rule of * Chap. 21. S. Augustine before mentioned for decerning Apostolical Traditions from others as also doth l Whitgift in his defence pag. 351. 352. Whitgift But Field addeth moreouer this other that whatsoeuer al or the most famous and renowmed in al ages or at the least in diuers ages haue constantly deliuered as receiued from them that went before them no man contradicting or doubting of it may be thought to be an Apostolical Tradition thus Field I confesse that this notwithstanding he affirmeth Ibid. cap. 20. § Out of this No matter of faith to be deliuered by bare and onlie Tradition But why not such as wel as those which concerne the manners conuersation of men and are by him allowed as for example Why may we not as assuredly receiue by Tradition our beliefe concerning some article of faith as to vse his owne words concerning the obseruation of the Lordes day Ibid. That the Apostles Field book 4. ca. 20. § Much confession Ibidem § The secōd kinde Doth not the allowance of these also according to their common doctrine prejudice the sufficiencie of holy scripture But he graunteth further that They receiue the number names of the Authours and integrity of the parts of bookes diuine and Canonical as deliuered by Tradition He admitteth as a second Tradition That summary comprehension of the chiefe heads of Christian doctrine contained in the Creed of the Apostles which was deliuered to the Church
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
matters vve take away al order in the Church and open the gappe to al Heretikes Some say that euerie man by conference of one place of Scripture vvith another See part 2. cap. 5. sect 4. may attaine to the knowledge of the true sense I replie that euery mans discourse in such pointes may be false and erroneous And it is wel knowne that diuers of our aduersaries haue conferred the same places and haue gathered out of them different senses vvhich cannot al be true Yea the same man not seldome at distinst times out of the same places conferred inferreth distinct conclusions and altereth his beliefe touching some article or other vvhich is a manifest proofe that this conference is no infallible rule I adde also that experience teacheth vs that such a conference sometimes encreaseth the difficulty See part 2. cap. 1. sect 4. maketh some shewe of contradiction which before appeared not as I wil declare hereafter Others say that by praier euery man may obtaine of God the direction of the holy Ghost for the finding out of the true sense But where hath God promised this Moreouer our praier is of no force except we pray as we ought And what is more vncertaine then this How then can we certainly knowe when God inspireth vs and much lesse how can we possibly assure others that we haue such a diuine inspiration Further diuers haue vsed likewise this meane and yet haue falne into errour yea after their praiers they haue had different inspirations and one hath affirmed himselfe to haue beene inspired by God thus and another thus c. Finally al Heretikes may challenge to themselues these shiftes for the proofe of their owne priuate and false expositions wherefore we must needes finde out some other rule more certaine SECTION THE FOVRTH That the letter of holy Scripture falsly interpreted is not the word of God THIRDLY I am to proue that a false or wrong exposition erroneously gathered out of the letter of holy Scripture or made vpon the same is not the word of God but the word of man yea sometimes the word of the deuil and consequently that the said letter of Scripture so vnderstood is subject to the same censure This is apparant because the Scripture is the true word of God in that sense only which was intended at the penning of it by the holy Ghost For example like as no Catholike Christian wil deny but those wordes of Christ Ioh. 14. verse 28. The father is greater then I if we vnderstand them in this sense that God the father is greater then Christ according to his humanity containe the true word of God so euery Catholike Christian if they be vnderstood as Arius expounded them that Christ according to his diuinity is inferior to his father wil affirme them to be the word of the deuil Hence proceed diuers notable sentences of the auncient Fathers Tertul. de praescript ca. 17. see him also cap. 9. Hillar li. 2. de Triuitat ad Constantium Ambros lib. 2. ad Gratianū cap. 1. Vincē Lirin li. aduers propha haeres nouitates cap. 37. Math. 4. verse 6 Hieron in dial cōtra Lucifer See Math 10. Luke 10. Hieron in cap. 1. ad Galat. among the rest Tertullian telleth vs that the sense of holy Scripture adultered doth impugne the truth at much as the stile corrupted S. Hillarie affirmeth that heresie ariseth of the vnderstanding not of the Scripture that the fault is in the sense not in the word that there is not one of the Heretikes that doth not lie and say that he preacheth those thinges in which he blasphemeth according to the Scriptures For hence saith he Marcellus when he readeth the word of God knoweth it not hence Photinus c. they all speake Scriptures with out sense they al pretend faith without faith for the Scriptures are not in the reading but in the vnderstanding c. These and other like discourses hath S. Hillary S. Ambrose is of the same opinion for he saith that although the text or letter haue no error yet the Arrian interpretation hath errour Vincentius Lirinensis comparing the Heretikes alleaging Scripture against Catholikes with the deuils alleaging the same to Christ discourseth after this sort And if any man aske any Heretike perswading him such thinges that is to forsake the doctrine and tradition of the Church how prouest thou how declarest thou that I ought to forsake the vniuersal and ancient faith presently he for it is written and forthwith he alleageth out of the lawe the psalmes the Apostles the Prophets a thousand testimonies a thousand examples a thousand authorities by which being interpreted after a new and naughty manner the vnhappy soule may be cast downe head-long from the Catholike tower Thus farre Vincentius Lirinensis But let vs heare the opinion of S. Hierome in this matter who aboue al the rest was conuersant in the holy Scripture these are his wordes The Scriptures consist not in the reading but in the vnderstanding otherwise if we follow the letter we also may frame vnto our selues a new opinion and affirme that they who weare shoes or haue two coates are not to be receiued into the Church He addeth in another place Marcion and Basillides and the other heretical plagues haue not the Gospel of God because they haue not the holy Ghost without which the Gospel which is taught is made humane or of men He telleth vs also that whosoeuer interpreteth the Gospel with another spirit and minde then it was written troubleth the faithful and turneth the Gospel of Christ vpside-downe that we must not thinke that the Gospel is in the wordes of the Scripture It is not saith he in the wordes but in the sense not in the superficies or out-side but in the marrow not in the leaues of the speaches or wordes but in the roote of reason Hence he concludeth with these wordes It is a very dangerous matter to speake or teach in the Church least that by peruerse interpretation the Gospel of Christ be made the Gospel of man or that which is worse the Gospel of the deuil Thus farre S. Hierome And this is that which the Apostle himselfe instructeth vs of when he affirmeth that the letter killeth but the spirit quickneth for the vertue and substance of Scriptures consisteth in their meaning and interpretation and so it is that the bare vvordes thereof are no more Scripture vvithout the spirit that is to say vvithout that sense which vvas intended by the holy Ghost when they were vvritten then the body of man is a man vvithout the soule yea if they be vvrested to a contrary or vvrong sense they kil and become poison vvhereas rightly vnderstood they containe diuine and heauenly doctrine And so this sentence of the Apostle is expounded by S. Augustine in diuers places of his vvorkes but in one place among the rest thus he discourseth a Aug. de spiritu litera c. 4. 5. li.
In another place he discourseth thus We are not the seruants of the Fathers but the sonnes When they prescribe vs any thing out of the lawe and diuine authority we obey them as our parents If they enjoyne anything against the voice of the heauenly truth we haue learned not to hearken to them but to God You as vassals and base seruants receiue whatsoeuer the Fathers say without judgement or reason being afraid as I thinke either of the whip or the halter if euerie thing they speake be not Gospel with you thus Whitakers defendeth his rejecting the ancient Fathers and vpbraideth vs for our high estimation of the same But concerning the fathers opinions of particuler points he telleth vs Ibidem in his answer to the 5. reason pag. 129. that Ciprian wrote something of repentance verie vnseasonably and vndiscreetly and not be alone but al the holie Fathers of that time saith he were tainted with that errour That is al the Fathers of the third age after Christ for S. Ciprian suffered martirdome in the yeare two hundred threescore and one Of praier to Saints he hath these wordes Prudentius I graunt Ibidem pag. 140. 141. as a poet sometimes called vpon the Martirs whose actes he describeth in verse and the supertitious custome of praying to Saintes had nowe taken deepe roote in the Church which as a tirant haled sometimes the holie Fathers into the same errour thus he of the beginning of the fift age when Prudentius flourished Lastly Ibid. p. 132. he defendeth the first sentence of Luther before alleaged Abbot in his answ to Hil reason 10. p. 371. Horat. lib. 1. epist 1. see also Morton in Apologia Catholica part 1. lib. 1. cap. 8. With Whitakers agreeth Abbot who touching the Fathers thus deliuereth his opinion vnto vs Where there is just cause we as men Nullius addicti jurare in verba magistri bound to stand to the opinion of none but of the holy Ghost we declining-wise doe leaue them But where they subscribe to the authority of God there we subscribe to them defend them and refuse not to be tried by them so far as we may by any holy and learned men of which sort we hold them but yet stil knowe them to be men hitherto George Abbot And note that these men pretending that they follow the auncient Fathers as farre forth as they followe the lawe or diuine authority or the authority of God endeauour to make shew of an opposition or contrariety betweene the written word of God and the Fathers in al points in which they forsake them whereas in very deed the Fathers vnderstood and followed the scriptures better then they doe and the opposition is not betweene the scriptures and the Fathers but betweeene the Fathers and the Scriptures expounded by these Sectaries vvhich scriptures so expounded they make a rule vvhereby to knowe vvhen the Fathers are to be followed when to be forsaken Our Puritans in this point at the least in wordes got farre beyond our Protestants He who is desirous to vnderstand their opinion may read the seauen and twentith chapter of the Suruay of their pretended holy discipline written by a a Printed anno 1693. Protestant in which he shal finde it set downe at large And among others Cartwright is there accused the places of his bookes being cited for tearming the seeking into the Fathers writings b Pag. 331. 337. See also chap. 4. p. 64. a raking of ditches and the bringing in of their authorities the mouing and summoning of hel c Parks in his preface to his ans of Limbo mastix prīted anno 1607. Henrie Iacob treatise p. 1. 3. 54. 81. 68. cited by him in the margēt see also saith he Bilsons sermons pa. 323. and the answere to M. Broughtons letters p. 17. Parks also a later writer telleth vs that If you alleage the auncient Fathers against them they wil tel you roundly that their opinions are nothing else but the corrupt fancies and vaine imaginations of men toyish fables fond absurd without sense and reason and some saith he sticke not to cal the Fathers of the latine Church the plague of diuinitie Vnto al these proofes I adde likewise that our aduersaries confesse al the auncient Fathers to haue beene of our beliefe touching euery article nowe controuersed betweene vs and them as I vvil proue in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church and yet reject their doctrine as erroneous and repugnant to the word of God vvherefore they must needes confesse al the Fathers to haue erred and so reject their authority Finally none of them wil graunt that any consent of Fathers whatsoeuer be it neuer so general touching any point is of it selfe a sufficient ground of faith without the testimonie of holy scripture which is enough for my purpose But it may be objected by some that diuers of these sectaries alleage in their vvorkes the holie Councels and Fathers abundantly not only against vs but also against their owne brethren dissenting from them in faith or thinges belonging to religion I answere that true it is that they so doe alleage the holy Councels and Fathers But doe they make their testimonie an infallible ground they doe not certainelie For although they approue their doctrine in some points yet in others they presentlie reject them The Centuriatores being Lutherans Centuriat 4. pag. 242. In euery Centurie cap. 4. alleage the Fathers against the Sacramentaries for proofe of the real presence but they reject their testimonie when they affirme this sacrament to be a Sacrifice In like sort our Protestants against our Puritans alleage the authority of S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine condemning Aerius for an Heretike because he acknowledged no distinction betweene a Bishoppe and a Priest See the Suruey of the pretēded holie discipline Whit gift in his defence and others but they reject the authority of the same Fathers in the selfe same places condemning the same Aerius as an Heretike for denying sacrifice and masse for the dead wherefore it is manifest that they onlie as Caluin saith vse the Councels and Fathers to serue their owne turnes not to be ouer-ruled by them In defence of our English Protestants in particular it may first be said that M. Iewel in his challendge doth challendge to their religion al the Councels and Fathers of the first sixe hundred yeares alloweth of their authoritie and offereth to be tried by their censure I answere first that this challendge made by M. Iewel is not general touching al points controuersed betweene vs but concerning a fewe only and those not of greatest moment Secondly I say that M. Iewel did this only to make a shew among the common people as though his religion had beene auncient not that he intended to doe as he promised to wit to subscribe to our religion if this challendge could be shewed false This appeareth to be true both because he maintained his vaine challendge
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
of themselues and yeeld sufficient satisfaction to al men of their diuine truth wherefore he seemeth contrary to that which he had said before to require no other reason by force whereof the spirit moueth him to beleeue the Scripture but the Scripture Neither should he only bring a diuine proofe for these matters but also to shewe the certaintie of his supernatural illumination of vvhich al these depend And howe wil he doe this vvil he proue it by Scripture This cannot be done least that he fal into a circle and according as he maketh the Psalme say of the vvicked Runne round til he be giddie and be at the end where he was when he beganne for by this illumination he is come to the knowledg of Scripture and consequently it must not be proued out of Scripture and vvhat other diuine proofe he wil assigne for my part I cannot imagine Neither can he say that this illumination is beleeued for it selfe for then he both graunteth that something must be beleeued without diuine proofe and also that al thinges are not beleeued because they are contained in the Scripture and consequently that the Scripture is not the onlie ground of our faith Many places of Scripture are alleaged out of the vvritten vvord of God by our aduersaries to proue the certainty of priuate illuminations and seing that I can not stand to giue the true sense of them I desire my reader only to consider in general that such sentences as they alleage if they proue any thing for them and are to be vnderstood as they pretend proue the judgement of euerie Christian man or at the least of euery spiritual man to be infallible vvhich being false as appeareth both in the auncient Fathers and also in themselues vve may vvel inferre that they haue some other sense Field affirmeth that Saint Augustine in a certaine place doth fully agree vnto his opinion shewing that the authority of the Church is but an introduction to the spiritual discerning of thinges diuine I answere that Saint Augustine in the chapter by him cited only affirmeth that because al men are not capable at the first to vnderstand the sincere wisedome and truth taught in the Church God hath ordained in it two motiues vvhich may first moue them to seeke it to wit miracles and multitude of beleeuers Aug. de vtilitate credendi cap. 16. Authoritas saith he praesto est quam partim miraculis partim multitudine valere nemo ambigit The authority of the Church is at hand which no man doubteth partly through miracles partly through multitude to be of force viz. to moue men Field to make this sentence seeme the better for his purpose Booke 4. c. 8. translateth the vvord valere standeth vpon and maketh Saint Augustine say that the authority of the Church standeth vpon two thinges c. but howe truly euerie grammer scholler may discerne That vvhich he alleageth out of Hugo de sancto Victore is as litle to the purpose but as I thinke farre more falsly translated for if in the English immediately following the Latin in the same different letter he doth intend a translation of the Latin going before as euerie man vvil judge he doth he dealeth in it most corruptly and vntruely and so I leaue him for this present SECTION THE SECOND In which the same argument is prosecuted and two thinges principallie are proued First that the newe Testament receiueth smal authority if we beleeue our aduersaries by this that it was written by the Apostles and Disciples because they accuse them of errour Secondlie because they confesse the text of Scripture to be corrupted HAVING euidentlie confuted in the section next before the chiefest and most common reasons by which the Sectaries of our daies endeuour to proue the diuine authority of holie Scripture let vs now behold such other reasons as may be brought according to their principles and together insinuate some other their assertioÌ„s which diminish the credit of these holy books And to passe ouer as a thing manifest that the authority of 〈◊〉 newe Testament cannot sufficientlie and infalliblie be proued â—uine by the testimony of the old some perhaps wil say that the authority of the old is confirmed and ratified by the newe But how is the newe it selfe proued to be Canonical which prerogatiue if we deny it the old wil receiue but litle credit from it Peraduenture they wil answere that they knowe the newe to be Canonical because it vvas vvritten by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ inspired by the holy Ghost I reply and demaund first how they can proue this to be true by canonical Scripture What canonical Scripture for example if we deny the said Gospel to be Canonical telleth vs that S. Mathew the Apostle wrote that Gospel which vve terme S. Mathewes Gospel Secondly although we suppose it to be true that the Apostles and Disciples were the authours of the newe Testament yet howe can they proue that in penning it they haue not erred What canonical Scripture haue they for this Certainely our aduersaries make al their successours subject to errour wherefore it seemeth that they wil not be very scrupulous to graunt it of the Apostles and Disciples themselues Luther tom 5. in c. 1. ad Galath fol. 290. Act. 7. v. 14. Luther in cap 46. Genes But doe they not moreouer in expresse tearms condemne them of errour Who can deny this Luther himselfe after that he had affirmed that he would not submitte his doctrine to the censure of the Fathers no not to the censure of S. Peter nor S. Paul nor of any Angel from heauen addeth in defence of this his action that S. Peter did liue and teach besides the word of God In another place in plaine tearmes he accuseth S. Steuen of errour in following the 70. Interpreters vvho as he saith erred concerning the number of those that went downe into Egipt Nay moreouer discoursing of extreame vnction Luth. de captiuita Babil c. de extrema vnctione Luther iÌ„ Isai 64. Martir in 1. Corinth 2. fol. 46. Centur. 1 lib. 2 c. 10. Col. 1600. 180. he telleth vs that Although the epistle said to be of S. Iames were in deed and truly his yet he vvould say that it was not lawful for an Apostle of his owne authority to institute a Sacrament By which he seemeth plainly to confesse that the Apostles in their Apostolike writings were subject to such faults finally he telleth vs that S. Paul 1. Corinth 2. vers 9. doth finely wreth or wrest a certaine sentence of the Prophet Isay but Peter Martir auoucheth that he mistooke the Hebrewe word Hence the Centuriatores his schollers note certaine Naeui or lapsus so they tearme them that is freckles or moles and falles of S. Peter S. Paul and S. Iames Apostles as that of S. Peter at Antioch for vvhich he vvas reprehended by S. Paul of which also a Calu. in ca. 2. ad Galat. et in Mat. 26.
the neare for attaining to the true sense yea not seldome by such conference the difficulty is increased as appeareth by those places before alleaged Part. 2. chap. 1. sect 4. which seeme to contrary one another Hence our newe sectaries themselues being diuided into diuers sects and hauing conferred a longe time such places together as are controuersed among them cannot as yet agree about the true sense of the said places but remaine stil at mortal jarres And al this which I haue here said may be confirmed by the authority of Field Field booke 3 chap. 42. who affirmeth the ground of their faith to be the vvritten vvord of God interpreted according to the rule of faith the practize of the Saints from the beginning the conference of places and al light of direction that either the knowledge of tongues or any parts of good learning may yeeld Thus Field In an other place he prescribeth seauen rules Booke 4. chap. 19. vvhich he thinketh vve are to followe in the interpretation of Scripture that we may attaine to the certainty of the true sense of it of which diuers are extrinsecal and concerne not the letter it selfe of Scripture Lastly against the sufficiency of conference of places alone he addeth these vvordes Ibidem We confesse that neither conference of places nor consideration of the antecedentia and consequentia nor looking into the originals are of any force 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 but of Fields rules for the expounding of Scripture more hereafter Harmony of Confess sect 10. pag. 33. Confess Wittenb art 32. The Lutherans of Wittenberge as I haue before noted acknowledge in the Church a rule of faith according to which she is bound as they say to interpret the obscure places of Scripture by which their assertion they acknowledge also for the exposition of Scripture an other necessary guide besides the letter Let vs therefore conclude that the true sense of the Scripture is not sufficiently gathered out of the bare vvordes and consequently let vs not admit the bare vvordes to be a sufficient ground of Christian religion And hence I gather that our aduersaries haue no certainty of faith and religion which is apparent because they make the naked letter of holy Scripture the only ground of their beliefe the true sense of vvhich vnto them is alwaies very vncertaine for either the assurance vvhich euery one of them hath proceedeth from his owne reading and judgement or from the credit of some other Minister or Ministers vvho interpret the Scriptures in that sense vvhich he embraceth both vvhich meanes be most vncertaine For they depend vpon the judgement of priuate men vvho haue no assurance from the holy Ghost of not erring vvherefore they are subject to errour and consequently none of them haue any further assurance of the truth of their religion then humane judgement Vnto the reasons already brought for the proofe of the title of this Chapter I adde these that followe partly gathered out of that vvhich hath beene already said in this Treatise first that the rule of Christian faith ought to be general and sufficient for al sorts of people vvhich cannot appertaine to the bare letter of holy Scripture because diuers persons cannot reade and consequently to knowe the contents of the Bible they must vse the helpe of some of the learned and vpon their report vvhich may be false and erroneous build their beliefe It is also manifest that Christians had some other rule of faith before the Scriptures of the newe Testament vvere vvritten Finally I haue already proued that together vvith the letter we ought to receiue that sense and interpretation vvhich hath by tradition and succession descended from the Apostles And thus much concerning this matter Chapter 6. The newe Sectaries Bibles containe not the true word of God SECTION THE FIRST In which this is first proued concerning al their Bibles in general IN the Chapter next before I haue demonstrated the bare letter of holy Scripture on vvhich our aduersaries build not to be a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion in this present Chapter to make their weake foundation the more manifest I intend to proue that although we should yeeld the bare letter to be sufficient yet that in very truth their Bibles containe not truly the said bare letter And first I proue this concerning al their new translated Bibles in general and that by their owne confession Lauatherus in histor Sacramēt fo 32 for Luther the Lutherans condemne the translation of Zwinglius and the Zwinglians Zwing tom 2. in respons ad Luther li. de Sacramēt and of al others besides those which are proper to their owne sect Zwinglius and the Zwinglians pronounce the same censure against the translation of Luther and the Lutherans And in like sort proceede * Beza in annot noui test passim Castalio in defens suae translat Beza and Castalio against one another and al other sectaries for euery particular sect hath his particular Bible which it embraceth rejecting al others vvherefore if we may beleeue al these Professours of the newe religion they haue not among them one true translation of the Bible Moreouer there is but one truth and one true word of God penned by the instinct of the holy Ghost who teacheth not contrary doctrine But our aduersaries translated Bibles be diuers and different one from another and insinuate contrary doctrine wherefore euery Bible is not admitted by euery sectary but that only which fauoureth his owne sect as I haue euen nowe declared It is therefore impossible that they should al containe the true word of God and be penned by the instinct of the holy Ghost And being so that the translator of the one was euen as much subject to errour as the translator of the other and had no surer ground for his translation with like probability and reason they may be al rejected because they haue al receiued the same censure from the Church Whitak controu 1. quest 2. cap. 7. arg 3. cap. 9. arg 4. See also his reprehension of the Rhemes Testament pa. 15. Finally Whitaker seemeth to acknowledge the Scriptures only in those tongues in vvhich they vvere first spoken by God or penned by the holy Ghost to be the true word of God vvherefore he seemeth to exclude from this truth al the translations of Scripture in the world SECTION THE SECOND That Luther Zwinglius Caluin and Beza in particular haue corruptly translated the Scriptures BVT let vs descend to the particular Bibles of some principal sects and for the better declaration of this matter note some corruptions of the principal sectaries and speake a word or two of the corruptions of those translations of the word of God which be most approued and receiued in their congregations And let vs not now stand
of their beliefe are not in expresse tearmes to be found in the whole Bible yea that the text of their owne Bibles maketh more for vs then it doth for them Out of which I may wel inferre that they build not vpon the letter contained in their owne bookes but vpon their owne collections which euery priuate man maketh according to his owne fancie SECTION THE SECOND 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 NOTVVITHSTANDING the wordes af Scripture cited for vs Catholikes are most plaine yet it may be some follower of the new religion wil imagine that we wrest them to a sense improper and in the primatiue ages of the Church vnheard off contrariwise that those of his beliefe deliuer the true literal and auncient exposition of the same Nowe therefore to make the force of the reason brought more strong I adde that I could easily proue euen by the testimonies of our aduersaries themselues that the letter of holy Scripture in these controuersies mentioned and others according to the proper sense thereof and the tradition and practise of al former Christians is on our side not on theirs But if I should here declare this to be true in euery particuler point I should be ouer long vvherefore I vvil exemplifie only in one or two of the principal by which my reader may easily perceiue what may be done concerning the rest Luther to 5. in cap. 5. ad Galat. f. 382. And first what article of religion by these Sectaries is esteemed aboue that of justification by only faith Luther himselfe writeth thus Whoso euer falleth from the article of justification by faith onlie becommeth ignorant of God and is an Idolater and therefore it is al one whether he returne to the law of the Iewes or worshipping of Idols Al is one whether he be a Monke a Turke a Iewe or an Anabaptist For this article being once taken away there remaineth nothing but meere errour hipochrisie impiety idolatry although in shewe there appeare excellent truth Caluin in Epist ad Sadoletum p. 176. worship of God holinesse c. thus Luther Caluin also telleth vs that the knowledge of justification by faith being taken away both the glorie of Christ was extinguished and religion abolished and the Church destroyed and the hope of saluation altogether ouerthrowne Our countriman M. Perkins in like sort affirmeth Per. in his reformed Catholike touching justification of a sinner pag. 65. 66 that we by our doctrine touching justification doe raâ—â—e the very foundation and that the disagreement betweene vs and the Protestants concerning this matter if there were no more points of difference alone were sufficient to keepe vs from vniting our religions this is his opinion Wherefore this being an article of Christian beliefe in these mens conceits so principal let vs behold whether the letter of holy Scripture according to the judgement of Protestants doe not plainely deliuer our doctrine concerning it and impugne theirs The chiefest place which I haue alleaged in the section next before touching this matter is that sentence of S. Iames the Apostle Of workes or deedes a man is justified and not of faith only Iam. 2. v. 24. Bible 1592. And howe doe al the Lutheranes yea some Sacramentaries vnderstand these wordes Truly they openly and boldly confesse that they warre against justification by onlie faith and approue justification by workes and they assigne this as one reason why this epistle is to be rejected out of the Canon Luther the captaine of them al writing vpon the 22. chapter of Genesis hath these wordes See him also praefat in nouum Testam edit 1. Genensis in captiuitat Babilo ca. de Extrema Vnct. in 1. Pet. c. 1. fol 439. 440. edit Wittenb Abraham was just by faith before he is knowne such an one by God therefore Iames doth naughtily conclude that nowe at the length he is justified after this obedience for by workes as by fruits faith and iustice is knowne But it followeth not vt Iacobus delirat as Iames dotingly affirmeth therefore the fruits doe iustifiy thus there And in another place * Luth. in colloquijs conuiualibus latin to 2. de libris noui Testam Part. 2 chap. 6. sect 2. Many saith he haue taken great paines in the epistle of Iames to make it accord with Paul as Philppe endeauoureth in his Apologie but not with good successe for they are contrary faith doth iustifie faith doth not iustifie Loe Luther expresly telleth vs that S. Iames auoucheth faith not to justifie But whereas he maketh this Apostle contrary to S. Paul he doth wrong them both For neither doth the one say that faith doth not justifie nor the other that faith alone doth justifie as he supposeth But out of their discourses it may be gathered that both faith and workes concurre to justification which is our Catholike doctrine Of the place of S. Paul vnto vvhich Luther alludeth I haue said something before therefore no more of it at this present shal be necessary The opinion of a Pomeran in c. 8. ad RomaÌ„ Pomerane a Lutheran of great estimation is conformable to that of Luther for thus he pronounceth his censure Faith was reputed to Abraham for iustice By this place thou maiest note the error of the epistle of Iames wherein thou seest a wicked argument Besides that he concludeth ridiculously he citeth Scripture against Scripture which thing the holy Ghost cannot abide wherefore that epistle may not be numbred among other bookes which set forth the iustice of only faith thus Pomerane I wil not stand to free S. Iames from his wicked accusations which is very wel performed by diuers Catholike authors Hil in his defeÌ„ce of the article Christ descended into hel fol. 23. Centur. 1. lib. 2. c. 4. col 54. Centur. 2. ca. 4. col 71. But vnto this Lutheran I wil joyne the Magdeburgians his brethren whose vvritings an English Protestant judgeth to be worthy of eternal memorie who say that the epistle of S. Iames much swarueth from the analogie of the Apostolical doctrine whereas it ascribeth justification not only to faith but to workes and calleth the lawe a lawe of liberty Againe Against Paul against al Scriptures the epistle of Iames attributeth justice to workes and peruerteth as it were of set purpose that which Paul disputeth Rom. 4. out of Genesis 15. Abraham was iustified by only faith without workes and affirmeth that Abraham obtained iustice by workes hitherto are their wordes With these consenteth Vitus Theodorus an other of that companie and a preacher of Norinberge who yeeldeth this reason wherefore he excluded this epistle from the Canon of holy Scripture The epistle of Iames and the Apocalipse of Iohn saith he we haue of set purpose left out because the epistle of Iames is not only in certaine
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