the truth of Christian discipline and faith is there we shal finde also the truth of Scriptures expositions al Christian traditions Vnto these authorities I adde that the obscuritie of the holy Scriptures the danger of misinterpreting them being presupposed it vvas necessarie that God almightie should prescribe some certaine rule which euery man might follow without danger of error in vnderstanding them otherwise dissension might haue risen concerning their true sense and consequently concerning diuers articles of Christian religion and euery man might would haue expounded them according to his owne fancie although neuer so false and erroneous And what judge can we imagine him to haue appointed but the Catholike Church whom as I haue proued aboue he hath warranted from errour whose authority he hath made the rule of our beliefe who hath the custody of holy Scriptures and from whom we receiue them and infallibly know them to containe the true word of God This finally the practise it selfe of the Church hath confirmed for whensoeuer any controuersy hath risen touching the true sense of holy Scriptures she according to the rule of faith in her preserued and the sense of Scripture vnto her deliuered together with the letter hath defined the truth and decided the same as it appeareth by the condemnation al Heretikes together with their false translations and erroneous expositions of the said Scriptures And whosoeuer forsaketh this rule falleth presently into a laborinth vast Sea of difficulties and is alwaies perplexed and inconstant in his beliefe Contrariwise whosoeuer embraceth this rule buildeth vpon a firme rocke wherefore I say with the Apostle Whosoeuer shall followe this rule Galat. 6. vers 16. peace vpon them and mercy Now let vs in the last place confirme the truth of our principal assertions concerning the letter and interpretation of holy Scripture yea concerning the whole sūme of christian doctrine by vnwriten traditiō preserued in the Church by the confession of our Lutheran aduersaries of Wittenberg For they doe not only confesse Harm of cōfes sect 10. pag. 332. 333. Confession Wittenb artic 32. The Church to haue authority to beare witnesse of the holy Scripture and to interprete the same but also affirme that she hath receiued from her husband Christ a certaine rule to wit the Prophetical and Apostolical preaching confirmed by miracles from heauen according vnto the which she is bound to interprete those places of Scripture which seeme to be obscure and to judge of doctrines This may be seene in the Harmony of confessions Field book 4. ca. 19. 20. §. The secōd Field also acknowledgeth in the Church A rule of faith descending by tradition from the Apostles according vnto which he wil haue the Scriptures expounded I conclude therefore that thus the holy Scripture is a most sure and infallible ground of faith for by this meanes I meane by the diuine censure and approbation of the Church vve are assured that both the letter and sense are of diuine authoritie vvhereas the particuler or priuate approbation of the letter or interpretation or it made by any priuate man being subject to errour cannot possiblie yeeld vs any such assurance SECTION THE SIXT An objection against the premises is answered and the question concerning the last resolution of our faith is discussed BVT here occurreth a difficulty of no smal moment to be resolued For in this chapter I haue affirmed the Canonical Scriptures and their true interpretation to he knowne by the infallible authoritie of the Church whereas before I proued the authority of the Church to be infallible by the testimonie of holie Scripture vvherefore Field book 4. cap. 7. it may seeme that I haue made a circle or as M. Field calleth it a circulation The ful solution of this objection dependeth of the resolution of a question vvhich to some appeareth very intricate and hard to wit vnto what vve lastlie resolue our faith vvhether to the authority of the Church or of the Scripture or to some humane motiues and therefore this must first be discussed before the other can be answered And in verie deede although al Catholike Diuines be of one consent and hold that the cause of our beliefe is the authority of God which hath reuealed such misteries as we beleeue yet concerning the last resolution of our faith which is a schoole question and not a matter of faith I finde among them two opinions The followers of the first declare the matter thus Fiist say they euery man is induced to beleeue Christian religion and to accept of it as true by certaine humane and prudent motiues or reasons which perswade him that such doctrine as is taught in the Church according to the rules of wisedome is credible and worthie of beliefe Such motiues among others are these which followe First that almost al Nations and in them an infinite number of men of greatest authority principal wit excellent vertue and profound learning haue so beleeeued Secondly that innumerable multitudes of people of al sortes sexes and ages vvho vvere most desirous to please God and knowe true religion and vvere exemplars or patterns of probity and sanctitie haue so earnestlie embraced it that they doubted not to preferre the profession of it before goodes liberty fame and life it selfe yea that they chose rather to loose al these and endure vvithal most cruel torments then to depart from it Thirdly that it doth as it vvere miraculouslie and by some diuine meanes change men although habituated in vice vpon the sodaine to be vertuous Fourthly that the propagation of it hath beene by diuine power which appeareth by this that a fewe vnlearned and vveake fisher-men teaching such thinges as are contrarie to flesh and bloud and aboue al reason haue ouercome not by force of armes but by preaching and suffering the vvisest most eloquent most noble and most potent men of the vvorld Finally that this religion hath beene confirmed by an infinite multitude of diuine miracles recorded by famous authors of al ages of vvhich if one only be confessed true Christian religion cannot be false By these and other such like reasons and argumentes which I haue rehearsed before according to the Psalme The testimonies of our Lord are first made vnto wel disposed people ouer or exceeding credible But although these of themselues may vvel make vs accept and beleeue the truth of Christian religion by a natural and humane kinde of beliefe such as the Deuil himselfe hath and is also in Heretikes concerning such articles which they truly beleeue yet can they not alone cause in vs an act of supernatural faith For this as I haue proued before being supernatural can not proceed from a natural cause without some supernatural helpe And vvhat then is done after this perswasion Verily God almighty yeeld eth vs his supernatural helpe and imparteth vnto our soule a diuine light of faith by which our vnderstanding is made more capable of things so high
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
my judgement it is strange howe they confesse euery man although neuer so much enlightned to be subject to errour and yet euery one assureth himselfe hauing one no more warrant then an other that he is in the truth Finally this doctrine of diuine inspirations and illuminations gaue occasion to * Frederi Staphilus l. de cōcordia discipulorū Lutheri Petrus Palladius l. de haeresibus Caluī in Instructorio cōtra Libert cap. 9. Willet in his Synops controuer 1. q. 1. Muncerus and certaine Anabaptists his followers as also to the Zwenckfeldians and Libertines of their blaspheamous opinions For like as our Protestant aduersaries commonly flie to illuminations for the knowledge of the true text interpretation of holy Scripture so these men either because they found it vvritten that a 2. Cor. 3 6. the letter doth kil or because they thought the Scriptures not necessary seing that the holy Ghost is able to teach mens harts vvithout any vvritten letters rejected the Scriptures altogither and pretended only such illuminations of the spirit Hence also perhaps proceeded the dreames and visions of the Enthusiasts a famous sect of Anabaptists but of this no more SECTION THE FIFT Concerning their deductions out of holy Scripture that they likewise are framed by them according to their owne fancies and of their accusations of one another touching these matters IT is moreouer a thing most euident that in the deductions or collections of the articles of their faith and religion out of holy Scripture they are not only subject to errour but also that they followe their owne judgement and inclinations And this vvil appeare to any man that shal consider the same One deduction I vvil here set downe vvhich I my selfe haue heard some of them make which was this I vrged them to bring forth some authority out of the vvord of God for their keeping of the Sonday in steade of the Saturday and they alleaged as a sufficient proof of this matter those wordes of S. Iohn in the Apocalipse Apocal. 1 10. I was in spirit on the Dominical or as they say on the Lordes day And vvhat an insufficient deduction is this if vve set aside the authority and tradition of the Church vvhich they despise Howe doth this followe S. Iohn vvas in the spirit or had a reuelation on the Sonday therefore al Christians may lawfully worke on the saturday a day commanded by God himselfe both in the old and newe testament Exo. 20. c. Math. 19 17 if we follow the letter to be kept holy and obserue the Sonday I could bring a hundred more such examples and my reader may gather some out of that which hath beene already said in the first section of the seauenth Chapter I adde also for the proofe of this that their deductions out of the selfe same wordes be diuers and opposite for euery sect like as it hath a particular and proper forme of faith so hath it peculiar and proper deductions out of the text of holy Scripture This cannot be denied because the collections of the Lutherans Zwinglians English Protestants Caluinists or Puritans Anabaptists Libertines differ from one another as their beliefe is different And to giue one instance or two but yet to omit the knowne different collections vvhich are found among Lutherans and Sacramentaries Doe not some Lutherans gather out of Scripture a necessity of good vvorkes See colloquiū Altenbergēse others that such vvorkes are not necessary a Bishop Barlow of Rochester in his sermon Whitgift others Doe not also some Sacramentaries as our English Protestants out of scripture deduce their gouernement of the Church by Bishops others as the Puritans their gouernement by Elders Doe not finally b Caluins Institut booke 2 chap. 16. ver 10.11.12 in Math. 26. 27. Willet in his Synopsis controuers 20. Caluin Willet and others gather out of scriptures that Christ suffered in soule the paines of hel which by others is disalowed And doe not the followers of one part of these collections condemne them of the other either as Heretikes or as Schismatikes or as Blaspheamers These thinges are most certaine Of which I inferre that al these sectaries deductions cannot be found but some must needes frame them according to their owne fancies And seing that vve haue no infallible reason according to their groundes to approue the one of them before another vve may vvith like reason condemne them al as hauing no other ground as they are by them maintained then humane judgement and vnderstanding In defence of the Lutherans of Wittenberge both concerning the proofe of the letter and interpretation of holy Scripture and also touching deductions out of the same it may perhaps be said by some man Harmony of cōfess sect 10 pa. 332. 333. Confess Wittenb art 32. that they hold the Church hath authority to beare witnesse off and interpret holy Scripture as likewise to judge of al doctrines according to that Try the spirits whither they be of God and let the other judge Yea they adde that shee hath receiued of her husband Christ a certaine rule to wit the Prophetical and Apostolical preaching confirmed by miracles from heauen according to the which shee is bound to interpret those places of the Scripture which seeme to be obscure and to judge of doctrines I answere and confesse that in very deede this is their doctrine vvhich maketh not a little against the dreames and inspirations of their bretheren but this can make no infallible ground according to their assertions for they make both the Church and tradition subject to errour and consequently if vve beleeue them no man can build vpon their authority an act of diuine and supernatural faith Finally hence it proceedeth that our aduersaries themselues accuse and censure one an other to be corrupters of scripture falsifiers and liers If vve beleeue * Luth. epist ad Ioan. Heruagium typographum Argentinens Luther the Sacramentaries beganne their opinion of the Sacrament with lies and with lies they doe defend it and they broached it abroade by the vvicked fraude of corrupting other mens workes If Caluin Caluin admonit 3. ad Westphalum Caluin in defens de Sacram p. 1085 the Lutherans are nothing else but forgers and falsifiers and of Westphalus in particular he vvriteth thus Westphalus as though he were I knowe not what Comical Iupiter carrying Minerua in his braine putteth boldly vpon al his fictions the visard of the word of God if it had not beene nowe an old thing and commonly knowne that the false Prophets did so much the more gloriously pretend the name of God by howe much the further they were from him by these frights and scar-crowes he would peraduenture doe something The word of God doth confidently sound againe and againe in his mouth but in word only And soone after This prophane man doth filthily abuse at his pleasure the sacred sentences no otherwise then Magitians doe wrest holy
A TREATISE OF THE GROVNDES OF THE OLD AND NEWE RELIGION DEVIDED INTO TWO PARTS ¶ Whereunto is added an Appendix containing a briefe confutation of WILLIAM CRASHAW his first Tome of Romish forgeries and falsifications MATH 7. VERS 24. ¶ A wise man buildeth his house vpon a rocke a foolish man vpon the sand ANNO DOMINI M. D.C.VIII THE PRINTER TO THE READER I Desire thy fauourable censure and pardon CVRTEOVâ— READER in regard that diuers faults haue escaped in printing this Treatise of which I may justly excuse and free my selfe from those of greatest moment for that the Authour through most earnest occasions contrary to his expectation could not be neare at hand whereby to haue had such due perusal thereof as was most meete and requisite before it passed through my handes Moreouer concerning the Preface in particular I am to aduertise thee that it is with his direction made more briefe then it was first penned and that thereby through the messengers fault in forgetfulnesse the said Preface performeth not that which is mentioned in the third point of the argument before it which should haue beene left out As thy experience wil I doubt not moue thee to consider with what difficulties our writers as also our selues put any thing to the presse so I hope hereafter their endeauours and mine also shal be in such thinges amended In the meane space referring thee to the Errata I humbly request thee againe not to blame vs altogither but pray for vs. Your poore Catholike Countriman THOM. R. THE PREFACE TO THE READER In which the occasions of the penning and publishing this Treatise as also the argument of the same are briefly deliuered Moreouer to free the Protestant readers minde before hand from obstinacy three points are proued euen out of writers of the newe religion first that more of the said religion condemne euery particular persons beliefe of that profession then approue it secondly that manifest truthes are denied and falshoods mainetained by the chiefe sectaries lastly that according to the confession of the same Authours our religion and faith is true their 's false IF justly he be judged by our Lord and Sauiour vvorthy of reproach CHRISTIAN READER vvho minding to build a towre Luke â—eâ— 28. c. doth not first sit downe and reckon the charges that are necessary whether he haue to finish it but after that he hath laid the foundation for want of ability is constrained to leaue his worke imperfect I knowe not howe diuers of this our vnhappy time can be excused from blame vvho spend al the daies of their liues in laying the foundation of a towre and neuer come so far as to place one stone there-vpon Our principal endeauour in this vvorld ought to be to erect in our soules a towre or spiritual edifice of vertue the ground of vvhich edifice is faith and such is the misery of these our daies 1. Corinth 3. vers 12. that diuers persons are so farre from building vpon this foundation gold siluer or pretious stones that they doe nothing else but alwaies busie themselues about the said foundation my meaning is that they so occupy or rather vexe themselues continually in discussing matters concerning their beliefe that they either remaine alwaies wauering without any sure ground of faith or at the least if not altogether verily for the most part wholy neglect their spiritual progresse in vertues of higher perfection In which their manner of proceeding I say they cannot be censured lesse faulty then he who consumeth the whole course of his life in laying the foundation of a house or sumptuous pallace and neuer goeth or seeketh to goe so farre as to build the walles or any other part of the same Nay the first must needs be deemed much more faulty then this fond builder because their edifice is of greater importance then the setting vp of any such material house or pallace I intend not hereto shew by the authority of the holy Scripture and the testimonies of the auncient Fathers both which yeeld me most plentiful proofes in this matter that faith is only the foundation and not the whole cause of our justification neither is there any great neede in this place of entering into any such discourse For besides that no man according to the rules of reason can esteeme him a perfect Christian vvho doth only beleeue rightly without proceeding any further because certaine it is that faith of it selfe doth only perfect the vnderstanding and not the vvil and that a right vnderstanding profiteth litle except the wil be conformable it is euen as apparant moreouer this assertion as far forth as it conduceth to my purpose seemeth to be granted euen by our aduersaries the followers of the newe religion For they distinguish especially two sorts of faith See part 2. of this Treatise chap. 2. the one they cal a faith historical the other a faith justifying the first they confound vvith that which we hold being joyned with hope and charity to justifie vs and this they deny not to be the ground not the vvhole cause of our justification for this effect and prerogatiue they attribute to the second of vvhich hereafter vvherefore euen according to their doctrine the truth of that vvhich I haue auerred must be admitted Notwithstanding it may be objected against it that the misteries and articles of our faith are diuers aboue the reach of our natural reason and therefore that a great time is requisite to this that the truth of euery one of them be throughly searched a certaine resolution concerning euery point setled I answere that this in very deede if al be true which is taught by the said followers of the new religion cannot be denied for they making the bare letter of holy Scripture the only rule and guide of their faith must consequently in like sort affirme that no man can euer come to a certaine knowledge what is to be beleeued touching the articles of religion except by diligent discussion he plainely and infallibly drawe the truth from the said letter of holy Scripture which if he could by any meanes compasse yet he cannot doe vnlesse among other thinges he reade ouer the whole Bible conferre one place vvith another c. and so in this study consume almost al the daies of his life But according to the truth God who is goodnesse it selfe hath farre otherwise and better prouided for those that are desirous to serue him and more richly to adorne their soules with vertue For he hath ordained a visible guide indued vvith life and reason and therefore apt to instruct and judge vvhose doctrine and judgement he hath warranted from errour and falsehood of whome euery person vvith diuine assurance of truth in a very short time may perfectly be taught what he is to beleeue For the better effecting of this he hath also left in her sacred bosome other more particuler but diuine and infallible grounds besides his holy
euident that hel gates doe preuaile against the Church if either she decay or teach false doctrine who then can say that either the hath perished or erred except he wil accuse Christ of falshood in not performing his promise and make him a liar Verily * Chrisost hom 4. de verbis Isaiae vidi Dominum Epiph. in Ancorato S. Iohn Chrisostome affirmeth that heauen and earth shal faile before those wordes of Christ thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I wil build my Church S. Epiphanius also alluding to this promise telleth vs that our Lord appointed Peter the first or cheefest Apostle a firme rocke vpon which the Church of God was built and the gates of hel saith he shal not preuaile against it for the gates of hel are Heretikes and Arch-heretikes c. the like sentences I could alleage out of the rest of the ancient Fathers And vnto this testimonie of our Sauiour I could likewise adde that he hath warranted the faith of S. Peter and in him the faith of his successor the Bishop of Rome who is ministerial head of Christes Church on earth Luc. 22. vers 31. that it shal not faile and consequently that the body ruled by the head shal enjoy the same prerogatiue but of this hereafter Moreouer our Sauiour made his Church the supreame judge on earth of al controuersies touching matters of religion for it is manifest that from her judgement he graunteth no appeale and that he vvil haue her definitiue sentence so firme and inuiolable among Christians that he vvil not haue him accounted one of that number who shal preuaricate or despise the same This is signified vnto vs in these his wordes Math. 18. vers 17. If he wil not heare the Church let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publican In which sentence he biddeth vs esteeme no more of our brother or neighbour that contemneth or disobeieth the censure of the Church then of a Heathen and Publican of which I gather that the Church in her censure cannot erre For if this might be then vve being bound to condemne whome she condemneth or to condemne him that vvil not listen and obey her counsaile and precepts might together with the Church condemne a man without just cause and that according to Christes commandement It appeareth likewise out of the said vvordes of our Sauiour that he vvil haue the sentence of the Church obeied wherefore he ought in reason to prouide that the said sentence be not erroneous But for the truth of these wordes of our Lord and also for the constant verity of the censure of the Church it maketh first that diuers falshoodes which before her said censure might in times past haue bin beleeued and defended yea were defended beleeued by the members of the true Church without incurring the crime of heresie afterwardes could not be so beleeued and defended as I could exemplifie in the Milinary heresie the opinion of such as held the baptisme of Heretikes to be of no force of others that denied the authority of some Canonical bookes and such like Secondly it maketh also for these her prerogatiues that al such as haue obstinately maintained any opinions condemned by the Church for heresies and consequently haue disobeied her authority decrees and beene by her adjudged Heretikes haue euer by al antiquity beene so accounted August in Enchirid. ad Laurēt cap. 5. Tertul. de pudicitia item li. de praescript Math. 5. v. 13.15 Luc. 10. vers 16. and therefore haue not beene numbred by the ancient Fathers among Christians whose opinions notvvithstanding if vve reject her infallible judgement by vvhich they were condemned and make it subject to errour may be reuiued and called againe in question either as wrongfully and injustly censured or at the least as condemned by a judge whose judgement is subject to errour and falshood The priuileges and prerogatiues graunted by our Sauiour to his Apostles and Disciples confirme the same for they are by him called the salt of the earth and the light of the world and being sent to preach they receaued from him this commission and approbation of their doctrine He that heareth you heareth me and he that dispiseth you dispiseth me Which wordes argue an infallible truth although not in the doctrine of euery particuler Bishop and Prelate of the Church yet in them altogether when they represent the whole Church in a Councel or in the whole number of them although diuided seperated in place For in these like as in Christes Apostles and Disciples as I haue aboue declared the wordes alleaged must be verified which cannot be done if they al in euery sense may erre For how can they then truly be tearmed the salt of the earth and the light of the world and how can it be true that he that heareth them heareth Christ But if we had no other testimony of holy Scripture for this matter fiue or six wordes of the Apostle vsed by him to Timothie in his first epistle 1. Tim. 3. v. 15. c. vvere sufficient to conuince our vnderstanding and make vs yeeld to this truth For in his said Epistle he tearmeth the Church the piller and ground of truth These thinges I write to thee saith he hoping that I shal come to thee quickly but if I tarie long that thou maist knowe howe thou oughtest to conuerse in the house of God which is the Church of the liuing God the piller and ground of truth What could he haue said more euident for the infallible authority of the Church the Church saith he is the piller and ground of truth that is to say the very foundation and establishment of al verity vpon vvhich as vpon a sure foundation and an inuiolable piller a man may securely build the edifice of his faith and religion vvho then vvil say that the Church is subject to errour These considerations moued S. Augustine Aug. lib. 1. cont Cresconium disputing against Cresconius concerning the baptisme of Heretikes to vse this discourse these are his vvordes Although of this that the baptisme of Heretikes is true baptisme there be no certaine example brought forth out of the canonical Scriptures yet also in this we keepe the truth of the said Scriptures when as we doe that which now hath pleased the whole Church which the authority of the Scriptures themselues doth commend That because the Scripture cannot deceaue whosoeuer doth feare least that he be deceaued through the obscurity of this question may aske counsaile touching it of the Church whome without any doubt the Scripture it selfe doth shewe Hitherto S. Augustine Out of which discourse of his we may gather this notable rule that in al thinges doubtful and in al obscure questions concerning faith and religion we ought to enquire and search forth the doctrine and beleefe of the Catholike Church and imbrace the same seeking no further warrant of security because the Scriptures demonstrate her and manifestly declare that
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
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
wicked are included but be signifieth their miserable condition and extreame tortures and torments for the Papists so he tearmeth the schoole Diuines are foolish and ridiculous who subtillie dispute of the nature and quality of that fire and in explicating it diuersly vex themselues These grosse imaginations are to be hissed out seing that we vnderstand the Prophet to speake figuratiuelie hitherto are Caluins words And thus we see that Luther denieth any soules to be in hel or heauen before the day of judgment and that Caluin denieth both the place and fire of hel but of this point enough SECNION THE THIRD Of our aduersaries impious assertions concerning Christ and Christian religion I Come nowe to the third principal ground to wit the truth of Christian religion And first I affirme that generally al the sectaries of our time weaken this ground by that their common principle by which they auouch the holy scripture to be the only rule of faith among Christians for hence principally proceede Anabaptisme Zauchius in his epistle before his cōfes Beza volumi ne 3. 190. et 255. Hipor Method p. 5. Bez. l. de beret a ciuili magistr puniēd see hī also in ep theolo 81. p. 334. Libertinisme Arianisme Samosatenisme Marcionisme Eutichionisme Nestorianisme which as Zauchius a Protestant reporteth haue beene fetched out of hel by the ministers of Sathan in some of the reformed Churches Yea Beza himselfe confesseth that most foule and impudent errors of auncient Archeretiks being renued and polished are in these our daies by fanatical men recalled from Hel. Vpon this ground they build who reject the wordes Trinity Consubstantial and the like vvithout which as Beza confesseth the truth of the highest misteries of Christian religion cannot be explicated nor the aforesaid heresies soundly confuted And to discourse of these matters a litle more in particuler haue not diuers newe Sectaries in plaine tearmes oppugned the truth of Christianity It cannot be denied And to omit that which is credibly reported of Bucer Posseuinus in biblio selecta part 1. l. 8. c 8. that dying he professed the Messias vvas not yet borne I wil onlie report thinges knowne to the whole world And first what shal we say of Franciscus Dauid a Ederus ibid. c. 16. Frācis Daui ī Thess 69. Posseui ib. c. 14. et 16. who of a Catholik became first a Lutheran afterwardes a Caluinist lastly a publike denier of the blessed Trinitie made Christ a pure man willed al to burie the Gospel and to returne to Moises the lawe and circumcision affirmed that the truth of the wordes of Christ and the Apostles was to be tried by the lawe of Moises and by other books of the Prophets of that lawe which only said he b In dispu Albana Act. 3. di ei In defensi negotij de non inuocād Christo fol. 21. ought to be vnto vs the rule of manners life and diuine worshippe The same man being wished by some of his friends at the least to confes Christ to be our Sauiour answered What shal I confesse him a Sauiour who could not doe so much as saue himselfe Neither did this blasphemie die vvith the author for his c Cōfutat indicij Polonicarū Eccles disciples succeeding him mette as Iewes on the saturdaies and rejecting the Gospels read the prophecies of the old Testament The diuinity of Christ was likewise denied before by d Seruet lib. 1. de trinitat fol. 7. et 47. Michael Seruetus first also a Lutheran then as some say a Caluinist and at the same time and afterwards by e Georg. Blādrata in disp Albana act diei 6. Ochimus in dial 2. de trinit◠Sōmer aduersus Petrū Carolū l. 1. c. 4. de filio c. Aelianus li. Germ. Math. Ia. Georgius Blandrata Lelius Sozinus Bernardinus Ochinus Ioannes Sommerius Nathaniel Elianus Christianus Francus and other such like blaspheamous companions who were professors of the newe religion vnto whome I also adde the f Articles of the family of loue art 24. brethren of the familie of loue But a farre greater number of the new gospellers denied Christ to be equal and consubstantial to his Father the captaine of whom was g Valēt Gentil in protessibus Calu. aduers Gentil Beza in prefat ad dictūli Caluini Valentinus Gentilis a disciple of Caluin whom followed Matheus Gribaldus Franciscus Lismanius and an infinite number of others especiallie in Polonia yea some and that not without cause joine vnto these Melancton and Caluin himselfe of whom h Melāct in locis an 1535. Wittēb et Basil an 1541. the first affirmeth something of the diuinè nature or some diuine nature to be in Christ and auerred him according to his deity to haue been made inferior to his Father The i See Calu. ad c. 14. Gen. in Harmo Euang. ad c. 22. Mat. v. 44. et ad c. 26. Mat. v. 64. Lib. aduers Valēt Gētil refut 10. ep 2. ad Polonos c. second affirmed also this last and besides made Christ a Priest according to his diuinity placed him in the second or next degree to his Father as his vicar auouched the the name of God by excellency only to pertaine to the Father him only and properly to be the creator of heauen and earth made the Sonne subject to his Father and inferiour to him according to his diuinity Stancarus contra Caluī K. 4. see him also li. de trinitat c. And al this is justified by Stancarus himselfe a Protestant who vnto Caluin writeth thus What diuel O Caluin hath seduced thee to speake with Arius against the Sonne of God that thou mightest shewe him to be depriued of his glorie and nowe to aske to haue it giuen him as though he had not alwaies had it That Antechrist of the North whom thou doest impudently adore Melanchton the Gramarian hath done this And he concludeth Be ware O Christian reader and especially al you ministers beware of the bookes of Caluin and principally in the articles of the Trinity Incarnation Mediator the Sacrament of baptisme and predestination for they containe wicked doctrine and Arian blasphemies insomuch as the spirit or soule of Seruetus burnt according to the Platonist may seeme to haue entred into Caluin Againe Al the Churches Stancarus de trinitat K. 8. See Simlerus in praefat lib. de aeterno dei verbo which those men cal reformed by the Gospel and the Sonne of God and hold the faith of Geneua and Zurick concerning Christ are Arian neither can this be denied which I haue aboue demonstrated thus Stancarus Ioannes Modestus another Protestant wrote a book in the German tongue vvith this title A demonstration out of the holy scriptures that the Sacramentaries are no Christians but baptized Iewes and Turks Tubingae anno 1587. in quarto About the same time another booke was published by Phillipus Nicholaus a minister with this title A detection of the ground of the
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
In another place he discourseth thus We are not the seruants of the Fathers but the sonnes When they prescribe vs any thing out of the lawe and diuine authority we obey them as our parents If they enjoyne anything against the voice of the heauenly truth we haue learned not to hearken to them but to God You as vassals and base seruants receiue whatsoeuer the Fathers say without judgement or reason being afraid as I thinke either of the whip or the halter if euerie thing they speake be not Gospel with you thus Whitakers defendeth his rejecting the ancient Fathers and vpbraideth vs for our high estimation of the same But concerning the fathers opinions of particuler points he telleth vs Ibidem in his answer to the 5. reason pag. 129. that Ciprian wrote something of repentance verie vnseasonably and vndiscreetly and not be alone but al the holie Fathers of that time saith he were tainted with that errour That is al the Fathers of the third age after Christ for S. Ciprian suffered martirdome in the yeare two hundred threescore and one Of praier to Saints he hath these wordes Prudentius I graunt Ibidem pag. 140. 141. as a poet sometimes called vpon the Martirs whose actes he describeth in verse and the supertitious custome of praying to Saintes had nowe taken deepe roote in the Church which as a tirant haled sometimes the holie Fathers into the same errour thus he of the beginning of the fift age when Prudentius flourished Lastly Ibid. p. 132. he defendeth the first sentence of Luther before alleaged Abbot in his answ to Hil reason 10. p. 371. Horat. lib. 1. epist 1. see also Morton in Apologia Catholica part 1. lib. 1. cap. 8. With Whitakers agreeth Abbot who touching the Fathers thus deliuereth his opinion vnto vs Where there is just cause we as men Nullius addicti jurare in verba magistri bound to stand to the opinion of none but of the holy Ghost we declining-wise doe leaue them But where they subscribe to the authority of God there we subscribe to them defend them and refuse not to be tried by them so far as we may by any holy and learned men of which sort we hold them but yet stil knowe them to be men hitherto George Abbot And note that these men pretending that they follow the auncient Fathers as farre forth as they followe the lawe or diuine authority or the authority of God endeauour to make shew of an opposition or contrariety betweene the written word of God and the Fathers in al points in which they forsake them whereas in very deed the Fathers vnderstood and followed the scriptures better then they doe and the opposition is not betweene the scriptures and the Fathers but betweeene the Fathers and the Scriptures expounded by these Sectaries vvhich scriptures so expounded they make a rule vvhereby to knowe vvhen the Fathers are to be followed when to be forsaken Our Puritans in this point at the least in wordes got farre beyond our Protestants He who is desirous to vnderstand their opinion may read the seauen and twentith chapter of the Suruay of their pretended holy discipline written by a a Printed anno 1693. Protestant in which he shal finde it set downe at large And among others Cartwright is there accused the places of his bookes being cited for tearming the seeking into the Fathers writings b Pag. 331. 337. See also chap. 4. p. 64. a raking of ditches and the bringing in of their authorities the mouing and summoning of hel c Parks in his preface to his ans of Limbo mastix prīted anno 1607. Henrie Iacob treatise p. 1. 3. 54. 81. 68. cited by him in the margēt see also saith he Bilsons sermons pa. 323. and the answere to M. Broughtons letters p. 17. Parks also a later writer telleth vs that If you alleage the auncient Fathers against them they wil tel you roundly that their opinions are nothing else but the corrupt fancies and vaine imaginations of men toyish fables fond absurd without sense and reason and some saith he sticke not to cal the Fathers of the latine Church the plague of diuinitie Vnto al these proofes I adde likewise that our aduersaries confesse al the auncient Fathers to haue beene of our beliefe touching euery article nowe controuersed betweene vs and them as I vvil proue in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church and yet reject their doctrine as erroneous and repugnant to the word of God vvherefore they must needes confesse al the Fathers to haue erred and so reject their authority Finally none of them wil graunt that any consent of Fathers whatsoeuer be it neuer so general touching any point is of it selfe a sufficient ground of faith without the testimonie of holy scripture which is enough for my purpose But it may be objected by some that diuers of these sectaries alleage in their vvorkes the holie Councels and Fathers abundantly not only against vs but also against their owne brethren dissenting from them in faith or thinges belonging to religion I answere that true it is that they so doe alleage the holy Councels and Fathers But doe they make their testimonie an infallible ground they doe not certainelie For although they approue their doctrine in some points yet in others they presentlie reject them The Centuriatores being Lutherans Centuriat 4. pag. 242. In euery Centurie cap. 4. alleage the Fathers against the Sacramentaries for proofe of the real presence but they reject their testimonie when they affirme this sacrament to be a Sacrifice In like sort our Protestants against our Puritans alleage the authority of S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine condemning Aerius for an Heretike because he acknowledged no distinction betweene a Bishoppe and a Priest See the Suruey of the pretēded holie discipline Whit gift in his defence and others but they reject the authority of the same Fathers in the selfe same places condemning the same Aerius as an Heretike for denying sacrifice and masse for the dead wherefore it is manifest that they onlie as Caluin saith vse the Councels and Fathers to serue their owne turnes not to be ouer-ruled by them In defence of our English Protestants in particular it may first be said that M. Iewel in his challendge doth challendge to their religion al the Councels and Fathers of the first sixe hundred yeares alloweth of their authoritie and offereth to be tried by their censure I answere first that this challendge made by M. Iewel is not general touching al points controuersed betweene vs but concerning a fewe only and those not of greatest moment Secondly I say that M. Iewel did this only to make a shew among the common people as though his religion had beene auncient not that he intended to doe as he promised to wit to subscribe to our religion if this challendge could be shewed false This appeareth to be true both because he maintained his vaine challendge
but also affirmeth that a right judgment of men by their power of jurisdiction maintaining truth and suppressing errour may be wanting in the Church and that sometimes almost al may conspire against the truth or consent to betray the sincerity of the Christian profession yea that most part of those that hold great places of office and dignity in the Church falling into errour or heresie may depart from the soundnesse of the Christian faiths so that truth be maintained by some few and they molested persecuted and traduced as turbulent and seditious men enemies to the common peace of the Christian world thus Field Which doctrine if we admit as true what authority shal we leaue to the Fathers workes wil not a possibility of errour followe in them al it cannot be denied but I need not dispute any longer of this matter for Field himselfe of these his three rules of beliefe vvriteth thus Field book 4. cap. 14. These three latter rules of our faith saith he we admit not because they are equal with the former and originally in themselues containe the direction of faith but because nothing can be deliuered with such and so ful consent of the people of God as in them is expressed but it must needes he from those authours and founders of our Christian profession Hitherto Field in which words he expresly graunteth that these rules originally in themselues are no directions of faith And truly although we could not ouerthrowe them by his owne sayings this only vvould suffice according to the Protestant groundes to proue them to haue no diuine or infallible authority that he bringeth no one sentence of scripture or other proofe for their truth but only this bare reason that nothing can be delivered with such ful consent but it must needs be from the founders of Christianity For if that be thought or affirmed possible vvhich he deemeth impossible vvhat force or strength wil be left to his rules but euerie man may also perceiue that if we admit his assertions euen nowe related concerning the error of the Church and her Prelats we must needes also graunt that it may be al the Fathers haue conspired in errour For if al the Fathers of the present Church at any time yea although assembled in a general Councel may and that in matters of greatest consequence as he saith erre Field book 4. chap. 5. and 12. who seeth not that it is a thing possible that in al ages they haue al erred This notwithstanding let vs nowe looke a litle into the vvordes themselues of these three last rules and behold concerning what articles of beliefe they are as also what conditions are required in them as necessary to this that out of the Fathers workes according to Fields opinion vve may gather any article of faith The first of them which is the fift in order as the words themselues tel vs requireth that the matter belong to the substāce of our faith by which words he doth abridge and limit the authority of the Fathers to be of force according to this rule onlie concerning certaine principal articles by him set downe vvhich euery man as he saith is bound expresly to knowe and beleeue He prescribeth also in this rule that the consent be general that is not only of al that haue written of that matter but of al that haue left any monuments of learning to their posterity that al make expresse mention of it and without contradiction of any other and that this is his minde he plainly declareth in the second and fift chapter before But what errour or heresie is there which contentious persons either wil not deny to pertaine to the substance of our faith or that al the monuments of antiquity doe positiuely contradict or which Heretikes cannot confirme by some or at the least by one sentence of some auncient writer Verilie if they drawe and pul the holie scriptures in such sort to their priuate fantasies that no sect wil be perswaded but that they fauor the false opinions in it maintained much more may they deale so with the writings of their predecessors which be farre more in number and not also penned as the scriptures are by diuine inspiration The second rule of the three last if M. Field wil not haue it to contradict that which I haue added at the end of them out of the second chapter before must he vnderstood according to it and then how vncertaine it is I wil euen nowe declare but if vve take it as the wordes sound it cannot be vniuersal for the decisions of al points at the least in the judgment of al men for al matters are not deliuered as matters of faith constantly vniformly by the most famous Christian writers and that without contradiction yea a man of a peruerse humour although in very deede it were so yet by wresting and false vnderstanding of ssuch authors would make appearance of the contrary The last may be confuted as insufficient of it selfe for the same reasons for it requireth that the point be of the substance of faith c. The addition out of the second chapter requireth vniuersal practise and necessarie and euident deduction out of the scripture or the rule of faith and as it seemeth that it be a matter of substance that in euerie age some be found to haue written of it c. which be things intricate not easily to be proued in euery matter cōtrouersed But to make al these rules more obscure he addeth in the fift chapter that the writings of the ancient may be much corrupted so that the consent of antiquity cannot alwaies easily be knowne Field book 4. cap. 5. Vincent Liriuens cap. 39. yet saith he there wil be euer some meanes to finde out and descry the errours and frauds of the corrupters And so he affirmeth himselfe to vnderstand that of Vincentius Lirinensis that the judgment of antiquity is to be sought out at the very first rising of heresies not afterwards when they are growne inueterate for that then they wil corrupt the monuments of antiquity Finallie these three rules are not sufficient to direct any man whatsoeuer whether learned or vnlearned to an infallible truth in al articles of faith for seing that euerie priuate man yea the whole visible present Church is subject to errour and al her greatest Prelates to heresie according to the doctrine of M. Field one man cannot build his faith vpon anothers judgement no not vpon the judgement of the whole present visible Church wherefore if we proceed according to M. Fields rules it is not sufficient to cause true faith in vs that others tel vs that the Fathers and writers of former ages say this and that but we must our selues read ouer the workes of al such Fathers and authors And how can the vnlearned doe this Yea if a man be neuer so learned he cannot doe it although he doe nothing else but read al the daies of his
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
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
Senensis affirming the litteral exposition of Scripture to be in deede the hardest of al other And this notwithstanding vpon it he vvil haue the allegorical tropological and anagogical senses founded of vvhich a man may inferre great obscurity of them al. This also may be proued out of a Illiric in his clauis scriptur de causis difficul script remedijs remed 2. Illiricus a famous Lutheran who as b Field booke 4. chap. 19. Field testifieth discoursing of the difficulties that are found in Scriptures and howe they may be cleared sheweth that nothing is more necessary for the vnderstanding of Scripture then to be rightly taught the general principles and axiomes of diuinity out of which flow and on which doe depend whatsoeuer thinges are contained in the Scripture c Kemnit in examin Cōc Trid. sess 4. Kemnitius an other Lutheran acknowledgeth in the Church such a gift of interpreting the Scripture as is the gift of doing miracles not common to al but peculiar to some The d Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. col 52. Century writers auouch that the Apostles thought the Scriptures could not be vnderstood without the holy Ghost and an interpreter yea e Luth. in colloq conuiual titu de verbo Dei see him also l. de Concil praefat in psalm Luther himselfe seemeth to haue recanted his former opinion before his death for two daies before he died as his disciples record he pronounced this sentence No man can vnderstand the Bucolica of Virgil except he be fiue yeares a shepherd no man can vnderstand the Georgica of Virgil except he be fiue yeares a husband-man no man can vnderstand the Epistles of Cicero except he haue liued in some famous common wealth for 20. yeares Let euery man knowe that he hath not sufficiently tasted the holy Scriptures except he haue gouerned in the Church for an hundred yeares with the Prophets as with Elias Elizeus Iohn Baptist Christ and the Apostles Thus Luther and the like he hath in other places And al this may be confirmed by this Chap. 8. Sect. 7. that al Heretikes haue euer alleaged Scriptures for proofe of their heretical assertions as I wil hereafter declare Yea Osiander a professour of the newe religion telleth vs Osiander in cōfut scripti Melancthon contra ipsum editi l. cot Nicticoracē that among the Confessionists only so he tearmeth those that followe the confession of Auspurge there are twenty different opinions concerning the formal cause of justification and that euery one is affirmed to be deduced and proued out of the word of God I argue therefore thus The rule and ground of Catholike faith ought to be one that is not diuers certaine and manifest but the bare vvordes of Scripture alone cannot be such a rule because the Scriptures are obscure may be falsly and erroneously interpreted c. vvherefore the sense of them is not one certaine and manifest therefore the bare vvordes of Scripture are not the only rule and ground of Catholike faith Math. 26. vers 26. See chap. 8. Sect. 3. Let vs declare this by an example The Catholike vnderstandeth those vvordes of our Sauiour This is my body one way the Lutherans an other way the Zwinglians a third way and the Caluinists a fourth vvay as I vvil shewe hereafter I demaund nowe of our aduersaries howe in this sentence and a thousand other such like the bare wordes of Scripture are a plaine and certaine rule whereby the truth of any one of their interpretations may infallibly be knowne Can the wordes speake and interpret themselues or doe they sufficienty decide the controuersie This they wil not grant because they are plaine for the Catholike part Yea Caluin himselfe confesseth that Christs wordes are so plaine although to make his wordes accord with his doctrine he flieth to certaine chimerical conceits that except a man wil make God a deceauer Caluin lib. 4. Instit cap. 17 §. 10. 11. he can neuer be so bold as to say that he setteth before vs a naked signe vvherefore according to their judgement if we wil allowe of any one of their interpretations we must find out some other judge or else affirme that Christ hath ordained no sufficient judge or rule in his Church to decide controuersies and to discerne the true interpretations of holy Scripture from the false And because our aduersaries acknowledge no other judge but the bare letter and euery mans owne fancy Hence proceede so many sects and dissensions among them which were so diuers and implacable euen in Luthers daies who beganne this Tragedie concerning the true sense of Scripture it selfe that the said Luther plainely confessed that if the world vvere longe to endure they should be forced to haue recourse againe to trial of Councels and that otherwise they should neuer agree Luther contra Zwinglium Oecolampadium Further seing that the Scriptures admit senses so diuers and interpret not themselues and the false sense is so dangerous howe can any man be assured by the bare vvordes that he hath attained to the true sense For example Bible 1592. Hieron in Catal. verbo Marcus Eusebius lib. 2. hist. cap. 14. our newe Sectaries affirme that the vvord Babilon in the first Epistle of S. Peter although S. Hierome and Eusebius say the contrary signifieth the great City called Babilon in Caldea or Assyria not Rome because otherwise it vvould followe that S. Peter was at Rome contrariwise they tel vs that in the * Apocal. 17. 18. Apocalipse the same word signifieth the City of Rome because there much is said against Babilon which they are desirous to apply to the City of Rome But howe knowe they by the bare vvordes of Scripture that this their double interpretation of the selfe same vvord is true Adde also that the diuers and large Commentaries vpon the Scriptures and the great study of al sorts concerning the exposition of them are euident arguments that the bare vvordes of Scripture may receiue diuers and false interpretations yea euery man must of necessity graunt that some of our learned aduersaries themselues expound them falsly seing that their expositions be repugnant and contrary Of vvhich I inferre that it is a matter impossible that euery man out of the vvordes themselues only should gather infallibly the right sense vvhich if it be true in the learned much more true it is in the vnlearned The common answere of our aduersaries to this argument is See before part 2. chap. 5. sect 1. in the beginning that one place of Scripture expoundeth another and therefore if the vvordes of any place be of doubtful sense they bid vs conferre them vvith other such like sentences but this answere may be easily refelled For like as the place in controuersie or doubtful receiueth diuers interpretations so doe also those other places vvith vvhich they vvould haue it conferred vvherefore by this conference diuers times vve are neuer
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
This is a great sacrament or mistery they translate This is a great secret In defence of the Princes supremacie in causes Ecclesiastical in king Henry the eight and king Edward the sixt his daies they read 1. Bible 1539. 1562. Peter 2. vers 13. Submit your selues to al manner of ordinance of men whether tt be to the King as the chiefe head c. whereas the Apostle saith Be subject therefore to euery humane creature for God whether it be to the king as excelling Bible 1595. 1600. c. But nowe the last corruption contained in these wordes as the chiefe head is corrected the first remaineth stil Hebr. 5. v. 7. Bible 1595. 1600. Another corruption is in their translation of these wordes of the Apostle He was heard for his reuerence vvhich vvith Caluin they turne thus He was heard in that which he feared Finally to proue that a man may absolutely finde out the true sense of Scripture by conferring only one place with another Act. 9. Bible 1577. 1595. v. 22. they reade Saul confounded the Iewes prouing by conferring one Scripture with another that this is very Christ whereas the Greeke wordes only tel vs that he affirmed that this is Christ But this is amended in the later Bibles Vnto al these corruptions I adde that our English Sectaries in their translations adde words to the text of Scripture which they print not seldome in a smaller letter then that vvhich containeth the text it selfe And who can say that the said text with such additions is the true word of God seing that such additions are made by man without any warrant from God himselfe SECTION THE SEAVENTH That the Professors of the newe religion in corrupting the Scriptures followe the steps of the auncient Heretikes and what followeth of this discourse I HAVE nowe discouered diuers corrupt and false translations of our English Bibles yet not al but certaine of the principal I haue beene the longer because the Sectaries of our daies as I haue before shewed make the holy Scripture the only Canon and rule of their faith and these Bibles as euery man knoweth are accounted the only ground of our English aduersaries newe beleefe and religion for vnto them as to a touch-stone they alwaies appeale wherefore their Bibles especially were to be impugned They boast truly very much of the word of God but as vve see they haue not the vvord of God among them but are corrupters and falsifiers of the same and in steade of it possesse a deuise of their owne heades In this also as in other thinges they followe vvel the steps of al Heretikes their forefathers vvho to colour their horrible blasphemies and detestable heresies haue alwaies vsed the like deceits Hence Tertullian foureteene hundred yeares since vsed this discourse of the Heretikes of his daies Tertul. lib. de praescript ca. 18. see him also cap. 15. 38. Encountring with such by Scriptures auaileth nothing but to ouerturne a mans stomacke or his braine This heresie receaueth not certaine Scriptures and if it doe receaue some yet by adding and taking away it peruerteth the same to serue her purpose and if it receaue any it doth not receaue them wholy and if it doth exhibite them after a sort wholy neuerthelesse by diuising diuers expositions it turneth them cleane an other way Origen in c. 2 ad Roman Cypr. de vnit Eccl. Nūb. 7. Ambros lib. 2. de Spiritu sancto ca. 11. Hence also Origen vvho flourished soone after called Heretikes theeues and adulterers of the Scriptures S. Cyprian tearmeth them corrupters of the Gospel false interpreters artificers and craft-masters in corrupting the truth S. Ambrose noteth that the Macedonians to ouerthrowe the diuinity of the holy Ghost blotted out of the Gospel those wordes * Ioh. 4. v. 24. Tertul. contra Marcionem lib. 1. in princip lib. de prescript God is a spirit Marcion an auncient Heretike is reprehended for the same fault by Tertullian a and is called Mus Ponticus the mouse of Pontus because vvith his corruptions to serue his owne turne he did as it were gnawe certaine places of Scripture The Arians against the eternal generation of Christ vvhereas the Scripture saith The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his waies Hierom. in c. 26. Isaiae reade as S. Hierome recordeth The Lord created me The like corruptions * August lib. 5. cont Iulianum cap. 2. S. Augustine noteth of the Pelagians and more such complaints may be seene in a Epist 89. lib. de peccatorum meritis cap. 11. Origenes epist ad Alexandrinos Eusebius in Apologia sub nomine Pamphili Ruffinus epist. ad Macarium Euagrius lib. 3. cap. 31. Cassiodorus de diuinis lect cap. 8. Finally b Sutcl in his answ to Kellisons Suruey ch 4. pag. 32. Sutcliffe telleth vs that Heretikes to defend their peruerse and erroneous doctrine are wont to detruncate and by false expositions to peruert holy Scriptures And no maruaile that Heretikes haue alwaies runne this course for howe can falshood being of no force or strength be defended and maintained but by cunning deuises deceits and lies truth being of it selfe inuincible needeth no such deceitful helpe This moued S. Paul of himselfe and other preachers of truth to vse these wordes c 2. Cor. 2 17. We are not as very many adultering the word of God but of sincerity and as of God before God we speake And againe We renounce the secret thinges of dishonesty not walking in craftinesse not adultering the word of God contrary to this are al the proceedings of the patrons of falshood But let vs now gather two briefe conclusions out of the long discourse of this Chapter Of vvhich the first shal be that the controuersie betweene vs and our aduersaries is not touching the authority of the Scriptures themselues but touching the translation and interpretation of the same This is manifest because vve doe not reject the places of Scripture by them corrupted and falsified as they are in the Hebrewe Greeke or vulgar Latin but we argue their translation and interpretation of the said places of corruption and falshood and consequently censure it to be the word of man not the vvord of God Secondly I inferre that our aduersaries translated Bibles containe not the true vvord of God and consequently that although vve should grant vnto them that the bare letter of Scripture is a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion yet that they building vpon their said Bibles haue not this ground or foundation Chapter 7. That they build not vpon the letter of holy Scripture contained as they say in their owne Bibles SECTION THE FIRST In which this is proued first because the propositions which they tearme of their faith are not in expresse tearmes contained in the Scripture LET vs goe on a litle further and proue that although vve should also yeeld to our aduersaries that the letter of holy Scripture is a sufficient
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
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
firmiter stent in confess de coena Domini yea not long after most absurdly he taught and defended the humane nature of Christ to be in euery place togither with his diuine And this he did to prejudice the Roman Church and Catholike religion For seing that the vvordes are so plaine that he could not in substance denie the real presence by these meanes malice droue him to contrary our doctrine concerning transubstantiation and the manner of the being present of Christes body in this dreadful Sacrament These are the principal expositions of those wordes to which I could adde diuers others for a Luther in l. quod verba Christi HOC EST CORPVS MEVM firmiter stent Luther hath recorded that in his daies there vvere among the Sacramentaries about tenne diuers interpretations of them and in the yeare 1577. a booke vvas published in vvhich two hundred expositions or deprauations of the said vvordes are numbred and assigned al inuented or reuiued by the Professours of this newe religion Nowe I thinke that no man indued with any sense or reason wil be so fond as to affirme that al these expositions haue a certaine ground in the word of God for certaine it is as we haue hard Luther himselfe confesse that there is but one true sense of these vvordes vvherefore it must needes followe that al the rest be false and forged And seing that the inuentor or vpholder of one hath no more reason or diuine assurance for his inuention or opinion then hath the inuentor or vpholder of an other vve may vvith like probability affirme them al to be humane inuentions And certaine it is that vvhosoeuer imbraceth any one of them buildeth only vpon the erroneous and fallible judgement of man yea I may truly say that the ground of his beliefe is his owne fancy vvhich moueth him to censure one opinion as true and to condemne al the rest as false And like as I haue discoursed of this one sentence of our blessed Sauiour so could I in like manner discourse of sundry other places of holy Scripture but I should be ouer long It may be some for the solutions of al these matters vvil flie to priuate illumination or inspiration of the spirit and pleade that to proue the certaine truth of their interpretations of holy Scriptures but first such persons if vve beleeue Field Field booke 4 of the Church chap. 16. See also Whitaker de Ecclesia cōtrouers 2. q. 4. cap. 3. pag. 278. are accursed by the common consent of Protestants if as the Enthusiasts they neglect the common rules of direction Secondly I haue at large * Part. 2. chap. 5. sect 1. before proued al such illuminations to be vncertaine and that no priuate man is by any such meanes ordinarily directed by God into the truth something also concerning this point shal be said in the next section SECTION THE FOVRTH 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 BECAVSE the doctrine of Field is commonly singular in so much that I thinke I may very wel in some sort liken the platforme or order and faith of a Church set downe in his bookes of this argument to Sir Thomas Moores Eutopia for that there neither is nor euer vvil be any such Church in the world as he describeth I am and shal be forced especially in my treatise of the definition and notes of the Church to dispute against him in particular and seuer him from al his bretheren Part. 2. chap. 5. sect 4. We haue heard him before acknowledging the Scriptures to be hard and obscure of which it seemeth to followe that except he assigne vs some diuine rule vvhereby we may come to an infallible knowledge of the true sense of them we can neuer infallibly assure our selues of their true interpretation He telleth vs therefore first that men not neglecting that light of direction which the Church yeeldeth Field booke 4 chap. 15. nor other helps and meanes may be assured out of the nature of the thinges themselues the conference of places the knowledge of tongues and the sutable correspondence that one part of diuine truth hath with another that they haue found out the true meaning of it and so be able to conuince the aduersaries and gaine saiers Thus Field But howe friuolous this his assertion is it vvil appeare by the confutation of his rules vvhich he vvil haue vs obserue and helps vvhich he saith vve must trust vnto in interpreting the Scriptures What rules and helps are then assigned by him let vs recite and for auoiding of repetition togither confute them Ibid. chap. 19 these are his vvordes Touching the rules we are to followe the helps we are to trust vnto and the thinges required in the interpretation of Scripture I thinke we may thus resolue First there is required an illumination of the vnderstanding for the natural man perceiueth not the thinges of God for they are spiritually discerned but the spiritual man judgeth al thinges and himselfe is judged of none This is the first helpe concerning which I first demand howe a man shal infallibly knowe that he hath such an illumination or that he is a spiritual man if he answere that it is knowne by this that a man feeleth himselfe thus and thus affected I vrge further and aske by vvhat diuine testimony or firme reason he knoweth that a man feeling himselfe so affected hath an illumination of the vnderstanding from God and is a spiritual man verily seing that Luther and Caluin both boasted of such an illumination and yet one of them was deceiued 2. Cor. 11 14 seing also that the Diuel doth often transfigure himselfe into an Angel of light as S. Paul vvarneth vs and as our aduersaries vvil grant it hapneth to the Anabaptists and others seing moreouer 1. Iohn 4. v. 1. Caluin alleaged in the 8. section of this chapter that the Apostle S. Iohn biddeth vs not beleeue euery spirit but proue the spirits if they be of God vvhich Caluin also thinketh necessary he must alleage or knowe some such testimony or reason or else he cannot ordinarily haue supernatural knowledge of it which neuerthelesse at the least is necessarily required to this that the exposition of the place of Scripture expounded be an inducement or ground of supernatural faith And vvhat diuine testimony can he alleage no other I thinke but Scripture or diuine inspiration if Scripture then another question may be asked howe he knoweth himselfe rightly to vnderstand that place of Scripture if inspiration I demand in like sort howe he knoweth it to be diuine and not diabolical and so of both these answeres wil follow a processe without end Secondly of this rule it may be inferred not only against Field but al our aduersaries that our faith is not built vpon only
Scripture for a man as Field saith must be spiritual before he can vnderstand the Scripture and howe spiritual vvithout faith and vvhereupon shal this faith be built vpon the Scripture this cannot be because without it he cannot vnderstand the Scripture and howe can he build his faith vpon Scripture before he vnderstandeth it of which it followeth as I haue said that the Scripture is not the first and only rule of our faith as they affirme Neither can it be auerred that the first faith is not properly faith for as they confesse it maketh a man spiritual and is the ground of the vnderstanding the true sense of Scripture and consequently must be a true faith and properly so called Secondly Field requireth a minde free from the thought of other thinges depending on God as the fountaine of illumination desiâ—â—â—s of the truth with resolution to imbrace it though contrary to the conceit of natural men But first this also seemeth to presuppose faith and grace yea some extraordinary perfection more then is ordinarily found in the greater part of Christians Secondly I dislike those his vvordes desirous of the truth with resolution to imbrace it if they be vnderstood of matters of faith for they seeme to pretend a certaine kinde of doubt and staggering vvhich must not be allowed in such points especially in spiritual men as before Thirdly he thinketh the knowledge of the rule of faith formerly set downe necessary as also of the practise of the Saints according to the same Of this his rule of faith formerly by him set downe booke 3. chap. 4. I haue said something before Part. 2. chap. 4. As touching this his present doctrine it is certaine that most men wil not allow of his said rule but either vvil condemne it as insufficient in not conteining al thinges necessary or as ouer-large in containing thinges superfluous vvherefore this his third rule in this part is very vncertaine But in very deede that the Scriptures ought to be interpreted according to the rule of faith that is the whole summe of Christian religion preserued as a Depositum in the Church Part. 1. chap. 7. sect 5. I haue proued in the first part of this Treatise Moreouer as before I argued against the first rules so I argue against this that of it may be inferred that our faith is not built vpon the holy Scripture because the rule of faith must be a rule by vvhich the scriptures are to be expounded of which it followeth that it selfe is not knowne and belieued through the authority of the scripture Against the second part of this rule I oppose only Part. 2. chap. 4. that according to his groundes of which I haue discoursed before the practise of the Saints can very hardly be gathered out of the monuments of antiquity especially concerning such matters as Field denieth to be of the substance of our faith vvherefore this also maketh euery exposition of scripture obscure and of an vncertaine truth Fourthly is required saith he a due consideration what wil followe vpon our interpretation agreing with or contrary to the thinges generally receiued and beleeued among Christians in which consideration the conference of other places of Scripture and the thinges there deliuered is necessary To this I say first that if Luther had wel obserued this rule he had neuer broached newe doctrine in the Church Secondly the insufficiency of it is euident See before Part. 2. chap. 4. if Fields doctrine before set downe concerning the errour of almost al Christians be true Fiftly he requireth the consideration of the circumstances of the places interpreted the occasion of the wordes the thinges going before and following after Sixtly he also requireth the knowledge of al those Histories arts and sciences which may helpe vs. Both these I let passe as necessary yet not as sufficient to giue vs infallible assurance Seauenthly he thinketh the knowledge of the original tongues necessary and of the phrases and Idiotismes of them To which I say that although I thinke this a great helpe yea absolutely necessary according to the Protestant doctrine because they make the scripture the only ground of their faith and neuerthelesse haue no diuine meane or prudent reason to assure themselues that any one hath translated them truly yet it cannot be sufficient Neither is it according to our Catholike proceedings so needful both because vve are sure that we haue the text truly translated and also because we make not the scripture the propounder of our beliefe but expound it according to the rule of faith deliuered and receiued These are M. Fields helps and rules which he setteth downe as a meane where by we may be assured that vve haue found out the true meaning of scripture And although euery man may perceiue by that vvhich I haue said against some of them in particular howe vveake and doubtful they are Yet I vvil adde a vvord or two of them in general And first I aske M. Field howe he knoweth these his helps and rules to be sufficient can he proue their sufficiency by any diuine testimony or infallible argument nothing lesse and therefore I imagine that in the beginning he doth not so confidently affirme it but vseth these vvordes I thinke we may thus resolue and yet that diuine proofe or at the least some forcible reason is necessary it can not be denied because the true interpretation of Scripture is their principal ground of faith no interpretation in a matter doubtful can be infallibly knowne otherwise then by the aforesaid meanes Are also al these his helps and rules necessary See Willet in his Synopsis controuers 1. quaest 7. See also part 2. chap. 5. sect 1. before neither this vvil be admitted by his bretheren vvho reject the greater part of them and he must needes in a matter of such importance as this is according to their principles condemne them of great ignorance and errour if he absolutely affirme them al necessary Secondly I gather out of these rules that no man can diuinely or infallibly assure himselfe of the truth of any other mans exposition This is manifest because no man can by diuine testimony or prudential ground know that any other man hath sufficiently proceeded according to al these rules nay what ignorant person can so knowe the sufficiency of any learned man that he is sufficiently instructed in the tongues c. that he may embrace his opinion as diuine Finally no man can after this sort assuredly knowe that an other hath an illumination of the vnderstanding and that his mind is disposed according to the second rule which thinges neuerthelesse Field vvil haue required for the attaining of the right vnderstanding of holy Scripture Thirdly that appeareth to be very false vvhich is auerred by Field to vvit that a man following such directions as he prescribeth may not only assure himselfe of the truth of holy Scriptures but also conuince the aduersaries and gainesaiers for
no part of this assertion is true The first is shewed false in my discourse of some particular rules especially by this that no man can assure himselfe that the hath an illumination of the vnderstanding vnto vvhich I here adde that he cannot likewise assure himselfe that he hath exactly obserued such rules and that he is euery way sufficiently disposed in minde and furnished with learning according as they require neither can he lastly proue the sufficiency of them as I haue also shewed The second part of his assertion is much lesse true for no man can proue the truth of that to an other of which he cannot be assured himselfe Fourthly I may inferre that no man who obserueth not these rules hath true faith and the reason is manifest because the Scripture thus interpreted as Field saith is the ground of their faith Field booke 3 chap. 42. §. if this kinde wherefore whosoeuer expoundeth it otherwise is not faithful By which I exclude from the number of the faithful according to this rule not only such men as are carnal not spiritual and such as are not disposed in minde according to the second rule but also al persons vnlearned vvho haue not the knowledge of such histories arts and sciences as may helpe nor of the original tongues according to the two last rules Neither can it be said that such are to learne of others for as I haue proued in my second illation or collection no man can infallibly assure himselfe that another doth interpret truly And this maketh the matter the more doubtful that commonly what exposition soeuer he followe he hath more euen of the newe religion it selfe against him then vvith him yea he may finde the best of them erroneous in some points and consequently hath cause to distrust their judgement in others Fiftly out of this discourse it is euident that although we should grant this to M. Field that the bare letter of holy Scripture is sufficiently knowne by such meanes as I haue before related out of him confuted yet the true interpretation being so obscure and not certainely to be knowne by these his rules it is euident I say that whosoeuer grounding vpon these only embraceth any interpretation as diuine buildeth vpon his owne judgement and fancy not vpon diuine authority And of this and that vvhich hath already beene said in this chapter and before I finally inferre that the vvhole faith of the newe sectaries is vncertaine and lastly resolued to their owne judgement and fancy It is vncertaine because they assigne no certaine and infallible rule by vvhich they can assuredly knowe the letter or true sense of holie Scripture which they make the only ground of their faith of which accorning to the judgement of M. Whitaker in the like case Whitaker de Eccles contra Bellar. cōtrouers 2. quaest 4. cap. 3. pag. 278. as also according to al reason must needes followe an vncertainety of truth in their whole beliefe that their faith is likewise lastly resolued to their owne judgement and fancy it is apparant For although Field tel vs that * Field booke 4. chap. 13. the judgement of God the Father as supreame the judgement of the Sonne as the eternal word of God of the spirit as the fountaine of al illumination making them discerne what is true is that in which they finally rest And that the judgement or determination of the word of God is that wherein they rest as the rule of their faith and the light of diuine vnderstanding as that whereby they judge of al thinges And both he and the rest seeme to resolue al to the bare letter of holy Scripture yet it is euident that their last resolution is not the letter both because al Christians as wel as they commonly receiue the letter and consequently if the last difficulty vvere touching the letter al vvould easily be brought to an agreement And also because as Field very vvel noteth out of S. Hierome Cha. 18. ibid. Hieron in epist ad Galat cap. 1. The Gospel consisteth not in the wordes of Scripture but in the sense and meaning not in the outward rinde and skinne but in the inward path and marrowe not in the leaues of the wordes but in the roote and ground of reason of which it appeareth that the last resolution is to the sense Seing therefore that al our aduersaries in translating and expounding the Scripture build vpon their owne judgement it is euident that in their owne judgement not in the holy Scripture they set vp their last resolution in matters of faith Neither would they obtaine any other more sound foundation and stronger stay if we should grant that they remit al thinges finally to the letter of holy Scripture for this also they receiue and reject according to their owne fancies as I haue proued And in very truth I cannot sufficiently meruaile that M. Field or any other man of judgement and learning doth run these courses I meane impugne our doctrine concerning these points as absurd and in some sort impossible vvhich in deede is most prudent and diuine and fal into most grosse absurdities and inconueniences themselues For vvhereas according to the first opinion aboue related vve lastly resolue our faith into diuine reuelation vvhereunto we are aided and inclined to giue assent by the supernatural light of faith vvhich vvith vs concurreth to euery supernatural act of beliefe vnto vvhich we are prepared and disposed by most prudential motiues and arguments of credibility And vvhereas in the first act of faith we include the beliefe of a general rule by vvhich we are to be directed and which we are bound humbly to followe in al particular points of beliefe and consequently for the preseruation of vnity and deciding of controuersies acknowledge one supreame diuine and definitiue authority on earth They impugne our assertions and obtrude vnto vs for an only ground of our faith and a directour of our beliefe the holy Scripture and giue vs no prudential rules which may giue a prudent man any assured meanes how to knowe vvhich is the true letter or which is the true sense of the same Yea assigne such meanes and rules which are proued insufficient by their owne dissention concerning these very points And besides this that vvhich we vpon such prudential motiues giue to a general authority Field booke 4 cap. 13. they rejecting with Field al such general authority must needes giue without al reason to euery particular man which is the roote of al pride and a fountaine of discord and diuision contrary to experience and not warranted by Scripture or else grant themselues to haue no faith And this is true whether they vvil haue themselues secured of the truth of their judgement by particular and extraordinary inspirations of the spirit or by the light of diuine vnderstanding or grace as Field calleth it ordinarily found in euery spiritual person See Aberus contra Carolostadian c. 7. And in
stil doubtful in this principal article of Christian religion or else going back to his Bible againe out of his owne judgement he must resolue to followe one of the aforesaid interpretations and to condemne the other as contrary to the vvord of God And vvhat a slender ground of faith is this yea seing that he hath no diuine authority vvhereon he buildeth I may boldly say that he hath no faith at al but only a kinde of opinion And like as I haue exemplified in this particular controuersie so could I doe concerning the real presence and the true sense of those vvordes This is my body or any other matter or place of Scripture in question betweene vs as my reader wil easily graunt for there is the like reason of them al and thus much concerning the vnlearned sectarie that can reade But what shal we say of him that is altogether ignorant and cannot reade The learned sectaries cannot send him to their Bible to search out the truth He cannot likewise conferre one place of scripture vvith another his praiers be of no greater force then his be that can reade wherefore he hath no other meane left but the aduise of the learned and his owne judgement and what wil the aduise of the learned helpe and auaile him if he finde among them possibility of errour and dissention These thinges he cannot but finde yea concerning that very text first alleaged The father is greater then I they are at variance for vvhereas some restraine it only to the humane nature of Christ Caluin saith He doubteth not to extend it to the whole complexum Caluin epist 2. ad Polonos seu in admonitione ad Polonos or person of God and man And certaine it is that if this ignorant person imbrace any one opinion as certaine concerning a matter of which he was before doubtful that he must either build vpon his owne judgement or otherwise he must take the vvorde of some learned man that the opinion which he followeth is true and vpon it ground his faith religion and saluation But vvhat reason hath he to accept rather of the word of one minister then of another For example what reason hath he in the exposition of those wordes This is my body rather to followe the Sacramentaries then the Lutherans are they not al alike subject to errors he cannot say that the scripture moueth him so to doe because he knoweth the Scripture only by the report of others Neither hath he any infallible rule whereby to discerne the true sense wherefore it is his owne fancy which perswadeth him to accept of the one exposition and to reject the other And doth not also this sectary although altogether vnlearned take vpon him to judge the learned Can he possibly beleeue the Sacramentary except he judge his doctrine to be true condemne al the learned Lutherans Can he follow the Protestants and not condemne the Puritans c. verily he cannot And vvhat a simple judge is he being a man ignorant voide of learning and commonly of a slender vvit and judgement And like as euery vnlearned sectary condemneth al the rest that dissent from him in opinion so al the rest condemne him For if he follow the Protestants al the Puritans tel him that he is deceiued if the Puritans the Protestants tel him the like tale If he beleeue Zwinglius Luther condemneth him to the pit of hel if Luther Zwinglius pronounceth the same judgement against him c. And of vvhat opinion soeuer he be certaine it is that more of his owne brethren condemne then approue his beliefe He is therefore in a most miserable and lamentable case both because he hath no ground of his faith but the vvord of a fewe ministers and his owne weake judgement and also because he is condemned of errour euen by those of his owne profession euen as learned and as vvise as they whome he followeth and farre exceeding himselfe in al such qualities And this is the ordinary manner of proceeding of the learned sectaries with the vnlearned and ignorant these grounds of faith and no others they receiue from them If any man doubt of the truth of this discourse let him exactly and strictly examine either the learned what grounds of faith they can afforde the vnlearned and ignorant or these vvhat groundes they receiue and vvhy they beleeue thus and thus touching any article of religion and their owne confession wil teach him that al which hath beene said is true and that the last and chiefest cause of this or that beliefe in the vnlearned and ignorant is their owne judgement or the opinion of the learned liking their owne fancy SECTION THE EIGHT That the newe sectaries alleage Scriptures to confirme their newe doctrine it is no certaine argument that they build their faith and religion vpon the said Scriptures TO proue that the professors of the newe religion ground their faith and religion vpon the holy Scripture some wil say that they alleage sentences of the said Scripture in great abundance in confirmation of their doctrine vnto whome I answere that true it is that so they doe But I adde that this is no sufficient argument to proue that which is intended And first let euery man deluded by such their proceedings consider that al the ancient Heretikes haue done the like Did not Arius Macedonius Nestorius Eutiches and other Arch-heretikes together with their followers for proofe of their heresies bring forth diuers places of holy Scripture Of this Vincentius Lirinensis who flourished almost twelue hundred yeares since Vincent Lirinens aduers prophanas haeresum nouitates c. 35. is a sufficient witnesse for of the ancient Heretikes alleaging of the word of God he writeth thus Here perhaps some man may demand whether Heretikes also doe vse the testimony of holy Scripture To which I say that they doe and that very earnestly for a man may behold them ranging and coursing in euery part of the Bible in Moises in the bookes of the Kinges in the Psalmes in the Apostles in the Gospels in the Prophets For whether they be among their owne brethren or with strangers whether in priuate or in publike whether in talking or in writing whether in the house a feasting or abroade in walking they almost neuer alleage any thing of their owne which they doe not pretend to shadowe with the sacred word of Scripture Reade the pamphlets of Paul as Sumosatenus of Priscillian Eunomius Iouinian and the rest of such like pestilent Heretikes and you shal finde through al their workes an huge heape of examples almost no page omitted which is not coloured and painted with the sayings of the old and new Testament thus farre Vincentius Lirinensis Origen tom 1 homil 7. in Ezechiëlem Of this point also Origenes discourseth after this sort When to defend false opinions we say it is written in the Prophet Moises testifieth this the Apostle speaketh it What other thing doe we but taking the
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
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
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
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
forced to acknowledge that the Church hath authority to prescribe orders for her gouernement vvhich euery one is bound to obey Yea Field Hutton and Gabriel Powel seeme to make the constitutions of the Church equal vvith those of the Apostles For the first of them auoucheth that both thinges which c Field booke 4. chap. 20. § that the Apostles the Apostles themselues deliuered by tradition and also such thinges as were deliuered by their next after-commers are dispensable by the authority of the Church And howe so if the Church hath not Apostolike authority surely his reason assigned is because the Apostles and Apostolike men did not deliuer them as reporting the immediate preceptes of Christ himselfe but by vertue of their Pastoral power and office of vvhich it seemeth plainely to followe that he yeelding the Church authority to dispense in them giueth her equal Apostolike power Hutton in his answ to a treatise of the Crosse in baptisme pag. 3. and 59. see also pag. 9. Hutton affirmeth Ecclesiastical constitutions made by the Church of Christ not to be meerely humane but in part diuine And the reason is saith he because the Church is ruled by the spirit of Christ who is the truth Againe if you make your comparison betweene that which God hath commanded and that which the Church of God hath ordained the difference is not so great as you would haue it Let Gods commandement haue worthily the first place and preheminence in al thinges as is meete but let the ordinances of the Church be immediately subordinate vnto Gods commandement and ranged in a second place not only because the Church of God heareth his voice but also because she is ruled by his spirit and by the great and pretious promises of God is made partaker of the diuine nature which no doubt doth assist them euen in the lawes also and constitutions which are made for order and decency in the Church Hitherto are Huttons vvordes Powels wordes are these Those Adiophora or thinges indifferent Gabriel Powellus in the sibus de Adiaphoris ca. 2. §. 7. 8 which are wel and lawfully instituted and approued by the Church are after such sort humane as they are also diuine and therefore they haue authority more then only humane yea they haue authority altogether diuine The reason is because the Church is gouerned by the spirit of Christ who is truth Againe * Ibid. cap. 3. §. 6. 7 God left it in the power and wil of the Chruch to dispose and ordaine for her owne conseruation profit comlinesse order and discipline al thinges indifferent ceremonies and external rites which manifestly appeareth out of the holy Scriptures themselues to haue beene true of the primatiue Church in the Apostles daies neither can any man denie it to be true of the present Church For seing that it is the same spirit gouerning the Church of al times why may it not likewise be lawful for the Church to institute lawes concerning external rites in times ensuing Thus Powel And out of these assertions of our aduersaries I thinke a prudent man wil wel inferre that our doctrine concerning the infallible judgement of the Church in matters of faith euen according to their proceedinges is very reasonable and consonant to holy Scripture For seing that vnitie and consent in faith is farre more necessary then vnity and consent in ceremonies and positiue ordinances for gouernement vve may truly affirme that Christ vvas more careful for the preseruation of the first then of the second Seing further that the reasons and authorities of holy Scripture by them brought and generally al the promises of our Lord concerning the direction of the Church make as much nay commonly more for the first then for the second for they are principally concerning direction in truth we doe followe reason and the holy Scripture in maintaining the first if they are not to be blamed for their maintenance of the second Seing moreouer that Field and Powel giue the present Church in al ages as great authority as it had the Apostles yet liuing and they vvere then not only ordainers of positiue lawes and orders but also infallible propounders of true doctrine and directors in matters of beleefe we haue no reason according to their ground to denie this prerogatiue to the same Church in al future times Seing finally that the Puritans denie the collection or deduction of either of these prerogatiues out of the Scripture and the Protestants auerre the plaine deduction of one and for this the Puritans condemne the Protestants we may wel imagine that the Puritans may erre in denying both and that the Protestants are to graunt the one as wel as the other and consequently that the Catholike truth should be imbraced by al. SECTION THE FIFT That the testimonies of holy Scripture and other proofes brought for the infallible and diuine authority of the Church cannot be applied to the Church considered as it comprehendeth al faithful Christians that are and haue beene since Christes ascension or since the Apostles daies but vnto the present Church of al ages BEFORE I end this chapter I thinke it not amisse to confute two or three opinions of our aduersaries of which al seeme in some sort to derogate from the truth of those thinges which I haue here auerred and to weaken their principal proofes Booke 4. chap. 1. 2. 3. 5. 13. The one is of M. Field who telleth vs that we may speake of the Church three manner of waies First as it comprehendeth al the faithful that are and haue beene since Christ appeared in flesh including also the Apostles Secondly as it comprehendeth al that are and haue beene since the Apostles time Lastly as it comprehendeth those only that are liuing at one present time in the world In the first signification he freeth it from ignorance and errour concerning matters of faith in the second from errour only and in the third not from errour in al articles of beleefe but in such only as euery man is bound expresly to knowe and beleeue wherefore Chap. 5. he applieth that promise of Christ aboue mentioned that the holy Ghost should teach the Church al truth to the Church in the first and second signification Another assertion is that the present Church may be said at al times to be the piller of truth and not to erre because it retaineth alwaies as Field speaketh a sauing profession of heauenly truth that is Chap. 4. §. the Church Field booke 3. chap. 4. and 3. true doctrine concerning al such principal pointes as are the substance of faith and needful to be knowne beleeued expresly by euery man Hence they assigne some such principal points and articles which they binde euery person to knowe and beleeue vnder peril of eternal damnation and deny asmuch as the virtual beleefe of others to be necessary which I place as a third absurd opinion To confute these assertions and to cleere the truth
prerogatiues vpon his spiritual Body and Spouse but perhaps these prerogatiues redound greatly to the good and benefite of the members and children of the Church Neither this can be auerred true for vvhat are poore Christians the nearer for it howe can such a Church be the director of their faith howe shal they knowe vvhat faith vvas preached by the Apostles and vvhat part taught true doctrine and vvhen and vvhich erred in subsequent ages howe shal vve vnderstand her judicial sentence vvhen controuersies arise and are to be decided surely they that are past and are departed out of this world can performe these thinges by no other meanes but by their writinges left behind them wherefore we can take no other direction and receiue no other judicial sentence from the Church in the first and second acception but by such monuments and bookes as we haue receiued from the Apostles Euangelistes the ancient Fathers and Doctors and other our predecessours And vvhat is this but to reduce al to the letter of holy Scripture and to the workes of antiquity which as I wil prooue hereafter setting aside the authority of the present Church yeelde vs no certaine and diuine argument and to giue nothing at al to the Church it selfe contrary to al the argumentes before made for her infallible authority Finally some of the places of Scripture before aleadged are expresly spoken of the present Church as that tel the Church If he shal not heare the Church let him he to thee as the Heathen or Publican c. SECTION THE SIXT That the same testimonies and proofes conuince an infallible judgement of the Church concerning euery article of faith not only concerning certaine of the principal SECONDLY that the testimonies of holy Scriptures and Fathers with the reasons brought in this Chapter proue the judgement authority of the Church to be of diuine and infallible truth in al points of faith it is euen as easily shewed For are not the vvordes general Is it not said that the holy Ghost shal teach the Church al truth and that she being the house of God is the piller and ground of truth c. And howe can these promises be verified if in some thinges she be subject to errour Field booke 4. chap. 4. Some say these last vvordes of the Apostle are vnderstood of the particuler Church of the Ephesians but first it is not like that God bestowed such an extraordinary priuiledge vpon that Church as to make it the piller and ground of truth Secondly the Apostle calleth that Church vnto which he here giueth these prerogatiues the house of God by which wordes a Cipr. l. 1. epist 6. S. Ciprian b Aug. l. 7. de baptis cōt Donat. ca. 49. 50. 51. Item in psalm 25. enarrat 2. S. Augustine and al the Fathers commonly vnderstand the whole militant Church yea S. Augustine alluding to this sentence and vsing the very vvordes of the Apostle calleth the whole Church * 2. Tim. 2. vers 20. columnam firmamentum veritatis the piller and ground of truth and in the Scripture it selfe the vvhole militant Church is called a great house as a Field booke 1. chap. 11. Field himselfe cōfesseth And because euery particuler Diocesse is a part of this Church the Apostle might very wel vse this kinde of speach vnto Timothie I write to thee that thou maist knowe howe thou oughtest to conuerse in the house of God although the said Timothie was Bishop only of Ephesus Moreouer are vve not absolutely vnder peril of being accounted Heathens and Publicans bound to obey the Church and what reason had our Lord so to binde vs if in some thinges her judgement may be erroneous for howe shal we discerne which those articles be in which she cannot erre and in which she may erre Further vvhat profit if this vvere so shal vve receaue from her for the preseruation of vnitie and ending of al controuersies verily this assertion is euen as prejuditial to the good of vnitie as that which affirmeth the Church to haue no warrant of truth at al. For what dissention and diuision would arise of this might not euery man contradict the rule of faith in any matter whatsoeuer and affirme his contradiction to be in a matter of smal moment who shal judge which matters be of great and which of smal importance For example diuers sectaries tel vs See Couel in defence of Hooker artic 11. Fox pag. 942. c. that the question concerning the real presence of Christ in the blessed Sacrament whether he be there really and substantially by transubstantiation as the Catholikes affirme or together with bread as the Lutherans say or only figuratiuely as is affirmed by the Sacramentaries is a question of smal importance not any essential point belonging to the substance of Christian religion But howe wil these men refute Castalio who addeth if Beza say true that the controuersies touching the blessed Trinity the estate and office of Christ and howe he is one with his father are concerning no essential points of Christian religion certainely they cannot wel ouerthrowe his opinion And this is that which was in old time and is at this present affirmed by some See Theodoretus lib 2. hist cap. 18. 19. 21. Trip. hist lib. 5. cap. 21. 33. that so that Christ be beleeued to be God it skilleth not whether he be beleeued to be equal or not equal consubstantial or not consubstantial to his father Wherefore this assertion of our aduersaries that the rule of faith may in some points be denied first openeth the gappe to al dissention then to al impiety and ouerthrowe of Christianity which thinges be sufficient to perswade euery Christian to abhorre and detest it SECTION THE SEAVENTH That to saluation it is necessary to beleeue the whole Catholike faith and euery article thereof CONCERNING the third point vvhich I intended to proue I affirme that it is necessary to saluation to beleeue and hold either expresly or virtually euery article of faith which is propounded by the Church to her children to be beleeued I adde those wordes expresly or virtually because I say not that euery man is bound expresly to knowe al the articles of Christian religion For it is held by vs sufficient if the ruder sort knowe expresly certaine of the principal as are they that concerne the Trinity and the incarnation passion resurrection and ascension of Christ c. if they virtually beleeue al the rest that is if they beleeue concerning al such points as they are not bound expresly to know whatsoeuer according to the doctrine of the church ought to be beleeued and be of contrary beleefe in no one point propounded vnto them and knowne to be propounded as an article of faith We differ therefore from our aduersaries in this that some of them hold a man is not bound to belieue any such articles not necessarily to be knowne by al others say a man may erre
his holy spirit it must needes followe that vvhosoeuer is infected with any one such heresie is void of al spiritual life and in state of damnation and can haue no more life then a mans arme cut off from his body or a bough cut from a tree But of this matter I shal entreate more at large Chap. 1. Sect. 4. in my treatise of the definition and notes of the true Church vvhere I shal proue that the members of Christes Church are lincked together by the profession of the same vvhole summe of Christian doctrine and therefore for this present this shal suffice And lesse I thinke would haue satisfied any reasonable man for seing that there is but one true rule of beleefe Ephes 4. vers 4. and one faith according as vve are taught by the Apostle among Christians and this faith is so necessary to saluation as I haue proued before no wise-man wil prescribe himselfe a rule of faith according to his owne erroneous fancy and neglect the judgement of the Church whome truth it selfe hath warranted that she shal not erre from truth Chapter 7. Of the holy Scripture which is the first particuler ground of faith in the Catholike Church SECTION THE FIRST Howe the Scripture is knowne to be Canonical THE supreame authority and infallible judgement of the Church being thus established and proued it may wel in this place be demanded vvhat particuler groundes decrees or principles the Church doth deliuer vnto vs or we finde in the Church whereupon we may securely build our faith For the resolution of this question I haue affirmed in the title of this Chapter that the first such particuler ground is the holy Scripture And although there be no controuersie betweene vs and our aduersaries concerning the authority of diuers bookes of the said holy Scripture for most of them by vs al are confessed to be Canonical yet much difference there is betweene vs concerning the meanes by vvhich vve knowe the holie Scripture and euery parcel thereof to be the true vvord of God and vvho is to be judge of the true sence of these diuine volumes vvherefore these points are briefly to be handled and discussed Howe then doe vve knowe that the old and newe Testament are Canonical howe can vve certainely assure our selues that the Apostles and Disciples vvrote the newe vvhat proofe likevvise haue vve to perswade vs that no part of the holie Scripture hath beene in times past corrupted or depraued I answere in fewe vvordes that al this is infallibly knowne vnto vs by the authority and judgement of the Catholike Church vvho hath adjudged al such bookes to be Canonical and as Canonical receiued them and deliuered them to her children I denie not but the Scriptures before the definition and censure of the Church vvere true and contained the certaine and sincere vvord of God but this only I say that this truth and authority was first infallibly knowne vnto vs by the Church vvho adjudged and censured them to be as they are and as such commanded al Christians to esteeme and reuerence them Neither is this any waies prejudicial to the dignity and authority of the holie Scripture for this notwithstanding vve confesse that the said Scripture is of farre greater authority then the Church or her definitions be vvhich is manifest because although the holie Ghost assist and direct both the vvriters of holie Scripture and the Church yet certaine it is that hee hath assisted and directed the first after a farre more excellent manner then he doth the second because his assistance and direction in penning those sacred bookes vvas such that euery sentence in them contained is of most certaine verity but his assistance vnto the Church vvhether it be in a general Councel or otherwise in the decrees of the Bishop of Rome maketh only that vvhich the said Councel or Bishop intend to define of such an infallible truth Wherefore then doe vve proue the Scripture to be Canonical by the authority of the Church Surely for no other reason then because the Church is better knowne vnto vs then the Scripture For the Church hath alwaies beene as I vvil proue hereafter most visible and apparant to the vvhole vvorld euery man also before that the newe Testament vvas written before that it vvas generally receiued by the Church might haue knowne the Church for she vvas before any part of it was penned and consequently by her infallible judgement euery one might with farre more ease and certainety haue come to the knowledge of such bookes then by any other meanes or industry Wherefore to conclude although the Church maketh not Scripture yet of her we learne most certainely which is Scripture And this is no more disgrace vnto Scripture then it was vnto Christ that the Apostles gaue testimony of him because they were better knowne then he I adde also that euery one of them who aboue al others reprehend this our assertion taketh vpon himselfe as great authority ouer Scriptures as vve giue to the whole Church See part second chap. 5. Sect. 1. For euery newe sectarie out of his owne fancy judgeth this to be Scripture that to be none c. vvhich must needes be in euery mans judgement farre more absurd This assertion being thus explicated let vs nowe briefly proue the same And first because vve can assigne no other meanes by vvhich vve may say that vve certainely knowe the Scripture to be Canonical but the authority of the Church And as concerning the old Testament although vve graunt that the authority thereof vvas first partly approued by miracles partly by the testimony of Prophets and partly by the authority of the Church in those daies yet howe doe vve nowe infallibly knowe that it vvas so approued and that it is the selfe same nowe that vvas then approued but by the relation tradition and censure of the Church But let vs come to the newe Testament and demand vvho hath receiued it into the Canon of holie Scripture vvhat miracles haue beene vvrought to proue it Canonical who doth assure vs that it vvas penned by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ and that since their daies it hath not beene corrupted Verily the Church only resolueth vs of al these questions and telleth vs vvith assurance of truth that the said newe Testament vvas vvritten by the said sacred authours inspired and directed by the holy Ghost and that euer since their daies it hath beene preserued in her sacred bosome vvithout corruption And no other answere hauing any probability of truth and sufficient to satisfie a reasonable mans vnderstanding can be made This may also be confirmed by the continual practise of the Church For no man can deny but it vvas her doing that the foure Gospels of S. Mathewe Marke Luke and Iohn See part 2 chap. 5. Sect. 2. were receiued and the Gospel called of Nicodemus with others rejected She hath likwise now receiued as Canonical diuers bookes in times past of
sentences in it are prophetical many parabolical many metaphorical which commonlie are ful of obscuritie Thirdly it is proper to Scripture to haue many senses vnder one letter as the literal sense which is that which the holy writer first intended and this sense sometimes is signified by proper words sometimes by wordes metaphorical and improper yea sometimes the literal sense of the same wordes is diuers It hath also a spiritual sense which is that which is signified by the thinges vnder the letter And this sense is either moral which is called also tropological when it tendeth to manners or allegorical when it tendeth to faith or the Church or anagogical when it tendeth to heauen or life euerlasting For example this vvord Hierusalem literally signifieth the Cittie so called morally the soule of man allegorically the Church militant and anagogically the Church triumphant Al these senses the wordes of Scripture beare and diuers of them not seldome were intended by the holy Ghost in the same sentence And what a difficult matter is it to discerne them I adde finally that sundrie misteries deliuered vnto vs in holy writ are high and aboue the reach of our natural reason Wherefore it is no meruaile if the sentences in which they are disclosed be hard and obscure Hence the prophet Dauid desired of God vnderstanding Psal 118. Iohn 5. verse 39. Luke 24. vers 45. that he might search his lawe Our Sauiour also willed the Iewes to search the Scriptures opened his Apostles and disciples vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures c which places plainly conuince the Scriptures to be hard SECTION THE THIRD The Scriptures may be falsly vnderstood and that euery priuate man may erre in the vnderstanding of them IN the second place I must proue that the Scriptures may be falsely vnderstood and that euery priuate man may erre in the translation or interpretation of the same This followeth of that which hath beene already said touching their obscuritie for if the Scripture be so obscure as I haue shewed these things must needs ensue And verily that the wordes of Scripture may receiue false interpretations 2. Pet. 3. verse 16. S. Peter aboue cited plainly auoucheth affirming that the vnlearned and vnstable euen in his daies depraued the epistles of S. Paul and other Scriptures to their owne perdition And it is a thing so manifest that it needeth no proofe for it is euident that al Heretikes heretofore haue alleaged Scriptures falsly expounded to confirme their heresies and this I wil declare more at large hereafter See part 2. cap. 8. sect 8. It is apparant also that in these our daies some in the world either Catholikes Lutherans Zuinglians Anabaptists or Libertines doe not giue the true sense of holy Scripture because it is impossible that more then one of these can haue the truth their expositions in diuers points be so diuers and contrary August tract 18. in Iohan. Aug. tom 3. de Gen. ad litterā li. 7. ca. 9. Vincent Lirin lib. cōtr propha haeres nouitates cap. 2. Barlow in his relatiō of the said conferēce pag. 61. Se part 2. c. 5. sect 1. yea S. Augustine affirmeth that heresies haue no other ofspring or roote then that good Scriptures are badly vnderstood In another place to the same effect he telleth vs that al Heretikes read Catholike Scriptures neither saith he are they for any other cause Heretikes then for that not vnderstanding them truly they defend obstinately their false opinions against the truth of them The same is declared by Vincentius Lirinensis in these wordes Al saith he take not the Scripture in one and the same sense because of the deepnes thereof but the speeches of it some interprete one way and some another way so that there may almost as many senses be picked out of it as there be men For Nouatus doth expounde it one way and Sabellius another way otherwise Donatus otherwise Arrius Eunomius Macedonius otherwise Iouinian Pelagius Celestius lastly otherwise Nestorius Hitherto Vincentius Lirinensis Hence our King in the conference held at Hampton Court betweene the Protestants and Puritans most discreetly affirmed that he would not wish al Canonical bookes to be read in the Church vnlesse there were one to interprete them Moreouer that the judgement of euery priuate man as before is subject vnto errour and falshood in his translation or interpretation of holy Scripture it is graunted by some of our aduersaries and likewise easily proued First because he Scripture it selfe warranteth no priuate mans judgement from errour Nay S. Peter in expresse termes telleth vs 2. Pet. 1. verse 20. Se sect 5. following 1. Ioh. 4. verse 1. That no prophecie of Scripture is made by priuate interpretation that is to say that no Scripture ought to be expounded according to any priuate mans opinion for the vvord Prophecie signifieth the interpretation or exposition of holie Scripture as shal hereafter be proued The Apostle Saint Iohn teacheth vs the same lesson vvilling vs not to beleeue euery spirit but to proue the spirittes if they be of God And howe are vve to proue the spirittes vvithout al doubt not by our ovvne judgement vvhich is subject to errour but by considering vvhether they be consonant or no to the doctrine of the Catholike Church or the rule of faith receiued by tradition from the Apostles This appeareth by the discourse of the said Apostle following In vvhich to confute Cerinthus Ebion Basilides and other Heretikes vvho denied the diuinitie humanitie or vnion of two natures in Christ and to proue their spirits not to be from God he setteth downe the doctrine of the Church concerning those pointes and addeth these vvordes He that knoweth God heareth vs that is to say he that hath the knowledge of God by true supernaturall faith heareth and obeieth the Church But vvhat doe I vse many wordes in a matter so euident gathered out of our aduersaries owne proceedinges For the holy Ghost teacheth men but one truth seing therefore that there are among the newe Sectaries now in the vvorld so great dissentions and differences in opinions concerning the exposition of the selfe same wordes of Scripture it necessarily followeth that some of them expound the Scriptures falslie and seing that one of them hath no better warrant for his direction in truth then another vve may vvel affirme them al to be subject to errour and falsehood I adde also that euerie Sectarie must needes confesse euerie one of his Captaines I meane Luther Zuinglius Caluin and the rest to haue erred in some point or other touching the true sense of Scripture for almost no one Sectarie followeth any one of these in al pointes and approueth al his interpretations but if vve graunt them al to haue erred in some pointes vve may vvel inferre that they are subject to errour in al because their vvarrant is equal for al. Finally if we admit euery priuate mans spirit as a judge in such
matters vve take away al order in the Church and open the gappe to al Heretikes Some say that euerie man by conference of one place of Scripture vvith another See part 2. cap. 5. sect 4. may attaine to the knowledge of the true sense I replie that euery mans discourse in such pointes may be false and erroneous And it is wel knowne that diuers of our aduersaries haue conferred the same places and haue gathered out of them different senses vvhich cannot al be true Yea the same man not seldome at distinst times out of the same places conferred inferreth distinct conclusions and altereth his beliefe touching some article or other vvhich is a manifest proofe that this conference is no infallible rule I adde also that experience teacheth vs that such a conference sometimes encreaseth the difficulty See part 2. cap. 1. sect 4. maketh some shewe of contradiction which before appeared not as I wil declare hereafter Others say that by praier euery man may obtaine of God the direction of the holy Ghost for the finding out of the true sense But where hath God promised this Moreouer our praier is of no force except we pray as we ought And what is more vncertaine then this How then can we certainly knowe when God inspireth vs and much lesse how can we possibly assure others that we haue such a diuine inspiration Further diuers haue vsed likewise this meane and yet haue falne into errour yea after their praiers they haue had different inspirations and one hath affirmed himselfe to haue beene inspired by God thus and another thus c. Finally al Heretikes may challenge to themselues these shiftes for the proofe of their owne priuate and false expositions wherefore we must needes finde out some other rule more certaine SECTION THE FOVRTH That the letter of holy Scripture falsly interpreted is not the word of God THIRDLY I am to proue that a false or wrong exposition erroneously gathered out of the letter of holy Scripture or made vpon the same is not the word of God but the word of man yea sometimes the word of the deuil and consequently that the said letter of Scripture so vnderstood is subject to the same censure This is apparant because the Scripture is the true word of God in that sense only which was intended at the penning of it by the holy Ghost For example like as no Catholike Christian wil deny but those wordes of Christ Ioh. 14. verse 28. The father is greater then I if we vnderstand them in this sense that God the father is greater then Christ according to his humanity containe the true word of God so euery Catholike Christian if they be vnderstood as Arius expounded them that Christ according to his diuinity is inferior to his father wil affirme them to be the word of the deuil Hence proceed diuers notable sentences of the auncient Fathers Tertul. de praescript ca. 17. see him also cap. 9. Hillar li. 2. de Triuitat ad Constantium Ambros lib. 2. ad Gratianū cap. 1. Vincē Lirin li. aduers propha haeres nouitates cap. 37. Math. 4. verse 6 Hieron in dial cōtra Lucifer See Math 10. Luke 10. Hieron in cap. 1. ad Galat. among the rest Tertullian telleth vs that the sense of holy Scripture adultered doth impugne the truth at much as the stile corrupted S. Hillarie affirmeth that heresie ariseth of the vnderstanding not of the Scripture that the fault is in the sense not in the word that there is not one of the Heretikes that doth not lie and say that he preacheth those thinges in which he blasphemeth according to the Scriptures For hence saith he Marcellus when he readeth the word of God knoweth it not hence Photinus c. they all speake Scriptures with out sense they al pretend faith without faith for the Scriptures are not in the reading but in the vnderstanding c. These and other like discourses hath S. Hillary S. Ambrose is of the same opinion for he saith that although the text or letter haue no error yet the Arrian interpretation hath errour Vincentius Lirinensis comparing the Heretikes alleaging Scripture against Catholikes with the deuils alleaging the same to Christ discourseth after this sort And if any man aske any Heretike perswading him such thinges that is to forsake the doctrine and tradition of the Church how prouest thou how declarest thou that I ought to forsake the vniuersal and ancient faith presently he for it is written and forthwith he alleageth out of the lawe the psalmes the Apostles the Prophets a thousand testimonies a thousand examples a thousand authorities by which being interpreted after a new and naughty manner the vnhappy soule may be cast downe head-long from the Catholike tower Thus farre Vincentius Lirinensis But let vs heare the opinion of S. Hierome in this matter who aboue al the rest was conuersant in the holy Scripture these are his wordes The Scriptures consist not in the reading but in the vnderstanding otherwise if we follow the letter we also may frame vnto our selues a new opinion and affirme that they who weare shoes or haue two coates are not to be receiued into the Church He addeth in another place Marcion and Basillides and the other heretical plagues haue not the Gospel of God because they haue not the holy Ghost without which the Gospel which is taught is made humane or of men He telleth vs also that whosoeuer interpreteth the Gospel with another spirit and minde then it was written troubleth the faithful and turneth the Gospel of Christ vpside-downe that we must not thinke that the Gospel is in the wordes of the Scripture It is not saith he in the wordes but in the sense not in the superficies or out-side but in the marrow not in the leaues of the speaches or wordes but in the roote of reason Hence he concludeth with these wordes It is a very dangerous matter to speake or teach in the Church least that by peruerse interpretation the Gospel of Christ be made the Gospel of man or that which is worse the Gospel of the deuil Thus farre S. Hierome And this is that which the Apostle himselfe instructeth vs of when he affirmeth that the letter killeth but the spirit quickneth for the vertue and substance of Scriptures consisteth in their meaning and interpretation and so it is that the bare vvordes thereof are no more Scripture vvithout the spirit that is to say vvithout that sense which vvas intended by the holy Ghost when they were vvritten then the body of man is a man vvithout the soule yea if they be vvrested to a contrary or vvrong sense they kil and become poison vvhereas rightly vnderstood they containe diuine and heauenly doctrine And so this sentence of the Apostle is expounded by S. Augustine in diuers places of his vvorkes but in one place among the rest thus he discourseth a Aug. de spiritu litera c. 4. 5. li.
then before and by which our mindes are so diuinely lifted vp and affected as it were by a diuine testimonie that through it farre more strongly then by any humane motiues we are inclined to beleeue and made most firmly to rest in the diuine reuelation and so by this assistance of God together with the concourse of our vnderstanding an act of supernatural faith is produced by which we firmely beleeue the articles of Christian faith taught and propounded by the Catholike Church not for such and such motiues as before proued them credible but for that they are reuealed by almighty God And because one of these articles is that the Church in propounding particuler misteries of our faith cannot erre this also is beleeued among the rest vpon which as a common rule and guide we ground our beliefe as vpon a sure propounder of such thinges as we are bound to beleeue touching euerie other particuler article Hence ariseth a great difference betweene vs and some of the most learned of our aduersaries touching the decision of this question for although we both seeme to admit some supernatural aide light or habite to this that our vnderstanding produce an act of supernatural faith yet we differ much concerning the object of this act as also in the motiues or arguments of credibility which first induce vs to accept of the same For whereas we include in the first act of faith into which we are induced by the said motiues the beliefe of an infallible guide touching al particuler pointes they include no such matter but for their ground and guide in this act beleeued acknowledge only the letter of holy Scripture which verilie although we also in our aforesaid act include yet we giue it no such sole preheminence as is before declared And of this followeth a farre greater difference couching the arguments and proofes of our propounder and ground for whereas althe argumentes of credibility perswading vs that Christian religion is credible perswade vs also that the authority of the propounder of our faith I meane of the Catholike Church according to prudence may be beleeued infalliblie the said arguments are not sufficient in a wise mans judgement setting aside the said authoritie of the Church to make it credible vnto vs that euerie booke and parcel of holy Scripture commonly admitted is canonicall and diuine much lesse that euerie particuler exposition of Scripture by euerie priuate man accepted is diuine true And of this it proceedeth that they alleage no such forcible arguments of credibility for the proofe of this and that booke of Scripture nor for the truth of their interpretation of this and that sentence but for the first vsually flie to diuine illumination only joyned with the majestie of the letter or some such thing vvhich be no such arguments of credibility as I wil proue hereafter Part. 2. Chap. 5. and for the last some of them assigne certaine rules to be obserued vvhich in verie deede are insufficient as shal likewise hereafter be proued Hence they assigne no prudent motiues Ibid. c. 8. which perswade them to concurre with the supernatural helpe of God to a supernatural act of faith 2. Cor. 10. verse 5. Rom. 12. verse 1. Whereas God although he require of men an humble obsequie or obedience to faith yet propoundeth nothing to be beleeued which in the judgement of wise men is not credible and therefore also requireth a reasonable obsequie Verily if there were no other reason to perswade a man the truth of our doctrine this only would suffice that God doth vsually teach al by some common rule or meane which draweth men to vnity and humility not euerie one by priuate illumination or inspiration which is commonlie a motiue to pride and a fountaine of discord But Field vrgeth Field book 4. cap. 7. that by this doctrine we lastly resolue our faith to humane motiues and inducements I answere that concerning this matter two questions may be demaunded very much diuers First what moueth men to accept of the beliefe of such obscure articles as are those of Christian religion vnto which I make this answere that vnto this they are moued by such prudential or humane motiues as I haue assigned before Secondly it may be asked concerning the formal cause of faith it selfe why men now actually beleeue such obscure misteries And vnto this I say that the cause of their present beliefe is the reuelation of God or vvhich is al one the authority of God reuealing And because they are not sufficient of themselues supernaturally to beleeue such articles as so reuealed their vnderstanding is aided and inclined to this by the diuine gift of supernatural faith like as their wil by charity is aided and inclined to any act of supernatural loue which gift of faith together with their vnderstanding as I haue said produceth a supernatural act of beliefe wherfore we assigne not humane inducements as the formal cause but as the cause of the first acceptaunce of our faith and as into the formal cause we lastly resolue our faith into diuine reuelation And so I thinke this opinion sufficiently explicated But before I passe any further Field ibid. § Surely Stapheton in his Triplic contra Whitaker pag. 188. I cannot there but aduertise my reader that Field discoursing of this point wrongeth D. Stapleton very much For whereas he accuseth him as though in his Triplication against Whitaker he should affirme Other matters to be beleeued because contained in the Scripture and the Scripture because it is the word of God and that it is the word of God because the Church deliuereth it so to be and the Church because it is led by the spirit and that it is led by the spirit because it is so contained in the Scripture and the Creed Stapleton in verie deed in this last place hath no mention of the Scripture but of the Creed only True it is that he proueth against Whitaker out of the Scriprture a certaine internal motion of God by which we are moued to assent to this first proposition as he saith of our faith I beleeue the Catholike Church is infallibly gouerned by the holy Ghost and that she is to be heard and her voice obeyed but this is not to say that we beleeue the Church to be led by the spirit because it is so contained in the Scripture I come now to the second opinion Others therefore besides this diuine affection or inclination proceeding from the peculiar assistance of God in the act of faith being desirous also to assigne some other diuine and infallible reason mouing vs to beleeue affirme both that we beleeue the authority of the Church to be infallible because it is so reuealed in holy Scripture and also that we infalliblie knowe the Scriptures to be canonical because as canonical they are propounded vnto vs by the Church Neither doe they as they say in this kinde of proceeding commit anie absurd or vitious
circle because these two thinges are not motiues or reasons of the beliefe of one another after the selfe same manner but in two sundrie respects being so that we yeeld the reason why the Church cannot erre by the Scriptures as by a diuine reuelation approuing it For although we formally beleeue this because it is reuealed by God yet this reuelation vve proue by other reuelations contained in holy Scripture but that the Scripture is canonical although we formallie beleeue because God hath so reuealed yet this reuelation we proue not by any other reuelation but by the authority of the Church as a condition only requisite propounding it infallibly vnto vs. To make this assertion a little more plaine we must presuppose the truth of two propositions commonly held certaine in Philosophy the one is that two causes may for diuers respects be causes of one another so say the Philosophers the efficient cause is the cause of the being or existence the final cause and the final cause of the causality of the efficient For example when a Phisition doth administer phisicke to one that is sicke the final cause or end why he administreth phisicke is the health of the patient and the administring of the phisicke is the efficient cause of the sicke-mans health In like sort when the winde openeth a window it openeth it by entring in and entereth in by opening it so that the efficient cause of the opening the window is the motion of the entrance of the winde and the material cause and meane by which the winde entreth is the opening of the window because vnlesse the window be opened the winde cannot enter in Secondly it is also certaine that a meere condition necessarily requisite is no cause for example wood cannot be burned except it be put neare or in the fire and yet this approximation as I may cal it is not the cause to speake properly why the wood is burnt but a condition necessarie In like sort a lawe doth not binde except it be promulgated and yet the promulgation is not the cause why the law doth binde but a condition c. Now to come to the matter If two causes in some sort may be causes of one another wherefore may not we proue two propositions for diuers respects by one another That these respects be diuers in the proofe of the infallible authority of the Church by Scripture and of Scripture by the infallible authority of the Church it is manifest because the infallible authority of the Church is proued by Scripture as by a diuine reuelation the Scripture by the infallible authority of the church as by a condition requisite and that a cause and a condition be different I haue shewed We say therefore that Christ departing out of this vvorld left the whole summe of Christian doctrine with his holy spouse the Church and made her the infallible propounder of the same And being so that among other articles left this was one that she should not erre in executing her office this also she was to propound and her children by the diuine precept of God were bound to beleeue it Wherefore if in those daies before any Scripture of the new Testament was written a man had asked a Christian why he beleeued the misteries of Christian religion he might truly haue answered because they were reuealed by God If he had beene further demaunded how he knew such and such articles to be reuealed he might haue answered because the Church propounded them to be beleeued so that the cause why he beleeued such misteries was the reuelation of God the meane whereby he knew them infallibly to be reuealed was the propounding of the Church If he had bin vrged further why he beleeued that the Church in propounding such matters could not erre Surely he might haue said that this was before included in the beliefe of the misteries of Christian religion in general and consequently was beleeue because God so reuealed but let vs come to the succeeding ages The Apostles disciples of Christ whiles they liued wrote the holy Scriptures of the new Testament and left them to the Church in which among other misteries they confirmed vnto vs the authority of the Church and the Church propounded the said Scriptures vnto her children as Canonical Now then wherefore beleeue we or how doe we proue the Church cannot erre I answere by the reuelation of God contained in holy Scripture If it be demaunded further howe vve knowe such a reuelation to be diuine I answere not by any other diuine reuelation because this is the last and beleeued for it selfe but by the proposition or propounding of the Church which is only a condition requisite for the beliefe of it and yet a diuine proofe So that the reason or cause why we beleeue the Church cannot erre is the reuelation of God contained in holy Scripture the cause vvhy vve beleeue such a reuelation is no other reuelation but it selfe the meane whereby vve come to knowe that this reuelation is from God is the proposition of the Church wherefore the respects are diuers and also the objects of these assertions The respects because when we assigne the diuine reuelations contained in holy Scripture as the reason of our beliefe concerning the infallible authority of the Church we assigne a reason as it were by the cause of our said beliefe which is diuine reuelation But when assigne the propounding of the Church as that which moueth vs to beleeue the Scripture we assigne not a reason by the cause of this our beliefe which is diuine reuelation but by a conditon infallibly guiding vs as is aforesaide The objects also of these two reasons yeelded of our beliefe are diuers For the object of the diuine reuelations contained in holy Scripture assigned as the reason of our beliefe of the Church are the verities or thinges themselues reuealed and beleeued but the object of the propounding or proposition of the Church requisite for our beliefe of Scripture are the reuelations themselues contained in the saide Scripture For by it we are taught that the Scripture containeth diuine reuelations and is the true word of God And thus much of the second opinion concerning the solution of the question propounded which in truth giueth vs a very good method how to answere the cauils our aduersaries and rather addeth something to the former then is otherwise different from it For the authors following this opinion to this that we beleeue or accept of Christian faith as true require also the aforesaide inducements or arguments of credibility but moreouer they assigne a diuine proofe or reason built vpon diuine authority which moueth vs to the saide act of beliefe For as I haue declared they affirme that the infallible authority of the Church which is the general propounder of al particuler articles of faith is knowne and proued by holy Scripture as by a diuine reuelation they adde also that the truth of holy Scripture is as certainly
knowne proued by the authority of the Church as by a diuine propounder Neither doe I imagine that the followers or maintainers of this opinion doe intend to affirme that in euery processe of beliefe touching any article it is necessarie that we resolue it lastly to the holy Scripture for I thinke that notwithstanding that which hath beene said if we be asked why we beleeue the whole summe of Christian doctrine or any point thereof we may wel answere because it is reuealed by God And if further we be demaunded how infallibly and diuinely we knowe it to be so reuealed we may answere because it is propounded by the Church Neuerthelesse the first opinion of it selfe is sufficient although this may seeme more exact especially in Schooles Neither doe I or any Catholike affirme the knowledge of these pointes to be neccessary to euery faithful Christian for it is sufficient that they beleeue al such things as are propounded by the Church because they are reueled by God which is done by the helpe of supernatural faith Nay I doe not think it is needful that they expresly knowe this infallible authority of the Church as propounder of such verities or al such prudential motiues as are before mentioned But I deeme it sufficient that they beleeue such reuealed verities as they are bound to knowe expresly and others virtually moued thereunto by the authority of their predecessors or the asseueration of other faithful people for this is sufficieint in them either for the obtaining or preseruing the gift of supernatural faith Let vs now see in few words what solutions may be giuen to the objection made in the beginning of this Section First therfore according to the doctrine of the first opinion touching the last resolution of our faith I answere that in very deed the canonical Scriptures and their true sense are knowne by the infallible authority of the Church as by the propounder of such particuler matters belonging to our faith and religion as we are bound to beleeue Neuerthelesse it is lawful to proue the authority of the Church out of holy Scripture against such aduersaries of the truth as admit the said authority of holy Scripture but deny the authority of the Church So did S. Augustine against the Manichees Aug. cont epist Mā quā vocāt Fundam ca. 4. et 5. Id. de vnitate Eccle. cap. 19. et tract 13. in Ioānem Field book 4. cap. 7. § There is no questiō who approued the authority of miracles and denied the authority of Scriptures proue by miracles the Church and by the Church the Scriptures Contrariwise against the Donatists who allowed the Scriptures and boasting of their visions rejected miracles by Scriptures he proued the Church and by the Church the truth of miracles but that this manner of proceeding is lawful it is granted by Field therfore I need say no more Secondly I answere according to the other opinion that the canonical Scriptures and their true interpretation are infallibly proued knowne by the authority of the Church as by a condition necessarie propōuding them vnto vs but the authority of the Church is proued knowne to be infallible by the testimony of holy Scriptures as by diuine reuelations approuing the said authority And to affirme this as I haue shewed is no more absurd then to say that two causes may be causes of one another Neither doe I think this manner of proofe more to be blamed then the proofe of a cause by the effect and of the effect by the cause as of fire by smoke and of smoke by fire of the bignesse proportion of a mans foote by his steppe in dust or sand and of this againe by that Thus also the Philosophers proue a man reasonable because he is risible or hath power to laugh and againe demonstrate that he hath power to laugh because he is reasonable which kind of argumentation is not called circulation but a demonstratiue regresse Chapter 8. Concerning the second particuler ground of Catholike religion to wit Apostolike Traditions SECTION THE FIRST Of Apostolike Tradition in general THAT I may the better declare the authority and dignity of Apostolike vnwritten Traditions of which I am principallie to intreate in this chapter I thinke it not amisse to say a worde or two of Apostolike Tradition in general and although though I shal repeate some things which haue been already said yet I hope my reader wil pardon me seing that a just occasion of so doing is offered me I haue aboue affirmed Cap. 6. sect 2. that the whole summe or corps of Christian religion was deliuered by Christ to his Apostles not in writing but by word of mouth and that the principal meane for the entire preseruation of it in the Church without corruption or deprauation ordained by God almighty is the continual assistance and direction of the holy Ghost who alwaies remaineth in the Church and directeth her in al truth Of which I now gather that although neuer any scripture of the newe Testament had been written yet that the doctrine of Christ by Tradition had stil remained the selfe same entire and whole in the Church to the end of the world This is so manifest out of that vvhich hath been already said that it needeth no proofe in this place yet I wil repeate a word or two of that and adde a litle more to make it the more apparant I proue it therefore because our blessed Sauiour neuer penned the summe of his doctrine himselfe neither is it recorded that euer he comaunded any one of his Apostles or Disciples in expresse tearmes to write but only to preach and teach according to his owne and the holy Ghost instructions And hence it is that none of the said Apostles or Disciples wrote any parcel of the newe Testament presently after the ascension of Christ and consequently that the whole summe of Christian doctrine was published some time before any such scripture was penned and that the Church of Christ was some yeares without it S. Mathew the first Euangelist Euseb in Chronic. anno 41. published his Gospel as Eusebius recordeth some six yeres after our Sauiours ascension Hence also it proceeded that neuer any one of the Apostles or Disciples vndertooke the setting downe in writing of the whole sūme of Christian doctrine this is manifest because the three first Euangelists deliuered vnto vs very litle touching the diuinity of Christ one of the chiefe and highest misteries of Christian religion Neither had the fourth which was S. Iohn the Apostle any intention to set downe al that the other three had omitted for he wrote his Gospel directly against certaine Heretikes who denied the diuinity of Christ and that not by the commandement of Christ but by the intreaty of the bishops of Asia as a Atha in sinopsi S. Athanasius S. Hipolitus bishop and martir b Epipha haeres 51. S. Epiphanius and c Hieron praefat in Mat. et
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
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
him vpon his holy spouse our mother the Church Nowe what Court in the world representeth the whole Church if not a general Councel in which her visible head either in person or by his Legates with a great part of her chiefe Pastors and Prelates who represent not only al the particuler Churches of which they haue charge but also the whole body are assembled What assembly is aboue this What decree is so firme and of such eminent authority as is the definition of such a Councel Verily seeing that the authority of the Church is infallible and shee doth in no superiour Court pronounce her sentence it is manifest that this is the Court in which al controuersies touching matters of faith with warrant of infallible and diuine truth are finally decided and ended Furthermore if Christs Vicar on earth cannot erre in matters of faith or general precepts of manners when he teacheth the whole Church as shal be proued in the next chapter when if not in a general Councel doth he enjoy this priueledge If hel-gates cannot preuaile against the Church vvhen if not in a general Councel shal vve thinke her so inuincible If the Prelates of the Church are to be obeyed as Christ When if not in a general Councel shal vve hearken vnto them Math. 18. verse 20. See before chap. 6. section 2. and yeelde them such obedience If vvhen two or three are gathered together in the name of Christ he is in the midst of them according to his owne promise how shal we thinke him absent from a general Councel If the holie Ghost doth teach the Church al truth vvhen if not in a general Councel doth he so instruct and direct her Finally if the Bishops Prelates of the Church in a general Councel may erre themselues how can they as vve are taught by the Apostle they should according to the ordination of Christ Ephes 4. vers 11. c. keepe al the whole Church from wauering and errour in faith Hence the decision of a general Councel hath euer had three principal prerogatiues giuen it by al allowed monuments of antiquity which may also manifestly be deduced out of holy scripture it selfe First that it is as is aforesaid the supreame and last judicial sentence of the Church from which there can be no appeale and vvhich by no meanes can be made void or recalled This we gather out of a Athā epist ad Epictetum S. Athanasius the greatest scholler and the most principal champion of his age against the Arians who in an epistle recited also by b Epiphā haeres 77. See also Hierō epist 57. ad Damasunt S. Epiphanius wondred how certaine durst moue any question concerning things defined in the Nicene Councel Much more would he haue wondred if in his daies any man had writen as Field now hath done that c Field booke 4. c. 12. and 5. after the decrees of a Councel hath passed a man may stil doubt and refuse to beleeue without Heretical pertinacy yea he auoucheth that Councels may erre in matters of greatest consequence But the same holy Father addeth this reason vvhy he thus meruailed to wit because the decrees of such Councels cannot be altered without error S. Augustine saith d Aug. epist 162. A general Councel is the last judgement of the Church e Leo episto 50. ad Martianū S. Leo requesteth of Martianus the Emperour that those thinges which are defined in general Councels may not be reuersed or recalled which also the said f L. Nemo cap. de sū Trinit et fide catho Martianus ratefied by his Imperial constitution The same is decreed in the general Councels of g Conciliū Ephesinū circa finē Ephesus and h Conciliū Chalcedō act 5. can vlt. Chalcedon Secondly those are censured by the Fathers and Councels to be Heretiks who disobey the decrees of such Councels And first al generall Councels denounce Anathema to them and accurse those that shal contradict their definitions which they could not doe without errour vpon a meere perswation without infallible assurance of diuine truth in their said definitions That the Fathers of the Councel of Nice did so it is recorded by i Athanas epistol ad Episcopos Affricae S. Athanasius and the actes of other such Councels euidentlie proue the same proceedings in them The judgment of k Leo epi. 78. ad Leonem Imp. see bī also ī epist 77. ad Anatho S. Leo was that they could not be numbred among Catholikes that resisted the Councels of Nice and Chalcedon l Basil epist 87. S. Basil willed Catholikes to propound the decrees of the Councel of Nice to those that vvere suspected of heresie because by this it vvould haue appeared whether they vvere Heretikes or Catholikes m August de baptismo cap. 18. S. Augustine excuseth S. Ciprian from heresie only for this reason that his opinion touching the baptisme of Heretikes vvas not condemned by any general Councel n Greg. lib. 1. epist 24. S. Gregorie denounceth Anathema to those that receiue not the fiue general Councles which only vvere celebrated before his daies Vnto this I adde that al Christian Catholike Emperors by their constitutions adjudged such as Heretikes and made them subject to the punishment of such miscreants that opposed themselues against the definitions of general Councels He is wicked and sacralegeous say a Martiā et Valē in edicto ad Paladium praefectū praetorio edicto quod extat act 3. sinodi Chalced. Martianus and Valentinianus who after the sentence of so many bishops doth say any thing according to his owne opinion yea at al times such as were condemned by such Councels as Heretikes haue beene so esteemed by al sorts although not so censured before and not only in that age in which they were so condemned but in al ages following And both these assertions may be proued by that sentence of our Lord b Math. 10 7. He that shal not heare the Church let him be to thee as the Heathen and the publican For he that disobeyeth the Church assembled in this supreame Court is no longer to be thought a Christian or to be admitted to any other trial but to be esteemed an Heretike and an Infidel Thirdly by the same Councels and Fathers the decrees of general Councels are said to be diuine and from the holy Ghost of which it followeth that they are of infallible truth and not subject to errour The Fathers assembled in the most auncient Councels auouch the said Councels to be gathered together by the holy Ghost c Epist ad Ecclesiam apud Eusebium li. 3. de vita Constātini Constantine the great calleth the decrees of the Councel of Nice heauenly precepts d Athā epistola ad episcopos Affricae S. Athanasius writeth that the word of our Lord by the general Councel of Nice remaineth for euer e Naziā orat in Athanas S. Gregory Nazianzene telleth
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
Canonical without his approbation although the number of Bishoppes vvere neuer so great as appeareth by that of Ephesus vnder Theodosius the younger by that of Constantinople vnder Leo Isaurus and diuers others And out of this discourse I gather that this authority of general Councels if we had no other argument were sufficient to perswade vs to detest and abhorre the condemned doctrine of the new Sectaries For the same Church which in the first general Councel of Nice condemned Aâ—ius and the Arians the same which in the second such Councel held at Constantinople condemned Macedonius and the Macedonians vvhich in the third held at Ephesus condemned Nestorius the Nestorians vvhich in the fourth held at Chalcedon condemned Eutiches and the Eutichians vvhich finally in other general Councels hath condemned other Heretiks and heresies The selfe same Church I say directed in al truth by the holy Ghost hath condemned and accursed Luther and the Lutherans Zuinglius and the Zuinglians vvith al their followers togeather vvith their doctrine in the last general Councel held at Trent But they say that this Councel vvas not laweful nor the judges indifferent I reply first that this hath beene an old cauil of al condemned Heretiks wherefore it may lawefully be suspected in these Moreouer it is sufficiently proued by Catholike authors and the matter is euident in it selfe that nothing necessarie to a laweful general Councel vvas vvanting in this vvherefore it is receiued by the vvhole Church as Canonical and therefore no vvise man seing that saluation and damnation vpon this depend vvil reject it vpon these mens reportes They affirme further that the Church hath no authority in a general Councel to make any newe article of faith To this likewise I answere that the Church properly maketh no newe article of faith for euerie decree by her made concerning such matters is either in expresse tearmes contained in the holie scriptures or gathered out of them by infallible deduction through the direction of the holie Ghost or expresly or virtually approued by the vnwritten Tradition of the Church wherefore the Church neither hath euer taught or shal euer teach any truth so newe that it vvas vnknowne to the Apostles For that which by her is defined and propounded was true before and an article of faith although sometimes not certainelie nor generally knowne before to be of such authority or dignity And that this is our doctrine it is graunted by Field vvhose vvords are these Field book 4. cap. 12. § Our aduersaries Our aduersaries confesse that the approbation and determination of the Church can not make that a truth which was not nor that a diuine or Catholike truth which was not so before thus Field Hence the Catholike diuines affirme that Christian faith neuer since Christs ascention hath increased or beene altered in substance but only in explanation or explication because the Church hath euer since only more plainelie and expresly declared her beliefe and authority to doe this vvas needful in her Vinc. Lir. cap. 28. 29. et 30. for preseruing of peace and ending of al controuersies This Vincentius Lirinensis most elegantly declareth by a similitude taken from the body of man vvhich hath the same members in his infancie youth vvhen he is at mans estate and in his old age and although for the diuersitie of time they are lesse and greater vveaker and stronger yet the body it selfe is not chaunged but augmented so saith he it falleth out in our faith c. They object also the authority of some Fathers but principally those vvordes of S. Gregorie Nazianzene vvho saith as he is alleaged by Whitaker * Whit. in his ans to Camp 4. reasoÌ„ Abbot in his answere to Hils 9 reasoÌ„ Nazianz epist 55. or 42. alias 102. ad Procop. Hist tri part li 9. cap. 9. That he had deliberated with himselfe and fully resolued to auoid Episcopal conuocations because he had neuer seene a good issue of anie Sinode I answere that this holy father doth not deny the authority of lawful general Councels as appeareth by his testimonie before cited and also by this that he vvas a most earnest defender of the Nicene Councel as is testified by Ecclesiastical histories and was himselfe present and subscribed to the second general Councel held at Constantinople He therefore only speaketh of such Sinods as was celebrated in those daies when he wrote that epistle of which fewe were lawful and none had good successe as appeareth by that of Seleucia Ariminum Millan Tirus Sirmium Bilson in his booke of the perpetual gouernment of Christs Church Chap. 16. pag. 396. Athan. li. de sinod et ad Affrican see also S. Ambrose epist 32. c. of vvhich in verie deed he neuer sawe good issue and for that cause he refused to be present to any of them and this solution is approued by M. Bilson a learned Protestant who expresly saith that this Father in these words condemneth not al Councels They bring likewise against vs certaine words of S. Augustine in his booke against Maximinus where he writeth thus as Abbot translateth him But nowe neither should I produce the Nicene Councel nor thou that of Ariminum as meaning to extol it neither am I held with the authority of the one nor thou with the other I answere first that although S. Augustine might haue proued out of S. Athanasius and diuers other authentical authors that the lawful Councel of Ariminum most notably confirmed the Nicene faith and that the Councel alleaged by this Heretike vvas but the supscription of the Bishops to a certaine forme of faith by threatning feare and affliction extorted by Taurus the Emperors officer after that the Councel vvas finished yet in the dispute which he had with Maximinus the said Maximinus opposing the Councel of Ariminum aganst the Councel of Nice he vvould not enter into the proofe of the authority of the one and confutation of the other but hauing most pregnant testimonies of holy scripture he voluntarily in that disputation ceased to vrge the authority of the Councel of Nice and so those his vvordes Neither am I held c. are vnderstood for the sense of them is I vvil not that nowe thou be bound to the one or I to the other Verely that he esteemed highly of the authoritie of general Councels al his workes and proceedings testifie yea his discourse before the vvords alleaged doth proue it as wil appeare to the reader For he saith that in the Councel of Nice the word consubstantial was by the Catholike fathers established by the authority of truth and by the truth of authority And in another place he telleth vs Tom. 7. de baptismo contr Donat li. 7. cap. 53. that we may securely auerre that which is confirmed and roborated by the consent of the vniuersal Church Chapter 10. Of the decrees of the supreame visible Pastour of the Church which make a fourth particuler ground of our faith and of other
pollicy of the Church to auoid scismes and to preserue it in vnity And he proueth this out of the text of the Apostle Corin. 14. God is not the author of confusion or disorder but saith he to haue a populer equallity among ministers were the next way to bring in confusion if none should be ruled or directed Wherefore he addeth in another place that In the calling of Bishops somewhat is diuine and that it is a diuine ordinance that among the ministers of the Church there should be a superioritie For the proofe likewise of the same they bring the testimony of some d Ibid. controuer 16. quest 2. p. 726. edit an 1600. other learned Sectaries especially of f Iacob Andraeas in epistola contra minist Heil derberg Iacobus Andraeas But who seeth not that if a Bishop be necessary ouer Priests and an Archbishop ouer Bishops and a Primate ouer Archbishops for the preseruing of vnity in certaine prouinces nations or kingdomes that ouer sundrie Primates one supreame Primate or head is also needful for the preseruation of the said vnitie through al nations and kingdomes e Suruey of the pretended holy discipl If it be true as Field affirmeth that the vnity of each particuler Church dependeth of the vnity of the Pastour howe much more doth the vnity of the vniuersal Catholike Church depend on the vnitie of one vniuersal Pastour ouer al Yea of these thinges we may wel infer that God who is neuer wanting to his Church in thinges necessary hath ordained some such Prelate For much easier it is to preserue vnitie and vniformity in one kingdome vvithout a Primate or in one prouince without an Archbishop or in one diocesse vvithout a Bishop then it is to preserue the same in al parts of the vvorld vvithout one head ouer al seeing that those of one kingdome prouince or diocesse liue vnder the same lawes haue the same temporal prince and by reason of neighbour-hood may be joyned together in amity and friendship and so one may vnderstand the faith and beliefe of another and confer together concerning such matters vvhich occasions of vnity are wanting to those vvho are of seueral kingdomes or common vvealths Wherefore for the soueraignty of one chiefe Pastour vve haue an expresse warrant of holy scripture whereas there is but litle so expresly vttered for the proofe of the authority of Bishoppes nothing almost for the jurisdiction of Primates and Archbishoppes Neither can this vnity be sufficiently preserued by the letter of holy scripture as it appeareth by the daily dissentions of our aduersaries and I vvil at large declare hereafter Some of the Sectaries seeme to allowe of the authority of a general Councel and to acknowledg it to be a fit meane to end al controuersies as a Hooker in the preface to his book of ecclesiastical policie p. 24. c. Hooker b Couel in his defēce of Hooker Couel c Zauchius in his epistle before his cōfessions p. 12.13 Zauchius d Sutcliffe in his answere to Kellisons Suruey chapter 1. pag. 42. Sutcliffe and others But these may likewise easily be confuted for it is euident euen by the confession of Protestants that no good can be done by such a Councel except one head and superiour in the same be granted About the yeare of our Lord 1585. Henry nowe the French king and a Catholike then king of Nauar and a Caluinist sent his letters to certaine Electours and princes of the Roman Empire being Lutheran Protestants of Germany desiring a concord and reconciliation betweene the Lutherans and Sacramentaries and wishing as it should seeme by the answere that some Councel might be assembled of the learned men of both sortes to that purpose The said Protestants of Germany returned answere that in those daies thinges standing as they did they thought it not necessary that such a course should be taken touching a Councel and vvhy so Verily these reasons are by them alleaged This principally say they seemeth worthy of our consideration whether now betweene the diuines of other Churches and ours any Sinode can be called and assembled For who of vs wil arrogate to himselfe to appoint the place to name the day to cal the diuines of diuers nations Which as histories testifie was the proper office of the Romane Emperours before the Papal tirannie increased Nowe moreouer who shal haue rule or be superior in authority in the Sinode it selfe There can no other haue this office but either one of our side or of our aduersaries but neither we wil suffer a president or chiefe ruler of the aduerse part to the prejudice of ours so neither wil they without doubt endure that one of ours should haue that place But if of both sides some be appointed then each one wil vndertake the patronage of his owne part and so there wil arise dissention betweene the Presidents Further who shal be judge ouer those that varie or contend but let vs put the case or rather faine and imagine that the Sinod is now called that it is sufficiently argued on both sides that the Presidents haue pronounced their sentence that the pertinacious and fanatical are condemned and accursed by the common consent and suffrage of al Who then shal bridle and restraine the clamours of the condemned their complaints their accusations by which they wil exclaime that the proceedings against them haue been vnjust that they were not rightly heard that judgement was giuen rather according to affection then according to the word of God Hence wil arise newe swarmes of contentions and the Sinode being ended the Church wil enjoy no more quietnes tranquillity and peace then was before Thus the aforesaid Princes of Germany in their letter penned without al doubt or at the least viewed and approued by their best diuines The Elector of Saxony the Elector of Brandeburg the Administrator of Magdeburge Philip Lewes Palatine of Rhene Iulius Duke of Brunswich and Luneberg Vdalricus Duke of Mechelburg and Lewes Duke of Wittenberge subscribed vnto it And the letter together with the subscriptions is published in print by Conradus Schusselburg a famous Lutheran diuine at the end of his thirteenth booke of the catologue of Heretikes How then can any person say that controuersies may alwaies be sufficiently decided and ended by a Councel without one head Are not these reasons most true and apparant Nay hath not experience taught vs the truth of these things What successe had the colloquies or conferences held for the reconciliation or vnion of Lutherans Sacramentaries betweene their chiefe doctors at Malbrun in the yeare one thousand fiue hundred threescore and foure See colloquiū Mōt pelgartēse published by Protestants Dauid Chitrae in chron Saxo part 3. ā 1568. p. 440. 441. Iohan. Petraeus admonit quae docet vitādos esse Flaccian or at Montpelgar in the yeare one thousand fiue hundred fourescore and sixe was any vnity or concord made betweene them nothing lesse Neither was
define vvithout a general Councel so farre are vve from making al the Popes wordes diuine oracles as some Protestants falslie pretend but neuerthelesse they deeme this opinion to be erronious and most neere vnto heresie Neither doth this their assertion contradict that commonly auerred that the decrees of the Pope without a general Councel in the sense aboue mentioned are a rock or ground of faith for although the vvhole Church hath not yet authentically defined that the Pope after this sort cannot erre yet the scriptures and other arguments brought in this behalfe are so plaine and forcible and the consent of al learned pious men except some fewe is so consonant and strong for this point that euery man may wel admit his definitions as a ground of supernatural faith And so vve maie truly say both it is no matter of faith to acknoweledge or not acknowledge in this sort the infallibility of the Popes judgment in this sense that the whole Church hath not as yet defined either part to be a diuine truth and yet hold the infallibilitie of the Popes judgement to be a Rocke of faith in this sense that euerie man for the authorities and reasons alleaged may prudently build vpon it an act of supernatural faith And thus much of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and his decrees I haue beene the longer in this discourse Vergerius dialago 1. contra Hosium because some Protestants affirme the denial of this supremacy or superiority to be not only the foundation of their newe religion but also a good part of the edifice built thereupon Chapter 11. Of the consent of the auncient Fathers and the general doctrine of the Catholike Church in al ages CONCERNING the testimonie of antiquitie touching matters of faith and religion found in the works of such ancient doctors as from the Apostles daies haue flourished through al ages in Christs church and haue been are esteemed by her as fathers masters of christian faith learned men giue vs these rules First those things which they say as it were by the way and treating of another thing are to be distinguished from such sentences as they pronounce of such matters as they purposlie handle for their sayings of the first kinde are of smal those of the other of greater authority Secondlie that vvhich is said by anie one of them but once is not so much to be credited as that which is often and constantlie repeated But principally we must make a difference between that which they say in disputation or contention with their aduersaries and that which is affirmed positiuelie as a true conclusion according to the argument of vvhich they treate for an authority of the first sort is litle to be esteemed of the latter greatlie Touching their assertions in general this is to be obserued First when the opinion of any father touching matters of faith is singuler and contradicted by al or most of the rest it is rather to be thought an errour then a truth Secondlie when one or two only affirme a thing of that subject and the rest make no mention of it their testimonies make a probable not a certaine argument Thirdly what doctrine soeuer concerning any point of Christian religion is commonly found in al the auncient Fathers workes where mention is of that point and is held by them as an article of the said religion and contradicted by none of the rest vvithout the note of singularity errour or heresie imposed vpon them by others such doctrine may wel be thought to pertaine to the rule of faith descending by Tradition from the Apostles and is to be embraced as an article of our beliefe The truth of this last rule vvhich toucheth most my purpose is gathered out of that which hath beene already said for I haue declared that neither the Church can erre nor the tradition of Christian faith in it preserued be ouerthrowne or altered but if we admit a possibility of error in al such Fathers workes touching matters of such consequence both of these assertions may be proued false For an errour in faith found in most of the Fathers without contradiction of any other argueth an error in al beleeuers not only of the ages in which those Father 's flourished but also in al times ensuing because that doctrine which is deliuered by most as an article of faith without any opposition of others may wel be demed to be the doctrine of al the faithful who oppose not themselues against it consequently of the whole Church Wherefore if that be proued erroneous of it we may inferre an error in al sorts of christians consequently a change of the rule of faith receiued by tradition Moreouer although we should set aside the warrant of the Church and tradition from errour who wil think it possible that the Fathers should after this sort depart from the truth and conspire in errour without any or at the least without any great contradiction Is not nouelty commonly discouered and oppugned And of this I gather that their agrement semeth an infallible argument of the truth of their doctrine yea that they al held sincerelie the tradition deliuered them by their predecessors And this moued the holie fathers assembled in general Councels as appeareth by the acts of the said councels to make great search into the works of their forefathers and of the ancient doctors as also to vse them as a principal meane to finde out the rule of faith by the said tradition preserued in the church Finally by their testimonies to direct very much their definitions and decrees in particuler S. Athanasius recordeth Athanas epist ad Afros that the Bishoppes who were present in the first Councel of Nice followed the testimonies of the ancient Fathers and that the same was done in those of Ephesus and Chalcedon the bishops themselues assembled also testify who affirme in their definitions yet extant that in them they follow the holy Fathers Ephes 4. v. 11. c. Further we are taught by the Apostle that Christ gaue some Apostles I vse S. Paules vvords and some Prophets and other some Euangelistes and other some Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints vnto the worke of the ministry vnto the edifying of the body of Christ vntil we meete al into the vnity of faith and knowledge of the Sonne of God into a perfect man into the measure of the age of the fulnesse of Christ that nowe we be not children wauering and caried about with euerie winde of doctrine in the wickednesse of men in craftines to the circumuention of errour Hitherto the Apostle In vvhich his discourse in plaine tearmes he telleth vs that Christ appointed Apostles and other such like officers in his Church vntil the day of judgement for the instruction of his people and to keepe them from wauering in faith and errours in religion Of which I inferre that not only the Apostles Prophets Euangelists Pastours and
deuised by the said author or done by the power of the deuil or by some natural causes wherfore may not then Atheists say that either it is a fable that e Iohn 11. Act. 9. Math. 9. v. 20. c. Christ raised Lazarus others or S. Peter Tabitha or that our sauiour cast out deuils or that a woman was healed of an issue of bloud by touching the hem of his garmēt or else that these things were done as the Iewes said by the power of Belzebub prīce of the deuils or by the application of some natural causes Surely he wil haue as litle regard of scriptures as they haue of the works of Sulpitius Seuerus and therefore if they grant it of the miracles of S. Martin and others he wil affirme it of al the rest although mentioned in the said scriptures In like sort f August lib. 22. de ciuit cap. 8. S. Augustine in his books de ciuitate Dei which no man wil denie to be of as great authoritie as any other of his vvorks g Sermo de diuersis 31. 32. 33. epist 103. and else where relateth diuers miracles vvrought by the reliques of S. Steeuen the first Martir as that by touching them a blinde vvoman receaued her sight that a Bishop by carying them in procession was cured of a fistula and that two by praying in the place where they were reserued were cured of a palsie And both S. Ambrose and S. Augustine doe the like Ambr. serm 5. de Sāct et l. 7 ep 53. 54. eau Romanae Aug. l. 9. confess c. et l. 22. de ciu c. 8 c. Lib. 4. or 2. Reg. cap. 13. Act. 19. v. 12. concerning the reliques of S. Geruasius and Protasius martirs as that a blind man was cured by touching of the beire or coffin wheron the reliques were caried vvhich miracles with the same answere are rejected by our aduersaries But who seeth not that an Atheist may with the like reason reject the miracle which was done by the reliques or dead body of Elisaeus by the touching of which as we reade in the bookes of the Kinges a dead man was raised to life and others wrought by napkins and handkerchers which had touched the body of S. Paul which are said to haue done miracles in the acts of Apostles The like discourse might be made concerning the cure of Naaman Sirus by washing himselfe seauen times in the riuer of Iordan at the commandment of Elizeus the prophet 4. Reg. 6. the said Prophets making of the iron of an hatchet to swimme vpon the vvater of the said riuer and diuers other miracles recorded both by holy writ the monuments of ecclesiastical writers of al ages against al which our aduersaries offer an occasion to Atheists to pronounce the selfe same censure Moreouer whereas the apparitions of soules departed according to the judgement of al the learned both auncient and moderne yeeldeth a most strong proofe of our soules immortallitie these Sectaries deny that euer there haue beene any such apparitions and consequently seeke to bereaue vs of this important argumēt their words are so plaine that this cannot be denied Luther himselfe writeth thus Luth. in explicat Euangelij de Diuite et Lazaro Idem in Euā dominicae 24. a Trinitate No mans soule euer since the beginning of the world hath appeared for neither doth God permit it Againe There is no doubt but it is wholy the Deuils worke or doing Quic quid vspiam est spirituum apparentium whatsoeuer is any where of soules or spirits appearing Zuinglius is of the same mind for these words he hath in his answere to one Valentinus a zuing resp ad Valentinū comparem Those things which thou babblest of the apparitions of soules are vaine and idle for the soules which are seperated from their bodies are in heauen or in hel Those which dwel in heauen neuer come downe those which are in hel cannot be deliuered the like hath b Bullīger decad 4. ser 10. Bullinger and others Finally their denial of freewil the merit of good works doe weaken the proofe of the immortallity of the soule the doctrine of the Apostle that god is a rewarder of our actions consequētly of the proofe also of heauen hel as euery man wil confes therefore I cōclude the whole discourse of this chapter that these Sectaries Church is a seminarie of Atheisme and that by their doctrine they shake and euen ouerthrowe the verie groundes of al religion vvhich their assertions being supposed as true they can neither proue nor defend against Atheists and enemies of Christianitie Chapter 2. The newe Sectaries debase the true Christian faith and in place of it extol a presumptuous faith by themselues inuented OVR aduersaries doe not only as I haue nowe shewed ouerthrowe or at the least weaken the principal grounds of al religion but also in some sort destroy the verie nature of faith it selfe by which we first come to a supernatural knowledge of God Chap. 5. For wheras in the first part of this treatise I haue proued that faith which concurreth to our justification and saluation and is the ground of religion and the foundation of spiritual life in this world to be a vertue infused by God into our vnderstanding by the helpe and force of which we giue a most firme assent vnto al those thinges vvhich are reuealed by God to his Church because they are so reuealed the followers of the newe religion I thinke partlie because as I haue noted in the chapter next before they haue weakned the authority of miracles which is the principal supernatural proofe of such misteries debase and as it were despise this faith and in place of it magnifie a newe inuention of man a Chimerical kinde of faith ful of presumption which hath neither ground in holy scripture nor in any approued author but is repugnant both to the vvord of God and the authoritie of al antiquity For they distinguish two especial kindes of faith the one say they is historical See Caluī Institut booke 3 § 9. 10. Calu. l. 3. Instit c. 2. § 7. by vvhich we beleeue the blessed Trinity the incarnation passion death resurrection and ascention of Christ and other articles of the Creed the other is a justifying faith vvhich Caluin defineth to be a stedfast and assured knowledg of Gods kindnesse or beneuolence towards vs which being grounded vpon the truth of the free promise in Christ is both reuealed to our minds sealed in our harts by the holy ghost Caluī ibid. § 16. see Luth. ī serm domī 2. quadrages In explicating this more at large the same Caluin affirmeth that there is none truly faithful but he who being perswaded with a sound assurednes that God is his merciful and louing father doth promise himselfe al things vpon trust of Gods goodnesse but he who leaning vpon the assurednesse of his owne saluation doth
vvith so manie thousand lies and vntruthes set downe by Catholike authors to the view of the whole world as for example doctor * Harding in his Rejoinder to M. Iewels reply touchīg priuate masse printed anno 1566. Harding anoucheth that the number of his lies in fiue of the six and twenty articles of his replie to the said doctor Hardings answere to his Apologie In his epistle to the reader discouered by himselfe and others amounteth to a thousand and odde and also because the falshood of his said challenge being shewed by diuers learned of our side he neuer was so good as his word Humfred in vita Iuelli Hence is this complaint of doctour Humfreis Iewel hath graunted you he speaketh to the Catholikes ouer much and was to sore an enemy to himselfe that rejecting the meane by which he might more firmly easily haue vpholden his cause he spoiled himselfe the Church for what haue we to doe with the Fathers with flesh and bloud Or what doth it appertaine vnto vs what the false sinode of Bishops so he tearmeth the ancient Councels doe ordaine or decree thus much D. Humfrey Secondly it may also be alleaged that Field a late Protestant writer alloweth of diuers other rules or directions of our faith besides the holie scripture Field book 3. chap. 33. § 1. and of the Fathers in particuler he affirmeth that they reuerence and honour them much more then vve doe I answere that in very deede Field maketh a great shew of allowance of the testimonie of antiquity and may perhaps seeme to one that looketh not wel into his wordes to approue the authority of of the auncient Fathers as farre forth as any Catholike whereas in very truth there is no such thing And to make this matter manifest let vs briefly behold his rules assigned whereby as he saith we are to judge of particuler things contained within the compasse of Christian faith Field book 4. chapt 14. which are as followeth First the summary comprehension of such principal articles as are the principles whence al other things are concluded and inferred these are contained in the Creed of the Apostles Secondly al such thinges as euery Christian is bound expresly to beleeue which are rightly said to be the rule of faith Thirdly the Anologie due proportion and correspondence that one thing in this diuine knowledge hath with another Fourthly whatsoeuer books were deliuered vnto vs a written by them to whome the first and immediate reuelation of diuine truth was made Fiftly whatsoeuer haue beene deliuered by al the Saints with one consent which haue left their judgment and opinion in writing book 4. cap. 5. because saith he in another place it is not possible that they should al haue written of any thing but such as touche the very life of Christian faith generally receiued in al their times Sixtly whatsoeuer the most famous haue constantly and vniformly deliuered as a matter of faith no man contradicting though many other Ecclesiastical writers be silent and say nothing of it Seueanthly that which the most and most famous in euery age constantly deliuered as matter of faith and as receiued from them that went before them in such sort that the contradictors and gaine-saiers were in their beginnings noted for singularity noueltie and diuision Ibid. cap. 7. and afterwards in processe of time if they persisted in such contradiction charged with heresie He addeth else where that this consent of the most famous must be touching the substance of Christian faith And vnto these his three last rules I adde that vvhich he hath in the second chapter before in these vvordes Booke 4. c. 2. Though al whose writings remaine haue not written of a thing yet if al that mention it doe constantly consent in it and their consent be strengthned by vniuersal practise we dare not charge them with errour yea though their consent be not strengthned by such practise if it be concerning thinges expressed in the word of truth or by necessary and euident deduction to be demonstrated from thence we thinke that no errour can be found ill al them that speake of thinges of that nature that is of matters of substance as in the fift chapter if in euery age of the Church some be found to haue written of them But in thinges that cannot be clearly deduced from the rule of faith and word of diuine and heauenly truth we thinke it posible that al that haue written might erre and be deceiued hitherto Field And these are the rules which he prescribeth to be followed in our judgment concerning truth falshood in matters of our beleife but that none of these besides the holy scripture of which hereafter according to his owne doctrine are sufficient in al matters of faith to make an infallible or prudential ground of beleife it is easily proued And to begin with his three first how wil he proue that they be infallible how can he shewe them to be of diuine authority if the present church in al ages as he saith may erre and it be true which he affirmeth Field book 4. chapter 20. § Thus hauing Ibidem § The second kinde Caluin booke 2. Instit cap. 16 § 18. Hūn ī theseb de coloq cum pōtis ineūdo thes 54. that it is not safe in things concerning faith to rely vpon traditions are not the two first rules at the least receiued by tradition surely he confesseth it himself Further doe not some of his brethren cal the creed of the Apostles in question and make it a doubtful matter whether it were deliuered to the Church by the said Apostles or no he that knoweth not this let him reade Caluin and Hunnius Is it in like sort agreed vpon among our aduersaties what articles euery Christian is bound expresly to beleeue and which are contained in the rule of faith It is not without doubt and I verily thinke that scarse any one learned Protestant wil admit that euery point vvhich is assigned by M. Field in the fourth chapter of his third booke Moreouer how obscure is the Analogie or proportion which one thing in matters of faith hath with another and generally what man wil admit these three rules or any one of them as sufficient to make an end of al controuersies in the Church In very deede although they were al admitted by al sorts as true yet very fewe articles can be gathered out of them by such euident deduction as is able to conuince the vnderstanding of al men and consequently they are no general and sufficient directions for al points of our faith Neither are the three last rules of themselues at the least as they are deliuered by Field of any greater force or sufficiency First because Field doth not only make the present Church in al ages subject to errour for he freeth it only from damnable and pertinacious errour Field book 4. chap. 13. and book 1. c. 10.
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
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
of themselues and yeeld sufficient satisfaction to al men of their diuine truth wherefore he seemeth contrary to that which he had said before to require no other reason by force whereof the spirit moueth him to beleeue the Scripture but the Scripture Neither should he only bring a diuine proofe for these matters but also to shewe the certaintie of his supernatural illumination of vvhich al these depend And howe wil he doe this vvil he proue it by Scripture This cannot be done least that he fal into a circle and according as he maketh the Psalme say of the vvicked Runne round til he be giddie and be at the end where he was when he beganne for by this illumination he is come to the knowledg of Scripture and consequently it must not be proued out of Scripture and vvhat other diuine proofe he wil assigne for my part I cannot imagine Neither can he say that this illumination is beleeued for it selfe for then he both graunteth that something must be beleeued without diuine proofe and also that al thinges are not beleeued because they are contained in the Scripture and consequently that the Scripture is not the onlie ground of our faith Many places of Scripture are alleaged out of the vvritten vvord of God by our aduersaries to proue the certainty of priuate illuminations and seing that I can not stand to giue the true sense of them I desire my reader only to consider in general that such sentences as they alleage if they proue any thing for them and are to be vnderstood as they pretend proue the judgement of euerie Christian man or at the least of euery spiritual man to be infallible vvhich being false as appeareth both in the auncient Fathers and also in themselues vve may vvel inferre that they haue some other sense Field affirmeth that Saint Augustine in a certaine place doth fully agree vnto his opinion shewing that the authority of the Church is but an introduction to the spiritual discerning of thinges diuine I answere that Saint Augustine in the chapter by him cited only affirmeth that because al men are not capable at the first to vnderstand the sincere wisedome and truth taught in the Church God hath ordained in it two motiues vvhich may first moue them to seeke it to wit miracles and multitude of beleeuers Aug. de vtilitate credendi cap. 16. Authoritas saith he praesto est quam partim miraculis partim multitudine valere nemo ambigit The authority of the Church is at hand which no man doubteth partly through miracles partly through multitude to be of force viz. to moue men Field to make this sentence seeme the better for his purpose Booke 4. c. 8. translateth the vvord valere standeth vpon and maketh Saint Augustine say that the authority of the Church standeth vpon two thinges c. but howe truly euerie grammer scholler may discerne That vvhich he alleageth out of Hugo de sancto Victore is as litle to the purpose but as I thinke farre more falsly translated for if in the English immediately following the Latin in the same different letter he doth intend a translation of the Latin going before as euerie man vvil judge he doth he dealeth in it most corruptly and vntruely and so I leaue him for this present SECTION THE SECOND In which the same argument is prosecuted and two thinges principallie are proued First that the newe Testament receiueth smal authority if we beleeue our aduersaries by this that it was written by the Apostles and Disciples because they accuse them of errour Secondlie because they confesse the text of Scripture to be corrupted HAVING euidentlie confuted in the section next before the chiefest and most common reasons by which the Sectaries of our daies endeuour to proue the diuine authority of holie Scripture let vs now behold such other reasons as may be brought according to their principles and together insinuate some other their assertioÌ„s which diminish the credit of these holy books And to passe ouer as a thing manifest that the authority of 〈◊〉 newe Testament cannot sufficientlie and infalliblie be proued â—uine by the testimony of the old some perhaps wil say that the authority of the old is confirmed and ratified by the newe But how is the newe it selfe proued to be Canonical which prerogatiue if we deny it the old wil receiue but litle credit from it Peraduenture they wil answere that they knowe the newe to be Canonical because it vvas vvritten by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ inspired by the holy Ghost I reply and demaund first how they can proue this to be true by canonical Scripture What canonical Scripture for example if we deny the said Gospel to be Canonical telleth vs that S. Mathew the Apostle wrote that Gospel which vve terme S. Mathewes Gospel Secondly although we suppose it to be true that the Apostles and Disciples were the authours of the newe Testament yet howe can they proue that in penning it they haue not erred What canonical Scripture haue they for this Certainely our aduersaries make al their successours subject to errour wherefore it seemeth that they wil not be very scrupulous to graunt it of the Apostles and Disciples themselues Luther tom 5. in c. 1. ad Galath fol. 290. Act. 7. v. 14. Luther in cap 46. Genes But doe they not moreouer in expresse tearms condemne them of errour Who can deny this Luther himselfe after that he had affirmed that he would not submitte his doctrine to the censure of the Fathers no not to the censure of S. Peter nor S. Paul nor of any Angel from heauen addeth in defence of this his action that S. Peter did liue and teach besides the word of God In another place in plaine tearmes he accuseth S. Steuen of errour in following the 70. Interpreters vvho as he saith erred concerning the number of those that went downe into Egipt Nay moreouer discoursing of extreame vnction Luth. de captiuita Babil c. de extrema vnctione Luther iÌ„ Isai 64. Martir in 1. Corinth 2. fol. 46. Centur. 1 lib. 2 c. 10. Col. 1600. 180. he telleth vs that Although the epistle said to be of S. Iames were in deed and truly his yet he vvould say that it was not lawful for an Apostle of his owne authority to institute a Sacrament By which he seemeth plainly to confesse that the Apostles in their Apostolike writings were subject to such faults finally he telleth vs that S. Paul 1. Corinth 2. vers 9. doth finely wreth or wrest a certaine sentence of the Prophet Isay but Peter Martir auoucheth that he mistooke the Hebrewe word Hence the Centuriatores his schollers note certaine Naeui or lapsus so they tearme them that is freckles or moles and falles of S. Peter S. Paul and S. Iames Apostles as that of S. Peter at Antioch for vvhich he vvas reprehended by S. Paul of which also a Calu. in ca. 2. ad Galat. et in Mat. 26.
the newe religion prefer the Hebrew of the old Testament and the Greeke of the new farre before it And as concerning the Greeke translation of the old by the 70. Interpreters Luther in ca. 40. Genesis Mūst in bibl Hebraicis Act. 7. v. 14. Caluī in Antid Sinodus Trident. sess 4. pag. 372. Luther and Munster plainely condemne it of errour and the first of them in particuler affirmeth the text alleaged of it by S. Steuen in the seauenth chapter of the acts of the Apostles as he citeth it to be erroneous our Latin bibles are also censured by Caluin to be most corrupt vvherefore they alwaies where they can translate the Hebrew of the old and the Greek of the new rejecting as it were the Greek of the old and the Latin of the newe but that both the Hebrewe of the old and Greeke of the newe be corrupted it is manifest by their owne confession And first it cannot be denied but that they some times correct both the Hebrewe and Greeke text as for example in the Hebrewe psalme 22. vvhereas the Hebrewe word for word ought thus to be translated As a lion my hands my feete they translate according to the Greek and vulgar Latin thus They haue peirced my hands and feete The examples of the Greeke in the newe which principally pertaineth vnto Christians are almost infinite I wil only set downe a fewe out of Beza and our English translatours If then the Greeke text be not corrupted wherefore doe these translatours whereas Hebrewes 9. verse 1. the Greeke text hath the first tabernacle reade the first couenant Againe Rom. 11. ver 21. they translate not according to the Greeke text eruing the time but according to our vulgare Latin seruing our Lord. Apoc. 11. vers 2. their translation is not according to the Greeke The court which is within the temple but according to the Latin The court which is without the temple 2. Tim. 1. vers 14. they adde the word but out of the Latin Iames 5. vers 12. they forsake the Greeke and follow our Latin reading Least you fal into condemnation In these and other places they correct the Greeke text and consequently confesse it to be corrupted But as touching Beza in particular I should make a long discourse if I should recite al such places as in the Greeke he accuseth of corruption Act. 13. vers 20. He calleth it a manifest errour that in the Greeke we reade foure hundred yeares as he saith for three hundred Act. 7. vers 18. He maketh a whole Catalogue of corruptions In S. Matthewes Gospel as he confesseth in his Preface to the newe Testament he corrected diuers errours and sundry other such testimonies he giueth of the corruption of the Greeke text of the new Testament But doth not he moreouer besides these his general corruptions vvhich he thinketh perhaps not done of malice also suspect that we haue euen of malice willingly and wittingly falsified the Scriptures verily he doth And to bring fourth three or foure examples to proue this his assertion Beza in annotat noui Testament an 1556. Math. 10. vers 2. the Greeke text hath The first Simon who is called Peter But what saith Beza he telleth vs that he thinketh the word first to haue beene added to the text by some that sought to establish Peters primacy Againe Luke 22. vers 20. according to the Greeke text we read This is the Chalice the new Testament in my bloud which shal be shedde for you In which sentence the Relatiue which according to the Greeke is not gouerned by the Noune bloud but by the word Chalice to signifie vnto vs that the bloud of Christ as the contents of the Chalice or as in the Chalice was shedde for vs. But what saith Beza he affirmeth it to be most probable that the vvordes which is shedde for you being sometime but a marginal note came by corruption out of the margent into the text Act. 7. vers 43. the Greeke hath Figures which you made to adore them It may be suspected saith Beza that these wordes to adore them as many others haue crept by corruption out of the margent into the Text. 1. Cor. 15. vers 57. He thinketh that the Apostle said not Victorie as it is in al Greeke copies but Contention And thus much concerning the corruption of the text of holy Scripture And out of this discourse it is euident first that our aduersaries cannot proue by Canonical Scripture that the Scripture it selfe is Canonical secondly that they cannot proue that the newe Testament was written by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ thirdly that although this be admitted yet that they cannot proue that the said Apostles and Disciples in penning it did not erre lastly that they cannot proue the Scriptures to remaine sincere and not corrupted yea I haue declared that they confesse that the Apostles and Disciples were subject to errour and that the Hebrewe and Greeke text which they esteeme aboue al others is corrupted Out of al vvhich positions so manifestly proued I conclude that the bare vvordes of Scriptures are not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion And although this argument concerning the vvhole Bible and in particular touching the new Testament be inuincible and insoluble yet a farre greater difficulty there is according to their ground mentioned that nothing is to be beleeued but that which is expresly contained in the Scripture or gathered out of the same concerning those bookes of Scripture which haue long after the Apostles daies beene in the Church of doubtfull authority of which before and yet are now receiued by our aduersaries into the Canon For vvhat one sentence of the vvord of God remouing al doubt declared their authority to be diuine Surely after the doubt had of them there was no Scripture written and before the matter in the said Scripture was not decided wherefore if we allowe the Scriptures only to be a sufficient judge of such controuersies our aduersaries themselues contrary to their owne proceedings must of necessity be forced to confesse such parcels of Scripture to be as yet of doubtful authority And this is not only graunted by a Brentius in confess Wittenberg cap. de sacra Scriptura anno 1552. Brentius and certaine other Lutherans who acknowledge those bookes of Scripture only to be Canonical of whose authority there was neuer any doubt made in the Church but also may seeme to be confessed by our countriman M. Whitaker vvho touching the Epistle of S. Iames receiued telleth vs that he doth b Whitaker against Campian reason the first p. 28. not enquire howe justly that might be receiued in a succeeding age which once was rejected yea our vvhole Church of c Conuocat Lon. an 1562. 1604. ar 6 England alloweth of the position of d Brentius in Apolog. confess Wittenb Brentius euen nowe mentioned Wherefore these sectaries must reject out of the Canon if they vvil be constant to themselues
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
parauesi ex epist. Blandratae in coÌ„fut judicij Polonicarum ecclesiaruÌ„ Of Neuser this is testified by Câ—nr Schluss in Catal. haeret lib. 11. de Seruetianis Bernardinus Ochinus Alamannus Georgius Blandrata Adamus Neuserus Iohannes Siluanus Gregorius Paulus and Andreas Volanus al Ministers of great name and fame Franciscus Dauid denied Christ and willed al men to returne to the law of Moises and circumcision and so to become Iewes And doe not al the newe sectaries by their common doctrine offer an occasion of al these blasphemies and apostasies Surely they doe both by leauing no euident certaine and sufficient rule by vvhich such men may be confuted and attributing ouer much to the sufficiency of the bare letter of holy Scripture and also by rejecting certaine wordes and propositions of ours as manifestly gathered out of the holy Scripture as the wordes Trinity person and consubstantial and the propositions by them declared For out of these groundes some of the preciser sort of them argue that we ought not to admit into our beliefe or vse in the explication of out faith any wordes not contained and expressed in the word of God For say they the Scripture being so sufficient vvherefore should vve vse any vvordes inuented by man what neede haue we of any strange deductions or any other thing If these wordes be admitted we may euen aswel admit the word transubstantiation other new inuentions of the Papists c. thus the preciser sort and the enemies of the blessed Trinity dispute And to discourse a little more at large of the word transubstantiation Aske an English Protestant what reason he hath to reject it He wil answere both because it is not found in the Scripture and also because the thing by it signified to wit the changing of bread and wine into the body and bloud Of Christ is not collected out of the same Demand likewise of an Arian vvhy he admitteth not the vvord consubstantial He wil answere because neither the vvord it selfe is vsed in holy writ nor the thing signified thereby to vvit that the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost are of the same substance truly gathered out of the same Behold the answere of both is one and certainely the reason yeelded serueth both alike for like as the vvord transubstantiation so the word consubstantial is not found in the Scripture but both these vvordes haue beene appropriated by the Church to signifie more distinctly and plainely misteries expressed truly in the word of God but not so plainely vvherefore if one of them be rejected the other cannot be receiued They say that the thing signified by the word transubstantiation is not in expresse tearmes to be found in the Scripture I reply that like as the real presence by the confession of their owne bretheren the Lutherans is so plainely deliuered vnto vs by the Euangelists that it cannot be denied which neuerthelesse by them is vtterly rejected so likewise is transubstantiation And like as if we admit of their translations and interpretations of holy Scripture neither the real presence nor transubstantiation is out of them gathered so in like sort neither is the mistery signified by the vvord consubstantial gathered out of the said Scripture if vve admit the translations and interpretations of the Arians Yea I dare boldly affirme that if vve allowe but of Caluins Commentaries vpon the Scriptures which some of our a Hooker in the preface to his booke of eccles pollicy pag. 9. Couel in his defence of Hooker English Protestants so highly esteeme that neither of these misteries are expresly contained in the word of God For like as vvith our Sacramentaries he expoundeth it against the real presence so vvith the Arians he expoundeth it against the diuinity of Christ Part. 2. chap. 1. sect 3. And this as I haue noted before is very vvel declared by diuers Protestants especially by Aegidius Hunnius in a booke vvhich he set forth with this title Caluin playing the Iewe that is to say the Iewish glosses and corruptions by vvhich Iohn Caluin abhorred not after a detestable manner to corrupt the most noble and famous places of holy Scripture and testimonies of the glorious Trinity the Deity of Christ and the holy Ghost c. printed at Wittenberge anno 1593. Also by Conradus Schlussenbergius in his second booke of the diuinity of the Caluinists and diuers others But if vve reject al heretical interpretations both these misteries are expresly contained in the Scripture and therefore our aduersaries haue no more reason to refuse the vvord transubstantiation then they haue to refuse the vvord consubstantial and by rejecting the first they giue occasion to the Arians to reject the second because they haue no greater proofes for this then vve haue for that And hence it appeareth howe vveake a ground the naked letter of Scripture is and vvhat smal force deductions out of it commonly made by euery priuate mans discourse haue and consequently vvhat a feeble foundation they build their saluation vpon vvho haue no other ground SECTION THE FOVRTH 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 LET vs adde vnto these reasons that although we should grant to our aduersaries that the bare letter of holy Scripture is sufficiently proued true by the Scripture it selfe which assertion notwithstanding I haue demonstrated to be false yet that an other argument for the proofe of the insufficiency of the said letter may be taken from the doubtfull obscure and diuers senses of the same Part. 1. chap. 7. sect 2. For as I haue proued before in the first part of this treatise the Scriptures are hard and admit diuers translations and interpretations and there may be gathered out of them both hony and poison both true and false doctrine I knowe that Luther affirmeth Luth. praefat in assert art a Leone 10. damnatorum the Scripture to be of it selfe a most certaine most easie and most manifest interpreter of it selfe prouing judging and enlightning al thinges I doe not also denie but * Brentius in Prol. cont Petrum de Soto Brentius seemeth to be of the same opinion but against these I oppose a Field booke 4. chap. 15. M. Field vvho of this point vvriteth thus There is no question but there are manifold difficulties in the Scripture proceeding partly from the high and excellent nature of the thinges therein contained which are without the compasse of natural vnderstanding and so are wholy hidden from natural men and not knowne of them that are spiritual without much trauaile and studious meditation partly out of the ignorance of tongues and of the nature of such thinges by the comparison whereof the matters of diune knowledge are manifested vnto vs Hitherto Field * Chap. 18. §. betweene §. The reason §. Thus hauing He further alleageth and approueth that of Sixtus
vpon the truth of the Latin vulgar edition but proue that they forsake and falsifie the true sense of the very Hebrewe and Greeke text which they professe to translate So shal I not only proue that the vnlearned professours of the newe religion build their faith vpon a false ground to vvit the vvord of men or the vvord of God corrupted but also make that more manifest which I principally intend to proue I meane that the learned sort haue erred in their translations and that the ground of their faith also is not the vvord of God S. Augustine longe since obserued in Heretikes August tom 6. contra Faustum lib. 32 cap. 29. that they make not their faith subject to the Scriptures but the Scriptures as a man may say subject to their faith giuing vs thereby to vnderstand that al Heretikes either out of some one place of Scripture falsly vnderstood or out of their owne peruerse and licentious humor or out of the vveakenesse of their natural reason not able to comprehend the high misteries of our faith or finally out of some other false and erroneous ground frame to themselues one or more false opinions and afterwards by corrupting the text or wresting the sense make the Scripture seeme to confirme the same And like as this hath beene found true in al Heretikes vvho in former ages haue oppugned the Church so most true it is in the Professours of the newe religion of our daies as euery man skilful in the tongues may easily perceiue in their translated Bibles and other of their vvorkes If I should runne ouer al their corruptions and falsifications I should scarce euer make an end they are so many and diuers See Staphilus in Apolog part 2. Emser in praefat Annot. in nouum Testam Lutheri Lindanus in Dubitantio pag. 84. 85. c. Erasmus in Epist. ad fratres inferioris Germaniae Some note a thousand foure hundred in the newe Testament only translated by Luther Caluin and Bezaes corruptions are to be seene in diuers vvorthy Authours wherefore I wil only gather fiue or six notable falsifications out of the translations of these principal Sectaries and afterwardes discourse more at large of our English Bibles To beginne therefore with the first Captaine Luther before his Apostacy from the Catholike Church he read with vs and al antiquity according to the Greeke text 1. Cor. 9. vers 5. after this sort Haue not we power to leade about a woman a sister as also the rest of the Apostles But hauing chaunged his profession and contrary to his vowe coupled himselfe to Catharine Bore vvhome he tearmed his vvife he chaunged also his translation of this sentence and read Haue not we power to leade about a sister a wife as the rest of the Apostles S. Paul to giue vs to vndertstand that faith doth justify vs as the foundation and roote of our justification or else comprehending vnder the word faith also the workes of faith vseth these wordes We account a man to be justified by faith Rom. 3 28. Moreouer to exclude from our justification the workes done before our conuersion or faith he addeth without the workes of the lawe But howe doth Luther translate this place of Scripture Luther to 2. edit Wittenberg anno 1551. fo 405. We account saith he a man to be justified by faith onlie without the workes of the lawe this is his translation And what a manifest corruption is this where doth he finde in the Greeke text or any other approued edition the vvord only verilie it is added by himselfe and not to be found in the text But perhaps although S. Paul hath it not expresly in this place cited yet it is necessarily vnderstood I reply and demaund howe Luther knewe this I adde further that although it vvere so yet he hath no authority to adde to the word of God neither is it likely that if the said vvord had beene necessary the holy Ghost guiding the Apostles penne vvould haue omitted it And that Luther giueth not the true sense of the sentence of the Apostle I proue out of these wordes following of S. Augustine August de gratia et lib. â—rbitrio ca. 7. Men saith he not vnderstanding that which the Apostle saith we account a man to be justified by faith without the workes of the lawe did thinke him to haue affirmed that faith would suffice a man though he liued il and had no good workes which God forbid the vessel of election should thinke who in a certaine place after that he had said Galat. 5 6. In Christ Iesus neither circumcision or prepuce auaileth any whit he straight added but faith which worketh by loue this is the opinion of S. Augustine Hence the same Apostle in other places Galat. 6 15. hath these and such like sentences In Christ Iesus neither circumcision auaileth ought nor prepuce but a newe creature Againe Circumcision is nothing 1. Cor. 7 19. and prepuce is nothing but the obseruation of the commaundements of God In vvhich he giueth vs to vnderstand that in the place corrupted by Luther vnder the name of faith he comprehendeth the whole reformation of our soules and our newe creation in good vvorkes vvhich may further be proued because taking faith precisely as it is a vertue distinct from hope and charity 1. Cor. 13. v. 2. and 13. he telleth vs that Although a man hath aâ— faith so that he should remoue mountaines and hath not charity he is nothing And concludeth that charitie is a greater vertue then either faith or hope with vvhome accordeth S. Iames vvho directly contradicteth Luther and auoucheth Iames 2 24. that by workes a man is justified and not by faith only Perhaps some Lutheran in the defence of Luther vvil say that this corruption vvas not vvilful But I reply that the contrarie is manifest for Luther by letter being kindlie admonished by his friend that this by some vvas reprehended as a fault answered his said friend very sharply calling the reprehender Asse and Papist and gaue this reason in his owne defence Luther to 5. Germ. f. 141. epist adf amicum Doctor Martin Luther wil haue it so And like as in this text he added to serue his purpose so in another he omitted For whereas the Apostle S. Peter writeth 2. Peter 1. verse 10. Wherefore bretheren labour the more that by good workes you make sure your vocation and election he left out the wordes by good workes These and other such like corruptions of Scripture vvhich are to be found in the Bible and other vvorkes of Luther gaue Zwinglius vvriting against him just occasion to condemne him of this fault Thou dost saith he corrupt and adulterate the word of God ZuiÌ„g in resp ad Luth. l. de sacram to 2. fol. 412. 413. imitating surely in this the disciples of Marcion and Arius Againe See howe thy case standeth Luther that in the eies of al men thou
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
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
togither thus he resolueth By view of these places euery man may see Ibid. p. 76. 71 that Caluin sticketh in the same mire in which Zwinglius and other Sacramentaries haue wallowed and that he is stirred vp with their spirit and that vnder this craftie jugling he singeth the old song of Zwinglius and OEcolampadius and jumbleth in his figures and significations taking away the true presence of Christes body and bloud Hitherto are the vvordes of Westphalus But vvherefore did Caluin in this matter vse such craftie dealing and jugling Luther 4. fol. ante Verily the said Westphalus affirmeth it vvas to deceiue his readers and to abuse them more pernitiously For seing that the vvordes of Scripture are so euident for the real presence of Christes body and bloud in this Sacrament seing also that al our forefathers and predecessors haue esteemed it so highly haue spoken so honourable of it and haue expounded the Scriptures according to their plaine meaning if Caluin had in flat tearmes wordes so much debased it as to make it no better then a peece of bakers bread and a cuppe of wine he had made forthwith his doctrine odious to al indifferent Christians And of this he sawe an experience in Zwinglius before him against vvhose prophane doctrine both the Catholikes and Lutherans vvith one voice exclaimed He thought it therefore conuenient in external shewe to condemne Zwinglius and to couer his vvoluish hart and opinion vvith the vvordes and fleeces of the sheepe of Christes fold but in condemning Zwinglius he condemneth himselfe and his owne disciples as is sufficiently proued The same proceedings of the Caluinists are also noted by Luke Osiander an other Lutheran Protestant and superintendent who for the aforesaid proceedings of the Caluinists likeneth them to the Camoeleon Lucas Osiander in Euchirid cont Caluinianos c. 1. In principio Plinius lib. 28. cap. 8. and he auoucheth that like as this creature as Pliny writeth hath of his owne nature no certaine colour but seemeth nowe of one colour nowe of an other according to the variety of the place and colours neare vnto him So the Caluinists play For where saith he they are to deale with the more simple sort which they hope may be drawen to their opinion there they take vpon them the colour and confession of the orthodoxe or right beleeuers and say with them The body and bloud of our Lord to be so present in the supper that they cannot be more present c. And for these and other such like speaches he alleageth Beza in the conference of Monpelgar pag. 21. He addeth But when they speake among those of their owne sect they condemne and blaspheame the true and real presence of the body of Christ and pronounce a farre different sentence Hence also Grawerus an other Lutheran very learned and liuing in these our daies Grawer Absurda Absuâ—dorum c. cap. 3. §. 4. auoucheth that the Caluinists in wordes protest that both by hart and voice they confesse before God and al his Angels and Men that the body and bloud of Christ not only are present in the supper but also that they are eaten and drunken Notwithstanding in the meane time saith he it is most certaine that in very deede they denie the true and real presence of the body of Christ in the supper And this he proueth at large by inuincible arguments and among other thinges he very vvel declareth §. 34. that faith cannot make thinges absent present as the Caluinists say it doth in the Sacrament Nowe to conclude this discourse no man I thinke vveighing wel these matters wil deeme Caluin and his disciples to accknowledge any true and corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist their wordes and proceedings are so plaine for the contrary And truly what neede we almost any other proofe of this matter then the testimony of Beza rehearsed who calleth them impudent slaunderers who imagine there was any contrariety betweene Zwinglius OEcolampadius and Caluin in their doctrine concerning the Sacrament For seing that Zwinglius excluded Christ altogether from the Sacrament and made it a naked signe as Caluin confesseth if Beza say truely who can doubt but Caluin himselfe doth the same Of vvhich I inferre first that Caluin and his followers cal God a deceiuer For thus I argue Vnlesse a man wil cal God a deceiuer he can neuer be so bold as to say that he setteh before vs an empty or naked signe in the supper so saith Caluin before cited but Caluin and his followers are so bold as to say that God setteth before vs an empty or naked signe in the supper as is proued by their owne vvordes by the testimony of Beza and the censure of some learned Lutheran Protestants therefore Caluin and his followers cal God a deceiuer Secondly I inferre that the Caluinian Sacrament or supper is no better then a peece of bakers bread and cup of ordinary wine this is demonstrated and it is apparant because Christ as they say is no otherwise present but by the apprehension of faith and faith hath no effect at al in the bread wine it being an inward act of the vnderstanding whererfore the bread and wine remaine as they were before And this Luther long since concluded against Zwinglius from vvhome Caluin as Beza confesseth doth not dissent for he complaineth that the Deuil by Zwinglius and his adherents laboureth to suppe vp the egge and leaue vs the shel Luther ser de Eucharist fol. 335. that is as he expoundeth himselfe to take from the bread and wine the body and bloud of Christ so that nothing remaine but plaine bakers bread Thirdly it is euident that the vvordes of Scripture are plaine for Christes real and corporal presence in the Sacrament for this is one principal reason vvhy Caluin and his Caluinists some times vvould seeme to affirme it And seing that the Sacramentary doctrine denieth this true and real presence it is manifest finally that the said doctrine is not built vpon the word of God but that this prerogatiue is due to our faith vvhich holdeth the affirmatiue part Thus I haue exemplified and shewed in two principal controuersies by the testimonies of our aduersaries that the vvordes of holy Scripture are on our side not with our aduersaries Of which my prudent reader may gather what I could doe concerning other matters for breuities sake omitted And by these meanes it is apparently declared that the propositions vvhich the newe Sectaries tearme of their faith are not contained in the holy Scripture Let vs nowe proue the title of this Chapter by an other reason SECTION THE FOVRTH The followers of the newe religion in diuers matters obserue not the letter of their owne Bibles MY drift and intent in this Chapter is to shewe that our aduersaries build not their beliefe vpon the letter of holy Scripture contained as they say in their owne Bibles This I haue already proued by one argument vnto
affirming it to be only an argument of a fable or tale whereby to set forth an example of patience He affirmeth that the booke of a Luth. in cōuiual ser tit de libris noui veter test Rabenstocke l. 2. colloquior Latin Luther cap. de veter test Ecclesiastes hath neuer a perfect sentence that the authour of it had neither bootes nor spurs but rid vpon a long sticke or in begging shooes as he did when he was a Frier He vvil haue b Luth. in exordio suarum Annotat. in Cantica Cantica Canticorum which some c Bible 1595 English Sectaries tearme the Ballet of Ballets of Salomon to be nothing else but a familiar speach or communication betweene Salomon and the common wealth of the Iewes d Castalio in trāslat Latin suorum Bibliorum see Beza praefat in Iosuae Castalio goeth further and judgeth it to be a communication betweene Salomon and a certaine friend or mistresse he had called Sulamitha The Epistle to the e Luther in 1. edit noui test Germ. praefat in epistol ad Hebr. in posterior edit eiusdem Hebrewes if we beleeue Luther was written by none of the Apostles and containeth thinges contrary to the Apostolike doctrine The like is affirmed by the f Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. Century writers The same Luther calleth the Epistle of S. Iames truly a g Luth. in praefat in nouum test Germ. edit 1. in Ienens edit noui test praefat in Iacob strawen Epistle in comparison of those of S. Peter and S. Paul saith that it is h In captiuit Babilon cap. de extrema vnctione probably auerred to be none of his nor worthy of an Apostolike spirit i Ad cap. 22. Genes in colloquijs cōuiual lat tom 2. de lib. noui test reprehendeth the doctrine of it as false and contrary to that of Genesis and of S. Paul the Apostle saith the authour doth delirare that is dote c. It is likewise judged not Canonical by k Muscul in locis comunibus c. de Iustific Brent in Apol. Illiric praef in Iacob Musculus Brentius Illiricus Kemnitius and others The second epistle of S. Peter saith l Luth. in suis Germ. Biblijs Brentius in Apolog. ca. de Scripturis Luther is none of his but is of some vncertaine authour who was desirous to giue credit to his worke by the glory of an other mans name Brentius plainely rejecteth it as Apocryphal The like is said by these and others of the Epistle of m Luther praef in epist Iacob lib. cont Amb. Catharinum Magdeburg Cent. 1. lib. 2. ca. 4. Brent in Apolog. S. Iude. Finally Luther censureth the n Luther praefat in Apocal. prioris edit lib. de abroganda missa priuata Brent in Apol. Apocalipse of S. Iohn to be neither Apostolike nor Prophetical but I thinke it is saith he like the fourth of Esdras a booke rejected by vs al neither can I any waies finde that it was made by the holy Ghost Let euery man thinke of it as he please my spirit cannot accommodate it selfe to it And this cause is sufficient to me not greatly to esteeme it that in it Christ is neither taught nor knowne Thus Luther Brentius hauing recited it among other bookes by him censured Apocryphal concludeth that some of the bookes rejected are called dreames others fables And this is the judgement of these Protestants concerning these bookes Notwithstanding our o See the Bible of the yeare 1595. authorized to be read in Churches Articles of the yeare 1562. 1604. Articul 6. Caluin in his Institut in argum epist. Iacobi Church of England with Caluin diuers other of their bretheren receiue al these bookes as Canonical And seing that both these opinions cannot haue an infallible ground and one according to their owne proceedings hath no greater reason for it selfe then the other I inferre that they both haue no other rule vvhereby to receiue and reject bookes of Scripture but their owne judgement and fancy from which principally this difference among them ariseth It may be said that some Sacramentaries and among the rest p Whitaker in his answere to Campians 1. reason Whitaker and q Rogers pag. 30. vpon the Articles of faith of the yeare 1562. 1604. Rogers denie Luther and the Lutherans to reject the bookes mentioned I confesse it but in very truth whosoeuer readeth the authours and places alleaged wil finde that I doe them no wrong And this he may partly gather out of Rogers himselfe who although he r Pag. 30. affirme al reformed Churches to be of the same judgement with the Church of England concerning the Canonical bookes Yet in the next leafe ſ Pag. 32. alleageth two principal Lutherans Wigandus and Heshusius and accuseth them both of errour the one for refusing the first and second epistles of S. Iohns with the epistle of S. Iude the other for rejecting the booke of S. Iohns Reuelation or the Apocalipse I adde also that t Whitaker de sacris Script controuers 1. quaest 1. c. 6. Whitakers himselfe discoursing of this matter in an other place hauing set downe their doctrine concerning the authority of al the bookes of the newe testament addeth these vvordes If Luther or some that haue followed Luther haue taught or written otherwise let them answere for themselues this is nothing to vs who in this matter neither followe Luther nor defend him but are led by a better reason Thus Whitakers But Caluin directly telleth vs u Caluin in argumento epistol Iacobi that in his time there were some that judged the epistle of S. Iames not Canonical Oecolampadius testifieth the same touching the Apocalipse and affirmeth himselfe to x Oecolampadius lib. 2. ad cap. 12. Danielis wonder that some with rash judgement rejected S. Iohn in this booke as a dreamer a mad or braine-sicke man and a writer improfitable to the Church That Luther in particular with a hard censure bereaued this booke of al authority it is recorded by y Bullinger in Apocalip cap. 1. ser 1. Bullinger Yea * Field booke 4. chap. 24. §. wherefore Field condemning the inconsiderate rashnesse of such as in our time make question of any of the bookes of the newe testament c. nameth Luther in the margent It may perhaps be said by some man that al the Sacramentaries accord together concerning the bookes of Canonical Scripture and therefore that they haue some certaine and diuine rule whereby to discerne such bookes from others But this is easily refelled because there is no such consent or agreement among them For doth not Wolfangus Musculus a Zwinglian of great fame with Luther and the Lutherans reject the epistle of Iames out of the Canon Verily either this must be granted or else it must be confessed that he affirmeth one Scripture to contradict an other and false doctrine to be
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
my soule in hel Act. 2. v. 27. Psal 15 10. and auoucheth this to be the true translation of those wordes especially in this sentence in which they can beare no other sense seing that the soule of Christ was not detained in his graue The Sectary contrariwise affirmeth the vvordes cited not to be truely translated but wil haue the true translation of them to be Bible 1589. 1592. 1600. Thou wilt not leaue my soule in graue And howe shal this controuersie be decided The Catholike for his opinion and to proue that Christ truely descended into hel alleageth al the grounds of Catholike faith aboue set downe But what can his aduersary bring forth in defence of his doctrine Perhaps he wil runne to conference of other places of Scripture but what if those other places admit also diuers translations as wel as this and therefore he giue one sense of the said places and the Catholike another To what other judge wil the Sectary appeale verily to no other but to himselfe and his owne priuate judgement This is the ordinary course of proceeding of our aduersaries with vs and al others that doe impugne them And doe they in this case remit the controuersie to holy Scripture doe not the Catholikes aswel as they admit of the text cited both as it is found in the Hebrewe in the 15. psalme and also as it is in the Greeke in the second Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles this cannot be denied The difference then betweene vs them is concerning the translation of the last word which the Catholike affirmeth to signifie hel the Protestant graue And what moueth the Sectary to admit one translation rather then another Certainely his owne priuate opinion which he hath framed to himselfe contrary to al antiquity against Christs descent into hel August epist 99. Surely S. Augustine auoucheth that No man but an Infidel wil deny him to haue beene in that place and with him the rest of the Fathers consent SECTION THE THIRD Concerning the newe exposition of those wordes This is my body in particular BVT if it vvere not for being ouer-long in these discourses I could exemplifie in particular concerning sundry newe expositions of holy Scripture inuented by our aduersaries and shew to euery mans eye the inuentors of the same vvho framed them out of their owne braines One example I vvil bring among the rest vvhich shal be concerning those wordes of our Sauiour Math. 26 26 This is my body For vvho inuented in these our daies the first Sacramentary exposition of the said vvordes verily Carolostadius as al the vvriters of his daies beare vvitnesse And vvhat was he He was Archdeacon of Wittenberge Melanct. Sleidan others but as Melancthon himselfe a Sectary reporteth * Melanct. in epist ad Fredericū Myconiū praefat veterum senten de coena Domini a rude sauadge man without wit without learning vvithout common sense in whom neuer appeared any token or signe of the spirit of God But howe expounded he the said sentence Certainely not of the Sacrament which Christ deliuered to his Apostles but of the visible person of Christ sitting at the table as if Christ had said Eate and drinke for I am he that must suffer on the Crosse for your redemption so that he changed the sense of the word This into the word Here. Let vs farther demand what moued him to inuent this heresie and false interpretation Melancton aboue cited reporteth that it vvas only the hatred vvhich he had conceaued against Luther vvho rebuked and reproued him for breaking downe of Images in the Churches of the said City without his warrant and approbation The second principal Sacramentary vvas Zwinglius Zwingl l. de vera falsa relig vvho first affirmed the body of Christ to be present in the Eucharist but together with bread and wine and consequently denied only transubstantiation afterwardes he denied the real presence altogether and turned the word is into the vvordes doth signifie and made the sense to be This doth signifie my body The third was * Oecolāp in li. de genuina expos horum verborum Oecolampadius vvho altered the sense of the word body and would haue it signifie a figure of the body and therefore the sense of those wordes according to his judgement is This is a figure of my body The fourth was Caluin a Caluin l. 4. Instit c. 17. §. 10. 11. 24. 32. Idem lib. de coena Domini who although he confesse that Christ is really only in heauen yet he vvil haue vs truly to receiue him on earth in the Eucharist vvherefore he reprehendeth both Luther and Zwinglius and vvil haue the sense of the said wordes to be This bread is a figure of my body but a figure giuing my body it selfe so he in effect Howe this is brought to passe he confesseth himselfe ignorant But vvhat saith Luther their first parent to these his children he damneth them to the pit of hel and b Luth. thes 24 cont Louaniēs Itē in parua cōfes de coena Domini telleth vs that they treade vnder foote and ouerthrowe al. He addeth further c To. 7. in defensor verb◠coenae c. fol. 387. that the text can admit but one direct and true sense How then are the said wordes to be vnderstood in his iudgement Thus he vvriteth in an epistle to certaine of his followers concerning the interpretation of them Luther the Preacher and Euangelist of Wittenberge to the Christians of Strasburge Luther to 7. Wittenberg fol. 502. Thus much I neither can or wil deny that if Carolostadius or any other man fiue yeares since could haue perswaded me that in the Sacrament was nothing else but bread and wine be truly had bound me vnto him and I would haue accepted that as a very great benefit For in examining and debating that matter I tooke maruailous paines and strained euery veine of my body and soule to haue ridde and dispatched my selfe thereof because I sawe fulwel that thereby I might haue done notable harme and damage to the Papacy But I see my selfe taken fast and that there is no waies to escape For the text of the Gospel is so cleare and forcible which cannot easily be shaken much lesse ouerthrowen by wordes and glosses deuised by giddy braines Hitherto Luther both declaring the true cause which moued him to set a foote his newe Gospel to wit the hatred of the See of Rome and also the force of Scriptures for the real presence What then beleeued he touching this point First Luther lib. de captiuit Babilon cap. de Eucharist although he affirmed it to be no article of faith whither bread remained or no in the Eucharist togither with the body of Christ yet he esteemed the affirmatiue part most probable * Idē in serm de Sacra coenae Domini Et in li. quod verba Christi HOC EST CORPVS MEVM
wordes to wicked incantations Hitherto Caluin If a BreÌ„t in recog prophet c. in fine Brentius say true al the Zwinglians vvorkes are ful of deprauations or corruptions cunning deceits and slaunders If b CaÌ„panus in colloquijs Latinis Luther tom 2. cap. de aduersarijs fol. 354. Iohannes Campanus as certaine as it is that God is God so certaine it is that Luther was a diuelish liar If c Westphalus in Apologiae contra Caluin pag. 430. cap. 19. pag. 194. Westphalus deserue credit Caluins vvorkes are stuffed with taunts curses and lies and he as he saith is able to shewe certaine pages in Caluins workes of which euery one containeth aboue thirty notable lies and taunts He addeth moreouer that the Sacramentaries corrupt very many places of Scripture If d Conradus in Theolog. Caluinist lib. 2. fol. 120. 123. 124. l. 1. fol. 80. 132. Conradus al the Caluinists are compounded of lies impiety and impudency If e OecolaÌ„pad in Dialog coÌ„tra Melancthonem Oecolampadius the Lutherans bring forth only a colour or shadowe as Heretikes commonly are accustomed to doe of the word of God they bring not the word of God and yet al saith he wil seeme to build vpon the word of God Of the Zwinglians of Zurick thus writeth f StaÌ„carius de Trinitate lib. 1. d. 5. Stancarius These Arians of Zurick malitiously maime and mangle the sentences of the Fathers and are worthily to be accused and condemned as falsifiers of the truth and for that grieuously to be punished for they sinne against that Commandement of God thou shalt not beare false witnesse These men are altogither Atheists and alleage falsly the Scriptures and the testimonies of holy Fathers to cast downe the Sonne of God yea the most holy Trinity from the throne of his Majesty Hitherto Stancarius Our Puritans vvorkes according to the judgement of one of our g Suruey of the pretended H. discipline cap. 3. p. 56. chap. 5. p. 80. c. 24. p. 307. Protestants are ful of boldnesse sophistications falsifications and many such corruptions The same man accuseth them that they haue peruerted the true meaning of certaine places both in the Scriptures and Fathers to serue their owne turnes And affirmeth that the word of God is much troubled with such kind of choppers and changers of it Euery giddy head saith he wresteth and wringeth it to serue his owne deuise Further he professeth as in the presence of God that of al the places of Scripture which they alleage against the Protestants Ch. 31. p. 414. See also chap. 35. pag. 463. he cannot finde any one on which they haue not cast such a colour as was neuer knowne in the Church of Christ among al the auncient Godly Fathers from the Apostles times til these our troublesome and presumptuous daies Yea he affirmeth that al the catterbrawles pittiful distractions and confusions vvhich are among Puritans proceede of such intollerable presumption as is vsed by peruerting and false interpretation of holy Scripture Listen also vvhat we reade in an other booke of theirs concerning this matter CoÌ„spiracy for pretended reformatioÌ„ printed an 1592. in the end Lastly saith the Authour of the history of the Puritan conspiracy doe not the Puritans make great shewes and many pretences for their vnsound and absurd opinions that they are taken from the holy and sacred written word of God which by these meanes they make to be of priuate interpretation and doe not reduce their senses vnto it when they reade but doe wickedly captiuate the Scriptures vnto their owne senses and meaninges Hooker hath the like accusation Hooker in his third booke of Ecclesiastical policy §. 5. pag. 135. Caluin in like sort noted this fault in the Libertines for thus he discourseth against them * Caluin in praefat ad lectores de psychopanychia in tract theolog pag 539. And whereas they are ashamed to be ignorant of any thing in al thinges euen as oracles they answere most confidently Hence are so many schismes so many errours so many slanders of our faith by which occasion the name and word of God is blaspheamed among the wicked At length which is the head of al mischiefe when as they obstinately defend that which they rashly and foolishly vttered then they aske councel of the oracles of God out of which they seeke protections and sauegardes for their errours O good God what doe they not turne vpsidowne what doe not they corrupt that they may I say not bowe it but by force crooke it to their owne sense Doubtlesse truly said the Poët Fury findeth vveapons Is this the way to learne to turne and tosse the Scriptures to serue our owne pleasures and sensuality that they be made subject to our sense then which nothing is more foolish O nâ—isome plague and most certaine cockle of the enemy man by which he indeauoureth to obscure and couer the true seede and yet we wonder whence arise so many sects among those that first imbraced the Gospel and the word againe springing vp Thus farre Caluin And he concludeth of them in another place with these wordes Falsly therefore doe they abuse this pretence and seeke to perswade the more simple that they are gouerned by the prescript or rule of holy Scriptures when as these being altogither rejected they followe the imagination of their owne braine Hitherto are Caluins vvordes And these their accusations of one another conuince not only that in translating and expounding the Scriptures they frame al thinges according to their owne fancies and imaginations from vvhence proceedeth that their assertion that the Scriptures are easie because among them it is euen as easie to expound Scriptures as to imagine but also that they haue no other ground vvhereon they build their faith and religion And al these reasons proceede principally against the learned sectaries SECTION THE SIXT 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 THAT the vnlearned Sectaries be likewise in the the same case it is farre more easie to proue For besides that they haue no other meanes to know which bookes are to be receiued as Canonical Scripture which are to be rejected but the opinion of their learned Masters vvho differ among themselues concerning this matter of vvhich it followeth that in following of one and condemning others they followe their owne judgements Besides this I say it is euident that they build not their faith and religion vpon the pure word of God as it vvas first penned by the inspiration of the holy Ghost for they as I suppose vnderstand not the tongues in vvhich it vvas so penned but vpon the vvord of God translated by their learned Captaines Nowe if their translatours haue erred or may erre in their translations vvhere is their faith Surely that they are al subject to errour it is
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
authority of him that teacheth it or some discourse of their owne vnderstanding Lastly it is also apparant that in so doing they make themselues judges ouer their Masters for vnderstanding of diuers opinions among them they choose and imbrace one as true and condemne al others as false But if their learned doctors themselues in their interpretations build vpon their owne fancies much more the vnlearned vvherefore I need not vse any long discourse of this matter Only I wil adde that it seemeth likewise necessary that he that vvil build his faith vpon the holy Scriptures should finde his whole beliefe in the said Scriptures and knowe perfectly by his owne studie what articles of faith by them are approued and consequently that he should reade ouer the vvhole Bible and conferre one place vvith another least that he be deceiued Otherwise if he beleeue others concerning these points he seemeth to build vpon their vvordes more then vpon the word of God and to fal into that which by his bretheren and him is commonly reprehended as a fault in vs. For they reprehend the vnlearned Catholikes that they rely so much vpon the authority of the Church and reade not the Scripture themselues to knowe what they ought to beleeue vvhereas if they doe not as I haue said they build themselues vpon the authority of a fewe Ministers And these reasons haue more force concerning the ignorant sectaries that cannot reade then the vnlearned that can reade especially this last for the ignorant sort cannot finde their beliefe by their owne study in the Bible and therefore must needes rely wholy vpon other mens reports But our English vnlearned and ignorant Protestants yea some of the learned sort also recurre to the statutes of the Parliament and make it as it vvere an infallible judge of al matters of religion Against these I reply that the Parliament hath no such prerogatiue See Bilson in his treatise of the perpetual gouernement of the church cha 16. pag. 371. 388. 389. seing it hath neither authority from God after such sort to enter-meddle in matters of faith for this belongeth to the Bishops and Prelates of the Church nor a vvarrant from him of not erring Yea seing that it hath erred diuers times as our Protestants themselues cannot denie the judgement of it must needes be very insufficient That they must needes grant it to haue erred I proue because it hath now approued some articles of faith which in former times it condemned This is euident because some of the articles of their beliefe nowe approued vvere censured to be heretical by a Parliament held in the first yeare of King Richard the second against the Wiccliffians in the yeare of our Lord 1380. Also by another act of Parliament in the second yeare of King Henry the fourth Further their vvhole religion vvas condemned by act of Parliament in Queene Maries daies Yea they cannot deny but some of the chiefe articles of their newe beliefe were adjudged heresies by a Parliament held in the latter daies of King Henry the eight euen when he vsed the title of supreame head of the Church of England by the statute of six articles vpon vvhich diuers of their bretheren were burned as Fox their martir-maker recordeth Wherefore I may vvel say that their religion hath beene condemned as authentically by act of Parliament as it hath beene approued And what reason haue they to beleeue more such Parliaments as haue made for them then those that make against them Moreouer it is a most absurd thing to condemne the auncient Councels of the Church of errour and yet to make the judgement of an English Parliament consisting principally of temporal men of an infallible truth Field booke 4 chap. 7. pag. 209. Finally M. Field affirmeth that we can neuer be so wel perswaded of any man or multitude of men but that we may justly feare either they are deceiued or wil deceiue and therefore saith he if our faith depend vpon such groundes we cannot firmely and vndoubtedly beleeue Which his assertion if vve apply to the English Parliament it must needes be confessed that according to his judgement vve may justly feare that either it is deceiued or wil deceiue and that vvho builds his faith on that cannot firmely and vndoubtedly beleeue and consequently it followeth he hath no faith SECTION THE SEAVENTH Of the miserable estate of the vnlearned and ignorant Sectaries HAVING proued that the vnlearned and ignorant Sectaries build their faith and religion vpon their owne fancies I thinke it not amisse to gather out of that which hath beene already said howe miserable their estate is and vpon what weake ground they stand and venture the euerlasting estate of their soules For the declaration of this let vs suppose that an vnlearned sectary being doubtful of his faith commeth to be resolued to his learned masters and let vs behold vvhat groundes of faith are deliuered vnto him by which he may make a stedfast and assured resolution vvhat then is this man perplexed in his beliefe according to our aduersaries ordinary manner of proceeding first vvished to doe verily first according to their aduise he must take the Bible into his handes and diligently viewe what faith is there deliuered and prescribed But vvhat Bible must he take into his handes no other certainely if he follow their counsaile but that vvhich is translated and corrupted by those of their owne sect not the vvord of God but the vvord of men as I haue proued before and this is the first ground which he receiueth from them Suppose this be done and that he being doubtful of this article among others whither Christ be equal and consubstantial to his Father or no turne ouer his Bible and finde those vvordes of Christ The father is greater then I Iohn 14 29. But yet finding two natures in Christ the one of God the other of man and not able to judge of vvhich these vvordes were spoken is not yet satisfied vvhat more is to be done He must conferre say they this place of Scripture vvith other such like Suppose then further that he turneth to that sentence of our Sauiour Iohn 10 30 I and the father are one and pondering vpon it findeth that the Father and the Sonne may be one diuers waies vvherefore not vnderstanding of vvhat vnity the said sentence is meant suppose that he remaine yet doubtful and cannot resolue himselfe by his Bible vvhat must he doe more He must then say the learned betake himselfe to his praiers and pray vnto God that his spirit may by his diuine inspiration teach him the true sense of the aforesaid places of scripture and resolue him of the truth Wel he doth so After his praiers either he findeth his minde inclined to one certaine interpretation and opinion or no If not then he is yet doubtful But if he doth finde his minde so inclined is he consequently sure that he hath attained to the truth Howe knoweth
he that this inspiration is from the holy Ghost vvhat reason miracle reuelation or infallible vvarrant hath he to assure himselfe of this vvhere doth he finde that God hath promised that the holy ghost shal assist and preserue euery priuate mans vnderstanding from errour that praieth for his assistance Howe doth he likewise knowe that his praier is good and acceptable in the sight of God verily this is most vncertaine and yet otherwise by our praiers we obtaine not our requests and that the holy Ghost doth not vsually inspire euery man that so praieth for the truth it is apparent For suppose that an English Protestant and a Geneuian Puritan be at controuersie touching the same sentence I and the father am one and after ordinary discourses not agreeing they betake themselues both to their praiers and desire God to instruct them of the true sense of the said vvordes Wil they after their praiers forthwith agree and be of one opinion Certainely this is not their custome What then The English Protestant vvil say the spirit hath taught me that the Father and the Sonne are one in substance the Puritan contrariwise according to the doctrine of his master a Caluin in Ioan. 10 30. Caluin approued by b Whitaker in his answere to Campians eight reason pag. 204. M. Whitaker wil affirme that the spirit hath taught him that the aforesaid sentence is to be vnderstood of vnity in power consent not in substance The ancient writers or fathers saith Caluin abused this place to proue Christ consubstantial to the Father for neither doth Christ dispute of vnity of substance but of the consent which he hath with the Father Thus Caluin Which sense this Puritan may also confirme as Whitakers doth with that sentence of our Lord vsed when he praied for his Disciples that they might be one Iohn 17 21. That they al may be one said he as thou O father art in me and I in thee And be not these inspirations contrary did the holy Ghost in this case inspire them both Truly it is impossible And thus the Lutherans and Sacramentaries the Protestants and Puritans with diuers other sectaries after many praiers vsed on euery side remaine yet at mortal jarres concerning diuers matters in controuersie betweene them Neither can it be said that one part without al doubt is assured of the truth for one hath no more vvarrant for his assurance then another and consequently seing that they cannot be al assisted with diuine inspiration vve may wel affirme that none of them are certaine that they enjoy this prerogatiue yea vve may very vvel denie it vnto them al but of this matter I haue treated aboue For mine intent at this present it is sufficient that by praier the vnlearned sectary without some special reuelation or vvarrant from God which none of them receiue cannot assure himselfe that his opinion is true Wherefore let vs yet further suppose that he remaine hitherto doubtful as vpon these groundes he should Is there now any other thing to be done for his better resolution If al this say his aduisers suffice not he must repaire for his better instruction to the learned and aske their counsaile If he demand whither the learned may not erre in their counsaile they grant it If he vrge them to giue him a certaine and infallible rule whereby to discerne in their doctrine truth from falshood they tel him that when the learned speake according to the vvord of God they say true otherwise when they swarue and stray from the said word Sutcliffe against the wardword encont 2. pag. 54. So our countriman Sutcliffe plainely affirmeth that we are to beleeue euery thing which our Pastors teach vs but as farre as they teach the doctrine of Christ IESVS Nor are we saith he absolutely to obey them but when they teach according to the lawe Wherefore one of our Arch-puritans of Caluin whome the followers of his sect esteeme aboue al others vvriteth thus We receiue M. Caluin and weigh of him T. Cartwright in D. Whitgifts defence tract 2. cap. 4. pag. 111. as of the notablest instrument that the Lord hath stirred vp for the purging of his Churches and restoring of the plaine and sincere interpretation of the Scriptures which hath beene since the Apostles time and yet we doe not so reade his workes that we beleeue anything to be true because he saith it but so farre as we can esteeme that which he saith doth agree with the Canonical scriptures And this is their common doctrine Behold therefore this poore perplexed man is sent back againe to the Scripture And is not this a palpable circle First they sent him to his Bible then to conference with one place of Scripture with another thirdly to his praiers afterwards to the learned and nowe to his Bible againe to knowe the true doctrine of the learned from the false neither can they assigne any other rule vvhereby this may be knowne Of vvhich followeth moreouer this absurdity that they make him judge ouer the learned for he is to accept and refuse their doctrine according as he judgeth it consonant or dissonant from the vvord of God But let vs suppose notwithstanding these absurdities and inconueniences that the vnlearned sectary for his better instruction goeth to the learned and comming first to an English Protestant demandeth of him the true sense of the said sentence so often alleaged I and the father are one The Protestant telleth him according to the assertion of al the ancient fathers who by this sentence commonly refuted the Arians that Christ by these vvordes giueth vs to vnderstand that he as he is God and his father haue the very selfe same substance This not satisfying him he goeth further to a Caluinist vvho being demanded the same question answereth that the true sense of those wordes is That Christ and his father agree togither Caluin in Ioan. 10 30. and are of one consent What is this poore man the neare for al this One telleth him one thing another another thing and howe shal he discerne and judge of the truth Doth not this commonly happen doe not the Professors of the newe religion disagree among themselues both concerning the translation and also the interpretation of the word of God Doth not each one of them inuite euery man to his sect beare the vvorld in hand that he hath the truth and condemne al others oppugning his opinions of errour and falshood vvhat is more manifest then this What instructions then can this vnlearned sectary receiue of the learned Hath he not cause to be more perplexed and doubtful then he vvas before vvhat therefore shal he finally doe Certainely I cannot see what other grounds he can receiue from those Doctors vvherefore if he vvil not goe to the piller of truth the Catholike Church which is guided by the holy Ghost and of heâ— receiue a diuine and infallible resolution without al doubt he must either remaine
that Peter Lombardes doctrine is truly golden their 's dirty and filthy Thus discourseth Stancarus one of their owne company Yet who knoweth not that Peter Lombard by the Catholikes is accounted but among the middle sort of diuines and who is so bold as to compare him to S. Hierome especially in translating and expounding the Scriptures But the more to weaken the credit of their translated Bibles vvhich they boast to be drawne and featched from the very fountaines themselues to wit from the Hebrewe Greeke text in which tongues the scriptures were first penned let vs here adde not only that they are not sincerely featched from thence as hath beene sufficiently proued before euen by the testimonies of Protestants themselues but also that the said fountaines and that likewise according to the judgement of Protestants are not now pure and sincere but in some places haue beene corrupted I haue in like sort proued before this last point as farre forth as it concerneth the Greeke text of the new testament And although something hath beene said of the Hebrew text of the old yet in this place I wil relate for further proofe of the same certaine sentences of Castalio Conradus Pellicanus and D. Humfrey in vvhich this is plainely auouched For the first of these writing in defence of himself against one that maintained the sincerity and purity of the Hebrewe text hath these wordes Castalio in defens suae translat pag. 227. This good fellowe seemeth to be of that opinion as in manner al the Iewes are and some Christians drawing neare to Iudaisme or Iudaizing in this respect that he thinketh no errour euer to haue crept into the Hebrew Bibles that God would neuer suffer that any word should be corrupted in those sacred bookes as though the bookes of the old testament were more holy then those of the newe in the which newe so many diuers readings are found in so many places or as though it were credible that God had more regard of one or other litle word or sillable then he had of whole bookes whereof he hath suffered many I say not to be depraued but to be vtterly lost Thus Castalio And in his discourse following he calleth this high opinion of the Hebrewe text a Iewish superstition Conrad Pellic tom 4. in Psal 85. v. 9. alias 8. Conradus Pellicanus expounding these wordes of the 84. Psalme vers 9. Qui conuertuntur ad cor which in one of our English Bibles are thus translated * Bibl. 1592. Bible read in Churches That they turne not againe to folly and an other That they turne not againe writeth after this sort The old interpreter seemeth to haue read one way whereas the Iewes nowe reade another which I say because I would not haue men thinke this to haue proceeded from the ignorance or slouthfulnesse of the old interpreter Rather we haue cause to finde fault for want of diligence in the Antiquaries and faith in the Iewes who both before Christs comming since seeme to haue beene lesse careful of the Psalmes then of their Talmudical songes Hitherto are his wordes Humfred lib. 1. de rat interpret pa. 178. Idem ibid. lib. 2. pag. 219. In like sort D. Humfrey telleth vs that the reader may easily finde out and judge howe many places the Iewish superstition hath corrupted And againe I like not saith he that men should to much followe the Rabbins as many doe for those places which promise and declare Christ the true Messias are most filthily corrupted by them Such is the judgement of these sectaries Perhaps some man vvil deeme these to be men of no account among Protestants but it is not so D. Humfrey is wel knowne Humfre ibid. lib. 1. pag. 62. 63. 189. and he matcheth Castalio with the best and affirmeth the Bible by him translated to be most paineful most diligent most throughly conferred examined sifted and polished Gesnerus also a sectary of no smal fame giueth him this commendation Castalio hath translated the Bible so diligently Gesnerus in Bibliotheca and with so singular fidelity according to the Hebrewe and Greeke that he seemeth farre to haue surpassed al translations of al men whatsoeuer haue hitherto beene set forth Finally Conradus Pellicanus vvas Professor of the Hebrewe tongue in Zuricke And out of this vvhole discourse it is euident that although vvee should suppose the authority of the Church not to be infallible and that both vve and our aduersaries build only vpon the bare letter of holy Scripture yet that the said letter is a farre more sound and firme ground as it is translated and expounded by vs then it is as it is translated and expounded by our aduersaries For although vve both challenge to our selues the holy Scriptures yet our translation and interpretation is of greater authority then theirs We also for the proofe of the sense by vs receiued offer to be tried by the censure of al our auncestors from vvhome together with the letter we haue receiued also that sense which vve embrace Contrariwise they both in their translation and exposition build onlie vpon their owne judgement and haue no further proof or authority And this I say is true although we should make the Church subject to errour and grant the bare letter of Scripture to be the ground of our aduersaries beliefe But as I haue proued the authority of the Church is infallible and diuine and besides this the newe sectaries build not vpon the letter of holy Scripture Secondly I inferre of that which hath beene said that our aduersaries according to their doctrine haue no infallible meane whereby to knowe what articles of faith haue beene reuealed by God to his Church and consequently that they want a condition necessary to true faith And this is manifest both because they make the Church which God as I haue shewed hath ordained to be the ordinary meane for vs to come to the knowledge of such thinges subject to error and also because the bare letter of Scripture vvhich they ordinarily pretend in this case is insufficient neither doe they build vpon it as I haue proued Thirdly I conclude that absolutely al the professors of the newe Gospel ground their faith and religion vpon the judgement and fancy of man not vpon any diuine authority Hence they measure the omnipotent power of God by their owne weake vnderstanding and in those misteries vvhich being aboue the reach of reason cannot be by it comprehended they cry out vvith the Iewes howe can this be Iohn 6. v. 52. Ciril lib. 4. in Ioan. cap. 13. which word howe saith S. Ciril Bishop of Alexandria is a Iewish word and worthy of al punishment This also vvas in some sort confessed by king Henry the eight the first head of our English Church For being desirous after his denial of the Popes supreamacy to make some innouation of religion within his dominions he published as Hal Hollinshed and Stowe
report certaine articles vnto which he gaue this title In the yeare of our Lord 1536. of King Henry 28. Stow p. 965. edit an 1600 Articles deuised by the Kinges highnesse Insinuating thereby that both the said articles and al other dissonant from the doctrine of the Church were and are deuises of men This moued a certaine Courtier in those daies discoursing with a Lutheran Lady that found great fault both with this title and the articles to answere her that he had rather follow the deuises of a King then of a knaue meaning Luther if needes newe deuises in religion were to be admitted but this illation or conclusion is sufficiently proued before And this vveake foundation of our aduersaries was also noted by the auncient Fathers in the auncient Heretikes Irinaeus lib. 3 cap. 2. S. Irenaeus recordeth that euery one of the Heretikes of his age and before auerred his owne fiction which he had deuised to be wisdome and that euery one of them boasted that vndoubtedly and sincerely he knewe the hidden mistery Tertullian affirmeth that a Tertull. de praescript ca. 37. see also cap. 6. Heretikes arise of diuersity of doctrine which euery man either inuenteth or receiueth at his pleasure b Aug. tom 6. cont Faustum l. 32. cap. 29. Al Heretikes saith S. Augustine that receiue the Scriptures as authentical seeme to themselues to followe the said Scriptures whereas they rather followe their owne errors and are Heretikes for this not for that they contemne them but because they doe not vnderstand them Hitherto S. Augustine He affirmeth likewise as I haue noted before d Tom. 7. de nuptijs cōcupiscentijs lib. 2. cap. 31. that Heretikes make not their faith subject to the Scriptures but the Scriptures subject to their faith and that it is the custome of Heretikes to wrest the Scriptures to what sense they please the like sentence hath e Hieron ad Paulam epist 2. siue in prologo Bibliorū S. Hierome Hence like as the Apostle tearmeth couetousnesse Idolatry and consequently a couetous man an Idolater so the f See Tertull. de praescr ca. 40. S. Cipriā de vnitat Eccles Num. 12 S. Hieron in Osee 11. Amos 8. Abacuc 2. August in psal 8 v. 10. l. 18. de ciuitat c. 51. l. de vtilitat jejunij c. auncient Fathers tearme heresie Idolatry and an Heretike an Idolater for like as the couetous man his worldly wealth so the Heretike maketh his owne fancies as it were his God Last of al I conclude that the professors of the new religion are Heretikes and haue no faith They are Heretikes because they obstinately defend doctrine condemned by the Church of Christ as heretical which doctrine they build principally vpon their owne fancies For according to their owne priuate judgementes they choose their belief of which choise as we are taught by g Tertul. lib. de praescript cap. 6. Tertullian and h Hieron in epist ad Galat. habetur 24. q. 3. cap. haeresis S. Hierome such Sectaries are called Heretikes that is to say choosers i Tertul. de praescrip c. 6. see also c. 37. Heresie saith Tertullian is so called from the Greeke word signifieth an election or choise which a man vseth either in inuenting or receiuing it With him accordeth S. Hierome whose wordes be these k Hier. in ep ad Galatas Heresie is a Greeke word and is deriued from election or choise because euery man chooseth that doctrine which he thinketh best And hence it is that the faith of Christians he meaneth of Catholikes can neuer truly be called an heresy for this dependeth not of the fancy of any man nor was inuented by mans wit but was manifested vnto men by the inspiration and reuelation of God thus farre S. Hierome They haue likewise no faith both because they vvant a condition necessarily requisite to this vertue and also because faith as I haue proued ought to be built vpon diuine authority and therefore cannot be grounded vpon any mans opinion and judgement in the world except it be warranted from error by God himselfe which warrant is wanting to al the professors of the newe religion as I haue declared vvherefore the fallible and erroneous fancy of men is their only ground Of which I inferre according to my discourse in the beginning of this l Part. 1 ch 4. pag. 27. treatise that they haue in like sort no religion because the roote and foundation of Christian relgion is faith m Hebr. 11 6. without which as the Apostle saith it is impossible to please God Hence the auncient Fathers denied Heretikes to be Christians If they be Heretikes saith Tertullian they cannot be Christians Tertu de praescript c. 37. Augustin in Enchirid. ad Laurentium cap. 5. His reason is because in following their owne election and not receiuing their doctrine of Christ they admit the name of Heretikes The name of Christ only saith S. Augustine is found among Heretikes who wil haue themselues called Christians but Christ in very deede is not among them S. Ciprian teacheth vs the self same lesson and affirmeth that * Cipr. epist 52. ad Antonianum whosoeuer and whatsoeuer he be that is not in the Church he is no Christian The very selfe same sentence is also pronounced by a Aug. serm 81. de tempore cap. 12. S. Augustine in one of his sermons and other fathers haue the like Finally b Beza de haereticis a ciuili magistratu puniendis p. 184. 185. see him also pag. 106. 236. Beza himselfe censureth such as breake due order doe not subject themselues to the word of God but according to the property of Heretikes endeuour to subject the word of God to themselues to be Idolators and in this worse then Infidels that they shadowe their lies with a colour of piety and truth thus much Beza And thus I thinke the argument of this treatise throughly proued wherefore it remaineth only that I exhort euery man that hath care of his soule and saluation and dreadeth the anger of God and euerlasting damnation if he be a member of the Church of Christ and a childe of his Spouse there firmely to remaine if he be not with al speed to incorporate himselfe to this sacred body and to flie the fancies of his owne judgement and the erroneous conceits of mortal men Math. 7 24. So shal he like vnto a wise man build his howse vpon a rocke which no stormes of windes raine or flouds can ouerthrowe not as a foolish man vpon the sand of mans imagination and consequently haue it subject to alteration This Church is a firme and immoueable rocke the sure piller and firmament of truth on vvhich vve may securely build our saluation and the whole edifice of our faith She is an inuincible Castle and fortresse against falshood a learned Mistris and guide in al matters doubtful and a most certaine security in
Cipriā epist 40. 70. 55. 69. 71. 73. see him also in exhortat ad Martirium cap. 11. the Century writers who are esteemed very diligent searchers of antiquity taxe S. Ciprian for his doctrine touching the Popes supreamacy Secondly the doctrine of S. Ciprian taught in this booke agreeth exceeding wel with that which is found throughout al his epistles in vvhich vve finde the same sentences almost in the very same wordes which Iames denieth to be in his manuscript copies of the booke of the vnity of the church as that there is one God one Church and one Chaire founded vpon Peter that the Church was built vpon S. Peter that our Lord chose him the first or chiefest that he instituted the origen of vnity from him c. Peraduenture some man wil say these epistles are also corrupted but first I thinke they are not found otherwise in the Manuscript copies mentioned by Master Iames then they are in the printed bookes For vvere they it is like he vvould not haue passed it vvith silence as he doth Secondly neither Perkins nor any other affirmeth these epistles to be corrupted Thirdlie one of these Epistles in vvhich it is said that our Lord did choose S. Peter the first or chiefest and that vpon him he built his Church is cited by S. Augustine August to 7. de bapt cont Donat. cap. 1. Cipr. ep 72. ad Quintum vvho also alleageth those very vvordes as S. Ciprians which are in the printed copies to vvit Nam nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit super quem edificauit Ecclesiam suam c. For neither S. Peter whome our Lord chose the first or chiefest and vpon whome he built his Church c. And moreouer after S. Ciprians vvordes he addeth himselfe Behold where Ciprian rehearseth which also we haue learned in holy Scriptures that the Apostle Peter in whome the Primacy of the Apostles through so excellent grace is higher then others c. Thus S. Augustine of which it is most euident that this Epistle among al the rest is not corrupted and yet here is almost said as much in substance of this matter as is in his booke de vnitate Ecclesiae Finally the vvordes vvhich Iames vvil haue excluded from S. Ciprians booke de vnitate Ecclesiae are so agreeable to this holy Fathers stile and phrase and so fitting his discourse that no man can almost suspect them to be added But it may be demanded howe it falleth out that they are wanting in the Manu-script copies mentioned by M. Iames In very truth if there be such auncient copies and there be nothing razed out of them I cannot but thinke that they were written out before the art of printing was inuented by some Wicliffian Heretike or if they came out of some forraine country by some Schismatike or other that held with some German Emperor against the Pope That the Wicliffians vvere very potent and preuailed much in our Country we may gather out of that vvhich is said by Stowe in his Chronicle and in the yeares 1414. and 1377. And Walsingham vvriteth Walsingham anno vlt. Edward 3. that the Vniuersity of Oxford in particular vvas cold in resisting him Walsingham in vita Richardi 2. anno 1378. Nay their coldnesse vvas such that Gregory XI Pope in the yeare 1378. vvrote his Breue to it and reprehended them of the said Vniuersity for their coldnesse and slacknesse AN INDEX OR TABLE OF AL THE CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THIS TREATISE The first part of the groundes of the old religion CHAPTER 1. Of the first ground of Catholike religion to wit that there is a God and that God by his prouidence gouerneth al thinges page 1. Section 1. That there is a God page 2. Sect. 2. Almighty God hath care of worldly affaires and ruleth al things by his diuine prouidence page 10. Chap. 2. Of the second ground of our religion to wit that the soule of man is immortal and that it shal either be rewarded euerlastingly in heauen or punished euerlastingly in hel page 12. Chap. 3. Of a third principal ground of our faith to wit that Christian religion only is the true worship of God page 16. Chap. 4. That among Christians they only that professe and embrace the Catholike faith and religion are in state of saluation and doe truly worship God page 24. Chap. 5. Sect. 1. Of the definition and conditions of true faith p. 28. Sect. 2. That faith is a most firme assent of the vnderstanding page 29. Sect. 3. Faith is of thinges incomprehensible by natural reason and consequently obscure page 30. Sect. 4. By true Christian faith we beleeue such misteries as God hath reuealed to his Church page 32. Sect. 5. That true faith is built vpon diuine authority page 34. Sect. 6. Besides the reuelation of God some infallible propounder of the articles of our faith is necessary and that they are propounded vnto vs by the Catholike Church page 36. Chap. 6. Sect. 1. Of the supreame and infallible authority of the Catholike Church page 38. Sect. 2. The whole summe of Christian doctrine by word of mouth not by writing was committed by Christ to his Apostles page 39. Sect. 3. The Church cannot stray from the rule of faith receaued nor erre in matter of faith or general precepts of manners which is proued first because the holy Ghost directeth her in al truth page 42. Sect. 4. The same is proued by other arguments page 44. Sect. 5. That the testimonies of holy Scripture and other proofes brought for the infallible and diuine authority of the Church cannot be applied to the Church considered as it comprehendeth al faithful Christians that are and haue beene since Christes ascention or since the Apostles daies but vnto the present Church of al ages page 52. Sect. 6. That the same testimonies and proofes conuince an infallible judgement of the Church concerning euery article of faith not only concerning certaine of the principal page 56. Sect. 7. That to saluation it is necessary to beleeue the whole Catholike faith and euery article thereof page 58. Chap. 7. Of the holy Scripture which is the first particular ground of faith in the Catholike Church page 61. Sect. 1. Howe the Scripture is knowne to be Canonical page 61. Sect. 2. Concerning the sense or exposition of holy Scriptures and first that the Scriptures are hard and receiue diuers interpretations p. 67. Sect. 3. The Scriptures may be falsly vnderstood and that euery priuate man may erre in the vnderstanding of them page 69. Sect. 4. That the letter of holy Scripture falsly interpreted is not the word of God page 72. Sect. 5. The true sense of the holy Scripture is to be learned of the Catholike Church who is the true judge thereof page 75. Sect. 6. An objection against the premises is answered and the question concerning the last resolution of our faith is discussed page 78. Chap. 8. Concerning the second particular ground of Catholike
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
aboue that faith to be a true Christian faith and to concurre to our justification by vvhich vve beleeue the articles and misteries of Christian religion vvherefore seeing that there is but one such faith this faith of our aduersaries cannot haue that prerogatiue And hence I inferre that these Sectaries by disgracing and neglecting the true Christian faith and esteeming so highly of a forged deuise of Luthers or of his masters an old Frier ouerthrowe in effect al Christian faith and religion or at the least giue their followers a just occasion of contemning the beliefe of such misteries as euerie Christian is bound to beleeue Some man perhaps wil seeke to free our English Protestants from this doctrine because in their publique administration of baptisme they cause the minister to demaund only of the childe whether he beleeue the article of the Creed and make no mention of Luthers and Caluins strange justifying faith vvhich as it is like they vvould not haue omitted if they had thought the justification of the child wholie on it to depend I answere that in very truth for the reason alleaged they may seeme to be of that opinion See the questions answers concerning predestination prīted in those Bibles before the new test Neuerthelesse if the Bible printed with notes in the yeare 1589. 1592. and 1600. be by them allowed and approued euerie man may see that they agree with other sectaries in this matter I adde also that is they hold justification to be wrought by any other faith then this newly deuised they disagree from their principal captains and al their * Abbot in his answere to Hil reason 3. pag. 96 Perkins in his reformed Catholike touchīg justification of a sinner brethren touching the article of justification which as they say is the verie ground of Christian religion But our aduersaries say that according to S. Iames the deuils beleeue and tremble I grant it but the faith of deuils is a natural and a kinde of historical faith grounded vpon natural reason and discourse much like vnto the beliefe of Heretikes Our habitual faith is a supernatural gift or habit infused into our soules by which our vnderstanding it lightened lifted vp and made able and apt to beleeue thinges reuealed by God our actual faith is an acte of our vnderstanding proceeding also from the said habite or light by which such things are actually beleeued because they are for reuealed Moreouer their faith is with despaire and hatred ours may be joyned with hope and charitie wherefore there is a great difference between our faith and theirs and our Sectaries doe very euil in making no distinction betweene them Chapter 3. That our aduersaries deny the infallible authority of the Church and affirme it to haue erred and perished IN the sixt chapter of the first part of this treatise I haue affirmed and proued the church of Christ to be the chiefe piller and ground of truth in which is preserued entirelie and sincerely that corps summe or depositum of Christian doctrine which vvas by Christ deliuered to his Apostles and by them to their successours and that through the perpetual assistance of the holie Ghost she cannot erre or perish and consequently that of her we ought may securely learne not only what articles of faith haue beene reuealed by God to his Church but also what concerning euery particuler point we are to beleeue and what to auoid and that in following her doctrine and judgement vve cannot be deceiued But because the professors of the newe religion cānot shew a continual succession of their faith religion church in any one corner of the world since the Apostles daies yea because they cannot name one for euery hundred yeares that was of their Church and beliefe they are forced to say that the Church erred for some ages and was for a time cleane ouerthrowne a Luth. in Comitijs Wormat an 1522. Luther first affirmed this to haue fallen out during the time betweene the Councel of Constance and the first preaching by him of his newe doctrine to vvit for the space of some hundred yeares Soone after b Authores repetit confess Augustanae some of his followers affirmed the Church to haue erred three hundred yeares before Luther And of this opinion seemeth c Fox in his protestatiō to the Church of England Iohn Fox who telleth vs that al was turned vp side downe al order broken true doctrine defaced and Christian faith extinguished in the time of Pope Gregory the seauenth about the yeare 1080. and of Innocentius the third about the yeare 1215. After this d Luth. to 7. l. cōtr Papatum Idem in captiu Babil et in supputat mundi Luther attributed six hundred yeares to the Apostasie of the Church and last of al one thousand of which opinion is also e Caluī ep ad Sadoletū et in prophetas mi nores passim Caluin But al of them agree that for some ages the visibie Church altogether erred and that for a certaine time there vvas in the world no true preaching of the word of God or lawful administration of the Sacraments Hence we read in the f Apol. of the Church of Englād par 4. p. 124. Apologie of the Church of England that truth vnknowne and vnheared off at that time began to giue shine in the world when Luther and Zuinglius sent of God beganne in preach the Gospel the like sentences are found in the works of g Calu. ī resp ad Sado p. 185. 176. l. 4. Inst c. 18. § 1. et 2. c. 1. § 11. c. 17 § 12. et 3. Caluin h Bez. in praef test noui ad principē Condens Beza i Melāch ī locis comun 1. edit Melanchton k Wil. in sinops cōtrou 2. qu. 2. p. 61. edit ā 1600. Willet and others And although some of them assigne an inuisible church which as they say flourished in al ages yet this they cannot proue because a thing inuisible vnknowne cannot be proued and besides it is nothing to the purpose because we treate of the infallible authority and continuance of the Church visible And certainly although we should confesse that such an inuisible Church was in the world and preserued in itselfe alwaies the truth which is most false and shal be confuted in my treastise of the definition and notes of the church yet it must needs be graunted that it vvas done inuisiblie and consequently this Church could not direct the whole world in al truth But that they accuse the whole Church of errour it wil sufficiently appeare in the next chapter where I wil declare that they attribute errours in faith to general Councels vvhich be the supreame assembles and highest courts of the said Church And it is sufficiently purpose at this present if they graunt the Church to haue erred in any one point for a possibility of errour in one article of faith proueth a possibility